Support NeoGAF

[ClassyPenguin]

I'm totally in favor of getting rid of SS funding by tax.

 

[The Technomancer]

Looks like Megyn Kelly is trying to push a pro-gay agenda on Fox. Wait? Pro-gay?!

Conservative Group Wrings Hands Over Fox’s ‘New Pro-Gay Agenda’ Led by Megyn Kelly



You know you're fucking crazy when you start targeting Fox News, your only bastion of ignorance left to you outside of the internet.

Also, I agree that Shep needs to come out of his closet. It's time, cutie.

Good lord they really aren't satisfied with anything short of vocal and complete hatred of "the gays" are they?

 

[B-Dubs]

Letting the big radio personalities ask questions of the primary candidates is counterproductive. They're not going to stick to questions that produce inoffensive answers; they'll be even worse, from the party establishment's perspective, than CNN anchors. Candidates won't even be able to dodge questions by attacking the moderators.

That said, this would make for very good debates. They'd make clear exactly what the candidates are willing to speak up for or against.

That would be funny.

Please make Donald Trump one of the moderators. :jnc

I would die. I will donate money to make this happen, lots of money. All of my money.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If twitter is anything to go by GAF OT is going to go into a tizzy tomorrow with the Posts new NSA story.

I don't understand what peoples proposed responses are. There needs to be more oversight but IMO a typo or mistake that collects data but is then purged (obviously this is an assumption and if its not true then there is a problem) is no different than say the exclusionary rule with evidence. Tech gives the government amazing abilities which automation and human error can do bad things with but if its not acted upon I don't see the outrage. I assumed there were mistakes.

I'm seeing twitter using this as some smoking gun as proof the NSA is out of control and we're living in a police state. I just don't see it.

 

[B-Dubs]

If twitter is anything to go by GAF OT is going to go into a tizzy tomorrow with the Posts new NSA story.

I don't understand what peoples proposed responses are. There needs to be more oversight but IMO a typo or mistake that collects data but is then purged (obviously this is an assumption and if its not true then there is a problem) is no different than say the exclusionary rule with evidence. Tech gives the government amazing abilities which automation and human error can do bad things with but if its not acted upon I don't see the outrage. I assumed there were mistakes.

I'm seeing twitter using this as some smoking gun as proof the NSA is out of control and we're living in a police state. I just don't see it.

I can tell you whatever the story is the OT will overreact massively and not even bother to read the article, so basically what happened last time.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I can tell you whatever the story is the OT will overreact massively and not even bother to read the article, so basically what happened last time.

Twitters already done this.

Example:

@matthewstoller 3m
So the NSA 'accidentally' wiretapped the DC area code in an election year when illegal NSA surveillance was anissue.

I will amend my statements to say this is proof there have been bold face lies told by administration officials. Chiefly the fact that the NSA has no way of knowing how many Americans its spying on inadvertently.

The leaks have shown there needs to be much more oversight because the potential for abuse is great but I've just not seen evidence that there is intent for abuse. The NSA does seem to have an attitude it knows best and while I think its intentions are good our system works better when people are second guessing and providing checks. There needs to be reform there.

 

[B-Dubs]

Twitters already done this.

I will amend my statements to say this is proof there have been bold face lies told by administration officials. Chiefly the fact that the NSA has no way of knowing how many Americans its spying on inadvertently.

The leaks have shown there needs to be much more oversight because the potential for abuse is great but I've just not seen evidence that there is intent for abuse. The NSA does seem to have an attitude it knows best and while I think its intentions are good our system works better when people are second guessing and providing checks. There needs to be reform there.

The bolded is news? That's the thing that's always annoyed me about the NSA spying, that innocent people are always going to get stuck in the net of surveillance and there's nothing they can do to stop it. You can be as targeted as you want when spying, but you're always going to get stuff you never meant to.

I do agree that there needs to be more oversight. We may not be able to stop the inadvertent collection of data while spying, but we can sure as hell make sure it doesn't get used.

Or was the bolded the lie?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The bolded is news? That's the thing that's always annoyed me about the NSA spying, that innocent people are always going to get stuck in the net of surveillance and there's nothing they can do to stop it. You can be as targeted as you want when spying, but you're always going to get stuff you never meant to.

I do agree that there needs to be more oversight. We may not be able to stop the inadvertent collection of data while spying, but we can sure as hell make sure it doesn't get used.

The NSA stated as certain points they didn't know numbers and that they could never tell congress how many were spied on.
The new story is reveals the NSA was keeping numbers. Kinda awkward for them.

And I agree that your never gonna have a perfect system that only collects foreign data, the internet doesn't work that way. But yeah, there needs to be clear rules that say you can't use that data.

 

[B-Dubs]

The NSA stated as certain points they didn't know numbers
The new story is reveals the NSA was keeping numbers.

And I agree that your never gonna have a perfect system that only collects foreign data, the internet doesn't work that way. But yeah, there needs to be clear rules that say you can't use that data.

Ahh so the bolded was the lie. The wording of that sentence confused me.

I'd say Congress needs to pass a law saying they can't use that data, but the second someone suggests it half of congress will complain that it's being soft on terror.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ahh so the bolded was the lie. The wording of that sentence confused me.

I'd say Congress needs to pass a law saying they can't use that data, but the second someone suggests it half of congress will complain that it's being soft on terror.

There is a law that says you can't use that data. The fourth amendment.

I really do feel that the NSA has the countries best intentions at heart. I don't think they're trying to target American's but there is a covering-ass impulse that runs rampant in the government. Congress or another agency needs to come in and make sure their covering-ass isn't covering up real abuses. That's the whole point of covering ass. Right now I think the laws are weak and give the NSA a lot of leeway in what they're arguing. But congress can always step up their oversight and I think they owe it to the people to do so.

Edit: I'm surprised on how slow the OT is in posting this story.

 

[PhoenixDark]

And the former ombudsman of the Post obliterates Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a very, very stupid person. That being said, she still manages to make sense every now and then - specifically when slapping down tea party types.

 

[Chichikov]

If twitter is anything to go by GAF OT is going to go into a tizzy tomorrow with the Posts new NSA story.

I don't understand what peoples proposed responses are. There needs to be more oversight but IMO a typo or mistake that collects data but is then purged (obviously this is an assumption and if its not true then there is a problem) is no different than say the exclusionary rule with evidence. Tech gives the government amazing abilities which automation and human error can do bad things with but if its not acted upon I don't see the outrage. I assumed there were mistakes.

I'm seeing twitter using this as some smoking gun as proof the NSA is out of control and we're living in a police state. I just don't see it.

Those people have been caught lying to congress, repeatedly, why are you so quick to believe this was all an honest mistake?

We got to have effective oversight, we should start by a clear and crisp explanation of what is the criteria that is being applied to spy on people, I haven't heard a good argument as to why we cannot have that.

 

[B-Dubs]

Those people have been caught lying to congress, repeatedly, why are you so quick to believe this was all an honest mistake?

We got to have effective oversight, we should start by a clear and crisp explanation of what is the criteria that is being applied to spy on people, I haven't heard a good argument as to why we cannot have that.

There isn't a good reason.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Those people have been caught lying to congress, repeatedly, why are you so quick to believe this was all an honest mistake?

We got to have effective oversight, we should start by a clear and crisp explanation of what is the criteria that is being applied to spy on people, I haven't heard a good argument as to why we cannot have that.

One of the documents does that. The secrecy of that is a problem. There is a troubling line in one of the documents where the NSA seems to say its withholding information from oversight. Thats a red flag.

I do think that's pretty reasonable. But like I said I think the lies are more part of cover-your-ass syndrome than intent to do nefarious things. Case in point, the mere existence of this audit and many of these guidelines shows that the NSA does think about privacy. There needs to be other actors that double check but the Stasi weren't doing audits on privacy compliance.

 

[Chichikov]

One of the documents does that.

Which document?

I do think that's pretty reasonable. But like I said I think the lies are more part of cover-your-ass syndrome than intent to do nefarious things. Case in point, the mere existence of this audit and many of these guidelines shows that the NSA does think about privacy. There needs to be other actors that double check but the Stasi weren't doing audits on privacy compliance.

The head of the NSA sat before congress and told straight up lies on important issues, I honestly don't care what syndrome caused it.

And for the record, I don't personally think it's nefarious mustache twirling people who are doing such things because they're evil, those things are usually organizational in nature, but I don't think it really matters.

 

[jamesinclair]

Is it time for another round of fuck Obama?

Because im game

 

[sc0la]

I would rather get rid of the payroll tax for SS altogether, and just turn it into a perpetual jobs program. If you are a person over 55 in the in the US, and you have been a citizen for at least 10 years, you get SS.

Instantly removes the drag of 6.5 percent regressive taxation on the working class, frees up business capital since they don't pay their half anymore. Old people will spend it in the economy, and (a lower) estate tax will take care of excess accumulation at the top end.

Since you are constantly putting money in the economy via fiscal policy this gets the fed focused on UI and inflation only. Rather than the fed attempting monetary stimulus that primarily benifits huge corporations adding new money to the economy would be handled almost entirely by fiscal spending through SS.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Which document?

Its part of the documents release by the post today. talks about how the users of the systems need to give reasons for targeting and then goes on to model examples

The head of the NSA sat before congress and told straight up lies on important issues, I honestly don't care what syndrome caused it.

And for the record, I don't personally think it's nefarious mustache twirling people who are doing such things because they're evil, those things are usually organizational in nature, but I don't think it really matters.

I don't think it matters what caused it when trying to correct it. But I think there is the meme that there is intentional actions and I don't think that's fair. I'm talking about people who call the NSA stasi, stalinist or something similar. That's flat out crap.

I still think the leaks were wrong TBH.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://politicker.com/2013/08/anthony-weiners-relationship-with-former-staffer-raises-questions/

Jeez Weiner is messed up...

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Jennifer Rubin is a very, very stupid person. That being said, she still manages to make sense every now and then - specifically when slapping down tea party types.

Even a broken clock works twice a day.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://politicker.com/2013/08/anthony-weiners-relationship-with-former-staffer-raises-questions/

Jeez Weiner is messed up...

Damn it Weiner, no one is going to pick up your healthcare plan at this rate. That plan is literally the only reason he still exists.

On another note according to NY1 Quinn is currently tied with de Blasio.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Damn it Weiner, no one is going to pick up your healthcare plan at this rate. That plan is literally the only reason he still exists.

On another note according to NY1 Quinn is currently tied with de Blasio.

I'll admit. I always kinda defended weiner. I though at first he was hacked (I was wrong), then that he reformed after therapy (wrong again). That story about the continued sexting was the proverbial third strike. Dude needs to get away from politics and seek help.


From a 2001 VF article

back to men. Diana is in the middle of explaining how Liam romanced her with champagne and dinner in a restaurant overlooking the White House when 11 middle-aged men trickle past.

Diana immediately sits up, antennae alert.

One waiter, Cliff, apparently well known to the men, shuts the swing doors on either side of their table, transforming the space into a sealed room. Every 10 minutes or so the women can hear the high-pitched chink, chink of cutlery being hammered against glass; they can see through the window that one by one, cigars in hand, the men stand to give toasts before drinking deep into the red wine and breaking into fits of loud laughter.

Diana thinks one is giving her the eye. She thinks she recognizes him. “I’m sure he looks like a senator,” she says.

One bursts through the doors, clutching his cell phone. His bald patch is shining from overexertion as he exclaims in the direction of the women, “If people knew how the government was really run … “

He asks the table to join the men for a drink when they have finished dinner. The women look at one another, startled.

He leaves them alone with their dessert and their deliberations. Even Diana looks uncertain about actually venturing into the “boys’ club” sanctuary. “Not a woman in there,” she remarks.

Then Caroline, the aspiring journalist, feisty and hungry to taste everything Washington has to offer before returning to Britain, settles it. Leaning back, she taps the balding guy on the arm as he returns from the men’s room. “What’s going on in there? Why are you all having so much fun?” she asks.

The man grins. “Those are a group of congressmen who are friends of mine. I thought they were hungry. They needed to kind of let themselves go.” He pauses. “And they are doing that.

“Come in and meet the rowdy crew,” he says. And with a toss of her hair, Caroline stands up and goes in.

The women are heckled as they enter. “Tell us your name and where you are from,” says one of the men. As if on a game show the women comply, one by one. When Caroline says she is an intern, the largest of the group, a white-haired man with a big belly and big laugh, roars, “We’re afraid of interns.” He throws his knife at a lean man named Mike, at the other end of the table. Mike is unamused. He threatens to throw it back. Another guy, rotund and jolly-faced, stands up and does an impression of Marlon Brando doing Don Corleone. The others think it’s hysterical.

Diana whispers that there is no way they can be congressmen. She figures they are businessmen. She wonders how she is going to get out.

They are congressmen—although at first they pretend not to be. One, the youngest, with a tiny goatee, introduces himself as Anthony, an auto-parts salesman. The others call him “the Jewish kid” and make fun of his beard. Their real names and states are as follows: the auto-parts salesman is Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); the lean Mike is Michael Capuano (D-Mass.); the jolly guy who imitated Brando is John Larson (D-Conn.); the man who was worried about interns is Robert Brady (D-Pa.).

Sitting silently at the head of the table is John Baldacci (D-Maine), now running for governor; also there are Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). The hosts are Paul Magliocchetti, a former member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, now a lobbyist, and his colleague Daniel Cunningham. “Normally,” says Magliocchetti, “there are four Republicans in this group. They just couldn’t make it tonight.”

The evening glides along in a gently tipsy manner. “You are very beautiful girls,” one man keeps repeating. Their jokes are old and hoary. “I just want you all to know, today we’ve been through a very classified briefing,” one says. “We watched CNN.”

Larson leads the others in song—Motown, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, and the Rolling Stones. Mick Jagger might not have been disappointed by the energy with which they infuse a somewhat tuneless version of “Satisfaction.”

Caroline, inevitably, is treated to a rendition of Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline.” Diana is wooed with “Oh Diane,” by Fleetwood Mac. They try to think of a song for Beth, but by then both their enthusiasm and memories are waning.

Toward midnight Caroline slips out to the bathroom. The restaurant’s lights are low and the waiters look like they want to go home. One man sits alone at the bar nursing a drink and a cigar. It is Caroline’s boss, Representative Ferguson. He is pale and tired. “I’ve been in the district today,” he says. “So many of my constituents have died.” She tells him she is in the back with a rowdy bunch of his peers. “I don’t think many of my colleagues from elsewhere round the country completely get what has happened,” he says sadly. “I think you really have to be in New York to feel it properly.… That’s why I had to come here and have a drink. It’s so awful.”

He pauses when she tells him some of the names of her hosts. She expects him to grimace, perhaps grumble, about Democrats. Instead he says, “Bart Stupak is a really great guy. I love him.” It is a remarkable moment, encapsulating the unity that not just Washington but America feels in a new climate of fear and uncertainty.

Ferguson joins the group, his face fixed in a frown halfway between unease and alarm. But the high jinks are over. Everyone stands and sings the national anthem and “America the Beautiful.” There is a round of patriotic toasts and then the men kiss the girls good night—chastely. The girls are ecstatic at the contacts they’ve made. “Mr. Baldacci said he’d write me a reference for medical school,” trills Beth. Diana clutches a wad of business cards. Her face is pink. “Do you know how many people would die for this?” she says. Caroline has taken photographs; she is focusing on the article she’ll write. She waves her camera and mouths, “A successful evening.”

Caroline’s journal, Thursday, September 13:

Dinner was fabulous and to cut a long story short we ended up in a private room with 9 congressmen! How weird is that. They all wanted us to introduce ourselves but they wouldn’t stop being rowdy so I had to stand up and shout at them to be quiet. How often does a 21-year-old English intern get to boss around the US government!! They’d been voting all day and in classified meetings so they were in desperate need of a good old singsong and some laughter. We sang lots of songs and had a really good laugh. They were a real collection of characters and we had such a good time! Everyone proposed toasts to the dead people, to America and to revenge and the people who will be giving their lives in the next week. That part freaked me out. We really are having a war.… It was totally amazing to be in a room in the biggest crisis in American history with the elected leaders of the country and to see their strong spirits, their hope, and their union as a team. It was a very touching experience that I will never forget. They were so hospitable, genuine, and truly lovely. It was very reassuring to see that the country is led by some of the kindest, most down to earth guys you could meet. What a fantastic and totally random night!

The next day, New York’s Anthony Weiner finds the time to hunt down Diana’s E-mail address. He writes that he hopes they might meet again. Diana is overwhelmed that he’s managed to think of her on a day that must be heavy with import and emotional intensity. Last night he mentioned that he’d be going to Manhattan to inspect the World Trade Center wreckage with the president. They’d be traveling together on Air Force One.

Caroline records: “Went for lunch with Diana. Anthony Weiner has emailed her and she didn’t know he was a member of Congress. She died when I showed her his card! It was so funny!! I think she likes him, but she doesn’t want to admit it. In fact, I know she likes him ’cos she’s been on his website this afternoon looking at the photo gallery.”

A week later, two nights before Caroline will leave for England, the girls return to the Capital Grille. Now they know the drill, and they capture their prey with ease. “Three more congressmen,” Diana gloats. “Republicans—got their cards and everything.”

She has left Anthony Weiner dangling, after he E-mailed her that she should come and visit his office “in person.” “I thought that was kind of cheesy,” sniffs Diana.

Literally two day after 9/11 he was using his power to hit on chicks.

 

[Chichikov]

Its part of the documents release by the post today. talks about how the users of the systems need to give reasons for targeting and then goes on to model examples

That document was leaked though.
You suggest we conduct our oversight by leaks?

I don't think it matters what caused it when trying to correct it. But I think there is the meme that there is intentional actions and I don't think that's fair. I'm talking about people who call the NSA stasi, stalinist or something similar. That's flat out crap.

You really think the issue here is what some people call the NSA on twitter?
And fuck fairness, I don't think the NSA gets the benefit of the doubt here, not after lying to congress, repeatedly, and honestly, I'd rather have too much oversight over our spy agencies than not enough.

I still think the leaks were wrong TBH.

You really think the situation would've been better without that leak?
You would rather not know those things?
Why?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That document was leaked though.
You suggest we conduct our oversight by leaks?

No I'd have liked the Administration to make it public.

You really think the issue here is what some people call the NSA on twitter?
And fuck fairness, I don't think the NSA gets the benefit of the doubt here, not after lying to congress, repeatedly, and honestly, I'd rather have too much oversight over our spy agencies than not enough.

When these people can cripple the ability to do real work, I think it is trouble. I do worry about an over reaction to the NSA's actions. Limits to their abilities that go farther than needed. I've seen many NSA stories distorting whats actually happening and its not giving us an informed debate with information with which to make wise decisions.

You really think the situation would've been better without that leak?
You would rather not know those things?
Why?

I don't like leaks on principle and would have preferred they happen through different legal channels. They didn't and we have to deal with them as they are. There's not much use in debating the past. Besides my feelings snowden deserves punishment for his actions and is in no way a hero.

 

[thcsquad]

Anyone else super disappointed with John Oliver's Rand Paul interview? He seemed unprepared and just let Paul give his talking points without any real pushback.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-12-2013/exclusive---rand-paul-extended-interview

I'd like to see somebody intelligent debate Paul, because even if he has some crazy ideas he never comes off as a dick in interviews. I think a smart liberal debating him would actually be constructive.

 

[Chichikov]

When these people can cripple the ability to do real work, I think it is trouble. I do worry about an over reaction to the NSA's actions. Limits to their abilities that go farther than needed. I've seen many NSA stories distorting whats actually happening and its not giving us an informed debate with information with which to make wise decisions.

How do people calling them names cripple their ability to "do real work"?
If the public don't want the NSA to do something then it's not crippling, it's how democracy should work.
I refuse to accept that we should just blindly trust them to do the right thing because they're the responsible adults and they know best, history had shown that to be a pretty bad policy.

I don't like leaks on principle and would have preferred they happen through different legal channels. They didn't and we have to deal with them as they are. There's not much use in debating the past. Besides my feelings snowden deserves punishment for his actions and is in no way a hero.

Those other legal channels were not working though.
And Snowden heroism is irrelevant to this story.

 

[delirium]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324823804579014611497378326.html

Anyone have any comments on this? Snowden's father thinks Wikileaks/Greenwald don't have his son's best interest. There's also talk about Greenwald shopping around an interview with Snowden for $50k (of which he denies shopping around, but not the negotiation for money).

 

[Black Mamba]

Eh, not really. I mean, there are two ways of looking at Social Security. One way is saying that it's just another government program, that there's no reason to separate the Trust Fund from anything else. From that perspective, there's no reason to earmark SS taxes as even being related to SS, they're just some regressive tax we happen to have. And there's no reason to suggest that Social Security is in any kind of deficit, because who cares? If it's just another government program, why arbitrarily tie specific revenues to it at all? There were never any surpluses, just general revenue funding government programs, and SS adds to the deficit to the same extent any other government program does.

This is the only correct view.

The other way of looking at it is that Social Security is its own thing. There's a bucket called the Trust Fund, into which SS taxes go, and out of which SS checks come. The Trust Fund had a surplus of funds, and so it invested those funds in treasuries. It receives interest payments on its treasury investments, just as any other investor would. From this perspective, SS checks are currently covered by a combination of SS taxes and interest income, but shortly will no longer be fully covered and will start to eat into principal. On this view, SS does not currently add to the deficit, but will in a few years.

This relies of misleading accounting gimmicks.

The "accounting gimmick" view is a conflation of the two and essentially the worst of both worlds. It takes the bucket view of the program, looking at inflows and outflows specific to SS, but then takes the just-another-gov't-program approach for one of those inflows, the interest income. Looking at it this way, taxes earmarked for SS are currently lower than SS outflows, and so SS adds to the deficit. I mean, of course it does, that's the intent of this framing.

But really, if you think about it, the Trust Fund's receipt of interest income is an accounting gimmick to exactly the same extent that SS-specific taxes are an accounting gimmick. Why stop at just the Trust Fund?

It's not the same thing at all.

It's an accounting gimmick because the gov't is paying itself with its own money. This is nonsensical.

If the SS trust fund bought Apple stock and was receiving dividends, then that would be fine. But the treasury is paying the interest. The Treasury received money to pay the interest from the federal budget. The same federal budget that SS is from.

The gov't allocates money from the budget to the Treasury to pay interest and pays some interest into the Trust Fund which is the gov't.

It's no different that taking money out of your left pocket and putting it your right pocket and claiming you just got paid.

SS is not covered by interest. It's covered by taxes and borrowing like anything else as part of the entire budget.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How do people calling them names cripple their ability to "do real work"?
If the public don't want the NSA to do something then it's not crippling, it's how democracy should work.
I refuse to accept that we should just blindly trust them to do the right thing because they're the responsible adults and they know best, history had shown that to be a pretty bad policy.

I'm not saying we need just trust them though. I've said there needs to be more oversight and reforms.

All I said is that I don't think there is bad intent. That doesn't mean we can't double check.

My problem is people saying the tech is the problem and proposals that limit the ability of them to target legit targets. That's what I meant by impeding real work. For example I don't think Greenwald/assanges real goal is to protect privacy by itself but to undermine US power in whatever way they can. They're not interested in reforms but outright ending spying and the war on al qeada.

I think there needs to be a separation between the leaker and information as I think actions I disagree with and would rather have not happened can still lead to real debates.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324823804579014611497378326.html

Anyone have any comments on this? Snowden's father thinks Wikileaks/Greenwald don't have his son's best interest. There's also talk about Greenwald shopping around an interview with Snowden for $50k (of which he denies shopping around, but not the negotiation for money).

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I agree with Greenwald on more than a few things but he's still the guy who defended the Patriot Act and Neo Nazis in court.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I agree with Greenwald on more than a few things but he's still the guy who defended the Patriot Act and Neo Nazis in court.

Greenwald is the lefts equivalent of fox news a lot of the time. Uses the same tactics as they do and is a shoddy 'journalist' in general.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm not sure why you disagree here when you already agreed with me earlier in your post. But yes, it's exactly the same thing. Either the tax money earmarked as Social Security tax should be considered to be specifically going to SS, or it shouldn't. If it should be considered specifically for SS, then there's no reason not to continue to follow that specific lot of money as it's used to purchase treasuries that are then paid back with interest. If it shouldn't be considered specifically for SS (and to be going into a Trust Fund etc), then why even worry about whether the inflow from that specific tax is less than the outflow of SS?

But at least the SS taxes come from people. Of course, it's just taxes that go into the budget overall, not anywhere specific.

But ignoring that, it's real. The trust fund is the gov't paying itself. It's just messing around with the numbers. SS taxes actually remove money from people, SS Trust fund doesn't move money anywhere. Nothing happens. It's an illusion.

You can't compare the two.


edit: My point is this. The budget is the budget and where the taxes come from matter not. But even if we pretended that SS was its own thing and SS taxes went just to SS, the interest is an accounting gimmick that means nothing. It is not "earning" interest. It is simply getting money allocated from the budget via other taxes and borrowing.

 

[Black Mamba]

Eh? Sure you can. It's moving from one balance sheet to another one. I mean, you could argue the same thing with any setup of subsidiary companies that includes money transfers.

Sometimes you can. That's why it's an accounting gimmick. What the Knicks get paid for their MSG TV right is also a gimmick since the owner is the same.

But there is no other balance sheets for a gov't. There is just gov't outlays. That's it. Now you can break down where the outlays go but there's just outlays.

A gov't cannot pay itself. It is nonsense.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not saying we need just trust them though. I've said there needs to be more oversight and reforms.

All I said is that I don't think there is bad intent. That doesn't mean we can't double check.

My problem is people saying the tech is the problem and proposals that limit the ability of them to target legit targets. That's what I meant by impeding real work. For example I don't think Greenwald/assanges real goal is to protect privacy by itself but to undermine US power in whatever way they can. They're not interested in reforms but outright ending spying and the war on al qeada.

I think there needs to be a separation between the leaker and information as I think actions I disagree with and would rather have not happened can still lead to real debates.

I don't know what Greenwald's intentions are nor do I care all that much.
And if such proposals are raised than by all means you should argue against them (I honestly don't think there are too many people who thinks we shouldn't be able to use wiretapping at all, methinks you're doing a bit of shadowboxing here) but that's not what the leak discussion is about, it's about whether or not we should be able to have this type of conversation.

Again, I say two basic things here -
We must have oversight and we much know what is being done in our name (and with our money) at least in general terms.
We can't achieve the previous point without information and without leaks/whistle-blowers we wouldn't have known about any of this and we wouldn't be discussion this stuff.

 

[Black Mamba]

+1 for consistency.



That would all depend on how your government was set up. If there are smaller units that make up the government, and they have individual budgets with their own inflows and outflows, it could potentially make sense for one unit to borrow from another and then pay them back with interest.

I don't even know if it's legal to do that, but regardless that's just a matter of accounting on a more micro level but it doesn't affect the actual gov't outlays.

The SS trust fund interest is make-believe interest. It doesn't come from anywhere, it doesn't actually exist. It's just playing with numbers to look like something is happening.

This is important because if we're actually going to pretend that SS is somehow separate from the rest of the budget, the claims that once the interest goes away that we have to cut benefits is absurd because we're already in that same position now since the interest isn't real.

 

[Black Mamba]

The claim is absurd anyway since then the Trust Fund and SS taxes aren't real either.

The Trust fund isn't real. The taxes are. We [mostly] all pay them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't know what Greenwald's intentions are nor do I care all that much.
And if such proposals are raised than by all means you should argue against them (I honestly don't think there are too many people who thinks we shouldn't be able to use wiretapping at all, methinks you're doing a bit of shadowboxing here) but that's not what the leak discussion is about, it's about whether or not we should be able to have this type of conversation.

Again, I say two basic things here -
We must have oversight and we much know what is being done in our name (and with our money) at least in general terms.
We can't achieve the previous point without information and without leaks/whistle-blowers we wouldn't have known about any of this and we wouldn't be discussion this stuff.

I care about Greenwald in this because he is the source of the leaks for much of the. He's done a poor job at doing anything more than editorializing what he wants out of them. So that's why he matters. And I do argue against those proposals when I see them though less on gas. I just feel it's not the most ideal place for my preferred discussion style.

I don't disagree with that we need to know certain things but I do disagree leaks are the best or only way to have them. As the way these leaks have been handled have often times lead to confusion and misinformation.

And I think it's silly to say Snowden or leaks is the only way we could have a debate. He's the reason we're having This debate but that's not to say it's the only or ideal way. But this is hypothetical. We have what we have. I just can't in my opinion endorse these actions or call them positive.

 

[Oblivion]

This line of defense that conservatives have when you point out how high tax rates used to be, is pretty weird.

Basically, they say that while the nominal tax rates were super high, people didn't actually pay those rates because of loopholes or whatever. Maybe that's true, but that means what? That it was okay because we were truly freedom loving capitalists, but were simply pretending to be socialists for show?

 

[empty vessel]

But at least the SS taxes come from people. Of course, it's just taxes that go into the budget overall, not anywhere specific.

But ignoring that, it's real. The trust fund is the gov't paying itself. It's just messing around with the numbers. SS taxes actually remove money from people, SS Trust fund doesn't move money anywhere. Nothing happens. It's an illusion.

You can't compare the two.

edit: My point is this. The budget is the budget and where the taxes come from matter not. But even if we pretended that SS was its own thing and SS taxes went just to SS, the interest is an accounting gimmick that means nothing. It is not "earning" interest. It is simply getting money allocated from the budget via other taxes and borrowing.

I would just like to add that I would encourage you to apply this thinking on a broader scale. Money itself is an accounting gimmick. It is literally used as an accounting gimmick, meaning a unit of account.

Where you are wrong is that the SSA is not getting the money from "other taxes and borrowing." Rather, the government just creates the money. Taxes and "borrowing" (which doesn't ever happen) do not fund spending. The government's power to create money funds spending.

 

[Oblivion]

Haven't seen anyone post this yet. Apparently the writer of Ender's Game is a huge fan of chain e-mails:

He has said that if the US government take further steps to make same-sex marriage legal, then the government will become his 'mortal enemy' and he will 'act to destroy that government and bring it down'. He's also said he wants to keep laws against homosexuality 'on the books'.

Now he's gone on another rant, this time about the Obama administration, calling the President 'a dictator'

First he seems to think that Obama will never relinquish his presidency in the US, and will appoint his wife Michelle in his place.

“Michelle Obama is going to be Barack's Lurleen Wallace,” he wrote in The Ornery American.

“Remember how George Wallace got around Alabama's ban on governors serving two terms in a row? He ran his wife for the office. Everyone knew Wallace would actually be pulling the strings, even though they denied it.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/enders-game-writer-orson-scott-card-in-new-obama-rant-114702955.html

More crazy at the link.

 

[Black Mamba]

I would just like to add that I would encourage you to apply this thinking on a broader scale. Money itself is an accounting gimmick. It is literally used as an accounting gimmick, meaning a unit of account.

Where you are wrong is that the SSA is not getting the money from "other taxes and borrowing." Rather, the government just creates the money. Taxes and "borrowing" (which doesn't ever happen) do not fund spending. The government's power to create money funds spending.

Yes yes, we get it. You repeat this a billion times. Like, I get and I actually agree with you. You don't need to keep re-stating your position in this thread to people who know it, and again, agree.

But I'm not going to be long-winded when discussing deficits over semantics when everyone here already understands this point. Since the discussion is centered around the idea of the destruction of money through SS payroll tax being less than the money being created to spend on SS, for all intents and purposes we can keep it short and say SS taxes fall short of funding. Okay?

Let us all agree we agree with your argument, truly do, but move on so that every damn time someone brings up taxes and outlays you don't have to chime in with this point of fact. It's really annoying.

And money isn't an accounting gimmick. As you state, it's a unit of account. It's intention isn't to deceive or trick anyone. It's just a more convenient way of trading than barter. Accounting gimmicks are deceptions, sleight of hands. They are created to make someone think something else is happening. This isn't what money is.



edit: Oblivion - there's a whole thread on it somewhere. too lazy to look.

 

[Link]

Haven't seen anyone post this yet. Apparently the writer of Ender's Game is a huge fan of chain e-mails:



http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/enders-game-writer-orson-scott-card-in-new-obama-rant-114702955.html

More crazy at the link.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=652267

 

[The Librarian]

There's a bucket called the Trust Fund, into which SS taxes go, and out of which SS checks come.

I remember reading an article linked here (can't find it at the moment) a while ago that explained it differently. Taking this view, SS tax revenues go in and the money goes out. The only time SS taxes go into the trust fund is when the government taxes more than it gave it for the year, which is what happened for most of Social Security's life.

On another note according to NY1 Quinn is currently tied with de Blasio.

I think the biggest takeaway here is that de Blasio is the one on the move. From all the polling I've seen, Quinn would lose a runoff.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Apparently the writer of Ender's Game is a huge fan of chain e-mails:

Who isn't?

 

[thepotatoman]

I feel like we're moving into an especially news period. Congress is on a long vacation, McConnell just ended any chance Republicans had at actually shutting down the government over Obamacare by joining Boehner against the idea, the Weiner story is played out and none of the other mayoral candidates are worth talking about on a national level.

Russia olympics/homosexuality is kind of big, but its not controversial or interesting enough for 24/7 news networks to live off of.

A major union in SEIU is teasing a big second wave of fast food strikes. If they follow through it could be perfect timing to get media's attention, but they can't just do it by talking about it.

 

[Oblivion]

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=652267

Ah, thank ye.

 

[Oblivion]

Welp, seems like a done deal. The RNC has voted to ban NBC and CNN from hosting any future debates:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/controlling_debates046422.php

 

[B-Dubs]

Welp, seems like a done deal. The RNC has voted to ban NBC and CNN from hosting any future debates:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/controlling_debates046422.php

That's going to be going over well come election time

 

[Link]

Welp, seems like a done deal. The RNC has voted to ban NBC and CNN from hosting any future debates:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/controlling_debates046422.php

This is the most obvious strategy ever. Can't wait for the Republican nominee to get fucking destroyed once the real debates start.

 

[Frank the Great]

Welp, seems like a done deal. The RNC has voted to ban NBC and CNN from hosting any future debates:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/controlling_debates046422.php