This is what chaps my hide most of all. “This” is not the best liberals can come up with. Indeed, if they put their thinking caps on they can turn the President’s proposal into something that really works and which would reverse, in a single generation, the widening wealth gap that so many of them are (properly) concerned about. But the people who might do that (and there are plenty) are being drowned out by the likes of RT.
What the hell are you talking about? We spent an entire fucking summer on Chandra Levy, interestingly enough the same summer where we ignored all the warnings about 9/11.
Got something to share with us about Chandra Levy, Manny? Some new information? Some facts hastily covered up by dat ol’ debbil De Liberal Media. Got an inference of an implication? Or are you merely slinging a gob of shit in passing, without the slightest intention nor capacity to back it up.
Weak, Manny even by your, ah, “standards”. Just plain weak.
Actually, it was just a reference to ‘things people were talking about a lot in August of 2001 which they pretty much stopped talking about in September.’ I dunno nuthin’ about Chandra Levy. Last I recall, it was turning out to be a standard-issue mugging/murder and all the fooferall about Congressmen and conspiracies and whatnot was just that, but I have no idea if there were further developments. Sorry for any confusion on that point.
She’s in Gitmo. Cheney signs fresh torture orders every day.
The best I can come up with is on p. 24:
<shrug>
If anyone is interested in an economic overview of Social Security, there is a very accessible and pretty accurate summary available online.
Part 1, history and overview(.DOC format)
Part 2, Current situation and major options for reform(.DOC format)
Pros and cons for a system similar to Bush’s proposals are covered in part 2.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hee! Shrug, indeed. Also, that report doesn’t seem to be accessible from their main website (at least that I could find), but testimony from the same guy is accessible where he upbraids the commission for talking about it as a possibility. Except that the date attached to the testimony doesn’t match any of the public meetings the commission has listed. A mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and all that.
I think most people don’t make up stuff from whole cloth, at least not when it’s so easily falsifiable, so let me speculate (and that’s all it is) about how the CEPR stuff might have come about. The commission was chaired by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In a billion years he’d never have suggested defaulting on the inter-government securites. But he might have suggested speculating about it purely as an intellectual exercise at some point – he did stuff like that a lot and was sometimes misunderstood for it. His brain was just capable of holding more information and more concepts than most of us can handle. That’s about all I can think of.
No, saying things like that is not OK, which is why I told manhattan to go to the Pit. The ‘clinical’ thing had nothing to do with it anyway. Several people were acting up though, so I did a group warning. But constructions like these are not OK, even if they don’t technically call someone an idiot:
“Either you are a idiot or you don’t know what you’re talking about”
“Only an idiot would believe [something the poster likely does believe]”
There’s a bit of a loophole that the poster can say “but maybe the poster just doesn’t know what he’s talking about! I can say that, so if that’s true then I didn’t say he was an idiot.” Or “well, I didn’t know he really believed that so I didn’t mean to call him an idiot.” However, I think the clear intent and effect of statements like the above are to call someone an idiot while being able to claim later that you didn’t really.
I visit MPSIMS only occasionally. Can you bring me up to speed on how something like, “Those assholes like Liberal, Polycarp, and Gaudere are idiots!” is considered to be a token of respect?
Fine then. May I presume that by “grooming binge” you mean “comet cleanser”? Don’t correct me lest you be splitting hairs.
To voice and to infer are two different things. I’m sure I can count on you calling that a nitpick. Honestly, I don’t know why you don’t just use one word, and type it repeatedly. After all, differentiating among different words is just nitpicking.
snort
Want a list of childish insults where the pussies couldn’t bother to bold my name? Hamsters beware!
Anyway, since the early 90’s I’ve known SocSuck won’t be around as I know it when I retire. That’s why we have IRA’s and 401k’s. We’re* privately investing.* If even 10% of my “contribution”* is invested in the market in some way, it will offer a much better return on money I have (involuntarily) “given” to be “held” by the SSA. It reminds me of people excited about a big tax refund without realizing they gave away a year-long interest free loan to Washington. Great investment there. :rolleyes:
*SS taxes are listed as FICA. The C being “contribution”. As in, you gave it. You had a choice. Anyone defending that language better vehemently protest prosecution of me if I mug you. I’m just making you contribute to what I want to buy today. I promise to pay you back in 50 years.
Infer and imply explanation, because this is bugging me:
So a poster makes a bunch of stupid posts.
You infer he is therefore stupid. All you are doing is deciding he is stupid based on what you have seen, you don’t say anything about it. This is fine, it’ll all happening in your head. I do not currently have Mod powers there.
You say directly that he is stupid on the boards. This is not OK.
You hint around that he is stupid. You are implying he is stupid. This may or may not be OK depending on how subtle you are.
It’s only a convention, Liberal. You’re not the only one who doesn’t do it. What bugs me about it is having to use italics for emphasis. I don’t like italics.
Then you should know that someone is impersonating you pretending to have Mod powers there.
Manny, I’m no economist, and reading these dueling quotes makes my head spin, but as near as I can tell, you’re right that (almost) nobody is suggesting the US is going to default on debts.
However, that makes it a little difficult to take you seriously when you turn around and say that liberals “are being drowned out by the likes of RT.” Errrr…if almost nobody even among liberals is making the claims that RT is making, are you saying that RT is singlehandedly drowning out the voices of all other liberals? What am I missing here?
Daniel
I think the problem is that the complete morons are doing more to publicize their cause than the rational ones.
Regards,
Shodan
RT, I don’t understand what you’re complaining about.
Of course the money “borrowed” from the Social Security trust fund isn’t there any more, it was spent. There’s no reason to borrow money unless you’re going to spend it, right? Why would the Federal Government borrow money and then…keep it under a mattress?
The money taken in from Social Security taxes was spent on social security payments, and borrowed by the rest of the government for the general fund. The money isn’t sitting there waiting to be paid back, any more than money a business borrows from a bank is sitting there waiting to be paid back. That doesn’t mean the money can’t be paid back, or won’t be paid back, just because there’s no money today to pay it back.
Think about it. You take out a loan to buy a car. You buy a car. The money is gone! You can’t pay it back! You must be going to default! Yeah, if you had no income, and assets, then you’d have to default on the loan, since yes, you don’t have enough money under your mattress to pay back the bank. Except you do have an income, and you’re going to pay back the loan using money you are planning to make…in the future. After all, that is were we are all going to spend the rest of our lives. The government has an income too. If you think for a moment, you’ll realize where the government’s money comes from.
The money to pay back the loan will be taken from future taxpayers. Either future taxpayers will pay higher taxes (higher absolutely, although if the economy grows enough it might actually be a lower percentage of GDP), or suffer from lower government spending (which could conceivably mean lower social security payments per person), or borrow more money to pay off the first loan, or sell off national assets. But complaining that Bush is saying that we don’t have the money to pay back the “trust fund”, and therefore must mean to default on the trust fund is simply ludicrous.
The “trust fund” isn’t funds that we owe to future retirees, it is money that the government owes itself. Of course it is ridiculous to pay for general revenues with regressive social security taxes like we do today, but that has nothing to do with defaulting on the debt. We don’t have the money today, so we’ll have to pay it in taxes tomorrow. Why Bush should be impeached for saying that is beyond me.
And I don’t understand your request for cites. Are you asking for a quote from Bush saying something like, “The national debt will never be defaulted on”? And then if we can’t find a statement like that, you’ll take it as proof of the contrary, that Bush intends to default on the debt? Even if Bush repeated that he wasn’t going to repudiate the debt Cathargo delenda est style in every speech, what difference would that make? Just because he said he wasn’t going to repudiate the debt doesn’t mean he won’t…the man is capable of lying, after all. No, the reason he won’t repudiate the debt isn’t because he SAID he won’t repudiate the debt, but because it would be disasterous for the economy, we have the ability to repay the debt anyway via taxes, and he’s going to be out of office before it becomes an issue anyway.
Seriously, what the fuck?
Me neither.
In that situation, it isn’t. But then again, I’m sure you understand that society is thermoplastic and not thermosetting and that situations vary while there may still be statistically-valid-rules-of-convention?
No, I mean you’re being annoying and arguing a point which is not even tangential.
You’re either mistaken or deliberately mis-representing the situation. The inference in particular I was talking about was one made by Manny about the intelligence of his debating opponents. As such, it was voiced. And that was the context of the discussion before your off topic nitpick.
Is you’re-being-fucking-annoying one word?
No. Playing semantics in direct disregard to the circumstances in which the words take place is nitpicking, and in particularly poor form if you take it to extremes.
YMM(O)V
For the record, I did not infer, I implied, just as Gaudere said. Seems like kind of a silly rule to me, but no matter. Henceforth in GD, there is no possibility that RT is an idiot, he is simply a liar.
It’s my super-powers:
