60 minutes = $188 million in new debt [Archive] - HungAngels

w1s2x3

05-07-2011, 10:55 AM

Since you agree all the blame is on George W. Bush (who gave away a ten year surplus to the wealthy in tax cuts, then proceeded to engage in two war/nation-building projects in the Middle East while not even reporting the costs in the official budget and made deals with oil and lumber to give away our national resources without expectation of any return), the answer to your question is easy. Reverse all the Bush initiatives. Increase tax revenues, collect royalties again for our natural resources, plug up the tax loopholes, quit the wars and the nation-building and invest our money and effort domestically.

At least that's one approach. Another is cut taxes, let our fortune 500 billionaires (remember when they were just millionaires) to become trillionaires, cut medicaid, cut medicare, raid social security, let the elderly die and rot in the streets, strip, grab the shampoo and wait for the shower of gold to start trickling down from the illustrious ones who live above us.

Nearly 50% of Americans don't pay taxes - these are the people who are getting cash from the government and wanting the rest of us to pay more taxes. But wait, politicians love to give away money to buddies and companies. Companies can't compete across the globe if they are taxed and have to add the tax into the product cost. However, class envy doesn't solve the problem and many rich people do create jobs. To be in line with equal protection under the law as per the 14th Amendment everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. The voters need to take the power away from politicians by reforming the tax code into either a national sales tax or a flat income tax. Either way eliminating taxing people based on marital status would get government out of the marriage business. The best social program is a job. The free traders have killed lots of jobs here. We need fair trade to stabilize employment across the globe, which would stabilize immigration. If we didn't tax companies that produce goods and services domestically then multinationals would want to manufacture here. Tariffs on foreign products would bring in revenue for our country and be an incentive to manufacture here. Businesses would provide the jobs and people with pay checks would provide the taxes. Getting rid of the current tax code is critical - it's Swiss cheese. Broadening the tax base reduces class envy in that everyone is paying the same percentage.

Our natural resources are a focus of many "deals" between government and private industry. Clinton took half the worlds supply of sulfur-free coal off the market to benefit a buddy in Indonesia by putting it in a park in Utah. Congress routinely manipulates Federal Land resources through the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service. It's sad but true, if a company turns federal land into a super fund site and the government does not discover it with in a specific time window the federal government is on the hook to clean it up! Congress has routinely provided access to minerals and other resources for far less than their true value. One government resource that is often missed is intellectual property. NIH and other government research is available through the freedom of information act as long as it's not classified. Using government furnished IP may require a company to agree to lower prices in return. Medicines are a good example.

The Bush buffet of death has lasted much longer than World War II and against a far inferior enemy. Halliburton received $18.00/meal/person. Our best and brightest deserved much better. Raising taxes for the war would have been the responsible way to go. Our war fighters have paid the price of the wars while everyone continued their fun at Disney World. Paying for the war would have brought it to an end sooner.

Social Security in 1932 required one to be 65 years old. The life expectancy was 61 for men and 63 1/2 for woman. Considering that average American SAT scores look like bowling scores the "eat the rich" approach continues. Reform must happen and must work on a defined contribution approach. The government can't continue to sell "free ice cream." If we are going to have 1 or even less than 1 person working to support 1 person in these programs then we need to provide higher paying jobs. The left continue to portray the republicans as killing the old and poor. The right say the same for the new health care. The cost models are straight forward and can show benefits people will receive with program changes, but the name calling continues instead of comparing program modifications. The current program structures for all "entitlements" have a positive exponent and therefore are unstable. Social Security is now in the red and the fund will be empty in 2037. Of course the fund is a fiction since Congress spends the payroll taxes out as soon as they come in. Medicare will go broke by 2018.

Individual responsibility is the key to solving the problems we have. People have to work and save and be responsible for themselves. Government needs to favor creating jobs for people over taxing companies. If everyone pays the same X percent of their income in taxes then they are all being treated equally by law. Solve for X? Many will argue that the guy making $20,000.00 per year pays a higher percent of his salary toward living expenses. Though true it has lead to our current problem of two classes of Americans - takers and payers. Some phased personal living deduction could also help everyone.

The war on being poor has only created more poor. After spending over 10 trillion on this war American needs to work on creating more billionaires and trillionaires. Workforce IQs don't change as fast as skill demands. It's silly to think America will eventually be filled with "knowledge workers." We need a broad spectrum of jobs for the spectrum of IQs.

Faldur

05-07-2011, 04:07 PM

We have borrowed $2.4 billion since the start of this thread..

trish

05-07-2011, 08:41 PM

So start collecting revenue already.

Faldur

05-07-2011, 10:15 PM

You can collect 100% all the wages earned in the current year, thats a 100% tax rate and you still could not afford the $3.83 trillion dollar budget our government has proposed.

Eliminate Department of Energy = <$26.3 billion> in savings
Eliminate Department of Education = <$46.7 billion> in savings
Eliminate Homeland Security = <$45.5 billion> in savings
Savings from 1st year 10% reduction = <$383 billion>
Savings from 2nd year 10% reduction = <$348 billion>
Savings from 3rd year 10% reduction = <$310 billion>
Estimated income from 3% across the board tax increase = $60 billion annually

In the first year of eliminated programs, 10% government reduction, and 3% tax increase the budget would still be in deficit <$880 billion dollars>.

In the second year of eliminated programs, 10% government reduction and 3% income tax the budget would in deficit <$422 billion dollars>.

In the third year of eliminated programs, 10% government reduction and 3% income tax the budget would in surplus $16 billion dollars.

Faldur

05-07-2011, 10:19 PM

The US Treasury has borrowed $3.57 billion dollars since this thread began yesterday.

Stavros

05-08-2011, 01:06 PM

Eliminate Department of Energy = <$26.3 billion> in savings
Eliminate Department of Education = <$46.7 billion> in savings
Eliminate Homeland Security = <$45.5 billion> in savings

The US survived for years without a Department of Homeland Security, I think that could be a saving, but you need to explain where schools will come from if the state sector is entirely abolished; and your assumption must be that the private energy companies would replace the gap if you eliminate an energy department. Yes, the department of interior could be responsible for monitoring energy companies and their environmental impact, as indeed they once did, but your overall assumption is driven by the kind of 'governmental minimalism' advocated by Friedrich von Hayek and Robert Nozick -both assumed that, free of governmental control, people would simply get on with it themselves, removing the need for laws, taxes and oversight. This nonsense can't explain when 'freedom' doesn't work: when it is obvious that a family on the poverty line cannot buy the services that are free at the time of delivery: state schools, to give but one example.

Rather than a 'slash and burn' approach, maybe you need a paradigm shift to find othr long term sources of savings, and maybe even the creation of jobs which is what you need most.

For example, Americans are notorious for driving energy-inefficient cars that run on gasoline, you should long ago have begun the transition to electric/hybrid vehicles (as they do in Brazil and Germany) which do 60-80 miles to the gallon with low-to-zero carbon emissions, and please dont tell me the USA doesnt have the brains or the capital to make the best and most efficient cars in the world.

And then there is the railroad: capital cost high, long-term return: high; energy efficient, comfortable, and safe.
The long term ipact would reduce the dependency on oil -and in the process for a while bring down the $ for barrel cost .

Your cars are expensive and dirty and inefficient, and you could transform the American home with subsidised solar energy: solar energy can power a home and actually create more energy than can be used: in the UK the few households that have solar sell excess power to local power companies at a profit: subsidise the capital outlay and the credit source will make its money back plus some, in ten years: carbon emissions will be reduced, dependency on oil, gas, coal and other fossil fuels will be reduced.

You spend billions a year replacing the $1 bill-??? What?? Withdraw it from circulation, replace it with a coin that can be used in machines, but lose your romantic attachment to an expensive piece of paper.

Afghanistan now costs the US taxpayer $10bn a month...Pakistan a $1bn a month...need I say more?

Israel takes $7bn a year -what for? Israel makes billions of its own a year and some Israelis have admitted they dont need your dollars but take them anyway, and how much of the weapons and weapons technology sold to Israel gets sold on to others? Like Menachem Begin selling arms to Argentina when the UK was at war over the Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas. Thank you Israel, and goodbye.

Your congressional system is in need of an overhaul so that legislation can go through without ending up looking like the yellow pages -when the Stealth Bomber was being developed, more than 300 congressional district got their slice of the pie -the admin costs of the project probably cost as much as the hardware!
Like the UK, defency procurement requires too many people, too many contractors, and too many people charging the military $25 for a screwdriver that you can buy in a dollar store for...$1.

The point is that even if you have to slash some budgets, you can also plan a phased reduction in federal spending over 10 years by changing some of the fundamentals -not in government, but in the way you live.

Faldur

05-08-2011, 02:57 PM

hippifried

05-08-2011, 08:06 PM

Wow! The doom & gloom is really getting thick. Why fight it?

YouTube - Suicide is Painless (lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goB4GbeltKc)

Faldur

05-08-2011, 10:00 PM

Doom and Gloom? You think the country is just going to keep trucking along $15 trillion dollars in debt? No offense but thats the attitude that got us here in the first place.

Stavros

05-08-2011, 10:32 PM

I use same reasoning for eliminating the department of education as your do on homeland security. DOE came into existence in 1980 and took the worlds finest education system and and placed us 33rd in world wide rankings last year. We did just fine without it, get rid of it.

I feel the same for department of energy, I'm not sure when your $14.5 trillion in debt its time to start talking green energy. In my opinion green energy enforcement is costing this country billions as it is, and will only create more debt. Get the spending under control then implement a defined green plan that will pay its own way.

Hmmm..maybe the reason why the quality of high school education in the US is so uneven is because policy is too decentralised, but since neither Reagan nor GW Bush abolished the DoE when they said they wanted to asks questions like -why not? As a long term investment, education has no alternative -you may need to review the provision of education across the board before just taking the 'slash and burn' attitude.

On Energy you have not addressed the practical things which I did -you can't dimiss it as 'green energy' as if this was a nonsense when it is working in Brazil and Germany; can you really just carry on driving gas-guzzling cars and lose sleep at night on gas prices and you dependence on exports? Change the cars! Change the fuels! I also suggested a home improvement scheme which over 10-20 years would not just reduce the deficit, but bring down domestic fuel prices and be environmentally friendly -surely there can't be something wrong with that?I regret to say I think you are substituting creative thinking for slash and burn out of an ideological aversion to government, but you won't get rid of government, and you can't transform the deficit overnight; a phased re-structuring could help, and as you asked for practical solutions, so did I propose some.

Faldur

05-09-2011, 12:46 AM

In education I really feel the states are better off controlling their own in the manner they each see fit. It would be easy for Washington to dictate a national basic curriculum and let the states take it from there. In my opinion they would be smart to introduce some competition incentives, and a solid ratings systems so parents can make choices in where their kids are educated. But I definitely think the DOE is completely unnecessary.

On energy, all fine points made Stav. I am wide open for anything that would improve the efficiency/air quality. The only thing I would want would be means testing to avoid having program costs negating efforts to get spending under control. Again do not feel we need the department of energy, all these efforts can be done under existing departments.

hippifried

05-09-2011, 06:13 AM

Yeah, doom & gloom. The US isn't broke, or insolvent. Everybody's hung up on the number, but when you adjust for the inflation that everybody loves so damn much, we've been carrying this same size debt for the last 70 years. I'm 60, & I've been listening to this same crap all my life. I saw the big board, with the countdown to national bankrupsy, on "Sam & Friends" in 1959. (That was the original "Muppet" show BTW, doing 10 minutes of political satire that kids liked too.) Anyway, we're still here. Still talking the same Chicken Little sky is falling shit. Doomsday just keeps getting pushed back as it gets near. I never got to meet my grandfather, but according to my dad's descriptions, he was talking the same shit back in the '20s & before, claiming that the Federal Reserve was going to lead the country to communism or something. I see no reason to believe that there's a wolf attacking the sheep this time.

The Republican plan is way beyond slash & burn. It's scorched earth. It's this longing for a mythical idyllic time that happened before anybody alive was born, where everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting or the "little house on the prairie". It's bullshit & always was. We can't cut our way out of debt. We'll be in a lot worse shape if we can't compete with the rest of the world, & we can't compete if we go backwards over foolish fears. Cutting education is capitulation to China & Europe by ignoring our potential. Refusing to get a handle on energy usage is capitulation to international conglomerates that have ne reason to look out for our interests at all. Republicans are acting like a bunch of frogs, throwing their hands up in surrender. Well I'm not ready to surrender. If y'all want to be a bunch of pussies, do it from home & get the hell out of everybody else's way.

Stavros

05-09-2011, 01:14 PM

I think if there is a signal difference from the 'then and now' approach to the deficit, it is that the underlying strength of the US employment market was at times more bouyant than it is now -particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. If jobs are to be the engine of the growth that balances budgets and restores confidence, then the loss of 'traditional' manufacturing jobs that were once the foundation of much of American industry does not offer the same degree of hope.

However, if hope is to be the new currency, then I have tried to suggest that people 'think outside the box'; the US tends to try the things that work only after they have tried using all the ones that don't, and I think the Anglo-American politician WS Churchill said something along those lines.

For heaven's sake -the talent in America! The capital resources! What's stopping you from breaking the impasse? I don't get it.

Faldur

05-09-2011, 05:25 PM

Couldn't disagree more Hippi. With our S&P credit rating in jeopardy, the fed printing money like its toilet paper, value of the dollar falling like a rock because of all the printing.

We will reach a point very soon where 1/2 of all revenues collected by the government will go to service the debt. And continued burying our heads in the sand and saying its all ok and normal is bullshit. We need to lead the world, (yes like we always do), back to sanity and start showing true leadership in returning to spending sanity. A balanced budget, with surplus going towards debt reduction. You progressives thought that was a good idea when Clinton did it, what happened?

We have borrowed another $9 billion dollars in the two days this thread has been around..

trish

05-09-2011, 06:01 PM

hippifried

05-09-2011, 08:18 PM

S&P credit rating? Oh, you mean that lame attempt by Moody's to scare everybody. Seems to have worked on you of the selective amnesia, but I remember that these were the same assholes, literally the exact same crooked lying assholes, who gave AAA ratings to Bear Stearns & Lehman right up till the minute they crashed. Well, I guess we should just bend over & buy whatever they're selling, huh? Go ahead. Not me though. Unlike Republican surrender monkees, I'm not willing to capitulate to European pressures for some kind of IMF 3rd world austerity program. This isn't Chad, or Myanmar, or Albania, or Greece. This is the world's largest economy, & the dollar is still the default reserve currency. You can cry all you want about the debt, but the biggest holder of US treasury bonds isn't China or foreign banks. Biggest bond holder is the US Federal Reserve. Like we always have, we owe the majority of our national debt to ourselves. All this doom & gloom is a bunch of fear mongering bullshit.

We will reach a point very soon where 1/2 of all revenues collected by the government will go to service the debt.

Yeah we know. So why don't y'all get your head out of the sand (or your ass as the case may be) & start looking at getting more revenue. We're never going to pull out of this malaise by cutting taxes. That's like going to your employer with a tale of woe about not being able to pay your bills, & asking for a pay cut. Time for the lying to stop. This isn't a spending problem. It's a hoarding problem. Wealth does no good for anybody if it isn't in circulation & growing. Corporate acquisitions & monopolies take money out of circulation. We need to straighten out our priorities. This economic theology, & its varied denominations in violent competition, ain't working. We need a total rethink.

Faldur

05-09-2011, 08:54 PM

You must be smoking some good shit, cause your fricking nuts. "We don't have a spending problem", are you fricking kidding me? We have increased federal spending by 36% since 2008. You going to stand there and tell me 36% increase is not a problem? Again, your fricking nuts!

Its good to see the real beliefs of progressives, tax more and spend more. Until the country eventually collapses and I guess you plan on rebuilding it in a new image. Yes we do need to straighten out our priorities, we need to reign in the completely irresponsible growth of government and cut its spending back to 2008 levels. And there with a long hard road ahead we can begin to pay off the debt you losers have brought us.

Stavros

05-09-2011, 09:45 PM

Faldur -on the issue of tax and spend, I am not going to disagree with you, and I do think that it is all too easy for governments to hire people on a 'temporary' basis who end up staying for years until noone can recall why they were hired or how things worked before they were hired.

However, Trish has a point as do some others: the Federal government, like it or not, is a major player in the economy, and there are measures which the fed can take to stimulate economic activity, to use taxes to help 'your fellow Americns' get over a bad patch; use taxes to invest or re-invest in the fabric of America: the point is that unless you want to live in Somalia or a country where there is no government, then these issues become Political with a big P even though, in a fundamental sense, they are economic. It means a closer scrutiny of how government raises, and then spends your taxes, and I actually see no contradiction between the left and right, as long as there is a consensus that, in the short-to-medium term, the fed has the potential to nudge the economy in the right direction. As long as the fed doesn't replace private enterprise, but I think we all want the mix to be better. Look at it from another perspective: 'Politics in Command' was the slogan of choice at the height of the 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' in China, and it was a disaster. Politics can and shoulod intervene when it can, to nudge the economy; as long as it doesnt try to replace it -which it never will in the US of A. But what I am also saying is that there must be lots of people with money making schemes and ideas out there, and they are not all Madoff wannabees...and there isn't just a lot of water between you and Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece....

Faldur

05-09-2011, 11:13 PM

Well Stavros, you've got an opinion and I appreciate hearing it. But I am afraid I disagree with it. I differ with you and Trish on governments ability to improve anything. Take the war on poverty, (hows that one going?), the war on drugs, (just say no!). Government pours billions of dollars at problems and never solves anything.

You realize the war on poverty could have been won had we not let the federal government handle it. We have spent 8 trillion dollars on the poverty war had we just given the annual budget to the poor we would not longer have poor and no longer need the budget. That just shows you how ridiculous anything the federal government tries to fix. And how about the stimulus spending it had little or no impact on our economy and it costs us 2 trillion dollars.

And no one can convince me that our government spending levels in 2008 were draconian. We have grown the size of the federal government 36% since then, for what? And now were supposed to accept $3.8 trillion dollar budgets? It cannot continue, I do know how anyone cannot see that. Confiscate all wealth, your will still be short to sustain it.

trish

05-10-2011, 12:01 AM

There you go with that word "confiscating" again. Your choice of language seems to indicate the issue is more moral for you than it is fiscal. Perhaps that is why "no one can convince" you. As I figure it, we owe each other the taxes that we pay to enjoy the benefits of our mutual projects; benefits that include security, transportation, justice, education etc. We would certainly not be better off without the support we lend to each other. In your first post you already admitted that we're in this mess because of George W. It's time to roll back his programs, first and foremost the Bush tax spending bill needs to expire.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 12:14 AM

In your first post you already admitted that we're in this mess because of George W., no Trish in my first post I stated it was time to put the BS blame game behind us, and volunteered to take full blame for it. Now lets move towards solutions.

trish

05-10-2011, 12:33 AM

If we don't understand how we got into this mess, we may not be able to extricate ourselves. The first thing that needs to be understood is that before the Bush tax spending bill we had a ten year budget surplus. The first thing that needs to be done now is to let that bill expire. That's a move toward a solution.

onmyknees

05-10-2011, 03:02 AM

If you’re having trouble keeping up with your mortgage, dismantling your house won’t help. Letting the roof go, not painting the sills etc. will just create more expense down the road. Tearing down departments and striping the government will just cut services, and create unemployment in both the public and private sectors. The further dip in employment will cause the economy to stall and dip yet again. The U.S. is under-invested in infrastructure. There are dams, levies, bridges, highways, schools etc. etc. that require maintenance. We can let the house go, or we can maintain it. Letting it go to shit isn’t going to help us meet the deficit. You can’t make payments simply by not spending the money you don’t have. You have to make revenue too. Investments made now to maintain our infrastructure now may add to deficit now, but in the near future the investment will pay off in two ways. 1) Broken bridges and busted dams are a lot more expensive and inconvenient than ones that are functioning and maintained. 2) Keeping people employed puts money in circulation. There’s nothing better for business then people who have cash to spend. Remember, money trickles from the hands of ordinary working people into the hands businesses, companies, corporations, CEO’s and stockholders__not the other way around. (1) and (2) apply as well to governmental agencies which provide valuable service; e.g. FDA, CDC, DOE, etc. Without the FDA (for example) we’d soon find out how expensive mad cow disease can be and how a little investment at the proper time can save lives and livelihoods.

While I do agree about the infrastructure portion of your position, the question in my opinion is not one of not enough money. Where do all those billions go in tolls, in gas taxes, federal Highway funds, Motor Vehicle user fees, etc etc...?? On this I know a little something dealing with many State DOT's who get the lions share of their dollars from the feds..Here's one example. Good, reputable non union companies are almost always muscled out of the bidding process by local nepotism. Even if they were able to win a contact for a bridge project, the State dictates to them how much they have to pay their workers. Prevailing Wage. So let's say a non union company wins a State Highway project and pays their equipment operators 20 dollars an hour. By State law, they are forced to pay that same operator 40 dollars and hour even though the operator is entirely content making 20...so the taxpayer gets soaked for the other 20. While I have nothing against private sector construction unions, they do have an "infrastructure" in place with State politicians that resembles Payola in the music business. It's just a fact....So you see Trish......it's not always about more money. Forty years of this dependency society has made us a country of people who are largely unable to rely on themselves. I spent some time at a friends house in the Bronx recently. A tree had fallen onto the street. The neighborhood was filled with able bodied men of all races yet the tree remained down across the road for a week preventing traffic from passing. I listened to the residents complain about the City's response. One guy claimed he lost a week of work because he couldn't back his work van out of the driveway. I asked them had the thought ever occur to them to pool their resources and spend a couple hours removing the tree so buses and autos could pass. To a person they screamed about the lack of response from the city. I think that's emblematic of what your ideology has fostered and encouraged. Grown people totally reliant on local government for their every need.

When does the spending stop? How much is enough? Is it ever enough? If you're encouraging continued government spending, it's incumbent of you and your ilk to answer those questions. The fact of the matter is politicians redistribute tax dollars to perpetuate their longevity....that's undeniable. I saw today that several libs want to take the 50 million bounty for Bin Ladin and give it to the families of 911. Nice thought but the families have received billions to date, but Libs just have a spending jones. They have to spend. When asked why they said because if they don't the money will simply remain in the "bank" or get spent on other things. Therein lies the problem.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 05:20 AM

Well Trish if you need a lesson on understanding, how about we look at how our current president in his first 19 months added more to the national debt than the first 40 Presidents combined. And is on pace to add more debt than all previous Presidents combined. You want blame baby look in the fricking mirror.

trish

05-10-2011, 05:59 AM

To a person they screamed about the lack of response from the city. I think that's emblematic of what your ideology has fostered and encouraged.

Premise) When the government hires people it insist they be paid the going wage for their work.
Conclusion) Therefore we have become a nation of slovenly dependents unable to work up the ambition to clear brush.

There seems to be something missing from the argument. The mere fact it seems to make sense to you speaks volumes.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 06:47 AM

Premise) When the government hires people it insist they be paid the going wage for their work.

Well the government has no money, it only has what it siezes from it's citizens. When the government pays a worker from tax collections a 100% drain from the treasurery is achieved. If that same job is done by the private sector a net gain is achieved for the treasury. For every government job we privatize, income rises substantially to the treasury.

But then again you have already proved you have no interest in good economics, you want more wasteful spending, with additional job killing tax increases.

trish

05-10-2011, 07:19 AM

"seizes" yeah, we know where you're coming from...but you're wrong, it's not a moral issue.

hippifried

05-10-2011, 08:41 AM

YouTube - REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)

What a crock... I don't even know why we're arguing about Friedman's proven failure. Or the egoist bullshit of Ayn Rand, which dosn't work either. This is way beyond some goofball crap about liberals & conservatives. It's become fanatics vs anti-fanatics, with the fanatics claiming the label of "conservative". How does that work? When did radical change become synonymous with conservatism?

You guys are trying to destroy America. If the cold war was still going, I'd swear the republican party was in the employ of the Soviets. Hell, even the commie Chinese aren't trying to economically kill the world's biggest market. What? You're worried about the debt being called in? By whom? Who on this planet would have the wherewithal or the unmitigated gaul to try & take us on financially? What the hell are you worried about? You think Wells Fargo & BofA are going to try & do something to their own motherland? Why would they? They know they can't move somewhere else, because there isn't anywhere else. You keep talking about the debt as if it's hard currency. It isn't, & gold isn't money no matter how hard you wish. Y'all keep talking about this country as if it worked the same way as that Korean market down the street or that Hindu motel down on "Ho street". Well it isn't, & there's no person, business, NGO, or government entity on this planet that isn't beholden in some way to the largesse of the American public through their government. That includes y'all, no matter how much you claim it ain't so.

Enough of this bullshit. This country has been in an economic malaise since Richard Nixon debased & floated the dollar, arbitrarily ending the Bretton Woods international monetary agreement that brought us 25 tears of stability during the biggest economic boom in the history of the world. We've had a compounding inflationary spiral ever since, & the dollar now buys a single digit percentage of what it did pre-shock. I can't help but wonder if Republicans are trying to sell us out or if they're just naive. Since the southern rebellion, I can't think of a single major economic downturn that didn't happen on their watch. & we're supposed buy the same line of bullshit that's handed us 2 bank panics in the last 20 years, & the biggest deficits in history? Go catch a clue.

hippifried

05-10-2011, 08:51 AM

"seizes" yeah, we know where you're coming from...but you're wrong, it's not a moral issue.
Moral? LOL! Under Ayn Rand's egoist philosophy, there's no such thing as morality.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 03:41 PM

I'd swear the republican party was in the employ of the Soviets, if balancing the budget and paying off our debt is "Soviet" like, call me comrade.

This country has been in an economic malaise since Richard Nixon , ok so because Johnny did it its ok for you to do it? How old are you again? I've got kids that use reasoning like that. You don't live $15 trillion beyond your means, comes a time you take the credit card away from the spoiled brat and give em a good smack up side of the head.

Clear distinctions are being drawn, we can see which party really cares about responsible government. We've now borrowed another $13.5 billion since this thread started, just 3 days ago.

yodajazz

05-10-2011, 04:33 PM

Well the government has no money, it only has what it siezes from it's citizens. When the government pays a worker from tax collections a 100% drain from the treasurery is achieved. If that same job is done by the private sector a net gain is achieved for the treasury. For every government job we privatize, income rises substantially to the treasury.

But then again you have already proved you have no interest in good economics, you want more wasteful spending, with additional job killing tax increases.

I question whether or not a private collection agency is really more effecient. With privacy you also have a duplicate admninstration. I know in the example of truck drivers in Iraq, they were paid numerous times, what would have been paid to a soldiers, along with a duplicate adminstration. My favorite, privatized government function is prisons. Eventually there becomes a conflict between the concept of rehabilitation and profits. And that also becomes subject to illegal influences. An example is of a judge, who accepted bribes to sentence juveniles to a private facility. The purpose of justice to benefit the society as a whole, was compromised for the sake of profit.

And in fact some, say that the big controversy over locking up illegal immigrants in Arizona, was fund by private prison corporations.

hippifried

05-10-2011, 06:08 PM

Stavros

05-10-2011, 06:09 PM

the question in my opinion is not one of not enough money. Where do all those billions go

This kind of point really goes to the core about money: how is it spent and what can be done to tackle this aspect of govt? An assumption often made by the libertarian/conservative bloc is that it is precisely the bloated and bureaucratic nature of govt that increases costs which get lost in the details of budget reports and so on; the argument is that if govt was run like a private company, these costs would not mount up -but the private sector is not necessarily more efficient just because its private. My earlier point about procurement in the defence industry where a screwdriver costs $25 for no other reason than the client is the air force asks for this kind of thing to be stamped out. Another source of savings, but I guess you need a combination of oversight on the part of your Senators/Congressional Representatives, and the will to introduce mechanisms to deal with it -or maybe its all there in the machinery? We are struggling in the UK with a Ministry of Defence that is overloaded with staff and costs -like the NHS the military is a 'sensitive' dept but at some point these bloated budgets have to be trimmed.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 07:00 PM

Hey Faldur,
So uh... When is everythibng going to collapse again? It's easier to make plans for the coming apocalypse with a firm date. If you could break it down to the hour & minute, that'd be appreciated too. I'll get the party hats. You & the rest of the treasonous commies will be wanting to celebrate the foreign conquest of America, right? & a fun time was had by all.

Unlike Harold Camping, Hippi, I have no idea when trouble comes. But I am smart enough to know the amount of credit card spending were doing is not going to end well.

So tell me, in 2008 where were all the dying seniors? All the children that were put on the street to suffer? What hardships did you have to endure in 2008? And what did we gain by the 36% increase in the size of government since then?

Well the economy got a lot better.. oh, wait that didn't happen did it? Poverty ended.. ouch sorry no.. Seniors are now taken care of forever! Well.. sorry wrong again. What did we get for that extra trillion dollars a year?

To think that rolling the size of government back to 2008 levels is "draconian" and "slash and burn" is ridiculous. Just progressive spouting off party talking points. We did just fine in 2008, seniors got medicare and SS, all of the welfare checks cleared the bank.

3 year reduction similar to the 3 year expansion puts us back to a balanced budget. Why does that scare you so much? Feel like your loosing power?

hippifried

05-10-2011, 08:26 PM

What are you on about now, Faldur? Are you trying to convince yourself that the budget had been cut prior to 2008? Which rock were you hiding under? Oh yeah, I almost forgot what the current lie is. That would be that the size & scope of government has grown in the last 2 years. You can keep lying to yourself if you like, but don't expect anybody else to take you seriously.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 10:27 PM

Ok Hippi, I will type this real slow so even you can understand it. In 2008 we had a federal budget that was $2,813 billion dollars. Today we have a budget $3,820 billion, ya still with me? The big number is 36% bigger than the little one, that represents 36% growth in the federal government in 3 years. Now if you reverse that trend for 3 years back to the 2008 level of spending, along with some tactical useless department closures, including a reasonable tax increase on all working americans, you have a balanced or what we like to call, "responsible" budget.

In my opinion in 2008 we were still spending money like drunken sailors, but at least if we go back to that level people like you can waste money within your budget. You want to give money away, be my guest. But I and many others are not going to allow you to give away more than you take in.

trish

05-10-2011, 11:12 PM

And we're 36% healthier than we were in 2008 when W had us headed down into a financial rat-hole. Job growth was at a virtual standstill all through the Bush administration. The ballooning sub-prime housing market was sucking the life blood from the country. So much for the benefits of trickle down and the efficiency of the private sector. Yes, we recently spent money and it kept us from spiraling down the drain. Now is not the time to cut the legs out from under the people who actually keep the economy going. No, I'm not talking about the wealthiest 1% that possess nearly 40% of the nation's wealth. If you want to cut federal programs, cut defense, cut homeland security, cut the Bush drug plan and substitute with one that actually makes sense. Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you actually want to make a dent in the deficit, collect some revenue: let the Bush tax spending bill expire.

Faldur

05-10-2011, 11:57 PM

Haha, thats some funny shit there Trish. Really were 36% healthier? Ok.. unemployment in 2008 was 5.8%, lets see a 36% improvement means our current unemployment is 3.71% God bless barack obama! In case you haven't noticed hun, unemployment is at 9%. Your getting nothing for your spending increase, anyone can see that. Unemployment Data (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

cut defense, I did that, 30% over 3 years that not enough? cut homeland security, with ya all the way, cut the Bush drug plan and substitute with one that actually makes sense, by all means, but means test what ever you come up with to ensure it saves us money, Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow would not be soon enough.

If you actually want to make a dent in the deficit, collect some revenue, I did I proposed raising taxes on all working Americans by 3%. Someone making $40,000 a year will be burdened $1,110.00, thats not too much to ask of someone who is not currently paying anything in taxes. And someone making $150,000.00 would pay an additional $4,386.00. Its fair, each and every working American paying there part to get us out of this mess. 10 years only and the tax sunsets.

hippifried

05-10-2011, 11:59 PM

Ok Hippi, I will type this real slow so even you can understand it. In 2008 we had a federal budget that was $2,813 billion dollars. Today we have a budget $3,820 billion, ya still with me?

Well of course I'm still with ya. We seem to be in agreement that waging war off budget is a bad idea.

The big number is 36% bigger than the little one,

Still here.

that represents 36% growth in the federal government in 3 years.

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget, & lets you see all the numbers. What? Too complicated? Do I need to keep everything at 2 syllables or less?

...blah blah blah... "responsible" budget.

What was irresponsible, was keeping real costs of military adventurism from the American people. It's irresponsible to continue the lie as if it never happened.

Really... If I wanted simplistic know-nothing inanity, I'd go get financial assessments from the grade school down the street.

Faldur

05-11-2011, 12:08 AM

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget, & lets you see all the numbers.

So the $158 included in the 2011 budget for the Iraq and Afghanistan war is the reason it went up 36%? Isn't your math a little screwed up?

Thats ok little man, keep at it your gonna get it.. :wiggle:

trish

05-11-2011, 12:08 AM

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget...Exactly. Remember the running costs of two wars never were included in the budget numbers during the Bush years. (And the cost of two wars over two terms was over a trillion, not 158 billion http://costofwar.com/en/ ).

onmyknees

05-11-2011, 04:50 AM

Exactly. Remember the running costs of two wars never were included in the budget numbers during the Bush years. (And the cost of two wars over two terms was over a trillion, not 158 billion http://costofwar.com/en/ ).

While I agree Bush should have paid for the wars as we engaged, at some point you all have to stop looking in the rear view mirror. People that do that constantly usually can't navigate the road ahead. You constantly and conveniently omit is the fact that for 2 years out of Bush's second term he had a Democratic congress and the debt still kept increasing as a percent of GDP. How do you explain that Trish? They could have forced the President to pay for the wars had they been as fiscally prudent as your fantasy seems to suggest. They did not. Here is a fact....remember when a fact was a fact? No base line budgeting gimmicks, no blame Bush, Just this...

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Here's another FACTUAL way to assess Barry's fercious spending ...

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html). It now stands at $14.071 trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) -- a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/16/politics/main2939036.shtml). By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year -- or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

Checkmate

You liberals need to stop fucking with the numbers. Go ahead....make my day. Dispute these numbers...you can't. You Greek style socialists need to stop playing cute with the numbers. Next you'll tell us that inflation isn't really that bad....(because food and energy prices aren't included in the inflation index, yet they're the 2 most critical things to our everyday life) I can see Obama out there on the stump telling us about how low inflation is....wink wink. Who ya gonna believe...him or your wallet?

trish

05-11-2011, 06:34 AM

Under Bush the deficit was rose 84.22%. Not because of the wars, because they were figured into his budget calculations. That 84.22% is due to the failure of the Bush Tax-Spending Bill and the trickle down theory. Jobs creation was stagnant through most of his tenure in office, except for the last few months when jobs plummeted and economy collapsed in the worst recession we've ever seen. Not only was the deficit increasing but the rate of deficit growth was increasing (i.e. the second derivative of the deficit with respect to time was positive). The cost of the wars finally got included during the Obama administration when Obama included them. So the 32.42% increase rise under Obama's tenure so far is 1) not entirely his doing; and 2) the rate of deficit growth is possibly decreasing (i.e. the second derivative of the deficit with respect to time is now negative even though the deficit itself is still climbing).

Faldur

05-11-2011, 07:21 AM

trish

05-11-2011, 07:48 AM

Trish thats complete nonsense, the yearly budgets are easily accessible. 84% are you kidding me? Look at the facts sweetheart, The Federal Budget, 2004-2009 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873746.html)

I'll type very slowly, so you can follow, using the numbers onmyknees cited in post #47 above.

100% x (10.626 billion dollars - 5.768 billion dollars)/(5.768 billion dollars) = 100% x (4.858 billion dollars)/(5.768 billion dollars) = 84.22%.

Faldur

05-11-2011, 03:42 PM

Since this thread began just 4 days ago, with our government continuing to do nothing, we have borrowed another $18.05 billion dollars on our children's credit card.

trish

05-12-2011, 02:04 AM

Faldur

05-12-2011, 03:44 AM

Exactly. Remember the running costs of two wars never were included in the budget numbers during the Bush years. (And the cost of two wars over two terms was over a trillion, not 158 billion http://costofwar.com/en/ ).

Trish, read the obama 2011 budget. $158 billion is allotted for the Iraqi and Afghani wars. So again I ask how does $158 billion create a 36% increase? Da math don't add up sweetie.

It is clearly not the wars that are driving up the buget. It out of control social spending.

Faldur

05-12-2011, 03:47 AM

One hour from this post the S&P rating for U.S. currency will be triple A.
One hour after that the S&P rating for U.S. currency will be triple A.
This will continue until Boehner fails to lead the house to increase the debt cieling.

No ceiling increase without dollar for dollar spending reduction. Maybe you liberals should have taken care of this stuff while you controlled all three branches. :)

hippifried

05-12-2011, 05:14 AM

No ceiling increase without dollar for dollar spending reduction. Maybe you liberals should have taken care of this stuff while you controlled all three branches. :)
Oh... & uh... When was that again? Not in my lifetime if I'm not mistaken. In fact, the only time period I can think of in the last 60 years, where one party controlled all 3 branches, was Republicans 2001 - 2006. Oh boy. We really thrived then, didn't we?

trish

05-12-2011, 06:15 AM

when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/16/politics/main2939036.shtml). By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. Dispute these numbers...you can't. Faldur disputes them, take it up with him. He doesn't believe it was anywhere near an 84% increase...though since I showed him the arithmetic he hasn't said anything about it.

Faldur, the Bush administration put the war on the China Charge Card, but failed to put in the budget. The whole cost of the two wars was not reported in the budget for the entirety of the Bush administration. That money, which we borrowed from China, is finally listed in the budget. It's not going to be labeled "for the war" six years later when it shows up in Obama's budget, it's going to be labeled "debt to China". The 158 billion is the cost of the ongoing war effort. Sheesh.

The amount we borrowed is about a trillion dollars. So the actual debt at the end of the Bush administration was more like 11.626 billion instead of 10.626. So the debt increase under Obama is 21%. Even though the debt rose it's possible the rate of the rate of debt growth is now negative.

http://costofwar.com/en/

Faldur

05-12-2011, 03:47 PM

Oh... & uh... When was that again? Not in my lifetime if I'm not mistaken. In fact, the only time period I can think of in the last 60 years, where one party controlled all 3 branches, was Republicans 2001 - 2006. Oh boy. We really thrived then, didn't we?

Pre-election 2010? Remember obamacare? "We must pass the bill to find out whats in it"? That magical tag team of pelossi, reed, and obama?

If the budget was something your party cared about they should have passed it last year like they were supposed to. And if the debt ceiling was something they were passionate about, likewise they should have passed it when they had control of all three branches of government.

Faldur

05-12-2011, 04:05 PM

The 158 billion is the cost of the ongoing war effort. Sheesh.

The point, which was made a few days, (and about $9 billion in borrowed funds ago), was questioning Hippi's response that the $1 trillion increase in the annual budget was due to the ongoing obama wars being included in the budget.

Another $22.56 billion borrowed on our magical visa, (since the thread began), on the good side only another 36 hours before we max the card out and the reality of our deeds sets in.

hippifried

05-12-2011, 06:17 PM

Pre-election 2010? Remember obamacare? "We must pass the bill to find out whats in it"? That magical tag team of pelossi, reed, and obama?
Wrong again. Wrong still would probably be more accurate. Do you even know what a branch is? I'm thinking not. You're confused. You don't know what you're talking about because you're a parrot. This makes it even more obvious for the fact that this same mistake got made months ago & was never corrected in the lame emails that get sent around the list of gullibles. Typing out talking points word for word (mistakes & all) is the same as pasting. So get back on your high horse when or if you ever come up with an original thought.

If the budget was something your party cared about they should have passed it last year like they were supposed to. And if the debt ceiling was something they were passionate about, likewise they should have passed it when they had control of all three branches of government.
More know-nothing bullshit. Replete with the same dumbshit mistake. Repeating a lie over & over & over doesn't make it into a truth. It just makes you a redundant liar. You can't actually create a meme while it's being actively challenged, & this crap is never going to be given a free ride. You don't know what you're talking about. At first I thought you just didn't understand the math & accounting methodology, but now I'm convinced that you don't understand any of the shit you repeat. You don't even remember 8th grade civics. Have you gotten that far in school yet? Another unwitting dupe. Go hang some teabags from your ears.

Faldur

05-12-2011, 06:30 PM

Wrong again. Wrong still would probably be more accurate. Do you even know what a branch is?

My bad, your are correct sir. "Branch" was the wrong term to use. Although I would argue the court is stacked in your favor. My apologies..

Faldur

05-12-2011, 06:34 PM

More know-nothing bullshit. Replete with the same dumbshit mistake. Repeating a lie over & over & over doesn't make it into a truth. It just makes you a redundant liar. You can't actually create a meme while it's being actively challenged, & this crap is never going to be given a free ride. You don't know what you're talking about. At first I thought you just didn't understand the math & accounting methodology, but now I'm convinced that you don't understand any of the shit you repeat. You don't even remember 8th grade civics. Have you gotten that far in school yet? Another unwitting dupe. Go hang some teabags from your ears.

Hate much?

And I will disagree the 2011 fiscal budget was the responsibility of the 111th Congress to complete.

hippifried

05-12-2011, 10:29 PM

I don't hate you. I can't take you seriously though. You're just entertainment.

Faldur

05-13-2011, 03:35 PM

And boom goes the dynamite $27 billion in debt in 6 days...

trish

05-13-2011, 04:40 PM

Come on Faldur, you proved you don't even know how to compute percentages. Why should we take any of your fear mongering seriously? Boehner should just herd his little sheep together and raise the fucking debt ceiling already.

Faldur

05-13-2011, 05:15 PM

It looks like my math isn't doing too bad Trish, even with my public education. With the amount of debt we are piling up how can you just turn a blind eye?

And fear mongering? From our resident global warming expert.. when you have concerns they are valid, when a conservative has concerns they are fear mongering.

When a conservative uses enhanced interrogation its barbaric, when a liberal double taps and unarmed man in the temple its justice. Hard to keep all of these double standards straight.

onmyknees

05-14-2011, 05:05 AM

Wrong again. Wrong still would probably be more accurate. Do you even know what a branch is? I'm thinking not. You're confused. You don't know what you're talking about because you're a parrot. This makes it even more obvious for the fact that this same mistake got made months ago & was never corrected in the lame emails that get sent around the list of gullibles. Typing out talking points word for word (mistakes & all) is the same as pasting. So get back on your high horse when or if you ever come up with an original thought.

More know-nothing bullshit. Replete with the same dumbshit mistake. Repeating a lie over & over & over doesn't make it into a truth. It just makes you a redundant liar. You can't actually create a meme while it's being actively challenged, & this crap is never going to be given a free ride. You don't know what you're talking about. At first I thought you just didn't understand the math & accounting methodology, but now I'm convinced that you don't understand any of the shit you repeat. You don't even remember 8th grade civics. Have you gotten that far in school yet? Another unwitting dupe. Go hang some teabags from your ears.

Ya know I read your posts as often as I can stand the empty foolishness. Let's discect this one for example....I count eleven sentences ( if you can call them that) of which you say absolutely nothing. Your fingers surely were moving across the keyboard, your mind was working, albeit in a limited capacity, but you convey no clear thought or message. No contradictory data, no opposing thought, no contrary opinion , no factual input....just play ground name calling. It's a chronic habit with you. I attribute it to laziness...too many years with your lips around a bong perhaps. You believe what you believe ...but why? You sound like a liberal politician giving a stump speech for the 87th time to a sleepy, but sympathetic crowd. Vapid. Demagogue, demonize, belittle...that's your M.O.
If politics and governing is about ideas and communicating those thoughts and ideas... best stick to Trannys cause you're not winning any converts.

hippifried

05-14-2011, 07:55 AM

Uh huh... & your diatribe is so informative. Pfffft!

Stavros

05-14-2011, 08:57 AM

robertlouis

05-14-2011, 09:32 AM

I would rather people had some ideas for creating jobs, cutting waste across the public sector, and so on, in order to set in motion a reversal to the current economic malaise; rather than this static point scoring about figures.

In the UK the basic contrast we have been offered is Labour's 'gradualist' deficit reduction, the equivalent of turning around an oil tanker; and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition's 'shock treatment', the equivalent of slamming on the brakes of the car just before (or after) the traffic lights turn red. Both have merits, both have risks.

Although my long term prognosis is positive, unlike previous decades, I think we are in a Japanese-style no-growth decade, so that nothing exceptional is likely to happen for some time. In the meantime, Germany does what Germany does best: it runs its public services with calculated precision, it exalts engineers so that year in, year out graduates enter the economy, and with their practical and intellectual expertise bring new ideas and innovations to their industry, where here in the UK we have the equivalent number of media studies students (or so it seems) whose contribution to life is an idea for a reality tv show and a bizarre cornucopia of knowledge about the Third Reich; while present-day Germans invest in new machinery on a regular basis; the old adage here 'if it aint broke don't fix it' being the curse of British industry, although its code for 'we are not spending money on it'...needless to say the Germans are one of if not the largest group of EU nationalities living in the UK (along with the French) -engineers, financiers, and so on -otherwise in the next 20 years most of our engineers will be from India.

But how do you persuade young people to study engineering in a culture obsessed with celebrity and achievement measured in column inches?

Add into the mix the fact that the first thing to go in Britain in hard times is the training budget, whereas in Germany they increase it in order to have better qualified people when the better times return, and you have the industrial reflection of a financial services driven business culture in which tomorrow is the focus and next year can go to hell. The US is pretty much the same if not moreso. Oh, and what else do the Germans do that neither the Brits nor the Americans do? They build high quality industrial and consumer goods which we by contrast import from low wage economies while our own manufacturing atrophies. The end result is that they come out of recession faster and fitter with an export-led recovery. What do we export that the world wants, apart from war, of course.

It's very sad. I'm going to Germany for a few weeks on Friday and if I can I'll pass on what I see as well as what my German counterparts think. As I'll be halfway up an alp most of the time, wifi may be a problem.

hippifried

05-14-2011, 09:01 PM

I can't speak for the UK or the rest of Europe, but we don't need shock treatments. The debt's big, but we're big. We're nowhere near default, but we could be if we keep cutting off our revenue stream.

Spending isn't the problem. Spending is what makes the economy go. Capitalism is financing, & that part of the economy's thriving right now. We need money in the capital markets, but they create their own by borrowing to lend. Down here in the consumer markets, we don't have that luxury. We create money by borrowing to spend. Consumer spending is over 70% of the economy. This is the money that creates a demand for workers. When you constrict the flow of money to the consumer market, which is what "supply side" philosophy & austerity programs do in both theory & practice, people get thrown out of work. It's the modern equivalent of hoarding gold. Keeping the money at the top & sinking all porofits into acquisitions & monopolizing, is hoarding, & it doesn't put people to work. We need money to flow, not dribble (or "trickle"). Jobs aren't created by pushing up stock prices on a bet. Right now, that's all that's going on.

Austerity shock treatment my ass. This is America. We got rid of the concept of peasantry by getting rid of nobility. It just seems to me that all this effort to widen the economic gap, is just a form of reestablishing feudalism. It's backward thinking. Where have these austerity programs ever worked? It's a surrender.

Faldur

05-14-2011, 09:49 PM

hippifried

05-15-2011, 01:06 AM

The government IS its citizens. You guys keep trying to make it seem as if the government is some malevolent external entity. That's simply not true. We're not our own enemy. The purpose of a society is to pool resources for mutual protection from external entities & to make life better for those within the society. Government is the vehicle for doing that. There's 300,000,000 people here. We can't pretend to live in small tribal societies or rustic mythic rural utopias. Capitalism is pooling resources. Communism is pooling resources. All the economic philosophical 'isms are about pooling resources. Creating fear of ideas, any ideas, is counterproductive.

As for Japan: It's private speculation that's been deflating their currency & turning them from a net exporter to a net importer. It's the same private speculators that had been inflating ours, & would have deflated it without intervention through QE. Rational self interest as a system is a myth. None of these rigid ideologies take human nature & the inevitable malevolence of greed into account. There's no utopia.

Faldur

05-16-2011, 03:54 PM

Well the kids maxed out the credit card, going to be interesting to see what happens next. In just 9 days we've added $40.6 billion..

http://theheartofamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/debt-ceiling.jpg

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/debt-ceiling.jpg

yodajazz

05-17-2011, 11:04 AM

Government spending cannot make the economy go. Government has no money, it only has what it takes from its citizens. The private sector and private spending drives the economy. Japan has been trying to buy its way out of a 10 year recession and how is that working? We just spent over a trillion dollars to guarantee the unemployment rate didn't go over 8%, how'd that work out?

If our country had the balls to stand up and say were going to reduce our debt and balance our budget. The economic confidence that would develop would bounce us out of the stagnant hole were in. I strongly disagree with you Hippi, the debt is too big, beyond too big and its becoming unmanageable.

The function of government is to look out for the general welfare of all its citizens. Less than three years ago, we had a world wide financial crisis. The financial industry had been given more freedom, through new laws, such as the Financial Reform Act of 1999, and relaxation from other regulatory oversight. So this is your ideal utopia of what are the effects of less government on private spending. I heard it said that 1/4 of the world's wealth was wiped out. How did this happen? It is still playing out regarding the various responsibilities. However many are looking at the practices of the financial industry. Here is one article on a government inquiry into the their actions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43055919/

So my point is that I agree, whole heartedly with Hippifried's last post. Your idealization of the private sector fails to take into account, greed, and other human failings. Here's one example: Shouldn't I be able to trust my doctor for medical advice? Sure my relatives could sue, if malpractice contributes to my death. But government oversight raises standards that help me directly, in several ways. One thing, you may not think of, but people of my race were refused medical care, only because of their race. But because of government intervention into the private sector, our options are greater these days. I just looked up the most famous case of this happening; it was a Black doctor. I discovered that he died two days before I was born. So we are not talking about ancient history, either. It could have happened to me.

Faldur

05-17-2011, 04:01 PM

Debt Clock (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

yodajazz

05-17-2011, 09:34 PM

Debt Clock = fear stimulator. Real consequences could be that the dollar is devalued, making it more expensive, to outsource labor and buy foriegn goods. It could get so expensive that they might end up having to pay American workers, and make it profitable for local people to fix things. This whole thing does mean less profit margin for the wealthiest, but works for the general good, as more money is circulated through local communities.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." Since the Debt Clock = fear, we then have to fear the debt clock itself, more than its numbers.

Faldur

05-17-2011, 10:35 PM

Debt Clock = fear stimulator.

Do you consider keeping track of your expenditures and deposits fear mongering? How many successful businesses do not keep a ledger?

The Debt Clock is a snap shot of the countries financial status. When I see things like Gross Debt To GDP Ration at 97%, that is reason for alarm. Interest expense from 2010 to 2011 jumped 35%, from $188 billion to $251 billion. Projected by the year 2020 to be $800 billion annually. I don't want to startle you my man but does that sound sustainable? Our interest on the debt if allowed to continue will become our largest budget item.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/von%20havenstein/Treasury%202.jpg

beandip

05-18-2011, 02:21 PM

...funny how people blame Bush. Look at how much Obama increased the deficit. He surpassed
Bush in just two years.... but hey, why let silly facts get in the way of a debate, right?

The FSA (Free Ahit Army) are leechfucks....they want more, more and more. The only thing that will "fix"this is a 40% haircut in FEDGOV, namely unfunded liabilities. Since the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that SS is a tax......and Tax Cheat Turbo Timmae came out Monday and blatantly told everyone that SS is now 100% insolvent.....well, let's just say that things are going to get interesting very soon. There is no SS lock box, there never was.

I for one can't wait to see the riots begin in the inner cities when the FSA don't get their Welfare checks. The food riots alone will make me have to go out and buy a TV and watch the boob tube again, something I've not done in 8 years.

You can argue politics all you want...but you can't argue math.

We're broke ass. Time for a reset. This is gonna be good.

beandip

05-18-2011, 02:28 PM

Trish thats complete nonsense, the yearly budgets are easily accessible. 84% are you kidding me? Look at the facts sweetheart, The Federal Budget, 2004-2009 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873746.html)

Both trish and hippifried are not required to use "facts" here on this BB. That has been patently evident now for years.

yodajazz

05-19-2011, 04:28 AM

Do you consider keeping track of your expenditures and deposits fear mongering? How many successful businesses do not keep a ledger?

The Debt Clock is a snap shot of the countries financial status. When I see things like Gross Debt To GDP Ration at 97%, that is reason for alarm. Interest expense from 2010 to 2011 jumped 35%, from $188 billion to $251 billion. Projected by the year 2020 to be $800 billion annually. I don't want to startle you my man but does that sound sustainable? Our interest on the debt if allowed to continue will become our largest budget item.

The issue is not about keeping a ledger. The problem is that there is so much focus on the ledger, every second, in this case one loses perspective on all other aspects of humanity. Beside federal debt, babies are born, people die, get married, purchase goods, etc. All these things eventually impact the quality of life of society. The downfall of our nation, is that now too many people only care about the bottom line in their pockets immediately rather, rather than seeing that investing in the general good. I think it is significant that in this thread Beandip, assumes that we will have to cut the basic survival needs of the poorest, and not assume, that the class of people who have gained a greater share of the total wealth, in recent years need to pay more taxes, or that we should be looking at our military role in the world, or even demanding greater accountability of military spending.

A major problem with not caring about humanity, is the mental process of disconnecting oneself from greater humanity. One has to disconnect with human suffering, with a false since of superiority, and have a basic ungratefulness, of the sacrifice and contributions of the labor class, along with the potential within each to rise above. This includes the poor. One also has to sacrifice the concept of "one nation". When people see themselves as part of whole, they realize that some sacrifice may be nescessary in times of crisis. This is how our nation advanced in the past. But the disconnect, is that we now ignore how and why we were successful, to only be concerned about what material goods we can accumulate, damn grandma, is she has some pains, making her life miserable.

The Debt Clock can only measure money. I'm not saying ignore debt. But focusing on it exclusively, ignores the rest of life, which is the human condition.

Faldur

05-19-2011, 04:08 PM

Well Yoda we have a fundamental difference of opinion of what the responsibility of government is. I differ with you on the social engineering that you want government to participate in.

In my opinion our country was strongest when "the general good" of our society was left to the individuals deal with and not wealth re-distrabution by a bloated government. We had less poor before the war on poverty. And in fact if we had just given the funds used by government to fight poverty directly to the poor we would be in better shape.

I also believe its the governments responsibility to focus on its ledger. We have a government operating over 750 days without a budget. Thats not just ignoring the ledger thats irresponsible recklessness.

I do admire your opinion, you obviously care a great deal.

Silcc69

05-19-2011, 04:40 PM

Faldur

05-19-2011, 05:27 PM

Please explain how do we do that?

Well since 1964 we have spent close to $7 trillion on the "war on poverty", with no measurable improvement. Quite simply had we just taken the $7 trillion dollars and just mailed it to the "poor" we would have damn near eradicated poverty.

Anything government does it does extremely poorly. Lets look at some of the benifets we received for our $7 trillion dollar investment. (taken from S. Leon Felkins, "Poverty's Paradoxes and Intractable Dilemmas") (http://perspicuity.net/politics/poorlogic-a.html)

Between 1965 and 2000, welfare spending cost taxpayers over $8 trillion (in constant 1999 dollars) -- Johnson's estimate of $970 million, not withstanding.

From the start of the "Great Society" in 1964 to 1972, families on welfare tripled (approximately 1 million to 3 million). As a showing of appreciation to Johnson for this wonderful job, there was massive and bloody rioting in the ghettos of American cities, peaking in 1967.

Out-of-Wedlock births for African-Americans, driven by welfare system rules, has grown from around 20% in the early '60s to nearly 70% in the '90s.

The total state and federal annual spending for welfare programs has grown from approximately $40 billion in 1960 to $450 billion in 2000 and continues to increase in spite of the so-called "ending of welfare as we know it" legislation of 1996.

From 1960 to 2000, the crime rate has tripled and the incarceration rate has increased by nearly 400 percent (another form of welfare?) -- see Charles Murray's "The Underclass Revisited". (Murray also has a book of the same title, available here.)

At the start of the National School Lunch Program in 1946, there were approximately 7.1 million students that participated. By 1997 there were nearly 27 million participants in spite of an enormous increase in the economic well being of the country during that time (source, USDA "School Lunch Program - Fact Sheets"). Sadly, grades, nevertheless, went down.

Those are statistics from a 10 year old article, the costs and size of the 80 some odd welfare programs has sky rocketed since 2001. It is estimated $1.05 trillion was spent in 2005 on all federal, state and local programs. Had we just sent the 37 million "poor" a check they would have received $27,000 each person. Thats $81,000 for a family of 3. Instead we enslaved them into a system that condemns them to a lifetime of poverty.

hippifried

05-19-2011, 06:46 PM

Another story told by somebody who never saw the abject poverty prior to 1964. It's not about $ figures.

Faldur

05-19-2011, 07:02 PM

It's not about $ figures.

I will agree with you on that, its not about $. But shouldn't somewhere in the equation it be about results?

Flushing good money after bad in a program that is broken is insane.

hippifried

05-19-2011, 07:40 PM

Good money after bad? That's a lot of assuming. You don't know what you're talking about.

Silcc69

05-19-2011, 08:52 PM

Faldur, what are your thought's on this?

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/media-release-data-show-walmart-employees-maine-rely-heavily-public-assistance

Faldur

05-19-2011, 10:25 PM

Faldur, what are your thought's on this?

Well for starters I choose not to work at Walmart, nor Mcdonald's or Burger King. They are a law abiding employer who pays on average 133% above minimum wage.

Slicc would you consider working for Walmart a permanent full time job? Once upon a time I worked taking tickets at a movie theatre for $1.57 per hour. It was a great way to get money to date chicks but I always knew it was a dead end. Thankfully I earn a bit more than that today.

If you don't like Walmart you have the right not to support them, you have the right not to work for them, and you have the right to try and convince others to do the same.

Faldur

05-20-2011, 01:33 AM

Good money after bad? That's a lot of assuming. You don't know what you're talking about.

And Hippi why is it so terrible in your opinion to expect results for the hard earned money we spend? To blindly throw money at a problem with no means of judging the impact that money is making is just foolish.

Im obviously no genius, but I think I know a little something about what I'm talking about.

Faldur

05-20-2011, 07:15 AM

Like I fully understand how our government just put another $58.65 billion on our kids credit card in the 12 days this thread has existed.

trish

05-20-2011, 07:35 AM

That's way less than the number of gallons spilled in 12 days by BP last year, and way less than what that spillage cost our economy. If congress doesn't vote to raise the debt ceiling, Boehner is just telling the world that we refuse to pay our debts. That's fine by me, but then I think the conservatives need to remove "In God We Trust" from our money, 'cause clearly they no longer do.

Silcc69

05-20-2011, 09:21 AM

Well for starters I choose not to work at Walmart, nor Mcdonald's or Burger King. They are a law abiding employer who pays on average 133% above minimum wage.

Slicc would you consider working for Walmart a permanent full time job? Once upon a time I worked taking tickets at a movie theatre for $1.57 per hour. It was a great way to get money to date chicks but I always knew it was a dead end. Thankfully I earn a bit more than that today.

If you don't like Walmart you have the right not to support them, you have the right not to work for them, and you have the right to try and convince others to do the same.

Uhm it's SILCC not SLICC. Law abiding employer ROFLMAO. So everybody that works at Walmart should just up and leave right? They get paid shitty wages and have so-so benefits. Those Walton kids are worth what 20 billion a piece I think. I've always thought that these jobs that make a killing should pay the employees a living wage where they could live a DECENT life. But I guess you don't feel that way.

hippifried

05-20-2011, 09:34 AM

And Hippi why is it so terrible in your opinion to expect results for the hard earned money we spend? To blindly throw money at a problem with no means of judging the impact that money is making is just foolish.

Im obviously no genius, but I think I know a little something about what I'm talking about.
Oh You don't think there's been any results from the "Great Society" programs? Based on what? You don't know what you're talking about. Not just this, but the whole topic of money. You've got this whole simplistic grade school approach goin' on. That doesn't even work on the micro level, let alone macro. This isn't a credit card or anything resembling one. This isn't a household & can't be thought of in the same way. The government's not a business, & it's not supposed to turn a profit. None of your analogies work in reality or explain anything resembling reality. Raw numbers mean nothing if you don't take inflation into account. A trillion $ today is the same as less than $100 billion in the VietNam era. So for all these dollar amounts you keep slinging around as the end of civilization, I have a question. Compared to what? Do you have even the slightest comprehension of what kind of results these draconian austerity measures you're promoting would have? Just take a look at the relations between the 3rd world & the IMF or World Bank. You guys seem hell bent on destroying this nation & turning it over to international speculators who have no loyalties.

The only successful fascist was Franco. Take a look at Spain today & see how that turned out. Really. To listen to you guys , one would think we're not the world's largest economy. You're trying to put us in the same category as the European PPIGS. You're full of shit, confused, & don't know what you're talking about.

Faldur

05-20-2011, 04:00 PM

Hippi the "you don't know what your talking about" argument has gotten old. You use it anytime someone disputes your opinion. Its almost as bad as "your just repeating what you hear". Both are complete bullshit.

Do you have even the slightest comprehension of what kind of results these draconian austerity measures you're promoting would have? Yes I do, they would initiate a new confidence in government for the people. It would set an example to the rest of the world of true leadership.

Your kind of thinking, "that you people are just to dumb to understand why we need to spend and borrow so much", (I know that's not a quote from you but a good summary of your point), is exactly how we got here. Irresponsible spending, and governing by people who think they are smarter than everyone else. As I have stated I'm not a genius, but I'm start enough to see how to get this country rolling again.

Trish I'm not sure I see the point. Republicans caused the oil spill? Really?

SILCC my bad, misspell was not intentional.

trish

05-20-2011, 04:52 PM

I'm not sure I see the point.Of course you don't, you don't seem to have a comprehension of relative sizes and magnitudes. When you can't even figure a percentage, best keep your mouth shut.

Faldur

05-20-2011, 05:29 PM

best keep your mouth shut.

Ya.. thats not going to happen

hippifried

05-21-2011, 02:05 AM

"True leadership" is telling the world that the US is broke, can no longer lead economically, & will probably default? Or maybe "true leadership" is capitulating to international speculators & other monied interests that have no ties of loyalty to the US.

As a nation, we have expenditures. It's all part of the pact we made with ourselves "to form a more perfect Union, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, & secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves & our Posterity". How is any of that achieved by the scorched earth policies you're promoting, Faldur? You want to balance the budget? Just make sure everything's accounted for. Oh that's right, we've started doing that again. Reducing the deficit is a different thing. Reducing the debt is something else altogether. We can't reduce anything by whittling away at "non-defence" discretionary expenditures that don't jive with whatever self-righteous pseudo philosophy you want to promote this week to hang onto some fringe voting block. We can't cut our way out of deficit spending, even if we didn't care whether we could continue to do the things we want to do. The biggest entitlement is debt service. Everybody, including you, knows that the only way out of this deficit is to raise taxes. The only thing in the way is an ersatz philosophy that says we can grow our way out of it if we just cut off our revenue stream.

You still want to stick to this lame story that it doesn't matter whether you know what you're talking about? You're wrong. I don't think people are too dumb to understand what's going on. I think they're just overwhelmed by the constant barrage of lies. All this bullshit fear mongering isn't just dumb, it's dishonest.

Faldur

05-21-2011, 03:43 PM

"True leadership" is telling the world that the US is broke, can no longer lead economically, & will probably default?

No, true leadership is saying we've gone down the wrong path. And we are going to make serious changes to correct the problem. To strengthen our country economically, and avoid any thought of default.

How is any of that achieved by the scorched earth policies you're promoting, Faldur?

Let me get this straight. Rolling spending limits back to 2008 is "scorched earth"? And you call me dense.

We can't reduce anything by whittling away at "non-defence" discretionary expenditures that don't jive with whatever self-righteous pseudo philosophy you want to promote this week to hang onto some fringe voting block.

A 10% reduction to ALL government spending repeated for 3 years is not "whittling away at non-defence discretionary expenditures". Its direct reduction in ALL spending. Its nothing more than reversing the skyrocketing grow we have seen in the size of government in the last 3 years. Did I miss something and the government not operate well in 2008?

All this bullshit fear mongering isn't just dumb, it's dishonest.

Who is guilty of being dishonest when facts are called "fear mongering". The debt clock shows the true financial status of our country. You would prefer that we hide or censor those facts? Give grand speeches how the average citizen cannot begin to understand how government needs to continue this insane cycle and that everything will be ok. Sorry, the people of this country are smart enough to see beyond that.

trish

05-21-2011, 04:58 PM

Bush tax cuts are the primary cause of our current debt problem; they need to expire.

Faldur

05-21-2011, 05:09 PM

Bush tax cuts are the primary cause of our current debt problem; they need to expire.

The Obama tax cuts were just signed into law, maybe you should take it up with your party. And with a 10% increase in spending annually you can raise the taxes to 100% and you will still be on the short end of the stick.

trish

05-21-2011, 07:34 PM

See chart below

hippifried

05-22-2011, 12:19 AM

No, true leadership is saying we've gone down the wrong path.

According to whom? & which path was the wrong one? Political finger pointing isn't leadership. So far, the only "changes" I'm hearing from the Chicken Little crowd are reversing the New Deal & every social program that followed. I see no reason for a backtrack just to satisfy some ideological & mythic wishful thinking. We don't live in Ayn Rand's fictional world.

Rolling spending limits back to 2008 is "scorched earth"?

Yes, because it does nothing. It's not even a reduction in spending, even though the numbers can be easily skewed to make it seem so. 2008 was when everything fell apart. Remember? We were spending like crazy, with a huge chunk above & beyond the Congressional appropriations in the "budget". What do we have to show for it?

A 10% reduction to ALL government spending repeated for 3 years is not "whittling away at non-defence discretionary expenditures". Its direct reduction in ALL spending. Its nothing more than reversing the skyrocketing grow we have seen in the size of government in the last 3 years. Did I miss something and the government not operate well in 2008?

Apparently you did. Government was barely operating at all in 2008. It was like they went on sabbatical with pay. The SEC, FTC, & other various alphabets were sitting around contemplating their collective navels & congradulating themselves for doing nothing, when everything came crashing down around their ears because they were doing nothing. We were spending ourselves into oblivion & nothing was being accomplished. Hell, they were blatantly bragging about not trying to accomplish anything.

To hear you tell it, there was no problem before TARP. Which rock were you hiding under again? Do you remember the economic downturn of 2005 & 2006? Remember the "stimulous" in the form of a tax rebate in 2007? It took overturning the Congress in the '06 elections to get that much done, because the sitting government was just denying there was a problem. Apparently you bought it.

As for a 10% cut across the board: Can't do it. There's this little thing called priorities. There's a lot more to governance than money, & it isn't supposed to be a for profit enterprize. It's always in the hole to some extent. The purpose of the government is to provide all those things laid out in the Preamble. All of it. Everybody wants to cherry-pick because everybody has their own set of priorities. Just like everybody has their own take on what's happening & how to deal with it. There's no "one size fits all". Regardless of how loud or panic stricken anybody is, there's not even a consensus that there's a problem or that we're in decline. It's all just opinions & political propaganda.

Sorry, the people of this country are smart enough to see beyond that.

Most people can see past most political claptrap.
Facts are facts. What's dishonest is the spin , delivery, & conclusions.

Faldur

05-22-2011, 12:21 AM

Trish your picture is pretty, if my kid drew it I would be very proud. But the fact is its a blatant lie.

“However, if the extension of the tax cuts is viewed in the light of current policy, then it makes no difference to the budget deficit because the baseline remains the same. In other words, extending the Bush era tax cuts won’t cause the deficit to rise.

The cost of the tax cuts depends on the baseline,” says Stan Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications in Washington and a budget expert.

Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected. Extending the cuts to households making over $250,000 a year accounts for $32 billion of that.

Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.

But, viewing the budget differently, as a reflection of current policy, means the tax cuts don’t “cost” the US Treasury revenues. Article by Ron Scherer 12/6/2010

trish

05-22-2011, 12:51 AM

But the fact is its a blatant lie.I see. You could've chosen "incorrect", or "erroneous", or "wrong" etc. But you chose to go with "lie" to emphasize your blind bias. The chart summarizes the analysis by the CBPP of the Congressional Budget Office.

Faldur

05-22-2011, 01:02 AM

Your chart summarizes bullshit.. Its a complete fraud. So according to your graph we increase spending $1.7 trillion from 2008 to 2011 and the debt goes down. If only the $300 billion per year was not lost on the Obama tax cuts. Sorry not buying it.

trish

05-22-2011, 01:42 AM

according to your graph... Not my chart, as I said, it's the CBPP analysis of the Congressional Budget Office numbers.
we increase spending $1.7 trillion from 2008 to 2011 and the debt goes down.Wrong. That's not what the chart says. Try again.

Faldur

05-22-2011, 02:44 PM

Wrong. That's not what the chart says. Try again.

Ok, one last time. Your chart indicates that if we only had not gone to war, and the Obama tax breaks had not been in-acted the national debt would have gone down. Our federal debt has gone from 2008 @ $10.69 trillion, to 2011 @ $14.34. The numbers do not add up, and on that basis I say your graph is seriously flawed. I don't care who made it, it is inaccurate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png/800px-Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png

trish

05-22-2011, 06:13 PM

But the chart you've chosen to post from the BEA has absolutely no analysis of the sources of that debt. For that information see this chart.

Faldur

05-22-2011, 09:57 PM

But the chart you've chosen to post from the BEA has absolutely no analysis of the sources of that debt. For that information see this chart.

Ok, I do have to say I laughed out loud when I read that..

Faldur

05-22-2011, 10:20 PM

And lets look at the accuracy history of that fine organization known as the CBO:

CBO .. Oops, missed it by that much. (http://www.freedomworks.org/files/capitol_comment_CBO_scores_PDF_2.pdf)

trish

05-22-2011, 10:52 PM

And lets look at the accuracy history of that fine organization known as the CBO:I'm not disputing the accuracy of the CBO. I assume you wouldn't want to either since the chart you posted above is derived from the information provided by the CBO (it says so on the bottom). The one you posted shows the debt as a percentage of the GDP over the last decade. The one I posted shows the sources of that debt and projects it over the next decade. Both charts are constructed upon CBO data. To rationally question the accuracy of a set of data, you need to look into exactly how it was collected and how it's applied. Of course if you just want to cast aspersions and spread bias, you can take the easier route.

Faldur

05-23-2011, 01:45 AM

since the chart you posted above is derived from the information provided by the CBO (it says so on the bottom).

The chart I posted was the CBO's compilation of historical data. There accuracy tracking historical data is much higher than there "projected" costs record.

Now enough seriousness, the rapture occurred yesterday, were all in a better place lets have a little fun.

The national debt today if it was in piles of $1,000 bills, (such as R. Reagan proposed in 1981), would be 900 miles tall. In $1 bills, the pile would reach to the moon and back twice.

If the debt were a stack of dimes it would encompass the earth and have change to spare.

In one hour the United States borrows $188 million, more than it paid to buy the State of Alaska in 1867, converted to today's dollar.

In two hours, the US borrows more than it paid France for present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa and the rest of the land obtained by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.

The US borrows more than $52,000 per second, thats more than the cost of a years tuition, room and board at most universities.

The net worth of Bill Gates, roughly around $56 billion, could only cover the deficit for 12 1/2 days.

trish

05-23-2011, 04:50 PM

The chart I posted was the CBO's compilation of historical data. There accuracy tracking historical data is much higher than there "projected" costs record.I'm sorry but "there" (I assume you mean "their") in this instance is not the CBO but the CBPP using the historical CBO data. Consequently the CBO's record in projecting "costs" (though in this case I think you mean "debt") is irrelevant. As far as projecting interest on debt over a ten year period with or without a specific revenue source, anyone can do it. If the historical data is accurate and you didn't forget to carry, you can generally count on the result. Below is the result obtained by the CBPP.

The net worth of Bill Gates, roughly around $56 billion, could only cover the deficit for 12 1/2 days.How many nanoseconds does your net worth cover? Perhaps we should collect some revenue from this Bill Gates fellow.

Faldur

05-23-2011, 05:03 PM

I'm sorry but "there" (I assume you mean "their") in this instance is not the CBO but the CBPP using the historical CBO data. Consequently the CBO's record in projecting "costs" (though in this case I think you mean "debt") is irrelevant.

Thank you teacher, please don't let this effect my final grade. Do you like apples?

yodajazz

05-29-2011, 12:12 AM

Ok, one last time. Your chart indicates that if we only had not gone to war, and the Obama tax breaks had not been in-acted the national debt would have gone down. Our federal debt has gone from 2008 @ $10.69 trillion, to 2011 @ $14.34. The numbers do not add up, and on that basis I say your graph is seriously flawed. I don't care who made it, it is inaccurate.

I don’t believe that you are really that serious about decreasing government debt. What about raising revenue along with cutting spending? If you were for raising revenue, then stopping tax cuts, would be a sensible thing to do. Make no mistake, I believe that ending the 2002 tax cuts for the wealthiest, would make the biggest difference. One major reason is that numerous sources have stated that the wealthiest are gaining in the percentage of the total wealth. Here is yet another article stating that:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-the-middle-class-became-cnnm-3061835050.html?x=0 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-the-middle-class-became-cnnm-3061835050.html?x=0)

Basically it says that, while the average tax paying family has not had it’s real wages increase since 1988, (22+ years), those over 250k, have seen their increase by 33%, in the same period. So as I have stated before, it appears that they are gaining in the percentage of overall wealth, yet playing the victim card.

But I want to show, you a real human example. In my part of town, Kentucky Fried Chicken has closed several outlets, including the two closest to me. Meanwhile, a couple of days ago, I read an article stating, that McDonald’s lags far behind ‘The Colonel’ in sale in China. I cannot argue with their right to make business decisions. However, common sense tells me that the wealthy are the one profiting the most on the Chinese chicken outlets. Like the article says, the average family’s budget is being squeezed, let alone, leaving much room for overseas investments. The loss of those jobs here means less money in the local community, including state and local taxes. So my point is cutting taxes for the wealthiest, is not increasing job opportunities here, like it is claimed. However taxes are used for the benefits of all. Things like education, are being cut. And I don’t think anyone has done a study on how those on Social Security, spend money in the community, vs wall street investments. One of two major reasons for reported projected, record bonuses on Wall Street, was foreign investment. I challenge you to show me one human story, of how those receiving those bonuses would suffer, under 2001 tax rates. But I could give you the story on 1 million, home foreclosures in 2010.

Faldur, in previous posts, you stated stats on how much has been spent on social programming, such as the “War on Poverty”. I didn’t have time to respond properly, but I may do so in the future. There is an unspoken logic, about saying the poverty funding is wasting money, while at the same time, not saying anything about the wealthiest, getting wealthier, especially when you are spending, all your time, focusing on the ‘debt clock’. Revenue is related to debt, as well as spending cuts.

PS. Another ironic thing about the KFC, example, is that top excutives, could likely receieve bonuses, if those closed outlets, represent bottom line profitablitly. These bonuses, would likely to all the way to the top of the chain. And meanwhile, the laid off workers are potentially, raising government expenditures, through benefits to lower income people. Yet the person's receiving the bonuses are complaining through their political mouthpieces. And I cant even get a good piece of chicken!

Faldur

05-29-2011, 03:05 PM

hippifried

05-29-2011, 11:15 PM

What about those who don't work for wages, salaries, or tips? You know, the folks who's income is capital gains, that get taxed at a minimal rate.

Faldur

05-30-2011, 04:25 PM

What about those who don't work for wages, salaries, or tips? You know, the folks who's income is capital gains, that get taxed at a minimal rate.

Short-term capital gains is taxed the same as Ordinary income. If your talking long-term capital gains thats currently at 15%, in 2013 it increases to 20%. We give a reduced rate to encourage long-term investment. In my own opinion, I feel that 20% is adequate.

trish

05-30-2011, 05:05 PM

Have you seen this->

hippifried

05-30-2011, 06:47 PM

We give a reduced rate to encourage long-term investment.

Well that hasn't worked. If it was up to the Jack Kemps, Steve Forbes', & Larry Kudlows of this world, there wouldnt be any tax on capital gains at all. & it still wouldn't work. So without the incentive of lowered taxes, the professional investors are going to pull their money, & all the other investor's money they control, out of the market? & do what? Stick it in a mattress or a passbook account at the local credit union? Maybe they'll move their investments off shore &... Oh wait. The monopolists are already doing that as they swallow each other up. Hell, it's getting to the point where they're running out of fun stuff to do. As we speak, the 2 biggest monopolists, Bill Gates & Warren Buffet, are pooling their resources to monopolize charity. These "investors" have taken their incentives & used them to pillage the country. If they leave, good riddence. There's more where they came from, & they're all playing with other people's money to start with. Maybe we'llo get some folks in there who actually care about the country more than they care about waving the flag as part of a bamboozle.

The "tax incentive = investment" arguement has always been bogus. The solution to revenue shortage isn't about taxing wages. It's about taxing disposable income.Looking in the wrong place.

yodajazz

05-30-2011, 08:01 PM

You don't believe I am serious about decreasing government debt? I believe raising revenue would be a smart thing. Hence my thought to raise taxes on ALL working americans by 3%. We have 48% of our working citizens who do not pay anything towards their governments operation. Its time we include them in the game. Raise the tax rate, (within reason), at what ever rate you would like, but raise it on all working americans fairly.

I have no idea where you get the info on "average tax paying families" not having a raise in real wages since 1988. My union and non-union employees have had adjusted cost of living increases regularly.

Yoda I would not oppose the re-spending of the $8 trillion we have spent since 1964 on trying to end poverty. But I would insist the money spent be means tested to ensure we get results for our investment. I feel we have not failed in lack of investment, but lack of effective programs to actually improve the situation.

And I will not buy "we do not have a spending problem", when we increase the size of the federal government by 30% in just 3 years. It was the wrong thing to do, all I propose is that we reverse that.
What about a raise, after the Bush tax cuts have been repealed? I still believe, as I have seen in numerous articles that the wealthy are getting a bigger share of the total wealth. partially due to what you have called, 'social engineering', or something like that. Such things as the "Commodities Futurization Act of 2000", or allowing investment house to become banks, are an examples.

Working families, do pay taxes. Social Security is one major way. Isn't the goverment been borrowing from SS, with thier money? The average working person, loans the government, money, interest free for a one year total, and gets it back as a tax refund. If a working class person, has property, they are payng property taxes. Then we have sales taxes, license fees, traffic fines, etc. Working people, pay tax on gas directly, as well as paying for them with the passed on costs of goods. I see taxes on such things as phone bills, some of which I dont understand who these fees are going to.

By the way I got the stats, directly from the article regarding working families income. However, lots ot people do recognize that higher paying, working class jobs, such are manufactoring, are diminishing and being replaced by lower paying service types of jobs. So perhaps the study, took into account, that an average family member is switching jobs. So getting stats from people who file taxes, would account for job switching.

Back to my proposition that the Bush tax cuts should be repealed. I think elememts of the public have been sold a bill of good that the wealthy would create more jobs with tax cuts, when they can more easily make money, through commodities, such a gas, and foreign investments. Whatever else it has done, government programs for the poor channel money directly through a local economy. And that some circulated money also gets to the wealthiest.

Faldur

05-30-2011, 08:33 PM

What about a raise, after the Bush tax cuts have been repealed? I still believe, as I have seen in numerous articles that the wealthy are getting a bigger share of the total wealth. partially due to what you have called, 'social engineering', or something like that.

In 2008 the top 2% income earners paid 48% of all income taxes collected. Yoda how much is enough, at what point will you feel vindicated that the evil rich people have been adaquatly hosed?

So the rich have been loosly identified as making $200,000 or more per year. Our current year deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. In 2010 there were 4,359,936 filers in that category. So if we do the simple math and divide $1.5 trillion by the 4,359,936 bastards that have the gaul to be ambitious, we get $344,041.70 for each rich bastard.

So to pay for our over bloated wasteful government we will send the bill to the over $200k earners and we have this one year balanced. In doing so we just wiped out the wealth of 4.4 million people but who cares they were rich!

You can't tax your way out of this, its impossible sorry. We can make strives in raising taxes moderately on all working citizens. Giving the non tax paying 48% of americans a little ownership in their country by taxing them a whopping 3% makes sense.

Working families, do pay taxes. Social Security is one major way. Isn't the goverment been borrowing from SS, with thier money? The average working person, loans the government, money, interest free for a one year total, and gets it back as a tax refund. If a working class person, has property, they are payng property taxes. Then we have sales taxes, license fees, traffic fines, etc. Working people, pay tax on gas directly, as well as paying for them with the passed on costs of goods. I see taxes on such things as phone bills, some of which I dont understand who these fees are going to.

All of which pays nothing into the treasury as income tax. 48% of this country are a drain on society. I do not care what you pay for in SS, Unemployment tax, property tax, sales tax.. every working person pays those fee's, each of which goes to fund a specific service or benefit. 48% pay nothing, zip, nada! Freeloaders sucking off the tit of the government, and bitching and moaning how everyone else isn't paying enough so they can have more. We need everyone to have some skin in the game, no longer can half this country have a free ride.

Faldur

05-30-2011, 08:35 PM

We've borrowed $103.78 billion since this thread started 23 days ago....

trish

05-30-2011, 08:47 PM

75 billion of that went to Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 900 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars are allocated each year for the running costs (not interest due) on the two wars in the Middle East.

Faldur

05-30-2011, 09:01 PM

75 billion of that went to Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 900 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars are allocated each year for the running costs (not interest due) on the two wars in the Middle East.

Three wars Trish, your forgetting our new field trip to Libya, and why are we continuing to spend it? Just last week we forgave $3 billion in debt to Egypt and handed them another $2 billion, why?

trish

05-30-2011, 09:20 PM

Oh so the world is better off without Saddam (price tag one trillion dollars), but not better off with a politically neutralized Khaddafi (price tag a few billion dollars)?

Every page of this thread needs one of these ->

Faldur

05-31-2011, 03:05 PM

Oh so the world is better off without Saddam (price tag one trillion dollars), but not better off with a politically neutralized Khaddafi (price tag a few billion dollars)?

You'd be hard pressed to find a quote from me saying were better off without Saddam. I think Iraq has been a cataclysmic failure, and I will toss Afghanistan in with that. And now on to Libya?

Its time to act like adults and admit our mistakes, hell blame the whole thing on me. But end the wholesale spending and bring our young men and women home.

yodajazz

05-31-2011, 07:18 PM

In 2008 the top 2% income earners paid 48% of all income taxes collected. Yoda how much is enough, at what point will you feel vindicated that the evil rich people have been adaquatly hosed?

So the rich have been loosly identified as making $200,000 or more per year. Our current year deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. In 2010 there were 4,359,936 filers in that category. So if we do the simple math and divide $1.5 trillion by the 4,359,936 bastards that have the gaul to be ambitious, we get $344,041.70 for each rich bastard.

So to pay for our over bloated wasteful government we will send the bill to the over $200k earners and we have this one year balanced. In doing so we just wiped out the wealth of 4.4 million people but who cares they were rich!

You can't tax your way out of this, its impossible sorry. We can make strives in raising taxes moderately on all working citizens. Giving the non tax paying 48% of americans a little ownership in their country by taxing them a whopping 3% makes sense.

All of which pays nothing into the treasury as income tax. 48% of this country are a drain on society. I do not care what you pay for in SS, Unemployment tax, property tax, sales tax.. every working person pays those fee's, each of which goes to fund a specific service or benefit. 48% pay nothing, zip, nada! Freeloaders sucking off the tit of the government, and bitching and moaning how everyone else isn't paying enough so they can have more. We need everyone to have some skin in the game, no longer can half this country have a free ride.

First, according to one source, income tax is 40% of federal income and 25% of total taxes, which include state and local taxes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100222111746AA7xTqR
The top 2% earners probably pay 0% of Social Security taxes. And it is my understanding that SS collections are 'borrowed' for other government functions.

I know that wealth, is different than income, because it includes the value of property and assets. However the top 25% control 87% of the nation's wealth. The middle 50% have 13% of the total. And the bottom 25% have 0%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
The owning of wealth has to do with assets, besides income. If you dont own anything of value, its more difficult to gain, compared to someone who already has assets, through inheritance, as just one example. So yes, ambition is a factor in gaining greater wealth, but circumstances probably play a bigger factor. People of my philosophy call it blessings. Blessing are things which you are given, not necessarily earned. Take for example, I was reading a statistic on race and inheritance. It said the average Black who recieved an inheritance is about $2,000, whereas the average White, receives about $20,000. So is it really that Blacks are less ambitious or that whites have a ten to one headstart in that regard?

I take real exception to people being called "drains on society". For example take a person who raised a family, and then retired. Part of their overall support system was that they knew they would have Social Security. So why should they considered to be a drain on society, when they made have worked in a steel factory, or built cars. There is no sin in being rich. The 'sin' is believing that you are successful because you are so much better, and that people are not because they are lazy. I see that type of philosophy lots of time on comments these days. This is the real downfall of our nation. Imagine being injured, in combat, defending the nation, and then being a called a 'drain on society' by someone being born into privledge. If you are blessed, it best to be thankful, not arrogant.

trish

05-31-2011, 07:41 PM

Faldur

05-31-2011, 11:01 PM

I take real exception to people being called "drains on society". For example take a person who raised a family, and then retired. Part of their overall support system was that they knew they would have Social Security. So why should they considered to be a drain on society, when they made have worked in a steel factory, or built cars. There is no sin in being rich. The 'sin' is believing that you are successful because you are so much better, and that people are not because they are lazy. I see that type of philosophy lots of time on comments these days. This is the real downfall of our nation. Imagine being injured, in combat, defending the nation, and then being a called a 'drain on society' by someone being born into privledge. If you are blessed, it best to be thankful, not arrogant.

Its simple, your so called person who raised a family, and then retired. If he/she was part of the 48% that do nothing to contribute to the cost and expense of running our general government they have been a drain. In other words our country would have been better off without them in it. Sorry if that hurts, but its true.

Government costs money to run, and it needs funds to continue. If 48% of the working citizens are paying nothing for their country to operate they are leaching off the good nature and expenses of others. It's just as if a neighbor came down and banged on your door and demanded you buy him dinner. Just because you work hard for your family and he doesn't feel he needs to.

Truth hurts Trish, I know. But I don't see how "sin" can be of any issue here. This is plain and simple about ownership and responsibility. When our country was founded you had to own property to vote. The founders believed that you had to have skin in the game, be a participating member of the family to have an opinion/vote. There is something to be said for that, to ask each working member of our country to pay 3% to help support the government that serves them only makes sense.

And disability or any other type of handicap/debilitating injury is not in this discussion. Were talking healthy working americans.

hippifried

05-31-2011, 11:18 PM

The arrogance is false. The lame attempts to be pompous & snide is a ruse to deflect from the immoral or gullible position. The funny part (or sad depending on your point of view) is that most of the would-be snobs don't have a pot to piss in.

thombergeron

05-31-2011, 11:57 PM

Its simple, your so called person who raised a family, and then retired. If he/she was part of the 48% that do nothing to contribute to the cost and expense of running our general government they have been a drain. In other words our country would have been better off without them in it. Sorry if that hurts, but its true.

I'd be OVERWHELMINGLY interested in seeing a source for your contention that nearly half the U.S. population has no tax liability whatsoever. I would encourage you to just say that out loud, and then spend a moment or two considering how absurd it sounds.

I quickly googled "48 pay no taxes" and found various know-nothings claiming anywhere from 37% to "over 50%" of the u.s. population pay no taxes. The proposition appears to go back to the McCain campaign in 2008, which claimed that Obama's tax plan would give tax credits to the the 40% of the population that pays no federal income tax.

Sometime thereafter, the "federal income tax" distinction was thrown to the wind, so now we have a bunch of people on the internet who don't understand tax policy claiming that most of the U.S. population freeloads.

So, first of all, sales tax? Do you truly believe that half the population goes through their lives without purchasing consumer goods? You must also consider that income tax is not the only revenue that the federal government collects. For instance, if you receive a paycheck, you pay federal payroll taxes; no exceptions. There are also various kinds of investment taxes, gas tax, taxes on airfare, etc. Then there's state income taxes, local taxes, etc.

Here's a good column on the subject from David Leonhardt: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

So, in point of fact, what you said is not true.

trish

05-31-2011, 11:58 PM

thombergeron

06-01-2011, 12:04 AM

Also note that, despite your insistence that revenue is not the problem, U.S. tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest rate in 50 years:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2009&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

thombergeron

06-01-2011, 12:21 AM

All of which pays nothing into the treasury as income tax. 48% of this country are a drain on society. I do not care what you pay for in SS, Unemployment tax, property tax, sales tax.. every working person pays those fee's, each of which goes to fund a specific service or benefit. 48% pay nothing, zip, nada! Freeloaders sucking off the tit of the government, and bitching and moaning how everyone else isn't paying enough so they can have more. We need everyone to have some skin in the game, no longer can half this country have a free ride.

This, again, is just wrong. For 2009, the latest data available, total U.S. government revenue was over $3.7 trillion (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2004_2016&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s#usgs101). Federal income tax revenue, on the other hand was about $1.47 trillion (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html), or about 39% of U.S. government revenue.

So what you have identified as "nothing, zip, nada" is actually the majority of government funding in the United States.

hippifried

06-01-2011, 01:28 AM

We cannot in good conscious ignore the revenue side of the equation when trying to solve our deficit problems.
If there is a problem...
Take a look. This whole topic, not just in this thread, is one load of misinformation or just total bullshit after another. Throw it all against the wall & see what if anything sticks. Just makinshitup over & over & over again. There's so many bogus memes floating around out there that I'm not willing to accept any of it on face value. I think the biggest bogus bullshit claim, that all this other nonsense stems from, is that the government is or can be run like a business or a household. When you stop blindly accepting that silliness, the rest of the nonsense crumbles. Just sayin'.

yodajazz

06-01-2011, 08:16 AM

Its simple, your so called person who raised a family, and then retired. If he/she was part of the 48% that do nothing to contribute to the cost and expense of running our general government they have been a drain. In other words our country would have been better off without them in it. Sorry if that hurts, but its true.

Government costs money to run, and it needs funds to continue. If 48% of the working citizens are paying nothing for their country to operate they are leaching off the good nature and expenses of others. It's just as if a neighbor came down and banged on your door and demanded you buy him dinner. Just because you work hard for your family and he doesn't feel he needs to.

Truth hurts Trish, I know. But I don't see how "sin" can be of any issue here. This is plain and simple about ownership and responsibility. When our country was founded you had to own property to vote. The founders believed that you had to have skin in the game, be a participating member of the family to have an opinion/vote. There is something to be said for that, to ask each working member of our country to pay 3% to help support the government that serves them only makes sense.

And disability or any other type of handicap/debilitating injury is not in this discussion. Were talking healthy working americans.

When I use the word ‘sin’ I am only talking about it in the most generic meaning, which simply means things like; mistake, or missing the mark. But like the Biblical concept, sin often compounds into other errors that can be our downfall. This means on an individual and collective level, which could be the US, or other nations.

Not only do I believe that the Iraq war was based upon arrogance. The tax cuts and credits given at the same time have greatly compounded the problems. I did do some further research and was surprised to learn that the Child Tax Credit was an invention of the right. It started in a Republican controled Congress, in the late 90's at $400. Bush's new tax cut in '02-'03, rose the credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. So it seems that many people, became "drains on society", because of this. I guess we would have been better off, without Republican controled Congress.

hippifried

06-01-2011, 09:40 AM

Faldur

06-01-2011, 03:21 PM

Well I hope you have the social sensitivity to set an example by euthanizing yourself when it's time for you to be put out to pasture.

You can count on me living a long and very productive life.. :geek:

Faldur

06-01-2011, 03:33 PM

The tax cuts and credits given at the same time have greatly compounded the problems. I did do some further research and was surprised to learn that the Child Tax Credit was an invention of the right. It started in a Republican controled Congress, in the late 90's at $400. Bush's new tax cut in '02-'03, rose the credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. So it seems that many people, became "drains on society", because of this. I guess we would have been better off, without Republican controled Congress.

It really comes down to "how much is enough". So Yoda, how much do you feel is right to tax people? We've already touched on the FACT that you can tax everyone earning $200k and more at 100% and will only cover the national debt for about 10 1/2 months. So how much do you want?

"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

"I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment."

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit

"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."

– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

trish

06-01-2011, 03:57 PM

So far the Republican deficit reduction measures do nothing but serve their political agenda. Effective measures will have to increase revenues. There are 300 million people in this country. 1.5% (i.e. 4.5 million of them) have an annual income of more than $250,000.00. That's a total of 1.125 trillion dollars. If each one contributed 35% of their income to taxes that would be 394 billion dollars which is more than 25% of the current deficit. Note this is a very conservative calculation because many of those 1.5% have an income that exceeds $250000 by hundreds of millions. We cannot in good conscious ignore the revenue side of the equation if we are seriously inclined to reduce the deficit. There's the rub. Republicans are not at all serious about deficit reduction; they are serious about the upcoming elections. Republicans lied about the 48% who do in fact pay taxes and they continue to perpetuate the lie even after it's been debunked and this do this while GE paid zero, that's right, ZERO taxes. Have you seen this:

Cuchulain

06-01-2011, 04:24 PM

Lately, CONs seem to love to quote JFK on tax cuts. They never bother to mention that the top tax rate in Kennedy's time was 91%. Today it's 35%.

Bruce Bartlett over at the Fiscal Times says "insofar as we are concerned about the debt and deficits, the government’s revenue-raising capacity is also a critical factor. Although Republicans simply deny that tax cuts have any effect on the deficit, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that this is ridiculous. According to the historical tables, federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/02/18/Reading-between-the-Lines-of-Obamas-Budget.aspx

CONs want to lower the deficit AND taxes at the same time. There's only one way to do that - gut what's left of the New Deal. No more Medicare. No more Social Security. While we're at it, let's scrap all those expensive govt agencies like the EPA, NLRB, OSHA, DOE, FDA, etc. And of course we need to dump silly programs like Unemployment Comp as well. That's the CON wet dream. That's the future the repub party strives towards; a nation with a small class of 'haves' and a huge class of 'have-nots' who'll be too frightened to complain - American feudalism.

No thanks, not in MY America.

Faldur

06-01-2011, 05:04 PM

So far the Republican deficit reduction measures do nothing but serve their political agenda.

I completely agree, to date they have done nothing more than implement limp-wristed attempts to try and appease real fiscal conservatives.

There are 300 million people in this country. 1.5% (i.e. 4.5 million of them) have an annual income of more than $250,000.00. That's a total of 1.125 trillion dollars. If each one contributed 35% of their income to taxes that would be 394 billion dollars which is more than 25% of the current deficit.

That bracket of wage earner currently contributes 33% of their income, are you saying we need to raise their taxes an additional 2%? Or are you saying we should raise it an additional 35%?

We cannot in good conscious

We cannot in good conscious continue to let 1/2 of the working population continue to demand that the rest of america work harder so they can reap more benefits. Never before has a free society had so many dead beats attempt to extort hard working, responsible citizens.

Republicans are not at all serious about deficit reduction; they are serious about the upcoming elections.

In total agreement with you.

Republicans lied about the 48% who do in fact pay taxes and they continue to perpetuate the lie even after it's been debunked

Total BS.. (Note: Liberal news sources provided)
Tax Policy Center stats (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0)
CNN Money Article (http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm)
CBS News on Taxes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml)

and this do this while GE paid zero, that's right, ZERO taxes.

ZERO? They received a $3.2 billion dollar refund. Yes, earned $5.1 billion dollars in the US and payed <$3.2 billion>. Do you not find it a little strange that Jeffrey R. Immelt is chairman of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? GE should be fined and penalized for all the taxes they avoided, its an absolute travesty.

trish

06-01-2011, 05:29 PM

That bracket of wage earner currently contributes 33% of their income, are you saying we need to raise their taxes an additional 2%? Or are you saying we should raise it an additional 35%?
Can you do any math at all??? What is 1.5% of 300 million people. If they each have an income of at least 250 thousand dollars, what is the minimal total income? Now take 35% of that. What do you get? Are you clear now? If everyone in that and higher brackets actually paid their taxes they would cover at the very least 26% of the deficit. Once again, this is a very conservative estimate, since it assumes no one makes more than 250K. The moral is: tax revenue is a significant "deficit reducer". Cutting them for this and higher brackets is devastatingly counterproductive to your stated goals. Raising them and eliminating loop holes will only reduce the deficit further. Try it. An increase of 5% for this an higher brackets will cover (again conservatively) at the very least 30% of the deficit.

We cannot in good conscious continue to let 1/2 of the working population continue to demand that the rest of america work harder so they can reap more benefits.We agree. We should tax capital gains.

Faldur

06-01-2011, 06:09 PM

Can you do any math at all???

Yes, I'm actually quite good at math. It's speling that i kund of suk at.

If they each have an income of at least 250 thousand dollars, what is the minimal total income? Now take 35% of that. What do you get? Are you clear now?

So, the group your are currently taxing at 33% you want to tax at 35%. Big deal, I proposed raising their taxes to 36% but if you only want 35% so be it.

We agree. We should tax capital gains.

Redundancy is getting a little old but again for your benefit.. we already tax capitol gains, short-term gains at ordinary income rates and long-term at 15%. Are you saying you want to raise the capitol gains tax? And if so how much?

Its just dishonest to say we don't tax capitol gains. And you point out that some manage to use loop holes to avoid paying taxes, and I am 100% behind closing those. But I do not consider a 1st mortgage deduction, charitable gifts, and direct business losses loop holes.

You will never convince me that growing the size of government by 10% each and every year is necessary, or even affordable more to the point. We have a serious addictive spending problem, and until someone takes the Master Card away from the spoiled brat politicians no amount of increased taxes will ever balance the ledger.

hippifried

06-01-2011, 11:09 PM

Redundancy is getting a little old but again for your benefit.. we already tax capitol gains, short-term gains at ordinary income rates and long-term at 15%. Are you saying you want to raise the capitol gains tax? And if so how much?
Oh really? I think not. Redundancy doesn't make it true. Just memetic.
From the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html

Capital gains and deductible capital losses are reported on Form 1040, Schedule D (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sd.pdf) (PDF). If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than the ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. Currently net capital gain is generally taxed at rates no higher than 15%, although, for 2008 through 2010, some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0%, if it would otherwise be taxed at lower rates.

There are three exceptions:
The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.
You need better information sources. The ones you use are as clueless as you are.

Faldur

06-02-2011, 12:49 AM

You need better information sources. The ones you use are as clueless as you are.

Hippi, your supporting my argument. Short-term gain is taxed at ordinary income and long-term at 15%, (raises to 20% in 2012).

Are you telling me you want to raise the capital gains tax rate on the 10% - 15% tax bracket? Brother your talking my language!! Lets raise that tax on them damn free loaders!

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States)

hippifried

06-02-2011, 05:07 AM

So you can't read, don't know what you're looking at anyway, & don't care because you're boing to spin anything around to fit your preconceived memetic misconceptions.

Gee... Why am I not surprized?

Faldur

06-02-2011, 08:10 AM

So you can't read, don't know what you're looking at anyway,

Lol, I read quite well my friend. Show me the error of my ways?

hippifried

06-02-2011, 10:08 AM

Pretty disingenuous, spud, but here's the error of your ways. The 3 exceptions that get you past the 15% naximum rate are:

1. The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

2. Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

3. The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.

Notice, if you can, that there's nothing about short term gains. The exceptions are more likely to be long term than short. This was in the other post that you wouldn't or couldn't read. This isn't from Wikipedia. It comes from the IRS web site that's linked in the other post that you wouldn't or couldn't read.

You don't know taxes.
You don't know money.
You don't know what you're talking about.
If you ever had any credence at all, you tossed it away with this thread.

Faldur

06-02-2011, 03:47 PM

Pretty disingenuous, spud, but here's the error of your ways. The 3 exceptions that get you past the 15% naximum rate are:

The capital gains discussion began when trish insinuated we were not taxing capital gains. "We agree. We should tax capital gains." I pointed out that currently all capital gains are taxed at differentiating rates. All that is except the lower tax brackets, 10% - 15%.

And it comes down to you insulting me because of the three exceptions? So you are pointing out that some long-term capital gains are actually taxed at a higher rate than I indicated? I really didn't think I needed to point out that info to you as it only bolstered my opinion.

hippifried

06-02-2011, 07:27 PM

No. I'm insulting you because you're a compulsive liar, a parrot, & don't know what you're talking about. All your "LOLs" & other lame attempts at being snide &/or condescending don't change that, because you don't have what it takes to be a genuine snob. You're a wannabe. It's gotten to the point where your constant repitition of falsehood & misinformation is just tedius. Insipid might be a better word.

Faldur

06-02-2011, 08:13 PM

No. I'm insulting you because you're a compulsive liar

Name a single instance.

In the arena of ideas Hippi you have an unloaded gun. You have no facts in which to defend your positions/statements and when cornered you resort to name calling. It's really all you have, in a way I feel sorry for you.

yodajazz

06-09-2011, 09:50 AM

It appears for some Republicans there is a consderation to default on US debt. According to some this would be a great upheaval in the entire world economy.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idINIndia-57573120110608

I suppose upheaving the world would be better than return to the terrible times of 2001, before 9/11. Note sarcasm.

However, a new article says taxes may be placed on the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/ts_nm/us_usa_debt
In this article Republicans are still arguing that keeping the Bush tax cuts will create jobs, even though 8 million jobs were lost under that tax structure. The fact is employment and the government budget especially were in much better shape under the old tax code in 2001. And this was pre-wars. We still have not attemped to pay for the wars we were/are in. Doesnt this tie into fiscal responsiblity?

I will acknowledge that I had to do research to repsond to Faldur. I now believe that the child tax credit, which puts cash into the hands of many poor people should also be reduced from $1,000 per child, or eliminated also. But I still argue that money of the poor circulates at a greater rate in a local economy, whereas wealthy have more choice to invest in overseas economies. Wallstreet cited foreign investment as key to it's recent successes. They helping to create jobs and wealth outside the US. I read another article on world wealth, saying that the numbers millionaires worldwide, have increased by 12% around the world.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/world-s-wealthy-rose-by-12-on-market-gains.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/world-s-wealthy-rose-by-12-on-market-gains.html)

Faldur

06-09-2011, 03:27 PM

yodajazz

06-11-2011, 10:21 AM

Well Yoda, I am one who is all for letting the government default on its debt. I believe when you have spending that is so rampant and irresponsible its time to cut the spoiled brats credit line off. But thats just me.

I think tax increases have to be on the table, but I strongly believe that they need to be on all working americans. I think a big part of our problem is over half the working population have no ownership in their country.

Our country has $61.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Thats a stagering $560,000 per household. We cannot afford to keep spending at anywhere near the levels we are.

Ownership in this country is more than paying income tax, period. The tax rate is set by the government. It's not individuals refusing to acknowledge the US as a nation, or refusing to participate. As long as a person is spending money within the US, they are all part of a circulatory money system. Take for example the cell phone systems here. Many people considered poor, these days have cell phones. Let's assume that, many are not making enough to pay income taxes. There are direct taxes related to the phone bill. And it contributes to a company that employs people, who make better salaries, enough to pay into the income tax system. If there were less people using cell phones, (we're talking about working poor people, as one example), I would bet that the price of cell phones would be more expensive, in order to reach their operating costs. And this is but one example.

The notion that poor people are only a drain on society, or have no ownership in the nation, is just not true.

onmyknees

06-11-2011, 04:59 PM

Since you agree all the blame is on George W. Bush (who gave away a ten year surplus to the wealthy in tax cuts, then proceeded to engage in two war/nation-building projects in the Middle East while not even reporting the costs in the official budget and made deals with oil and lumber to give away our national resources without expectation of any return), the answer to your question is easy. Reverse all the Bush initiatives. Increase tax revenues, collect royalties again for our natural resources, plug up the tax loopholes, quit the wars and the nation-building and invest our money and effort domestically.

At least that's one approach. Another is cut taxes, let our fortune 500 billionaires (remember when they were just millionaires) to become trillionaires, cut medicaid, cut medicare, raid social security, let the elderly die and rot in the streets, strip, grab the shampoo and wait for the shower of gold to start trickling down from the illustrious ones who live above us.

Trish....Give it up....Not only is your continued reliance on "Blame Bush" in the absence of any substance.... lame, it's factually incorrect. I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but you are very keen on some matters, but monetary and fiscal policy does not appear to be your forte...just as it's obvious it's not Obamas. We all know Bush spent too much...but to compare his deficits to this guys is laughable. Bush couldn't make a pimple on this guys ass in terms of spending. When will you liberals understand that we have structural fiscal problems..and taxing the rich even at the old 75% rate isn't going to change that. Don't you read the SSI, Medicare, and Medicare actuarial reports? Don't you realize we're borrowing money from China to give to Greece? Don't you realize that Obama and Bernackie's pump priming and quantitative easing and devaluing the dollar is a colossal failure? Don't you realize that 40 years of liberal social engineering has brought us to the brink? Don't you realize Obama hasn't a clue about how to get us out of this mess...and has no growth agenda at all? Doesn't it occur to you that if Obama was serious about these issues he would have a plan, but why not let Paul Ryan go first, then sit back and demagogue??...why get bogged down in the details when there's an election to be won? His plan was like yours...tax the rich...then he caved on the Bush Tax cuts...now what's his plan????????
Don't you understand the root causes of the disaster we find ourselves in were the result of more liberal and governmental tinkering with the sub prime mortgage market and the belief that everyone should get a slice of the american housing dream...even lowlifes and pikers and scammers? Don't you realize that Obama's budget was defeated 97-0 and that the Democratically controlled Senate hasn't submitted a budget in 18 months? Don't you understand that right now every taxpayer is in hock for nearly 200K because of this spending? My gawd...it's all right there...the evidence is overwhelming...and there you go like some child of the 60's crying "tax the rich".....ok fine tax them...then what?? It may make you and Ed Shultz feel good, but it won't do a fucking thing to resolve the fundemental problems we face. You think any self respecting millionaire is going to sit by with his finger up his ass while the government takes 75% of his income? He'll move it to the Cayman's faster than you can cry "Blame Bush".

Our problem is not only financial Armageddon, it's a total and complete lack of leadership, and a basic understanding by this administration of how capitalism works. You don't learn that by studying civil rights law or community organizing...The fact of the matter is investors, businessmen, entrepreneurs all understand this guy is poison to a coherent monetary and growth policy so they're stuffing their money in their mattresses. Don't you think investors with capitol when seeing what Obama did to the secured bond holders of GM realized this guy was like a cancer to investment capitol ? The only capitalism this administration understands is crony capitalism, You and Paul Krugman's dream of Keynesian economics should be relegated to the dusty book shelves of academia.

Faldur

06-11-2011, 06:14 PM

Ownership in this country is more than paying income tax, period. The tax rate is set by the government. It's not individuals refusing to acknowledge the US as a nation, or refusing to participate.

I agree that the 48% are not avoiding or dodging paying a fair share. Tax rates are set by politicians, who are in office to get re-elected. Hence the reason we have 48% of working americans not paying any federal income tax. I believe, that when someone is responsible for paying for something, be it a house, car or government. Pride and ownership occurs. People start to listen and make decisions on what is best for the government, not the individual.

OnMyKnees, Greece can you frickin believe that! The kid with the golden credit card offering to bail out the economy in Greece! I sure hope he checked with the Chinese before he made that statement.

As we continue to drop bombs in Libya, "were only going to be here days, not weeks", was the statement I remember. Where does months fit into that equation? And now we have military presence in Yemen? So lets start another war? Someone polish up this guys peace prize for him.

By the way, that picture is hilarious. But you do know you are now a racist, he has big ears.

onmyknees

06-12-2011, 12:50 AM

I agree that the 48% are not avoiding or dodging paying a fair share. Tax rates are set by politicians, who are in office to get re-elected. Hence the reason we have 48% of working americans not paying any federal income tax. I believe, that when someone is responsible for paying for something, be it a house, car or government. Pride and ownership occurs. People start to listen and make decisions on what is best for the government, not the individual.

OnMyKnees, Greece can you frickin believe that! The kid with the golden credit card offering to bail out the economy in Greece! I sure hope he checked with the Chinese before he made that statement.

As we continue to drop bombs in Libya, "were only going to be here days, not weeks", was the statement I remember. Where does months fit into that equation? And now we have military presence in Yemen? So lets start another war? Someone polish up this guys peace prize for him.

By the way, that picture is hilarious. But you do know you are now a racist, he has big ears.

Yea....follow the bouncing ball....Let's borrow money from China who delibertly devalues thier currency to keep the trade decifict completely in thier favor....Let's pay 5% on that money and fall further into debt, and fuel thier economy with needed capitol so they can can continue to suck jobs away from American Industry...then let's take those dollars and hand them to the Greeks...European Socilaists ....so thier state run industries can continue to allow thier union workers 8 weeks vacation and early retirement. You couldn't make this shit up brother !

Cuchulain

06-12-2011, 09:45 AM

Trish....Give it up....Not only is your continued reliance on "Blame Bush" in the absence of any substance.... lame, it's factually incorrect. I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but you are very keen on some matters, but monetary and fiscal policy does not appear to be your forte...just as it's obvious it's not Obamas. We all know Bush spent too much...but to compare his deficits to this guys is laughable. Bush couldn't make a pimple on this guys ass in terms of spending. When will you liberals understand that we have structural fiscal problems..and taxing the rich even at the old 75% rate isn't going to change that. Don't you read the SSI, Medicare, and Medicare actuarial reports? Don't you realize we're borrowing money from China to give to Greece? Don't you realize that Obama and Bernackie's pump priming and quantitative easing and devaluing the dollar is a colossal failure? Don't you realize that 40 years of liberal social engineering has brought us to the brink? Don't you realize Obama hasn't a clue about how to get us out of this mess...and has no growth agenda at all? Doesn't it occur to you that if Obama was serious about these issues he would have a plan, but why not let Paul Ryan go first, then sit back and demagogue??...why get bogged down in the details when there's an election to be won? His plan was like yours...tax the rich...then he caved on the Bush Tax cuts...now what's his plan????????
Don't you understand the root causes of the disaster we find ourselves in were the result of more liberal and governmental tinkering with the sub prime mortgage market and the belief that everyone should get a slice of the american housing dream...even lowlifes and pikers and scammers? Don't you realize that Obama's budget was defeated 97-0 and that the Democratically controlled Senate hasn't submitted a budget in 18 months? Don't you understand that right now every taxpayer is in hock for nearly 200K because of this spending? My gawd...it's all right there...the evidence is overwhelming...and there you go like some child of the 60's crying "tax the rich".....ok fine tax them...then what?? It may make you and Ed Shultz feel good, but it won't do a fucking thing to resolve the fundemental problems we face. You think any self respecting millionaire is going to sit by with his finger up his ass while the government takes 75% of his income? He'll move it to the Cayman's faster than you can cry "Blame Bush".

Our problem is not only financial Armageddon, it's a total and complete lack of leadership, and a basic understanding by this administration of how capitalism works. You don't learn that by studying civil rights law or community organizing...The fact of the matter is investors, businessmen, entrepreneurs all understand this guy is poison to a coherent monetary and growth policy so they're stuffing their money in their mattresses. Don't you think investors with capitol when seeing what Obama did to the secured bond holders of GM realized this guy was like a cancer to investment capitol ? The only capitalism this administration understands is crony capitalism, You and Paul Krugman's dream of Keynesian economics should be relegated to the dusty book shelves of academia.

Wow. So much CON horseshit stuffed into one little post.

yodajazz

06-13-2011, 09:29 AM

Trish....Give it up....Not only is your continued reliance on "Blame Bush" in the absence of any substance.... lame, it's factually incorrect...

How could you fix your mouth to say such a thing, when Bush inherited a budget surplus and left with a record deficit (1.3 trillion). He also left a net minus of millions of jobs, and a financial crisis, that saw US household wealth drop by 23% (median) between 2007 and 2009.
(http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/24/pf/financial_crisis_outcome/index.htm)
What about the human impact of 1 million home forclosures?
Its like people like yourself, try to pretend these things never happened. So I suppose that's why you can make the statement you did. And if some of you do recognize these things happened, then it was all some accident that had nothing to do with Bush policies. Yet every thing that happens during Obama's term is entirely his fault, and not based upon any past policies. Like Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit. It's just a coincidence, you say.

Faldur

06-13-2011, 04:58 PM

I give Bill Clinton all the credit in the world for his spending restraint, but lets not let the surplus term muddy the waters.

Bill Clinton increased the national debt by $1.63 trillion in his 8 years in office. George W. Bush increased the debt by $4.36 trillion. Barak Obama has increased the debt by $3.81 trillion in just 2 1/2 years.

Everyone together, "Can we please have Bill Clinton back?"

Debt by US President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

Faldur

06-22-2011, 12:04 AM

$198.53 billion borrowed since this thread began 44 days ago...

http://kupax.com/files/14271_zs5v6/crying-indian-tear65p1.jpg

trish

06-22-2011, 12:13 AM

That reminds me__have you really paid attention to this:

Faldur

06-22-2011, 01:23 AM

Nope.. Have you seen this?

http://www.popbitch.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/manbearpig.jpg

trish

06-22-2011, 01:35 AM

I see you're still an anti-science buffoon.

trish

06-22-2011, 01:36 AM

This belongs here too.

YouTube - ‪The Truth About the Economy‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded)

Faldur

06-22-2011, 01:39 AM

Well then we must have..

Barney discusses the economic future of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ)

joeninety

06-22-2011, 01:54 AM

I can remember reading an article in a uk paper called the guardian some 12 years ago which said how the uk treasury could not account for where 9billion pounds worth of money had gone they did the books and it supposedly was not there and they supposedly could not say where this money was yeah ok.

These books and figures are so large that things can easily be cooked one way or the other so when its convenient (candidate trying to get into the whitehouse attacking the president) hey presto he knows the figures and when its not convenient (president under attack) he will say he has got his figures wrong thats not true blah blah, at the end of the day if they conclusively knew all there figures then there could conclusively be no arguing as the facts would be there in black and white.

The figures are constantly changing and some will not even be showing up, its too big to know, i think in reality they can't possible know all the figures so where they don't they guesstimate to help create whatever picture suits but its not conclusive it just what suits whose agenda who is in charge at given time

Stavros

06-22-2011, 09:32 PM

Strictly speaking it was not 'missing' it was a decision that Flash Gordon made over two years not to allocate £5bn in each years for capital expenditure. If you really think that HM Treasury could not account for £9 or £10bn then you need to drink a glass of water and lie down -its precisely the incompetence of HM Treasury dealing with what they do know that is at the heart of the paralysis of decision-making on our economy that has led us, like some weird GPS system, over a cliff...or was it that politics was in command of economic policy, and that whatever the Treasury mandarins said to Gordon Brown, he just didn't care...??

joeninety

06-23-2011, 12:18 AM

Strictly speaking it was not 'missing' it was a decision that Flash Gordon made over two years not to allocate £5bn in each years for capital expenditure. If you really think that HM Treasury could not account for £9 or £10bn then you need to drink a glass of water and lie down -its [I]precisely

Pmsl of course i don't think they couldn't account for it, the underhand point i was making is we live in a bullshit society where the treasury can get away with such a fallacy but woe be tide my ass if i try spinning that line 2 H&M Revenue and expect to get away with it.

Something crooked is going on and the paper trail has been conveniently dismissed burnt or whatever..................

Faldur

06-23-2011, 01:12 AM

Just take the US debt, it would be a stack of dollar bills from the earth to the moon, and back x2. And take a look at the type of individuals we have entrusted to keep track of that much money. One can only imagine how many billions have been siphoned off for dishonest use.

trish

06-23-2011, 01:13 AM

Hey, if you stack it in pennies it would go beyond the Solar System. If you stretched out the human intestine it would cover a football field. So what???

One can only imagine how many billions have been siphoned off for dishonest use. Evidently way less than the distance to the Moon.

Stavros

06-28-2011, 07:09 PM

This book review in the New York Times makes interesting reading as it focuses mostly on the housing element in the downfall; I have a lot of respect for Gillian Tett's book Fool's Gold which focuses on the derivatives market's responsibility for the mess: in both cases, I suspect, we have yet to get the full picture from key politicians (in the UK as well as the US and also places like Iceland, Ireland and Greece) -in so many cases Politics in Command -a slogan from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China has led to ruin, just as 'bankers in command' would -the point being that by now modern societies ought to know that decision-making needs to balance varying sets of data with varying needs -but at some point politics won through, and the economy failed. Some people never learn. I reprint it in full here with the link at the end.

une 27, 2011Nation Goes on Its Merry Way to Ruin

By PAM LUECKE

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon

By Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner
Illustrated. 331 pages. Times Books. $30.

Although the financial crisis of 2008 has left a long trail of casualties, one group has benefited from the cataclysm: financial journalists. Several have already published books (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/books/15book.html?scp=3&sq=michael%20lewis&st=cse) shedding light on the unprecedented events that caused investment banks to fail, global stock markets to plummet and borrowers to lose their homes. “Reckless Endangerment,” by Gretchen Morgenson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/gretchen_morgenson/index.html), assistant business and financial editor and a columnist at The New York Times, and the financial analyst Joshua Rosner, is a worthy addition to the genre.
The authors are forthright in their intentions. They are angry about the “outsized ambition, greed, and corruption” that led to “economic Armageddon,” as the book’s subtitle puts it. They view the actions that prompted the meltdown as reprehensible and regret that few of the perpetrators have been held accountable.
In a direct writing style familiar to those who follow Ms. Morgenson’s Sunday “Fair Game” column, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/26gret.html?_r=1&ref=gretchenmorgenson) the authors piece together the rapid rise in high-risk mortgages and the swift collapse of the complex financial scaffolding that supported them. Ms. Morgenson joined The Times in 1998 after working at Forbes, Money and Worth magazines and won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her coverage of Wall Street. She also worked as a broker at Dean Witter. Mr. Rosner is a partner at Graham Fisher & Company, an independent research firm, and worked for many years at Oppenheimer & Company.
Drawing on their deep expertise, the authors ably trace the legal and regulatory changes that stoked the unsustainable housing boom. With a few exceptions, the book focuses more on policy and power than on personalities, and it illuminates several small decisions that later had huge, unintended consequences. For example, a modification in the handling of bundled loans, approved by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2001, more than any other factor, “opened wide the floodgates for the mortgage securities mania,” the authors write.
The book begins in 1994 with President Bill Clinton’s kicking off a public-private partnership to extend homeownership to more Americans. At that time 64 percent of Americans owned their homes; within a decade the percentage would rise to nearly 70. Yet an idea that sounded so appealing would soon be exploited by institutions and individuals who detected the potential for astounding profits.
Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner finger the usual suspects: subprime mortgage lenders, credit-rating agencies, investment banks, politicians, the Federal Reserve.
But the institution to which the authors devote the most ink is Fannie Mae, the government-supported enterprise created in 1938 to make home loans more accessible. And the person they hold most accountable is someone whose role in the “mortgage maelstrom” has until now “escaped scrutiny”: James A. Johnson, (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/james_a_johnson/index.html) Fannie Mae’s chief executive from 1991 to 1998. Mr. Johnson was the “anonymous architect of the public-private homeownership drive that almost destroyed the economy in 2008,” the authors assert. “He was especially adept at manipulating lawmakers, eviscerating regulators and leaving taxpayers with the bill.”
The description of Mr. Johnson’s role is damning — and although the account lacks his perspective, it is thoroughly supported through scores of interviews with academics, government officials and industry executives, some of whom are granted anonymity. While Mr. Johnson didn’t respond to interview requests over five months, according to the authors, they overcome this obstacle with impressive use of public records and secondary sources, carefully attributed in the text or described in a two-page “Notes on Sources.” Still, more specific references in endnotes would have strengthened the book’s authority, and in some places would have improved the narrative’s flow.
“Reckless Endangerment” will never be mistaken for summer beach reading, but the authors explain the minutiae clearly, pausing often to explain a dense financial concept or to inject a clarifying metaphor. Lax regulation is effectively likened to “allowing the lead-footed drivers to set speed limits.” Less effective is a comparison of Wall Street’s hope for profits from subprime lenders to “Elmer Fudd envisioning a duck à l’orange dinner when stalking Daffy Duck.”
A particular strength of this book is the number of doubters the authors unearthed: the unsung government analysts, public lawyers and private researchers who dared to question policy decisions and stand up to the formidable “housers,” as the true believers in government subsidies for home ownership are called.
The reader has a sickening sense of missed opportunity as these prophets are ignored or, worse, vilified, by those in a position to halt the mania. When a Congressional Budget Office researcher in 1995 reveals the multibillion-dollar extent of the government’s subsidy to Fannie Mae and its brother institution, Freddie Mac (and that one-third of these benefits never reached borrowers), he suggests that “Congress may want to revisit the special relationship.” Unable to assail the merits of his analysis, outraged Fannie Mae executives resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling budget office officials “digit-heads” and “economic pencil brains.”
One of the doubters was Mr. Rosner himself, who in a 2001 report warned about the potential for economic ruin for American consumers as they took on more and more home debt. Washington regulators met his 30-page paper “with a dismissive silence,” the authors say.
Unlike some whodunits, “Reckless Endangerment” has no tidy ending. Millions of homes remain in foreclosure, (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/foreclosures/index.html?scp=2&sq=home%20foreclosure&st=cse) high unemployment persists, and, the authors say, Congress failed to pass truly corrective legislation when it had the chance. Although Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner hope that shining a light into the dark corners of this “economic Armageddon” might prevent another one, they sadly conclude that something similar “most certainly” will happen again.

Pam Luecke is the Donald W. Reynolds professor of business journalism at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/books/morgenson-and-rosners-reckless-endangerment-book-review.html?_r=1&hpw

Faldur

06-28-2011, 10:18 PM

Hey, if you stack it in pennies it would go beyond the Solar System. If you stretched out the human intestine it would cover a football field. So what???

Evidently way less than the distance to the Moon.

Ok, all politics aside. Trish thats one heck of a nice Avatar!

hippifried

06-28-2011, 11:42 PM

Ok, all politics aside. Trish thats one heck of a nice Avatar!
See? there's always something we can agree on. :)

trish

06-28-2011, 11:56 PM

I was inspired by Anthony Weiner's recent hormone driven bravado to send body part pictures all over the internet. :oops::oops::oops: Thanks, 'happy to provide a point of focus.

yodajazz

06-29-2011, 01:17 AM

The book summary, sounds interesting and credible. However, it does seem that other researchers, such as the other books mentioned in the intro, can add to the total picture. The Wikipedia on the “subprime crisis” article that I often refers to, Subprime crisis impact timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbo ne.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g/220px-Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/53/Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g/220px-Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline) mentions Countrywide, which was at one time the nation’s largest private subprime lender, as well as Goldman-Sachs and others.

One interesting tidbit, in the summary, was the fact that one third of Fannie Mae’s money from the government, did not reach borrowers. It seems to me that executive compensation may have something to do with this. I also question the part that executive compensations may have had in the total crisis. I’m speculating that compensation on the amount of yearly transactions, could have encouraging them to increase risk, for the sake of a yearly bonus. In fact Joseph Stiglitz, is mentioned as one who believes that executive compensation packages need to be restructured.
Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Lending_%26_Borrowing_Decisions_-_10_19_08.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Lending_%26_Borrowing_Decisions_-_10_19_08.png/220px-Lending_%26_Borrowing_Decisions_-_10_19_08.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/24/Lending_%26_Borrowing_Decisions_-_10_19_08.png/220px-Lending_%26_Borrowing_Decisions_-_10_19_08.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis)
This may seem like small potatoes, but years ago, I was the church treasurer. I changed the accounting system, and it looked like the total transactions went up by 20% in year, when in fact the total profit/loss was close to the previous year. My point is that if I had had some sort compensation for the percentage, of the transaction, I could have moved money around, for the sake of my compensation, at the expense of the church’s long term good.

One additional thing: does anyone know how or who, tries to put the blame on the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act, or that of Barney Frank, assuming a Congressional committee chairmanship in 2007? I have read many people saying this, in net news article comments. Seems like there must be some media talking head, such as a Rush Limbaugh, saying this.

Stavros

06-30-2011, 03:48 AM

yodajazz

07-07-2011, 01:06 PM

Yodajazz -thanks for the links, which are very useful.

If there is a core problem, it is the belief that 'home ownership' as a form of 'private property' is an ideal condition in a free society. Owning a home only became a mass market phenomenon in the UK in the second half of the 1950s, up until then most people rented, as is still the case in a lot of European countries. It becomes like marriage, which for some inexplicable reason is also now an 'ideal condition' -and yet just as so many marriages fail, so the bleak or natural reality is that most people cannot afford to buy their own home -so why do governments support it? Allegedly the trade off is 'we give you homes, you give us votes'...Margaret Thatcher wanted to turn Britain into a 'property-owning democracy' -yet now first time buyers in particular find it hard to get onto the ladder, in Greater London its now almost impossible when even mediocre one-bedroom apartments cost £350,000 / approx $560,000.....

I meant to answer this, earlier. I think home ownership was in the past the best way, for a working class person to accumulate something of value. This value could presumably be passed on to future generations. Until the housing bubble burst, its market value, kept up with inflation. The home that my parents purchased back in the late 50's for $8,500 could have been worth 60 thousand plus today, had it been kept up. I would say others factors have changed how accessible home ownership is to the average person. But that home ownership is still a good thing. One factor, I would cite would be lack of employee rights, today. The majority of jobs today are 'at-will', meaning the employee has little rights, to have job stability, through senority and other such things.

Stavros

07-07-2011, 03:31 PM

I don't know the history of it in the US, but in the UK it would have been close to impossible for a family on a low to medium income to get a mortgage before 1960 -the lending culture in the UK up until the late 1950s was intensely conservative. It was the Tory Prime Minister Harold MacMillan (1956-1963) whose government sponsored a major house-building programme which brought down prices and which, with a relaxation on lending, enabled people on middle incomes to get onto the property ladder -so yes, I agree that a house can be an important form of capital either for retirement or as a legacy, but historically in the UK it has been 'recent'. It was Margaret Thatcher who transformed housing into an aggressive part of the capitalist economy -generating cycles of cash flow that the derivatives markets lapped up as part of their own strategy of lateral expansion. Thatcher's strategy, as I have said before, was part of the 'Property is freedom' ideology, and she did force through the sale of council homes to their tenants, which subsequently meant that, with demand for housing in central London escalating beyond supply, people who owned a one-bedroom apartment in a relatively central area could sell it for ridiculous sums. The negative side of this strategy was that people 'bought' houses they could not really afford. In the erly 1980s I knew one man on an income of less than £20,000 a year who 'bought' a five-bedroom house in Surrey, he was spending all his salary on the monthly mortgage payment, his wife gave him exactly £2 a day to spend; he used to bring a sandwich to work for his lunch, and so on -I dont know if he ended up unable to pay the mortgage when interest rates went through the roof in the late 80s and house prices fell, but thats what happened to many. In the Blair era, a very long period of low interest rates and 0% deals on new buys brought people into the property game and again, many purchased more than they could realistically afford -we now have the worst of all worlds: people with houses whose value has not appreciated significantly, people in rented property paying extortionate rents, people who don't have a minimum of £15,000-20,000 for downpayment unable to get onto the property ladder. I would cap rents, but apparently that would make me a Stalinist; which I am not...in the end people who bought their own homes did not vote Conservative forever and ever, amen.

Faldur

07-24-2011, 05:20 PM

$352 billion borrowed in 78 days.. cut, cap, balance....

trish

07-24-2011, 05:34 PM

...and tax those making above a quarter of a million per year.

Faldur

07-25-2011, 06:22 AM

...and tax those making above a quarter of a million per year.

So you can watch revenues go down like all times previous.. genius!

trish

07-25-2011, 06:56 AM

Oh, so you increase revenue it goes away. On what planet do you live? When you step on the gas does your car slow down? When you let go of an apple does it fall up? Money flows from those who labor to those who profit from the labor. Production per laborer has never been higher. Profits are record breaking. Corporations are on a roll. There's no reason to expect them to create jobs when production is high and overflowing the coffers with profit. Hiring more laborers will just saturate the market. The wealthy don't create jobs. If they did we'd be swimming in jobs right now. The wealthy don't create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs. It time to raise the taxes levels to what they were during Reagan and Clinton, when America was successful.

Faldur

07-25-2011, 03:22 PM

Oh, so you increase revenue it goes away. On what planet do you live? When you step on the gas does your car slow down? When you let go of an apple does it fall up?

When my car is using far more gas than I am adding eventually when I step on the gas the car dies. When I am giving away FAR more apple than I am picking eventually I do not have an apple to drop.

You could tax the worlds population and still come up short on our over spending. Almost every time taxes are raised revenues go down. If you want more revenue try putting the 38 million Americans who are without jobs to work. Then start taxing the 48% that are not paying anything to begin with. That will generate true revenue income.

And why your at it.. cut, cap, and balance for the win!

trish

07-25-2011, 04:17 PM

So pick more apples.

Faldur

07-25-2011, 04:24 PM

So pick more apples.

Were trying, but 48% of the people in the apple field refuse to pitch in and help. They refuse to help pick, and scream that we should get the apples from someone else.

BluegrassCat

07-25-2011, 09:40 PM

trish

07-25-2011, 11:27 PM

There are 100 households in the imaginary land of Zephina. The minimum yearly cost of maintaining a household is about 100 Zephcheks. A recent census shows that 50 households in Zephina have an income of exactly 100 Zs. Another 25 households have an income of 400 Zs; another 20 have an income of 1000 Zs and the remaining 5 households have an income of 10000 Zs. So the upper 5% rake in nearly 60% of the wealth (not unlike the U.S.). However, the tax rate in Zephina is 10% across the board. So 50 households pay 10 Zs each, 25 households pay 40 Zs each, 20 pay 100 Zs each and 5 pay 1000 Zz each. That’s a total tax revenue of 8500 Zs. The upper 5% of households paid nearly 60% of the taxes, whereas the lower 50% paid just under 6% of the taxes. Is that fair? Of course not, because the lower 6% are now unable to maintain their households. One reasonably fair solution is to exempt the lower 50% from paying taxes and increase the taxes on the wealthier Zephinians (from 10% to 11%) just enough to cover the mere 500Zs which are currently being contributed by the poorest households. Another fair solution would be to spread that burden over the top 25% of households.

References:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Faldur

07-25-2011, 11:38 PM

From the NYT. We're raising the debt ceiling to pay for past expenses, most of which were brought on by Georgie Boy. I don't remember conservatives complaining then. In fact, the response from conservatives was "Deficits don't matter." Whatever happened to that?

& Faldur where is this magical example where raising taxes led to lower revenue?

I love your graph, the accuracy is spot on how it shows how much the obama surge in Afghanistan cost us. Likewise I was shocked at the cost of the "days not weeks" war in Libya. (We've been there 5 months now and It hasn't cost us a cent???) obama has added more to the US debt in 30 months than Bush did in his entire 8 years. I gotta get me one of those NYT's, (my bird cage needs changing).

Someone here thought the CBO was a reputable organization, lets see what they had to say.
Total Deficit or Surplus (Percentage of gross domestic product)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/homepagegraphic.gif

Raising taxes does not guarantee higher revenues as higher taxes lead to lower economic growth. If you want to increase revenue you need to produce economic growth. In the last 50+ years regardless of the tax rates - tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained between 16 and 21%. If you want to increase revenue create jobs.

http://www.streettalklive.com/images/stories/thumbnails/taxes-as-percent-of-gdp.jpg

BluegrassCat

07-25-2011, 11:55 PM

If you want to increase revenue you need to produce economic growth. In the last 50+ years regardless of the tax rates - tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained between 16 and 21%. If you want to increase revenue create jobs.

This is obviously true, but this was not your prior position. You said that tax increases DECREASE revenue. I asked for an example and you changed your tune. The graphs you present all show increasing revenues after the Reagan and Clinton tax increases, supporting the obvious result that tax increases RAISE revenue.

If you want to argue about what the optimal tax rate should be, that's one thing, but let's not dick around with black is white, up is down nonsense.

BluegrassCat

07-26-2011, 12:15 AM

obama has added more to the US debt in 30 months than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

If you just go by where the debt is when the office switches hands then this is technically true as the first graph shows. But if you actually want to assign blame for the deficit it has to fall squarely on Bush as the second graph shows. Aside from cleaning up Georgie's mess, Obama is responsible for roughly 2% of the deficit.

Take away George's tax cuts, wars and financial crisis and the deficit is miniscule.

Faldur

07-26-2011, 01:36 AM

If you just go by where the debt is when the office switches hands then this is technically true as the first graph shows. But if you actually want to assign blame for the deficit it has to fall squarely on Bush as the second graph shows. Aside from cleaning up Georgie's mess, Obama is responsible for roughly 2% of the deficit.

Take away George's tax cuts, wars and financial crisis and the deficit is miniscule.

Not going to even bother looking the second graphs BG, the first one was so inaccurate if these come from the same source seriously question there validity. The NYT Times graph you posted shows the bush tax cuts with a cost value, but conveniently leaves off the obama tax cuts, shows the bush war costs but conveniently leaves off the obama costs. Really?

To consider a tax cut as a static base line is wrong. For every tax cut there is a economic "stimulus" for lack of a better word. So to place a static value on either the obama or bush tax cut is incorrect. Just as with every tax increase there is an economic negative impact. You cannot say were going to raise taxes by x and think your going to have a simple sum value of income.

The graphs I posted showed that every time taxes were reduced revenues increased.

A good article to read if you have any interest.. The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates)

BluegrassCat

07-26-2011, 02:33 AM

Not going to even bother looking the second graphs BG, the first one was so inaccurate if these come from the same source seriously question there validity.

Wow. I always wondered how conservatives came by such out-there claims, and now I see why. When you confront data that don't match your ideology just deny deny deny.

It's funny that you tout the authority of the CBO in your posts and denigrate it in mine but whatever.

Faldur

07-26-2011, 02:46 AM

Wow. I always wondered how conservatives came by such out-there claims, and now I see why. When you confront data that don't match your ideology just deny deny deny.

It's funny that you tout the authority of the CBO in your posts and denigrate it in mine but whatever.

BG I mean no disrespect, but can you explain why the NYT chart omitted so many cost items on the obama side? That doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

And for the record, i have previously stated IMHO the cbo is worthless. It was the reason for the "someone on this board" comment when I posted it.

BluegrassCat

07-26-2011, 03:27 AM

BG I mean no disrespect, but can you explain why the NYT chart omitted so many cost items on the obama side? That doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

And for the record, i have previously stated IMHO the cbo is worthless. It was the reason for the "someone on this board" comment when I posted it.

Faldur, while you and I probably disagree on just about everything, you debate without hurling insults so it's clear you're a respectful guy worthy of that in return.

But looking at the NYT graph, the main problem I see with it is its reliance on future estimates. You want to know why Libya isn't listed on there? It's because compared to the other items it's peanuts, less than 750 million so far. That's a drop in the bucket of our deficit. The cost of the Afghan surge is in there but it's offset by the savings from getting out of Iraq.

The numbers in the other two graphs are also perfectly legit and, even better, not based on future estimates.

Btw it's tough to take a graph seriously that has such partisan prose as "if it doesn't move throw money at it." Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the objectivity of the author.

BluegrassCat

07-26-2011, 05:05 AM

To consider a tax cut as a static base line is wrong. For every tax cut there is a economic "stimulus" for lack of a better word. So to place a static value on either the obama or bush tax cut is incorrect. Just as with every tax increase there is an economic negative impact. You cannot say were going to raise taxes by x and think your going to have a simple sum value of income.

This is basically all true but it's also true that while you can't predict the exact increase in revenues you'll get from a tax hike because of some decrease in productivity, you will still get an overall revenue increase.

Maybe you're thinking of the Laffer curve but there's no evidence we're near there in the U.S. While the Bush tax cuts had a somewhat stimulative effect on the economy, the overall effect hugely increased the deficit.

So again, claiming that tax increases drives down revenues is just flat wrong in the current U.S. context.

Stavros

07-29-2011, 04:12 PM

In the interests of balance, I reproduce another article by Tim Stanley -the blogger whose article on atheists objecting to the Cross at Ground Zero is in the God Bless America...well, maybe thread. Here he defends the Tea Party faction in the House. Its odd that he refers to people at the Heritage Foundation meeting he attended The blessed homeschoolers wore suits in one hundred degree heat -do they have meetings outside or indoors where its air conditioned? It is probably an unfortunate faux pas that he refers to one Representative as James Lankford...an elf of a man with pointy ears and neat red hair. Sounds scary to me.
For the record, Mr Stanley is writing a biography of Pat Buchanan, life doesn't get more challenging. Enjoy.

They may have just wounded their own Republican leadership, but the Tea Party deficit strategy still makes sense

By Tim Stanley (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/timstanley/) US politics (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/us-politics/) Last updated: July 29th, 2011
[/URL]
(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100099025/they-may-have-just-wounded-their-own-republican-leadership-but-the-tea-party-deficit-strategy-still-makes-sense/#disqus_thread)

Republican Speaker John Boehner failed last night (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/28/house-gop-sets-vote-on-revamped-debt-limit-bill/) to muster enough votes to pass his plan to lift the debt ceiling. The press expected passage, especially after a handful of Tea Party favourites came out in support. Poor Mr Boehner – who looks permanently on the verge of tears – is politically wounded (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/07/28/138799703/boehner-speakership-hits-rough-tea-party-waters). Momentum could pass to the Democratic Senate leadership as Washington scrambles to cut a deal before the default deadline next Tuesday.
The mainstream media will deduce that the Tea Party freshmen, elected in that Apocalyptic 2010 landslide, have gone Kamikaze. They’ve hurt the GOP leadership and passed up on a deal that would probably be better than one dictated by the Democrats. But one man’s “crazy” is another man’s “determined”. The Tea Party freshmen might look a little unhinged, but it’s worth taking their motivations seriously. When one weighs up their sense of honour against Obama’s liberalism, what they are doing starts to make sense.
On Tuesday, I visited the Heritage Foundation weekly “bloggers briefing” summit in Washington DC. It was a fairly representative crowd from the conservative blogosphere. The Libertarians were all fat jolly men in colourful waistcoats. The blessed homeschoolers wore suits in one hundred degree heat. The Southerners interning for the summer with their uncle in the Senate had names like “Brick” or “John C Calhoun III”. Someone stole my sunglasses and I’m pretty sure it was the Man from Cato.
The speaker was a freshman Tea Party congressman from Oklahoma called James Lankford. Lankford was an elf of a man with pointy ears and neat red hair. Before being elected, he ran a youth Christian camp for thirteen years – not a typical profession for one from the party of greed. He was as sharp as a tack and often funny. What he had to say about the budget negotiations was a revelation.
Lankford explained that he and the other freshmen feel that they have been elected on one issue alone: debt. They are divided over many other things (abortion, unions, Libya) but united in their revulsion at Obama’s deficit. They probably came across as ideologues, he conceded, because they are so focused on this single, high-profile issue. Once it is resolved and they move on to something new, it will be obvious that they are thinking people capable of reaching consensus elsewhere. But on that one matter, they will not yield. And why should they? It was what they were elected on.
The congressman compared his freshman class with the Republican intake of 2002, elected in response to 9/11. Those congressmen were obsessed with national defence and still are. Again, they disagree on much else and are probably the Republicans most likely in 2011 to want to cut a deal on the deficit. But they came into the House as hawks and they would damn well leave that way too.
Lankford’s point is persuasive. When a freshman class is elevated in a landslide, revolutionary election year then they tend to be defined by the subject they ran on. Seen that way, the Tea Party people who are torpedoing their own party’s deficit deal look a lot more rational. One might disagree with their analysis, but balancing the budget is what got them into politics in the first place and it’s therefore unreasonable to expect them to U-turn at this hour. When the debt has passed as an issue, we might find that the Tea Party representatives are far more accommodating on other policies than we expected.
Seen from the freshmen’s point of view, Lankford continued, the problem isn’t them – it’s a President committed to a damaging liberal agenda. He offered an example that was, admittedly, galling. The White House has stalled on deciding (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903591104576470693368680746.html?m od=googlenews_wsj) whether or not to green-light an oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas. It would create millions of barrels of oil, around 20,000 high-paid jobs and slash fuel prices. It seems likely that the Obama administration is stonewalling because of pressure from environmental groups (the oil is extracted from tar sands, is toxic and looks a bit like strip mining). The House Republicans, who see this as a must-have investment to stimulate the economy, voted on Tuesday to demand that Obama move forward with the project. From their perspective, the President is impeding the growth of the free market while simultaneously propping up big government programmes with deficit spending. These two issues go right to the heart of the Tea Party’s conservative agenda.
John Boehner may yet whip the Tea Party into line: even Lankford came out in support of his compromise package on Thursday afternoon and more are sure to follow. But whether Boehner succeeds or not, these freshmen should not be dismissed as reckless ideologues. As far as they are concerned, they are doing what they were elected to do: balance the budget, free the market and eviscerate the President’s liberal agenda. It’s a high-risk gamble, but holding firm is probably the best way to get what they and their constituents asked for in 2010.

[url]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100099025/they-may-have-just-wounded-their-own-republican-leadership-but-the-tea-party-deficit-strategy-still-makes-sense/

Faldur

08-23-2011, 04:11 PM

$478.2 billion in new debt in the 106 days this thread has existed.

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on, La de da de de, la de da de da..

yodajazz

08-24-2011, 08:25 AM

$478.2 billion in new debt in the 106 days this thread has existed.

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on, La de da de de, la de da de da..

I believe you meant, La de da da, la de la de da da da da... which would be the tune to "Dixie". Like the old saying; "just whistling Dixie". Fadur, I say your, 'just whistling Dixie'.

But some Republicans are ready for action. They are willing to let the payroll tax expire, which in fact would be a tax increase (in Republican terms) for even the lowest paid workers. I agree that sacrifices are needed. My disagreement would be on who, should be the ones to give a little more. So in other words, they are leaving out an important class of people.

trish

08-24-2011, 02:06 PM

Faldur

08-24-2011, 02:35 PM

Indeed. Despite the Norquist pledge, the GOP wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES. They want the payroll tax cut to expire and (using their terminology) raise your taxes. At the same time they 're willing to run us over a cliff and renege on our bills in order to protect the wealthiest among us! Not only are they engaged in class warfare and lining their own pockets...they're hypocrites too.

Ok, I challenge you to find one reference where Tea Party members have encouraged or indicated "renege on our bills". If you are describing cutting services we cannot afford I question the intent of your terminology. Had we not extended the debt limit there would have been more than adequate monies to pay outstanding debts. We would not have however enough monies to pay for frivolous social programs. Thats not "reneging" thats living within your means. If you chose to max out every credit card you had and the bank funding those cards made the decision not to increase your debt limit. The bank would not be forcing you to "renege" on your bills. The bank would simply be reigning in an irresponsible individuals spending habits. (No implication that you are irresponsible Trish, just an example)

"Class warfare"? What is it when those who feel entitled to others hard earned monies continue to raise taxes on a very small percentage of citizens all the while not contributing anything themselves.

Payroll tax? How can you have give away services without requiring those who may use the programs to pay for services. Your living in a dream world Trish. Were broke, get into your head, there is no more money left. obuma has delivered $4.23 in new debt in just 945 days. You don't have any money left!

hippifried

08-24-2011, 07:20 PM

Oh there you go... Tax the poor to feed the rich. Instead of babbling incessantly about false conservatismm, why don't you stop lying & call it what it is? Feudalism.

We're not broke. There's no limit to the money supply. The whole argument is bullshit because it's based on a false premise. None of this is about money. It's just about gaining power & control. You know. That stuff that the government isn't supposed to have, according to those who are trying to get it by taking over the government. It's all just a big lie. Every time power changes hands, nothing else changes. But the new guys will tell you "It's okay now because we're in charge.". The ideologues either don't know what their talking about, or they're lying in hopes that nobody else knows what they're talking about. Not one philosophical economic plan has ever worked, & can't work because none of them take humanity into account. So give me one good reason why I should pay even the slightest bit of attention to any of this crap. Especially the drivel coming out of a bunch of blatant know-nothings like the teabaggers.

Faldur

08-24-2011, 08:59 PM

hippifried

08-24-2011, 09:05 PM

Show me where austerity programs like you advocate has ever been of benefit to a nation. Give me just one example.

trish

08-24-2011, 10:29 PM

Faldur

08-24-2011, 11:09 PM

Show me where austerity programs like you advocate has ever been of benefit to a nation. Give me just one example.

Implementation of budget controls, cutting out of control spending, (austerity program if you wish). Is not going to produce any sort of economic growth for many years. We have a government that currently has a debt to gdp of 96%.

If you think you can continue with business as usual and see any type of long term growth with 100% debt to gdp your mad. A stable US living within its means would initiate a prosperous growth period possibly like none we have seen.

And an example is not needed, the elephant in the room is pretty easy to spot.

Faldur

08-24-2011, 11:14 PM

You said it, Faldur. You insisted that we not raise the debt ceiling, knowing full well that means reneging on our bills, (you have to admit that or else admit you're stupid) unless we adhere fully to the Norquist pledge. What was the result. Because of tea-bagging shennanigans the S&P thought there might really be an imminent danger that we would renege on our bills and consequently the tea party got us downgraded. Thank you. You many now take credit for the consequences of your tea-bagging actions. The rest of the country will remember you for it. And now we find out that you don't give two shits about the Norquist pledge when it applies to tax cuts for the middle class and under.

Firstly I think I have pretty well shown in this forum that I am not stupid. An asshole maybe, but not stupid.

Cutting useless and wasteful government programs is not "reneging", its called living responsibly. And had the Tea Party passed the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill the S&P wouldn't have down graded our status.

And in case you haven't noticed Trish, I could give a flying fuck about the Norquist pledge. You won't find my signature on it. We need to raise taxes on the 50% of US taxpayers who are not paying there fair share. Obuma calls it "shared sacrifice". So yes, I am all about raising taxes.

Silcc69

08-25-2011, 03:02 AM

Hmmmm

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/24/why-taxing-the-rich-is-good-for-america/

Bartlett, who culled Internal Revenue Service data for his analysis, which appears this week in his New York Times column (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/what-the-rich-can-afford-in-income-tax/), goes on to say: "If this group were still paying 33.1 percent, federal revenue would have been more than $166 billion higher in 2008 alone. That would be enough to reduce the budget deficit by about 10 percent this year. If the top 1 percent of taxpayers had continued to pay the same effective tax rate they paid in 1986 every year from 1987 to 2008, the federal debt today would be $1.7 trillion lower."

trish

08-25-2011, 06:02 AM

Firstly I think I have pretty well shown in this forum that I am not stupid.Really Faldur? It's in these forums that you revealed your belief in the time-traveling Christ who appears multiple times in the Old Testament. It's you who cannot resist the impulse, every time someone even mentions global climate change, to post a cartoon of the "man-bear-pig." You really think you're not stupid. That may be the stupidest thing I ever heard. But okay, let's give you one more test: how do you feel about evolution?

Cutting useless and wasteful government programs is not "reneging"..You're right. Cutting useless and wasteful government programs (like the Bush tax cuts) is not reneging. But that's not what was under discussion now was it. Don't change the subject. Not raising the debt limit IS reneging. Either you're prevaricating or you're bulb is growing dim; i.e. your being an ass or you're being stupid.

The Democrats were willing to compromise: higher taxes for those who can afford it for substantial cuts in government programs. That's shared sacrifice. The poor who depend on those programs sacrificing their well-being vs the rich not being able to add another car to their fleet as soon as they were originally planning to do. The Tea Baggers were not willing to compromise one iota. Thanks to the Tea Baggers S&P judged there was an imminent risk of the U.S. reneging on its bills. So we were downgraded. What could be clearer than that? Thank you Tea Baggers for exacerbating our economic difficulties instead of helping us alleviate them. America will remember you for that.

hippifried

08-25-2011, 08:35 AM

Implementation of budget controls, cutting out of control spending, (austerity program if you wish). Is not going to produce any sort of economic growth for many years. We have a government that currently has a debt to gdp of 96%.

If you think you can continue with business as usual and see any type of long term growth with 100% debt to gdp your mad. A stable US living within its means would initiate a prosperous growth period possibly like none we have seen.

And an example is not needed, the elephant in the room is pretty easy to spot.
Yeah, an example is needed. That's what was asked for, & the reason you're gettin' all haughty is because you can't provide one. Don't worry. You don't have to get all defensive. There isn't one to be had, because austerity programs like you want don't work & never have. It's not like they haven't been tried. This is the same exact shit that the IMF forces down the throats of every developing country that they loan money to. It doesn't do anything but stifle growth, & growth is the only way out of the malaise. Without money circulating, there's no growth. What you're advocating is throwing the country into an economic tailspin & lowering our status in the world. You know. The same things the Soviets tried to do to us & couldn't.

Faldur

08-25-2011, 03:26 PM

Yeah, an example is needed. That's what was asked for, & the reason you're gettin' all haughty is because you can't provide one. Don't worry. You don't have to get all defensive. There isn't one to be had, because austerity programs like you want don't work & never have. It's not like they haven't been tried. This is the same exact shit that the IMF forces down the throats of every developing country that they loan money to. It doesn't do anything but stifle growth, & growth is the only way out of the malaise. Without money circulating, there's no growth. What you're advocating is throwing the country into an economic tailspin & lowering our status in the world. You know. The same things the Soviets tried to do to us & couldn't.

You cannot find an example of a country that was in such financial disarray and made the hard decisions to reverse direction. It's never been done, the only other country I can see that has spent as irresponsibly as the US is Japan. And they are the perfect example of what happens when your style of thinking is continued. It equals slow death.

As I stated, reversing direction will create hardship. Have you ever known someone who spent so irresponsibly that a credit reorganization was required? They would spend the next 10 - 15 years financially strapped paying for there irresponsible ways. Our country is no different.

Faldur

08-25-2011, 03:39 PM

Really Faldur? It's in these forums that you revealed your belief in the time-traveling Christ who appears multiple times in the Old Testament. It's you who cannot resist the impulse, every time someone even mentions global climate change, to post a cartoon of the "man-bear-pig." You really think you're not stupid. That may be the stupidest thing I ever heard. But okay, let's give you one more test: how do you feel about evolution?

Oh brother, I am really sorry you have to live with so much hatred for others.

"Time traveling Christ", are you kidding me. You stated once that your Mother was a Baptist. You can check with her, the foundation of the Baptist religion is a belief in the Trinity. Now if you think that God just one day said "hey I think I'll have a baby!", then decided "Oh, boy I think I will make Him God!", your nuts. Any biblical based Christian religion has its foundation of belief in the Trinity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each God, together one. And through theological proof the Trinity was present at creation, and throughout the Old Testament.

Do not believe in the theory of evolution. Have yet seen a fish step from the ocean and order a carmel macchiato at Starbucks.

And now just for you, your high priest and savior...

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/images/south_park/episode_thumbnails/s10e06_480.jpg

trish

08-25-2011, 04:02 PM

Really? You're offering up that anti-science, thirteenth century, lunatic gobbledygook as evidence of your powerful intellect? LOL

hippifried

08-25-2011, 09:40 PM

You cannot find an example of a country that was in such financial disarray and made the hard decisions to reverse direction. It's never been done, the only other country I can see that has spent as irresponsibly as the US is Japan. And they are the perfect example of what happens when your style of thinking is continued. It equals slow death.

As I stated, reversing direction will create hardship. Have you ever known someone who spent so irresponsibly that a credit reorganization was required? They would spend the next 10 - 15 years financially strapped paying for there irresponsible ways. Our country is no different.
"Reverse direction"? Why not call it what it really is: Going backwards... Retreat... Turning tail-ass & running... Giving up... National wussification... Surrender...
Well fuck that shit! You want to be a pussy? Curl up in fetal position & suck your thumb? Go ahead, but you don't get to take the rest of the country with you. We're the wealthiest country in the world. We're not broke. We're not a bunch of wimps. You don't know what you're talking about.

The US has been carrying a debt since its founding. We've never been on a COD basis. The government is not a profit making venture, & was never intended to be such. The biggest holder of US T-Bonds is the Federal Reserve. Second biggest is individual US bond holders collectively. The federal entitlement programs, like Social Security & Medicare, are right up there too. The lion's share of the US debt is owed to... Drum toll... Ta da! The US. It's all just shuffling numbers in the ledger. To hear you tell it, one would think the bank is getting ready to foreclose. We ARE the bank. We're not out of options.

The IMF has been forcing countries into these kind of lame austerity programs for decades. (Since the '71 shock, really, when their status as quasi world central bank was marginalized.) The reason there's no example of success is because there hasn't been any success. It's no less impossible to cut your way to prosperity than to borrow your way out of debt. Every attempt has ended in bankrupsy & charge off of the debt. It's a lose lose all the way around. 10 to 15 years? Where'd you hear that fairy tale? Try 30, 40, or longer. That's just to hit bottom. Then after the bones are picked clean, our great grandchildren & great great grandchildren get to try & start all over from nothing. Why? Because a handful of glassy eyed know nothing teabag followers wanted to make some bogus ideological point? ...& you have the gall to talk about somebody else being irresponsible... Pffft!

Faldur

08-25-2011, 09:54 PM

"Reverse direction"? Why not call it what it really is: Going backwards... Retreat... Turning tail-ass & running... Giving up... National wussification... Surrender...
Well fuck that shit! You want to be a pussy? Curl up in fetal position & suck your thumb?

Ok, I will admit I needed a good laugh. "Retreat"? You have some dimwitted idiot spending money faster than the fed can print and you call correcting that action cowardice? I beg your pardon, the cowards are the ones that just continue to hide their heads in the sand and let the norm continue. It takes a brave individual to take a stand and say ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT.

The US has been carrying a debt since its founding.

Can you give me one example when that debt has been anywhere near the ratio to GDP ratio we are currently at?

BluegrassCat

08-25-2011, 10:52 PM

Can you give me one example when that debt has been anywhere near the ratio to GDP ratio we are currently at?

Here's an example for the guy who doesn't believe he needs examples: World War Two. (Does your crazy creationism world view even allow you to believe in WWII?) Not only was Debt to GDP "anywhere near" what it is now, it greatly exceeded it. In 1946 we had debt to GDP ratio of 120% followed by an unprecedented growth in prosperity for the middle class and the country as a whole. So yeah, there's my example for more stimulus spending, where's yours for the austerity path?

But really, WTF? You don't believe in evolution? So you reject modern science entirely? What do you think the internet is, just Jesus giving the world one big hug? I bet even OMK acknowledges the truth of evolution.

I thought it was really weird when you refused out of hand to even LOOK at some graphs but now I guess I understand why. To maintain this disbelief about how the world works you have to avoid a lot of inconvenient truths, in politics, biology and everywhere else.

But it's not to late to come join the evidence-based world. It's pretty great here, we got cars and medicine and hot tgirls through the wonders of hormones and surgery. Why not put down the Kool-Aid and try it?

Faldur

08-26-2011, 12:13 AM

where's yours for the austerity path?

There are no examples to find. No country has every buried itself in a hole as deep as us and tried to dig out. It hasn't been done. Only one country I know has dug a deeper hole, and that was Japan. There idea seems to be keep digging and sooner or later you will reach the surface.

But really, WTF? You don't believe in evolution? So you reject modern science entirely?

Your precious evolution is nothing but a theory. It is not scientific law, or a law of biology. If evolution were factual eskimos would have fur. I won't bore you with pages after pages of SCIENTIFIC facts that prove the theory wrong. I don't think you would read them anyways.

You choose to believe in evolution, based off your own research and knowledge. I choose not, based upon the same. Why do I not get the same rights as you? It really seems liberals only believe in freedom when it aligns with there own beliefs.

I thought it was really weird when you refused out of hand to even LOOK at some graphs but now I guess I understand why.

You posted some valid graphs, I took one look at where the first one came from and diss'ed it. I was wrong, I went back and re-read the graphs you posted and your point was correct. I believe I already stated that sometime ago.

But it's not to late to come join the evidence-based world. It's pretty great here, we got cars and medicine and hot tgirls through the wonders of hormones and surgery.

Not too late to come to Jesus my friend, I drive several nice cars, have a beautiful girlfriend, enjoy the finest medical care my area has to offer.

One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. For your sakes, I hope its me.. but my heart tells me otherwise.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 12:15 AM

And by the way, 3 on 1 really? Can't you guys and gals find more help?

trish

08-26-2011, 12:29 AM

If evolution were factual eskimos would have fur. I won't bore you with pages after pages of SCIENTIFIC facts that prove the theory wrong.
...
And by the way, 3 on 1 really? Can't you guys and gals find more help?

You really are a stupid shit!! So really?? You've got pages and pages of hilarious "scientific facts" like that one??! Now I am laughing out loud. But that's what you come here for right? A public spanking and a little humiliation. So wipe away those tears sissyboi, your mascara's running.

Here, maybe O'Reilly can help you out.

BluegrassCat

08-26-2011, 12:35 AM

There are no examples to find. No country has every buried itself in a hole as deep as us and tried to dig out. It hasn't been done. Only one country I know has dug a deeper hole, and that was Japan. There idea seems to be keep digging and sooner or later you will reach the surface.

Don't you see how that's a huge problem for your argument? The vast majority of economists say that cutting spending now would be disastrous. We actually have a very good example in the Great Depression and how large-scale deficit spending by the govt was what it took to get us finally back on track. The lesson is perfectly clear: expansionary policy is the correct move.

You claim that this is wrong but don't provide any evidence, you just ask us to take it on faith. Same with your position on evolution, faith-based not fact-based. If that's how you want to make decisions in life, based on how you think god wants us to, well that's fine, but don't confuse that with evidence-based decision making.

Your precious evolution is nothing but a theory. It is not scientific law, or a law of biology. If evolution were factual eskimos would have fur. I won't bore you with pages after pages of SCIENTIFIC facts that prove the theory wrong. I don't think you would read them anyways.

You choose to believe in evolution, based off your own research and knowledge. I choose not, based upon the same.

There are 0 (none, nada) reputable biologists who question the theory of evolution. You are denying evolution for religious reasons, not by studying the science.

Why do I not get the same rights as you? It really seems liberals only believe in freedom when it aligns with there own beliefs.

I don't know what kind of power you think I have over you but I certainly can't restrict your freedom, nor have I have ever advocated that the government do so. You're free to say all the incorrect things you want and I'm free to call you on it.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 01:49 AM

BGC, the lesson is far from perfectly clear. Justify the continued spending and the effect it will have on our economic growth? Have you noticed our economy is a 0 growth? The continued spending will lead us into a depression far worse than the first. No country has ever spent themselves so foolishly into a corner as ours. Its thinking and reasoning like yours that has gotten us here. Its independent, right thinking that is going to clean up your mess.

Trish, you wanna believe in a tooth fairy that tells you that global warming is going to destroy the earth. Be my guest, do the same with your little evolution scheme. Neither can be proven and as SCIENCE is proving both are incorrect.

No one spanks my ass here sweet heart, I do just fine holding my own. Easy when your out of valid points to just start calling someone names. Be my guest, I'm a big boy.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Faldur

08-26-2011, 01:53 AM

I don't know what kind of power you think I have over you but I certainly can't restrict your freedom, nor have I have ever advocated that the government do so. You're free to say all the incorrect things you want and I'm free to call you on it.

I'm not talking about power, I'm talking about respect in debate. Have I once called you an idiot or stupid because your opinion differs from mine? I listen and read your points. Where I come from anyone who offers up an educated opinion deserves to be heard, however you may disagree. Its about respectful debate. The left has seemed to have lost it. If they don't agree with someone they must be stupid, or a racist. I'll let my example speak for itself. You can't gain anything in debate if your not open to listen, and respect is just human decency.

trish

08-26-2011, 02:28 AM

Trish, you wanna believe in a tooth fairy that tells you that global warming is going to destroy the earth. Be my guest, do the same with your little evolution scheme.Oh now you're going to play the skeptic? You're willing to believe in the time-traveling Christ who supposedly appears (but is never named or recognized as such) in odd places throughout the Old Testament...you know the Captain of the Lord who appeared before Joshua before the battle of Jericho (Why couldn't the Captain have been an Archangel? lol "Because there are no such things as gods and angels" would be the sane answer, but it's not an option for you). But you're going to play the skeptic on evolution, and global climate change because you've scoured the libraries and read the actual scientific evidence and found it lacking. Yeah, right. You'd rather put your faith in argumentation like "If-eeevilushun-were-keyrect-Eskimos-would-have-fur. [Look up basal metabolic rates, protective fatty tissue surrounding vital organs and vasoconstriction responses as they relate to Arctic peoples. Also check out the variability of hair density in Asian populations that were the likely progenitors of the Arctic populations before the Ice Age migrations.]

Neither can be proven and as SCIENCE is proving both are incorrect.
Wrong. You've got it backwards. Science is putting more and more of pieces together every day. Every internationally respected biologist in the world subscribes to and depends upon the theory of evolution in their own work. No internationally respected climatologist denies that global climate shift is occurring and that it is in part due to anthropocentric greenhouse forcing. But of course, skeptic that you are, you're willing to believe anything the conservative press tells you instead of reading actually scientific papers from refereed journals in climate science, or refereed articles discussing inheritance and mutation of genetic material in journals on dedicated to the topic. Have you even read Darwin's On the Origin of Species?

BluegrassCat

08-26-2011, 02:52 AM

Trish, you wanna believe in a tooth fairy that tells you that global warming is going to destroy the earth. Be my guest, do the same with your little evolution scheme. Neither can be proven and as SCIENCE is proving both are incorrect.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I guess I'm a little confused why you would post these links. The first two are terribly amateurish (evanwiggs even gets the definition of evolution wrong) but the 3rd link then proceeds to explain why & how all the anti-evolution arguments in the other links are complete nonsense. The guardian piece doesn't even argue against evolution at all so if I assume you read all these links I would assume you accepted the truth of evolution as well.

Again, you have your religious beliefs and you're entitled to them but you need to be honest about what evidence there is for your claims and in this case...there isn't any. The entire science establishment accepts the fact of evolution, so when someone denies it, it's a pretty clear signal that this person is not reasoning based on facts but on faith and religion. If I maintained, contrary to all evidence, that the moon was made of blue cheese, wouldn't you take my other assertions less seriously? Same thing goes here.

BluegrassCat

08-26-2011, 03:07 AM

BGC, the lesson is far from perfectly clear. Justify the continued spending and the effect it will have on our economic growth? Have you noticed our economy is a 0 growth? The continued spending will lead us into a depression far worse than the first. No country has ever spent themselves so foolishly into a corner as ours. Its thinking and reasoning like yours that has gotten us here. Its independent, right thinking that is going to clean up your mess.

Two things...

First and this is getting redundant, there is plenty of evidence that what we need is more spending. The stimulus was great as far as it went but it was too small. According to the accounting methodology developed by conservative Holtz-Eakin the stimulus had x2 mutliplier, meaning that for every dollar we spent, we got back 2 in GDP.
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/holtz_eakin2.png
You have no evidence that austerity will help at all but you just keep saying it as a matter of faith.

Second, what is it that you think will happen from all this bad debt? You keep saying how "out of control" our spending is, well what is it you're so terrified of happening? High unemployment? We already have it. Credit rating downgrade? Got it. Inability to pay SS & Medicare benefits? You already advocate cutting those. The point is, that all the boogeymen the right promises as reasons to cut spending, unemployment & reduced benefits are exactly what the GOP's policies are designed to accomplish immediately. You want to cure a cold by amputating the head. Glad I'm not sick [/Dangerfield].

hippifried

08-26-2011, 03:17 AM

Ok, I will admit I needed a good laugh. "Retreat"? You have some dimwitted idiot spending money faster than the fed can print and you call correcting that action cowardice? I beg your pardon, the cowards are the ones that just continue to hide their heads in the sand and let the norm continue. It takes a brave individual to take a stand and say ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT.
Yeah, enough of your shit. You idiots are trying to put the US on an economic par with central Africa. You don't know what you're talking about. We're not broke. It's just a lie told in furthurance of a power grab. You swallowed that hook like a trout. I can't tell if you're just gullible or dishonest, but either way you're promoting the lie & trying to get the USA into surrender mode. Maybe you should move to France.

Can you give me one example when that debt has been anywhere near the ratio to GDP ratio we are currently at?
WWII comes to mind right off hand. All done on a borrowed dime. Took over 20 years to pay it off, & that was in the middle of the biggest economic boom in history. How long you figure it'll take to pay this off if y'all manage to get us into the permanent recession you'r aiming for?

Faldur

08-26-2011, 03:19 AM

Oh now you're going to play the skeptic? You're willing to believe in the time-traveling Christ who supposedly appears (but is never named or recognized as such) in odd places throughout the Old Testament...you know the Captain of the Lord who appeared before Joshua before the battle of Jericho (Why couldn't the Captain have been an Archangel?

Quite simply Trish, through out the Old Testament when ever an angel appeared in scripture if anyone tried to bow or worship them they were reprimanded, that the angel was not Lord. When Joshua fell before commander of the army of the Lord and worshiped him he received no such reprimand. In fact he was told the same thing as Moses at the burning bush, "Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place you are standing is holy." It could only be holy ground if God himself was present. And do remember God can be 1=3=1. Michael the Archangel would and could never had made the same statements.

hippifried

08-26-2011, 03:22 AM

And by the way, 3 on 1 really? Can't you guys and gals find more help?
Oh... You mean you can't find anybody stupid, cowardly, dishonest, or gullible enough to help you out?

Faldur

08-26-2011, 03:24 AM

Yeah, enough of your shit. You idiots are trying to put the US on an economic par with central Africa. You don't know what you're talking about.

How can you live in such a closed box, your a smart guy to think that everyone who has a different opinion than you is an idiot. Onmyknees, Rustaffa, and of coarse myself, lets not forget all Tea Party members are idiots, and of coarse ANY conservative republican. Your party has built walls around itself that are dooming it to a very private, lonely death.

At least we can look at the other side of the isle and understand they love America just as much as we do. That they honestly think their policies will help our country.

Big difference between the two of us, I hope your party finds its way out of the box. Cause you all are really making fools out of yourselves.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 03:27 AM

The entire science establishment accepts the fact of evolution,

That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.

trish

08-26-2011, 03:34 AM

But I thought you guys believed God was everywhere at all times, and so his mere presence is not what made the burning bushes holy. Spanked again little boy!

trish

08-26-2011, 03:38 AM

That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.Name the ten leading refereed biology journals devoted to anti-evolution research and cite their proportion of readership relative to the community of working biologists.

onmyknees

08-26-2011, 05:13 AM

Yeah, enough of your shit. You idiots are trying to put the US on an economic par with central Africa. You don't know what you're talking about. We're not broke. It's just a lie told in furthurance of a power grab. You swallowed that hook like a trout. I can't tell if you're just gullible or dishonest, but either way you're promoting the lie & trying to get the USA into surrender mode. Maybe you should move to France.

WWII comes to mind right off hand. All done on a borrowed dime. Took over 20 years to pay it off, & that was in the middle of the biggest economic boom in history. How long you figure it'll take to pay this off if y'all manage to get us into the permanent recession you'r aiming for?

Hippie...you're really a simpleton.....not because you're a lib, but because you're lazy and close minded,
and probably have bad personal hygiene..even in the face over overwhelming evidence. And you'll get worse, and more shrill as the American public rejects your philosophy at an astounding rate. So here's some numbers...call it economics for dummies, and by all means if the shoe fits for any of your cohorts on here... wear it! These are CBO numbers....got an issue with them? Take your case to them...
Follow along ....OK?

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.
That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.

There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government. "It's spread all through the budget," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "It was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda." Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending.

See how simple it really is Hippie ?
No need to take us back 70 years to WW2, no need to bad mouth fiscal conservatives...it's all right the in 3 paragraphs.

Nicole Dupre

08-26-2011, 07:12 AM

:whistle: I decided to briefly take him off ignore, just to see where he was going here. I mean, I notice that he's constantly posting in this section because his name always appears on the main list of threads. And, just as I thought, it's the same old bullshit. His head is planted firmly up his goosestepping ass.

But then it dawned on me. And I noticed a pattern with OMK. He generally has horrible grammar, and relies on ad hominem nonsense. But, lo and behold, he suddenly sandwiches seemingly well-rehearsed quasi-facts in between corny, hateful diatribes.

So I did a little research, and found something interesting.

But first, did anyone see a quote getting credited to someone better suited to be a fascist propagandist? I didn't think so. He leaves those out, because he's a plagiarizer. Case in point: here's the jist of his arguement, stolen word-for-word from Byron York in the Washington Examiner.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-spending-not-entitlements-created-deficits

And now I'm putting him back on ignore, where he belongs. :loser:

BluegrassCat

08-26-2011, 07:35 AM

That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.

Wow 100%, huh? LMFAO. Then you should have no problem presenting examples of biologists working at top universities or publishing in top (biology) journals saying evolution isn't true. If you can't then it's clear YOU'RE the disingenuous one. That or you have no clue what you're talking about. I guess there's always option C that it's both.

BluegrassCat

08-26-2011, 07:42 AM

yodajazz

08-26-2011, 07:45 AM

Name the ten leading refereed biology journals devoted to anti-evolution research and cite their proportion of readership relative to the community of working biologists.

Rather than being anti-evolution, I like the term "intelligent design". It's not nescessary to believe in god, under common religious definitions. It's belief in the possibility that the nature and man are so complex, that it appears there is a higher intelligence than man, that was/is involved in its creation.

hippifried

08-26-2011, 08:37 AM

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion.
Well actually, things went haywire in 2005. That's why Congress changed hands in the 2006 election, & the first order of business in the 2007 Congress was a tax rebate. Follow along, okay. Through accounting tricks, the 2 wars we're still tangled up in were kept off budget & didn't show in the deficit reports, even though it was all on a borrowed dime. That $160 billion is a bogus number to start with. The numbers are honest now.

I expect the government to run up deficits during downturns. That's what they're supposed to do. It keeps money flowing when the private sector crashes, & keeps things from total collapse. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp. It promotes the general welfare & provides for the common defense against the consequences of domestic stupidity, like bank panics.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No:
Wrong again. The answer to that question is yes. Not everybody, but this is the year the baby boomers start turning 65. It's going to be another decade before the increase flattens back out. But this has already been budgeted in for the next 40 years or so, & the Social Security & Medicare entitlements have their own separate revenue stream. They're self funded. The 2 biggest entitlements have nothing to do with the current deficit problems, aside from their heavy investment in Treasury bonds.

There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government.
That's because it's called "the Recovery Act". Over half of it was tax cuts for small business & wage earners. I believe those are due to expire at the end of this year. Since Republicans are already clamoring to let the "Obama tax cuts" go by the wayside, how does that jive with the "pledge"?

Yeah, it's all very simple. Y'all're willing to let the whole country become collateral damage in your attempt at a power grab. Somehow, I can't seem to find anyting patriotic about putting ideology or vendettas ahead of the nation's wellbeing. There's niothing conservative about your austerity approach either. It's reactionary. You should learn the difference. This is a panic response to a trumped up crisis, & personally, I don't think it's a genuine response. Dollars to donuts says that if by some fluke y'all manage to take full control after 2012, all these proposals will go right out the window. All punditry is lies. Otherwise it'd be news.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 03:00 PM

Name the ten leading refereed biology journals devoted to anti-evolution research and cite their proportion of readership relative to the community of working biologists.

No thanks, not wasting my time. 52 years since Darwin published his "theory of evolution" and today it is still just that, a theory. That speaks for itself.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 03:08 PM

Hippi, 50 of he 54 states, (obuma's count not mine), have balanced budgets. They seem to manage just fine without heading into deep depressions. Wisconsin recently enacted austerity measures and we were told public education as we knew it would end. Guess what, the same teachers are in the class room teaching today.

Its amazing how the Wisconsin story is no longer reported. Take a look at the Kaukauna School District. They ran a fiscal deficit of $400,000 last year and with the new austerity measures they project a surpluss of $1.5 million. And guess what, with the new surplus they are hiring new teachers and proceeding with school improvements.

Responsible spending is no different for a government, a state, or an individual and his/her family. We've tried it your way and in the last 10 1/2 years it has produced over $9 trillion dollars in debt. If our governmental spending remained at 2007 levels, we would have a balanced budget today.

Prospero

08-26-2011, 03:12 PM

Faldur - are you arguing that creationism then has as much validity as evolution? There is NO scientific basis for creationism at all - and an immense body of evidence that demonstrates that it is untrue. The creation stories are metaphors nothing more.

You also don't seem to appreciate that our science is built upon the principle of theories - which are never totally proveable. But theories are tested and evidence gathered to support them (in the case of evolution, again, an immense body of sustaining evidence). If enough scientifically supportably evidence could be gathered to disprove evolution, then it wouldl fail. hence the beleif, for instance, that we lived in a universe that rotated around the earth - enforced with rigour by the Popes - was eventually disproved by a body of scientific evidence from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo.

But without evidence you might just as well suggest that the universe was created by a man called sam in his garden shed and that the moon is made of cheese. If you choose to believe such stuff, that is fine - just as billions have believed the myth of divine creation (and still do) or more subtly today in the anthropic principle. But there is NO evidence that can be used to prove this - just a series of texts whose historical veracity is shakey, to say the least.

Prospero

08-26-2011, 03:34 PM

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Faldur

08-26-2011, 04:40 PM

I'm off on holiday. Good points Prospero but I respectfully disagree. I believe there is substantial science that the "theory" of intelligent design or creationism is valid. No offense but the science is easily found with a good search. The Institute for Creation Research is a decent source.

But I am already nuts in most members views here because I believe in God. The choice is purely mine. I think it only goes to say I would believe in Genesis Chapter 1.

Silcc69

08-26-2011, 05:00 PM

Prospero

08-26-2011, 05:07 PM

Have a good holiday Faldur. Look harder at the so-called science on Creationism. it really is pseudo science. I spent a whole year investigating this stuff (and can send you a paper i rote should you wish to see it) . I respect those who believe in God (I am personally agnostic - seeing both belief and atheism as certainties which I cannot accept) But unless you believe in some kind of trickster god who placed fossils and all kinds of other evidence around simply to play games with us, the whole notion of creationism, intelligent design and the rest simply do not hold water. However perhaps you DO believe in a trickster god - a sort of Christian Coyote (in the navajo myth) who plays with us.

Nicole Dupre

08-26-2011, 07:59 PM

I'm at the point where I'm blocking about a dozen or more people. They're like speed bumps when you simply want to share ideas, info, photos, links, etc. If they want to block me, I'm more than fine with that. It seems like they must've been practising ignorance and intolerance anyway, to be as fucked up as they already are, so I'm not holding my breath on them growing intellectually or emotionally.

And honestly, if I wanted to read the Washington Review, I'd read the piece of shit. The only difference with OMK's posts is, he recreates a scene from an old Popeye cartoon, in which Bluto calls Popeye a "little lilly-livered runt", etc before makes goon-like attempts to regurgitate fascistic propaganda. Truthfully, I'd like to have all of those minutes of my life back, that I wasted on reading some of the nonsense which litters the forum.

Most of the people posting here are level-headed and sane, even if they're willing to agree to disagree. For instance, I love Trish's posts. Even tho' I don't believe in capital punishment, and she does, she's capable of behaving like a sane human being when she expresses her opinion. Fox News diatribes, I don't need.

I'm not a "lib". I'm actually apolitical. But I see validity, within reason, in all religions, philosophies, schools of thought, etc. The world is basically a Frankenstein-like juggernaut anyway. So imo eclecticism is our probably our only sane hope.

I'm generally a pacifist, but by the same token, I'm not a masochist. If I wanted my brain to rot in skull, I'd start bingeing on meth or sniffing glue. Therefore, I'm letting the dummies of HA wither away and die on the vine of social interaction. They're just a bunch of fucking dummies that need to go extinct asap.