It is unbelievable that the top 1% is making 200+% and most republicans oppose them to pay their fair taxes. When they are confronted with reality such as how can someone live on a $8.50 an hour they call it a liberal media problem. Shame on Companies and politicians for accepting this.

John: James Galbraith of the Levy Economics Institute explains the topic of deficits this way:

Economic activity is simply money moving around, and economic growth is money moving around in larger amounts than before. It doesn't have to involve goods produced, or sensible activity or useful services.

There are two major movers of money; government and banks. Bankers lose their power if government drives economic activity, so bankers spread lies about government spending and deficits.

Sovereign governments with their own currency cannot be forced to default on debts, since they control their currency, and can do what they want with it. They can spend and pay interest as needed without any need for matching income or cash on hand. Bankruptcy is an irrelevant concept for sovereigns. Public debt does not have to be repaid, and, in practice, never is.

Which brings us to this point: We NEED public debt. Public debt brings about nominal repayment, interest payment, all of this movement of money keeping the economy active. It's the general unawareness of this that lets the bankers' lies have so much traction.

"We NEED public debt." - Mike Q

Judging from our enormous out of control deficit, it seems like most Politicians feel the same way. However, the truth is what we NEED is a more responsible government, that does not spend more then we can afford.

The truth, eh? "Out of control?" "More than we can afford?" All the crafted framing terms supplied by bankers, maybe?

"The truth, eh? "Out of control?" "More than we can afford?" All the crafted framing terms supplied by bankers, maybe?" MQ

So how do we discern truth? In the scriptures, "the devil," otherwise known as,"the father of lies" always appeals to our selfishness, such as; needs, vanity, desires. So what sounds more like we are being lied to? "We NEED public debt" or "we need to be more responsible." Otherwise, we can just do a simple accounting. 14 trillion dollars behind in our payments or caught up? That should be easy enough to determine.

if deficits dont matter, then why is social security teetering on insolvency and austerity measures proposed to save it?

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?

"The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits"
DECEMBER 27, 2004 / By Robert Kuttner

Last month, I posed a rhetorical question: Whatever happened to fiscally prudent Republicans? The question deserves a proper answer. In the early 1990s the bipartisan, business-led Concord Coalition made the accumulated Reagan-Bush deficits a major public issue. George H.W. Bush had to break a pledge and raise taxes because of mounting concerns in financial markets. H. Ross Perot put the deficit center stage in the 1992 election, helping to defeat Bush I and elect Bill Clinton. He made fiscal responsibility his signature issue.

""The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits"
DECEMBER 27, 2004 / By Robert Kuttner"

Caspian, well at least back then somebody recognized the deficit and that it was not right. Today we hear stuff like, "We NEED public debt." And ANYONE that even talks about legitimately cutting the debt is some kind of right wing nut. No, today's politicians think increasing the debt by a trillion dollars is a responsible behavior. Our leaders are out of control.

Fred? Federal deficit spending has no reltionship to Social Security. Our wars are "paid for" with debt, but SS is a fully-funded entity (FICA taxes) with a surplus. This surplus was increasing each year until this recent severe recession. The purpose of this surplus is to buffer us during recessions. If this recession were to continue unabated for 30 years, the surplus would run down. Positing that such a worst-case state of affairs WILL exist for that long (otherwise there's no need to do anything to "save" SS), is an unjustified reach, about as likely as as our being wiped out by a comet,-possible, but not a reasonable premise to shape major parts of our national affairs.

SS is not "teetering on insolvency", and it's only in political rhetoric that "austerity measures (are being)proposed to save it." When a billionaire like Pete Peterson (who got rich stealing the pension funds of tens or hundreds of thousands of workers in the companies he raided) puts up a BILLION dollars as a war chest to destroy -yes, destroy- Social Security, then the best persuaders, the cleverest Madison Avenue product sellers, will make a career of doing their best to convince you that SS is on its way out and should be stopped before it breaks us. Couple this with the conservative's propensity for suspicion of anything governmental, and it would be a miracle if a few million people didn't believe the lies.

Our leaders are out of control MG

===========

Absolutely true, and Obama/Romney, Gingrich are not the answers.

Our politicians always pass legislation to enhance their corporate masters.

There is a reason why the tax code is over a thousand pages.

We the people are always an afterthought, with the exception around election time.

Washington DC spends Trillions on wars and bailouts for Wall Street and nothing for our hurting masses.

Freddie Mac Betting Against Struggling Homeowners
January 31, 2012 /

today's politicians think increasing the debt by a trillion dollars is a responsible behavior.

"Today's politicians think increasing the debt by a trillion dollars is a responsible behavior."-MG

(Whoops). According to the principles of economic policies applied around the world, IT IS.

There was lots more to this comment, but it's lost now.

FRED: "if deficits dont matter, then why is social security teetering on insolvency and austerity measures proposed to save it?" -FRED

BECAUSE THE BANKSTA' CARTEL THAT RUNS THE FED DON'T WANT TO PAYOFF ON THE 300-1 GAMBLING FORMULA AGAINST MAKING IT TO AGE 65 THAT WAS INITIALLY CREATED THAT COULD BEST BE DESCRIBED AS A MONUMENTAL LOTTERY W/ BONUSES IN THEIR FAVOR SHOULD THERE BE NO SURVIVING BENEFICIARY.
NOW THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND THE FORMULA HAS SLID TO A 50-50 PROPOSITION THEY SCREAM LIKE BANSHEES.
FIRST OF ALL, SSI WOULD STILL BE SOLVENT IF THE BANKSTA'S HADN'T ORDERED THEIR "SELECT" HANDPICKED PROXIES THAT WERE IN PREVIOUS CONGRESS COMMITTEES AND THE FED TO RAID THE SSI RESERVES.
BELIEVE ME, THE POT WOULD STILL BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT- IF LEFT INTACT AND "WE" WEREN'T STUCK W/ THE TAB OF BANKSTA' OVER SPECULATIONS OF THE PAST 2DECADES, ALONG WITH THE COMPOUNDING INTEREST PAYMENTS THAT NO LONGER GOES TO THE PEOPLE WHO ENTRUSTED THE FED W/ THEIR HARD EARNED FORCED SAVINGS. NOW THAT COMPOUNDING INTEREST INSTEAD GOES TO CHINA. WAS THAT ANSWER SIMPLE ENOUGH?

THEY COULDN'T LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE WITH THE COMPOUNDING INTEREST

[Cont]
... poor little greedy banksta's.

...loved it when they had those win/win collections in their favor. Hate it, when they can no longer afford to raid and piss away the reserves. Go figure.
Don'tcha just love it?
Now they have a new game, "individual accounts" putting good money already earned into their degenerate gamblers hands to play in a $800trillion dollar il-liquid toxic credit pool called "credit default swaps". Cool?YEAH, I'M BUYING!- Nottttttt!

Caspian, MikeG, MikeQ, fred, peter: I've just about exhausted the available research on the REX84 Fema Camp anamoly. Know it to be either the powers that be DR STRANGELOVE OPTION OF LAST RESORT. But, also be wary that many of the things covered in former governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura's exposee have already been tried, and the rest remain dormant. Still, there's one or two that keep expanding.
Can anyone see "which" components? Who has more stuff to add?

Go back to the Same-Sex Marriage board if anyone wants to resume discussion on the topic, we can discuss it over the weekend.

"Federal deficit spending has no reltionship to Social Security. Our wars are "paid for" with debt, but SS is a fully-funded entity (FICA taxes) with a surplus. This surplus was increasing each year until this recent severe recession."

There is no SS surplus Mike Q. I shouldnt bother schooling you because as far as economics go, you are as ill informed as Petred.

Just so you know, what ever is left over from SS spending for a fiscal year, those 'surplus' moneys are spent to redeem T-Bills. Has been the policy for 45 years. Policy created by the Johnson Administration.

That SS 'surplus' cash is replaced with a special purpose govt bond, that cannot be sold on the open market. It can only be redeemed by federal tax levies. Thereby taxing the taxpayer twice for the same benefit.

John. Nice rant. Read up on Johnsons unified budget.

All long term transfer payments go into the general fund, including SS. And are spent........Thank the original community organizer- Lyndon Johnson for that thievery.

liberals cant stand seeing pots of money laying around just collecting interest.....Some people have no problem with stealing from peter to pay paul.......

Trump endorses Mitt Romney for president

Trump sold out the Tea Bag conservatives.

Another proof too me that conservatives and liberals are not represented in Washington DC.

The Sad Truth Is Obama, Gingrich and Romney do not represent liberals and conservatives.

"Thereby taxing the taxpayer twice for the same benefit."-Fred

Except the money transfer pays for something that does not have to then come from the general taxes. Paying back from the general taxes yields no difference in cost.

the difference in cost is accurarial: the rate of interest on the bonds and length of maturity.

The govt pays interest on the special purpose bonds by issuing more special purpose debt bonds.

In a nutshell, you are financialy responsible for paying the accumulated interest on your own ss savings.

Fred; you know ss is not insolvent. SS will deliver full benefits until 2036.After that without any changes the trust fund will continue to pay 77% of benefits for decades. Congess could make only minor changes in order to pay 100% of its obligations indefinitely. There is no surplus as you indicated because congress has spent it on other obligations.

fred: Just like I stated for you before, LBJ was another one of those handpicked minions that fit the criteria of the IMC after the people's champion and "peace keeper" JFK was executed.
If you examine LBJ closer you'll clearly see that he was committed first to embark on a war to nowhere, an obvious concession that is well documented to certain high powered IMC concerns that had America paying for the IMC's war profiteering families which yielded a very very lucrative blood money economy.
Viet Nam was the blueprint for the IMC to enter wars they refused to finish. The Gulf War, Afghan War and Iraq War all followed suit.
Have any of these wars yielded anything of value to those who fought in them? NO.
Was America made safer by any of them? NO.
Was victory ever achieved despite the massive superiority imbalances. NO. OUR TROOPS AND FAMILY MEMBER WERE LEFT HUNG OUT TO DRY BY ASSININE TACTICS AND OCCUPATIONS THAT MADE THE FORTUNES OF THE SHRUB DYNASTY, AND ROCKY & HIS OIL GLUTTON FIENDS AND OTHERS WHO SET POLICY- INSURMOUNTABLE. See: The DMZ[ can't pursue an enemy retardedness] and Green Zone [Custer formations that left our troops as sitting ducks surrounded by hostile natives with vendettas to exact the same damages that were exacted upon their families.]

Fact: After increasing American oil consumption and thereby their own profits by 27%during Viet Nam and every war that followed we here in America got slammed with gas prices that tripled after wars end. The last two wars they didn't even wait to slam us with the same tripling, this time spanning all energy pricings.


.