Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’m sure the rhetoric is going to ratchet up even further as Election Day approaches, with idiots from both sides peddling their version of the truth on this board.I don’t know if you caught Obama on The Tonight Show, but I thought he comported himself well and is smartly using his bully pulpit to disseminate his message. With the craziness on the GOP side, the Republicans are essentially ceding the election to Obama.[/quote]
The adventures in GOP land have been truly mind boggling. There were two candidates that I thought might be competitive in the general, and it’s now down to one, and Romney may not even get the nomination. And if he does, Obama can thank his opponents for testing every bit of op research.
Had I been both prescient and nice, I would have warned the Republican party elite to be careful of what they wish for. Sadly for them, I am neither. They are likely to end up with a candidate that they don’t much like, or a candidate that nobody outside of their base constituency likes. Either way, not a good sign for down ticket support. A slow and consistent uptick in consumer confidence over the next 9 months (that has apparently already started) could make it a landslide.
And I don’t know if that’s good or bad. (But an Obama administration without Tim Geithner would definitely be an improvement.)
Participant[quote=markmax33]I want to reduce transactions costs to a fraction of a percent like in other industries that have high value transactions. [/quote]
Other than financial instruments and commodities, what industry has high value transactions with transaction costs that are a fraction of a percent?
Participant[quote=John Ogre][quote=SK in CV]Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.[/quote]There’s no disconnect and your claim is 100% false. Sorry for being stern on this but the misinformation from those on the right has been repeated over and over for decades.
There’s nothing stopping the SS fund from demanding only marketable treasuries that you and I can purchase, it’s just that the original rules of SS “custodianship” have been bastardized.
The 2 reasons the SS trust fund now exclusively holds special issue securities is because SS surpluses reduced the reported annual deficits (as seen in http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf) and special issue securities pay a lower than market rate.
Most people don’t understand the difference between debt and deficits let alone the concept of intra-fund debt. It’s easier for people to just believe any bullshit their side tells them. Hell I’d lie to you too if I had something to gain.
I can loan you $10 but that doesn’t make you $10 richer. I’m sure Ron Paulites’ brains are smoldering right now.[/quote]
Ok, I’m not sure where you think I was wrong. I wasn’t. The SS trust fund must buy either marketable US debt, or special issue debt. Either way, they are lending money to the federal government. Go back to my original comment. I never claimed differently.
And if you’re arguing that I’m repeating right wing talking points, eh….whatever. Politically, i’m somewhere to the south and left of gandhi. But I don’t let other’s ideologies get in the way of facts.
Participant[quote=John Ogre]
The Social Security surplus can and was (prior to the 60’s) invested primarily in marketable securities. The link below can answer all the basic questions.http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/
[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it that you’ve read that somewhere. But on the linked site i found:
Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?
A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and “special obligation” securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the “special obligation” type. (See additional explanation from SSA’s Office of the Actuary.)
and
The Social Security trust funds, managed by the Department of the Treasury, are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government.
There are two general types of such securities:
1.special issues—securities available only to the trust funds; and
2.public issues—securities available to the public (marketable securities).
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.I think maybe the disconnect is in #2 of the second quoted section. It refers to marketable securities. But that’s not stocks. It’s marketable securities issued by the US government. The same debt instruments that you or I could buy. Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.
ParticipantHere’s what the polls look like right now. I have to admit, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Ron Paul has shown consistency. And for him and his supporters, it’s good, his support is pretty continuously rising.
The only bad part about it is, at this rate of gains in his support, he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2024.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
SK,
An audit implies that you look at everything that institution does not just 10% or 20% of it. The independent audits do not report on any more information than the GAO audits. Show me the exempted areas in the audit and the other 80-90% the fed does and prove me wrong. That’s why I called it a fake audit. It is a trick to make the general public believe they are being audited and it has been surprisingly effective for many years.[/quote]
I’ll go through this with you one more time Mark. An audit tests compliance. That’s all it does. It tests whether established processes and protocols have been followed. There is no such thing as a “complete audit”. An audit has a specific scope. It does not verify every event or transaction. It tests, using statistical sampling within an acceptable margin of error. What it does not do, is look at everything a entity does. Nor does it guarantee compliance, only reports on the level of compliance. It does not fix problems, only identifies areas that need fixing. And I’ll repeat one more time, there is no such thing as a “complete audit”.
The reports I linked to included financial audits, and the reports outline the scope of those audits.
I don’t want to pull rank on you, but this is something I happen to know about. Back in the old days, at the beginning of the 20th century, all CPA’s learned how to do audits. It was required in order to get certified. It was the first thing I did. I hated it, but I learned how to do it. I managed audits. My firm did 20-30 audits every year. (almost never profitable, btw) I did financial audits. Inventory audits. Medical records compliance audits. Time card audits. Techonology audits. None of them are “complete audits”.
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
SK – LOL! These aren’t full fed audits! These are the fake audits they put out! Don’t you know the first partial audit was done in 2008![/quote]
LOL! You don’t know what an audit is![/quote]
SK,
I’m sorry I came at your with the 30 year old language. I know that gets you older guys riled up and I don’t intend to do that. Here are the areas exempt from an annual audit of the Federal reserve, and this includes almost everything the do:Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The law excludes the following areas from GAO inspections (31 USCA §714):(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks,
securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.[/quote]Let me get this straight. The fed was never audited before a couple years ago because anything that isn’t on the exclusion list is a fake audit. And the only real audit is one that includes the specific things that you want it to include. Do I have that right?
And the link wasn’t to GAO audits. It was to reports that included audits done by independent outside auditors. Which are done every year.
Participant[quote=UCGal]I jumped to the conclusion because of the lack of gas meter and the lack of cooking range. Based on my experience and what I observed with a friend’s rental.
But you’re right – the rules are different for different jurisdictions. I’m very familiar with San Diego’s rules for accessory buildings, but a lot less familiar with other places… other than some of the ways they differ from SD.
We were surprised that we couldn’t get the gas meter till the city issued occupancy. But that is apparently done to prevent folks from occupying early.[/quote]
I had a granny flat in poway. Basically a 1200 sq ft 2 bedroom house in the back yard. No separate meter, with an electric range/hood and a full bath. The permitting was a little touchy, it was apparently built while Poway was assuming full responsibilty from the county, so some of it was grandfathered, without inspections and without full specs in the records. No separate meters. But it was all legal.
So I think you’re right, there may be big differences based on jurisdiction.
Participant[quote=UCGal]It sounds like it’s not zoned as a secondary unit. Usually the enforcement in this situation is to remove the range (already done) and possibly make you remove any shower/tub. Friends were renting a house in north park and another friend was renting the converted garage… the previous tenants were law students who stopped paying rent and called in the violation just to be punks (per my friend). The $&&$ hit the fan while their friend was in the unpermitted conversion.
When we built our companion unit, turning our SFR into a multifamily, getting the gas meter was the very last thing done… happening only after occupancy had been given by the city of San Diego. That’s why you don’t have the meter.
Theoretically, you might be able to legally convert it to a multifamily if you meet the kafka-esque requirements (assuming you are city of San Diego)[/quote]
I’m curious why you jumped to the conclusion that it’s not zoned as a secondary unit? There are certainly parts of the county where there are fully permitted additional units, no?
Participant[quote=markmax33]
SK – LOL! These aren’t full fed audits! These are the fake audits they put out! Don’t you know the first partial audit was done in 2008![/quote]
LOL! You don’t know what an audit is!
Participant[quote=markmax33]
Just because we don’t have an audit during the Clinton/Bush timeframe doesn’t mean there wasn’t massive visible manipulation through changing interest rates and more items that were less visible.[/quote]
Which years did you want to see fed audits for? in about 2 minutes i found audits for years 1995 through 2010. A few more minutes I could probably find the older ones.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/default.htm
Participant[quote=CONCHO]
Not taking sides here, but there really was no “Clinton surplus.” The illusion of a surplus was created by borrowing from social security. This article gives a pretty good overview of the trickery involved. During his time in office, the national debt increased 26% from $4.5T to $5.7T. You can see this for yourself over in the data section at treasurydirect.gov.[/quote]
I think there’s a bit of a misconception about the borrowing from social security. It’s not an option. (I’m not disputing the fallacy of the Clinton budget surplus. I vaguely remember looking into it and finding the argument lacking, but it’s not something I want to look into again.) If there is a surplus of social security collected over social security paid out, it MUST be used to purchase government debt, and will result in an increase in total government debt. That’s statutory. There are no other legal places for that surplus to go. Theoretically, if there is a balanced budget, it will also result in a net pay down of other public debt.
ParticipantI gotta take this bit by bit.
[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL I agree with you entirely, especially your points about Wall Street and Obamacare. The rich have certainly gotten richer and Wall Street has benefited greatly. [/quote]
To a great extent, wall street/big banks control congress. And to a great extent, the administration. Lip service to consumer protection reform, but it’s all within acceptable levels. And then they still whine that they’re getting shafted.
[quote=SD Realtor]I guess my point was with regards to the voters or supporters, not Obama himself….to me there was little to no ideological differences between Obama supporters or the left in general. I think that the some of these threads have pointed out there are substantial differences…of course those are all my own shortcomings. [/quote]
Obama is not a leftist. Never has been. Slightly left of center at the most. The vast majority that voted for him were in the middle politically. There just aren’t that many leftists. There was never any question who those on the left would vote for, they invariably either sit home or vote for dems. He got elected because of enthusiasm and the centrist independents.
[quote=SD Realtor]I believe that there is a very large segment of Obama supporters that fall into the CAR camp. That unions, public employees have been persecuted more the then private sector, and that the compensation of employees across all sectors public, private, union, non union is equivalent. That Wall Street is 100% responsible for all the woes in our country. That big business provides no benefits, and all profits should go to the workers. Never mind about capital investment, etc… [/quote]
I’m not sure where you get that “unions, public employees have been persecuted”. Or the “Wall Street is 100% responsible…”. Both are binary, either you hate them or you love them. I don’t think most voters think that way. I think most probably lean one way or the other. I’ve never heard anyone argue that employees should get everything and corporations should get nothing.
Obama was never a huge supporter of unions (based on his voting record, and the way he’s governed since election), his rhetoric notwithstanding. And he certainly has never been anti-Wall Street, despite what his silly detractors say. He wasn’t before he was elected, and he hasn’t been since then. If he was, he would have made Elizabeth Warren the recess appointment instead of Richard Cordray.
[quote=SD Realtor]There is another substantial block that falls into the entitlement camp. They are the “I will take every advantage of the social safety net that is out there without really putting in the effort to help myself”.. and this president will see to it that I get more and more…. [/quote]
Those people (and I suspect they’re a tiny minority) should be greatly disappointed. Other than getting unemployment benefit extensions, they haven’t got much so far.
January 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #736250Participant[quote=markmax33]
I know you can read correct? Have you read SOPA? Just because Congress says the name of the bill is “Stop Online Piracy Act” do you believe it is Consitutional? Come on, I’ve got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.You are correct that Congress can pass laws to protect intelluctual property. They cannot do what they are proposing in SOPA. Again this website would have to be immediately shut down or Rich Toscano would be held liable for any link on the website and Rich would have to police the internet. You should really read the law and you should be irate that it even made it anywhere near Congress. It is only the general welfare clause that allows them to propose such a thing.[/quote]
Either you can argue that the general welfare clause only applies to the enumerated powers or it applies to powers beyond those that are enumerated (as the courts have held). But now you seem to be arguing that it should be meaningless, that it doesn’t exist at all, and that congress is not authorized to ever consider general welfare.
I am bothered that it’s made it anywhere near congress, and thankfully, it’s highly unlikely to pass. But you’ve made it unconstitutional, not based on what’s in the constitution, but rather what you want the constitution to say. I’ll call it the markmax amendment.
-
AuthorPosts
