GG Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Don't Get Caught Holding Dollars When The U.S. Default Arrives And the thing is... Greece is tiny and needs a small miracle. When this financial tsunami arrives in full force, we're going to need a HUGE miracle. Sorry to be quoting so much of it, but if you don't, it doesn't get read or discussed. But do click the link, b/c there's more. Apples & oranges. Fed loans were overnight emergency loans given during the financial crisis to banks & other firms eligible to receive it. If you do the math it's an average of about $18bn outstanding on any given day, which is not a huge number. If you also assume that most of that funding wen out during 2008 at the peak of the crisis, the actual Fed loans are much lower. The $20 trillion number is the guesstimate of how much entitlements will oustrip revenues, and that is a real number that needs to be reckoned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Tom is wonderful! Ok, are all you you butt lickers happy??? Or are all of you the same person or something? That's a pretty wierd thought, that Tom, GG, AD/Simon, ieatshit and the rest are all one or something close to it. It would explain a great deal...still I don't think so, but.... Geez dude I didn't say Tom was wonderful ok? i just said he is not Mr. Pot like you called him. There are a lot of people on here who will defend pot no matter how many times some stoned dude runs over people with his car or some other tragedy happens. That makes a lot of "Mr. Pots" on this site, but Tom does not really get into it in those threads. I don't think he is a stoned out hippy like some of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) Apples & oranges. Fed loans were overnight emergency loans given during the financial crisis to banks & other firms eligible to receive it. If you do the math it's an average of about $18bn outstanding on any given day, which is not a huge number. If you also assume that most of that funding wen out during 2008 at the peak of the crisis, the actual Fed loans are much lower. The $20 trillion number is the guesstimate of how much entitlements will oustrip revenues, and that is a real number that needs to be reckoned with. Granted on the first count. But the thing is, we're just hearing this? It took Ron Paul tilting at the windmill for a long time to even get an accounting of how public $ are being used. Considering that the federal govt's annual outlay is ~$3.5 trillion last I checked (not counting war spending, i believe, which is what... $1T - $1.5T a year?). We would have to halve the federal budget, and we still wouldn't be there. And that doesn't even solve the problem, it just gets us adequate footing to be able to pay the debt. On top of that, the number that should make everyone **** bricks is the $62 trillion for Social Security / Medicare. Where the !@#$ is that going to come from? The Lydon Johnson Ponzi Scheme is finally going to collapse, and Democrats have more of the same 'Tax private jets!... Tax sex! Tax air!' Like an abscessed tooth without dental insurance, this is going to cost a deal and it ain't going to tickle... or, more likely, Washington has and will just take some painkillers, delay treatment and wait until the whole body is in sepsis. Which won't be long now. Edited July 25, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 So, will this resolve the recurring question of whether a Democrat or a Republican can piss farther? If not, what's the sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Granted on the first count. But the thing is, we're just hearing this? It took Ron Paul tilting at the windmill for a long time to even get an accounting of how public $ are being used. Considering that the federal govt's annual outlay is ~$3.5 trillion last I checked (not counting war spending, i believe, which is what... $1T - $1.5T a year?). We would have to halve the federal budget, and we still wouldn't be there. And that doesn't even solve the problem, it just gets us adequate footing to be able to pay the debt. On top of that, the number that should make everyone **** bricks is the $62 trillion for Social Security / Medicare. Where the !@#$ is that going to come from? The Lydon Johnson Ponzi Scheme is finally going to collapse, and Democrats have more of the same 'Tax private jets!... Tax sex! Tax air!' Like an abscessed tooth without dental insurance, this is going to cost a deal and it ain't going to tickle... or, more likely, Washington has and will just take some painkillers, delay treatment and wait until the whole body is in sepsis. Which won't be long now. you do realize this scary number brought to you by Rep Frank Wolf is 1. a 75 year projection 2. already been revised downward by 13 trillion dollars 3. not like a mortgage where the payments are set in stone but the terms of benefits may be changed by congress at anytime. 4. based on life expectancy figures that may be very overly optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 you do realize this scary number brought to you by Rep Frank Wolf is 1. a 75 year projection 2. already been revised downward by 13 trillion dollars 3. not like a mortgage where the payments are set in stone but the terms of benefits may be changed by congress at anytime. 4. based on life expectancy figures that may be very overly optimistic. Wow, do I feel better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 So, will this resolve the recurring question of whether a Democrat or a Republican can piss farther? If not, what's the sense.... Your missing the point... this isn't a wang measuring contest... the democrats along with RINO republicans want to spend the country to oblivion in return to win them public support and votes. We simply CANNOT continue at this rate its that d@mn simple. it's not political its fact. the libtard media can spin this however they want but at the end of the day the REALITY is the country mathematically can't continue like this. people don't want to hear that entitlements have to be pulled back and politicans grandstand the issues at the expense of the country to gain votes. It has to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Don't Get Caught Holding Dollars When The U.S. Default Arrives No ****. Who didn't know that? We know how much the Federal Reserve doled out in emergency loans: $16.1 trillion between Dec. 1, 2007, and July 21, 2010. So? How much of that is still outstanding? If I refinance my home three times with my lender, including the purhcase they've loaned out $4M...but there's only $1M outstanding. So what does $16.1T "doled out between Dec. 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010" really meam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 you do realize this scary number brought to you by Rep Frank Wolf is 1. a 75 year projection 2. already been revised downward by 13 trillion dollars 3. not like a mortgage where the payments are set in stone but the terms of benefits may be changed by congress at anytime. 4. based on life expectancy figures that may be very overly optimistic. And why have the estimates been revised downward by $13 trillion? By optimistic, do you mean that the future funding hole will actually be bigger or smaller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 And why have the estimates been revised downward by $13 trillion? By optimistic, do you mean that the future funding hole will actually be bigger or smaller? I think he means "The government uses cash-based accounting methods, so it can be ignored." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-democrats-cave/242467/ Looks like Democrats are surrendering on this one. Will the GOP be able to get this through the House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 life expectancy poliifact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 life expectancy Thanks for the fourth-hand inaccurate information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-democrats-cave/242467/ Looks like Democrats are surrendering on this one. Will the GOP be able to get this through the House? Will be interesting to see how this plays out as Reid included troop withdrawals as part of the budget cuts, but that is something of a misnomer since (a) the WH has announced the troop withdrawals, so it's not like it's a new cut to the budget, and (b) one bad event and those troop withdrawals go away, as do the budget cuts. In the end, I think the hand Boehner played this weekend will turn out to be the one to move Reid along: do this in two steps with the second step taking place next year during the election. Obama won't have time to deal with this next year as he will be in fulltime campaign mode and doesn't need this battle to play out again. So in exchange for not making this an election year issue, the left gives up on tax hikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Thanks for the fourth-hand inaccurate information. You can't prove that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 life expectancy poliifact Where's the Youtube link? Are we supposed to deduce that a study that purports that the US expectancy fell RELATIVE to other countries means that the US life expctancy is falling? Or is it rising slower than the other countries? The politifact article is equally ridiculous, because the idiot economists are arguing that because SSI & Medicare benefits are not contractual, Congress can amend them at any time. Now that's a belly laugh. Perhaps now you can play your favorite clip of Wasserman Schultz on the probability of Congress taking action to reduce SSI & Medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 You can't prove that! http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 Are we supposed to deduce that a study that purports that the US expectancy fell RELATIVE to other countries means that the US life expctancy is falling? Or is it rising slower than the other countries? Don't even bother. He's linking to a report of a Reuters report of the study, which itself doesn't say what he thinks it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) For Immediate Release: December 9, 2010 Contact: CDC National Center for Health Statistics (301) 458-4800 Stroke Drops to Fourth Leading Cause of Death in 2008 U.S Life expectancy declines slightly according to latest CDC deaths report Stroke is now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, down from the third place ranking it has held for decades, according to preliminary 2008 death statistics released today by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. While deaths from stroke and several other chronic diseases are down, deaths due to chronic lower respiratory disease increased in 2008. There were 133,750 deaths from stroke in 2008. Age-adjusted death rates from stroke declined 3.8 percent between 2007 and 2008. Meantime, there were 141,075 deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease and the death rate increased by 7.8 percent. Some of the increase in deaths may be due to a modification made by the World Health Organization in the way deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseases are classified and coded. The National Center for Health Statistics will conduct a thorough analysis on this change and its effect on the chronic lower respiratory disease category before the final 2008 deaths data are released. "Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2008," also finds that life expectancy at birth dropped slightly to 77.8 years from 77.9 years in 2007. Life expectancy was down by one-tenth of a year (a little over a month) for both men and women. However, black males had a record high life expectancy in 2008 of 70.2 years – up from 70 years in 2007. The life expectancy gap between the white and black populations was 4.6 years in 2008, a decrease of two-tenths of a year from 2007. The data are based on 99 percent of death certificates reported to NCHS through the National Vital Statistics System from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Other findings: Heart disease and cancer, the two leading causes of death, still accounted for nearly half (48 percent) of all deaths in 2008. In addition to stroke, mortality rates declined significantly for five of the other 15 leading causes of death: accidents/unintentional injuries (3.5 percent), homicide (3.3 percent), diabetes (3.1 percent), heart disease (2.2 percent), and cancer (1.6 percent). In addition to chronic lower respiratory disease, death rates increased significantly in 2008 for Alzheimer's disease (7.5 percent), influenza and pneumonia (4.9 percent), high blood pressure (4.1 percent), suicide (2.7 percent), and kidney disease (2.1 percent). The preliminary infant mortality rate for 2008 was 6.59 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 2.4 percent decline from the 2007 rate of 6.77 and an all-time record low. Birth defects were the leading cause of infant death in 2008, followed by disorders related to preterm birth and low birth weight. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was the third leading cause of infant death in the United States. Overall, there were 2,473,018 deaths in the United States in 2008, according to the preliminary deaths report – 49,306 more deaths than the 2007 total. The age-adjusted death rate for the U.S. population fell to 758.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2008 compared to the 2007 rate of 760.2. The full report is available at www.cdc.gov/nchs. ### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES For you Tommy I'll spoon feed it. But of course one year don't mean much but you put all the coming obesity related illness together with end of life pneumonia that may soon become untreatable by any known antibiotic and we could go to a period of declining not rising life expectancy. Edited July 25, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 life expectancy poliifact What gives? Are you in a contest with Birddog to see who can descend furthest from the mean? From your own article: The authors of the report also posited that high rates of obesity, smoking, homicides and traffic fatalities may have contributed to the decline. Using life expectancy to measure health care efficiency is even dumber than judging tire safety with aggregate trafic fatalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 What gives? Are you in a contest with Birddog to see who can descend furthest from the mean? From your own article: Using life expectancy to measure health care efficiency is even dumber than judging tire safety with aggregate trafic fatalities. do you mean to say a contest to see who's the furthest negative outlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts