USPOL April: An outline of Reagan's face appears. She screams.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL April: An outline of Reagan's face appears. She screams.

«‹›181 »

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Stultus Maximus posted:

How could you forget Tom Petty?

Best movie cameo ever.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 14:49

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

ReidRansom posted:

The USPS might, in this case, should the cops involved be found to have acted unlawfully. They take the mail pretty seriously.

Yeah, don't gently caress with the Postal Inspection Service.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:30

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

On a side note, have there been any notable political scandals in history with Congressional interference with the USPS? Like some wayward Congressman intercepting mail meant for someone else and reading it on the floor of the Senate?

I'm suddenly intrigued by USPS scandals and conspiracies. :f5:

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 1, 2016

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:40

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

On a side note, have there been any notable political scandals in history with Congressional interference with the USPS? Like some wayward Congressman intercepting mail meant for someone else and reading it on the floor of the Senate?

I'm suddenly intrigued by USPS scandals and conspiracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_scandal

It's more of a typical political money scandal wrapped in a post office but there you have it.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:44

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

FAUXTON posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_scandal

It's more of a typical political money scandal wrapped in a post office but there you have it.

A Congressman tried to launder money through stamps? That's pretty ballsy (and stupid). It's also weird that Clinton pardoned the guy at the end of his term in office in 2000.

Speaking of Clinton-era money scandals, I actually was with Bob Ney of Ohio when I studied abroad in India in college. He was doing some kind of radio related business in Dharamsala, I'm not sure why there of all places.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:53

Redeye Flight: Mar 26, 2010; God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?

Had an interesting thought today, and put in a little legwork to try and come up with an answer.

The size of the U.S. national debt is well-known, and it's just as widely known that a fair chunk of it is owned by foreign countries, the largest percentage by China (currently. It seesaws back and forth with Japan). This gets blown up a lot, of course, into China owning the US via the strings of debt. We'll set aside how stupid and wrong that is, for the moment.

What isn't as widely known is how big China's national debt is, or who owns THAT. There's estimates, but not all the numbers agree. This is largely due to most of China's debt being corporate, which, due to the way their economy operates, actually makes it internally-held, just like the U.S.'s debt (a rough ratio of 2/3 internal to 1/3 foreign). China, however, appears to be much more largely internal, with only about 1.5-2 trillion (the most current numbers dating to last summer or so) being held externally and that number varying wildly since most of it is short-term.

What I can't figure out is who's holding all of that, and I'm wondering just how much might be in the hands of the U.S...

# ? Apr 1, 2016 19:58

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

That's incorrect. Most of our debt is to ourselves.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:03

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

That's incorrect. Most of our debt is to ourselves.

Yeah. The creditor listing of the US is approximately as follows:

#1 - US Citizens/Businesses
#2 - US Government
#3 - Everyone else (1+2 is much, much bigger than 3)

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:11

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

FlamingLiberal posted:

That's incorrect. Most of our debt is to ourselves.

Yes, China is merely the largest foreign holder. The Social Security Trust Fund is currently the largest single holder of US Sovereign debt.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:11

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

Yep, less than 20% of our debt is held by foreign entities

Redeye Flight posted:

What I can't figure out is who's holding all of that, and I'm wondering just how much might be in the hands of the U.S...

insane person detected

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:12

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

But that doesn't sound like a huge, sinister, existential problem at all?

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:14

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

I think he knows all of that.

I think he's trying to puzzle out which foreign entities hold Chinese national debt. If I understand it right though, Chinese investment in treasury bonds is substantial solely because of the trade balance that they've been maintaining. The US isn't in a similar position.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:19

turn it up TURN ME ON: Mar 19, 2012; In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.

Right. The way it reads to me is:

We have a lot of debt. A fair amount of that debt (I would say 20% is a fair amount) is owned by foreigners. Of that debt, most is China.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:22

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Redeye Flight posted:

Had an interesting thought today, and put in a little legwork to try and come up with an answer.

The size of the U.S. national debt is well-known, and it's just as widely known that a fair chunk of it is owned by foreign countries, the largest percentage by China (currently. It seesaws back and forth with Japan). This gets blown up a lot, of course, into China owning the US via the strings of debt. We'll set aside how stupid and wrong that is, for the moment.

What isn't as widely known is how big China's national debt is, or who owns THAT. There's estimates, but not all the numbers agree. This is largely due to most of China's debt being corporate, which, due to the way their economy operates, actually makes it internally-held, just like the U.S.'s debt (a rough ratio of 2/3 internal to 1/3 foreign). China, however, appears to be much more largely internal, with only about 1.5-2 trillion (the most current numbers dating to last summer or so) being held externally and that number varying wildly since most of it is short-term.

What I can't figure out is who's holding all of that, and I'm wondering just how much might be in the hands of the U.S...

89 cents on the dollar (US held foreign debt/Foreign-held US debt) as of 2012.

That has probably grown since, but it should suffice to say "they owe us about as much as we owe them"

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:22

showbiz_liz: Jun 2, 2008

Morrow posted:

When the Federal Government collapses into anarchy and America devolves into a Mad Max wasteland, the USPS will still deliver the mail.

I'm not joking.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:24

Islam is the Lite Rock FM: Jul 27, 2007; by exmarx

Only bad thing about us debt is the lovely cartoons made because of it.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:27

Tobermory: Mar 31, 2011

Boon posted:

If I understand it right though, Chinese investment in treasury bonds is substantial solely because of the trade balance that they've been maintaining. The US isn't in a similar position.

Chinese national debt is weirder than that. Most of the biggest corporations in China are run by the state. Most of the banks are also run by the state. So you wind up with situations like that thing with Sinosteel -- they were going to go bankrupt, until the state ordered the state-owned banks to extend further loans to the state-owned company, allowing said company to continue servicing its previous debt to the state.

In other words, most of the Chinese national debt is effectively manifesting as corporate and financial debt, rather than via government bonds. The assumption is that the government will guarantee the debts of its state-owned enterprises, just like it would with official government debt. If this ever turns out not to be the case, the Chinese economy will implode.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:32

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Yeah, I don't pretend to understand the workings of the Chinese economy, I was referring to their investment in US treasury bonds. The way I understand it, they carry huge forex reserves in order to maintain their manufacturing output, those reserves are then reinvested into the relative safety of treasuries.

I'd be curious to know if you have any good reading on either topic though!

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:35

PuTTY riot: Nov 16, 2002

HB1523 Religious Discrimination Bill is held on a Motion to Reconsider for Monday. The vote today was 69 for, 45 against. I'd let my rep know how I feel but I'm one of the lucky few whose rep feels how I do.

:heritage:

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:42

Islam is the Lite Rock FM: Jul 27, 2007; by exmarx

69 for has a certain something about it.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

zoux posted:

But that doesn't sound like a huge, sinister, existential problem at all?

Exactly. You aren't gonna cut welfare for poors and blacks on THAT kind of a topic!

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:47

Tobermory: Mar 31, 2011

I'm definitely not an expert on the Chinese economy either; I just occasionally work with some people who track patterns of global investment in Chinese state-owned-enterprises.

For an overview of how China uses the treasury bonds, this seems pretty solid. It's worth noting that the Chinese sold off a huge amount of treasury bonds late last year; that wasn't so much as part of a long-term financial policy, it was because their economy was wobbling and they needed some liquidity in a hurry.

For a somewhat more technical summary of how China handles its own internal debt, this is one of the better analyses I've seen.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 20:47

Max: Nov 30, 2002

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

A Congressman tried to launder money through stamps? That's pretty ballsy (and stupid). It's also weird that Clinton pardoned the guy at the end of his term in office in 2000.

Speaking of Clinton-era money scandals, I actually was with Bob Ney of Ohio when I studied abroad in India in college. He was doing some kind of radio related business in Dharamsala, I'm not sure why there of all places.

If he's a Buddhist, that's a major spot for monks and practitioners.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:03

Ceiling fan: Dec 26, 2003; I really like ceilings.; Dead Man’s Band

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

A Congressman tried to launder money through stamps? That's pretty ballsy (and stupid). It's also weird that Clinton pardoned the guy at the end of his term in office in 2000.

Speaking of Clinton-era money scandals, I actually was with Bob Ney of Ohio when I studied abroad in India in college. He was doing some kind of radio related business in Dharamsala, I'm not sure why there of all places.

Lots of congressmen and staffers laundered money through the Congressional Post Office. Which is separate from the USPS. Every service on the Capitol operates directly under Congress, and so is directly under Congress's thumb.

So when someone ordered a bunch of stamps through the office account, took a few sheets back to the post office and said "We over ordered stamps, can you give me a refund? Cash is fine." anybody who wanted a job tomorrow didn't ask any questions.

At least until the early 90's when a plucky Representative by the name of Newton Gingrich made a crusade of cleaning up Congress that he rode into the Speaker's chair.

So some might speculate that that pardon had a personal bias behind it.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:06

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tobermory posted:

I'm definitely not an expert on the Chinese economy either; I just occasionally work with some people who track patterns of global investment in Chinese state-owned-enterprises.

For an overview of how China uses the treasury bonds, this seems pretty solid. It's worth noting that the Chinese sold off a huge amount of treasury bonds late last year; that wasn't so much as part of a long-term financial policy, it was because their economy was wobbling and they needed some liquidity in a hurry.

For a somewhat more technical summary of how China handles its own internal debt, this is one of the better analyses I've seen.

It's still wobbling. Because they spent years lying about the growth figures, and now it's coming home to roost.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:27

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

How seriously should we take Obama's nuclear speech to heart?

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:33

Redeye Flight: Mar 26, 2010; God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?

Yeah, no, sorry if I was unclear. I'm well aware that the US debt is mostly held by internal entities (primarily the Social Security fund)--I included that in the post but I guess I hosed up making that clear (that was what the 2/3 internal to 1/3 foreign meant). I was indeed trying to puzzle out who're the primary holders of China's external debt, in the same way that China and Japan currently hold 8 and 7 percent of ours, approximate.

FAUXTON posted:

89 cents on the dollar (US held foreign debt/Foreign-held US debt) as of 2012.

That has probably grown since, but it should suffice to say "they owe us about as much as we owe them"

Rad, thanks. Not sure why I couldn't find that.

Mostly I thought it would be an interesting thought exercise for next time I run across someone who's freaking out about the concept. Glad to see that someone's run the numbers.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:45

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

Of all the things to criticize Obama for, twitter use seems pretty low on the totes pole.

Rygar201 fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Apr 1, 2016

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:58

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Grouchio posted:

How seriously should we take Obama's nuclear speech to heart?

Link?

# ? Apr 1, 2016 21:59

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Grouchio posted:

How seriously should we take Obama's nuclear speech to heart?

What are you scared of this time?

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:00

ImpAtom: May 24, 2007

Rygar201 posted:

Of all the things to criticize Obama for, twitter use seems pretty low on the totes pole.

Pretend this:

just replace everything with Obama.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:10

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

Rygar201 posted:

Of all the things to criticize Obama for, twitter use seems pretty low on the totes pole.

Here's the full quote. Still pretty stupid, even in context.

https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/715996927331069954

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:13

stuffed crust punk: Oct 8, 2004; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/RumsfeldOffice/status/715898505173270528

Where's the million dead civilians emoji

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:17

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

https://twitter.com/YaelTAbouhalkah/status/716005845511835650

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:19

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

A Winner is Jew posted:

Link?

Ask and you shall recieve.

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:24

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

SquadronROE posted:

Right. The way it reads to me is:

We have a lot of debt. A fair amount of that debt (I would say 20% is a fair amount) is owned by foreigners. Of that debt, most is China.

Oh yeah, that was another thing I remember about Bob Ney from my time spent with him. He was really obsessed about how we gave away our bargaining chip by allowing them favored nation trade status with the WTO. He was a nice guy otherwise.

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 1, 2016

# ? Apr 1, 2016 22:24