2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs.

Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality

by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 12:08

Via SchiffGold.com,
Just over a week ago, President Trump delivered the State of the Union speech. The president gave a speech with a decidedly optimistic tone. This was certainly
welcome with the increasingly fractured and divided American political landscape. But it’s important to focus beyond the political theater and take a hard look at where
the US economy really is and where it is heading. Unfortunately, the political rhetoric doesn’t always line up with economic reality.

As Peter Schiff has said on numerous occasions, President Trump has taken full ownership of the current bubble economy. In doing so, he’s setting himself up as the
fall-guy when things turn sour. Peter put it in pretty stark terms during an interview with Stock Pulse at the Vancouver Resouce Investment Conference.

He is so caught up in this bubble now in the stock market. He’s branded it … The stock market has a big ‘T’ on it for Trump, like one of his buildings.”

So, how exactly does the political rhetoric coming out of the Oval Office stack up against the current economic realities?
Dan Kurz at DK Analytics provided a pretty good breakdown of some key issues where the positive talk doesn’t line up with what’s actually going on.

1. What used to be an ugly stock market bubble that would be pricked by higher interest rates, according to candidate Trump, is now proof that president
Trump is doing a great job. Yet, the S&P 500 is currently trading nearly 25x EPS, the broader Wilshire 5000 Index has rocketed higher, and margin debt is nearly
$600 billion – a record.
2. In the interim, a recession, which is way overdue, will crush earnings; US aggregate debt rises between $1 trillion and $2 trillion a year; and interest rates are
rising smartly, which will pummel valuations if it continues, especially with a recessionary EPS downdraft of 50% plus being likely in the near future based on
precedents. (We review such a scenario in some detail in posts #25 and #24, wherein we quantify the rising interest rate impact on the S&P 500’s NPV and wherein we
remind investors that markets are “reversion beyond the mean” machines, respectively.)

Wharton’s Advanced Finance Program: Cutting-Edge Finance Wharton Executive Education

Invaluable advice for expats everywhere Internaxx

3. What used to be a fake unemployment rate when Trump was a candidate is now lauded as the “real deal,” even as the civilian labor force participation rate of
62.7% hovers near four-decade lows and two or three low-paying, no-benefit part-time jobs swell the employed ranks while full-time positions continue to be culled.
This is insincere.

4. During the address, Trump also stated, “Under my administration, wealth is starting to return to America instead of leaving it.” Mr. President, sadly the
opposite has been happening, at least so far, as evidenced by a continued rise in the US trade deficit, a substantial portion of which is due to rising oil import prices
(and no, Donald Trump, we are not energy self-sufficient. We remain net importers of oil, and our gap could expand as the fracking bubble collapses). Once again, the
president’s claims here are misleading at best.
5. President Trump talks a lot about regulatory reform liberating businesses to hire and invest. According to the American Action Forum outfit, regulatory relief
of $560 million p.a. from Executive Order 13,771 (two struck for every new regulation or “reg”) can be expected. While praiseworthy, this is but a rounding error
compared to an estimated $2 trillion-plus in annual regulatory compliance costs for US economy. While a sharp reduction in federal register pages (where federal rules
and regs are published) from Obama’s “out the door” bloat looks promising, we wonder how any true or lasting reforms can be achieved until regulatory agencies are
shut down and statist/leftist bureaucrats are fired, esp. given the risk that the GOP control of the fed government could prove only temporary — which Trump himself
recently warned about.

6. Trump protectionism – a disconnect. On the heels of going to Davos and touting that America is again open for business thanks to tax cuts and regulatory reform,
Trump was quick to slap high tariffs on solar panels, washing machines, and on select steel imports. Three issues here: first, lots of stuff just isn’t made in America
anymore, so higher tariffs line government pockets and hurt consumers and producers alike — such as those installing foreign made solar panels that stand to lose
customers or those using cheaper foreign steel in high value-added finished products that are exported — while they raise inflation. Second, raising tariffs on US
imports will quickly result in higher tariffs on US exports. Third, we all know what can happen to the global economy if countries get into trade wars. It’s spelled Smoot
Hawley, revisited and the 1930s depression.

7. Speaking of policy destructiveness; bloated federal government spending is up 3.8% year-over-year and is set to increase faster as Trump touts various
new spending initiatives from (what will sadly ultimately prove to be) pork barrel, crony infrastructure projects to “offensive capacity” military spending growth de
facto financed by the “rest of the world.” In the interim, tax rate reductions will pressure tax receipts. Finally, weaker economic growth will dramatically increase
government spending on welfare and transfer payments. Talk about a perfect deficit-widening storm dead ahead! And this is before secular challenge known as an
aging society and its impact on public sector solvency! Is any of this discussed, much less addressed, in Washington D.C.?

8. We could see a $1.5 trillion – $2 trillion plus dollar federal deficit within a few years if not sooner. And if the Fed really sells $600 billion of Treasuries a year,
at what price — how high of a yield — will investors and the rest of the world be willing to soak up between $1.5 trillion – $2.6 trillion worth of US Treasuries possibly
coming on to the market annually for a time?
9. The above is of particular concern as the rest of the world finances a US goods and services deficit that averages about $500 billion a year and expanded to $600
billion in 2017. Meanwhile, America is a net debtor nation to the tune of $8.4 trillion. In such a world, when you openly state that the US government would
welcome a weaker dollar in a period of low interest rates, great external financing dependency, a weakening currency, and rising inflation, you are driving
away potential investors and thus de facto raising the cost of borrowing, especially if sentiment shifts or confidences wanes. And, by the way, if currency
debasement helped to reduce trade deficits, America, having the tailwind of a dollar that has fallen about 80% since Bretton Woods dollar-gold standard was
terminated nearly 47 years ago, should have huge annual trade surpluses by now in place of gaping deficits.
Trending Articles
WSJ Asks: Why Is The Media Ignoring The Real Bombshell…
We'll bring you Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel's tweetstorm in a moment, but
I'll take a stab at…

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 1/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge
 

Powered By

10. You cannot simultaneously grow a spendthrift federal government, cut taxes, and then be sanguine. You can’t grow spending by $300 billion-plus, reduce
tax revenues by an estimated $280 billion, and add it to a $666 billion deficit and over $21 trillion in debt and expect good things.

11. In short, Trump is NOT leveling with the American people in terms of what really needs to be done for the benefit of future generations who will
otherwise be hobbled by mountains of debt and the related financing costs, namely: focus on cutting government spending, achieving a balanced budget,
aggressively pursuing litigation reform (US liability costs are 2.6 times the EU average), securing long-lasting regulatory relief, and pursuing the solid money that
Andrew Jackson pursued when he killed the second US central bank. Noteworthy, the portrait of Andrew Jackson, who Trump greatly admires, adorns the oval office.

12. America is some $68 trillion in debt when combining federal, state, corporate, and individual/family level debt. US GDP is nearly $20trn. Each one
percentage point higher borrowing costs from abnormally low interest rates increases America’s cost of funding by roughly $680 billion p.a. (most debt, including the
US government’s, is not long-term in nature, thus susceptible to higher refinancing costs if interest rates keep rising). In fact, if the average cost of borrowing rose by
just two percentage points — say 10-year Treasuries yielded 4.8% — the US’s financing cost would quickly soar by $1.36 trillion or by 7% of GDP.

13. As we have stated and written, markets are reversion beyond the mean machines. And given the mountains of debt we have accumulated, both solvency and
inflation risks (in terms of printing even much more money) suggest that we could easily have a 10-year Treasury that someday yields 7.8% or 8.8% — recall that we
exceeded 15% during Volcker’s “tough love” in the early 80s with a fraction of the debt. Five percentage points higher funding costs than today would raise America’s
aggregate borrowing cost by roughly $3.4 trillion p.a. from current levels, or by 17% of current GDP. A non-starter. Our point: given the huge indebtedness, relatively
feeble manufacturing capacity, and income and debt constrained consumers, higher interest rates could easily choke off and even reverse the positive impact of lower
tax rates because they are financed by yet more debt instead of through government spending cuts.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 2/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge
14. Sadly, too many of Trump’s policies will ultimately rely on the very printing press that has gotten us deeper and deeper into debt, into yield starvation,
into huge misallocations, into cratering productivity growth, and into accelerating solvency risks and inflation risks. Inflation is the largest stealthy property
thief for the average person, and especially for retired folks, who are dependent on a fixed income stream and bond investment returns.
15. Year-over-year wage growth is 2.4% overall and but 2.2% in supposedly robust manufacturing while inflation is picking up, the housing bubble has eclipsed the
2006 highs, and mortgage rates are rising briskly — in short, housing is increasingly unaffordable for most Americans. In a related sense, we wonder how a 65-
year low in the unemployment rate and low wage growth rates are possible at the same time?

16. The personal savings rate has plummeted to 2.4% from 5.9% two years ago as record auto loans ($1.1 trillion) and student loans ($1.5 trillion plus) suggest tapped
out consumers. It also implies substantial demand has been borrowed from the future, i.e., that it won’t be there this year or next. If the “consumption function” is
over 70% of GDP, this isn’t an academic issue.

And in the past when confidence soared and the savings rate collapsed, things did not end well...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 3/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

25555  104 

Sponsored Stories

AK-47 Rifles, Claymore Mines, & Iran's Revolutionary Guard Vows ‫ھذة اﻟﻔﺗﺎة ﺗرﺑﺢ اﻵﻻف ﻣن اﻟرﯾﺎﻻت ﯾوﻣﯾﺎ ً وھﻰ ﺟﺎﻟﺳﺔ‬
Grenade Launchers Discovered On "Hell To The Zionists" As Putin ‫ ﻛﯾف ﺗﻔﻌل‬.‫ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻧزل‬
Mexico Border Warns Netanyahu (‫)ﻓرﺻﮫ اﺳﺗﺛﻣﺎرﯾﮫ ﻣﺣدودة‬
(ZH) (ZH)

On The Syria Occupation And The Lunch or BBQ Buffet wi... $20 Billion Hidden In The Swamp:
New Face Of Imperialism (groupon.ae) Feds Redact 255,000 Salaries
(ZH) (ZH)

More Stories You May Like

Little Barbies: Sex Trafficking Of Young Girls Is Credit Suisse Tumbles On Fears Of Massive XIV Loss
America's Dirty Little Secret (ZH)
(ZH)

AK-47 Rifles, Claymore Mines, & Grenade Launchers On The Syria Occupation And The New Face Of
Discovered On Mexico Border Imperialism
(ZH) (ZH)

Dalio's $13 Billion Short: Bridgewater Unveils Its After The Historic Risk Parity & CTA Crash, What's
Biggest Ever Short Position Next?
(ZH) (ZH)

Platter with Drink for... Meet The US Army's Latest Killer-Robotic Humvees
(groupon.ae) (ZH)

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 4/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge
(g oupo ae) ( )

France: Migrant Crisis Spirals Out Of Control $20 Billion Hidden In The Swamp: Feds Redact 255,000
(ZH) Salaries
(ZH)

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Vows "Hell To The Zionists" Is The Steele Dossier Full Of "Russian Dirt" - Or British?
As Putin Warns Netanyahu (ZH)
(ZH)

Comments

Sort by Thread Date Order Oldest Items per page 50

curbjob • Feb 9, 2018 12:09 PM

30 Permalink
7 By electing Mr Trump the American people have gone into business with him.

It would be worth while considering how previous people who went into business with him fared ?

.. or not.

16 GoingBig  curbjob • Feb 9, 2018 12:15 PM

Permalink
2
Exactly. And what the heck ever happened to the staunchly fiscally conservative republicans? Where are they? Now the GOP are neck in neck with
the Democrats in who can spend more.... Geez Louis this is nuts. Our kids are going to have to pay for this shit@@@

5 OceanX  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:17 PM

Permalink
0
IMO, the debt will be settled, perhaps China will end up with Hawaii ...How was it that the U.S. ended up with Alaska?

8 GunnyHerd  OceanX • Feb 9, 2018 12:21 PM

Permalink
8
The Orange Joolius aims to be the globally undisputed King of Debt.

1 robertsgt40  GunnyHerd • Feb 9, 2018 2:51 PM

Permalink
0
I agree, there is a big "T" on the market. TANK comes to mind. 

11 HenryJonesJr  OceanX • Feb 9, 2018 12:22 PM

Permalink
4
Good.  Let them have Hawaii.   The "local" Hawaiians hate us Mainlanders anyway.  Let the islanders get a good taste of Chinese imperialism.

2 arby63  HenryJonesJr • Feb 9, 2018 12:27 PM

Permalink
0
True that. I tend to think Hawaiians hate everyone.

0 ZeroLounger  arby63 • Feb 9, 2018 5:29 PM

Permalink
0
.

2 GoinFawr  HenryJonesJr • Feb 9, 2018 12:52 PM

Permalink
3
Er, why does it have to be the US imperialism or Chinese imperialism....couldn't Hawaiians simply have their own country back?

@ arby63: jeez I wonder why? (not)

http://www.pinkyshow.org/projectarchives/videos/part-3-hawaii-vs-us-imp…

"...in a nutshell, this is how the United States used fake democracy to create the perception that Hawaii "belongs" to the U.S: It's 1959, and the
UN has Hawaii on its official list of places that still need to be decolonized. There's an important new rule that's about to get passed in the
United Nations real soon called Resolution 1514. The U.S. knew Resolution 1514 would make it much more difficult for them to maintain
indefinite control over Hawaii - it would basically provide a framework by which Hawaii's future political status could be decided by Hawaiians -
who obviously might want their stolen lands back. The U.S. decides that the best way to keep Hawaii from being affected by the new UN rules is
to make Hawaii look more like one of its other states, instead of an occupied nation. To accomplish this, the U.S. quickly rushes a vote on
statehood to ballot, and to make sure that statehood 'wins', it rigs the election. After the election the U.S. tells the UN that Hawaii's
questionable status has been resolved and that Hawaii should be removed from the UN's list of colonies. That's basically what happened. "

7 Baron von Bud  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 1:04 PM

Permalink
2
The Hawaiians are always bitching, "You deposed our queen". Those people were tribal idiots killing each other before whitey showed up.
Today whitey owns everything and less than 2% of the population has pure native blood. But they've got good cable, internet, and some of the
best weed on the planet. How many would go back to the old ways? Zero.

3 GoinFawr  Baron von Bud • Feb 9, 2018 1:08 PM

Permalink

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 5/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge
1
Explain again why Hawaiians HAVE to go back to all the 'old ways' if they get their country back? Surely you're not so idiotic as to think it has
everything to do with the melanin content of their skin..

OTOH, I suppose even if they did regress at least it would be their own choice...

And here I thought you kumbiya capitalists were all about 'voluntary associations'; guess that's just when it's convenient, how convenient.

ps
"Those people were tribal idiots killing each other before whitey showed up."

And "whitey" isn't/wasn't exactly the same? Go on, pull the other one you usefully idiotic apologist.

Yeah, your "my neighbours were fighting, so I killed them and took all their stuff, so now they're better off because their kids have internet"
isn't much of an argument.

0 Baron von Bud  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 1:20 PM

Permalink
1
Personally I don't care if they go tribal again. But they'd demand the mainland pay them reparations for the next 500 years. That's what we're
doing with the inner cities and Indians on the rez. In the real world might makes right. I agree that's a damn poor way to run a planet but it's
human nature I guess. We're paying the price for past greed.

0 GoinFawr  Baron von Bud • Feb 9, 2018 1:32 PM

Permalink
1
"But they'd demand the mainland pay them reparations for the next 500 years"
I'd wager if they got their rightful sovereignty back that your conjecture would be moot.

As a bonus I've got money on my flank that says that if that happened they'd be a lot less resentful towards your "whitey"

0 eforce  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 1:38 PM

Permalink
0
Trump has already hinted before what he'd do regarding the debt (stick it to the creditors).

If you owe the bank $20m your fucked, if you owe them $20tn their fucked.

0 GoinFawr  eforce • Feb 9, 2018 1:52 PM

Permalink
1
lol at the risk of dating myself I recall that ol' chestnut used to go,

"If you owe the bank 10 large, the bank owns you, if you owe the bank a million, you own the bank"!
THat said, if Mr.Trump does what you say I'll paint my face orange too.

0 D503  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 1:57 PM

Permalink
2
I'd love to see someone run on the "End welfare, social security, education programs, food stamps, and free healthcare for the elderly"
platform. That will generate a surplus instantly.  

Oh,  we don't actually like "economic reality?" Just makes a good talking point, eh Shiff?

2 GoinFawr  D503 • Feb 9, 2018 2:09 PM

Permalink
1
I find it fascinating, and telling, that you completely avoid mentioning the grandest welfare queen of them all and one that,
coincidentally, has the least net positive effect for those directly paying for it and alone amounts to more than all the useful, decent
things you apparently hate so much:

Dept. of 'Defense'....
So I am guessing that doesn't warrant even honourable mention for you because the slightest cut would bleed your personal shit swilling
surveying pocketbook mightily, hey MICkey D503?
ps

Everyone who works(ed) already pays(paid) into SS every single working hour of their lives: it's already theirs, asshole.

0 LibertarianMenace  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 4:21 PM

Permalink
0
"the grandest welfare queen of them all"

is well, you didn't guess it, transfer payments(i.e., welfare):

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2016/presidents-2017-budget…

SS payments aren't all theirs either. The present value of the income stream in retirement exceeds a participant's lifetime
"contributions".
 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-an…

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 6/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

"According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in
benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out"
works out to $21.6 trillion.

"The $21.6 trillion number will change as soon as we change policies whereby today’s generations pay more taxes or surrender some
benefits," Gokhale said.

"But until that happens, the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax
payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into
the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it
is!""
 

Shad yer trap up.

0 GoinFawr  LibertarianMenace • Feb 9, 2018 6:05 PM

Permalink
0
"Shad yer trap up"

Well, nObody was talking to you, but:

You. Wish.
"SS payments aren't all theirs either. The present value of the income stream in retirement exceeds a participant's lifetime
"contributions". "
Actually that depends on the "contributor" and disingenuously ignores completely all other taxation, but in any case the fact remains
that, at the very least, those taking something out of SS actually put something in their whole working lives, oh so unlike the MIC which
only drains revenue, and never contributes. So, even if your linked 'pie chart' was precisely correct (it isn't, and I'd bet you know it), that
still doesn't rebut my genuinely salient points that

1. SS directly benefits those that have contributed; it's hardly their fault that thus far their public money managers have sucked so
hard with their investment (unlike, eg. Norway's); which is the very opposite of what the nothing-but-cost of the MIC has been.
2. The MIC yet remains wholly unmentioned as, at the very least, a premium welfare queen, by 'D503' - or yourself for that matter.
3. THe MIC directly benefits who again, other than itself, exactly?
4. All of the above makes is what makes it "The Grandest Welfare Queen of All", not just the dollar figure.

Besides all this you and I both know your linked pie chart is woefully short (I'd say it's in the 'less than half' ballpark, wouldn't you? - If
you could afford to be honest, I mean) on what the US military actually costs/spends.
So, if you were looking for a decent place to start slashing spending with a ~clear conscience (assuming you are capable of having one)
and causing the least pain for actual American people, why would you not go full-on for cuts to the MIC first, before you even began
considering  downgrading granny's catfood from canned to no-name dry? (rhetorical question)

0 LibertarianMenace  GoinFawr • Feb 9, 2018 10:28 PM

Permalink
0
"So, even if your linked 'pie chart' was precisely correct (it isn't, and I'd bet you know it),"

Well, those facts are provided by a decidedly non-MIC friendly source, so take it up with them, but let's have it your way: quadruple the
MIC's official budget and it's still less than transfer payments. As always, proggies are in possession of facts that no one else can
access.
 

"So, if you were looking for a decent place to start slashing..."

Sorry, but there are no indecent places to leave untouched by cuts. All should be subject to the knife. Oh, and don't put words in my
mouth. I wasn't defending the MIC. Far from it. I'm just critical of ideology subbing for facts. But if you were honest, you'd know that.

0 GoinFawr  LibertarianMenace • Feb 10, 2018 12:03 AM

Permalink
0
"I wasn't defending the MIC. "
<shrugs> now that you mention it, you do sound a bit like someone who has had a polyp plucked...

Pie schart: Maybe it's just me, but I am not certain that the amounts the state reports always line up exactly with what they are
actually spending (tell us again how, thanks to leftist websites, you aren't the teeniest tiniest bit suspicious there might be vast
amounts of unaccounted for funding flowing throughout most if not all gov't dept's, let alone in the DoD).

"Grandest Welfare Queen" requires a much broader, expansive definition than simply $value, in my opinion.

 Obviously even Granny's cat food grade isn't untouchable in a crisis, I never said it was, but it should be one of the very last to go
rather than one of the first.
I'm talking order of operations, and you're "All, and immediately forthwith" -ing me. Yeah, why don't you go right ahead and fuck
yourself with that?

It is disingenuous to neglect adding all the perfectly worthy-of-addition taxes Granny has paid throughout her lifetime to her sum of
the SS equation, because that illustrates that on the whole Granny has certainly invested at least as much wealth as she eventually
extracts, end of. 

 Granny and Uncle Sam's relationship has been the very opposite of any gov't program that does nothing but extract labour/wealth,
and such a valuable fiscal distinction on its own warrants priority, imo.

 ie You want to wheedle and wangle about the bean counting, and I am explaining how that is irrelevant; even regardless of the
balance, at least Granny isn't a complete waste of effort because she's been putting skin in the game her whole life. and her sons' and
daughters' skins too, for that matter... through the military.
 

You couldn't even make this shit up.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 7/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

0 LibertarianMenace  GoinFawr • Feb 10, 2018 2:18 PM

Permalink
0
"Pie schart: Maybe it's just me, but I am not certain"

First honest thing you've written. Congrats.

 
"you aren't the teeniest tiniest bit suspicious there might be vast amounts of unaccounted for funding flowing throughout most if
not all gov't dept's, let alone in the DoD)."

Indeed, but then that logic follows for every program and priority including Granny and yours, apparently. DoD information's
unreliable? Then it's obviously all unreliable. And if it's off, it's off by more than a factor of four for the DoD alone, that is, if MIC
accounting is THE problem. Using selective facts and reasoning are proggie tactics. Fer shame.

"I'm talking order of operations, and you're "All, and immediately forthwith" -ing me. Yeah, why don't you go right ahead and
fuck yourself with that?"
Now who's had the polyp plucked? Not what I wrote, but that NOTHING should remain untouched. So we're returning to dishonesty.
In that event, I suggest you take your own advice.

"It is disingenuous to neglect adding all the perfectly worthy-of-addition taxes Granny has paid throughout her lifetime to her sum
of the SS equation, because that illustrates that on the whole Granny has certainly invested at least as much wealth as she eventually
extracts, end of.

 Granny and Uncle Sam's relationship has been the very opposite of any gov't program that does nothing but extract
labour/wealth, and such a valuable fiscal distinction on its own warrants priority, imo."
 

Not at all. As Granny's retired, Granny's unemployed. Working Grannys are paying retired Granny. It would be a different .guv
program if those financial flows to Granny were actually derived from Granny's assets that were built from Granny's actual
contributions but they're not. No matter, the payments will eventually stop sooner or later. The bean counting, as you put it, says it
has to.

" ie You want to wheedle and wangle about the bean counting, and I am explaining how that is irrelevant; even regardless of the
balance, at least Granny isn't a complete waste of effort because she's been putting skin in the game her whole life. and her sons'
and daughters' skins too, for that matter... through the military.
 

Wheedling? Again, if you say so. To me it sounds like more of your polyps being...The funds, such as they are, are likely exhausted in
the early 2030s about a decade and a half from now. It's more than wheedling. All these programs (MIC included, really!) are
financially untenable, but hey, I'm sure everybody likes to have their personal favorite. Your preferences are the thing that's
irrelevant. The numbers are so incoherent at this point, that I on other hand, have to avoid taking one. You, perhaps not. But it's
ultimately pointless. Inflation or default, take your pick.

"You couldn't even make this shit up."

 

Then for your own sake ask yourself, why it is that you keep doing it?

1 william114085  HenryJonesJr • Feb 9, 2018 2:59 PM

Permalink
0
just wanted to point out.....those "locals" are mostly 3rd and 4th generation decedents of low-class migrants imported from the Philippines to
pick pineapples.  Sadly, pure blooded Hawaiians are nearly extinct.   It's easy to recognize their differences.  Hawaiians are tall and broad and
intelligent.  Hawaiian women are very attractive.....opposite goes for the Filipino mixes.  

1 Chupacabra-322  OceanX • Feb 9, 2018 12:46 PM

Permalink
0
@ Ocean,
 

They can keep Kalifornia.  And, the change.

1 Disgruntled Goat  OceanX • Feb 9, 2018 4:29 PM

Permalink
0
Hawaii? Noooo man... I like Hawaii ... Cant we give them Jersey instead? .... if they squawk, throw in Staten Island as a sweetener ... I mean really,
I don't think anyone would care ...certainly not New Yorkers ....

4 Juggernaut x2  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:18 PM

Permalink
3
Trump and all of the traitorous politicians will do fine no matter what- suffering is for plebes that play by the rules

4 spastic_colon  Juggernaut x2 • Feb 9, 2018 12:36 PM

Permalink
0
Trump played the economic and market environment poorly; he should have said there were challenges ahead instead of owning everything now
he would at least had some face to save.............

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 8/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

4 847328_3527  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:18 PM

Permalink
0
"S&P = 25xEPS."

Scary.

Could this mean a full 40% drop (or moar) to revert to the mean?

2 Pollygotacracker  847328_3527 • Feb 9, 2018 12:38 PM

Permalink
0
50% drop to get back to 15.5 X EPS
Enjoy the ride.

0 GotGalt  847328_3527 • Feb 9, 2018 3:00 PM

Permalink
0
GAAP was around 25x earnings before the tax cut.  With the tax cut, I'm guessing S&P 500 GAAP earnings will come in around $125 - 130 so we
are at 20x - 22x earnings.  Still rich, and about 25% over valued compared to history.  History never had ZIRP/NIRP and endless trillions of
central bankster QE though.

9 curbjob  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:21 PM

Permalink
0
"And what the heck ever happened to the staunchly fiscally conservative republicans? "
They got elected ...

much the same as the anti-war democrats; once elected it was war by remote control is uber cool.

1 Ron_Mexico  curbjob • Feb 9, 2018 12:28 PM

Permalink
0
Republicans should have nominated Rand Paul or Walker in '16, but hey it is what it is . . .

1 autofixer  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:28 PM

Permalink
0
Bring back that CONgressman famous for saying: "you lie."  

0 BarkingCat  autofixer • Feb 9, 2018 2:16 PM

Permalink
0
If I recall correctly his name is Pete Wilson

7 Full Court Lug…  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:29 PM

Permalink
8
Everyone and their dog realizes that US debt is far, far beyond the event horizon. In any case it is impossible to win a major Federal election
without promising to enlarge the debt even more, so it's pointless to whine about it now.
The goal of any political campaign now is to at least use the debt on things that favor their party: the Dems want to spend it on gibs for brown
people, and the neocons/neolibs want to spend it on wars for Israel. I give Trump credit since he at least wants to spend it on broad-based tax
cuts and infrastructure.

4 pupton  Full Court Lug… • Feb 9, 2018 12:41 PM

Permalink
4
How can someone downvote this comment???

1 Full Court Lug…  pupton • Feb 9, 2018 1:01 PM

Permalink
1
LOOOL it's all butthurt libertarians who think anyone can actually win an election babbling about deficits and "small government" like it's still the
mid-90's

2 Insurrector  pupton • Feb 9, 2018 3:14 PM

Permalink
1
Because we think for ourselves rather than choke down and the Orange Geezus Koolaid.

1 Insurrector  Full Court Lug… • Feb 9, 2018 3:13 PM

Permalink
1
Wake me up when the tax cuts become not just broad-based but proportional.    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using assessments
from the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Tax Policy Center, the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis, and the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy estimates that the Top 1 percent will receive 70% of the total benefits from the Trump tax cut, with the top fifth of income
earners getting half of that or 34%. And when you peel back the income layers a bit more, you will see a bulk of the 1% income earners have a
huge net worth - average for the top 1% earners is over $10M net worth.  This means their money is making their money - it ain't earned.  WTF do
they need the bulk of the tax cut?

And infrastructure?  Trumpturd's grand goal is to privatize it.

Your credit is woefully ill-placed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 9/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

3 pupton  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 12:40 PM

Permalink
0
Uh, well there was Rand Paul, but people hate him so.....I personally sent him a thank you message from his .gov website this morning.  Serious.

0 Endgame Napoleon  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 2:41 PM

Permalink
1
It is not just your kids. Many people get to pay the price now — especially the low-income citizens without kids who are not eligible for free or
reduced-cost rent, free groceries, free monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and refundable [EITC] child-tax-credit welfare that used to
max out at $6,444 before doubled by The Spendthrift Swamp.

These citizens must compete with a ton of single-earner, part-time, legal citizens who have either spousal income or layers of welfare and child-
tax-credit welfare, making it easy for them to accept low pay and illegal workers, usually a sole, male earner in those cases, working part time to
stay below the earned-income limit for monthly welfare and the cut off for child tax credits. The ones working under-the-table can get the
monthly assistance for US-born kids, but not the child tax credit.

At least a few people are being honest about this type of employment, which should not be included in employment numbers, not when
governent is paying the major household bills of these part-time workers, while most citizens struggle to afford rent that sucks up more than
half of their earned-only income without this piled-higher-and-deeper government cheese.

Wages for citizens—and tax revenue—won’t really rise until this flood of governent-subsidized part-time help is not as available to employers.
People are also going to have to revise the definition of middle class, returning to the way it was defined in the boom period after WWII. These
dual-high-earner assortative mates who hoard the few decent-paying jobs in fewer households halved the middle class and pushed the
definition of a middle-class lifestyle through the roof. Americans cannot afford it anymore. 

0 Rhetorical  Endgame Napoleon • Feb 9, 2018 4:22 PM

Permalink
0
This, a guy at my work gets 10k back every year for his kids. He blows it all in a month doesnt re invest it to buy even a house. Hes gotten back
90k in my 8 years working there. Meanwhile hes broke as a joke the whole year.

0 Insurrector  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 2:55 PM

Permalink
0
And the cycle continues - tax cuts lead to bigger deficits, which lead to tax increases.  Repeat.

0 ReturnOfDaMac  GoingBig • Feb 9, 2018 3:00 PM

Permalink
1
C'mon get with the program lad, deficits ONLY matter when demorats are in charge.  Enjoy your tax cut, increased MIC spending, shitty
infrastructure, and STFU.

11 Deep Snorkeler  curbjob • Feb 9, 2018 12:19 PM

Permalink
7
The Trump Era

Tawdry-man, America's tweeting pottie-person,

untroubled by ethics, unmoved by reality,

needy needy, our melting Golden Snowman,

leading obese hordes to economic disintegration

and military apocalypse.

5 Ron_Mexico  Deep Snorkeler • Feb 9, 2018 12:24 PM

Permalink
4
Put in a cell with Weinstein

I hope you will be ultimately.

Your best hope

soap on a rope.

1 takeaction  curbjob • Feb 9, 2018 12:21 PM

Permalink
0
From time to time I click this debt clock site and am just mesmerized at these numbers changing....what does it all mean??

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 
We are so so screwed.

0 curbjob  takeaction • Feb 9, 2018 12:26 PM

Permalink
0
It means that it's a mathematical certainty that (at some point) McDonalds $1 menu will feature a packet with 5 peanuts .. supersize for 25 cents
extra  and get them salted.

1 arby63  takeaction • Feb 9, 2018 12:28 PM

Permalink
0
Me too. Nevertheless, when we're screwed, everyone is screwed. Take comfort in reality.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 10/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

3 Peacefulwarrior  takeaction • Feb 9, 2018 12:36 PM

Permalink
0
In short, Trump is NOT leveling with the American people in terms of what really needs to be done for the benefit of future generations
who will otherwise be hobbled by mountains of debt and the related financing costs

Seems this conversation should have occurred when Hank Paulsen stumbled up like Frankenstein to the Congressional table begging for help. Very
Binary now Either 1) MOAR 2) COLLAPSE

1 2 3 next › last »

-58% Lunch or BBQ -50% AED 200 Towards -54%

Buffet at Origins at
Buffet with Drinks: Hooked Seafood
Yas Viceroy
Child (AED 99), A… Restaurant

99‫إ‬.‫د‬ 99‫إ‬.‫د‬ 69‫إ‬.‫د‬

Go ! Go ! Go !

-32% Dubai: 1- or 2-Night Yas Island: 1 or 2 -67%

Stay with IMG Nights with Theme Five Yoga Classes
Tickets Park Tickets

849‫إ‬.‫د‬ 885‫إ‬.‫د‬ 99‫إ‬.‫د‬

Go ! Go ! Go !

Discrimination Notice Cookie Policy

Copyright ©2009-2018 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 11/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 12/13
2/11/2018 Peter Schiff: Political Rhetoric Vs. Economic Reality | Zero Hedge

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-09/peter-schiff-political-rhetoric-vs-economic-reality 13/13