So there we have it. maximumpossiblesuffering lasted a little longer than usual, but mostly by regurgitating his same old arguments over and over again while not responding to valid counterpoints
GDP Grows at 3.2% Another Left Wing Hoax Crumbles
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
So there we have it. maximumpossiblesuffering lasted a little longer than usual, but mostly by regurgitating his same old arguments over and over again while not responding to valid counterpoints
The program that made loans to Solyndra and multiple other businesss is net positive.
As mentioned in an earlier post, a partial wage subsidy would have stabilized consumer spending and maintained loan payments. Assets prices would have stabilized. To figure out the cost of that idea, multiply the number of households under distress, apply an appropiate employer subsidy or temporary tax break of say $10,000 to $20,000 at an annual rate for two or three years so layoffs are prevented or hiring resumes. The method actually used appeared structured to help large real estate speculators and Democratic supporting businesses, among others, with too few checks and balances. I either read about or discussed the above idea early in this financial crisis that actually started in 2007 as shown by certain economic indicators at the time.
This is standard practice for all administrations. However by statutory law, the S.S. Trust moneys can not be spent directly on anything other than Social Security. The Trust is off budget. Just like the government can not go bankrupt in the traditional sense, it is impossible for the Social Security and Medicare Trusts to go Bankrupt, but the amounts of goods and services that can be purchased with a unit of Trust value can vary.
As I understand it, Administrations can borrow Social Security funds and interest must be paid on those funds.
Would wage subsidies have helped those workers who lost their jobs, and the several million more who would have lost their jobs had the recession been allowed to deepen still more?
Of course. That's what a bond is. It's an I.O.U. you get when you loan money. The Social Security Trust contains specially written Treasury bonds. They differ from ordinary Treasuries in that they may be redeemed at any time without penalty.
Last edited:
I suppose there is a conspiracy theory for everything, even standard accounting practice. The TRAP account is in the public domain. It's available to you via Treasury.gov Take a look at it and then get back to us re what part is "questionable."
Actually when it was all said and done, and the major bugs were out, the cost was about 2 billion. This seems a bit high to me. Its between 6 and 7 bucks for each person. I would have thought it could be done for about half that. But when amortized over a few years it is really not that bad. Wasn't it a Canadian owned company that had the main contract?
="piezoe, post: 4849739, member: 45984"]Would wage subsidies have helped those workers who lost their jobs, and the several million more who would have lost their jobs had the recession been allowed to deepen still more?
Again, please read all of my post before responding. The obvious answer is laid off emoployees would be rehired. It would be reasonable to anticipate additional policy adjustments as being necessary depending how events continued to unfold.
"piezoe, post: 4849745, member: 45984"]Of course. That's what a bond is. It's an I.O.U. you get when you loan money. The social; Security Trust contains specially written Treasury bonds. They differ from ordinary Treasuries in that they may be redeemed at any time without penalty.
The central point is borrowing from Social Security appears to reduce the budget deficit but this is ultimately accounted for in changes in total Federal debt. The way Federal budget deficits are calculated are different than a business profit and loss statement.
“piezoe, post: 4849750, member: 45984"]I suppose there is a conspiracy theory for everything, even standard accounting practice. The TRAP account is in the public domain. It's available to you via Treasury.gov Take a look at it and then get back to us re what part is "questionable."
The evidence I know about corruption in the Obama Administration has been listed. I can guarentee you that you don’t want me to do independent research on this issue. Even if there is certain prosecution of Obama officials, it would not be worth my time.
You know or should know the Obama Administration was corrupt. From Obama’s association with Chicago’s influencing peddeling politics to Rezco and Obama’s ability to purchase real estate well below market value as a illegal compaign contribution or sign on bonus to Solyndra to political favoritism that installed his campaign workers into the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where they were given compensation around six figures in spite of most having almost no revelent experience to preferential funding to democrat supporting auto dealers to a foreign toy company. Money to iran, a billion for a website, and a likely whole host of other things that didn’t make the news. $8 Trillion is a lot of money and the Obama Administration is very corrupt.
So I’m am accusing the “Great One” again of corruption. Obama’s supporters may come up with some sort of answer, but not an answer that addresses my specific questions. The reason for this is there are no answers that does not implicate the Obama Administration with corruption.
Should the Obama Administration ever be investigated for corruption, history would remember him and maybe even the Leftist media differently.
Again, please read all of my post before responding. The obvious answer is laid off emoployees would be rehired. It would be reasonable to anticipate additional policy adjustments as being necessary depending how events continued to unfold.
"piezoe, post: 4849745, member: 45984"]Of course. That's what a bond is. It's an I.O.U. you get when you loan money. The social; Security Trust contains specially written Treasury bonds. They differ from ordinary Treasuries in that they may be redeemed at any time without penalty.
The central point is borrowing from Social Security appears to reduce the budget deficit but this is ultimately accounted for in changes in total Federal debt. The way Federal budget deficits are calculated are different than a business profit and loss statement.
“piezoe, post: 4849750, member: 45984"]I suppose there is a conspiracy theory for everything, even standard accounting practice. The TRAP account is in the public domain. It's available to you via Treasury.gov Take a look at it and then get back to us re what part is "questionable."
The evidence I know about corruption in the Obama Administration has been listed. I can guarentee you that you don’t want me to do independent research on this issue. Even if there is certain prosecution of Obama officials, it would not be worth my time.
You know or should know the Obama Administration was corrupt. From Obama’s association with Chicago’s influencing peddeling politics to Rezco and Obama’s ability to purchase real estate well below market value as a illegal compaign contribution or sign on bonus to Solyndra to political favoritism that installed his campaign workers into the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where they were given compensation around six figures in spite of most having almost no revelent experience to preferential funding to democrat supporting auto dealers to a foreign toy company. Money to iran, a billion for a website, and a likely whole host of other things that didn’t make the news. $8 Trillion is a lot of money and the Obama Administration is very corrupt.
So I’m am accusing the “Great One” again of corruption. Obama’s supporters may come up with some sort of answer, but not an answer that addresses my specific questions. The reason for this is there are no answers that does not implicate the Obama Administration with corruption.
Should the Obama Administration ever be investigated for corruption, history would remember him and maybe even the Leftist media differently.