Koch brothers exposed - free to view.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,708
17,332
136
I get the feeling nobody fully understands Social Security. This is why we get multiple versions of how it works, all of them contradict each other, and different parts of the government say different things.

Example: president Obama agrees with my version of how Social Security works. You might remember Obama saying that freezing the debt limit would cause Social Security payments to stop. That statement is only true if Social Security's cash flow relies on issuance of new debt, which is what I stated. If Social Security held actual bonds that can be sold in the open market, Obama's statement would not be true. Of course, Obama is a politician, so it's also possible that he's lying. This is the same guy who said that raising the debt does not raise the debt (yes he actually said this).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
(article asking why the debt ceiling would cause social security payments to stop)
To find more articles on this issue, google the words "borrow from social security".

Yeah I think you are confused. Not raising the debt ceiling means we aren't allowed to pay for obligations we've already spent, it doesn't mean we are unable to pay for them.

See #9
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/debt-limit-explained-ten-sentences

Also paying for things we've already bought is why raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt. When you buy something on credit, you now owe that amount, not paying your cc bill (which is the equivalent of not raising the debt ceiling) doesn't mean you no longer owe anything and the converse doesn't mean you now owe more.

I suggest you read more about the debt ceiling before you comment on other people "lying" about the debt ceiling.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,966
31,517
146
I'm just gonna draft an open letter to all the companies to whom I owe Bill payments, and claim that their monthly charges are above my personal debt ceiling.

and just not pay them. I'll blow my nose at them and whine if they demand that I raise my ceiling. IT'S MY CEILING! And, after all, I am being fiscally responsible!

:colbert:
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Yeah I think you are confused. Not raising the debt ceiling means we aren't allowed to pay for obligations we've already spent, it doesn't mean we are unable to pay for them.
That money is not already spent. It's written down as something they promise to spend, but it hasn't been spent yet.
It's easiest to explain with an example. Today, I say that I will buy a $1000 computer on September 1, 2014. Using general common sense accounting, I would say that I have not spent that money yet. I have it written down that I will spend it, but it hasn't happened yet. Now suppose I have a husband who has a say in the household budget, and he's a republican, with an orange face, and he cries from time to time. He would stonewall my budget and demand this money not be spent. Acting as Obama, I would go to my friends and argue that buying a new computer doesn't raise the household debt because I've already decided I'm going to raise the debt. Then I would say on national TV that buying new things doesn't cost anything because something something reasons.

The inability of politicians to do the most basic accounting is why history is filled with governments going bankrupt. They always say the same thing - we can't cut spending on project X because we've already written down that we're going to spend that money in the future. Can you imagine saying that to your wife or husband? Sorry sweety, but I've already decided to buy a new car. I know our finances are tight right now, but I already told the guys at work I was going to buy a new car! I can't just not buy the thing I said I was going to buy! I would look so silly! Following through and buying the car wouldn't cost us anything (raise the debt) because I've already decided that we were going to spend that money.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,708
17,332
136
That money is not already spent. It's written down as something they promise to spend, but it hasn't been spent yet.
It's easiest to explain with an example. Today, I say that I will buy a $1000 computer on September 1, 2014. Using general common sense accounting, I would say that I have not spent that money yet. I have it written down that I will spend it, but it hasn't happened yet. Now suppose I have a husband who has a say in the household budget, and he's a republican, with an orange face, and he cries from time to time. He would stonewall my budget and demand this money not be spent. Acting as Obama, I would go to my friends and argue that buying a new computer doesn't raise the household debt because I've already decided I'm going to raise the debt. Then I would say on national TV that buying new things doesn't cost anything because something something reasons.

The inability of politicians to do the most basic accounting is why history is filled with governments going bankrupt. They always say the same thing - we can't cut spending on project X because we've already written down that we're going to spend that money in the future. Can you imagine saying that to your wife or husband? Sorry sweety, but I've already decided to buy a new car. I know our finances are tight right now, but I already told the guys at work I was going to buy a new car! I can't just not buy the thing I said I was going to buy! I would look so silly! Following through and buying the car wouldn't cost us anything (raise the debt) because I've already decided that we were going to spend that money.


You are wrong.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE

See the 2:25 mark. Actually I recommend watching the whole video.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
Lol why would I care what a right wing blog says, of course they don't like it. It goes against their mantra.

Of course, one should never listen to all sides of a story...

Always listen to only the side that you agree with...

You'll be safer that way.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,040
8,630
136
Of course, one should never listen to all sides of a story...

Always listen to only the side that you agree with...

You'll be safer that way.

My version: "Always listen to the truth. You'll be safer that way". ;)