This was an important weekend. With only a short time until Congress goes on break, members of the house cleared the table to discuss critical economic issues. Attempts by Republicans to get the president to join the discussion failed. The debt ceiling debate has stalled over the issue of raising taxes, and the Senate minority leader and his chief whip said Sunday they aren't going to allow that to happen
This time, Democrats defended President Obama's choice to be absent in these discussions. "We can't have the President sitting in these meetings, three and four hours every day, when all of these other things are happening around the world. The president has much more to do with his time, and that's why you have a Vice President." -James Clyburn (D-SC).
I have no problem with the Vice President doing his job, but it seems that he is not able to yield a single result from this congress. Neither side is willing to compromise and the pi$$ing match continues. This is typically the time when Presidents "lock the doors" and hash out agreements. I also understand that pressing world matters take priority in the president's schedule.
The problem is that there were very few world leaders present at the Andrews course on Saturday or at the Ft. Belvoir course on Sunday. There were some new developments though. . .the president is taking his staff photographer now as part of his foursome, and his trip adviser Marvin Nicholson. William Daily also played as did a following foursome of staffers.
Sometimes there's nothing like a good relaxing golf weekend to bring the world back into focus.
Speaker of the house John Boehner plays more golf than Obama. Twice as often.
But of course, you are not obsessed with his activities like you are with Obama.
He does have a disturbing tendency to abdicate crucial leadership moments to others for dates with the first lady, golf outings, taking his kids on another foreign junket. It can be hard adjusting to the life of being a celebrity president.
(http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=10371,filename=political-pictures-joe-biden-in-democracy.jpg)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/11/business/media/11biden-span/11biden-span-blogSpan.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 08:59:59 AM
Speaker of the house John Boehner plays more golf than Obama. Twice as often.
But of course, you are not obsessed with his activities like you are with Obama.
Does he skip any important meetings related to the continued solvency of the nation?
"Obama to meet Senate leaders over raising debt ceiling."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13931451
Gassy, I really don't think you're listening to the right radio stations. Your news is . . . a tad slanted.
Quote from: we vs us on June 27, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
"Obama to meet Senate leaders over raising debt ceiling."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13931451
Gassy, I really don't think you're listening to the right radio stations. Your news is . . . a tad slanted.
Well that's a great development. I missed that. I must add the BBC's Canadian bureau to my aggregator. Are they fair and balanced?
I wonder if he got some heat for his play schedule after Dems in Congress took up for him?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 27, 2011, 09:07:44 AM
Does he skip any important meetings related to the continued solvency of the nation?
Do you mean the meetings the republicans walked out of last week? The same meetings hosted by the Vice-President?
Or are referring to the meetings the President is having today with the republican Senators?
Or are you talking about the meetings the republican congress leaders were having that was skipped by the Speaker of the House to play golf?
If they really cared about the "continued solvency of the nation", they wouldn't keep walking out of meetings to have press conferences.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 10:09:52 AM
Do you mean the meetings the republicans walked out of last week? The same meetings hosted by the Vice-President?
Or are referring to the meetings the President is having today with the republican Senators?
Or are you talking about the meetings the republican congress leaders were having that was skipped by the Speaker of the House to play golf?
If they really cared about the "continued solvency of the nation", they wouldn't keep walking out of meetings to have press conferences.
They needed to go out for a change of diapers and fresh binkies, RM.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 10:09:52 AM
Do you mean the meetings the republicans walked out of last week? The same meetings hosted by the Vice-President?
Or are referring to the meetings the President is having today with the republican Senators?
Or are you talking about the meetings the republican congress leaders were having that was skipped by the Speaker of the House to play golf?
If they really cared about the "continued solvency of the nation", they wouldn't keep walking out of meetings to have press conferences.
The third one.
So I guess you just want to whine about Obama, yet wish to remain a hypocrite?
No need to answer this one, gaspar.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 10:25:03 AM
So I guess you just want to whine about Obama, yet wish to remain a hypocrite?
No need to answer this one, gaspar.
No, I was actually asking about this line item in your post.
QuoteOr are you talking about the meetings the republican congress leaders were having that was skipped by the Speaker of the House to play golf?
I can't find any reference to the Speaker skipping out on meetings to play golf. Do you have some reference to this or was it just said in passing?
He admitted to playing 119 rounds of golf last year. No chance he was busy working.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
He admitted to playing 119 rounds of golf last year. No chance he was busy working.
That was actually in 2009, and the dems used that as a major counter attack against him in the election in 2010, but couldn't find a single instance where he played during any important house business.
They even had billboards made:
(http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/files/2010/08/BoehnerBeatBoehnerBillboard1.jpg)
Did he skip any important meetings that we are unaware of?
Obama wasn't absent during the meeting you referred to either. When republican house members walk out on budget meetings, then call their own, Obama shouldn't be expected to attend their meeting.
And no, Boehner was not at the meeting with other members of Congress either.
Why don't you find something important policy to write about instead of continually complaining about Obama playing golf? You have written at least five times about his golf. You seem obsessed.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
Obama wasn't absent during the meeting you referred to either. When republican house members walk out on budget meetings, then call their own, Obama shouldn't be expected to attend their meeting.
And no, Boehner was not at the meeting with other members of Congress either.
Why don't you find something important policy to write about instead of continually complaining about Obama playing golf? You have written at least five times about his golf. You seem obsessed.
Perhaps you are right. I guess I have golf envy.
It was kind of funny though, going back through those ads against Bohner. The democrats were trying to establish that playing golf every week was a disconnect from the American people.
I remember when President Obama was elected, and took up golf, the media used to tear him up for his poor swing. Now it seems with plenty of practice he can hold his own in a group with Bohner. Perhaps he is simply using the game, as many executives do, as a means of relationship building with co-workers, and associates.
Either way, I don't see it as a disconnect with the American people, on the contrary, I think many of us would rather be out playing golf than just sitting around the office dealing with problems.
I'll try not to mention it again.
I think we should all play golf together.
The TulsaNow Open.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 12:21:36 PM
I think we should all play golf together.
The TulsaNow Open.
Not a bad idea!
Why not make it a benefit, and sell some sponsorships?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 10:09:52 AM
Do you mean the meetings the republicans walked out of last week? The same meetings hosted by the Vice-President?
After what we saw from Wisconsin and Indiana democrats packing up their things and actually moving to another state to avoid doing their jobs, I'd watch the hypocrite crap. And let's not forget that Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling while he was a part-time senator for political reasons.
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2011, 12:27:18 PM
. . . And let's not forget that Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling while he was a part-time senator for political reasons.
Apparently President Obama's strongest critic is now Senator Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-debt-and-libya-its-president-obama-vs-senator-obama/2011/06/22/AGhK4AjH_story.html
Quote from: Gaspar on June 27, 2011, 12:30:36 PM
Apparently President Obama's strongest critic is now Senator Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-debt-and-libya-its-president-obama-vs-senator-obama/2011/06/22/AGhK4AjH_story.html
And he voted against raising the debt ceiling too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obama-debt-ceiling-raised_n_876607.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obama-debt-ceiling-raised_n_876607.html)
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 27, 2011, 12:56:51 PM
And he voted against raising the debt ceiling too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obama-debt-ceiling-raised_n_876607.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obama-debt-ceiling-raised_n_876607.html)
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. . .
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities."
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
Quote from: Gaspar on June 27, 2011, 01:01:05 PM
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. . .
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities."
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
Well I think a large portion of the "leadership failure" comment is based on the fact they started with a surplus (surplus = no increase in debt = no need to increase the debt ceiling). After Bush it was just a matter of when the debt ceiling would need to be raised again. I think it probably is sooner than expected (which would be your argument).
And he voted against raising the debt ceiling too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/14/michele-bachmann/bachmann-said-obama-voted-against-debt-limit-when-/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/14/michele-bachmann/bachmann-said-obama-voted-against-debt-limit-when-/)
Let us not forget that the republican members of Congress voted to raise the debt limit five times in his eight years. This is after inheriting a budget surplus from Clinton.
Obama inherited a mess, but of course, now he won't have the options given freely from republican to republican.
At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote "yea", Kyl votes "nay."
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
Hypocrisy goes both ways...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 01:22:55 PM
Let us not forget that the republican members of Congress voted to raise the debt limit five times in his eight years. This is after inheriting a budget surplus from Clinton.
Obama inherited a mess, but of course, now he won't have the options given freely from republican to republican.
At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote "yea", Kyl votes "nay."
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
Hypocrisy goes both ways...
So they raised it just under $4 trillion over eight years, right?
Under President Obama, it's already gone up by just under $5 trillion in just 2.5 years.
It's like saying: "Well you were irresponsible with the budget before, so why can't I even be
more irresponsible with it?" (Or as President Bush would have said "be irresponsibler with it")
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2011, 03:27:47 PM
So they raised it just under $4 trillion over eight years, right?
Under President Obama, it's already gone up by just under $5 trillion in just 2.5 years.
It's like saying: "Well you were irresponsible with the budget before, so why can't I even be more irresponsible with it?" (Or as President Bush would have said "be irresponsibler with it")
Yes, but again.. It took Bush 8 years to get from a surplus to a trillion dollar defecit.
So your response is "they did it more than we did"? They routinely raised it over and over and Obama waits and does it all at once. Your point is that the difference is size?
Funny, that isn't what I hear republican leaders saying...they say it is at an impasse because the democrats don't want to cut Medicare, Medicade and education.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 03:40:19 PM
So your response is "they did it more than we did"? They routinely raised it over and over and Obama waits and does it all at once. Your point is that the difference is size?
Funny, that isn't what I hear republican leaders saying...they say it is at an impasse because the democrats don't want to cut Medicare, Medicade and education.
No, the impasse is exactly what Bohner said it is. Republicans will not entertain any bill that includes raising taxes on small business.
All cuts are on the table, just no tax increases in this economy.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 03:40:19 PM
So your response is "they did it more than we did"? They routinely raised it over and over and Obama waits and does it all at once. Your point is that the difference is size?
Funny, that isn't what I hear republican leaders saying...they say it is at an impasse because the democrats don't want to cut Medicare, Medicade and education.
All at once? They've already raised it close to $5 trillion.
Again, the point is, if Bush was such a poor model to follow fiscally, why are we still repeating and trebling his mistakes??
That's all I'm saying. President Obama keeps campaigning against Bush but I honestly can't see much of a difference in their failed fiscal policies.
Of course not. Why would you want business to pay any more? Just take away from kids and the elderly.
If you are serious about reducing debt ( or as you put it... the continued solvency of the nation), I would think that cutting expenses as well as raising revenue would be considered.
It is all a game to attack the President. A game.
The difference, Conan, is that Bush was deficit spending in a good economy with nearly full employment. That's a recipe for the bad kind of inflation. Deficit spending in a down economy usually makes financial sense, in that the sooner growth is resumed, the more money we end up having in our economy overall. Compound growth, and all that.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
It is all a game to attack the President. A game.
I tend to agree. Instead of really trying to solve problems in a sensible manner, they are simply worried about their own job prospects in 2012 and getting a Repuglican in the White House in 2012.
Again, I see it as each party taking turns raiding the treasury on behalf of their biggest supporters.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 27, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
Of course not. Why would you want business to pay any more? Just take away from kids and the elderly.
If you are serious about reducing debt ( or as you put it... the continued solvency of the nation), I would think that cutting expenses as well as raising revenue would be considered.
It is all a game to attack the President. A game.
No, it is accountability. It is attacking the JOB of the president.
I could care less about the man, it's the job he is doing that is open to criticism. He is woefully unprepared and the result has been devastating.
Yes, devastating. Turning a rapid downward spiral into very slow growth is devastating.
There are these books. I believe they are called dictionaries. You may want to read one.
Nathan,
There is that even bigger problem touched on a few posts back... Bush turned a surplus that would have paid off the national debt by about 2015 according to the GAO, into the trillions in debt we enjoy today. There was a half trillion dollar swing the first year of the Bush corporate welfare program. The biggest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.
And those debt limit numbers are misleading. Bush's last budget, which ended in late summer 2009, ended with $11 trillion in debt at that point. So there is an extra $2 trillion that is getting lost in the shuffle and being attributed where the credit does not belong.
The RWRE is disingenuous (along with being outright dishonest) about the debt. They say it is abhorrent. Yet, they DO realize that tax increases will be necessary as well as spending cuts, but fight getting rid of the Bush Abominations tooth and nail.
I repeat a question posed previously, that was carefully ignored; "does anyone reading this honestly believe that the debt we are destroying our children's lives with can be solve without letting these cuts expire?"
I submit that if anyone answers yes, they too are lying, or like Bachmann, profoundly stupid.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 27, 2011, 09:34:22 PM
Nathan,
There is that even bigger problem touched on a few posts back... Bush turned a surplus that would have paid off the national debt by about 2015 according to the GAO, into the trillions in debt we enjoy today. There was a half trillion dollar swing the first year of the Bush corporate welfare program. The biggest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.
And those debt limit numbers are misleading. Bush's last budget, which ended in late summer 2009, ended with $11 trillion in debt at that point. So there is an extra $2 trillion that is getting lost in the shuffle and being attributed where the credit does not belong.
The RWRE is disingenuous (along with being outright dishonest) about the debt. They say it is abhorrent. Yet, they DO realize that tax increases will be necessary as well as spending cuts, but fight getting rid of the Bush Abominations tooth and nail.
I repeat a question posed previously, that was carefully ignored; "does anyone reading this honestly believe that the debt we are destroying our children's lives with can be solve without letting these cuts expire?"
I submit that if anyone answers yes, they too are lying, or like Bachmann, profoundly stupid.
Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases. Talk of more tax
decreases by any presidential candidate is incredibly disingenuous. The person who wins my vote is the one who is bold enough to say we all need to dig in and do two things: decrease our dependence on government and contribute a little extra to ensure the solvency of America. In return, we will see a like decrease across the board in every budget, in every entitlement.
I still believe in the principal of lower taxes equaling increased revenue to the treasury. However, in order to return us to some sort of fiscal sanity, we are going to have to accept a higher tax rate for every working American and get rid of gaping loopholes which allow multinational corporations to evade taxes altogether. Those companies can't possibly afford to move all operations off-shore and never do business in the United States again. I understand that earnings and profits earned outside the U.S. which have already been taxed by another authority should not be taxed again, but our leaders have got to sprout some cajones and end ridiculous accounting gymnastics which allow them to slough off profits as interest expense while they are collecting all sorts of job creation incentives on the state and local level.
I've always believed in gentle tax policies for those companies which employ a lot of Americans in great paying jobs, which in turn creates a lot of tax revenue via payrolls and consumption by their employees. But examining the accounting schemes they are allowed, they've got to be willing to do their part as well since in many cases it's government spending which has helped fill their coffers in the first place.
No I've not gone liberal on my fiscal policy. I think the core of people who call themselves fiscally conservative don't really grasp what being fiscally conservative is all about. You don't live beyond your means and you don't trade tax cuts or spending increases for votes which is precisely the cycle we've been in for several decades. No, we should not return to 70% tax rates on the upper income, but we also need to quit giving free rides at lower income levels. Everyone needs to have a personal understanding of how expensive our government has become by having to pay into it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2011, 11:24:21 PM
Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases. Talk of more tax decreases by any presidential candidate is incredibly disingenuous. The person who wins my vote is the one who is bold enough to say we all need to dig in and do two things: decrease our dependence on government and contribute a little extra to ensure the solvency of America. In return, we will see a like decrease across the board in every budget, in every entitlement.
I still believe in the principal of lower taxes equaling increased revenue to the treasury. However, in order to return us to some sort of fiscal sanity, we are going to have to accept a higher tax rate for every working American and get rid of gaping loopholes which allow multinational corporations to evade taxes altogether. Those companies can't possibly afford to move all operations off-shore and never do business in the United States again. I understand that earnings and profits earned outside the U.S. which have already been taxed by another authority should not be taxed again, but our leaders have got to sprout some cajones and end ridiculous accounting gymnastics which allow them to slough off profits as interest expense while they are collecting all sorts of job creation incentives on the state and local level.
I've always believed in gentle tax policies for those companies which employ a lot of Americans in great paying jobs, which in turn creates a lot of tax revenue via payrolls and consumption by their employees. But examining the accounting schemes they are allowed, they've got to be willing to do their part as well since in many cases it's government spending which has helped fill their coffers in the first place.
No I've not gone liberal on my fiscal policy. I think the core of people who call themselves fiscally conservative don't really grasp what being fiscally conservative is all about. You don't live beyond your means and you don't trade tax cuts or spending increases for votes which is precisely the cycle we've been in for several decades. No, we should not return to 70% tax rates on the upper income, but we also need to quit giving free rides at lower income levels. Everyone needs to have a personal understanding of how expensive our government has become by having to pay into it.
This... +1 and then some.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0 (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0)
That is an article on capital gains tax and tax revenue. There are many factors in the "lower taxes = more money" concept. I think with capital gains, as the cbo points out, people decide when to sell. So waiting a year for a lower rate decreases one tax year nut decreases another.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2011, 11:24:21 PM
Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases.
As long as EVERYBODY gets a tax increase, then okay.
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 08:32:08 AM
As long as EVERYBODY gets a tax increase, then okay.
Umm... Yeah.. remove the Bush tax cuts... Like everybody has been saying. It will raise taxes on everybody but the top 1% get hit about 30% more than the rest.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 28, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
Umm... Yeah.. remove the Bush tax cuts... Like everybody has been saying. It will raise taxes on everybody but the top 1% get hit about 30% more than the rest.
Let's get over the wealth envy and make it simple. EVERYONE gets a tax increase in the same proportion to their income. That's been my point throughout. I don't want to sock it to the lower class, whoever that is by the way, but we are country made up of people who equally partake in the benefits of living here. I didn't game the system to succeed, and the poor were not screwed out of success by the system or even by some rich guy. Still, all of us have government bills to pay, and all of us should have to pay it. Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 10:35:23 AM
Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.
Nonsense...see "bankruptcy code." How many have escaped paying their obligations to the treasury by declaring insolvency only to reform and do it again and again? You really fail over and over with that throw down wealth envy crappola you spew. You hold the corporations and wealthy to a much lower standard than the needy and the helpless. . I never see you post anything about closing the loopholes which allow corporations to escape taxes through off shore shenanigans. You hate subsidized anything except those status quo military expenditures. What do you have positive to offer up to help the debt crisis you deem so threatening? Or, is it the constant ramble against Obumma rather than the realistic view of congress?
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 10:35:23 AM
Let's get over the wealth envy and make it simple. EVERYONE gets a tax increase in the same proportion to their income. That's been my point throughout. I don't want to sock it to the lower class, whoever that is by the way, but we are country made up of people who equally partake in the benefits of living here. I didn't game the system to succeed, and the poor were not screwed out of success by the system or even by some rich guy. Still, all of us have government bills to pay, and all of us should have to pay it. Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.
It's not envy, it's numbers. The rich have benefited far more than any other tier of society from the Bush tax structure, as well as how the recession-n-recovery have progressed. You benefit more, you pay more . . . or at least that's how it's always been. But tax rates on the folks who've benefited more are lower than they've been since the 1920's. Meaning, that the folks who've benefited are actually paying far less than they have in generations.
So: is it fair that this group is making far more than ever before, but contributing less then they have in almost a century?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 28, 2011, 11:15:35 AM
Nonsense...see "bankruptcy code." How many have escaped paying their obligations to the treasury by declaring insolvency only to reform and do it again and again? You really fail over and over with that throw down wealth envy crappola you spew. You hold the corporations and wealthy to a much lower standard than the needy and the helpless. . I never see you post anything about closing the loopholes which allow corporations to escape taxes through off shore shenanigans. You hate subsidized anything except those status quo military expenditures. What do you have positive to offer up to help the debt crisis you deem so threatening? Or, is it the constant ramble against Obumma rather than the realistic view of congress?
What do you mean "nonsense"? You approve of a society where some have to pay and others do not? And if you read my entire post, you'll notice that I do no want to hammer the lower class. I just want all of us to contribute financially to pay for government services. What is do wrong with that?
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 11:22:08 AM
What do you mean "nonsense"? You approve of a society where some have to pay and others do not? And if you read my entire post, you'll notice that I do no want to hammer the lower class. I just want all of us to contribute financially to pay for government services. What is do wrong with that?
Ron Paul's now babbling and way over his head. He comes from a state with plenty of bankrupts: http://www.bcsalliance.com/bankruptcy_statestats.html . Seems the "values" states have way more bankruptcies than the liberal states. So much for personal responsibility.
"Paul, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate, suggested that bankruptcy would be a good option — as would, short of that, refusing to repay obligations to the Federal Reserve." I know some citizens who did just that, Ron - refused to pay debts and filed bankruptcy. Of course, they lost all their assets, including their homes, in the process, but ..."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168657-rep-ron-paul-bankruptcy-could-be-cure-for-us-debt
And don't look now, but you and Obumma are on the same page, Guido.
Despite Pleas From Advocacy Organizations, White House Cuts Likely To Affect Spending That Helps The Poor http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/despite-pleas-advocacy-organizations-
Damn, what's this world coming to?
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2011, 11:21:38 AM
It's not envy, it's numbers. The rich have benefited far more than any other tier of society from the Bush tax structure, as well as how the recession-n-recovery have progressed. You benefit more, you pay more . . . or at least that's how it's always been. But tax rates on the folks who've benefited more are lower than they've been since the 1920's. Meaning, that the folks who've benefited are actually paying far less than they have in generations.
So: is it fair that this group is making far more than ever before, but contributing less then they have in almost a century?
I will agree with you that the wealthier folks have handled the recession better than those not so wealthy. But when it hit, I, like many, lost nearly 50% of my portfolio. So it's not like I didn't suffer. But the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed less? Not buying it.
I do not think we need to rehash the "rich benefit more from society than the poor" argument because we are hopelessly entrenched in our positions.
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 11:29:45 AM
I will agree with you that the wealthier folks have handled the recession better than those not so wealthy. But when it hit, I, like many, lost nearly 50% of my portfolio. So it's not like I didn't suffer. But the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed less? Not buying it.
I do not think we need to rehash the "rich benefit more from society than the poor" argument because we are hopelessly entrenched in our positions.
I'm not going after you. You aren't the problem. The money you have and the money you make -- keep what you've got. As a matter of fact, I'll bet we're of a similar cohort, or maybe you're in the next bracket, but either way the problem isn't with you or me. The problem is with people who make an unfathomable amounts of money. This is money you and I will never see in our lifetimes, no matter how hard we work or how lucky we get. It will never happen. These are the people who benefited, and whose taxes are ridiculously low.
Did you know that one of the tax loopholes the Dems are hoping to close is an exemption for private jets? These are the people who've benefited, and these are the people who can afford to pay a little bit more.
And edited to add: yes, the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed far far less.
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2011, 11:37:01 AM
I'm not going after you. You aren't the problem. The money you have and the money you make -- keep what you've got. As a matter of fact, I'll bet we're of a similar cohort, or maybe you're in the next bracket, but either way the problem isn't with you or me. The problem is with people who make an unfathomable amounts of money. This is money you and I will never see in our lifetimes, no matter how hard we work or how lucky we get. It will never happen. These are the people who benefited, and whose taxes are ridiculously low.
Did you know that one of the tax loopholes the Dems are hoping to close is an exemption for private jets? These are the people who've benefited, and these are the people who can afford to pay a little bit more.
And edited to add: yes, the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed far far less.
That loophole should be closed in my opinion, and all loopholes should be scrutinized. Now that being settled, let's look at why nearly half of us pay no federal income tax before looking to raise anyone else's taxes.
You mentioned the higher taxes of the 1920s. I wasn't around then, and given that I am too lazy to look it up, I was wondering how many people that actually affected? Seriously, was there a magic number like $250K that triggered the highest tax bracket? Because as it stands now, folks making $250K would get hit with the same tax rate as the mega-wealthiest of us.
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 11:47:03 AM
That loophole should be closed in my opinion, and all loopholes should be scrutinized. Now that being settled, let's look at why nearly half of us pay no federal income tax before looking to raise anyone else's taxes.
You mentioned the higher taxes of the 1920s. I wasn't around then, and given that I am too lazy to look it up, I was wondering how many people that actually affected? Seriously, was there a magic number like $250K that triggered the highest tax bracket? Because as it stands now, folks making $250K would get hit with the same tax rate as the mega-wealthiest of us.
When the income tax was first instituted, most people didn't pay, for what it's worth. It was only around WWII (as I recall) that it was pushed downwards to the not-wealthy.
And yeah, one of the big stupids of the Bush tax structure is that people who aren't at all similarly situated are taxed at the same rate. You shouldn't pay what Buffett or Koch pays. They should pay more. Income should be treated the same, no matter how it is earned. Someone on food stamps shouldn't pay as much as you pay.
Isn't the private jet 'loophole' the same as any other equipment used in business? Or is there something special about aircraft?
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2011, 11:37:01 AM
I'm not going after you. You aren't the problem. The money you have and the money you make -- keep what you've got. As a matter of fact, I'll bet we're of a similar cohort, or maybe you're in the next bracket, but either way the problem isn't with you or me. The problem is with people who make an unfathomable amounts of money. This is money you and I will never see in our lifetimes, no matter how hard we work or how lucky we get. It will never happen. These are the people who benefited, and whose taxes are ridiculously low.
Did you know that one of the tax loopholes the Dems are hoping to close is an exemption for private jets? These are the people who've benefited, and these are the people who can afford to pay a little bit more.
And edited to add: yes, the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed far far less.
But that's the point I clinch my jaw and think: "Class warfare, wealth envy, and income redistribution"
I find it really disingenuous when people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates start talking about not paying enough in taxes. Either one of them is always welcome to step up and pay more without revising the tax code for everyone else who makes less than they do but still earns $250K/year.
Loopholes and favoritism in the current code as well as some incredibly expensive bureaucracies to monitor, collect revenue, and enforce tax codes is precisely why I like the "Fair Tax" concept. That's one of the reasons I lean toward Herman Cain as a presidential candidate, he's an advocate of it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the IRS is pretty much like the military, you can make all the promises you want on how you are going to change it, but once you are sitting in the big chair you find out who is really in charge.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 28, 2011, 12:33:52 PM
But that's the point I clinch my jaw and think: "Class warfare, wealth envy, and income redistribution"
But what I've said is factually true, not based on ideology. Even the part that sounded ideological. It really IS money that Guido and I won't see in our lifetimes (statistically speaking). And the people I'm talking about really DO have an unfathomable amount of money (it must be literally unfathomable, because it seems that a couple of folks here think they'll see that amount of money in their lifetime and so want to protect their aspirational tax bracket -- when the odds of that happening are statistically impossible). But most importantly, this richest 1% has benefited far more than everyone and their taxes are historically very very low.
What's weird is that the way income sits in our country right now is out of the ordinary. It isn't normal. It doesn't track our successful history or follow how we've traditionally thought of taxes and success. And yet we have the GOP going to the mat to keep this imbalance in place. They are willing to do ANYTHING -- and to date, that means defaulting on our debt and completely tanking our economy -- to keep this weird new system going.
Also: why is it envy or class warfare when none of that money is going to come to me? I won't get an extra paycheck from the richies on the nice side of the tracks. I also won't suddenly get a fatter return. At this point, I'm hoping the rich's taxes go up so I don't LOSE current benefits.
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2011, 12:58:23 PM
But what I've said is factually true, not based on ideology. Even the part that sounded ideological. It really IS money that Guido and I won't see in our lifetimes (statistically speaking). And the people I'm talking about really DO have an unfathomable amount of money (it must be literally unfathomable, because it seems that a couple of folks here think they'll see that amount of money in their lifetime and so want to protect their aspirational tax bracket -- when the odds of that happening are statistically impossible). But most importantly, this richest 1% has benefited far more than everyone and their taxes are historically very very low.
What's weird is that the way income sits in our country right now is out of the ordinary. It isn't normal. It doesn't track our successful history or follow how we've traditionally thought of taxes and success. And yet we have the GOP going to the mat to keep this imbalance in place. They are willing to do ANYTHING -- and to date, that means defaulting on our debt and completely tanking our economy -- to keep this weird new system going.
Also: why is it envy or class warfare when none of that money is going to come to me? I won't get an extra paycheck from the richies on the nice side of the tracks. I also won't suddenly get a fatter return. At this point, I'm hoping the rich's taxes go up so I don't LOSE current benefits.
You want someone else to cover
your benefits because they have more?
That's entirely ideology. The only fact is those people have more money. Just because they have more, that isn't in itself an excuse to confiscate it at a vastly higher rate. That would be like me simply deciding to take one of my neighbor's cars because he owns ten of them, yet he can only drive one at a time. He has more cars than I will ever own at once in my life time, so I should be entitled to it.
Explain to me how that's any different.
In a system where everyone pays a percentage of their income, the wealthiest are paying more money to the treasury.
You are also incredibly blind if you think the GOP is soley responsible for what you consider an unjust tax code, Democrats have been just as complicit in helping to cobble loopholes for their large benefactors and are every bit as beholden to big business as are Rethugs.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 28, 2011, 01:07:27 PM
You want someone else to cover your benefits because they have more?
I've been covering someone else's since I started working at Subway back when I was 14. I continue to cover someone else's as I work right now. I'll continue to cover someone else's right up until the point that I retire. That's the point. We're covering each other.
Do I want more from the rich than I'm willing to give? No. But our system and its level of spending is predicated on a tax scale that is more FDR-through-Clinton than Bush II-Obama. That's not radical, unless you think the tax structure of the last 70 years is radical. Once again, it brings us back to being in a suddenly weird moment that doesn't reflect our recent history at all. Why should we not go back to rates that give us enough money to succeed?
And the GOP is all alone in trying to keep this situation the new normal. Maybe it's a measure of how polarized we've become, but I consider a mixed bag of benefit cuts and tax increases to be pretty rational, while I think saying no new taxes ever never ever never a la the GOP is the height of ideological rigidity. But maybe you think differently. If that's true, things are a lot more discombobulated than I thought.
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2011, 01:44:26 PM
I've been covering someone else's since I started working at Subway back when I was 14. I continue to cover someone else's as I work right now. I'll continue to cover someone else's right up until the point that I retire. That's the point. We're covering each other.
Do I want more from the rich than I'm willing to give? No. But our system and its level of spending is predicated on a tax scale that is more FDR-through-Clinton than Bush II-Obama. That's not radical, unless you think the tax structure of the last 70 years is radical. Once again, it brings us back to being in a suddenly weird moment that doesn't reflect our recent history at all. Why should we not go back to rates that give us enough money to succeed?
And the GOP is all alone in trying to keep this situation the new normal. Maybe it's a measure of how polarized we've become, but I consider a mixed bag of benefit cuts and tax increases to be pretty rational, while I think saying no new taxes ever never ever never a la the GOP is the height of ideological rigidity. But maybe you think differently. If that's true, things are a lot more discombobulated than I thought.
Unfortunately history disputes your position. The Bush tax cuts were extended in December of 2010 prior to the new Republican majority being seated. Please don't try and obfuscate. The Democrats were still sworn in and still in power.
And I think I've been pretty clear my position is that tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts is incredibly stupid. That's one place I've departed from the GOP, because there's not a shred of fiscal conservatism in tax cuts at all cost.
But guido, closing the private plane loophole would be a tax increase... probably a near tragedy, or at least a catastrophic event for the people who lose it.
The 90% tax rate originally was pointed at one person; John D. Rockefeller. But he got so many loopholes, he could still take home 30 or 40 million a year. In 1910's to 20's.
Rockefeller info
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0708.html
Up at Woolaroc, they have one of Frank Phillips canceled checks for a years salary from about 1923. It was for $1.00. That is how he worked the system, using the loopholes and scamming the system that his and Rockefeller's buddies got elected to build. Same one that continues today.
There is a simple solution to all the tax inequities. Let all income count the same - capital gains taxed as regular income. We have proven for decades that the "freebie" capital gains does nothing to stimulate any real investment, so there is no reason to continue the preferential treatment and the absolute redistribution of wealth it entails.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2011, 10:32:49 PM
There is a simple solution to all the tax inequities. Let all income count the same - capital gains taxed as regular income.
Be careful what you wish for...
Sell your house for a bit more than you paid? Regular income. (No deferral even if you buy another house within any timeframe.)
One of your junker cars becomes a collector item and you sell for a gain, regular income.
Sell some old coins your grandfather gave you, regular income.
Look at what the IRS considers to be income. It will make you paranoid.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2011, 10:32:49 PM
But guido, closing the private plane loophole would be a tax increase... probably a near tragedy, or at least a catastrophic event for the people who lose it.
The 90% tax rate originally was pointed at one person; John D. Rockefeller. But he got so many loopholes, he could still take home 30 or 40 million a year. In 1910's to 20's.
Rockefeller info
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0708.html
Up at Woolaroc, they have one of Frank Phillips canceled checks for a years salary from about 1923. It was for $1.00. That is how he worked the system, using the loopholes and scamming the system that his and Rockefeller's buddies got elected to build. Same one that continues today.
There is a simple solution to all the tax inequities. Let all income count the same - capital gains taxed as regular income. We have proven for decades that the "freebie" capital gains does nothing to stimulate any real investment, so there is no reason to continue the preferential treatment and the absolute redistribution of wealth it entails.
A tax break is an EXPENDITURE. Where did these people go to school?
House example; pay 100,000. Sell for 120,000. Taxable increase = 20,000. Tax at regular rate of about 18%. Ok, I can live with that. About what it always was until just the last few years.
Would paying tax on house gains make me stop buying a house?? Get real...not gonna happen for me or anyone else who is interested in home ownership. Red, would you not buy a house just because you had to pay a tax on the increase?? No, you would not. (That means you would go ahead and buy the house.)
Gains on gifts ARE taxed at regular rates on the amount over cost basis. Coins, airplanes, stocks, old cars,also winnings from Jeopardy or Las Vegas or the local casinos.
You do get to inherit quite a bit more now than previously (not sure where it is this year - $5 million or so?? - haven't looked lately, since it won't ever apply to me.) But if the benefactor 'gives' it to you early, there can be some adverse side effects.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2011, 11:03:30 PM
House example; pay 100,000. Sell for 120,000. Taxable increase = 20,000. Tax at regular rate of about 18%. Ok, I can live with that. About what it always was until just the last few years.
Where are you getting 18%? My 2008 booklet for Form 1040 puts a taxpayer filing as single (me) at 25% for taxable income over $32,500. In 2003, it was 25% for any taxable income over $28,400. In 1998, it was 28% for taxable income over $25,300. In 1989, 28% over $18,500 and 33% over 44,900. In 1986, there were 15 brackets ranging from 11% to 50% with 50% starting above $88,270. I know we all made less money then. Remember, this income will be in your top bracket, not spread out like your regular income.
Quote
Would paying tax on house gains make me stop buying a house?? Get real...not gonna happen for me or anyone else who is interested in home ownership. Red, would you not buy a house just because you had to pay a tax on the increase?? No, you would not. (That means you would go ahead and buy the house.)
Of course you would buy a house. You may not get the one you want since the house you buy probably increased the same percentage as the one you sold but you didn't get to roll the money into the new one.
Quote
Gains on gifts ARE taxed at regular rates on the amount over cost basis. Coins, airplanes, stocks, old cars,also winnings from Jeopardy or Las Vegas or the local casinos.
In my example, the car was not a gift. It would be one you bought for say $500 and sold for $1000. I concede on actual gifts.
Quote
You do get to inherit quite a bit more now than previously (not sure where it is this year - $5 million or so?? - haven't looked lately, since it won't ever apply to me.) But if the benefactor 'gives' it to you early, there can be some adverse side effects.
I told my dad he really needed to leave me independently wealthy. He disagreed.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2011, 11:03:30 PM
You do get to inherit quite a bit more now than previously (not sure where it is this year - $5 million or so?? - haven't looked lately, since it won't ever apply to me.) But if the benefactor 'gives' it to you early, there can be some adverse side effects.
Such as?
18% came from a note I saw (I thought it was here) that talked about the average rate for the really rich - that is their average percentage. So, instead of using mine, yes, higher than that, I took the richest people rate just to minimize the shock to their psyche. (And you never go by brackets - you just look up the table number. Like I do.) Only guido does the bracket thing.
I would concede the roll over exemption into a new house, just like it used to be. No problem with that. The gain gets counted eventually. Keep your receipts for maintenance expense to deduct from gain. Nothing really changes except the percentages you get tax free. And who is it that gets that? The middle class and up economically. How many really poor people - those that guido beats up for "not paying taxes" - can buy a house anyway? If you start with the 67% of housing units occupied by owners - or at least by holders of a mortgage - then you can see that somewhere along that lower 35% zone, people can start to own. Compare to the bottom 45% or so that get earned income credit and end up "not paying taxes"; then there is that 10% band of people that are poor enough to get some help, but 'rich' enough to find a house they can buy. Have a couple family members right in that band. It is always paycheck to paycheck and hand to mouth with them. (I do their taxes most years, so I know exactly where they are...and $23,000 to $27,000 per year ain't much of a paycheck to try to raise a family - even a small one. Hey, didn't guido say he spent more than that just for his kids to go to school? Try raising that family on less than school tuition.) I know, some don't want to tie themselves down to buy a house, but they are the very small percentage. Most would buy if could, but can't.
Old car - well, if you buy for 500 and sell for 1,000, then you are basically a used car salesman on a very small scale. Tax due on $500. Don't forget to deduct your advertising expense for the newspaper ad.
Not sure how excessive gifts are treated today, but just a couple years ago, it was $11,000 per year maximum or gift tax was triggered. 55% of the amount over 11k. And the cumulative total of lifetime annual gifts counted toward the maximum inheritance exemption. Like I say, I don't know how it is this year, but I thought either 2010 or 2011 originally were the end points of the $5 million exemption, but it was raised or retained with the tax cut extension. If I ever get someone to inherit more than that from, will check it out again.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2011, 01:10:57 PM
18% came from a note I saw (I thought it was here) that talked about the average rate for the really rich - that is their average percentage. So, instead of using mine, yes, higher than that, I took the richest people rate just to minimize the shock to their psyche. (And you never go by brackets - you just look up the table number. Like I do.) Only guido does the bracket thing.
I would concede the roll over exemption into a new house, just like it used to be. No problem with that. The gain gets counted eventually. Keep your receipts for maintenance expense to deduct from gain. Nothing really changes except the percentages you get tax free. And who is it that gets that? The middle class and up economically. How many really poor people - those that guido beats up for "not paying taxes" - can buy a house anyway? If you start with the 67% of housing units occupied by owners - or at least by holders of a mortgage - then you can see that somewhere along that lower 35% zone, people can start to own. Compare to the bottom 45% or so that get earned income credit and end up "not paying taxes"; then there is that 10% band of people that are poor enough to get some help, but 'rich' enough to find a house they can buy. Have a couple family members right in that band. It is always paycheck to paycheck and hand to mouth with them. (I do their taxes most years, so I know exactly where they are...and $23,000 to $27,000 per year ain't much of a paycheck to try to raise a family - even a small one. Hey, didn't guido say he spent more than that just for his kids to go to school? Try raising that family on less than school tuition.) I know, some don't want to tie themselves down to buy a house, but they are the very small percentage. Most would buy if could, but can't.
Old car - well, if you buy for 500 and sell for 1,000, then you are basically a used car salesman on a very small scale. Tax due on $500. Don't forget to deduct your advertising expense for the newspaper ad.
Not sure how excessive gifts are treated today, but just a couple years ago, it was $11,000 per year maximum or gift tax was triggered. 55% of the amount over 11k. And the cumulative total of lifetime annual gifts counted toward the maximum inheritance exemption. Like I say, I don't know how it is this year, but I thought either 2010 or 2011 originally were the end points of the $5 million exemption, but it was raised or retained with the tax cut extension. If I ever get someone to inherit more than that from, will check it out again.
Heir, I think you are referring to the tax rate on dividends which might be where you were confused which I believe is still 17%. That's the metric commonly cited as well as the famous Warren Buffet comment about his tax rate and his secretaries.
Long term Capital Gains is 15%. The reason why the top 400 richest have a lower tax rate is because a huge portion of their income is taxed at 15%. (which is where you come up with 15%). Its the people (who work for a living) that make a large salary end up with a much higher rate in the mid 20's to low 30's.
Quote from: guido911 on June 28, 2011, 11:29:45 AM
I will agree with you that the wealthier folks have handled the recession better than those not so wealthy. But when it hit, I, like many, lost nearly 50% of my portfolio. So it's not like I didn't suffer. But the rich should be taxed more because they have been taxed less? Not buying it.
I do not think we need to rehash the "rich benefit more from society than the poor" argument because we are hopelessly entrenched in our positions.
This is perfect for the wealthy with liquid cash. If you didn't lose all your money on your Lehman Brother's stock. You have low inflation (for now). You have depressed pricing in real estate, banked owned property everywhere. Interest rates are low (they can actually get loans since they don't need them). You lost 50% of your portfolio, a lot lost 100% of their job. The rich get screwed when inflation can't keep up with investments.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2011, 01:10:57 PM
Not sure how excessive gifts are treated today, but just a couple years ago, it was $11,000 per year maximum or gift tax was triggered. 55% of the amount over 11k. And the cumulative total of lifetime annual gifts counted toward the maximum inheritance exemption. Like I say, I don't know how it is this year, but I thought either 2010 or 2011 originally were the end points of the $5 million exemption, but it was raised or retained with the tax cut extension. If I ever get someone to inherit more than that from, will check it out again.
IIRC (and I am not an estate planning attorney), the estate tax exemption can also be used for gifts given prior to your death. Obviously, that reduces the amount of estate tax exemption your heirs get when you die, which may or may not matter to the particular individual.
I learned today that people making over $250K are considered jet owners by Ogenius.
Quote from: guido911 on June 29, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
I learned today that people making over $250K are considered jet owners by Ogenius.
Did anyone actually say that, or is this something you're making up?
Quote from: nathanm on June 29, 2011, 05:04:09 PM
Did anyone actually say that, or is this something you're making up?
QuotePresident Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners.
In his news conference today, the president said: "I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that's doing so well to give up that tax break....I don't think that's real radical."
Asking private-jet owners to give up tax breaks may not be that radical. And it probably would be supported by the vast majority of the nonjet-owning voters.
The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren't likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year–among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012–is unlikely to afford a jet–or even a few charter trips on a jet.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/06/29/obama-calls-people-earning-250000-a-year-jet-owners/
"I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that's doing so well to give up that tax break....I don't think that's real radical."
Was he speaking of an individual? Oil companies and entities owning a "corporate" jet?
I'm not sure some guy making $250,000 is going to say "Just bought myself a corporate jet."
A corporation might own a corporate jet.
QuoteADDITIONAL NOTE: While Obama was referring in part to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as "accelerate depreciation," the loophole would raise only $3 billion over the next decade. The larger point is that his "jet owner" comment blurs the lines between super-rich jet owners and the far lesser rich, whose whose taxes would go up under the Democrats plan.
Only worth $3 billion over a decade anyway. That's how we should look at it per this blogger.
Quote from: Townsend on June 29, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
"I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that's doing so well to give up that tax break....I don't think that's real radical."
Was he speaking of an individual? Oil companies and entities owning a "corporate" jet?
I'm not sure some guy making $250,000 is going to say "Just bought myself a corporate jet."
A corporation might own a corporate jet.
Only worth $3 billion over a decade anyway. That's how we should look at it per this blogger.
Not going to bother interpreting his intention. The fact is, as pointed out by this blogger, while going after a juicy target like the mega-wealthy he is diverting attention away from those that will also get a tax increase. Basic class warfare approach.
And the "only $3 billion" issue. I have repeatedly decried those who make light of small increases in tax revenue or small spending cuts. I have read in here recently how little revenue would be generated in we required the near 50% of those that pay no income tax kick in $10.00/month, which works out to be $2.50/week. That is not unreasonable to me.
The Journal may be a little off as my insiders say it's referred to as "jet set owners".....don't believe everything you read....you can Guido.
Would you artificially limit your creditcard use if it meant that your kids would go hungry? That's what's going on here.
Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
"Senate Democrats are proposing that the terrorist Republican blackmail, holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage to their demands to legalize more class warfare against the the American people, violates the US Constitution. On further study, I agree. While there is no evidence that this notion has gained traction in the White House, it could rightly be used to defang the Republican Party over the debt ceiling." http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=5247
This whole "crisis" is being manufactured by the GOP and the reason that their backers haven't hauled them up short is that they are "in on the game".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2011, 01:10:57 PM
18% came from a note I saw (I thought it was here) that talked about the average rate for the really rich - that is their average percentage. So, instead of using mine, yes, higher than that, I took the richest people rate just to minimize the shock to their psyche. (And you never go by brackets - you just look up the table number. Like I do.) Only guido does the bracket thing.
The brackets are built into the tables. How do you think the tables are made? Take you last year's tax, add $20,000 to your taxable income, look up your new tax in the tables and see how much you get to keep. Then remember I file as a single person.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 29, 2011, 06:12:46 PM
The Journal may be a little off as my insiders say it's referred to as "jet set owners".....don't believe everything you read....you can Guido.
Would you artificially limit your creditcard use if it meant that your kids would go hungry? That's what's going on here.
Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
"Senate Democrats are proposing that the terrorist Republican blackmail, holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage to their demands to legalize more class warfare against the the American people, violates the US Constitution. On further study, I agree. While there is no evidence that this notion has gained traction in the White House, it could rightly be used to defang the Republican Party over the debt ceiling." http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=5247
This whole "crisis" is being manufactured by the GOP and the reason that their backers haven't hauled them up short is that they are "in on the game".
Suddenly the debt ceiling is unconstitutional? Okay. I especially like the part in the completely unbiased article of yours where Obama could arbitrarily declare something unconstitutional, as if he is a member of the judiciary. This guy hasn't the guts to argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
And stop with the we have to borrow to "save the children" crap. That is not remotely close to what is happening now. We can cut spending on, yes, the military, the EPA, education, transportation, entitlements, and all the stupid projects that were unveiled after stimulus was unleashed.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 29, 2011, 06:12:46 PM
The Journal may be a little off as my insiders say it's referred to as "jet set owners".....don't believe everything you read....you can Guido.
Would you artificially limit your creditcard use if it meant that your kids would go hungry? That's what's going on here.
Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?
"Senate Democrats are proposing that the terrorist Republican blackmail, holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage to their demands to legalize more class warfare against the the American people, violates the US Constitution. On further study, I agree. While there is no evidence that this notion has gained traction in the White House, it could rightly be used to defang the Republican Party over the debt ceiling." http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=5247
This whole "crisis" is being manufactured by the GOP and the reason that their backers haven't hauled them up short is that they are "in on the game".
You must be the only person that survived Bovine Spongioform Encephalitis....We can refer to you as Sponge Brain from here on out....
Back on topic:
Here's another good reason we need to reign in runaway spending and debt: In August alone, we must make $500 Billion in interest payments. That's in addition to the $30 billion due in debt payments on Aug. 4 which S & P is saying a default on that could result in a drop in our debt rating from AAA to D virtually overnight. As I've already mentioned, think what even 1/2 that money could do to raise the human condition within our borders with free college tuition or other programs which actually produce productivity.
I'm not going to bother to post it, it's on the CBS news site if you want to read it, but now the threat is that food inspections may take a hit with a reduction in the FDA budget.
All these government agencies need to quit saying: "We can't..." and start figuring out ways to say: "Here's how we can..." with reduced budgets. No one wants to give up anything to help reign in run away spending. Instead of correcting deficiencies in existing agencies the solution is to simply create a new agency and leave the deficient old agencies intact.
"We're not going to default. But that's irrelevant," Mark Zandi tells CBS News chief economic correspondent Anthony Mason. Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics says, "At the end of the day if we don't raise the debt ceiling, the economy's going to go back into recession. Interest rates are going to spike."
Zandi, who's advised candidates in both parties, says the recession would be deep.
The Treasury would immediately have to cut & prioritize its spending. Debt & interest payments would be made first. $500 billion is due in August alone. Social Security and Medicare would be next on the list."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/28/eveningnews/main20075228.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
"Standard & Poors is warning that if the U.S. defaults on a $30 billion debt payment on August 4, the nation's credit rating will be downgraded severely from its long-held AAA to a D ranking.
S&P managing director John Chambers tells Reuters news agency that, while it's an extremely unlikely outcome, such an unprecedented default on U.S. Treasuries could lead to the complete collapse of global financial markets.
"If the U.S. government misses a payment, it goes to D," Chambers told Reuters. "That would happen right after August 4, when the bills mature, because they don't have a grace period."
Chambers, along with the chiefs of the other two primary international credit ratings agencies, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, have expressed increasing concern that the failure of Democrats and Republicans in Congress to reach a compromise and raise the U.S. debt limit may have an adverse affect on global confidence in American securities."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20075684-503983.html?tag=stack
And the negotiations are for around $2 trillion which will cover our borrowing needs past the 2012 elections. How convenient!!!
Negotiators have been aiming to increase the limit by over $2 trillion with the same amount in deficit reduction, though there has been talk of a smaller increase. The $2 trillion figure would be expected to cover the country's borrowing needs until after the 2012 elections.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075413-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
How convienient? You know there is a defecit. You know the ceiling will have to be lifted again no matter who gets in office. You seriously think they want to do this every month? Sounds smart to me. I think the smart thing to do would be to have the next debt ceiling vote when we get the new congress in.
I swear he must read your posts here, Conan. ;D
Too damn bad TNF has my upload file full....even when I want to downsize my photos it still will not post my great stuff....too bad for you. Ha Ha.
try this link to see what I mean.... http://www.tulsaworld.com/includes/article/relatedphotos.aspx?articleID=20110630_63_A14_tworld3752
Quote from: nathanm on June 29, 2011, 09:59:14 PM
So no, you didn't make it up, some fool at the Wall Street Journal made it up.
I like the fact that the guy had to clarify his bs assertion
CLARIFICATION: An earlier headline stated that "Obama Calls People Making $250,000 'Jet Owners.'" While his comments referred to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as "accelerate depreciation," the jet comment is part of the administration's broader efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy, defined as those making $250,000 or more.
Bill Clinton to the rescue. . .he has a solution. . .spending cuts!
Why didn't anyone think of that?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 30, 2011, 10:00:19 AM
I swear he must read your posts here, Conan. ;D
Too damn bad TNF has my upload file full....even when I want to downsize my photos it still will not post my great stuff....too bad for you. Ha Ha.
try this link to see what I mean.... http://www.tulsaworld.com/includes/article/relatedphotos.aspx?articleID=20110630_63_A14_tworld3752
Open an account on Photobucket or another photo hosting site, I've got the same problem. You upload from your hard drive to the site, it will store it and generates the code you need to reference the photo. Just cut & paste the code and you are done. If you need help figuring it out, just drop me a PM.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 30, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
Bill Clinton to the rescue. . .he has a solution. . .spending cuts!
Why didn't anyone think of that?
Might be another opportunity for President Obama to abdicate his leadership role to the former President Clinton. He's probably got a party he needs to get to with Mrs. Obama.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 30, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
I like the fact that the guy had to clarify his bs assertion
CLARIFICATION: An earlier headline stated that "Obama Calls People Making $250,000 'Jet Owners.'" While his comments referred to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as "accelerate depreciation," the jet comment is part of the administration's broader efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy, defined as those making $250,000 or more.
What is "bs" about increasing the tax rate at the same percentage on anyone making over $250K? The fact is that those jet owners will get a tax increase, and so will your run or the mill shlub who owns a small business or family farm or that shlub who just got lucky and landed a job making that magic 250 if Obama gets his way. In other news:
QuoteA new federal program is offering aid with a sweet kicker: It doesn't need to be repaid.
For the roughly four million homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, the federal government is offering yet another remedy: free money to catch up on their loans.
The effort, called the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program, is the latest in the federal government's efforts to slow down the flood of foreclosures a necessary step to a meaningful recovery in the housing market, says a Department of Housing and Urban Development official. For people who have lost their jobs, the $1 billion program offers loans of up to $50,000 that don't actually need to be repaid, if applicants meet certain requirements.
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home
More damned bailouts.
Quote from: guido911 on June 30, 2011, 01:09:36 PM
What is "bs" about increasing the tax rate at the same percentage on anyone making over $250K? The fact is that those jet owners will get a tax increase, and so will your run or the mill shlub who owns a small business or family farm or that shlub who just got lucky and landed a job making that magic 250 if Obama gets his way. In other news:
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home
More damned bailouts.
Kind of looks like more welfare for the banksters. Again more temporary measures to put off the inevitable.
Quote from: guido911 on June 30, 2011, 01:09:36 PM
What is "bs" about increasing the tax rate at the same percentage on anyone making over $250K? The fact is that those jet owners will get a tax increase, and so will your run or the mill shlub who owns a small business or family farm or that shlub who just got lucky and landed a job making that magic 250 if Obama gets his way. In other news:
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home
He was specifically talking about the tax incentives on Jets. There is a tax break on Jets to help spur the purchase due to the companies going out of business after 9/11. Raising the taxes on 250k and above is completely different than a tax incentive on Jets. Even people making $20,000 will no longer be able to benefit from the private jet tax incentives. Not just those over $250,000.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 30, 2011, 09:55:56 AM
How convienient? You know there is a defecit. You know the ceiling will have to be lifted again no matter who gets in office. You seriously think they want to do this every month? Sounds smart to me. I think the smart thing to do would be to have the next debt ceiling vote when we get the new congress in.
It's being done this way instead of to the end of the fiscal year or the next fiscal year so no one has to be on record as having voted for or against so close to an election. It also would allow Congress to go flaccid again on working out spending cuts and tax increases until after the next election. You can't seriously think things like this are not well timed to prevent political consequences can you?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2011, 01:04:30 PM
Might be another opportunity for President Obama to abdicate his leadership role to the former President Clinton. He's probably got a party he needs to get to with Mrs. Obama.
DNC is getting pissed. Calling the big guns to help out. The last two fundraisers hosted by the president have been dismal. Clinton will also be hitting the campaign trail now to fund the candidate.
The President is refusing to meet with Repugnicans at a luncheon. I don't see the quote where he called it political theater as I had heard from one reporter on the radio, but sounds like he's not risking any indigestion. Gaspar, do you know what his golf calendar was like that day?
"The Senate's top Republican invited President Obama to a GOP lunch at the Capitol to discuss the ongoing dispute over the debt and related issues, but the White House on Thursday rebuffed the invitation.
A day after the president at his news conference challenged Congress and especially Republicans to move quickly on the nagging question of increasing the debt ceiling, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the minority leader, urged Obama to meet with Republicans to explain his position.
RELATED
Obama challenges GOP on tax breaks at press conference
Obama tries to jump-start debt talks at White House
Fresh from Obama's 'homework' rebuke, Congress considers staying put to hammer out debt deal
"That way he can hear directly from Republicans why what he's proposing won't pass," McConnell said. "And we can start talking about what's actually possible."
At his televised briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Republicans just wanted to restate their maximalist position. "That's not a conversation worth having," he said, adding the administration was still open to talks about a compromise.
Carney refused to say if the president had plans to meet with Senate Democrats next week. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) told reporters on Thursday that he had invited the president and Vice President Joe Biden to meet with Democrats and that he expected them to attend."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mcconell-obama-debt-ceiling-20110630,0,3890839.story
Quote from: Conan71 on June 29, 2011, 01:49:56 PM
Heir, I think you are referring to the tax rate on dividends which might be where you were confused which I believe is still 17%. That's the metric commonly cited as well as the famous Warren Buffet comment about his tax rate and his secretaries.
My dividends always get taxed at regular rate.
What I am talking about is something that has been covered many times here. I have worked through the example of how an incentive stock option (ISO) is used to lower the tax rate for the top 1% - on several occasions. I have even given the method to guido to use - and he is sooooo greedy (gueedy?) that he wouldn't even consider paying a commission to me for turning him onto the way to save himself hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
Quick reminder;
Pick your favorite CEO (and other, lower ranking officers/executives). Look at the annual report or the 10K. Of that $15,000,000 plus they are paid, the salary is about $700,000. ISO is the remaining 14 million. Pays 34% on 700,000. Pays 15% on remaining 14 million +. Average tax rate under 18%. Savings to the guy; at LEAST 3 to 4 million per year. Extra cost to all us middle class tax payers to subsidize that; at LEAST 3 to 4 million per year.
Ring a bell??
Well, I do know for a fact that there are at least a couple people out there who do pay attention! Maybe more should try it?? Amazingly, guido is one of them. He said he is investigating this for his own use. If I was making more money in my companies, I would also be using the break. Can't wait!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 30, 2011, 05:14:06 PM
Quick reminder;
Pick your favorite CEO (and other, lower ranking officers/executives). Look at the annual report or the 10K. Of that $15,000,000 plus they are paid, the salary is about $700,000. ISO is the remaining 14 million. Pays 34% on 700,000. Pays 15% on remaining 14 million +. Average tax rate under 18%. Savings to the guy; at LEAST 3 to 4 million per year. Extra cost to all us middle class tax payers to subsidize that; at LEAST 3 to 4 million per year.
As I understand it, options are regular income unless you exercise them and then hold the resulting stock for a year before selling, otherwise it's a short term capital gain which is taxed at the regular rate, not the long term capital gains tax rate.
Not that that's terribly hard to do for the upper income earners who get paid largely in options.
That's exactly right - that is exactly how they do it - hold them for one year and it becomes long term capital gain at 15%. Who wouldn't sign on for that deal?? I want it so bad I can taste it!!!
And even the so-called "small businessmen" who make over magical 250,000 per year are entitled (maybe THAT is where the sense of entitlement comes from...) to play. Suppose you had a company (small S corporation) that made about 500k per year. Since IRS rules say you must pay yourself a 'reasonable' salary, you do so - you want it to be somewhere close to 100,000 depending on age - the older the higher - to maximize your retirement SS check. And keep the IRS from digging too deeply.
The rest goes into the ISO world. And you not only save the 14% of FICA on everything above the salary, you also get to save the extra 20% or so by missing out on regular income on the 400k. That would be probably around 34% savings, so even with a small business, there are ways to stick it to the W-2 workers for another $140,000. Pretty neat little scam, isn't it!!?
You do have to be more careful in how you set up ISO for S corporations, but that's just paperwork for the accountant. That's how I am trying to save guido several hundred thousand per year. And he is not even willing to compensate me for it. He bragged one time about all the advisors he has to pay to manage all that money he has, but won't even pay the one person in this world who is gonna save him more than all those others combined!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 30, 2011, 05:50:49 PM
That's exactly right - that is exactly how they do it - hold them for one year and it becomes long term capital gain at 15%. Who wouldn't sign on for that deal?? I want it so bad I can taste it!!!
And even the so-called "small businessmen" who make over magical 250,000 per year are entitled (maybe THAT is where the sense of entitlement comes from...) to play. Suppose you had a company (small S corporation) that made about 500k per year. Since IRS rules say you must pay yourself a 'reasonable' salary, you do so - you want it to be somewhere close to 100,000 depending on age - the older the higher - to maximize your retirement SS check. And keep the IRS from digging too deeply.
The rest goes into the ISO world. And you not only save the 14% of FICA on everything above the salary, you also get to save the extra 20% or so by missing out on regular income on the 400k. That would be probably around 34% savings, so even with a small business, there are ways to stick it to the W-2 workers for another $140,000. Pretty neat little scam, isn't it!!?
You do have to be more careful in how you set up ISO for S corporations, but that's just paperwork for the accountant. That's how I am trying to save guido several hundred thousand per year. And he is not even willing to compensate me for it. He bragged one time about all the advisors he has to pay to manage all that money he has, but won't even pay the one person in this world who is gonna save him more than all those others combined!
I am so damned tired of your complete lack of understanding of the tax code and how it applies to me. First of all, I do not pay hundreds of thousands dollars per year in taxes. I don't know where you got that from. Second, both my wife and I each are the sole members of our own P.L.L.C. and not an S corp. Third, the money we take home after taxes we need to keep up with our expenses (and we contribute big time to our 401(k) and other investments), so I can't pay myself nickles to avoid taxes. Fourth, how do you stop an employer from not withholding taxes and not issuing a W-2 at the end of each year? Finally, if your little ISO idea was legitimate, then every working person should form little S corps and take advantage of its tax breaks.
As for my advisors, I have an accountant and an investment counselor. I'll take their advice over yours.
Obama told to take a pill.
^ Ironic since POTUS OBAMA already seems too sedate. But Guido, it's a white guy trying to temper down an angry black man. You're a clown for posting this.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 30, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
^ Ironic since POTUS OBAMA already seems too sedate. But Guido, it's a white guy trying to temper down an angry black man. You're a clown for posting this.
I knew it. It's racism. ::)
Well, here ya go @ssclown:
(http://blog.pumapac.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/thatsracist.gif)
(http://anniemiz.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ce5bc53ef0120a6dae7ab970b-500wi)
Amongst the left (and some centrists), a new argument for raising the debt ceiling has bubbled up . . . that NOT raising the ceiling is actually unconstitutional, per the 14th Amendment, which in part reads:
QuoteThe validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
An interesting history of that part of the amendment (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/legislative-history-of-section-four-of.html) seems to indicate that it was put in place to mediate precisely this sort of squabble. (It arose out of the debate about Confederate war debt, and whether or how the Union would address it).
Leave it to the Republicontins to find yet another way to break the Constitution.
guido,
Just trying to tweak you a little bit on your relationship with the IRS. I'm sure you are trying every method your guys know about for tax avoidance.
As far as ISO's, well that is not my little tax scheme. That one belongs to the 1%'ers, complements of the Congress they own. And that 500k example is valid. It is a good method to sidetrack the tax train. Anyone making half a million per year would be pretty stupid to leave that kind of change on the table.
As far as W-2, well the IRS has it locked up pretty tight so the vast majority of people cannot get off that little treadmill. Otherwise the whole income tax scam wouldn't work. But the richest amongst us have the power and influence and money so that they bought Congress to put in the means for them to do this little thing. Because they are "entitled" (there's that entitlement mentality again...).
Pay yourself nickles to avoid taxes?? The example I used was $100,000 per year. That's pretty big pile of "nickles" to me. And probably a lot of people on this site. And if it saved you an extra $140,000 per year in taxes?? Wow!!! I had no idea that 240k would be so trivial in your world! I knew you were rich, but not THAT rich!! Well, I congratulate you on doing so well!! I truly AM happy for you because is demonstrates the fact that it is actually possible for one to achieve and do well in Oklahoma. There is hope for me yet.
And yet, there is still the missing of the point. The W-2 IS issued. Can't stop that. For 100k in my example. But it does not have to include the whole amount. The other 400k becomes the ISO. But I can understand if your lifestyle dictates that the other 400k be available this year instead of deferred 366 days. (Must be rough living paycheck to paycheck or "hand to mouth" on only a few hundred thousand per year...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2011, 09:43:22 AM
Leave it to the Republicontins to find yet another way to break the Constitution.
guido,
Just trying to tweak you a little bit on your relationship with the IRS. I'm sure you are trying every method your guys know about for tax avoidance.
As far as ISO's, well that is not my little tax scheme. That one belongs to the 1%'ers, complements of the Congress they own. And that 500k example is valid. It is a good method to sidetrack the tax train. Anyone making half a million per year would be pretty stupid to leave that kind of change on the table.
As far as W-2, well the IRS has it locked up pretty tight so the vast majority of people cannot get off that little treadmill. Otherwise the whole income tax scam wouldn't work. But the richest amongst us have the power and influence and money so that they bought Congress to put in the means for them to do this little thing. Because they are "entitled" (there's that entitlement mentality again...).
Pay yourself nickles to avoid taxes?? The example I used was $100,000 per year. That's pretty big pile of "nickles" to me. And probably a lot of people on this site. And if it saved you an extra $140,000 per year in taxes?? Wow!!! I had no idea that 240k would be so trivial in your world! I knew you were rich, but not THAT rich!! Well, I congratulate you on doing so well!! I truly AM happy for you because is demonstrates the fact that it is actually possible for one to achieve and do well in Oklahoma. There is hope for me yet.
And yet, there is still the missing of the point. The W-2 IS issued. Can't stop that. For 100k in my example. But it does not have to include the whole amount. The other 400k becomes the ISO. But I can understand if your lifestyle dictates that the other 400k be available this year instead of deferred 366 days. (Must be rough living paycheck to paycheck or "hand to mouth" on only a few hundred thousand per year...)
If I had a choice of when I got paid what. I would take 25% salary one year and then take 177% (2% in interest) the next year so I didn't ahve to pay so much FICA.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on July 01, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
If I had a choice of when I got paid what. I would take 25% salary one year and then take 177% (2% in interest) the next year so I didn't ahve to pay so much FICA.
Just another wealthy tax cheat wanna be, gaming the system, eh Sheen? ;)
Quote from: we vs us on July 01, 2011, 09:03:21 AM
Amongst the left (and some centrists), a new argument for raising the debt ceiling has bubbled up . . . that NOT raising the ceiling is actually unconstitutional, per the 14th Amendment, which in part reads:
An interesting history of that part of the amendment (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/legislative-history-of-section-four-of.html) seems to indicate that it was put in place to mediate precisely this sort of squabble. (It arose out of the debate about Confederate war debt, and whether or how the Union would address it).
Does that take into account debt YET incurred, because that is what Congress wants to do in raising the debt ceiling. And what about Congress' power of the purse. Can that be arbitrarily taken over by the executive branch of government?
Fact is that this "debt ceiling" crap has been in place for years without a constitutional challenge. And I call it crap because all of us should live within our means. Like I wrote before, even Obama voted against raising it and he didn't make this argument. Why is this such a problem today?
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
Does that take into account debt YET incurred, because that is what Congress wants to do in raising the debt ceiling. And what about Congress' power of the purse. Can that be arbitrarily taken over by the executive branch of government?
Fact is that this "debt ceiling" crap has been in place for years without a constitutional challenge. And I call it crap because all of us should live within our means. Like I wrote before, even Obama voted against raising it and he didn't make this argument. Why is this such a problem today?
Basically so they can be wimps and keep borrowing until after the next election and avoid having to disappoint potential voters with tax increases or spending cuts prior to the 2012 election.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 01, 2011, 01:29:21 PM
Basically so they can be wimps and keep borrowing until after the next election and avoid having to disappoint potential voters with tax increases or spending cuts prior to the 2012 election.
And then do it again the following year so to avoid losses in 2014. Here is a vid that made me chuckle about raising the capital gains tax:
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
Does that take into account debt YET incurred, because that is what Congress wants to do in raising the debt ceiling. And what about Congress' power of the purse. Can that be arbitrarily taken over by the executive branch of government?
Fact is that this "debt ceiling" crap has been in place for years without a constitutional challenge. And I call it crap because all of us should live within our means. Like I wrote before, even Obama voted against raising it and he didn't make this argument. Why is this such a problem today?
The debt ceiling actually doesn't cover debts to come; it covers debts already incurred. Congress has already spent the money via spending bills, this just authorizes the executive to actually incur debt to cover the expenditures. So this doesn't really abrogate Congress's power of the purse --- after all, they can still make whatever spending bill they want and the executive still must fund it. As the history of the amendment implies, it was put into place very specifically to work around partisan Congressional gridlock which was rampant (duh) right after the Civil War. It was supposed to remove the nation's debt as a political football.
And because this is a part of the Constitution . . . well, you can't really challenge something like this, afaik. There's the amendment process -- votes of the states, whatnot -- but you can't challenge it in court.
Obama's explicitly reversed course on his prior comments on the debt ceiling, and says it should be raised. So while his prior opinion might make you feel better at yelling at him, he still currently (and I believe, honesty) supports it. It isn't just him, either, btw. LOTS of people support raising the debt ceiling, including Republicans and some pretty conservative economics folks.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2011, 09:43:22 AM
Pay yourself nickles to avoid taxes?? The example I used was $100,000 per year. That's pretty big pile of "nickles" to me. And probably a lot of people on this site. And if it saved you an extra $140,000 per year in taxes??
He and his wife probably don't pay even $140,000 a year in tax. It's at least $100,000, based on his statement that he paid six figures in income tax this year, but he's also made clear it's not "hundreds of thousands," so it can't be $200,000. I figured somewhat over $400,000 a year in income and a hair over $100,000 in tax a few months back based on his statements about his financials. This is a pretty unseemly discussion, though. His exact tax burden (or income) isn't really any of our business. It's plenty to know that he has at least some income in the top bracket.
It's actually somewhat refreshing to see someone arguing for their own financial benefit, as opposed to making aspirational arguments. (The "I might be rich someday, so we better not tax the rich!" sort) What's not nice is that he breaks out the name calling when other people argue in favor of their own financial benefit.
we vs us: Pretty much all the experts, all the bankers, all the big time market participants all see the need for the debt ceiling to be raised. They also say that we need to work on reducing the deficit in a few years once the economy has had time to recover somewhat.
Here's the thing. If we default, we will almost certainly not continue to enjoy the extraordinarily low level of interest we pay on our existing debt. Increasing our interest expense on the existing debt is about one of the stupidest things we can do right now. It's like a person with a manageable, but high, amount of credit card debt calling up their credit card company and saying "please ratejack me, I have too much money!"
I did see a poll the other day that shows that we Americans are being pretty effing stupid as a whole. A plurality responded that they did not want the debt ceiling raised. A majority said they were aware that not doing so could cause a financial catastrophe and still wanted to not raise the debt ceiling. What in the love are these people thinking? Have they really been paying so little attention to both history and current events that they don't get it?
As for the Congressional Republicans, it's more about extracting savage budget cuts to kill off more of the safety net than anything else. It's a cynical ploy to get Ryan's idiotic budget passed.
Quote from: we vs us on July 01, 2011, 02:32:24 PM
The debt ceiling actually doesn't cover debts to come; it covers debts already incurred. Congress has already spent the money via spending bills, this just authorizes the executive to actually incur debt to cover the expenditures. So this doesn't really abrogate Congress's power of the purse --- after all, they can still make whatever spending bill they want and the executive still must fund it. As the history of the amendment implies, it was put into place very specifically to work around partisan Congressional gridlock which was rampant (duh) right after the Civil War. It was supposed to remove the nation's debt as a political football.
And because this is a part of the Constitution . . . well, you can't really challenge something like this, afaik. There's the amendment process -- votes of the states, whatnot -- but you can't challenge it in court.
Obama's explicitly reversed course on his prior comments on the debt ceiling, and says it should be raised. So while his prior opinion might make you feel better at yelling at him, he still currently (and I believe, honesty) supports it. It isn't just him, either, btw. LOTS of people support raising the debt ceiling, including Republicans and some pretty conservative economics folks.
First, I don't know that the raising of the debt ceiling is to cover current debt or if its that plus the cost of on-going government programs. Please clarify. Second, whatever Obama did prior to he becoming president, and that he has since backed off, I am not yelling at him in the slightest. Only that it makes it very difficult for him to argue that the U.S. will essentially be sent to history's dustbin. That's it. But overall, if this is a constitutional question, then let's have at it and get some finality.
Hmm, I suppose if we can't incur more debt we can't keep borrowing excess funds from payroll taxes, either and giving IOUs to the SSTF. That'll hurt.
Quote from: nathanm on July 01, 2011, 09:14:27 PM
Hmm, I suppose if we can't incur more debt we can't keep borrowing excess funds from payroll taxes, either and giving IOUs to the SSTF. That'll hurt.
I have got no problem with that. But why don't we gut the heck out of non-essential, discretionary spending first before we all start in with this:
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 09:28:16 PM
I have got no problem with that. But why don't we gut the heck out of non-essential, discretionary spending first before we all start in with this:
Ok, what do you want to cut? Keep in mind that the discretionary budget is about a third of the total budget:
(http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/charts/discretionary_spending_fy2012.png)
Every one of them Nate. Start with the military if need be.
Don't know if anyone heard this, but Minnesota's government shut down.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/124824189.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
Every one of them Nate. Start with the military if need be.
OK. I think VA should be off the table, though. They're already cash-strapped enough as it is.
What should be on the table is a return to pre-Bush tax rates, at least until we get all this under control. We've been running deficits ever since the cuts were enacted. Every moment we delay is that much more interest we have to pay later. And yes, if it takes taking away the middle class tax cuts also, so be it. Obama is stuck on stupid on that part.
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f2.jpg)
Yeah, it won't solve the problem, at least barring a blockbuster recovery, but it will buy us the time we need to solve the problem in a more permanent way. As it stands, both middle income and upper income taxpayers are paying the lowest effective tax rates they've had since the 50s. I think we can all kick in a little more.
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
OK. I think VA should be off the table, though. They're already cash-strapped enough as it is.
What should be on the table is a return to pre-Bush tax rates, at least until we get all this under control. We've been running deficits ever since the cuts were enacted. Every moment we delay is that much more interest we have to pay later. And yes, if it takes taking away the middle class tax cuts also, so be it. Obama is stuck on stupid on that part.
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f2.jpg)
Yeah, it won't solve the problem, at least barring a blockbuster recovery, but it will buy us the time we need to solve the problem in a more permanent way. As it stands, both middle income and upper income taxpayers are paying the lowest effective tax rates they've had since the 50s. I think we can all kick in a little more.
Look, no one wants nothing but the very best for our soldiers and vets than me (I know there are others, but you get my point). But as long as we can continue our active military missions and provide a quality deterrent, our military budget should be scrutinized hard and cut. For sure, get us the he1l out of Europe. There is no cold war and they can fend for themselves. Besides, given todays's technology, we must be able to find a way to train and coordinate with NATO. I can see a continue presence in Japan, South Korea, and the like though because of that whacko in that area. As for the VA, I should have remembered how f'd up those medical facilities were during, yes, Bush's time in office. Maybe we shouldn't mess with that program.
Time for everyone, and everything, have the proverbial skin in the game. I am not talking about "austerity", just knock the size of government down first and in exchange I will talk positively about tax increases on people. As it stands now, I see my tax dollars just getting pissed away.
And on that subject, got my annual letter from Dennis Semler re: property assessment and ad valorem tax. I am just so excited about paying for: School District, TTC, TCC, and the library. None of these I use, nor will ever use. How about those that do not use certain government programs, or those who do not have any children, get a break?
I don't have kids, and don't plan to, yet I still pay for schools. Them's the breaks. (And I'm actually quite happy to pay for schools..it reduces the amount I have to pay for prisons)
As for skin in the game, 2009 was a strange year. Most years about 2/3rds of income earners pay federal income tax. Most of those who don't aren't paying because of the EITC or because their sole source of income is Social Security. Most everyone has at least some skin in the game, even if it's not income tax. Sales tax, excise taxes, whatever. Most everybody pays something.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f4.jpg)
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-26-11tax-f1.jpg)
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg)
By the way, I'm in complete agreement regarding the need to reduce the number of troops stationed overseas. A few years ago I was reading a book that pegged the number of overseas military bases at nearly 1,000. That seems like a lot to me. We do need to keep some of our bases in the far east, both due to China's continuing threatening stance toward Taiwan and due to North Korea. Other major strategic bases should probably also be kept, but I have a hard time believing even 200 are really necessary, although in some cases the host country covers the entire cost. (last I checked, our bases on Okinawa fell into this category)
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 08:15:25 PM
I don't have kids, and don't plan to, yet I still pay for schools. Them's the breaks. (And I'm actually quite happy to pay for schools..it reduces the amount I have to pay for prisons)
We are paying a smile ton now for jails (but causation is another subject altogether). I don't think whatever we are doing in our public schools now has been successful at keeping our jail population down. Also, I know paying for public schools and other government services which I never will use are the breaks. And I know that's part of being in a society, but allow me to b!tch a little today because that tax "bill" came today.
absolutely, nothing was learned. Obuma needs to grow a spine....
An apt description for the debate itself, (http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2011/07/weighing-the-week-ahead-from-one-crisis-to-another.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FWuQQ+%28A+Dash+of+Insight%29) by a Phd. + day trader who likes to blog. I don't necessarily subscribe to everything he says, but this little blurb sums up my thinking pretty well.
And damn, I guess I really AM an optimist.
QuoteWatching the making of the debt ceiling sausage gets the ugly award, especially for those unfamililar with the process. To all appearances the process seems out of control, careening toward a disastrous default on US debt. Many observers have been increasing their odds of default.
My perspective? Everything is playing out as expected. Each participant is attempting to maximize rewards for his own constituency. Each is also maximizing the perceived rewards, proving that any ground was given in a grudging fashion. While it would be good for the nation as a whole to achieve an early solution, there is no benefit for any individual party to the process.
The result will be a compromise on the eve of July 22nd, currently regarded as the last day possible. There will be concessions to various parties until a minimal winning coalition is achieved.
Explaining the entire rational is beyond the scope of this weekly survey article, so I'll try to go into more detail in a separate piece. Briefly put, there is too much at stake, especially for constituencies important to Republicans. If there is a default, neither party will escape blame. The deal will get done.
Rand Paul threatening to filibuster.
QuoteWASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is planning a Senate filibuster next week in an attempt to force debt ceiling negotiations into the open.
"We've had not one minute of debate about the debt ceiling in any committee," he said in an interview with C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" that aired on Sunday. "We haven't had a budget in two years. We haven't had an appropriations bill in two years. So I'm part of the freshmen group in the Senate that's saying, 'no more.'"
Paul's plan: "Next week, we will filibuster until we talk about the debt ceiling, until we talk about proposals."
He added that a group of senators in the "conservative wing" of the Republican Party will also be presenting a proposal to tie raising the debt limit to passage of a balanced budget amendment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/rand-paul-filibuster-senate-debt_n_889432.html
The balanced budget amendment is quite ill advised. Feels good, though.
A good David Brooks column, in its entirety because of pay wall limitations.
QuoteThe Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.
Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.
Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That's because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation's honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.
The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.
If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: July 5, 2011
An earlier version of this column misstated the amount of revenue increases needed in exchange for spending cuts. It is a few hundred billion, not million.
Rooting for the economy to suck? Are you rooting for America to succeed?
Quote from: we vs us on July 05, 2011, 07:34:09 PM
A good David Brooks column, in its entirety because of pay wall limitations.
Dammit, I posted this article in a separate thread before I read yours...it is a VERY good read, so I'll leave it to the moderators to axe it or not. My apologies.
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
OK. I think VA should be off the table, though. They're already cash-strapped enough as it is.
What should be on the table is a return to pre-Bush tax rates, at least until we get all this under control. We've been running deficits ever since the cuts were enacted. Every moment we delay is that much more interest we have to pay later. And yes, if it takes taking away the middle class tax cuts also, so be it. Obama is stuck on stupid on that part.
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f2.jpg)
Yeah, it won't solve the problem, at least barring a blockbuster recovery, but it will buy us the time we need to solve the problem in a more permanent way. As it stands, both middle income and upper income taxpayers are paying the lowest effective tax rates they've had since the 50s. I think we can all kick in a little more.
I've still got a burr under my saddle about several incredibly wasteful energy projects at VA hospitals locally and over in Akansas which have such a poor return on investment to the tax payer it's embarrassing. These projects do nothing to benefit vets directly, nor do they do much to improve the overall conditions within the facilities though they are done under the guise of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency.
The way the packages are engineered, there's very little savings and the PITA costs of dealing with the VA and all their moronic compliance issues (I'm not talking about basic EPA and OSHA issues, VA has some seriously dysfunctional requirements) plus having to deal with the on-site potentate literally drives costs up 20 to 25% on construction projects. Throw in preference programs for business incubation projects or disabled vet, female-owned, or minority organizations and the VA can wind up paying nearly 50% more than a similar construction project for a non-government entity. Within my industry it's somewhat of a running joke about being more relieved to find out you were not the successful bidder on a VA project rather than dealing with the horror of winning the project. That's not just my perspective, this is vendors we deal with as well as competitors.
At the other end of the scale, I've seen the government purchase complete schlock which ends up costing them more in replacement and repair costs in a short time span.
That's all the detail you will get publicly out of me, if you wish to know more, send me a PM. Trust me my cynicism for government waste doesn't come from Beck, Hannity, or Limpbaugh. It's well earned through life experience.
And for what it's worth, I've been relatively shocked at what my taxes were the last two years as a "middle-classer" and some of the credits I've been eligible for. They've been appreciated though as I got favorable treatment on a year that should have kicked my donkey on taxes right when the bottom fell out of the economy. As the model predicted though, I was able to afford keeping money circulating in the economy even when I took a $30K hit in income over a year's time. I bought and renovated a house, managed to keep a child in college without taking on debt, and still put money away for retirement. I have no problem if my taxes go back up as my personal situation has improved so long as the government takes the proper steps to reduce it's dependence on my tax dollars.
Baits in the water, will Obama bite?
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ryan-debate-e1309971646933.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2011, 01:21:40 PM
Baits in the water, will Obama bite?
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ryan-debate-e1309971646933.jpg)
I like Ryan. If you have ever seen him debate he is terrifying. I would love to see that debate.
Dick Chenney once commented "I worship the ground the Paul Ryan walks on, I hope he doesn't run for president because that would ruin a good man who has a lot of work to do."
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 11:31:31 PM
I've still got a burr under my saddle about several incredibly wasteful energy projects at VA hospitals locally and over in Akansas which have such a poor return on investment to the tax payer it's embarrassing. These projects do nothing to benefit vets directly, nor do they do much to improve the overall conditions within the facilities though they are done under the guise of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency.
I'm not arguing that there is no government waste to be eliminated. I'm saying that you could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and it wouldn't solve the problem. It's a place to look for some savings, but it is not the only place.
The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts need to go away. Even for those of us making under $250,000 a year. Skin in the game, as guido says.
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2011, 07:32:47 PM
I'm not arguing that there is no government waste to be eliminated. I'm saying that you could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and it wouldn't solve the problem. It's a place to look for some savings, but it is not the only place.
The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts need to go away. Even for those of us making under $250,000 a year. Skin in the game, as guido says.
Millions add up to billions. Hell, I'd even be for financial incentives for government employees to find ways to cut waste and costs within their departments.
Aaaaand, everyone will feel a whole lot better about paying more in taxes if they felt the government was being more responsible with our money and figuring out ways to need less of it and paying down the ridiculous debt.
Lowering taxes while increasing spending and borrowing rates is poor policy, as what happened in the Bush Admin. We should have reversed course in late 2005 after the Katrina disaster and it was becoming apparent we were going to be at war in the Middle East for quite a few more years.
Edit: sorry incomplete thoughts as I got distracted by the phone last night. As well, my original point was to say that lowering taxes while increasing spending and borrowing was poor policy.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2011, 11:08:16 PM
Raising taxes while increasing spending and borrowing rates is poor policy.
The vast majority of the continuing spending increases are on programs like medicaid and unemployment insurance and the security state (including the military).
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-t11.jpg)
The economic downturn cut receipts by $455 billion last year, we lost $295 billion by continuing the tax cuts, spent $191 billion on our wars, and $412 billion on stimulus. Get rid of the wars, the tax cuts, and fix the economy, so there's no stimulus, and the deficit would have been $60 billion.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 01:07:52 AM
The vast majority of the continuing spending increases are on programs like medicaid and unemployment insurance and the security state (including the military).
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-t11.jpg)
The economic downturn cut receipts by $455 billion last year, we lost $295 billion by continuing the tax cuts, spent $191 billion on our wars, and $412 billion on stimulus. Get rid of the wars, the tax cuts, and fix the economy, so there's no stimulus, and the deficit would have been $60 billion.
CBPP calculations based on data from the CBO. So basically regurgitated figures by a group which essentially keeps class warfare alive and well from a federal agency which frequently misses its own projections. Nice.
Prepare the moonbats!
As the discussion on budget cuts gets serious, President Obama is starting to make sense.
"Well, you know, here's what I would say. I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I've seen it, where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."
I assure you, this will not be received well. Children are going to starve and old people thrown from the balconies of their slum retirement homes.
Seeing that the administration has finally gotten serious about budget cuts and has begun to work with the House on what needs to be about a $100billion reduction in federal spending, using liberal math, one of our favorite people already sees that as a surplus ready to spend!
Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate public works committee, said she will propose a two-year, $109 billion bill to pay for U.S. highway and other construction projects.
She says that not approving this spending will cost jobs!. . . (that don't exist yet). :D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2011, 10:26:04 AM
Prepare the moonbats!
As the discussion on budget cuts gets serious, President Obama is starting to make sense.
"Well, you know, here's what I would say. I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I've seen it, where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."
I assure you, this will not be received well. Children are going to starve and old people thrown from the balconies of their slum retirement homes.
I would think that you would have praised President Obama for speaking out and addressing the issue.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2011, 10:34:46 AM
Seeing that the administration has finally gotten serious about budget cuts and has begun to work with the House on what needs to be about a $100billion reduction in federal spending, using liberal math, one of our favorite people already sees that as a surplus ready to spend!
Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate public works committee, said she will propose a two-year, $109 billion bill to pay for U.S. highway and other construction projects.
She says that not approving this spending will cost jobs!. . . (that don't exist yet). :D
Gaspar, you are completely lost. In case you haven't been paying attention to Nathan, we don't have a spending problem, except for the military and oh, yeah those tax cuts which cost money except when they are used as part of a stimulus, then they don't count.
I've never seen such partisan math in my entire life.
Is ending tax breaks for select industries raising taxes? By definition, yes.
But are these not the same breaks often considered pork for powerful politicians?
I want to have someone defend the $126 million giving to horse racing owners in Kentucky last year. GOP leader Mitch McConnell brings it back to his state and I am sure it is important to the people of Kentucky, but why should I in Oklahoma pay to subsidize it?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 07, 2011, 11:30:00 AM
I would think that you would have praised President Obama for speaking out and addressing the issue.
I did. I said he was making sense. That's why it's going to tick off the left.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 07, 2011, 11:39:39 AM
Is ending tax breaks for select industries raising taxes? By definition, yes.
But are these not the same breaks often considered pork for powerful politicians?
I want to have someone defend the $126 million giving to horse racing owners in Kentucky last year. GOP leader Mitch McConnell brings it back to his state and I am sure it is important to the people of Kentucky, but why should I in Oklahoma pay to subsidize it?
Quit your whining. It's only $126 million, it's not like a billion or anything. ;)
Seriously, I agree. We've got to be able to arrest the self-interests of legislators.
Interesting to note that the horse racing industry got along just fine until 2008 without these breaks:
"Merkley said horse racing in particular — known as the "sport of kings" — could amount to a poster child for the effort to roll back narrowly targeted subsidies.
"It's a sport for the best-off. And why should we, in this difficult time, be subsidizing this activity for the best-off, while people are on the floor talking about cutting fundamental support for those who are hungry in America?" Merkley asked.
McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses.
"The horse industry employs 50,000 Kentuckians and contributes $3.5 billion to our economy year-round. By adding this provision to the bill, we have ensured that this important part of our farm economy is treated fairly," McConnell said then."
Depreciating race horses? Are you kidding me?
^^^^
Tax tail wagging the investment decision dog...or horse in this case.
Quote from: bokworker on July 07, 2011, 12:57:17 PM
^^^^
Tax tail wagging the investment decision dog...or horse in this case.
Apparently people were investing in race horses before this nice little tax pork.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2011, 11:31:55 AM
except when they are used as part of a stimulus, then they don't count.
When they're temporary, they don't add significantly to the long term budget problem. If you recall, I have been saying all along that tax cuts are dumb in this environment. If QE doesn't work, why would we think that another form of dumping cash into the economy is going to help?
Conan, you can either believe arithmetic or not. Apparently, you have decided not. Sad.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 04:44:15 PM
When they're temporary, they don't add significantly to the long term budget problem. If you recall, I have been saying all along that tax cuts are dumb in this environment. If QE doesn't didn't work, so why would we think that another form of dumping cash into the economy is going to help?
Conan, you can either believe arithmetic or not. Apparently, you have decided not. Sad.
fify.
Here's a debate on the debt ceiling featuring the guy that started the tea party.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/what-s-the-deal-with-debt/6ce8whi?from=
I thought this was an interesting statement. Guess which prominent 20th century political figure made it.
Quote
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 06:16:00 PM
I thought this was an interesting statement. Guess which prominent 20th century political figure made it.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_eisenhower_quote.htm
Different times, I guess. Rand Paul proposes to eliminate Social Security and he's praised, not called stupid.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 06:23:40 PM
Different times, I guess. Rand Paul proposes to eliminate Social Security and he's praised, not called stupid.
I googled this assertion and could not find where he wants it eliminated. I found a recent story that noted he wants to raise the retirement age and a means test for the wealthy.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 06:23:40 PM
Different times, I guess. Rand Paul proposes to eliminate Social Security and he's praised, not called stupid.
You must love getting owned all the time......lol
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2011, 06:55:55 PM
I googled this assertion and could not find where he wants it eliminated. I found a recent story that noted he wants to raise the retirement age and a means test for the wealthy.
I'm sorry, you're right. I was conflating Social Security and Medicare. He wants to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. And in true Orwellian style, he wants to call the voucher program Medicare.
Quote from: Breadburner on July 07, 2011, 07:15:24 PM
You must love getting owned all the time......lol
You must enjoy sitting on the sidelines and sniping like a third grader.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 07:16:13 PM
I'm sorry, you're right. I was conflating Social Security and Medicare. He wants to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. And in true Orwellian style, he wants to call the voucher program Medicare.
Medicare didn't come to pass until 1965, more than 10 years after Ike wrote the statement we are talking about. Who knows, he might have lumped in Medicare in his semi-laundry list if it existed during his time? I wonder what he would think about Stimulus, QE, the monstrous size of SS and Medicare, and our debt. He might have changed his tune.
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2011, 07:31:01 PM
Medicare didn't come to pass until 1965, more than 10 years after Ike wrote the statement we are talking about. Who knows, he might have lumped in Medicare in his semi-laundry list if it existed during his time? I wonder what he would think about Stimulus, QE, the monstrous size of SS and Medicare, and our debt. He might have changed his tune.
He also forewarned us in his exit speech of the danger of the growing Military Industrial Complex. He was sure clairvoyant there.
I wonder what kind of response the video at this link will garner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/orrin-hatch-debt-poor-rich_n_892177.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2011, 08:11:24 PM
I wonder what kind of response the video at this link will garner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/orrin-hatch-debt-poor-rich_n_892177.html
I sometimes wonder if at home you talk just to hear the sound of your own voice. But then I remember who I'm pondering about...and think of the time I wasted.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on July 07, 2011, 11:47:51 PM
But then I remember who I'm pondering about...and think of the time I wasted.
Stop thinking. You'll only hurt yourself.
:D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 08, 2011, 07:57:54 AM
Stop thinking. You'll only hurt yourself.
:D
I should learn from my mistakes, shouldn't I?
Kudo's are in order. The President has canceled a vacation to Montana this weekend to work on the budget crisis!
"He was coming in for a brief vacation, this was all before the budget crisis hit, we were gearing up until last Friday, and then heard from Secret Service it was canceled," Whitefish, MT Police Chief Bill Dial said.
I'm confused though. I thought the debt crisis hit a couple of years ago. Couldn't he have opted to "roll up his sleeves" and work on this thing earlier and not let a couple of perfectly good tee times go to waste? I mean, have you seen the freekin fairways in Whitefish? He's giving up a day at Whitefish Lake Golf Club and one at Grouse Mountain to work on the silly debt?
I am glad though that he really seems to be serious today when he said "I am ready to roll up my sleeves over the next several weeks." Perhaps with his unique abilities at the table we can get an agreement hammered out with those obstructionist Republicans, and get back to business as usual (and perhaps get back up there before the spring turf dries up)!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2011, 12:55:40 PM
Kudo's are in order. The President has canceled a vacation to Montana this weekend to work on the budget crisis!
"He was coming in for a brief vacation, this was all before the budget crisis hit, we were gearing up until last Friday, and then heard from Secret Service it was canceled," Whitefish, MT Police Chief Bill Dial said.
I'm confused though. I thought the debt crisis hit a couple of years ago. Couldn't he have opted to "roll up his sleeves" and work on this thing earlier and not let a couple of perfectly good tee times go to waste? I mean, have you seen the freekin fairways in Whitefish? He's giving up a day at Whitefish Lake Golf Club and one at Grouse Mountain to work on the silly debt?
I am glad though that he really seems to be serious today when he said "I am ready to roll up my sleeves over the next several weeks." Perhaps with his unique abilities at the table we can get an agreement hammered out with those obstructionist Republicans, and get back to business as usual (and perhaps get back up there before the spring turf dries up)!
"Now, watch this drive!"
The obstructionists are at it again.
QuoteSens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned Friday that President Obama faces turmoil in the Senate and in his reelection campaign if he includes Social Security cuts in any debt-ceiling deal.
The senators said the White House has not communicated effectively to Senate Democrats and they and their rank-and-file colleagues are being frozen out of the process.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/170409-liberal-senators-warn-obama-on-debt-deal?tmpl=component&print=1&page
Funny how the people who take all tax increases off the table aren't obstructionists, but people who oppose one specific program being cut are.
(http://www.nonprofituniversityblog.org/wp-content/uploads/double-standards.png)
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2011, 08:15:47 PM
Funny how the people who take all tax increases off the table aren't obstructionists, but people who oppose one specific program being cut are.
(http://www.nonprofituniversityblog.org/wp-content/uploads/double-standards.png)
Your skin is getting thin again. I wasn't really making the argument that the left are being obstructionists.
Here's a nice exchange re: raising taxes and the Bush tax cuts. Ignore the story because its from a rightie website. Who won?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-ames/2011/07/08/former-gov-pataki-takes-msnbcs-barnicle-his-strange-tax-math
As for those that in 2001/2002, were not paying the top end rate, nor ever paid it for that matter, if the cut ends it will unquestionably be a tax increase to them.
Warren Buffet: I Could End The Deficit In 5 Minutes
From CNBC yesterday morning.
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7#ixzz1RZv8Q3aP
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7
If I hear one more word about how this might hurt chances to get reelected, I'm moving to Canada... ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 08, 2011, 11:16:29 PM
Warren Buffet: I Could End The Deficit In 5 Minutes
From CNBC yesterday morning.
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7#ixzz1RZv8Q3aP
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7
I would say that we should make everyone currently in the legislature inelligible for reelection, but we will probably reelect the same kind of people, fall into the same web of lies. This is becoming pathetic, and I'm sick of it. Too bad I'm not old enough to vote.
Quote from: guido911 on July 08, 2011, 08:54:15 PM
Your skin is getting thin again. I wasn't really making the argument that the left are being obstructionists.
OK. How was I supposed to interpret this:
Quote
The obstructionists are at it again.
Quote from: ZYX on July 08, 2011, 11:40:13 PM
If I hear one more word about how this might hurt chances to get reelected, I'm moving to Canada... ;)
Promise? ;D
Quote from: ZYX on July 08, 2011, 11:43:06 PM
I would say that we should make everyone currently in the legislature inelligible for reelection, but we will probably reelect the same kind of people, fall into the same web of lies. This is becoming pathetic, and I'm sick of it. Too bad I'm not old enough to vote.
It's not the people, it's the system. How do i know this? We've been voting the bums out since before I was legal and the same stuff keeps happening.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2011, 01:16:35 AM
OK. How was I supposed to interpret this:
As an obvious freakin joke. We have been listening how the repukes were the "party of no" and obstructionists ever since Obama was inaugurated--despite the fact that he had a filibuster-proof Congress. The ONE time the left thinks about defying Obama that I can recall, the filibuster of a debt-ceiling deal, I note they are obstructing Obama and your full on Obamabot surfaces. That was the thin-skinning I pointed out.
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
As an obvious freakin joke. We have been listening how the repukes were the "party of no" and obstructionists ever since Obama was inaugurated--despite the fact that he had a filibuster-proof Congress.
a) His filibuster-proof majority lasted all of a few months until Kennedy fell ill.
b) Democrats are not Republicans; they rarely vote in lockstep on anything.
c) Sorry you're so offended I didn't get the joke.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2011, 06:56:30 PM
a) His filibuster-proof majority lasted all of a few months until Kennedy fell ill.
b) Democrats are not Republicans; they rarely vote in lockstep on anything.
c) Sorry you're so offended I didn't get the joke.
Not offended, was just disappointed. I'm over it. As for the length of time of the filibuster-proof Senate, Specter switched in April 2009 and the swimmer passed away in August 2009. Scott Brown wasn't seated until January 2010. That's a nice chunk of time to do more, which in fact the dems did. And let's not forget the Maine women aren't exactly conservative and do have a penchant for doing their own thing (i.e. stimulus). I'll forgo posting Rep. Latourette's rant on how the repubs couldn't stop anything a year or so ago.
GOP won't do the 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction. Will only do 2 trillion. Walking out on 2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction for a few billion in tax increases.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on July 09, 2011, 11:41:24 PM
GOP won't do the 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction. Will only do 2 trillion. Walking out on 2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction for a few billion in tax increases.
Very very interesting that this happened. Boehner obviously couldn't deliver enough votes in the House for whatever was on the table. It means that the GOP caucus really is being driven by the no-taxes-whatsoever rump. (I'm not sure that's truly a Tea Party plank but it's definitely one of the newer GOP mantras).
More intriguing: Is it possible that Obama called the GOP bluff? He offered some huge cuts (and for the Dems, highly objectionable) cuts to the safety net, in exchange for relatively uncontroversial revenue increases (the aforementioned jet ownership tax loophole, etc) but the GOP couldn't accept even those. Is it possible he threw those up knowing it would prove once and for all that the GOP isn't about being sensible but is about being ideological?
Whichever it is, the debt debate just did a 180, IMO.
Why does the GOP want us to have such high debt? They have the power to vote on a lower deficit and they choose not to.
In other news, the House voted to increase the Pentagon's budget by $17 billion. Those House Republicans, real savers. The bill also makes it illegal for military chaplains to officiate same sex marriages and eliminates funding for training chaplains on the new policy regarding openly gay servicemembers.
http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/07/debt-limit-debate-probably-already-is.html
You would think that, since the GOP is owned and operated by Wall Street, that they would be getting pressure from their owners to open the spigots, not close them. Not only the looming possibility of Default, but the GOP goal of cutting spending also depresses the outlook for financial health. Government spending (on non-military goods) has a multiplier effect that forms a strong current, a Gulf Stream through our economy. Cut that off, or even cut it down and the rest of the economy slows down with it. So a smart business should be worried as much about the GOP's spending-cut agenda as about Default.
Already, the austerity measures in government, particularly in the States, has cause a huge setback in employment. Last month's lousy 19000 job gain was a net gain. There actually were a lot more new jobs created, but they were offset by layoffs of State workers.
Here's George Will boiling it down over the dem hand-wringing over the debt ceiling.
http://www.mrctv.org/video/103512
Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?
Quote from: guido911 on July 10, 2011, 03:54:48 PM
Here's George Will boiling it down over the dem hand-wringing over the debt ceiling.
http://www.mrctv.org/video/103512
Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?
Wow! This is turning out to be a hard lesson.
Looking at the president's proposal, he has $9.5 trillion in new borrowing and an additional $5 trillion every year after. He's basically just pushing the same budget request he sent to congress in February. He is also asking for several hundred billion in tax hikes on small businesses and the wealthy. Not nearly enough to even put a dent in his spending, but more than enough to throw us back into economic decline, not to mention the psychological effect it would have on an already damaged trust between the private sector and the administration.
It is obvious that the economy is secondary in his mind to government growth.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 07:07:27 AM
Wow! This is turning out to be a hard lesson.
Looking at the president's proposal, he has $9.5 trillion in new borrowing and an additional $5 trillion every year after. He's basically just pushing the same budget request he sent to congress in February. He is also asking for several hundred billion in tax hikes on small businesses and the wealthy. Not nearly enough to even put a dent in his spending, but more than enough to throw us back into economic decline, not to mention the psychological effect it would have on an already damaged trust between the private sector and the administration.
It is obvious that the economy is secondary in his mind to government growth.
Since you don't ever cite anything, how on earth can I believe numbers like that? Because they really seem ridiculous/pushed by your preferred RM media outlets. From what I've seen, the banner number is $4T in deficit reduction, with a balance between cuts and tax increases.
Quote from: guido911 on July 10, 2011, 03:54:48 PM
Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?
The debt ceiling was breached officially in May; we're now running on borrowed time, where Treasury moves accounts around, triages funds, etc. Geithner has said repeatedly that Aug 2 is the point where we run out of rope and crucial accounts go into arrears.
Quote from: we vs us on July 11, 2011, 09:26:18 AM
Since you don't ever cite anything, how on earth can I believe numbers like that? Because they really seem ridiculous/pushed by your preferred RM media outlets. From what I've seen, the banner number is $4T in deficit reduction, with a balance between cuts and tax increases.
He is pressing the budget recommendation he presented back in February that includes his outlays for Obamacare. That requires 9.5 Trillion in additional borrowing and $5 trillion a year after that. Both sides of the debate seem to have taken that out of the equation.
If we kick the can, we are going to need a far larger can.
Quote from: we vs us on July 11, 2011, 09:43:06 AM
The debt ceiling was breached officially in May; we're now running on borrowed time, where Treasury moves accounts around, triages funds, etc. Geithner has said repeatedly that Aug 2 is the point where we run out of rope and crucial accounts go into arrears.
If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving.
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2011, 12:03:35 PM
If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving.
Where was that thought process when we were raising the debt ceiling for two wars before this administration? House Republicans voted to raise that ceiling 5 times. I guess it only matters when the other guy is in the big White House.
???
Quote from: Hoss on July 11, 2011, 12:11:43 PM
Where was that thought process when we were raising the debt ceiling for two wars before this administration? House Republicans voted to raise that ceiling 5 times. I guess it only matters when the other guy is in the big White House.
???
I stood firmly with Senator Obama on this. What is the point of establishing a limit if you intend to exceed it?
I'm sure Senator Obama would agree with me, we need to stop the drunken spending before we up the credit limit. The amount of revenue increase proposed is a joke compared to planned outlays.
Show the people and the markets that you are serious about shrinking government and unbridle them as your slaves, and you will increase revenue far more than any putative tax increase. We learned this with Kennedy, then again with ERTA, and now we have to, hopefully, learn it again (but I fear we won't).
The economy is poised for growth with businesses at the line waiting for the gun, the problem is that the president wants to point the gun at their heads, and congress wants to hide the bullets.
Eat your peas, Gasman. :D
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2011, 12:03:35 PM
If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving.
Like I said, we passed the debt ceiling in May. The job has been lost. We've been drawing on our emergency fund ever since. Aug 2 is when we have to decide to pay our rent or eat.
Also, that's a really bad analogy.
Let's see. . .
1. Ignore the debt as you spend more than all other presidents combined.
2. Rather than present a budget that addresses the problem, form a blue ribbon commission of the best and brightest to figure out how to tackle the deficit.
3. Ignore the recommendation of the commission completely, because they are emphasizing what most republicans have been telling you all along.
4. Deliver a budget "framework" speech that actually increases the deficit.
5. Ask the CBO how your new "framework" that you are so proud of affects the proposed budget and have Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf reply "We don't estimate speeches."
6. Ignore multiple requests to sit down and discuss the budget, to tackle more pressing matters related to manipulating the trajectory of a small spherical object.
7. With just over two weeks left, agree to meet and show up with nothing but the same budget that your own congress laughed at, and the same sloppy framework that the CBO laughed at, and the mantra of "Eat the rich" "Eat your peas" on your lips.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 12:25:13 PM
The economy is poised for growth with businesses at the line waiting for the gun, the problem is that the president wants to point the gun at their heads, and congress wants to hide the bullets.
So you don't like his proposal for $4T in cuts? What would you like, Gassy? $8T? Or do you now magically see the virtue in Boehner's modest $2T? Or -- katie bar the door! -- have you seen the light and now want some stimulus spending?
You're starting to turn yourself in knots. The entirety of your objection seems to be "Anything Obama Does is Wrong, Even If Under Other Circumstances I'd Like It."
Quote from: we vs us on July 11, 2011, 01:05:23 PM
have you seen the light and now want some stimulus spending?
Are you actually friendly to more spending?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 12:25:13 PM
Show the people and the markets that you are serious about shrinking government and unbridle them as your slaves, and you will increase revenue far more than any putative tax increase. We learned this with Kennedy, then again with ERTA, and now we have to, hopefully, learn it again (but I fear we won't).
You should understand the laffer curve before trying to use it to bolster your argument.
one group is intractable and the other group is willing to make concessions but the group that will not bend, not even a little is right?
What do you republicans want? End all safety net programs, medicare, medicade and social security? We should take away grandma's scooter? Let the US default and end our ability to pay for these programs or write current social security checks?
FYI: Firing/laying off government workers will cause unemployment to rise.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 01:09:09 PM
Are you actually friendly to more spending?
Most definitely. Not that I think it has an ice cube's chance in hell currently -- one of the GOPs many successes has been to entirely limit the range of the policy discussion to Austerity or Austerity+.
The panic over the deficit -- and artificially linking it to business sentiment -- has been their big rhetorical win. Sadly, ignoring the fact that actual data points to lack of consumer demand and a housing market that hasn't bottomed out all the way will get us nowhere near a real world solution. Austerity or Austerity+ will just pull $billions more out of the economy, destroy even more consumer demand, and impact business sentiment even more. I'd really bet that -- virtuous or not -- playing chicken with the debt ceiling is also a negative impact on business sentiment as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/business/economy/as-government-aid-fades-so-may-the-recovery.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
QuoteClose to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans' wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody's Analytics. In states hit hard by the downturn, like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, residents derived even more of their income from the government.
By the end of this year, however, many of those dollars are going to disappear, with the expiration of extended benefits intended to help people cope with the lingering effects of the recession. Moody's Analytics estimates $37 billion will be drained from the nation's pocketbooks this year.
While you may see that ideologically as overreliance on gov -- and heck, let's debate that -- the real world consequences of Austerity or Austerity+ will be to greatly decrease the amount of spendable $$$ in the system. If you think you're looking at negative business sentiment now, wait till all those bennies expire.
Quote from: nathanm on July 11, 2011, 01:15:34 PM
You should understand the laffer curve before trying to use it to bolster your argument.
Nate,
I understand the laffer curve, the debate is on where we sit within that representation. Liberals always feel that we are on the incline, no matter what the economic circumstances. It becomes a tool for them to manipulate.
My opinion is that it is not government's duty to squeak out as much revenue as it can from the people. It's government's duty to be revenue neutral through a balanced budget that respects the tax payer first and the spending program second.
Gaspar,
Kennedy had tax hikes in place that were actually done by Johnson. (Plus a little 'surcharge' that brought in even more.)
I expect much more from you from a historical perspective - you do know that each of the tax cuts we have used as tool have been accompanied by following tax hikes. Until the latest Baby Bush garbage. EVERY single President we have had since the '30s has understood the concept, or AT LEAST been able to do what real experts recommended. And EVERY one of them successfully used the tools and the economy was enhanced and bolstered.
Baby Bush didn't understand. Didn't pay attention. Didn't do the right thing. Now we are enjoying the results. And will for another decade or more.
But hey, if the only phrase the parrot knows is "Cut taxes", well I guess that's all it can say.
One question remains that the Republicontin's refuse to answer; What action would they take to make the situation better??
(Hint; "cut taxes" ain't the right answer, as we have found for a long, long time.)
Quote from: we vs us on July 11, 2011, 01:05:23 PM
The entirety of your objection seems to be "Anything Obama Does is Wrong, Even If Under Other Circumstances I'd Like It."
Ding
I must admit it is pretty hilarious listening to republican voters try to argue against reducing the defecit more. My other favorite its "don't increase the debt ceiling, don't give in". I am not necessarily talking about the people on the board (unless you believe this way). I would love for the debt ceiling to not need to increase but it isn't realistic with the economy like this.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2011, 01:39:33 PM
Gaspar,
Kennedy had tax hikes in place that were actually done by Johnson. (Plus a little 'surcharge' that brought in even more.)
I expect much more from you from a historical perspective - you do know that each of the tax cuts we have used as tool have been accompanied by following tax hikes. Until the latest Baby Bush garbage. EVERY single President we have had since the '30s has understood the concept, or AT LEAST been able to do what real experts recommended. And EVERY one of them successfully used the tools and the economy was enhanced and bolstered.
Baby Bush didn't understand. Didn't pay attention. Didn't do the right thing. Now we are enjoying the results. And will for another decade or more.
But hey, if the only phrase the parrot knows is "Cut taxes", well I guess that's all it can say.
One question remains that the Republicontin's refuse to answer; What action would they take to make the situation better??
(Hint; "cut taxes" ain't the right answer, as we have found for a long, long time.)
Huh?
You're way off your girdle. Read through the thread.
SPENDING CUTS. . .NO MORE SPENDING. . .STOP SPENDING. . .Cuts are usually followed by multiple hikes over time, that seems to be the natural progression of things when Democrats or Republicans want to spend more and there is room in the economy. Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters.
At this point I would rather they not even have a debate about taxes, it's a distraction and a stupid one at that. They need to STOP SPENDING. . .CUT SPENDING. . .SPEND NO MORE. . .SPEND FAR LESS. . .ELIMINATE SPENDING.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 01:51:18 PM
Huh?
You're way off your girdle. Read through the thread.
SPENDING CUTS. . .NO MORE SPENDING. . .STOP SPENDING. . .
Cuts are usually followed by multiple hikes over time, that seems to be the natural progression of things when Democrats or Republicans want to spend more and there is room in the economy. Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters.
At this point I would rather they not even have a debate about taxes, it's a distraction and a stupid one at that. They need to STOP SPENDING. . .CUT SPENDING. . .SPEND NO MORE. . .SPEND FAR LESS. . .ELIMINATE SPENDING.
So no military or any other payments? A total stop to all spending.
"Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters."
Except of course when companies are hording money. Then it does nothing... Like now.
I am not saying that it doesn't work in all cases. Its just the economy is a very complex thing and not any one thing will work the exact same way in every single condition as you so claim.
Gaspar,
My phrases would be almost identical...the only modification I would make would be to add the word "increases" to each. That coupled with repeal of the Baby Bush BS would make us whole again very soon...within a decade or so. And if we had not gone down that path to begin with (the path of selling out to corporate interests), we would already have healed and been whole today.
Tax cuts; we have an 80 year history of the effects of tax cuts. When follow on action is taken to increase taxes - AS WAS DONE in every tax cut we have had during that 80 years EXCEPT for the Baby Bush cuts - the economy has not only recovered, but rocketed well beyond the previous levels. It is a combination of cut/increase that was so successful for so long. NOT one or the other.
History, people!!! Read it! Understand it! Embrace it! Become one with the "Force"!
I'd be interested and terrified at the same time to see the results if they announced a complete spending freeze for one quarter.
Entitlements, roads, military, pensions, congressional pay, so on and so on...
The reactions would be remarkable to say the least.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 01:51:18 PM
SPENDING CUTS. . .NO MORE SPENDING. . .STOP SPENDING. . .
At this point I would rather they not even have a debate about taxes, it's a distraction and a stupid one at that. They need to STOP SPENDING. . .CUT SPENDING. . .SPEND NO MORE. . .SPEND FAR LESS. . .ELIMINATE SPENDING.
The problem is that the bulk of what we are spending is for Medicare, Medicade, Social Security and the Military. Drastic cuts are needed to all of these big ticket items to stop spending and stop borrowing...or we have to agree to change these programs (raise the elligibility age), end them or fund and pay for them without borrowing.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 07, 2011, 11:39:39 AM
Is ending tax breaks for select industries raising taxes? By definition, yes.
But are these not the same breaks often considered pork for powerful politicians?
I want to have someone defend the $126 million giving to horse racing owners in Kentucky last year. GOP leader Mitch McConnell brings it back to his state and I am sure it is important to the people of Kentucky, but why should I in Oklahoma pay to subsidize it?
I found it easy to believe that no one could defend these tax breaks... Please one of you fiscal conservatives who talk about lowering the debt...please tell me why ending these tax breaks should be off the table to stop paying rich horse owners in Kentucky. Anybody.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 11, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
I found it easy to believe that no one could defend these tax breaks... Please one of you fiscal conservatives who talk about lowering the debt...please tell me why ending these tax breaks should be off the table to stop paying rich horse owners in Kentucky. Anybody.
First, I think it may be necessary to understand what it is. The $126 Million (tiny drop in the debt bucket) is not a gift of any kind, but rather an adjustment built in to the Stimulus along with dozens of other adjustments in depreciation.
In business you have you have the ability to depreciate capital purchases at different rates depending what that item is. Vehicles, printers, desks, and other property have various depreciation rates.
Sen. Jeff Merkley proposed and got passed an amendment to the tax code because race horse owners found that their investments (their horses) were depreciating at a far greater rate than the standard rate for horses. This made it hard for new horse owners to enter the sport. It also made the industry less attractive to new investors/owners. Basically it allowed racehorses, that used to depreciate at a 7 year property rate, the same as other horses, to depreciate at a 3 year property rate that better reflects the actual average depreciation of the property.
Another favorite is the "tax breaks for big oil." These are also related to depreciation rates for drilling equipment, vehicles, tools, and other property investments made by oil companies. They are no different than the depreciation that your business takes for the tools that you use every day.
As the tools age they depreciate in value and therefore cannot be valued at the same rate. If indeed there is an inconsistency in the value of an item as compared to it's established depreciation rate, then yes it is fare to alter that depreciation rate. If however you are doing it simply to pick on an industry, or because you think the sheeple will buy it because they don't know any better, then it is not justified to eliminate the deduction.
You
cannot tell an industry that they are not allowed to depreciate capital items on their balance sheets, unless those items do not depreciate in value.
This talk of tax cuts for big oil, or $129 million dollar gifts is simply Lib speak designed to excite the masses who simply don't know no better.
So to answer the question, I believe that any tax deduction based on depreciation that is a false depreciation should be eliminated. If however the depreciation rate is accurate, the state has no right to eliminate it for one industry, unless it subsequently eliminates the same deduction for all businesses.
Obuma want's to go down in history as the Democrat that destroyed it. I wish Lyndon Johnson were alive today. He'd kick Obuma's political arse into oblivion for not only trying to end of the New Deal and Great Society but for even contemplating the idea of destroying social security and medicare. Right now the greatest irony is that the anti-New deal republicans want to take MORE from the middle class and they know Odumba will give it to them.
Invoke article 4 of the 14th amendment. No more trying to compromise with the GOP/Teabaggers. You can't cut your way to prosperity. Most these congress people have never run a business and have no clue of investing to grow. Stop the wars. Preserve and protect social security, medicare and education. Revert taxes back to when Clinton was POTUS. Make me quit calling him POTUS Odumba.
To hurt the economy to gain power is criminal.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 04:00:00 PM
First, I think it may be necessary to understand what it is.
It's horse racing....
Though I see and understand what you are saying Gaspar I can't disagree more. We want tax breaks, we want less spending, then these " drops in a bucket " need to be cut out. Add the drops up and we start to see improvement.
You see this as a drop in the bucket as others see the little old lady " scamming " ( not my words ) SSID as a drop in the bucket. Stop the leak on both sides sounds like a plan to me.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on July 12, 2011, 06:40:19 AM
It's horse racing....
Though I see and understand what you are saying Gaspar I can't disagree more. We want tax breaks, we want less spending, then these " drops in a bucket " need to be cut out. Add the drops up and we start to see improvement.
You see this as a drop in the bucket as others see the little old lady " scamming " ( not my words ) SSID as a drop in the bucket. Stop the leak on both sides sounds like a plan to me.
I agree, but it must be fair. If you wish to end a businesses ability to depreciate certain types of property, you should end that for all businesses right?
If you are a doctor and your friend is a dentist, you both have medical equipment to buy. Right? According to the federal government you can depreciate those assets over 7 years.
If all of a sudden the federal government comes in and says "no depreciation for you because your a doctor (and we hate doctors)." You then have all of this equipment that carries no depreciation. You paid as much as your dentist friend, and the equipment devalues at the same rate, but because the government happens to hate doctors you get screwed.
Now if you want to make it fair and increase revenue, all you have to do is remove the same depreciation on property for all businesses. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, racetracks, massage parlors. . .everyone! This increases revenue for your super-duper programs, and does it in such a way that no one can argue that you are being unfair or playing favorites.
Racetrack aside (that's just a funny example to stir up the idiots), the "tax breaks for big oil" are the real revenue generators that democrats have their eyes on. To understand what they are looking at, you have to understand what's under the spin. The oil exploration and production companies have the exact same depreciation table that you, and I, and the Avon lady down the street have. They can take the same deductions and depreciate equipment over time at the same rate. What the president has hinted at is eliminating this for the oil companies. When you think of what that means it makes more sense.
If we decide to go down this route, then perhaps the government should develop a list of the companies they like and the companies they do not like and simply penalize accordingly? Allow some industry to prosper and cripple others. Develop an economy not based on market demand, but rather on administrative preference.
This is the road to tyranny, and the first step on that road is to get the public stimulated with the idea of wealth envy and make them believe that the success of an individual is based on the failure of another. That is what makes it seem fair to take more from one business or person to fund the "general welfare" of the people.
Ergo. . .It's horse racing. . . .
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. – Albert Camus
Five greatest sentences that I agree with.
QuoteYou cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 11, 2011, 10:48:32 PM
Seriously? These two clowns? And as for invoking anything in the constitution, when did you become such a scholar?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 04:00:00 PM
Sen. Jeff Merkley proposed and got passed an amendment to the tax code because race horse owners found that their investments (their horses) were depreciating at a far greater rate than the standard rate for horses. This made it hard for new horse owners to enter the sport. It also made the industry less attractive to new investors/owners. Basically it allowed racehorses, that used to depreciate at a 7 year property rate, the same as other horses, to depreciate at a 3 year property rate that better reflects the actual average depreciation of the property.
You cannot tell an industry that they are not allowed to depreciate capital items on their balance sheets, unless those items do not depreciate in value. So to answer the question, I believe that any tax deduction based on depreciation that is a false depreciation should be eliminated. If however the depreciation rate is accurate, the state has no right to eliminate it for one industry, unless it subsequently eliminates the same deduction for all businesses.
Good. Then you will have to agree that a three year depreciation doesn't make sense.
All horses born in the northern hemisphere have the same birthday (Jan 1st). They cannot legally race as a one year old and only about half of racehorses will race at all their second year and never more than four races or so. As a three-year-old, the horse will race between five and twenty times. The very, very best will retire by age four to go to stud. The remainder will race in quality races,up to about year six. Even then, they still have some value.
The richest races in the world are for four-year-olds and up. The Dubai Breeders Cup has eight races worth over $26 million in prize money (compared to $2 million for the Kentucky Derby race for three year olds). The biggest race there is n ow worth over $8 million.
Breeding a horse can go on for many years. Stud fees range from $2,500 to $500,000 per live foal. Many studs can be produce a couple hundred foals per year (not unlike an NBA player). The horse Easy Jet produced 2,500 foals in his stud years.
The three year depreciation argument is all bogus. It was all made up to give rich people in Kentucky $126 million dollars a year. It may smell like horsemeat, but it is still pork.
"Never invest in anything that requires repairs or eats."
Benjamin Franklin
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 12, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
Good. Then you will have to agree that a three year depreciation doesn't make sense.
All horses born in the northern hemisphere have the same birthday (Jan 1st). They cannot legally race as a one year old and only about half of racehorses will race at all their second year and never more than four races or so. As a three-year-old, the horse will race between five and twenty times. The very, very best will retire by age four to go to stud. The remainder will race in quality races,up to about year six. Even then, they still have some value.
The richest races in the world are for four-year-olds and up. The Dubai Breeders Cup has eight races worth over $26 million in prize money (compared to $2 million for the Kentucky Derby race for three year olds). The biggest race there is n ow worth over $8 million.
Breeding a horse can go on for many years. Stud fees range from $2,500 to $500,000 per live foal. Many studs can be produce a couple hundred foals per year (not unlike an NBA player). The horse Easy Jet produced 2,500 foals in his stud years.
The three year depreciation argument is all bogus. It was all made up to give rich people in Kentucky $126 million dollars a year. It may smell like horsemeat, but it is still pork.
It would depend on the purchase price and average estimated value at 3, 5, and 7 years.
If the
average race horse costs $100,000, you would need to know what the average price would be at the end of those periods. For example, at the 2007 Fall Yearling sale at Keeneland, 3,799 young horses sold for a total of $385,018,600, for an average of $101,347 per horse.
Only a very small percentage of these horses will make the income necessary to offset the cost of their training and upkeep. Of that small percentage a fraction will become champions, and supplement the cost of the others. When sold after 4 years they may be valued at a 1% or less of their original value.
I do not know the average values after 3, 5, and 7 years, so I could not agree or disagree with you. All I've tried to do is present an understanding of what the "tax cut" really was.
Yes. You don't know the horse racing business.
The horse racing business, especially thoroughbreds, is a very interesting business. The horses are actually for sale in most of their races. On Sunday at Fair Meadows (the Tulsa track) nine of the 12 races were "claiming" races. These type of races mean that anyone can put their money down before the race and "claim" any horse they want.
This allows the owner many tax advantages, especially if the horse is claimed by a few friends from each other a few times during the racing season. The real money in horse racing is of course, knowing when to bet on (or bet against) your own horse. Often a horse in a small money can make his owner more money by not winning when the owner happens to bet on other horses. There is no oversight on this...it is not like the SEC is watching like other forms of gambling (think stock market).
This tax break was for the wealthiest and almost completely centered on one state. Kentucky.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 11, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
I found it easy to believe that no one could defend these tax breaks... Please one of you fiscal conservatives who talk about lowering the debt...please tell me why ending these tax breaks should be off the table to stop paying rich horse owners in Kentucky. Anybody.
I'm not going to defend them and I think they should be looked at. Everything should be on the table and everyone should participate.
On a side note, I came across this tidbit:
QuoteIn a 75-minute meeting Sunday night, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling. In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.
Barack Obama,
It's a curious position, given the anemic economic growth and rising unemployment. And it's even more curious considering that Obama himself has warned about the deleterious effects of raising taxes in a struggling economy.
In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html
Obama flipped on his 2006 debt ceiling vote and now on raising taxes.
Obama has said all along that taxes on those making over $250,000 a year should go back to pre-Bush levels.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2011, 04:34:51 PM
Obama has said all along that taxes on those making over $250,000 a year should go back to pre-Bush levels.
Then why did he say this?
QuoteObama agreed with Ferguson's premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. "First of all, he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we've instead cut taxes. So I guess what I'd say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession."
Now, if he is one of those out there that believes that ending the Bush tax cuts is not a tax increase, I'll take that bait. In 2001, I and I image many like me, were making nowhere near enough to have saw a tax reduction with those cuts. It WILL be a tax increase on all of those that were not in the higher end bracket. In any case, its been 10 years since those cuts were done. If they are ended, it will be an increase. Here is Pataki talking about this point (ignore the hyperventilating in the source and watch the vid).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-ames/2011/07/08/former-gov-pataki-takes-msnbcs-barnicle-his-strange-tax-math
Even with his limited and stunted intellect, Bush recognized that the TEMPORARY, by definition, cuts should end. His biggest problem was that he was totally inadequate to understanding that they should have ended earlier.
Quote from: guido911 on July 13, 2011, 05:46:25 PM
Now, if he is one of those out there that believes that ending the Bush tax cuts is not a tax increase, I'll take that bait. In 2001, I and I image many like me, were making nowhere near enough to have saw a tax reduction with those cuts. It WILL be a tax increase on all of those that were not in the higher end bracket. In any case, its been 10 years since those cuts were done. If they are ended, it will be an increase. Here is Pataki talking about this point (ignore the hyperventilating in the source and watch the vid).
A tax increase won't hurt the economy in this particular circumstance regardless of what Obama says. Here's why: The money is just sitting around unused anyway. If money is actually flowing taking money out of circulation like that is as good as raising interest rates and thus shrinking the money supply. However, if the money is sitting on the sidelines anyway, it's not in the real money supply, so taking it out doesn't matter. It can't have an effect until after a recovery, when that money would have been put to use again.
Similarly, reducing taxes is ineffective because the money left in private hands won't get spent anyway. Tax policy is as ineffective as monetary policy right now, which is to say it's almost meaningless.
As much as I hate polls, I sorta can see its accuracy. In particular, the 32%ers
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx
Ironically, when you ask people what they want cut, they have a hard time picking anything that would actually make a significant dent in the deficit.
The other irony is that the number one thing we could do to reduce the long term budget deficit is to deficit spend about a trillion or two dollars on actually buying/building stuff. As long as the economy stays weak and more importantly as long as unemployment remains high (most federal revenues come from individual income tax and payroll tax, and very little, comparatively, from corporate tax, so the record profits being posted by our largest institutions aren't terribly helpful), tax revenues will remain in the dump.
Cutting budgets further will only further depress the economy as more and more employees are laid off and the government buys less and less stuff from the private sector. Exactly the opposite of what we want in a down economy, but exactly what we'd want in a robust recovery, so as to help forestall inflation without actually having to raise interest rates. We're already seeing that as state governments downsize. That downsizing is largely responsible for the very poor job creation numbers and the uptick in unemployment in the last month.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2011, 06:19:20 PM
Ironically, when you ask people what they want cut, they have a hard time picking anything that would actually make a significant dent in the deficit.
That's why we hire people like Presidents, Senators, and Reps to decide. Will they? I hope so. Paul Ryan, like him or not, is making these very decisions right now and look what that get's him.
I'm a hawk when it comes to the military, but I am convinced that cuts in defense spending are needed as are entitlements. And yes, there needs to be an increase in tax revenue.
And this sort of crap is not helping.
No, not Obama "abruptly" leaving the debt meeting. The fact that that is a damned story being reported. Why do journalists stir things like this up?
Quote from: guido911 on July 13, 2011, 06:30:04 PM
That's why we hire people like Presidents, Senators, and Reps to decide. Will they? I hope so. Paul Ryan, like him or not, is making these very decisions right now and look what that get's him.
I'm a hawk when it comes to the military, but I am convinced that cuts in defense spending are needed as are entitlements. And yes, there needs to be an increase in tax revenue.
And it's only taken 10 years of running up the country's credit card for many in Washington to see that if you don't have a job (tax income) then you shouldn't be spending what you don't have. Both parties now are equally to blame for extending the credit. Now, Moody's is looking at downgrading the US credit rating from AAA based on the talks happening right now.
Quote from: Hoss on July 13, 2011, 06:36:38 PM
And it's only taken 10 years of running up the country's credit card for many in Washington to see that if you don't have a job (tax income) then you shouldn't be spending what you don't have. Both parties now are equally to blame for extending the credit. Now, Moody's is looking at downgrading the US credit rating from AAA based on the talks happening right now.
We've really pushed it lately. LOL!
Quote from: Hoss on July 13, 2011, 06:36:38 PM
Now, Moody's is looking at downgrading the US credit rating from AAA based on the talks happening right now.
Moody's is concerned with the fact that we can't get an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, not the amount of debt. That concern will wait a couple of years.
Gaspar, it continues to amuse me that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the income half of the equation. Or that the deficit naturally should rise in a recession. Unemployment Insurance is expensive. So are the social programs that expand due to greater numbers of low income earners.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 08:43:52 AM
Moody's is concerned with the fact that we can't get an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, not the amount of debt. That concern will wait a couple of years.
Gaspar, it continues to amuse me that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the income half of the equation. Or that the deficit naturally should rise in a recession. Unemployment Insurance is expensive. So are the social programs that expand due to greater numbers of low income earners.
Happy to entertain you, but I actually agree with you! It's a tragedy that this administration has gone 3 years without doing anything about unemployment. All of the social expansion is just dandy, but instead of doing what we already know works to spur private sector growth they chose to re-animate the Keynesian corpse again as an excuse to plunge through a mountain of garbage.
Sure, it was the perfect crisis for them, and hard to resist letting it go to waste, but thinking it would correct itself with the promise of new regulations, taxes, and healthcare burdens was less than intelligent.
Instead of helping unemployed families by making private sector expansion a possibility they simply promised to hand out more unemployment money in an attempt to shore up mid-term votes.
FAIL!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2011, 08:53:16 AM
Happy to entertain you, but I actually agree with you! It's a tragedy that this administration has gone 3 years without doing anything about unemployment. All of the social expansion is just dandy, but instead of doing what we already know works to spur private sector growth they chose to re-animate the Keynesian corpse again as an excuse to plunge through a mountain of garbage.
Sure, it was the perfect crisis for them, and hard to resist letting it go to waste, but thinking it would correct itself with the promise of new regulations, taxes, and healthcare burdens was less than intelligent.
Instead of helping unemployed families by making private sector expansion a possibility they simply promised to hand out more unemployment money in an attempt to shore up mid-term votes.
FAIL!
FAIL was/is the ten years of the expanded tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Especially when it was shown, during that time period, that they were not working. But I guess for some, ideology trumps common sense.
'Read my lips....'
Gassy, we've already had a trillion dollars in tax breaks since Obama took office. You seem to think the economy needs more of the same proven failure.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 09:03:29 AM
Gassy, we've already had a trillion dollars in tax breaks since Obama took office. You seem to think the economy needs more of the same proven failure.
Most of those breaks did little or nothing for Job Creators. They were targeted at individuals, and failing industries. They were designed to delay decline, and they weren't enough to do that.
The bulk of cuts were for clean energy, and efficiency projects. The economy was failing and President Obama was attempting to remake it in his image through this type of stimulus. It was a noble liberal attempt, but companies don't want to re-tool to natural gas or wind power when they can't even afford to buy coal.
There was an odd salting of other stuff in his cuts too, like housing credits for low income, and a wacky tax credit for the purchase of an electric vehicle (up to $7,500 I think) that just caused wealthy people to buy extra golf carts.
His stimulus was designed by someone who doesn't' live in the real world! Someone who thinks that he can wave a wand and make everyone drive an electric car or build a windmill. These evolutions take time, and you don't push them, especially in a recession.
You are right, close to $1 Trillion in wasted tax cuts!
They cut taxes, and increased borrowing. Then when we were knee deep into a recession and needed to pump some extra money into the economy, and were having to spend more on benefits, while also having the lower taxes in place still increasing borrowing, aaand not having raised taxes to fund several wars and instead borrowing more.... Well here we are.
Interesting though, that while all this has been going on, corporations and ceo's have been raking it in and have been sitting on the money. We are asking for shared sacrifice to help the country out of the mess. The little guys income has gone down, while the big guys income has increased. The little guy who is hurting is being asked to sacrifice, but not gonna ask the big guy who is doing well to help out the country.
The little guy is working just as hard (if he has a job) as he was years ago, but is making less. The big guy is working just as hard as years ago, but is raking it in. They are both working equally hard as ever, (Can you really say that these big corporate guys are making all this money because they are working harder than they were before? and the little guys making less because they are lazier than they were before?) one is making less, the other is making more. (some could argue that the big guy wouldnt be making any money if it werent for the little guy in the trenches busting it to make the wealth in the first place, or the government borrowing to prop up system, but I digress) One making less and prepared to sacrifice, the other making more, and not prepared to sacrifice.
Just one perspective.
You all know I am usually the one who is pro corporation/business. But we are in a unique situation. And something just seems amiss. How is it that corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars, and others are making big money (and thats fine with me) while others have been seeing their wages decreas WHILE AT THE SAME TIME (and her is the unique situation) the ones who have (and this having hasnt translated into doing more for the economy) arent being asked to sacrifice while the ones who have steadily been making less are being asked to sacrifice? Shouldn't those who have been very doing well in this country also stand up to chip in when the country needs them to? Well, they are afraid its gonna hurt the little guy because these corporations and rich folk are the ones who employ people and taking away money from them will cause them to employ less... Not seeing it in this situation where they are sitting on lots of money, making more than they ever have while seemingly doing nothing. Well if they earned it they should keep it, no wealth redistribution thats bad.... Well, I would get that if they were working so much harder in order to earn all that extra dough, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The are working just as hard as always, so is the little guy, while one is doing much better and the other is doing worse. The system should help all boats rise. The government is the problem, but the government is also the solution.
Pure Democracy like pure Capitalism would end horribly. Both must have checks and balances. Its finding the right balance in both systems that keeps things working.
QuoteYou all know I am usually the one who is pro corporation/business. But we are in a unique situation. And something just seems amiss. How is it that corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars, and others are making big money (and thats fine with me) while others have been seeing their wages decreas WHILE AT THE SAME TIME (and her is the unique situation) the ones who have (and this having hasnt translated into doing more for the economy) arent being asked to sacrifice while the ones who have steadily been making less are being asked to sacrifice?
That's a great question Artist and actually an easy one to understand.
Before the recession there were more businesses. For example, if I sell widgets and I have 27 competitors who also sell the same widget, I have to compete on price and quality. We all have small manufacturing operations and employ about 27 people.
Recession hits and the smartest, and best financially managed of us survive. We have all layed off half our workforce. Now there are only 6 widget companies, and the demand for widgets is still decreasing, but not as much as the supply we are capable of producing.
We are now selling every widget we produce, and because of the limited competition, we can ask a little more for them! Yeah for us! We are making more profit, because we have eliminated expenses. With the additional profit we have to make a decision. . .do we expand to meet demand, even though the demand is decreasing?
Well, if we decide to expand, we will want assurance that the market will turn around at a rate that meets our investment in expansion. Unfortunately this is the indicator that is missing. Therefore the smart business sits on it's cash because of the risk.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
Most of those breaks did little or nothing for Job Creators. They were targeted at individuals, and failing industries. They were designed to delay decline, and they weren't enough to do that.
Mmmhmm, just yesterday you were complaining about losing accelerated depreciation and now you're saying that producers of calue got no tax cuts.At least try to be consistent for a week at a time, please.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 10:10:54 AM
Mmmhmm, just yesterday you were complaining about losing accelerated depreciation and now you're saying that producers of calue got no tax cuts.At least try to be consistent for a week at a time, please.
Nothing wrong with accelerated depreciation! That's a great stimulus example that works, but we didn't extend enough of it, and what we did extend was not a job creator. Section 129 allowed for some serious investment by corporations, but it didn't spur the growth of new corporations.
. . .Also didn't increase hiring. We profited quite a bit from the Section 129 changes (extended from the Bush tax cuts) because companies were looking for ways to expand without the risk of hiring.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2011, 10:14:58 AM
Section 129 allowed for some serious investment by corporations, but it didn't spur the growth of new corporations.
Allowed for, but failed to have a significant effect. Face it, there's a long list of tax cuts, extensions of previous tax cuts scheduled to expire or phase out, and tax credits for business that have been enacted since 2008. Fat lot of good it's done. We did what companies asked, they failed to keep up their end of the bargain, whether because they don't like the economic outlook or for whatever other reason. It's time to try something different.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 10:27:02 AM
they failed to keep up their end of the bargain
No one promised to hire just because the government threw them a bone from the meat it already takes from them.
Sprinkling a few tax deductions on a giant Keynesian toilet load, does not make it any more palatable, it only gives President Obama the excuse "hey look, tax cuts don't work."
Welcome back Carter!
But it is still the same old reality - tax cuts DON'T work. At least not by themselves. As we have proven time and time again.
And it still goes to the same old thing - lack of awareness of history.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2011, 12:21:19 PM
Sprinkling a few tax deductions on a giant Keynesian toilet load, does not make it any more palatable, it only gives President Obama the excuse "hey look, tax cuts don't work."
Giant Keynesian toilet load? Half the money went to tax cuts, and the other half included a UE extension, extra Medicaid money and a couple hundred billion in supplementary funds for state/local governments. Scanning the list of expenditures on Wikipedia, about $121.5 billion went to building and buying stuff.
Your perception is grossly in error.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 04:44:15 PM
When they're temporary, they don't add significantly to the long term budget problem. If you recall, I have been saying all along that tax cuts are dumb in this environment. If QE doesn't work, why would we think that another form of dumping cash into the economy is going to help?
Conan, you can either believe arithmetic or not. Apparently, you have decided not. Sad.
Keep on back-pedalling, Nate. You were the one who said tax cuts were NOT a part of Keynesian economics. Faced with the facts that John Maynard Keynes himself believed this, you continue to dance around the issue and make innocuous comments on what I believe. Just admit you were wrong and move on, dude. I guess you think Keynes should have paid attention to Nathanian economics.
Tax cuts NEVER created any jobs....move on.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 01:15:31 PM
Giant Keynesian toilet load? Half the money went to tax cuts, and the other half included a UE extension, extra Medicaid money and a couple hundred billion in supplementary funds for state/local governments. Scanning the list of expenditures on Wikipedia, about $121.5 billion went to building and buying stuff.
Your perception is grossly in error.
Yes, and half of that was spread into a thin layer on individual payroll tax. Keynsian economics would dictate that that money would be immediately re-invested in the economy, but reality dictates that when an individual sees his income increase marginally in the midst of economic crisis with the threat of unemployment looming over his head, he does not go out and buy a new boat! That's exactly what happened! Remember the pleas for people to go out and spend money? Get a nice meal at a restaurant, take that vacation to Mane, buy a motorcycle.
We are not cattle. If you give us more feed, we don't necessarily produce more manure. Sometimes we just fatten up for a rainy day.
Face it, when your employer is happy and healthy, you are happy and healthy because you know that your livelihood is safe, and perhaps you can ask for a raise.
When your employer is struggling, you feel like a goldfish living in a blender. Even if the Imperial Federal Government grants your employer the ability to deduct less from your check, you know that doesn't make your job any more stable.
Bush tried this same garbage with dismal results.
Tax cuts have to have profound effects on the job creators, employers, and the energy they require. The stimulus was tiny carrots fed to the wrong bunnies, and did nothing to overcome the sticks. Massive sticks in the form of perceived punitive healthcare, tax, and energy costs.
Not cattle....sheeples.
Looks like interest rates are going up.....hold tight. You'll look back someday and realize we are currently witnessing the self destruction of the GOP/Teabaggers. Higher interest rates will just help the rich get richer. After all, they don't have to incur debt.
Such vacuous thinking. Eric Cantor? What an idiot...
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2011, 02:02:21 PM
Keynsian economics would dictate that that money would be immediately re-invested in the economy, but reality dictates that when an individual sees his income increase marginally in the midst of economic crisis with the threat of unemployment looming over his head, he does not go out and buy a new boat! That's exactly what happened! Remember the pleas for people to go out and spend money? Get a nice meal at a restaurant, take that vacation to Mane, buy a motorcycle.
Wow, you could be quoting Keynes. This is precisely why Keynes favored government spending over tax cuts/rebates/what have you for stimulating an economy. Funny that you imply the opposite.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 02:56:27 PM
Wow, you could be quoting Keynes. This is precisely why Keynes favored government spending over tax cuts/rebates/what have you for stimulating an economy. Funny that you imply the opposite.
Have you ever noticed that if their minion is too few in numbers they go silent....talk about a bunch of co dependents. LOL.
Now, with Moody's talking downgrade, the GOP will start to feel some intense heat from their backers. 3 days of significant losses on Wall Street over the brinkmanship and uncertainty add up to massive pressure to get this over with. And McConnell's plan to go through this every six months (for six months at a time?) is a non-starter from every side (way to go Mitch!) Orangeman, Boner, is way out of his league. And faced with a frankenstien problem from hell. The outside agitators that were ginned up to harrass Obama and kill HCR, have taken on a life of their own, and worse for Boner, they have assimilated Cantor, who has designs on Boner's chair.
Cantor Lied About Debt Talks
http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=5384
We can all agree that they all lie...they all lack integrity....including Potus Obuma. :(
Calling people names like Orangeman Boner is just disrespectful. Please try to tone down the rhetoric on this forum.
Hey, I get that terminology off MSNBC.
That's a wrap.
I ignore getting bullied. Buh Bye!
Clown being bullied? That's a laugh.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 14, 2011, 03:19:28 PM
Hey, I get that terminology off MSNBC.
That answers a few questions.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 14, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
Clown being bullied? That's a laugh.
Is that the same as flogging the dolphin?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
Is that the same as flogging the dolphin?
Or the same as "punching the clown".
Quote from: guido911 on July 14, 2011, 06:05:15 PM
Or the same as "punching the clown".
Punching the donkey?
Flogging the dolphin, had not heard that one before.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMhFdWDpzIQT_TVhaBqvFxxsnj-AHjDjmSi3xCfN69RBW7LKXD)
lol because I'm just as guilty.
Can we just resolve this deby ceiling issue and move on? Anyone interested in creating jobs?
IMO if the private sector will not create jobs due to uncertainty then the goverment needs to do it. Put people back to work, put money in their pockets to pay their mortgages and contribute to the economy and buy goods and services.
Jobs
the answer is jobs
A lot of American companies have been quietly doing just that for the last couple of years - creating jobs.
And since the fact is that college educated people have only about 4% unemployment, that means there are lot of blue collar people without jobs. Which are exactly the ones we have been exporting to China for 20 years. So how do you get those back??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
A lot of American companies have been quietly doing just that for the last couple of years - creating jobs.
And since the fact is that college educated people have only about 4% unemployment, that means there are lot of blue collar people without jobs. Which are exactly the ones we have been exporting to China for 20 years. So how do you get those back??
Just not creating enough to outrun apparent layoffs since U/E remains stuck around 9%
Good Times Charlie has just informed us that any cuts to the budget would be raciest!
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6kkU0ZM-TsGcqvAzw6mEs8iMknhj66tNgYZKGY4Isni0VZGNq&t=1)
"And so many African-Americans, for reasons that I do not have to go into, have sought public service as a way of life because of the security that's involved in it. And so, when we talk about cutting the budget and cutting the services that are provided, we're talking about a larger number of minorities that would be losing their jobs as a result of budget cutting. . .Please understand that every time we cut in the budget, we're cutting someone's job, and they will join the helpless and unemployed."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
A lot of American companies have been quietly doing just that for the last couple of years - creating jobs.
And since the fact is that college educated people have only about 4% unemployment, that means there are lot of blue collar people without jobs. Which are exactly the ones we have been exporting to China for 20 years. So how do you get those back??
(http://i.imgur.com/q3FGe.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 15, 2011, 10:42:31 AM
Just not creating enough to outrun apparent layoffs since U/E remains stuck around 9%
Conan,
Exactly. And those are the ones we exported to China.
And Breadburner has his normal abnormal non-contribution - right off the clearance racks at his favorite porn shop. Well, I guess if all you think about is pornography, as in eat, drink, and breath...that is the only means of expression you have left. Poor baby....
Wow! I cringe to think what he puts in his bread, with a mind full of the stuff his if full of!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
A lot of American companies have been quietly doing just that for the last couple of years - creating jobs.
And since the fact is that college educated people have only about 4% unemployment, that means there are lot of blue collar people without jobs. Which are exactly the ones we have been exporting to China for 20 years. So how do you get those back??
Do we even want them back? Or should we also recognize that the blue collar jobs of today are different than they used to be. The good ones that are going to pay well, also require more education.
Germany is one of the top exporters in the world, I think I read something recently saying they were the top exporter even over the US and China. Regardless of their exact ranking, they are much smaller than the US and have a large manufacturing base. They do high quality manufacturing. But I would guess that even much of their "blue collar" jobs require a lot of people with a high level of education.
China, India and other places are going to start competing for even the highly educated/high tech jobs. The US is a piddly 5% of the worlds population. We could have most of our people be college educated, high tech, high quality, etc. workers, if we chose to do so.
So even if your answer was yes, lets get back more blue collar and manufacturing jobs in the US. I don't think we could compete, or would want to compete for the ones that would be low tech/low education "blue collar" jobs that a cro-magnon could do, because imo those would have to be low paying jobs and places like China will out compete us there. The kind of blue collar jobs we would want would be ones that require a more highly educated people. There are exceptions, but over all...
But then we are back to the thing I have been reading about lately which is that there are millions of highly skilled jobs out there that remain unfilled. We might find ourselves quite frustrated in trying to create new, good ,blue collar jobs that require more highly educated people, when we cant even fill the jobs we already have that need those kinds of people.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 01:29:58 PM
Conan,
Exactly. And those are the ones we exported to China.
And Breadburner has his normal abnormal non-contribution - right off the clearance racks at his favorite porn shop. Well, I guess if all you think about is pornography, as in eat, drink, and breath...that is the only means of expression you have left. Poor baby....
Wow! I cringe to think what he puts in his bread, with a mind full of the stuff his if full of!
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn82/awanderlust/Obamawhinner.jpg)
QuoteGermany is one of the top exporters in the world, I think I read something recently saying they were the top exporter even over the US and China. Regardless of their exact ranking, they are much smaller than the US and have a large manufacturing base. They do high quality manufacturing. But I would guess that even much of their "blue collar" jobs require a lot of people with a high level of education.
Much of the manufacturing follows "the German model." That's why it's so successful. The manufacturing jobs in Germany are also very high paying.
Diamler Benz tried to export the German model to the US after it's purchase of Chrysler, but it was a failure.
The Germans let manufacturing employees compete for raises, bonuses and advancement. In the auto industry, each manufacturing segment operates as a team (ex. drive train, chassis, body). Each team is further broken down to the individual level. Teams compete against each other for quality and efficiency and they are rewarded financially.
Originally they were going to re-tool the Chrysler minivan plant, but the Unions went nuts. Diamler tried to negotiate, but got nowhere. The idea of a performance based manufacturing system went against everything unions stand for, so Chrysler continued to suffer and eventually Diamler tucked tail.
The Super Fabulous people may not support President Obama if he cuts anything.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 15, 2011, 01:33:49 PM
Do we even want them back? Or should we also recognize that the blue collar jobs of today are different than they used to be. The good ones that are going to pay well, also require more education.
Germany is one of the top exporters in the world, I think I read something recently saying they were the top exporter even over the US and China. Regardless of their exact ranking, they are much smaller than the US and have a large manufacturing base. They do high quality manufacturing. But I would guess that even much of their "blue collar" jobs require a lot of people with a high level of education.
I don't want the same ones. I want better ones. With the 'more education' model.
Which gets us back to the education discussion. We still have 25% or more drop out from high school. That is a huge problem. Haven't been able to solve that for over 100 years.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 02:27:54 PM
I don't want the same ones. I want better ones. With the 'more education' model.
Which gets us back to the education discussion. We still have 25% or more drop out from high school. That is a huge problem. Haven't been able to solve that for over 100 years.
Depends on what the Chinese let us do. I suppose we could always sell them oil, wheat, corn, and rice. . . you know, pay off our debt.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2011, 02:32:10 PM
Depends on what the Chinese let us do. I suppose we could always sell them oil, wheat, corn, and rice. . . you know, pay off our debt.
Why on earth would we sell them anything to pay off our debt when we can just borrow more money from them to pay back the money we already borrowed from them?
I have a solution to the debt problem. The president could ask the Republicans for a temporary extension to the debt ceiling, in exchange he would form a group of the best and the brightest to come up with a 2012 budget amendment plan that would put us back on track!!!!!!
He could call this group something like the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Once they present their solution, he would promise not to veto a bill from congress based on the reconciliations. It wouldn't even take any time to develop BECAUSE HE ALREADY FREEKIN DID IT!!!!!
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
This is the most irresponsible president we have ever had!!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 15, 2011, 02:38:48 PM
Why on earth would we sell them anything to pay off our debt when we can just borrow more money from them to pay back the money we already borrowed from them?
That's actually a very good question, given that the debt is denominated in US Dollars, which we can devalue at will.
And Gaspar, stop playing the fool. The Fiscal Commission specifically recommended tax increases in addition to budget cuts. Your party is choosing to ignore the Commission's recommendation and go all in against any tax increases whatsoever. And you call
Obama irresponsible. You need to recalibrate your stupid detector.
Quote from: Breadburner on July 15, 2011, 01:54:34 PM
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn82/awanderlust/Obamawhinner.jpg)
You're proving heir's point...
I wonder when the frat brother is going to jump in and save you.
Obama & Carter sound a lot alike.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/history-repeating-listen-to-the-obama-remix-of-jimmy-carters-malaise-speech/
I feel a malaise coming on.
Quote from: guido911 on July 15, 2011, 09:00:51 PM
Obama & Carter sound a lot alike.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/history-repeating-listen-to-the-obama-remix-of-jimmy-carters-malaise-speech/
I feel a malaise coming on.
It's already here. That's why Obama was elected.
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 08:00:00 AM
It's already here. That's why Obama was elected.
We have a malaise so we elect Carter?
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
We have a malaise so we elect Carter?
No, we didn't ever elect Ford....
Guido, are you an economic anarchist? An anarcho-capitalist? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html
Some other TNFer's are but TTC will not allow them to whine about "name calling."
Should I short the market or just buy TBT?
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 16, 2011, 02:48:40 PM
No, we didn't ever elect Ford....
Guido, are you an economic anarchist? An anarcho-capitalist? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html
Some other TNFer's are but TTC will not allow them to whine about "name calling."
Should I short the market or just buy TBT?
Holy crap put the damned pipe down.
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 03:09:31 PM
Holy crap put the damned pipe down.
I knew better than to ask you a serious question.
You obviously remain oblivious to making money in the market...
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
We have a malaise so we elect Carter?
I think it's funny that you're blaming Obama for that which the criminally fraudulent bankers caused. Anything to make it about the guy in office rather than the real culprits.
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2011, 06:20:53 PM
I think it's funny that you're blaming Obama for that which the criminally fraudulent bankers caused. Anything to make it about the guy in office rather than the real culprits.
You're right. Everything Obama's has done to fix the economy has been error-free and he is the greatest president of all time. There, feel better? But then again, there is this from April last year:
Quote"Today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. We are beginning to turn the corner," Obama told workers at a battery components plant in North Carolina, a key battleground state he won in the 2008 presidential election.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/02/us-obama-jobs-idUSTRE6311WC20100402
[
Emphasis added].
Conan was right in calling you out as an essentially an Obama sycophant and apologist.
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
We have a malaise so we elect Carter?
You might remember the Bush II administration, which, by the time it was on the outs, was distrusted by many, had seen two wars, Katrina, and the worst economic calamity in generations under its belt, not to mention a whole slew of secondary and tertiary erosions of American integrity, some of which were real, some of which were exaggerated, and some of which were rumors only. Whether you were a Bush fan or not, you have to agree that by the end of his 8 years, very many people were disillusioned and looking for change.
Remember how Obama marketed himself? That only works if its layered on top of some severe national unhappiness.
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 07:36:56 PM
You might remember the Bush II administration, which, by the time it was on the outs, was distrusted by many, had seen two wars, Katrina, and the worst economic calamity in generations under its belt, not to mention a whole slew of secondary and tertiary erosions of American integrity, some of which were real, some of which were exaggerated, and some of which were rumors only. Whether you were a Bush fan or not, you have to agree that by the end of his 8 years, very many people were disillusioned and looking for change.
Remember how Obama marketed himself? That only works if its layered on top of some severe national unhappiness.
If I didn't know you better, I'd almost think you'd just blamed Katrina on Bush II ;)
Your characterization could also apply just as easily to the final days of the Clinton Administration. Keep in mind, I hold President Clinton in somewhat high regard for the period of prosperity he presided over. I'm of the belief we either were completely ignorant of the leverage involved in the maverick-style investing and growth of the late '90's/early '00's or chose to simply keep permissive policies in place which allowed for things like credit default swaps, etc. to manifest themselves. Let's face it, Clinton and Bush both were pretty friendly to Wall St. They also both knew what sort of leadership resulted in job growth, expansion of private enterprise, and a robust economy.
Regardless of what President Obama walked into, he's not viewed as a pro-business president, therefore I believe a lot of money will remain on the sidelines until after the 2012 election in hopes a more "business friendly" president is elected. I'm just telling you the perception.
Oh, what he ran on? You mean change? There's you a failboat load of fail.
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 06:41:25 PM
You're right. Everything Obama's has done to fix the economy has been error-free and he is the greatest president of all time.
You really enjoy putting words in my mouth. It's a sad that feel the need to make smile up like that.
Once again, Obama did not cause the financial crisis. He did not cause the recession. Could he have done more? Yes. A much larger stimulus package that actually put people to work rather than giving them tax breaks would have been very helpful. Whether it would have been enough, I can't say, but he definitely has not handled the situation as well as could be hoped for. This is partly his own doing and partly the Republicans in Congress doing their best to oppose every policy of his, no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from. They even oppose things that the Republican base would be happy with. This is why people lay more blame for the economy at the feet of Congress than Obama.
Regardless, you seem to be hell bent on blaming Obama for causing a crisis that began before he was even in office. You rail against him instead of the assholes who actually caused the problem. (This includes regulators, bankers, hedge fund managers, mortgage brokers, appraisers, and even a few homeowners) Their fraudulent schemes are what brought us such large losses in wealth, jobs, and growth. Ignore that at our collective peril.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2011, 08:08:02 PM
This is partly his own doing and partly the Republicans in Congress doing their best to oppose every policy of his, no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from. They even oppose things that the Republican base would be happy with. This is why people lay more blame for the economy at the feet of Congress than Obama.
That might fly except he had a Democrat House and Senate up until this last January. Try again.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2011, 08:08:02 PM
You really enjoy putting words in my mouth. It's a sad that feel the need to make smile up like that.
Once again, Obama did not cause the financial crisis. He did not cause the recession. Could he have done more? Yes. A much larger stimulus package that actually put people to work rather than giving them tax breaks would have been very helpful. Whether it would have been enough, I can't say, but he definitely has not handled the situation as well as could be hoped for. This is partly his own doing and partly the Republicans in Congress doing their best to oppose every policy of his, no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from. They even oppose things that the Republican base would be happy with. This is why people lay more blame for the economy at the feet of Congress than Obama.
Regardless, you seem to be hell bent on blaming Obama for causing a crisis that began before he was even in office. You rail against him instead of the assholes who actually caused the problem. (This includes regulators, bankers, hedge fund managers, mortgage brokers, appraisers, and even a few homeowners) Their fraudulent schemes are what brought us such large losses in wealth, jobs, and growth. Ignore that at our collective peril.
You're going to wind up like the guy with the killer bear.....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 12:29:59 PM
That might fly except he had a Democrat House and Senate up until this last January. Try again.
Conan,
He doesn't get it. We really don't care who caused the problem. It's the "problem" that needs to be fixed!
The president spends all of his time playing first the "blame Bush" game, then the "blame the bankers" game, now the "blame the corporate jet owners" game.
Class warfare bullsmile is only good for the campaign trail where you are trying to buy the votes of the folks who don't know no better.
The problems he "inherited" still exist and have gotten significantly worse, because instead of fixing them he sought to continue to dole out the blame. Every solution offered, even by his very own blue ribbon commissions he has brushed aside because they don't fit in with the entitlement mentality he cultivated on the campaign trail.
Nate is an excellent example of that mentality. Nate is obviously a very intelligent man who wants so badly to believe in this complex construction of disjointed economic logic, that he pontificates with ever increasing pain and constipation his ardent belief in the "spirit" of President Obama over the reality of his actions.
Nate,
President Obama assembled the best and the brightest economic minds in 2010 to solve the debt crisis at the celebration of his own congress. They returned an exhaustive report that contained truths that neither party was comfortable in addressing, and warned of the consequence of inaction. He chose not to act! He chose to dismiss the recommendations because they did not agree with HIS goals. Now we are faced with the consequences of HIS decisions, and again we are seeing a decision making process based not on what is best for the country, but what is best for HIM.
He has gone from simple incompetence to danger, but he still has a following willing defend him tooth & nail because they want to believe in the spirit of the man over the reality of his actions.
Gaspar, aside from the blame game, he also wasted utilized his first two years in power working on his legacy issues like health care reform and getting his quid pro quo's all done in the first two years instead of seriously focusing on the economy and meaningful ways to create jobs. I honestly believe he has no idea how a job is created so he keeps punting by spending more on "income security" hoping he can maintain unemployment at no higher than 10%.
I'm curious how badly the poodle's words of: "We own this economy" are going to hurt come Nov. 2012. I can only assume it will be time to blame Bush again and that the Obama administration hasn't bungled the debt crisis even though deficit spending skyrocketed under his watch all while he's never presented a real budget.
Does anyone realize if someone exhibited such incompetence and hubris as CEO of, say, GE or Coca Cola, they would have been fired months ago?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 01:15:24 PM
Conan,
He doesn't get it. We really don't care who caused the problem. It's the "problem" that needs to be fixed!
The president spends all of his time playing first the "blame Bush" game, then the "blame the bankers" game, now the "blame the corporate jet owners" game.
Class warfare bullsmile is only good for the campaign trail where you are trying to buy the votes of the folks who don't know no better.
The problems he "inherited" still exist and have gotten significantly worse, because instead of fixing them he sought to continue to dole out the blame. Every solution offered, even by his very own blue ribbon commissions he has brushed aside because they don't fit in with the entitlement mentality he cultivated on the campaign trail.
Nate is an excellent example of that mentality. Nate is obviously a very intelligent man who wants so badly to believe in this complex construction of disjointed economic logic, that he pontificates with ever increasing pain and constipation his ardent belief in the "spirit" of President Obama over the reality of his actions.
Nate,
President Obama assembled the best and the brightest economic minds in 2010 to solve the debt crisis at the celebration of his own congress. They returned an exhaustive report that contained truths that neither party was comfortable in addressing, and warned of the consequence of inaction. He chose not to act! He chose to dismiss the recommendations because they did not agree with HIS goals. Now we are faced with the consequences of HIS decisions, and again we are seeing a decision making process based not on what is best for the country, but what is best for HIM.
He has gone from simple incompetence to danger, but he still has a following willing defend him tooth & nail because they want to believe in the spirit of the man over the reality of his actions.
(http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/200b2dfdec.gif)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 01:48:06 PM
Gaspar, aside from the blame game, he also wasted utilized his first two years in power working on his legacy issues like health care reform and getting his quid pro quo's all done in the first two years instead of seriously focusing on the economy and meaningful ways to create jobs. I honestly believe he has no idea how a job is created so he keeps punting by spending more on "income security" hoping he can maintain unemployment at no higher than 10%.
I'm curious how badly the poodle's words of: "We own this economy" are going to hurt come Nov. 2012. I can only assume it will be time to blame Bush again and that the Obama administration hasn't bungled the debt crisis even though deficit spending skyrocketed under his watch all while he's never presented a real budget.
Does anyone realize if someone exhibited such incompetence and hubris as CEO of, say, GE or Coca Cola, they would have been fired months ago?
I guess I'm just amazed at how he has hung on to the support of so many. We didn't' see this with Carter. Of course Carter didn't have the cult of personality either.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 01:53:58 PM
I guess I'm just amazed at how he has hung on to the support of so many. We didn't' see this with Carter. Of course Carter didn't have the cult of personality either.
Yeah, poor Carter, he didn't have the Sheriff Bart thing going for him, did he?
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/12/medium_lillianvonshtupe.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2011, 08:08:02 PM
You really enjoy putting words in my mouth. It's a sad that feel the need to make smile up like that.
Once again, Obama did not cause the financial crisis. He did not cause the recession. Could he have done more? Yes. A much larger stimulus package that actually put people to work rather than giving them tax breaks would have been very helpful. Whether it would have been enough, I can't say, but he definitely has not handled the situation as well as could be hoped for. This is partly his own doing and partly the Republicans in Congress doing their best to oppose every policy of his, no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from. They even oppose things that the Republican base would be happy with. This is why people lay more blame for the economy at the feet of Congress than Obama.
Regardless, you seem to be hell bent on blaming Obama for causing a crisis that began before he was even in office. You rail against him instead of the assholes who actually caused the problem. (This includes regulators, bankers, hedge fund managers, mortgage brokers, appraisers, and even a few homeowners) Their fraudulent schemes are what brought us such large losses in wealth, jobs, and growth. Ignore that at our collective peril.
Must. Resist. Urge. Over. Nate's. Mouth. And. Obama's...........recipe for spaghetti. ;D In your laundry list of who is to blame for the crisis, funny you would omit government's role. You know, the government that included Obama since 2006? Apparently our government is just horrible when you disagree with the republicans' positions on issues, and when Bush is president. And since you excluded government as the source of our financial problems, then why does Bush get all the blame for it?
Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 02:02:29 PM
Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
hehe....Prophetic.....!!
I know a large part of our discussion is whether the Bush tax cuts should expire. I found this article and wonder if it's accurate. Because if it is, it seems to indicate that the middle class will get punked.
QuoteBush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.
The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.
The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm
Here is an interesting article explaining the Bush tax cuts and how they impacted AMT.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26310.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 18, 2011, 02:32:33 PM
I know a large part of our discussion is whether the Bush tax cuts should expire. I found this article and wonder if it's accurate. Because if it is, it seems to indicate that the middle class will get punked.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm
Here is an interesting article explaining the Bush tax cuts and how they impacted AMT.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26310.html
Even if the increase in taxes was just for the folks in the top two brackets it still translates into middle and lower class increases. Most of those in the upper bracket operate businesses and not to beat a dead horse, but businesses don't pay taxes. They build that price into their margin.
Raise taxes on my boss, and my customers get to pay more. No matter where you focus tax increases it affects everyone negatively and thus the economy. When the Bush tax structure expires in 2013 we will see all brackets increase, but the evil rich will get the brunt of it. In corporate terms that's not that far off, so they will start recouping that money from you as soon as they are assured their taxes will increase.
If the administration decides to levy more taxes on them and makes it sooner than later, we will see an increase in the cost of goods almost immediately.
As a professor of mine used to say, "there are no real tax brackets." When the government taxes, no matter who it taxes, we all pay equally. Tax brackets are simply a way to get the poor and the stupid to pay more taxes.
Currently the top 20% in this country pay 80% of the taxes, they do this by taking it from the rest of us in the form of profit. It's convenient because it makes the poor lobby for their own tax increases.
I think the irrelevancy of the tax brackets can be found in the fact that almost half of us pay NO federal income tax, Gasman. That's what pi$$es me off. Poor people paying nothing demanding others pay more.
Quote from: guido911 on July 18, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
I think the irrelevancy of the tax brackets can be found in the fact that almost half of us pay NO federal income tax, Gasman. That's what pi$$es me off. Poor people paying nothing demanding others pay more.
There are two kinds of poor. Those who have fallen, and those who have fallen and can't get up. The latter becomes the unfortunate slaves of the state.
I think everyone should pay an equal tax rate. Say 23%.
The man who makes $200,000 a year will pay $43,000 a year and enjoy a lower tax burden.
The man who makes $50,000 a year will pay $11,000 a year and be angry about paying more taxes but the cost of nearly everything he purchases will be 13% less.
The man who makes 10,000 a year will pay $2,300, but he too will pay 13% less for goods and services, and will continue to receive government assistance.
The government will take in more revenue, at a much higher rate than 18% of GDP.
This will never happen because the vast majority (the half that pays no taxes) does not possess the education to understand such a plan. The man who makes $10,000 a year will scream "why do I pay the same amount of taxes as the rich people?" and hungry politicians will say "YEAH!"
My favorite so far from of all places MSNBC
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/_archive/Cartoons/ss-110714-weekly/ss-110714-weekly-05.ss_full.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 12:29:59 PM
That might fly except he had a Democrat House and Senate up until this last January. Try again.
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cloture.jpg)
Doesn't help when you need 60 votes to pass and a caucus that isn't in near-lockstep like the Republicans generally are when it comes down to a vote. And you don't even have 60 votes, aside from a six month period at the end of 2009.
And Gaspar, Obama inherited a declining GDP and rapidly increasing unemployment. Neither of those things are true now. I don't know how you can say he's made things worse unless you think he was elected in 2006. Now, his half measures have failed to bring about significant
improvement, but they have been enough to keep the situation in a state of quasi-stability. (great if you're college educated and white, not so much if you're not)
P.S. The 111th Congress wasn't over when that chart was made..I'll see if I can find something more current. Until then, the 111th Congress had three less cloture petitions filed than the 110th.
Quote from: nathanm on July 18, 2011, 07:13:41 PM
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cloture.jpg)
Doesn't help when you need 60 votes to pass and a caucus that isn't in near-lockstep like the Republicans generally are when it comes down to a vote. And you don't even have 60 votes, aside from a six month period at the end of 2009.
And Gaspar, Obama inherited a declining GDP and rapidly increasing unemployment. Neither of those things are true now. I don't know how you can say he's made things worse unless you think he was elected in 2006. Now, his half measures have failed to bring about significant improvement, but they have been enough to keep the situation in a state of quasi-stability. (great if you're college educated and white, not so much if you're not)
P.S. The 111th Congress wasn't over when that chart was made..I'll see if I can find something more current. Until then, the 111th Congress had three less cloture petitions filed than the 110th.
Funny, those lockstep GOP's didn't keep Obamacare from passing, now did they? You also conveniently leave out the fact there are TWO houses of legislature.
Keep diggin' Watson.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 08:03:33 PM
Funny, those lockstep GOP's didn't keep Obamacare from passing, now did they? You also conveniently leave out the fact there are TWO houses of legislature.
You conveniently forget that legislation must pass both Houses to become law. And the only reason HCR was done is that they tacked it on to a spending bill so they didn't have to get 60 votes, which they never could have. It was pretty much the same way the Bush tax cuts worked, which is why they had to be reauthorized after 10 years and why HCR will have to be reauthorized. Bills passed using the budget reconciliation rules are time limited.
Quote from: nathanm on July 18, 2011, 08:16:18 PM
You conveniently forget that legislation must pass both Houses to become law. And the only reason HCR was done is that they tacked it on to a spending bill so they didn't have to get 60 votes, which they never could have. It was pretty much the same way the Bush tax cuts worked, which is why they had to be reauthorized after 10 years and why HCR will have to be reauthorized. Bills passed using the budget reconciliation rules are time limited.
Thanks for the civics lesson. Mr. Thomas at Jenks actually had a better grasp on it, but I do appreciate the effort at a refresher course.
And again, you prove the point POTUS Obama had the deck stacked in his favor for two years as well stacked as it could get and what did he do? He got his legacy issues and quid pro quos, which got him elected, passed while ignoring issues which were far more important to individual Americans and corporate (and small business) America like jobs and the economy. He was diddling with issues which would not even take full-effect for several more years. Instead, he sold his HCR as being some sort of panacea for the economy and runaway deficit spending all while increasing deficit spending and (to stay on topic) kept adding to our debt on his "income security" programs.
Keep on apologizing and making excuses. It looks good on you.
Uh, his income security programs? What exactly would those be? I seem to remember a whole lot of noise (and a lot of bills passed by Congress) on jobs and the economy throughout 2009 and well into 2010. I believe there's a partial list on whitehouse.gov. It has gotten pretty quiet on that front this year, though.
More on topic, if we look to Japan's similar problems after their real estate bubble popped, we'll find that cutting government will paradoxically increase deficits.
(http://jamiedubs.com/fuckflickr/data/meme-prints/web/leave-britney-alone.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 12:17:05 AM
Uh, his income security programs? What exactly would those be? I seem to remember a whole lot of noise (and a lot of bills passed by Congress) on jobs and the economy throughout 2009 and well into 2010. I believe there's a partial list on whitehouse.gov. It has gotten pretty quiet on that front this year, though.
More on topic, if we look to Japan's similar problems after their real estate bubble popped, we'll find that cutting government will paradoxically increase deficits.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2011, 04:33:29 PM
Perhaps this graphic will dispel Gaspar's notion about the "gigantic" spending increases we've supposedly seen from Obama.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbXiFKpobBI/AAAAAAAAAfo/0eVTJ_mKHM4/safetynet_spend.jpg)
Yeah, income security is up, which is exactly what should happen when unemployment is high.
Ringing a bell yet? I believe that was your way of proving that Obama has been so much more fiscally responsible since his spending is lower than his predecessor
except on entitlement spending which has exploded because President Obama in his utopian world has no clue how jobs are created.Explain how deficits would paradoxically increase if government is cut. That's some serious economic gymnastics there. If the government spends less money as the economy ramps back up and revenues increase due to increased productivity and GDP I fail to see how this is possible. You and others like you keep trying to compare what is happening here with economies like Greece, Germany, Ireland, or Japan without considering many variables which do not apply to the U.S. economy or monetary system. You need to spend less time with your head in Google and reading Krugman and get out into the real world from time-to-time.
No one denies austerity is painful. About the only lesson we can and should take from other countries is dependence on government simply becomes unsustainable at some point. You simply cannot borrow and borrow and borrow beyond the productivity means of an economy forever without eventually having to pay the piper. That time appears to be now. Unfortunately no one wants to live with the political consequences. Conservatives will be excoriated if taxes are raised, liberals face the same issue if spending is cut on anything but the military. It's unpopular. We need 535 individuals with zero concern about their own job security to step up, compromise, and do the right thing for America.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 09:09:31 AM
Ringing a bell yet? I believe that was your way of proving that Obama has been so much more fiscally responsible since his spending is lower than his predecessor except on entitlement spending which has exploded because President Obama in his utopian world has no clue how jobs are created.
I see, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, SNAP, and the rest are all
Obama's programs. Talk about gymnastics! ::)
Quote
Explain how deficits would paradoxically increase if government is cut. That's some serious economic gymnastics there. If the government spends less money as the economy ramps back up and revenues increase due to increased productivity and GDP I fail to see how this is possible. You and others like you keep trying to compare what is happening here with economies like Greece, Germany, Ireland, or Japan without considering many variables which do not apply to the U.S. economy or monetary system. You need to spend less time with your head in Google and reading Krugman and get out into the real world from time-to-time.
Um, the contemplated action is not cutting government once the economy ramps up. Obama and the Republicans are both proposing to cut the deficit right now. All that will do is put more people out of work, which will reduce tax receipts, which will increase the budget deficit. It's blindingly simple if you aren't approaching the problem ideologically. Not only is it logically easy to comprehend, but history bears this out. It happened three times in Japan between 1995 and 2005. It has already happened in Greece. It even happened in the US during the Depression. On what planet does putting people out of work not reduce tax receipts?
We all agree that both businesses and individuals are primarily in debt paying mode right now. Money that goes to pay debt is useless for employing people unless it is being lent back out by the banks, which it is largely not right now. They're too busy investing in commodities on their own book to lend money. Deficit spending by the government increases the rate at which business recovers by increasing its income.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 10:29:26 AM
I see, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, SNAP, and the rest are all Obama's programs. Talk about gymnastics! ::)
Um, the contemplated action is not cutting government once the economy ramps up. Obama and the Republicans are both proposing to cut the deficit right now. All that will do is put more people out of work, which will reduce tax receipts, which will increase the budget deficit. It's blindingly simple if you aren't approaching the problem ideologically. Not only is it logically easy to comprehend, but history bears this out. It happened three times in Japan between 1995 and 2005. It has already happened in Greece. It even happened in the US during the Depression. On what planet does putting people out of work not reduce tax receipts?
We all agree that both businesses and individuals are primarily in debt paying mode right now. Money that goes to pay debt is useless for employing people unless it is being lent back out by the banks, which it is largely not right now. They're too busy investing in commodities on their own book to lend money. Deficit spending by the government increases the rate at which business recovers by increasing its income.
What gymnastics? You provided a graph showing the drastic increase in income security which Obama has repeatedly extended. Sheesh, are you arguing with data YOU provided now?
Since you are so brilliant on matters of economics, why are you not consulting with Congress or the President or people much more learned on the subject of deficits than yourself? There's plenty of waste to trim without creating mass unemployment, if they would simply start incrementally and keep going incrementally. Aside from that, if government jobs are lost, ultimately the cost of unemployment benefits are less costly than salaries and pension contributions as well as other bennies they receive. As well if it's a service the government really needs, they can contract with a private entrepreneur to still receive said services which helps employ people in the private sector.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
Since you are so brilliant on matters of economics, why are you not consulting with Congress or the President or people much more learned on the subject of deficits than yourself?
Wouldn't amount to anything. The president brushes aside such advice. He's running a one man band.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2011, 11:07:23 AM
Wouldn't amount to anything. The president brushes aside such advice. He's running a one man band.
(http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01156ed5c3d4970c-pi)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
What gymnastics? You provided a graph showing the drastic increase in income security which Obama has repeatedly extended. Sheesh, are you arguing with data YOU provided now?
Since you are so brilliant on matters of economics, why are you not consulting with Congress or the President or people much more learned on the subject of deficits than yourself? There's plenty of waste to trim without creating mass unemployment, if they would simply start incrementally and keep going incrementally. Aside from that, if government jobs are lost, ultimately the cost of unemployment benefits are less costly than salaries and pension contributions as well as other bennies they receive. As well if it's a service the government really needs, they can contract with a private entrepreneur to still receive said services which helps employ people in the private sector.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEEW_PrKu_nqDlPEx-ypr1rnTYV-gA4duq87LDgtqe-6F7-FDdpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
What gymnastics? You provided a graph showing the drastic increase in income security which Obama has repeatedly extended. Sheesh, are you arguing with data YOU provided now?
Since you are so brilliant on matters of economics, why are you not consulting with Congress or the President or people much more learned on the subject of deficits than yourself? There's plenty of waste to trim without creating mass unemployment, if they would simply start incrementally and keep going incrementally. Aside from that, if government jobs are lost, ultimately the cost of unemployment benefits are less costly than salaries and pension contributions as well as other bennies they receive. As well if it's a service the government really needs, they can contract with a private entrepreneur to still receive said services which helps employ people in the private sector.
Once again, I was disputing your characterization of increasing expenditures on automatic social programs as something that Obama (or even the current or previous Congress) is specifically responsible for. Spending has increased on income security, as well it should have when millions are out of work.
The entire point of the chart was to dispute someone's earlier assertion that Obama and the previous Congress caused the massive budget deficits we presently face. Not that it matters, but if we can't even remember how we got where we are, how can we possibly expect to get out?
I really like the passive-aggressive snark, though. It was absolutely delightful. Moving on, you're only considering first order effects when you say that it's cheaper to let people go. Those people will indeed be eligible for unemployment, which you rightly consider. However, we should delve deeper. Not only will they be unemployed, thus find themselves on the dole and costing us yet more in UI outlays (or whatever system the Feds use, I don't actually know), but they will also pay less income tax, thus reducing revenue, although we're still not at a net loss on letting them go, so let's continue. Those newly unemployed workers will have to cut back, which reduces the amount of money being paid to others that would then be taxed. And those people have to cut back, and so on down the line. With each foregone transaction GDP shrinks, taxes that would have been collected are not, and we end up spending that much more on social programs.
It's tantamount to a voluntary deflationary spiral.
And if that isn't enough of a slap in the face, we're doing this at a time when we can get paid for borrowing money. (real interest rates were
negative out to 5 years on Treasuries last I looked) Are we so out of ideas that we can't think of anything to do with free money? Increase the growth rate only slightly and we'll have trillions more in the pot to pay off the debt by the end of the decade.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you, though. If you refuse to believe that this sort of thing has happened in the past despite records clearly indicating that it has, nothing I can say will change your mind.
One more thing, though: Why on Earth would you propose spending
more money to provide services than we already do. Private enterprise doesn't magically make employees less expensive, especially where private enterprise and government intersect. The employee, certainly, isn't better off getting paid indirectly. I don't think I'd be better off, either, what with adding a middle man where there was none before.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 11:47:09 AM
Once again, I was disputing your characterization of increasing expenditures on automatic social programs as something that Obama (or even the current or previous Congress) is specifically responsible for. Spending has increased on income security, as well it should have when millions are out of work.
The entire point of the chart was to dispute someone's earlier assertion that Obama and the previous Congress caused the massive budget deficits we presently face. Not that it matters, but if we can't even remember how we got where we are, how can we possibly expect to get out?
I really like the passive-aggressive snark, though. It was absolutely delightful. Moving on, you're only considering first order effects when you say that it's cheaper to let people go. Those people will indeed be eligible for unemployment, which you rightly consider. However, we should delve deeper. Not only will they be unemployed, thus find themselves on the dole and costing us yet more in UI outlays (or whatever system the Feds use, I don't actually know), but they will also pay less income tax, thus reducing revenue, although we're still not at a net loss on letting them go, so let's continue. Those newly unemployed workers will have to cut back, which reduces the amount of money being paid to others that would then be taxed. And those people have to cut back, and so on down the line. With each foregone transaction GDP shrinks, taxes that would have been collected are not, and we end up spending that much more on social programs.
It's tantamount to a voluntary deflationary spiral.
And if that isn't enough of a slap in the face, we're doing this at a time when we can get paid for borrowing money. (real interest rates were negative out to 5 years on Treasuries last I looked) Are we so out of ideas that we can't think of anything to do with free money? Increase the growth rate only slightly and we'll have trillions more in the pot to pay off the debt by the end of the decade.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you, though. If you refuse to believe that this sort of thing has happened in the past despite records clearly indicating that it has, nothing I can say will change your mind.
One more thing, though: Why on Earth would you propose spending more money to provide services than we already do. Private enterprise doesn't magically make employees less expensive, especially where private enterprise and government intersect. The employee, certainly, isn't better off getting paid indirectly. I don't think I'd be better off, either, what with adding a middle man where there was none before.
It's quite simple Nate, private sector jobs don't carry high benefit costs such as pensions and there are higher stakes for better productivity. Private sector employees are typically remunerated based on skill and merit which generally rewards productivity and efficiency unlike tenure-based compensation schemes which can protect inefficient, jaded employees who are doing nothing more than sucking a paycheck. Also, the employee is taxed, that is a percent of revenue which comes back to the government in addition to a percent of profit the employer pays as taxes. As well, when the government contracts with a private sector contractor, they may actually be splitting a salary with one or several other of the companies clients.
i.e. Let's say the government has an annual payroll cost of $130,000 per year for a staff accountant who ends up doing 20 hours a week of actual productivity. They can outsource that position to a company which only makes money when it's billing for it's time, so that accountant in the private sector can actually be billed at 40 hours, doing 20 hours of work on government projects and the other 1/2 doing work for other clients.
Certainly that is not the case in every instance, but illustrates how this principal works and why the cost does not necessarily have to increase on the part of the government when they seek outsourcing opportunities.
And honestly, I still cannot fathom how you can present a chart showing skyrocketing deficit spending then pretending it does not exist. OAS on full display.
Cut, cap and balance passes in the house. Boren (D-OK) voted yes.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0WqoG4KXlrV2NIPgBPBAxc574zw?docId=47d94ea2cdce411c9046ba064549f27d
Now, on to the Senate where the measure will probably fail.
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
Cut, cap and balance passes in the house. Boren (D-OK) voted yes.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0WqoG4KXlrV2NIPgBPBAxc574zw?docId=47d94ea2cdce411c9046ba064549f27d
Now, on to the Senate where the measure will probably fail.
Ya think? This is just the Tea Partiers getting on record what they want done. Wasting time.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 12:38:03 PM
And honestly, I still cannot fathom how you can present a chart showing skyrocketing deficit spending then pretending it does not exist. OAS on full display.
What. The. love? Do you even
read my posts? I know they're long, but if you have trouble with that, say something and I'll try to be more concise. At no point have I denied that we do in fact have a large budget deficit.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 12:50:41 AM
What. The. love? Do you even read my posts? I know they're long, but if you have trouble with that, say something and I'll try to be more concise. At no point have I denied that we do in fact have a large budget deficit.
You completely deny Obama's culpability on the issue when it's plainly obvious. So he's not increased discretionary spending on "everything else". Give him a cookie.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 08:43:24 AM
You completely deny Obama's culpability on the issue when it's plainly obvious. So he's not increased discretionary spending on "everything else". Give him a cookie.
Income security programs and Medicaid aren't discretionary spending.
In my mind Nathan they become discretionary when decisions are made to change the rules and extend time frames...at least when it comes to income security.
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
In my mind Nathan they become discretionary when decisions are made to change the rules and extend time frames...at least when it comes to income security.
Don't bother. He's a master at creating his own reality.
Either that or he's trying to be a literalist.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 10:06:02 AM
Either that or he's trying to be a literalist.
Either words have meaning or they don't. If they don't, what the hell are we all doing here?
Reagan Claimed Debt Ceiling Default 'Threatens Those Who Rely on Social Security, Veterans Benefits' – Was He Lying, Too?
Jon Ponder | Jul. 20, 2011
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/20/reagan-claimed-debt-ceiling-default-threatens-social-security-veterans-benefits/
Ignorance + beligerance = House Republican :)
And just to illustrate why it is I harp on the defense budget so much:
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/3-5-08bud-f1.jpg)
No argument here on the need to cut defense.... anyone?
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 11:48:44 AM
No argument here on the need to cut defense.... anyone?
Hell, even the military agrees and has tried to, but defense contractors have reps running interference for them in Congress.
Considering the response so far from every corner has been: "You cut your pet projects but leave mine alone!" can everyone agree that across the board cuts on federal expenditures appears the only logical way to remove politics from the issue?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 11:51:25 AM
Hell, even the military agrees and has tried to, but defense contractors have reps running interference for them in Congress.
Considering the response so far from every corner has been: "You cut your pet projects but leave mine alone!" can everyone agree that across the board cuts on federal expenditures appears the only logical way to remove politics from the issue?
Pair it with repealing the Bush tax cuts in their entirety and make it contingent upon economic recovery and I'm perfectly fine with that. Once the economy recovers, we need to cut government spending to avoid inflation anyway.
I don't think that is the best way to do it Conan but in the absence of the ability to have any realistic conversation about prioritizing spending then across the board is the best starting place. There will be the requisite claims about gutting certain programs but why should we not ask government managers to make the same decisions that the private market makes. Figure out who is most important to you in getting your job done and keep them. Unfortunately I suspect that across the board cuts will be met with a decision making process driven primarily by tenure and not job performance.
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
I don't think that is the best way to do it Conan but in the absence of the ability to have any realistic conversation about prioritizing spending then across the board is the best starting place. There will be the requisite claims about gutting certain programs but why should we not ask government managers to make the same decisions that the private market makes. Figure out who is most important to you in getting your job done and keep them. Unfortunately I suspect that across the board cuts will be met with a decision making process driven primarily by tenure and not job performance.
+1
According to a USA Today article published yesterday only 0.55% of government workers are fired each year for poor performance, compared to 3% in the private sector.
During the last couple of years some government agencies experienced no downsizing or attrician while the public sector withered. The 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn't lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.
The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years.
The gist of the article was that you are more likely to die at your desk at a federal job than be replaced for incompetence. In some positions, I would also assume that it would probably take several weeks for your co-workers to find you dead at your desk! :D
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
I don't think that is the best way to do it Conan but in the absence of the ability to have any realistic conversation about prioritizing spending then across the board is the best starting place. There will be the requisite claims about gutting certain programs but why should we not ask government managers to make the same decisions that the private market makes. Figure out who is most important to you in getting your job done and keep them. Unfortunately I suspect that across the board cuts will be met with a decision making process driven primarily by tenure and not job performance.
You're right, it's not the best way to go about it, but the alternative looks to be a major pissing contest which has made no progress. It does't even have to be deep cuts initially. Start incrementally and keep going over time. I was against the SQ 744 issue for the very reason that it inserted blind cuts into every other state department for the sake of education without taking anything into consideration other than SQ 744 would have to be funded at ANY cost.
One issue I've noticed in my time contracting with government at various levels is the feds don't have a very good system in place to reward cost-cutting or efficiency-raising efforts. Each department head is a little potentate and they are reluctant to expose incompetence and waste because they don't want to lose funding from their department. On a social basis, some departments get pretty insular and the workers tend to look out for each other. I've seen needless end of year spending on supplies which can't possibly be used for years because, as I've been told, if they don't spend it, they lose it from next year's budget. These are policies which encourage waste upon more waste.
Go to a government auction web site and see how cheaply our government gets rid of lightly and unused surplus supplies and equipment. I guess I'm in a more unique position to see the wasteful side of government. Sure, it's great to be able to do business with them at all levels, but there are things as a taxpayer which totally rankle me.
Let's quit the "why can't we all just get along?" fantasy and get real. The repubs have put forth and voted on two plans to tackle this debt problem (Ryan budget and cut, cap, & balance). Where is the dems plan?
Quote from: guido911 on July 20, 2011, 01:59:30 PM
Let's quit the "why can't we all just get along?" fantasy and get real. The repubs have put forth and voted on two plans to tackle this debt problem (Ryan budget and cut, cap, & balance). Where is the dems plan?
Soak the rich.
Have you forgotten already?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 02:13:16 PM
Soak the rich.
Have you forgotten already?
I did. Sorry. Moving along now...
The Dems plan? Just sign the bill so you can see whats in it.
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 11:48:44 AM
No argument here on the need to cut defense.... anyone?
Yes we could try this....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 20, 2011, 03:07:05 PM
Yes we could try this....
All I could keep thinking is: "Man this is going to end poorly if the safety isn't engaged"
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 10:50:34 AM
Either words have meaning or they don't. If they don't, what the hell are we all doing here?
Good luck with that. I've tried in a few instances and got nowhere. I don't remember at the moment if you were one of the members telling me to ease up.
Gaspar, over 600,000 government jobs have gone away in the last two years. (more than that if you count temporary census workers as the high, rather than the business cycle peak) Even the feds are down from their (late, thanks to stimulus) peak by about 30,000 workers.
USPS, which you regularly complain about, is down over 150,000 workers since 2009.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Gaspar, over 600,000 government jobs have gone away in the last two years. (more than that if you count temporary census workers as the high, rather than the business cycle peak) Even the feds are down from their (late, thanks to stimulus) peak by about 30,000 workers.
USPS, which you regularly complain about, is down over 150,000 workers since 2009.
Where are you getting your stats?
Are those 600,000 all from the federal payroll or state and local as well? If the feds had sloughed that many jobs, you'd think the White House PR machine would be all over this in trying to prove that under Obama they've gotten serious about cutting government spending.
This article claims 11,666 federal jobs were lost last fiscal year.
"In the budget year that ended on September 30, more than 11,660 government workers were let go. The government employs roughly 2.1 million people."
http://www.job.com/career-advice/employment-news/study-federal-workers-have-exceedingly-high-job-security-with-death-more-likely-than-firing--$438031523-1313.html
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Gaspar, over 600,000 government jobs have gone away in the last two years. (more than that if you count temporary census workers as the high, rather than the business cycle peak) Even the feds are down from their (late, thanks to stimulus) peak by about 30,000 workers.
USPS, which you regularly complain about, is down over 150,000 workers since 2009.
And the bucking mail is still getting here on time......Whats that tell ya.....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 20, 2011, 11:10:36 PM
And the bucking mail is still getting here on time......Whats that tell ya.....
Just about all I need to know about this bloated, taxpayer-funded jobs program.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 11:10:01 PM
Where are you getting your stats?
Are those 600,000 all from the federal payroll or state and local as well? If the feds had sloughed that many jobs, you'd think the White House PR machine would be all over this in trying to prove that under Obama they've gotten serious about cutting government spending.
It's overall government sector employment, which includes state and local governments. I specifically stated the number of federal jobs lost.
And I get it where I get most of my data; by way of FRED, but from the government agencies tasked with collecting it.
Quote from: Breadburner on July 20, 2011, 11:10:36 PM
And the bucking mail is still getting here on time......Whats that tell ya.....
It tells me that postal mail volume is down dramatically from its peak around 2000 and that the USPS is continuing to modernize its processes to require fewer employees.
Then why post that point in this thread, Nate? The impression you left was that the debt problem had something to do with it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
Then why post that point in this thread, Nate? The impression you left was that the debt problem had something to do with it.
To counterbalance Gaspar's rant with the full story. Total government receipts (this includes taxes, fees, seignorage, and everything else) are about 27% of GDP right now. Basically we're right about where we were in the late 60s relative to GDP.
Scary, right? We definitely had big government by the late 60s!
Well, not exactly. Federal receipts are currently standing at 16.5% of GDP, far below the post-WWII average.
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
Then why post that point in this thread, Nate? The impression you left was that the debt problem had something to do with it.
He sure has to bury alot of turds.....
It actually does have something to do with debt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20081162-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20081162-503544.html)
QuoteThe steady loss of revenue has prompted the Postal Service to evaluate possible cost-saving measures. Donahoe said the USPS is on track to miss a Sept. 30 payment of $5.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury that would allow the Uncle Sam to "pre-fund retired health benefits" of postal workers.
I know there will be arguments about this but where else would the funding come from to provide those benefits? That will increase the debt.
So layoffs, closings of USPS offices, less days of operation.
No idea about the 600,000.
It's interesting. A few months ago I was in Donaldson Station at 14th & Terrace Dr. and there was a sign on the wall which said the postal service did not operate on tax payer funds or on tax money, something along those lines.
If they operate at a loss, where do they get funds to keep operating then?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2011, 09:24:56 AM
It's interesting. A few months ago I was in Donaldson Station at 14th & Terrace Dr. and there was a sign on the wall which said the postal service did not operate on tax payer funds or on tax money, something along those lines.
If they operate at a loss, where do they get funds to keep operating then?
Taxpayers covered 23.3% of postal costs in 1971. A subsidy of that level in 2007 would have been approximately $16.9 billion. But direct subsidies to the USPS were phased out between 1972 and 1982. Today the USPS is funded entirely by revenues from postage.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on July 21, 2011, 09:54:09 AM
Taxpayers covered 23.3% of postal costs in 1971. A subsidy of that level in 2007 would have been approximately $16.9 billion. But direct subsidies to the USPS were phased out between 1972 and 1982. Today the USPS is funded entirely by revenues from postage.
Now they just lose billions of dollars every year, and don't have to pay it back because they are protected by legislation that lets them borrow from the government at ridiculous rates and continue to borrow.
The year before last their deficit was $7 billion. They cut 100,000 workers. Last year's deficit has just been reported at $8.5 billion.
They are government, if not in name, in style!
The ads you are seeing are from the Union. The post office will have to release several hundred thousand more workers and suspend some routes, and the unions want to get in front of the message.
"Hey, we tried! We spent millions of your dues to convince the public that you were a money makin machine!"
Quote from: Gaspar on July 21, 2011, 03:14:03 PM
Now they just lose billions of dollars every year, and don't have to pay it back because they are protected by legislation that lets them borrow from the government at ridiculous rates and continue to borrow.
Hmm, you do understand the difference between a loan and a gift, right?
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2011, 03:17:45 PM
Hmm, you do understand the difference between a loan and a gift, right?
Shhh! If you let the union guys hear you call it a gift, you could lose a knee!
Good news!
So far this year they have only lost an additional $567,747,000.
They may actually hit -$10 Billion by the end of the year.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2011, 03:17:45 PM
Hmm, you do understand the difference between a loan and a gift, right?
Yep.
A loan is when I borrow money from my brother.
A gift is when my brother borrows money from me.
Or your equivalent.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 21, 2011, 09:16:16 PM
Yep.
A loan is when I borrow money from my brother.
A gift is when my brother borrows money from me.
Or your equivalent.
;D
Sage-like.
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2011, 09:21:31 PM
Sage-like.
Add some parsley, ..., rosemary, and thyme and you could be a songwriter.
:D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 21, 2011, 09:16:16 PM
A loan is when I borrow money from my brother.
A gift is when my brother borrows money from me.
Or your equivalent.
Definitely been there. :P
In a resounding "Screw You" to the american people, the Senate voted to table the Cut, Cap & Balance bill.
If you would like to read the text of the legislation without the filter of the media, you can find it here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2560ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2560ih.pdf
It's short, simple and it freezes spending at 18% of GDP reflecting the historic level for revenue. I can't think of anything smarter that we could do.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
In a resounding "Screw You" to the american people, the Senate voted to table the Cut, Cap & Balance bill.
If you would like to read the text of the legislation without the filter of the media, you can find it here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2560ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2560ih.pdf
It's short, simple and it freezes spending at 18% of GDP reflecting the historic level for revenue. I can't think of anything smarter that we could do.
Just as Senator Coburn was predicting on the floor of the Senate yesterday, the Senate "boldly" voted: "no opinion"
Nice work dildos. He's right, no one has the courage in the Senate to vote anymore, instead they block and table legislation because they are all too damned absorbed with job security for themselves.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
I can't think of anything smarter that we could do.
Unsurprisingly, I'm not terribly interested in doing that given that I don't trust the Congress to vote to exceed the cap when it's truly necessary, especially with a 2/3rds majority required. I'd prefer to institute IRV or some other alternative voting mechanism that could make third parties viable. As long as the current two have a chokehold on everything, we're just going to get more of the same.
Think harder, please.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 22, 2011, 11:00:15 AM
Tell us what you really think.
My thought exactly. Still, pretty funny.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 02:11:48 PM
Unsurprisingly, I'm not terribly interested in doing that given that I don't trust the Congress to vote to exceed the cap when it's truly necessary, especially with a 2/3rds majority required. I'd prefer to institute IRV or some other alternative voting mechanism that could make third parties viable. As long as the current two have a chokehold on everything, we're just going to get more of the same.
Think harder, please.
So. . .the concept of an imagined cap on spending is valuable, while the imposition of an actual cap is not?
I like the idea of congress having to think "hey we can't do that because we don't have the money."
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2011, 03:24:32 PM
So. . .the concept of an imagined cap on spending is valuable, while the imposition of an actual cap is not?
I like the idea of congress having to think "hey we can't do that because we don't have the money."
That always worked for me when I didn't have a credit card or checkbook on me.
What they've been doing is akin to writing hot checks without any consequences for years.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 04:12:22 PM
That always worked for me when I didn't have a credit card or checkbook on me.
What they've been doing is akin to writing hot checks without any consequences for years.
That's against the law? Uh-oh. Awaiting another breaking news "blame Bush" statement from Obama momentarily. Any takers on the odds he does blame Bush AGAIN?
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker John Boehner has broken off talks with President Barack Obama on getting a budget deal to avert a government default.
The Ohio Republican says the president wants to raise taxes too high and won't make "fundamental changes" to benefit programs such as Medicare.
Top GOP aides say Boehner will now work with Senate leaders on an alternative aimed at averting a market-rattling, first-ever federal default.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN_BOEHNER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-22-18-01-17
I love the hyperbole in my emphasized part of that article.
Listening to Obama's presser and his whining that apparently Boehner didn't just drop everything to return his phone call earlier today. He's also still talking about not paying our troops and grandma. This is what happens when you elect someone who has no experience in leadership. We have in the white house the pouter-in-chief.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRE37BNSYV4iQmtlzRF23M51W9ueftFs_BsA7krkLCESkRj4Id6)
Quote from: guido911 on July 22, 2011, 05:20:17 PM
Listening to Obama's presser and his whining that apparently Boehner didn't just drop everything to return his phone call earlier today. He's also still talking about not paying our troops and grandma. This is what happens when you elect someone who has no experience in leadership. We have in the white house the pouter-in-chief.
Plenty of pouting from Congressional Republicans, too. Especially the assholes in the house who refuse to even consider some revenue increases. And somebody's trying to get a big tax cut written in.
YOU not so smart GOP/Teabaggers have short memories.....last time you stalled progress on this level Newt got Newtered and Bill Clinton and his party reaped the rewards.
This is fun standing on the sidelines and watching a sellout of the TP....
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
Plenty of pouting from Congressional Republicans, too. Especially the assholes in the house who refuse to even consider some revenue increases. And somebody's trying to get a big tax cut written in.
What increases are you blathering about and where is Obama's damned plan? Tell me right now what exactly Obama wants to do other than raise taxes.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 22, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
YOU not so smart GOP/Teabaggers have short memories.....last time you stalled progress on this level Newt got Newtered and Bill Clinton and his party reaped the rewards.
This is fun standing on the sidelines and watching a sellout of the TP....
The tea party was around in mid 90s? Who knew?
Quote from: guido911 on July 22, 2011, 05:55:34 PM
What increases are you blathering about and where is Obama's damned plan? Tell me right now what exactly Obama wants to do other than raise taxes.
You tell me exactly what Boehner wants to do..
Oh, wait, you can't. He hasn't said specifically what he wants. And the tax cut I'm talking about is another tax holiday on repatriated profits. Surely we can all agree that another damn tax cut isn't what we need right now. They've been coming fast and furious and haven't done much, if at all. If you guys are so concerned about the debt, it seems like we oughtn't cut taxes until we've got it paid off.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 06:22:14 PM
You tell me exactly what Boehner wants to do..
Oh, wait, you can't. He hasn't said specifically what he wants. And the tax cut I'm talking about is another tax holiday on repatriated profits. Surely we can all agree that another damn tax cut isn't what we need right now. They've been coming fast and furious and haven't done much, if at all. If you guys are so concerned about the debt, it seems like we oughtn't cut taxes until we've got it paid off.
That whole Ryan budget and cut, cap, and balance which have passed the Boehner-controlled house do not qualify as "plans" I gather. And still no Obama plan for us commoners to see, Nate? And how many days has it been since Reid and his Senate dems put forth a plan? Quite honestly, the GOP is negotiating with itself right now. You may not like the GOP's plans, but sad to say they are at least trying.
Boehner said in a presser about 30 mins. ago that there was an agreement between he and Obama on raising $800B in new revenue, presumably by closing loopholes, as a means to resolve the debt ceiling "crisis". It blew up when Obama reneged and wanted to increase that number to $1.2T by raising taxes on guess who? Don't worry, you would not have to have any skin under that scenario.
Quote from: guido911 on July 22, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
Boehner said in a presser about 30 mins. ago that there was an agreement between he and Obama on raising $800B in new revenue, presumably by closing loopholes, as a means to resolve the debt ceiling "crisis". It blew up when Obama reneged and wanted to increase that number to $1.2T by raising taxes on guess who? Don't worry, you would not have to have any skin under that scenario.
So Obama apparently does (or did) have a plan. Go figure.
I still don't get why everyone has their panties in a wad about the deficit. Even if you argue it does matter, we're set to trim hundreds of billions as we draw down our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus hundreds of billions worth of stimulus not being permanent, plus hundreds of billions more will come from economic recovery.
It's all politicians jockeying for position before 2012. Obama wants to run on a "I cut the deficit" platform. The Republicans would like the same, but are even more hell bent on denying Obama the ability to say that, and seem to be perfectly willing to submarine the whole deal or force him to accept deep cuts to social programs so as to erode his support on the left. (Not that he's unwilling to do much of that himself, mind you) Silly political catfights are going to squander a historic opportunity to reestablish the dollar's hegemony, only this time without that pesky gold backing.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 10:36:30 PM
So Obama apparently does (or did) have a plan. Go figure.
An agreement is a plan? Okay.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 10:36:30 PM
So Obama apparently does (or did) have a plan. Go figure.
I still don't get why everyone has their panties in a wad about the deficit. Even if you argue it does matter, we're set to trim hundreds of billions as we draw down our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus hundreds of billions worth of stimulus not being permanent, plus hundreds of billions more will come from economic recovery.
It's all politicians jockeying for position before 2012. Obama wants to run on a "I cut the deficit" platform. The Republicans would like the same, but are even more hell bent on denying Obama the ability to say that, and seem to be perfectly willing to submarine the whole deal or force him to accept deep cuts to social programs so as to erode his support on the left. (Not that he's unwilling to do much of that himself, mind you) Silly political catfights are going to squander a historic opportunity to reestablish the dollar's hegemony, only this time without that pesky gold backing.
That's making the assumption that the draw down will go according to plan, as things like that seldom do. Who thought we'd be in that smile hole for almost ten years now when we started the mission in Afghanistan? Apparently we failed to learn anything from the Soviets.
There has been no officially released plan from Obama to mirror the House Republicans cut cap and release plan, but this is more about negotiating strategy than it is about politics. This isn't an official budget bill or a moment when competing plans traditionally have to win in the public sphere. The House GOP has ginned this up as a moment to prove to their constituencies that they are going to do what they promised to do. So: they've decided to make very public statements, release and vote on both the Ryan budget plan and the Cut Cap and Release Bill. Obama and the Dem Senate's strategy has been to negotiate directly with Boehner and Cantor (and to a lesser degree McConnell) to get to a bill that can be sent through and passed smoothly and quickly. Publicity is good for GOP (makes a loud point, makes sure their interest groups know they're fighting for their interests) and isn't good for the President (every piece of publicity makes negotiations problematic because it shows Dem interest groups what's being given away; and in general publicity impedes speed -- which is of the essence).
On the other hand, there have been very public (and intentional) leaks of what Obama's offered, and you can find those leaks with some really simple google searches. When he put up his $4T number, there was a general ratio of 1 dollar in tax increases to 3 dollars of spending cuts. And he's been willing to throw sacred cow after sacred Democratic cow on the pyre to get this deal -- including things like the Soc Security eligibility age and slowing the growth of COLA, and raising the eligibility age and pulling down reimbursements for Medicare as well.
There is a lot of complaining on the left about Obama's preference at this point for doing it this way; a lot of people see this as betrayal of some core Democratic values, and for the first time I'm hearing and reading serious forays into the idea of a third party from the left, or looking at serious ways to make Obama more accountable to traditional Dem planks. Or even just sentiment like "I'll never vote for this guy again." The problem with this is that he still commands a lot of the grass roots (just look at how much and where his 2012 fundraising is coming from already), so it's still an exercise in futility. He's decided that "the middle" is where he needs to go to get elected -- which is very Clintonian -- but the problem is that "the middle" is now much farther right than it was in the '90s. So it puts anyone on any part of the left part of the spectrum in an uncomfortable position of supporting the guy who wants to voluntarily dismantle the safety nets.
Quote from: we vs us on July 25, 2011, 11:39:22 AM
There has been no officially released plan from Obama to mirror the House Republicans cut cap and release plan, but this is more about negotiating strategy than it is about politics. This isn't an official budget bill or a moment when competing plans traditionally have to win in the public sphere. The House GOP has ginned this up as a moment to prove to their constituencies that they are going to do what they promised to do. So: they've decided to make very public statements, release and vote on both the Ryan budget plan and the Cut Cap and Release Bill. Obama and the Dem Senate's strategy has been to negotiate directly with Boehner and Cantor (and to a lesser degree McConnell) to get to a bill that can be sent through and passed smoothly and quickly. Publicity is good for GOP (makes a loud point, makes sure their interest groups know they're fighting for their interests) and isn't good for the President (every piece of publicity makes negotiations problematic because it shows Dem interest groups what's being given away; and in general publicity impedes speed -- which is of the essence).
On the other hand, there have been very public (and intentional) leaks of what Obama's offered, and you can find those leaks with some really simple google searches. When he put up his $4T number, there was a general ratio of 1 dollar in tax increases to 3 dollars of spending cuts. And he's been willing to throw sacred cow after sacred Democratic cow on the pyre to get this deal -- including things like the Soc Security eligibility age and slowing the growth of COLA, and raising the eligibility age and pulling down reimbursements for Medicare as well.
There is a lot of complaining on the left about Obama's preference at this point for doing it this way; a lot of people see this as betrayal of some core Democratic values, and for the first time I'm hearing and reading serious forays into the idea of a third party from the left, or looking at serious ways to make Obama more accountable to traditional Dem planks. Or even just sentiment like "I'll never vote for this guy again." The problem with this is that he still commands a lot of the grass roots (just look at how much and where his 2012 fundraising is coming from already), so it's still an exercise in futility. He's decided that "the middle" is where he needs to go to get elected -- which is very Clintonian -- but the problem is that "the middle" is now much farther right than it was in the '90s. So it puts anyone on any part of the left part of the spectrum in an uncomfortable position of supporting the guy who wants to voluntarily dismantle the safety nets.
I disagree that the middle is further right. You might think that because of Boehner being so adamant against tax increases, but he's not what I'd describe as a moderate. I think he's doing his best to placate the Tea Party conservatives which are anything but moderate on fiscal issues.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2011, 12:24:09 PM
I think he's doing his best to placate the Tea Party conservatives which are anything but moderate on fiscal issues.
They seem to be anarchists on that particular issue, what with not wanting to see the debt ceiling raised at all, damn the consequences.
Quote from: guido911 on July 22, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
That whole Ryan budget and cut, cap, and balance which have passed the Boehner-controlled house do not qualify as "plans" I gather.
guido,
You certainly got that part of it right. It does not qualify as a plan.
As distasteful as it is, anyone who believes that this can have even a ghost of a chance without both cuts and taxes is delusional. (See Rupert Murdoch for delusional...)
Thought for the day; it is shameful what we have done to our children's heritage and future. As well as disgusting and despicable.
Quote from: we vs us on July 25, 2011, 11:39:22 AM
There has been no officially released plan from Obama to mirror the House Republicans cut cap and release plan, but this is more about negotiating strategy than it is about politics. This isn't an official budget bill or a moment when competing plans traditionally have to win in the public sphere. The House GOP has ginned this up as a moment to prove to their constituencies that they are going to do what they promised to do. So: they've decided to make very public statements, release and vote on both the Ryan budget plan and the Cut Cap and Release Bill. Obama and the Dem Senate's strategy has been to negotiate directly with Boehner and Cantor (and to a lesser degree McConnell) to get to a bill that can be sent through and passed smoothly and quickly. Publicity is good for GOP (makes a loud point, makes sure their interest groups know they're fighting for their interests) and isn't good for the President (every piece of publicity makes negotiations problematic because it shows Dem interest groups what's being given away; and in general publicity impedes speed -- which is of the essence).
On the other hand, there have been very public (and intentional) leaks of what Obama's offered, and you can find those leaks with some really simple google searches. When he put up his $4T number, there was a general ratio of 1 dollar in tax increases to 3 dollars of spending cuts. And he's been willing to throw sacred cow after sacred Democratic cow on the pyre to get this deal -- including things like the Soc Security eligibility age and slowing the growth of COLA, and raising the eligibility age and pulling down reimbursements for Medicare as well.
There is a lot of complaining on the left about Obama's preference at this point for doing it this way; a lot of people see this as betrayal of some core Democratic values, and for the first time I'm hearing and reading serious forays into the idea of a third party from the left, or looking at serious ways to make Obama more accountable to traditional Dem planks. Or even just sentiment like "I'll never vote for this guy again." The problem with this is that he still commands a lot of the grass roots (just look at how much and where his 2012 fundraising is coming from already), so it's still an exercise in futility. He's decided that "the middle" is where he needs to go to get elected -- which is very Clintonian -- but the problem is that "the middle" is now much farther right than it was in the '90s. So it puts anyone on any part of the left part of the spectrum in an uncomfortable position of supporting the guy who wants to voluntarily dismantle the safety nets.
Sen. Reid has just agreed to sign on with Boehner's short term plan, and they will now work up the bill, pass it and send it to the President to sign.
I bet we won't see a signature on this one either.
A successful debt deal would be his downfall.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-25-12-14-43
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2011, 12:24:09 PM
I disagree that the middle is further right. You might think that because of Boehner being so adamant against tax increases, but he's not what I'd describe as a moderate. I think he's doing his best to placate the Tea Party conservatives which are anything but moderate on fiscal issues.
I think the middle
in this discussion is farther right. And because Obama's the Worst. Negotiator. Ever . . . his starting point was what he thought Boehner wanted, not farther left. From the Dem point of view he's given up everything and consistently gotten nothing in return. Reportedly Reid's latest offer is $2.7T in cuts with no revenue increases . . . the only thing they ask is that the ceiling get raised past the 2012 election. That's even more than Boehner has been asking for. From a saving-out-bacon point of view, it's a good offer, but from a giving-away-the-farm point of view, it's a total FAIL.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 25, 2011, 12:43:15 PM
Sen. Reid has just agreed to sign on with Boehner's short term plan, and they will now work up the bill, pass it and send it to the President to sign.
I bet we won't see a signature on this one either.
A successful debt deal would be his downfall.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-25-12-14-43
Incorrect. Neither has signed on to the others' bill. It's an article about how each are going forward separately.
There's no question that the President will sign a bill if it has anything near Reid's newest package (almost $3T in cuts, no new revenue); the real question will be to see if Boehner can deliver his caucus. The chances of that, after all of this insanity, is approaching virtually nil, IMO. The Tea Partiers really do want to see all of this burn.
"We are nihilists, Lebowski! We believe in nothing!"
(http://ernieputto.de/lebowski/lebowski27.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on July 25, 2011, 12:50:36 PM
I think the middle in this discussion is farther right. And because Obama's the Worst. Negotiator. Ever . . . his starting point was what he thought Boehner wanted, not farther left. From the Dem point of view he's given up everything and consistently gotten nothing in return. Reportedly Reid's latest offer is $2.7T in cuts with no revenue increases . . . the only thing they ask is that the ceiling get raised past the 2012 election. That's even more than Boehner has been asking for. From a saving-out-bacon point of view, it's a good offer, but from a giving-away-the-farm point of view, it's a total FAIL.
I really fail to see how reigning in spending is "giving away the farm".
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2011, 01:11:22 PM
I really fail to see how reigning in spending is "giving away the farm".
There're ways to reign in spending that don't explicitly put the burden on the backs of the poor, the old, and the infirm. There're also ways to do it that don't endanger our's and the world's economies.
In a larger context, Obama's actually already given away the farm, because he's agreed with the Republicans that austerity is the only way out of our deficit debacle. Rather than simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire and getting our economy back on track to produce revenue for the government. The republican frame -- killing government further will solve our problems -- is anything but a foregone conclusion, but you wouldn't know that from how Obama and the Dems have gone along with it.
The only part of government they dont want to shrink is their own salaries, office budgets and aides.
You can also witness who here at TNF might be in the "dead beat" category....
Here:Al Franken Debt Ceiling Speech: What's At Stake For Our Nation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/al-franken-debt-ceiling-republicans_n_908332.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
A Deadhead's smarter than a GOP/Teabagging dead beat....
Quote from: carltonplace on July 25, 2011, 01:44:29 PM
The only part of government they dont want to shrink is their own salaries, office budgets and aides.
And Carlton nails it.
So interesting development:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/
One plan has been passed Cut-Cap-n' Balance. All of the hoopla on Boehner's new plan and Reid's new plan turn out to be useless because neither one will pass the House.
So the only plan we have that has passed the house and now sits in the Senate is Cut-Cap-n' Balance. If it is voted on, it is estimated to lack only 4 votes to pass. If those senators change their minds and pass it, then it lacks one signature.
5 people now stand in the way of an agreement that would not only raise the debt ceiling to meet government's perceived requirements, but it would also force them to place a cap on spending related to the GDP (smart) and balance the budget as Clinton did.
. . .or we could just continue to play political football.
"ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?"
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 01:16:07 PM
So interesting development:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/
One plan has been passed Cut-Cap-n' Balance. All of the hoopla on Boehner's new plan and Reid's new plan turn out to be useless because neither one will pass the House.
So the only plan we have that has passed the house and now sits in the Senate is Cut-Cap-n' Balance. If it is voted on, it is estimated to lack only 4 votes to pass. If those senators change their minds and pass it, then it lacks one signature.
5 people now stand in the way of an agreement that would not only raise the debt ceiling to meet government's perceived requirements, but it would also force them to place a cap on spending related to the GDP (smart) and balance the budget as Clinton did.
. . .or we could just continue to play political football.
"ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?"
A balanced budget amendment is very, very stupid. How would we have been able to respond the financial crisis in 2008? How would we be able to wage war if attacked?
To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?
Because America expects them to pay taxes and is run by a black man. And because Newscorp/Talk Radio told them to.
The TeaParty is made of of people who are some combination of stupid, greedy, selfish, uneducated, short sighted, gullible, and/or racist. It's really that simple.
Quote from: swake on July 26, 2011, 01:24:37 PM
A balanced budget amendment is very, very stupid. How would we have been able to respond the financial crisis in 2008? How would we be able to wage war if attacked?
The proposal is two fold, first it makes the cuts necessary to get spending under control, and then it caps spending to 18% of GDP, the historic standard for revenue no matter what the tax rate has been. Some would assert that Nate's precious Laugher Curve's apex is 18% because that average seems to be sustainable.
Short term spending, such as economic stimulus, or defense outlays for combat operations could still take place, however they
would be greatly affected!! They would require significantly more forethought!!
I would assume we would all be happier if it was harder for the president to bomb the smile out of a country or fill a dumpster with old pork and label it "stimulus."
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 01:41:10 PM
The proposal is two fold, first it makes the cuts necessary to get spending under control, and then it caps spending to 18% of GDP, the historic standard for revenue no matter what the tax rate has been. Some would assert that Nate's precious Laugher Curve's apex is 18% because that average seems to be sustainable.
Some would assert incorrectly. Your handlers lied to you.
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/spend-gdp.png?m=1311705962)
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/receipts-gdp.png?m=1311706305)
Federal expenditures haven't been 18% of GDP since before 1970. It's a dumb metric to use as a hard cap anyway, as GDP always falls in a recession, which is precisely when expense on unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, jobs programs, and the like go up. And you'll note that receipts were over 18% for the entirety of the 90s, including the period in which we were running a small surplus.
18% isn't the maximum revenue we get because of some inherent magic, it's that because jackasses who don't want to pay the bills they've run up won't let revenues get that high before cutting taxes.
BTW, the Laffer curve isn't my thing. It's your man Grover's most precious, though. Surprisingly, he came out and said last week that loophole closing shouldn't be counted as a tax increase. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?
Are you still beating your wife?
See, that's a really dumb question. . .I have never seen any hatred for America coming from the Tea Party. They wave flags, carry pocket copies of the constitution given out for free. Their symbols are the flag, effigies of the founding fathers, and the other symbols of American liberty. It seems that they dislike anything liberal, socialist, or remotely fascist.
The primary difference that makes people mad is that the Tea Party's foundation is a belief in the power of the individual. . .the smallest minority. That is the opposite of the group-thought that pervades the liberal establishment. For this, I respect them as a movement, but they have no hope of ever being a political party, and I don't know if that is even their goal. I think they just want us to get back to the fundamental principals of individual freedom that this country was founded on.
I think that if we get back to some basic fundamental principles, we can make sure that we resolve the issues. And I think that that's what the Tea Party was all about. It's getting back to a constitutional conservative government. And that is limited, but it's also effective and efficient. I think that that's what we'll be able to do. --Allen West
Some want equal opportunity for everyone, and others want equal achievement for everyone. It depends on what you see as realistic and sustainable.
I'm not sure where you see hatred for America in their rhetoric or if that was just a simple loaded question.
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 01:47:41 PM
Some would assert incorrectly. Your handlers lied to you.
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/spend-gdp.png?m=1311705962)
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/receipts-gdp.png?m=1311706305)
Federal expenditures haven't been 18% of GDP since before 1970. It's a dumb metric to use as a hard cap anyway, as GDP always falls in a recession, which is precisely when expense on unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, jobs programs, and the like go up. And you'll note that receipts were over 18% for the entirety of the 90s, including the period in which we were running a small surplus.
18% isn't the maximum revenue we get because of some inherent magic, it's that because jackasses who don't want to pay the bills they've run up won't let revenues get that high before cutting taxes.
BTW, the Laffer curve isn't my thing. It's your man Grover's most precious, though. Surprisingly, he came out and said last week that loophole closing shouldn't be counted as a tax increase. ;)
Trend line? ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 02:04:22 PM
See, that's a really dumb question. . .I have never seen any hatred for America coming from the Tea Party.
In cases like these "America" is subjective.
Everyone's version is different.
"Not in my country."
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 02:04:22 PM
The primary difference that makes people mad is that the Tea Party's foundation is a belief in the power of the individual. . .the smallest minority. That is the opposite of the group-thought that pervades the liberal establishment. For this, I respect them as a movement, but they have no hope of ever being a political party, and I don't know if that is even their goal. I think they just want us to get back to the fundamental principals of individual freedom that this country was founded on.
OK, then why are they not on a farm somewhere where they can be as individualist as they like? While I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view (it wasn't much more than a decade ago that I was a dyed in the wool Randian), I have just come to realize that it's unworkable in modern society where we're all interdependent due to the necessity of infrastructure, financing, and other things. Our way of life requires big business. Big business requires big government to prevent big business from cheating. If they really want to get back to that world, they might consider joining the Amish.
I was thinking about this the other day and it struck me that a large part of the reason why the Tea Partyists are completely convinced that government is the problem is that for much of the 20th century, government was big and intimidating and difficult and all that. That's what we decided we wanted to have after the gilded age and the Great Depression. And it largely worked. Government was a complete and utter a**hole and used that to keep corporations in line, which made big business seem all cuddly, friendly, and safe, much like a lion cub. Now that the tables have turned and much of the regulatory state has been dismantled, the situation has largely reversed, but those who spent much of their lives in the old regime fail to see that the world has changed around them.
Regarding your trend line comment, yeah, revenues trend downwards when you cut taxes and have a poorly performing economy. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that one out.
Nate and Swake get it. Gassie, you are nothing but a smiling anarchist. :o
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
OK, then why are they not on a farm somewhere where they can be as individualist as they like? While I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view (it wasn't much more than a decade ago that I was a dyed in the wool Randian), I have just come to realize that it's unworkable in modern society where we're all interdependent due to the necessity of infrastructure, financing, and other things. Our way of life requires big business. Big business requires big government to prevent big business from cheating. If they really want to get back to that world, they might consider joining the Amish.
I was thinking about this the other day and it struck me that a large part of the reason why the Tea Partyists are completely convinced that government is the problem is that for much of the 20th century, government was big and intimidating and difficult and all that. That's what we decided we wanted to have after the gilded age and the Great Depression. And it largely worked. Government was a complete and utter a**hole and used that to keep corporations in line, which made big business seem all cuddly, friendly, and safe, much like a lion cub. Now that the tables have turned and much of the regulatory state has been dismantled, the situation has largely reversed, but those who spent much of their lives in the old regime fail to see that the world has changed around them.
Regarding your trend line comment, yeah, revenues trend downwards when you cut taxes and have a poorly performing economy. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that one out.
The problem is, big government has gone beyond protecting individuals from big business. It's morphed into some sort of nanny trying protecting individuals from themselves and to be the solution to every single man-made disaster and natural occurrence which is why it's now collapsing under it's incredible weight of debt. Too many people (and corporations) want too many things out of the government.
Jeeebuzz CoCo.....you too are an anarchist? We'll know for certain come next week. ;)
The clown calls your bluff.....you ain't that stupid.....are you?
I don't really have a problem with government also figuring out ways to impose a cost on previously externalized activities, like pollution. That's part and parcel of keeping big business in check. Nor do I have a problem with Government being an insurance company; It's more efficient to have a larger risk pool and not siphon off a profit. (Not that private insurance shouldn't be available, mind you!) And I think when government is doing its job relative to fostering competition in the private markets, that's a fantastic thing, which is why it would please me to no end if more municipalities would build open-access fiber networks that any ISP can use to compete.
Oh, and this is mildly interesting, from those pinko commies at Bloomberg:
Quote
"In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual," the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. "I've got news for Washington - those days are over."
Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation's debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.
Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation's accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.
As Congress nears votes to raise the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling to avert a default on U.S. obligations when borrowing authority expires on Aug. 2, both parties are attempting to claim a mantle of fiscal responsibility. They both bear some of the blame: Many Democrats contributed to the expenses that are forcing lawmakers to boost the nation's debt limit, as have Republican leaders at odds over how much borrowing authority to hand President Barack Obama and when.
"There's plenty of blame to go around," for the debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. "If there had been no Barack Obama, we would still be bumping up against the debt limit.'"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html
I remembered another interesting factoid yesterday: In Bush's budgets, the wars were not counted, which made his headline budget deficits look much smaller. Boehner is so full of smile.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 26, 2011, 02:16:14 PM
Nate and Swake get it. Gassie, you are nothing but a smiling anarchist. :o
No, I believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.
It's really simple, I believe that people do a better job of running their lives than the government does.
I believe that you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
It's really simple, I believe that people do a better job of running their lives than the government does.
Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 04:08:03 PM
Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.
That's a complete non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. He's talking about personal liberty and government's slow but steady erosion of that and you bring up corporate malfeasance like Enron and BP?
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 04:08:03 PM
Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.
Every time something goes poorly, to look toward government and say "we need you to protect us" is just sad. Regulatory totalitarianism is not a panacea. Our society is breaking down under the belief that individual liberty is granted by government. The very purpose of our constitution was to protect the individual from the tyranny of ever increasing government creep.
Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!
What is so bad about big government? My indictment of big government is that it is bad because it attacks liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, and morality. Thanks to big government, we have significantly less of all of those good things than we would if we had been able to keep government right-sized. Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery. – George C. Leef
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. – Justice William O. Douglas
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 04:26:29 PM
Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!
No. It is not. Federal government employees as a percentage of population has ballooned and shrunk repeatedly over the years. You just make up facts to bash government.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
(the last number is the percentage)
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 26, 2011, 04:41:18 PM
No. It is not. Federal government employees as a percentage of population has ballooned and shrunk repeatedly over the years. You just make up facts to bash government.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
(the last number is the percentage)
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+
Wasn't really a comment on government employment.
Was a comment on programs, regulations, and bureaucracy. Employment should shrink over time as technology improves government's ability to administer more complex bureaucracy. Simply look at your tax forms. Most file electronically now and an electronic analysis takes place. That used to be people, but now computers maintain the growth of the monster.
Try to open up a small rental company (personal experience). Compared to 20 years ago, you now have to spend thousands in licensing, permits, and inspections just to make your first dollar.
Sure there are fewer paper-pushers but that does not mean there is less paper.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 04:26:29 PM
Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!
Government is monstrous when is controlled by corporate interests instead of the people. The right wing's insistence that corporate speech be equivalent to personal speech is the mechanism by which that takeover has been accomplished.
Gaspar, I'm sorry the state and city were making it so hard for you to get your business going.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2011, 04:23:48 PM
That's a complete non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. He's talking about personal liberty and government's slow but steady erosion of that and you bring up corporate malfeasance like Enron and BP?
I totally got it. For Gaspar, everything relates to government and its relative level of intrusion into X (life, the market, your sense of self-worth). Government is the original sin, and is the bad apple that spoils the bunch. Everything else could exist in a blissful state of equilibrium if it weren't for the corrupting hand of government -- which spreads like a fungus into everything man does. Government corrupts individuals, corporations, natural law, the works.
So when you look at corporate malfeasance, or you look at the failure of markets, or you look at the nature of poverty, the central problem in all of these things is that government is present. And if it isn't immediately obvious where the government in all of these things is, well . . . then you're just not looking hard enough.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 03:31:19 PM
Government is not the problem, the people who elect those to run the government are the problem. — The Omnipotent Poobah
Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2011, 05:07:41 PM
Government is monstrous when is controlled by corporate interests instead of the people. The right wing's insistence that corporate speech be equivalent to personal speech is the mechanism by which that takeover has been accomplished.
Gaspar, I'm sorry the state and city were making it so hard for you to get your business going.
That's rich. Take a look at all the major corporate contributors to Democrats, Nathan as well as the pandora's box the SCOTUS ruling opened up for well-moneyed liberal interests as well.
Quote from: we vs us on July 26, 2011, 05:17:31 PM
I totally got it. For Gaspar, everything relates to government and its relative level of intrusion into X (life, the market, your sense of self-worth). Government is the original sin, and is the bad apple that spoils the bunch. Everything else could exist in a blissful state of equilibrium if it weren't for the corrupting hand of government -- which spreads like a fungus into everything man does. Government corrupts individuals, corporations, natural law, the works.
So when you look at corporate malfeasance, or you look at the failure of markets, or you look at the nature of poverty, the central problem in all of these things is that government is present. And if it isn't immediately obvious where the government in all of these things is, well . . . then you're just not looking hard enough.
No, sorry to disappoint.
Government is very necessary, and within out constitution, the duty of government is contained. Government gets big because that is it's natural tendency. Those that admire this, do so because they see government as an instrument of plunder. Government functions very well in this manner, because it can build bureaucratic devices to insulate itself. Laws can be created and layered upon each other, and functions can be duplicated indefinitely.
As this happens it requires more and more plunder and more creative ways to administer this plunder.
Our little hot bed of "rugged individualists" who don't need no stinking government money has scored big time for $13 million of Fed money. And we are one of the FIRST states to go running to the Fed with hands out for this cash! I guess that's what happens - no, not guess - I know that's what happens when a Republicontin is in the governors mansion. (As well as when a Dummycrat is in it, too.)
And it will generate $130 million in "total impact"!!
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-wins-13.2-million-of-investment-money-for-high-growth-businesses/article/3589319
Personally, I think this is a good thing. But hyper-hypocritical of the people running things now!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 27, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
Our little hot bed of "rugged individualists" who don't need no stinking government money has scored big time for $13 million of Fed money. And we are one of the FIRST states to go running to the Fed with hands out for this cash! I guess that's what happens - no, not guess - I know that's what happens when a Republicontin is in the governors mansion. (As well as when a Dummycrat is in it, too.)
And it will generate $130 million in "total impact"!!
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-wins-13.2-million-of-investment-money-for-high-growth-businesses/article/3589319
Personally, I think this is a good thing. But hyper-hypocritical of the people running things now!
I'm not sure how many shylocks are feeding off administering such programs, but if a federal expenditure results in a 10:1 payback plus putting more people onto payroll in high tech fields, that's the sort of "stimulus" that's worthwhile government spending. Remember, one of the roadblocks cited to growing and starting up businesses has been a restrictive credit market.
Some of you make extreme assumptions that there's some sort of hypocrisy in Libertarians, Republicans, or those who identify as being conservative seeing worthwhile uses in government programs or funding. Conservatives are not against all government spending, they are against government
wasteful spending which would be things like studying the effects of social media.
There is a need for government and government can, in fact, help foster new businesses, new technologies, and growth in business via loan and grant programs which in turn create jobs, improve the economy, and add back to the tax base.
For what it's worth, I don't recall Governor Fallin running on a platform of not accepting any Federal funding for projects or improving the state economy.
I would submit that estimate is just something pulled out of someone's back side.
And if that type of investment was all that great, then we should be funding college education to the max! It IS a proven entity.
The link shows the ROI for college investment - additional income over a career. Average around $600,000 extra, with some schools providing over $1 million extra. Even at Oklahoma tax rate of about 5%, that is $30,000 to $50,000 additional revenue. Plus the benefit of the jobs kept here. And the population that doesn't have to move. The increased social benefits of being able to build more infrastructure - think downtown Tulsa. It all reaches a "critical mass" that allows things like Tulsa's (and area towns) development to grow. The modest additional tax (50k) is just the tip of the iceberg on return to the state.
And yet, we keep lowering the state's "matching" investment in college educations (by much higher tuition).
http://communitycollegespotlight.org/tags/return-on-investment/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/27/boehner-to-gop-get-your-donkey-in-line.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/27/boehner-to-gop-get-your-donkey-in-line.html)
Boehner to GOP: 'Get Your donkey in Line'
QuoteRepublican lawmakers on the fence about backing House Speaker John Boehner's debt-ceiling plan are on his last nerve. In a closed-door meeting on Wednesday morning, he ordered them to "get your donkey in line," predicting that Senate Dems will give in if he can push his proposal through the House. "I can't do this job unless you're behind me," he said. He certainly has House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) behind him, who told other GOP members to "quit whining" and support Boehner's two-step plan. Meanwhile, Republicans are calling for the firing of a top staffer who tried to get outside conservative groups to oppose the Boehner plan.
Per the story he used the "A" word and not "donkey" but hey, the kids are reading.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 27, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
I would submit that estimate is just something pulled out of someone's back side.
And if that type of investment was all that great, then we should be funding college education to the max! It IS a proven entity.
The link shows the ROI for college investment - additional income over a career. Average around $600,000 extra, with some schools providing over $1 million extra. Even at Oklahoma tax rate of about 5%, that is $30,000 to $50,000 additional revenue. Plus the benefit of the jobs kept here. And the population that doesn't have to move. The increased social benefits of being able to build more infrastructure - think downtown Tulsa. It all reaches a "critical mass" that allows things like Tulsa's (and area towns) development to grow. The modest additional tax (50k) is just the tip of the iceberg on return to the state.
And yet, we keep lowering the state's "matching" investment in college educations (by much higher tuition).
http://communitycollegespotlight.org/tags/return-on-investment/
The rate of return calculator always shows the rosiest picture possible. Much like our beloved Chamber of Commerce which shows projected huge rates of return on things like the Arabian horse show, river taxes, etc. yet never seems to publicize the actual return. Of course there's going to be some fudge in there, but if they can provide the numbers using accepted statistical models to make their case to the feds, that's how it works.
So, are you saying job growth programs are a waste of money? If it weren't for programs like SBA, there's a lot of small businesses that otherwise would not exist which employ millions of Americans.
I agree with you on college education. I think we should invest far more on higher ed. I don't think we need to spend more on common ed, I think we need to give more people who graduate the common ed system an opportunity to maximize that into a college degree.
No suggestion that SBA is waste at all!! I think it is a wonderful thing. (MUCH better than the corporate welfare to huge multi-nationals, like the oil industry subsidies.) SBA and the small businesses in this country do more for jobs than all the large companies!
College tuition does more! We are missing a huge sure bet!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 27, 2011, 03:21:57 PM
No suggestion that SBA is waste at all!! I think it is a wonderful thing. (MUCH better than the corporate welfare to huge multi-nationals, like the oil industry subsidies.) SBA and the small businesses in this country do more for jobs than all the large companies!
College tuition does more! We are missing a huge sure bet!!
What I'm reading in the story you posted is this sounds like an incubator system to develop high tech jobs in Oklahoma. Unless the folks in the private organizations managing the funds sap out millions in
salaries and new Lexus' *cough* administrative costs, I don't have a problem with it.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2011, 08:50:18 AM
That's rich. Take a look at all the major corporate contributors to Democrats, Nathan as well as the pandora's box the SCOTUS ruling opened up for well-moneyed liberal interests as well.
Both sides are guilty. Just look at the increases in net worth for congress people over the course of their term. Congress has a constitutional protection that shelters them from many of the laws related to insider trading that the general public does not. They can not be called to testify about privileged information, even if they use that information to profit.
For instance a young senator from Illinois went from a reported net worth in 2004 of $300,000 to $3,670,505 in 2008. I think he got a promotion after that.
In total during the second Bush term (04-08) 41 Democrats increased their net worth by an average of 756%, and 39 Republicans by an average of 168%.
Visit OpenSecrets.org to view the net worth of your representative or you can view a good report here http://governmentgonewild.org/thelist
The same insider trading laws that apply to us, should apply to them. That's why when Martha Stewart was called to testify before congress it was so freeking hilarious!
I am all for people getting rich, but they are abusing a privilege intended to protect them, not enrich them.
Conan,
Could be - I haven't had time to go in depth at the site. I get the feeling that it is a sales tool for the community college concept in general. I am an extremely strong believer in that, too. (Full disclosure; I attended TCC and also taught there later, for a while - a long time ago.) There is no bigger "bang for the buck" anywhere in the world. (How is that for a sweeping statement?)
Community college is even MORE of a great investment for the state. Even if we can't bring ourselves to do something clever and extremely intelligent - more support for four year college tuition - we should AT LEAST make the junior college tuition a freebie to any high school graduate resident of the state - including GED earners. This would be a huge boost to the state. And I feel would do more to draw good industry to the state than ANY of the lame "buy them with tax breaks" schemes we have been using. Better longer term for many more.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2011, 08:50:18 AM
That's rich. Take a look at all the major corporate contributors to Democrats, Nathan as well as the pandora's box the SCOTUS ruling opened up for well-moneyed liberal interests as well.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said right wingers are the source of the insistence that corporate speech and personal speech are equal. This is largely true. Note that I did not say that Democratic politicians don't benefit from that as well. I can't really say one way or the other who benefits more from locking the faucet of money open, but I can say that each and every one of us who is not a politician is harmed by that view of the world.
Gaspar, what are you talking about? Congressmen can (and have been) convicted of insider trading. The only thing they arguably couldn't be prosecuted for is spewing corporate secrets in a floor speech. And you know where Obama got most of his money? Book sales.
UH OH! The GOPEEr's are getting Maverickity.
McCain erupts: Conservatives are lying to America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mccain-erupts-conservatives-are-lying-to-america/2011/03/03/gIQAUm2HdI_blog.html
Looks like Wall Street is leaning on the old guard and McCain't exploded (imagine this guy as POTUS). Too bad they've already handed the nuts in congress so much authority. The walls are starting to crumble, there's no exit and the compromise-rs will be labeled losers by the party of Limbaugh. As Ed said, GOP going down.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/28/mccain-blasts-tea-party-hobbits.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/28/mccain-blasts-tea-party-hobbits.html)
McCain Blasts Tea Party 'Hobbits'
QuoteSen. John McCain blasted members of his own party Wednesday night, calling conservatives' resistance to increase the debt ceiling "worse than foolish" and referring to them as "Tea Party hobbits." McCain was quoting from a Wall Street Journal editorial that used the Lord of the Rings imagery. "This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees," McCain said. The remark drew fire from Angle, who complained that McCain was "name-calling" and had no new ideas of his own.
I figured alot of them had oversized hairy feet.
John Boehner's Patriotism Deficit
Does John Boehner give a damn about our country? Or is he motivated purely by politics. The answer's obvious.
John Boehner's Patriotism Deficit (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane
John Boehner has made his aims clear
As the debt ceiling deadline draws near.
Doing good ain't his role.
"Stop Obama's" his goal.
What a cavalier, faux budgeteer.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 28, 2011, 11:48:58 AM
John Boehner's Patriotism Deficit
Does John Boehner give a damn about our country? Or is he motivated purely by politics. The answer's obvious.
John Boehner's Patriotism Deficit (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane
John Boehner has made his aims clear
As the debt ceiling deadline draws near.
Doing good ain't his role.
"Stop Obama's" his goal.
What a cavalier, faux budgeteer.
Heh....Your last reply was number 420.....How fitting.......Silly tea-bonger......
Awww...
Quote"He's getting absolutely no sleep. He's working tirelessly, meeting with his economic team, doing a lot of outreach, exploring all kinds of possibilities for compromise," Jarrett said.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/valerie-jarrett-obama-getting-absolutely-no-sleep-because-debt-cr#ixzz1TWAgDRtu
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/valerie-jarrett-obama-getting-absolutely-no-sleep-because-debt-cr
Paul Ryan goes off on government accounting tricks.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-paul-ryans-response-to-defense-cuts-lets-pass-a-bill-to-cover-the-moon-with-yogurt/
I see the "Party of No" in the Senate killed the House's second attempt to tackle the deficit/debt problem.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 08:16:50 PM
I see the "Party of No" in the Senate killed the House's second attempt to tackle the deficit/debt problem.
And a fair number of Senate Republicans. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 09:10:01 PM
And a fair number of Senate Republicans. ;)
They must be RINOs.
;)
Barney Frank on Moodys and S&P ratings. Interesting take.
Democrat leaders' voting histories regarding the debt ceiling.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/reid-durbin-and-obama-very-partisan-record-debt-ceiling
1000 point drop by noon Monday on the NYSE, too late for anything to get through either House.
And a 2% boost (bare minimum) on Credit Card Rates for everyone.
Let's see how we can blame this on Obama.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
And a 2% boost (bare minimum) on Credit Card Rates for everyone.
Let's see how we can blame this on Obama.
I'm glad the CARD act doesn't let them raise rates on existing fixed-rate balances. ;)
This just in. Reid's debt ceiling deal is officially "crazy" as it got destroyed by the House of Representatives by a massive margin. 11 dems voted "No".
Quote from: guido911 on July 30, 2011, 05:15:45 PM
This just in. Reid's debt ceiling deal is officially "crazy" as it got destroyed by the House of Representatives by a massive margin. 11 dems voted "No".
That wasn't the bill that's presently being considered in the Senate. I doubt you'll see 11 Democrats voting against the real thing...
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2011, 05:21:26 PM
That wasn't the bill that's presently being considered in the Senate. I doubt you'll see 11 Democrats voting against the real thing...
From the Speaker:
QuoteToday the House of Representatives will bring up – and defeat – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's debt limit legislation. This vote will demonstrate that the Reid bill cannot pass the House. This will also expose any Senate vote on the Reid bill as a pointless political exercise that squanders precious time as the specter of a job-crushing default looms.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=254533
The Speaker is full of it:
Quote
House GOP leaders Saturday will bring an old version of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's debt limit bill to the floor for what appears to be a bit of weekend political theater.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_to_preemptively_vote_on_reid_debt_bill-207855-1.html
What is actually in the present Reid bill (not the one previously scored by CBO):
http://www.christianpost.com/news/boehner-plan-vs-reid-plan-how-do-they-compare-53094/
Edited to add: Funny that he would choose the phrase "job-crushing". Every debt limit plan on the table is job crushing. The only one that wasn't is the one that the Senate passed early in the year that was just a clean raising of the debt ceiling.
Depends on your source I guess, Nate.
Quotehe House of Representatives took a symbolic vote against Senate Democrats' plan to raise the debt ceiling Saturday afternoon, as President Barack Obama huddled with Democratic leaders at the White House less than four days before the U.S. could begin defaulting on some obligations.
House Republicans brought up a version of Senate Majority Harry Reid's (D., Nev.) plan to increase the nation's borrowing authority into early 2013 using a procedural maneuver requiring it receive a two-thirds majority to pass. The House voted against the measure 173-246, though it was mainly a political gesture as both Democrats and Republicans plot their next moves ahead of the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling set by the Treasury Department.
[
Emphasis added]. http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201107301605dowjonesdjonline000274&title=us-house-votes-against-reid-debt-bill
I watched the House debate on this bill and a Mass. Dem McGovern referred to it as Reid's "latest" version. Who knows, and really, who cares. It was Reid's plan.
Rubio v. Kerry. If you have the time, watch it all. But the head to head was quite compelling, it begins around 6-8 minute point.
Well, with a possible deal on the debt ceiling having been reached, let the crying begin:
QuoteLiberals began tearing into President Obama and Democrats on Sunday, accusing them of caving to Republican demands even before final details of a debt ceiling agreement have been announced.
In a scathing statement based on early reports, MoveOn.org said the "debt deal has gone from bad to worse" and they called it "extremely troubling that it now appears that some Democrats are willing to give in to Republican demands to make this already disastrous plan worse for working families."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/outcry-from-the-left-preceeds-debt-deal/?hp
It's coming from the right as well. In the law business, if at the conclusion of a settlement negotiation everyone is pissed, then objectively it's a decent deal.
Quote from: guido911 on July 31, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
Well, with a possible deal on the debt ceiling having been reached, let the crying begin:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/outcry-from-the-left-preceeds-debt-deal/?hp
It's coming from the right as well. In the law business, if at the conclusion of a settlement negotiation everyone is pissed, then objectively it's a decent deal.
Mud Pie II
Ingredients
2 cups chocolate cookie crumbs
4 tablespoons butter
1/2 cup white sugar
3 tablespoons water
1/2 cup heavy cream, scalded
4 tablespoons butter
4 (1 ounce) squares semisweet chocolate
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
4 tablespoons butter
3/4 cup brewed espresso
3/4 cup white sugar
1/4 cup light corn syrup
4 cups vanilla ice cream, softened
Directions
Combine chocolate wafer crumbs and 4 tablespoons butter or margarine. Press the mixture into the bottom and partially up the sides of a 9 inch springform pan.
To Make Caramel Sauce: In a saucepan, combine 1/2 cup sugar and 3 tablespoons water. Cook over low heat, stirring constantly, until sugar is completely dissolved. Bring to a boil, and continue boiling without stirring until the syrup turns a light amber. While the syrup is boiling, brush down the sides of the pan from time to time to prevent crystal from forming. Remove the pan from the heat, and stir in hot cream. Continue stirring, over low heat if necessary, until all for the caramel is dissolved into the cream. Stir in 4 tablespoons butter or margarine, and set aside to cool slightly. Pour warm caramel sauce over the crust. Freeze until firm, about 30 minutes.
To Make Espresso Fudge Sauce: Combine chocolate, cocoa, 4 tablespoons butter or margarine, and espresso in a saucepan. Stir over low heat until smooth. Add 3/4 cup sugar and corn syrup; increase heat to medium, and stir until the sugar dissolves. Increase heat until the sauce reaches a low boil. Cook without stirring until the mixture thickens, 12 to 15 minutes. Remove espresso fudge sauce from the heat, and cool to room temperature. Pour 1 cup of the sauce over the frozen caramel layer, and return the crust to the freezer. Keep remaining sauce just warm enough so that it remains pourable.
Spread the softened ice cream over the caramel layer. Return pie to the freezer until firm, about 1 hour. Pour the remaining fudge sauce over the ice cream layer; freeze until firm, about 2 to 3 hours. Wrap a hot wet towel around the springform pan for about 2 minutes, then remove the sides of the pan.
Eat it....
The agreement they have come to re-establishes discretionary spending caps that were allowed to expire in 2002.
The Clinton era cork may be re-inserted.
Ugggh. . .sorry, I just realized that I used "Clinton" and "re-inserted" in the same sentence.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 05:20:38 PM
Paul Ryan goes off on government accounting tricks.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-paul-ryans-response-to-defense-cuts-lets-pass-a-bill-to-cover-the-moon-with-yogurt/
That Ryan is just a teabagging demigod. Can't believe you'd even quote him, Greedo. ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
Let's see how we can blame this on Obama.
You mean other than his typical utter lack of leadership?
Congressional leaders are acting like heroes. "Yay for us, we saved you."
They are awesome aren't they?
Quote from: Townsend on August 01, 2011, 09:03:04 AM
Congressional leaders are acting like heroes. "Yay for us, we saved you."
They are awesome aren't they?
Those d-bags just kicked the can down the road until after 2012.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 09:09:07 AM
Those d-bags just kicked the can down the road until after 2012.
$2.4 T isn't anything to sniff at. That's still real reduction no matter how you slice it. Is it enough? No, but putting the next debate into 2012 ensures that the economy has a little time to catch its breath and that debt reductions will still be a major piece of the election. There's no way it's not on people's radar now.
I guarantee you, too, that the Tea Party will very quickly come to see this is a success (as they should, as much as it pains me to say it), and they will be able to leverage it during election season.
And if that doesn't make you feel better, we do a budget every year, give or take, and the next one's coming up in a couple of months. If you don't think the Tea Party's going to demagogue THAT one, too, I've got some swampland to sell you.
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2011, 09:21:47 AM
$2.4 T isn't anything to sniff at. That's still real reduction no matter how you slice it. Is it enough? No, but putting the next debate into 2012 ensures that the economy has a little time to catch its breath and that debt reductions will still be a major piece of the election. There's no way it's not on people's radar now.
I guarantee you, too, that the Tea Party will very quickly come to see this is a success (as they should, as much as it pains me to say it), and they will be able to leverage it during election season.
And if that doesn't make you feel better, we do a budget every year, give or take, and the next one's coming up in a couple of months. If you don't think the Tea Party's going to demagogue THAT one, too, I've got some swampland to sell you.
Wevus, I'd feel a whole lot better about it if it were more than smoke and mirrors. I don't want anyone using what should be common sense for gains in the next election. I'm sick and freaking tired of the end game being which party wields the power instead of doing right by the American public.
I'm really shocked that a balanced budget amendment seems to be about as popular as a fart in church.
We vs Us, I agree that they will view it as a victory, but I am not 100% sure how the American people view it. Regardless of who was the victor in this "debate"; 535 people(536 if you include the president, which I think we should) played Russian Roulette with the Economy for the purposes of political posturing. I think it is great that we cut spending, but I would have liked to see some changes in the revenue stream. We have a massive debt, and cutting spending will put us in the right direction with paying it off, but rather than forking out tons on interest, I would like to see some revenue increases (get rid of Bush tax cuts, put in a toll booth to get into DC, SOMETHING). Put in something were it is a tiered approach and the more we get rid of the debt, the cuts get slowly reinstated. You give the big business and high earners a light at the end of a tunnel. If you just tell people we are going to permanently get rid of the tax cuts, they will balk. Say that it is a temporary thing, it is more likely that you will have a greater base of support.
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2011, 09:21:47 AM
And if that doesn't make you feel better, we do a budget every year, give or take, and the next one's coming up in a couple of months. If you don't think the Tea Party's going to demagogue THAT one, too, I've got some swampland to sell you.
You are correct. They have proven their steel, and will continue to add that pressure to every upcoming debate.
The dragon is now missing a scale, and until there is a popular progressive movement that can provide a compelling philosophy, the Tea Party will continue to go for the beast's heart.
Once we achieve a period of prosperity again like the early 00s, the pendulum will swing and the liberal advance will be attractive again.
It's just too hard to sell spending right now, and I must admit, that makes me happy.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2011, 10:39:50 AM
They have proven their steel, and will continue to add that pressure to every upcoming debate.
The dragon is now missing a scale, and until there is a popular progressive movement that can provide a compelling philosophy, the Tea Party will continue to go for the beast's heart.
What the hell was that?
Quote from: Townsend on August 01, 2011, 10:44:34 AM
What the hell was that?
I think he's channeling shadows...
Quote from: Hoss on August 01, 2011, 10:49:14 AM
I think he's channeling shadows...
Sounded like something was coming out of his channel
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2011, 10:39:50 AM
You are correct. They have proven their steel, and will continue to add that pressure to every upcoming debate.
The dragon is now missing a scale, and until there is a popular progressive movement that can provide a compelling philosophy, the Tea Party will continue to go for the beast's heart.
Once we achieve a period of prosperity again like the early 00s, the pendulum will swing and the liberal advance will be attractive again.
It's just too hard to sell spending right now, and I must admit, that makes me happy.
What period of prosperity are you speaking of? The one that directly led to the complete collapse of the worldwide economy? The one that turned a blind eye to the banking industry and it's irresponsible lending practices? Less oversight by Government really did great things for us then, didn't it?
Are you one of those who believe the economy didn't really break in 08? I respect the tea party agenda, but I cannot respect their practices. I have a feeling that they believe that the US is "too big too fail". I am not one of those who wants to test those waters.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 09:44:17 AM
Wevus, I'd feel a whole lot better about it if it were more than smoke and mirrors. I don't want anyone using what should be common sense for gains in the next election. I'm sick and freaking tired of the end game being which party wields the power instead of doing right by the American public.
I'm really shocked that a balanced budget amendment seems to be about as popular as a fart in church.
A lot of truth there.
Balanced budget? Well, the Dummycrats don't want it because they know it is a stupid idea for times like WWII, etc. The Republicontins don't want it because they have been spending like drunken sailors for 30 years and it would cramp their style - we couldn't do our little military voyeurism thing like we have been doing.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2011, 12:51:39 PM
A lot of truth there.
Balanced budget? Well, the Dummycrats don't want it because they know it is a stupid idea for times like WWII, etc. The Republicontins don't want it because they have been spending like drunken sailors for 30 years and it would cramp their style - we couldn't do our little military voyeurism thing like we have been doing.
Democrats might want to consider that Iraq might not have happened if we'd have had some sort of cap in place or at least required a provision for raising revenues (like reversing the Bush tax cuts)
prior to plunging the country deeper into debt for a new war front.
You can have a balanced budget amendment which comes with some sort of rainy day clause which would only be allowed if certain triggers were set.
You CAN have that, but does anyone believe it would actually be written like that? I don't.
With all the other rationalizations, lies, and breaking of law surrounding the Iraq war, a little thing like a rainy day clause would be small potatoes.
This would end up kind of like the flat tax or the VAT tax plans. They would end up being "in addition to" unless the 16th amendment were repealed FIRST.
I've heard a BBA+exit hatch idea floated before but don't understand why. Doesn't that take away the whole reasoning behind a BBA?
I mean, if you want to tie Congress's hands, tie their hands. Giving them an out just deflates the cause.
EDIT: FWIW, I wonder the same thing about the Fair Tax proposal. If we're trying to make our tax system simpler, why introduce an entirely new scheme with its own set of deductions? Both of these things seem like tortured workarounds to our existing systems.
It's all just propaganda and BS. Right up until election day, 1980, the only thing you heard out of the right wing mouthpieces was BBA. (Like todays version - tax cuts.) The instant Reagan won, that disappeared instantly. And the BIG spending really started!! With big tax cuts for the rich! Just like 2001 all over again.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 01, 2011, 01:03:09 PM
You CAN have that, but does anyone believe it would actually be written like that? I don't.
With all the other rationalizations, lies, and breaking of law surrounding the Iraq war, a little thing like a rainy day clause would be small potatoes.
This would end up kind of like the flat tax or the VAT tax plans. They would end up being "in addition to" unless the 16th amendment were repealed FIRST.
It's time to quit saying "we can't" when it comes to POTUS and Congress. It's our country, damn it, and they need to start listening.
Welcome to the Era of Extortion Politics
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/08/01/welcome-to-the-era-of-extortion-politics/
"In the debt-ceiling hostage fiction, Republicans are the hostage takers — the extortionists — while the U.S. economy and the financial well-being of American families are their victims. The hostage negotiator, of course, the would-be hero in the piece, is Pres. Obama."
"The correct response here was to refuse to negotiate. Obama simply needed to say, we're raising the debt ceiling the way we always have, because the alternative is catastrophe. We can negotiate any policy change you want, but not with a gun to the head of the American economy."
- Jonathan Chait
"At worst, if Obama allows the economic terrorists to continue to win, future presidents of both parties will find themselves routinely negotiating with opposition-party extortionists in one bogus crisis after another."
Sounds nice and simple. But read the numbers.
So what's the lesson here? POTUS Obama gets to keep spending carelessly, without any real sort of budget framework, and he can continue to blame everyone else for his kleptomania.
BTW- my dyslexsia makes me trip over the name of the link you posted: pensitoreview ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 02:30:45 PM
BTW- my dyslexsia makes me trip over the name of the link you posted: pensitoreview ;D
Mine, too.
So, neither of you take issue with extortion? Figgers.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2011, 10:39:50 AM
You are correct. They have proven their steel
What? The Tea Party's whole thing was either a BBA or no increase. The only thing they got was no revenues. Dems got defense cuts and enough room to last into 2013. I guess it's a win for the Tea Partyists (presuming none of them do anything stupid) in that the Democrats didn't rip off their heads and smile down their throats as it was looking like they might early in the weekend.
McConnell saved their donkey by crossing the Rubicon and filibustering a freakin' debt ceiling deal. A deal that sounds oddly similar to the one presently on the table.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
What? The Tea Party's whole thing was either a BBA or no increase. The only thing they got was no revenues. Dems got defense cuts and enough room to last into 2013.
Remember, "winners do not compromise" Rush Limbaugh!
Guess that makes the TeabaggersGOP losers. Poor Rush. :P
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 01, 2011, 02:39:28 PM
So, neither of you take issue with extortion? Figgers.
Nope. I treated your link source with the same care as it's content. Where do you find crap like that? And on the subject of Congressional conduct, where in the hell were you when the House was passing bills so we could see what was in them? Or on Obama at the get go telling the Repubs that he "won" went it came to discussing tax policy? Just shove your phony BS up the orifice of your choosing @ssclown.
I have been watching the House debate on this bill. I was impressed with Georgia Dem David Scott and his railing on getting people back to work.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
What? The Tea Party's whole thing was either a BBA or no increase. The only thing they got was no revenues. Dems got defense cuts and enough room to last into 2013. I guess it's a win for the Tea Partyists (presuming none of them do anything stupid) in that the Democrats didn't rip off their heads and smile down their throats as it was looking like they might early in the weekend.
McConnell saved their donkey by crossing the Rubicon and filibustering a freakin' debt ceiling deal. A deal that sounds oddly similar to the one presently on the table.
Wrong again Nate. One of the tea party's core principles was reigning in federal spending and no new taxes.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx
This debt bill deal is precisely that. No new taxes and spending is reigned in. Is it everything the tea party wanted? No. But the bill is at least consistent. In addition, there will be a vote on a balanced budget amendment, which the Senate over the past weeks wanted no part of. Before this bill, you had Boehner's CCB and BBA bills the House approved and the Senate spiked without even taking debate. Now, where is the Senate's voted-on plan? There is none. In fact, after punting Boehner's second bill, Reid put out his own bill, which the Senate Rs wanted to vote on immediately. Reid would have none of that.
As for the deal, tell me how this bill is similar to Reid's bill?
Finally, I wrote elsewhere essentially that now is not the time for awarding winners and losers, which you think is important. I prefer to look forward, like Scott (D-GA) said today, and get people jobs.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 02:30:45 PM
So what's the lesson here? POTUS Obama gets to keep spending carelessly, without any real sort of budget framework, and he can continue to blame everyone else for his kleptomania.
BTW- my dyslexsia makes me trip over the name of the link you posted: pensitoreview ;D
It's like we just had an intervention and the addict decided not to get on the plane to Palm Harbor for rehab.
We know he will probably continue shoot up, and his dysfunctional family will continue to support him, but at least now, everyone is aware that he is an addict, and unwilling to embrace hope or change.
Sure this thing was political kabuki theater, but it was also the first time the public at large has been this vocal or active in a debt ceiling debate. Everyone is now watching, and the moment the addict begins to shoot up again, the family will kick him out!
Quote from: guido911 on August 01, 2011, 03:09:21 PM
Finally, I wrote elsewhere essentially that now is not the time for awarding winners and losers, which you think is important. I prefer to look forward, like Scott (D-GA) said today, and get people jobs.
I'm gonna suggest you cool your heels, then, because by focusing on austerity we're guaranteeing ourselves an even longer and slower fight for more jobs than we're fighting now. It's pretty obvious that we're entering our own Lost Decade at this point (and may already be a couple of years in, when it's all said and done).
Quote from: guido911 on August 01, 2011, 03:09:21 PM
Wrong again Nate. One of the tea party's core principles was reigning in federal spending and no new taxes.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx
This debt bill deal is precisely that. No new taxes and spending is reigned in. Is it everything the tea party wanted? No. But the bill is at least consistent. In addition, there will be a vote on a balanced budget amendment, which the Senate over the past weeks wanted no part of. Before this bill, you had Boehner's CCB and BBA bills the House approved and the Senate spiked without even taking debate. Now, where is the Senate's voted-on plan? There is none. In fact, after punting Boehner's second bill, Reid put out his own bill, which the Senate Rs wanted to vote on immediately. Reid would have none of that.
As for the deal, tell me how this bill is similar to Reid's bill?
Finally, I wrote elsewhere essentially that now is not the time for awarding winners and losers, which you think is important. I prefer to look forward, like Scott (D-GA) said today, and get people jobs.
Reid's bill was spending cuts with no new revenues and no BBA. The Tea Party managed to get the wonderful addition of a debt reduction committee with enforcement mechanisms that aren't painful to Democrats in the least. And that immediate vote? It wasn't a straight up or down vote, it was a cloture vote that McConnell wanted immediately. That is 60, rather than 50 votes.
And yeah, the Senate tabled Boehner's bills, with bipartisan support no less. 59 votes against.
I agree that jobs are more important, but that's clearly not a priority for anybody in the spending cuts brigade. (this includes many Democrats as well as the know-nothing Tea Partyists)
Of course, all this might be moot in a few hours anyway depending on how nutty the Tea Partyists and their sympathizers decide to be.
Gaspar, you are so freakin' out to lunch. The Republicans are polling like smile on this issue.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 03:26:41 PM
Reid's bill was spending cuts with no new revenues and no BBA. The Tea Party managed to get the wonderful addition of a debt reduction committee with enforcement mechanisms that aren't painful to Democrats in the least. And that immediate vote? It wasn't a straight up or down vote, it was a cloture vote that McConnell wanted immediately. That is 60, rather than 50 votes.
And yeah, the Senate tabled Boehner's bills, with bipartisan support no less. 59 votes against.
I agree that jobs are more important, but that's clearly not a priority for anybody in the spending cuts brigade. (this includes many Democrats as well as the know-nothing Tea Partyists)
Of course, all this might be moot in a few hours anyway depending on how nutty the Tea Partyists and their sympathizers decide to be.
Gaspar, you are so freakin' out to lunch. The Republicans are polling like smile on this issue.
Yes! I love it. Everyone is trying to identify a winner (Democrat or Republican or administration). They are looking in the wrong place.
Most of the cuts don't take place until 2014, and they aren't really cuts anyway, they are limits on spending increases.
The balance budget part of the bill will be stripped. The committee will be stripped of it's teeth and end up just like President Obama's last debt reduction committee, and all recommendations will be ignored. The can will be kicked down the road past the election. . . and unlike other debt debates in congress this one will become a whole chapter in the history books, as will the spending against the increase that the administration will immediately embrace under the guise of yet another new crisis.
So who won? Well, the Tea Party won. They proved that empowering congress to address a debt problem is like giving gang-bangers machine guns, and telling them to go fight crime.
By the time this thing is out of committee (if it makes it there) it too will be a pile, but this time everyone will know what they are eating.
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2011, 03:25:14 PM
I'm gonna suggest you cool your heels, then, because by focusing on austerity we're guaranteeing ourselves an even longer and slower fight for more jobs than we're fighting now. It's pretty obvious that we're entering our own Lost Decade at this point (and may already be a couple of years in, when it's all said and done).
By austerity, do you mean limiting federal discretionary spending? Because this is partly what the bi-partisan debt deal addresses. Because when I think or austerity, Greece comes to mind. This is a summary and effect of its austerity program:
QuoteATHENS, Greece -- Greece fended off a bankruptcy that threatened to roil global financial markets, approving severe spending cuts and tax increases Wednesday in the face of violent protests by Greeks who say they have suffered enough.
The package of austerity measures would keep bailout money flowing to Greece from other European countries and the International Monetary Fund. It would free $17 billion in fresh loans, although the money will only be enough to see the nation through September.
Investors around the world cheered the news, but protesters, fighting tear gas, hurled whatever they could find at riot police and tried to blockade the Parliament building...
Parliament approved $40 billion in tax increases and spending cuts, and privatization of public services to raise $71 billion more, all through 2015. Greece's overall economic output is about $330 billion, or roughly the size of Washington state's.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/greece-austerity-bill-greek_n_886760.html
Actually it's got nothing to do with how Republicans are polling on this. It's all about how it was 4th & goal and they punted. Everyone is too afraid of the consequences of the 2012 election to take a real leadership position on this so they cobbled together something which would result in the least bloodshed for all parties. The President has shown precious little leadership on this, much like he left it up to his minions in Congress to cobble together a shitpile they call Obamacare.
He's a master though at allowing Congress to constantly look like a bunch of bad guys via his abdication of power and responsibility. Clever politician, crummy leader.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Most of the cuts don't take place until 2014, and they aren't really cuts anyway, they are limits on spending increases.
...
The balance budget part of the bill will be stripped. The committee will be stripped of it's teeth and end up just like President Obama's last debt reduction committee, and all recommendations will be ignored. The can will be kicked down the road past the election. . . and unlike other debt debates in congress this one will become a whole chapter in the history books, as will the spending against the increase that the administration will immediately embrace under the guise of yet another new crisis.
Still haven't come back from lunch, I see. The Pentagon is getting $350 billion cut over the next 10 years, not including the savings from ending the wars. If the deficit committee doesn't produce or their recommendations aren't put to a vote, we get another gigantic cut to the military, plus some adjustments in Medicare and an almost across-the-board cut in everything else.
If you hadn't noted, everything Washington does is relative to the CBO baseline. If we're projected to spend $400 billion on something over the next 10 years under current law and we decide we're only going to spend $100 billion over 10 years, that's $300 billion in savings relative to previous law whether you like it or not.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 03:56:14 PM
Still haven't come back from lunch, I see. The Pentagon is getting $350 billion cut over the next 10 years, not including the savings from ending the wars. If the deficit committee doesn't produce or their recommendations aren't put to a vote, we get another gigantic cut to the military, plus some adjustments in Medicare and an almost across-the-board cut in everything else.
If you hadn't noted, everything Washington does is relative to the CBO baseline. If we're projected to spend $400 billion on something over the next 10 years under current law and we decide we're only going to spend $100 billion over 10 years, that's $300 billion in savings relative to previous law whether you like it or not.
In other words, cuts on increases as the man said, or are you going to play a two day word parsing game again?
Here's the media weighing in on the debt deal. Note what Norah says near the end.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 03:58:37 PM
In other words, cuts on increases as the man said, or are you going to play a two day word parsing game again?
No, cuts on planned spending, not increases. It's like you don't understand budgeting.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 03:56:14 PM
If you hadn't noted, everything Washington does is relative to the CBO baseline. If we're projected to spend $400 billion on something over the next 10 years under current law and we decide we're only going to spend $100 billion over 10 years, that's $300 billion in savings relative to previous law whether you like it or not.
Paul Ryan skullfarks your point:
Next time, try something on point.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 04:05:01 PM
Next time, try something on point.
Why should he...You never have.....
Quote from: Breadburner on August 01, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
Why should he...You never have.....
That's a gas, coming from you.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 04:05:01 PM
Next time, try something on point.
His post couldn't' have been more on point Nate.
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
No, cuts on planned spending, not increases. It's like you don't understand budgeting.
I understand budgeting quite well. You seem to be the one grasping.
...and that planned spending has...you guessed it...increases factored in!
You remind me of my ex-wife, she could sit there and parse for hours on end. Sheesh what a miserable b....
Quote from: Gaspar on August 01, 2011, 04:23:44 PM
His post couldn't' have been more on point Nate.
No, it's completely irrelevant. Nobody's talking about cutting funding for programs that don't exist. The fact of the matter is, no parsing necessary, that the bill under consideration will cut a few trillion dollars compared to present law. Guido's video is complete gobbledygook and Conan's argument is like saying that cancelling the premium channels didn't save me any money on my cable bill. At least he's got a coherent argument.
Edited to add: The military cuts are cuts to current spending, by the way. They cut about $50 billion a year out of the 050 account, which amounted to about 450 billion of spending last year. Having not seen the text of the bill, I can't say whether the drawdown in Iraq will offset some of that or not.
Quote from: Breadburner on August 01, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
Why should he...You never have.....
This coming from someone whos tidbits of info are typically google image searches...
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 04:40:23 PM
No, it's completely irrelevant. Nobody's talking about cutting funding for programs that don't exist. The fact of the matter is, no parsing necessary, that the bill under consideration will cut a few trillion dollars compared to present law.
Bull crap. The troop draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the "spending cuts/savings" in Reid's plan. That's what Ryan was talking about in his rant. Here's a source:
QuoteReid's plan assumes a drawdown of United States' forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to save $1.2 trillion. These savings are not included in Boehner's bill. House Republicans are calling this part of Reid's bill a "gimmick" because troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will save money regardless of which bill is passed.
http://www.rohinews.com/business-news/boehner-vs-reid-the-debt-ceiling-plans-at-a-glance/
The article does provide a decent comparison between Reid and Boehner's plans.
Quote from: guido911 on August 01, 2011, 05:32:35 PM
Bull crap. The troop draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the "spending cuts/savings" in Reid's plan. That's what Ryan was talking about in his rant.
Reid's plan, not the latest bill that just passed the House.
And, in a moving moment amidst all the chaos and hyperbole, Representative Giffords returned to the House floor for the vote today.
Very glad to see how far she has come.
Then Chris Matthews had to ruin the moment by slobbering all over himself talking incessantly about guns and Tea Partiers. What a self-serving D-bag Matthews is.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 06:13:34 PM
Representative Giffords returned to the House floor for the vote today.
Great news!
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 06:15:03 PM
Great news!
It is great news. That there is one tough woman.
(http://www.palmbeachpost.com/multimedia/dynamic/01010/WX141_1010160e.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on August 01, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
Reid's plan, not the latest bill that just passed the House.
That's what I was discussing, Reid's plan. That plan factored in the wars wrapping up as part of the savings Reid was touting.
Quote from: Hoss on August 01, 2011, 05:26:02 PM
This coming from someone whos tidbits of info are typically google image searches...
Thank ya Barney....!!!!
Quote from: guido911 on August 01, 2011, 06:49:19 PM
That's what I was discussing, Reid's plan. That plan factored in the wars wrapping up as part of the savings Reid was touting.
Why do you bother? Libs just invent their own reality or parse away the truth until it sounds like reality. :o
Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2011, 11:58:39 PM
Why do you bother? Libs just invent their own reality or parse away the truth until it sounds like reality. :o
Can't be any worse though than Bush Jr not counting the wars in the budgets...
http://www.ktul.com/story/15191984/inhofe-wont-vote-for-debt-compromise?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Inhofe Won't Vote For Debt Compromise
QuoteWashington, DC - Oklahoma's five representatives were unanimous in voting for a compromise to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending Monday, but it's not going to be as easy in the Senate.
Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe announced he will vote against the measure, saying "At the end of the day, this bill allows Washington to continue business as usual in the irresponsible way it spends hard-earned tax dollars. That is why I cannot support this compromise."
"I have heard from constituents all over Oklahoma, and one thing is clear: they are frustrated," Inhofe adds. "President Obama says he wants a balanced approach. What we want is a Balanced Budget that will mean long-term fiscal responsibility."
Inhofe voted last week for the Boehner plan that included what he calls a more robust Balanced Budget Amendment mechanism and didn't include cuts to the military.
"While the compromise may avoid a short term default, it does nothing to address the tsunami of debt that we will face without addressing entitlements," Inhofe said. "If we don't seriously address these issues, just imagine the crushing debt we will hand our children and future generations."
The U.S. House voted 269-to-161. Democrats were evenly split with 95 voting for and 95 against. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure Tuesdayld
The country folk in OK will believe he was right no matter what could've happened.
Quote from: Townsend on August 02, 2011, 08:22:14 AM
http://www.ktul.com/story/15191984/inhofe-wont-vote-for-debt-compromise?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Inhofe Won't Vote For Debt Compromise
The country folk in OK will believe he was right no matter what could've happened.
Being the reddist state in the country has advantages for our local non-pilot.
Column: GOP's disrespect of Obama goes beyond debt fight
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-08-02-gop-disrespect-obama-debt_n.htm
"This total lack of respect is downright contemptible — if not unpatriotic. Such contempt, I'm convinced, is rooted in something other than political differences. Today, you might not see the overt actions of racist southern governors like Ross Barnett or George Wallace in the 1960s. But the presence of Jim Crow, Jr. — a more subtle form of racism — is there."
So much truth there.
Drop the racism meme already.
They hate him for three reasons:
A) He's a Democrat. They are on a mission to return a Republican to the White House.
B) He's an inept and incompetent leader, and according to accounts of POTUS storming out of meetings, seems to have temper-tantrum or maturity issues.
C) A piss-poor example of respect for the office of POTUS set by their Democrat peers in the Senate and House from 2001 to Jan. 2009.
Need I go on? Race has nothing more to do with their dislike of the man than it does for Democrats who now loathe President Obama.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2011, 10:41:05 AM
Drop the racism meme already.
They hate him for three reasons:
A) He's a Democrat. They are on a mission to return a Republican to the White House.
B) He's an inept and incompetent leader, and according to accounts of POTUS storming out of meetings, seems to have temper-tantrum or maturity issues.
C) A piss-poor example of respect for the office of POTUS set by their Democrat peers in the Senate and House from 2001 to Jan. 2009.
Need I go on? Race has nothing more to do with their dislike of the man than it does for Democrats who now loathe President Obama.
What a foolish post....
http://www.counterpunch.org/street07292011.html
"
Consider the following quote from Progressive Magazine editor Matthew Rothschild last October: "With economic pain at the highest level ever seen by most Americans, and with minorities especially hard hit, we're seeing a revolt not by people of color, not the unemployed, nor the foreclosed upon. Instead, we're seeing a revolt by the white middle class. It's a revolt against the very notion of a positive role for government in helping people. It's a revolt against Latin American immigrants. It's a revolt against Muslim Americans. And it's a revolt against our black president."
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 11:21:02 AM
What a foolish post....
Really? Counter why that is. You really think President Obama has shown any sort of leadership since taking office? He's got a tendency to abdicate that role on intensely controversial issues, instead allowing his minions in Congress to take it on the chin. He's far too worried about a second term and legacies to make unpopular decisions.
The race card is old and tired, remove it from the deck.
Conan, your hatred for Obama can be seen in your post. Leave it be. You are what you are....
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 11:27:07 AM
Conan, your hatred for Obama can be seen in your post. Leave it be. You are what you are....
You have no cogent argument so you apologize for poor leadership by calling others racist. The true racists these days are those who keep screaming "racism". You and Walter Busby should hang out together.
Stay classy my friend.
(http://listentoleon.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dos-equis-stay-thisty.jpg)
I did not call you a racist. Why the self defense?
Stay classy? I wasn't the one who went on a personal attack of the President. Do you read your own posts? They are poorly written dogma.
What does Busby have to do with this thread? Why do you feel that issue has anything to do with the debt deliberations? Besides, TPD has much larger issues which you seem to think are not relevant to higher taxes....
Without intimate knowledge of failures in leadership by Obama that meme gets tired as well. Stories of temper flare ups, walking out of meetings etc is a sign of a feisty, testy, salty character driven personalities when its McCain or Christy. But when its Obama its a failure to lead? What people consider leadership is totally subjective. Just like claims of racism or anti-Christian behavior. Subjective.
When you look back on this administration I believe you will find criticisms of lack of leadership consist of just one more phrase opportunity used as part of the partisan arsenal. You've actually been harping on it before he even became president. I believe it was the "empty suit" bumper sticker slogan you used throughout the campaign.
That empty suit has managed to piss off a lot of folks on both sides while overseeing financial bailouts, enabling health care changes, dealing with intransigent repubs/tea partiers during a budget crises, wars and the retraction from wars, terrorist successes and such.
Like Guido says, if everyone is pissed then it was probably a good deal. Same thing goes with leadership.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 11:34:12 AM
I did not call you a racist. Why the self defense?
Stay classy? I wasn't the one who went on a personal attack of the President. Do you read your own posts? They are poorly written dogma.
What does Busby have to do with this thread? Why do you feel that issue has anything to do with the debt deliberations? Besides, TPD has much larger issues which you seem to think are not relevant to higher taxes....
Do you read your own? Let me help you:
QuoteIt's a revolt against Latin American immigrants. It's a revolt against Muslim Americans. And it's a revolt against our black president."
Seriously, foment racism much? Every post you've made this morning has come from the angle that this is all against our
black president.
As far as me speaking out against an inept leader, it's not a personal attack. Attacking his race, physical issues, or family would be personal. On a personal level, I like President Obama. I find him charming, somewhat witty and someone I could sit across the table from at dinner and have a few good laughs. I'm attacking his poor job performance as our President. I'm attacking his attempts to blame everyone else for his failures and lack of leadership skill.
"He can't get anything done because Bush screwed everything up so bad. He can't get anything done because the TeaBa**ers won't let him. Members of his own party don't support him."
Presidents Clinton and Reagan didn't have problems moving a reasonable agenda forward with an opposition Congress because they were great leaders. What's his excuse again?
I had high hopes he could be a unifier. I had high hopes he could help turn around the economy by inspiring confidence in the economy and the American workforce. Instead, he's helped create prolonged instability by raising the costs of doing business in the United States and backing a slate of legislation which business leaders say is not business-friendly.
I'm incredibly disappointed in what a poor leader this man has turned out to be. That's my problem, it's nothing personal.
I'm disappointed in his approach to running this country as well. There's contempt in your remarks.
That quote was not my own, btw. But I agree with it because it's real.
Just because someone is a bad leader does not make them a bad person. I strongly disagree with his political philosophy, and his economic philosophy.
All of that aside, he could have taken a leadership role and put us on the road to solve this debt problem last year when his own debt reduction committee reported EXACTLY what was going to happen and gave him a road-map to mitigate it.
Instead, he chose to ignore every warning, and brush away every solution offered. He had to be brought to the table kicking and screaming, and even then refused to take any real leadership responsibility.
So now, I disagree with his politics, his economics, and his ethics.
That does not make me raciest. That does not make the President a bad person. That simply means that MY opinion of his abilities as President of the United States are very poor.
I wish him no ill, on the contrary, he has one more year in office and I am hopeful that he might have the strength and dignity to alter his philosophy in the light of its failures and not just invite, but act on the advice of those who can help shape policies that might bring us out of this mess, rather than plunge us deeper by constructing his own reality based on external blame.
I keep asking, why is everyone defending themselves? The article I posted from USA Today was not aimed at anyone in particular here. It was just trying to point out that Obama faces many obstacles and that one is paramount. So many here take things personally and assume way too much.
America is not doing her best right now.
Why bring in the race card? Because someone else did and you found it on the internets?
You are ruining our forum.
You see dissent with the article as being defensive?
I, and others don't agree with the author's opinion and offered our own perspective on how he's doing his job.
That's another problem President Obama has, too many apologists and enablers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 02, 2011, 12:26:29 PM
Why bring in the race card? Because someone else did and you found it on the internets?
You are ruining our forum.
"OUR"...my point exactly. Ruining? Hardly. There's other's in "YOUR" forum far more devious and bad but you could never face up to that. Nobody made me do it....
I will admit that today I am an angry liberal because I don't like MY country's regression.
I like what Winston Churchill said about us; Americans can indeed "be counted on to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Maybe next time will be after the 2012 election and the reality of the tax hikes that are required to actually help solve this problem will occur.
As far as racism - yeah, that is a huge component of this discussion, even though our particular right wing doesn't seem to understand that. I get notes from even more reactionary friends who have been slinging around the "N" word for 2 years! They did wait a respectful few months of just the normal tirades we see here, but it eventually came out when they realized how intellectually bankrupt the Murdochian arguments really are. So, if someone thinks it ain't racist, they just don't understand. But hey,... delusion is what Oklahoma is all about, isn't it?
I guess I don't get it. Where is the racism?
I can't see a single part of this debate that has anything to do with race.
To bring it down to that level simply shows that you have nothing left to say, so you pull the race sword from its scabbard in an attempt to somehow strengthen your position.
Stop it. It makes you look like a fool, not just a clown, and degrades what is left of the healthy debate happening between those of us who don't need to stoop that low.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 12:30:50 PM
"OUR"...my point exactly. Ruining? Hardly. There's other's in "YOUR" forum far more devious and bad but you could never face up to that. Nobody made me do it....
I will admit that today I am an angry liberal because I don't like MY country's regression.
Quit reading blogs by angry people and listening to angry people like Olbermann, that doesn't help.
John Stewart on Obama's capitulation on no new revenues.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-slaps-down-obama-for-debt-deal-youre-not-pinning-this-turd-on-us/
He also rips the Tea Party at the end. For me, the funniest moment is his joke about Boehner near 5:10.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2011, 01:02:06 PM
I guess I don't get it. Where is the racism?
I can't see a single part of this debate that has anything to do with race.
To bring it down to that level simply shows that you have nothing left to say, so you pull the race sword from its scabbard in an attempt to somehow strengthen your position.
Stop it. It makes you look like a fool, not just a clown, and degrades what is left of the healthy debate happening between those of us who don't need to stoop that low.
I will never stop posting pertinent columns to current issues in specific threads to open discussion to motives and seeking out the underlying causes. Don't take them personally and you'll be ok. Rupert Murdoch's team found the linked article printable.
This debate has shown all that is ugly in America and is calling the functionality of our Democracy into question.
I would agree with this Kentuckian (1:35 mark)....
On the contrary. This is not an example of a flaw in our system. This is an example of the finest feature of our system of government.
Our founding fathers wanted to make decisions like this a fight. They wanted the representatives of the people to be battered an bloodied by such decisions. That's why a simple majority wouldn't do.
It's not just the decision that is important it is the changing perception of the representatives that happens as a result of the decision. This fight and the thousands of fights that preceded it over the past 229 years, have shaped our nation and leadership.
Without this exact process we would never get an opportunity to identify the principled from the simply political in our representatives.
If this was just a majority decision we would be a nation led by whatever party happens to be in power.
Sure, it hurts when your side loses, and the result may not be the very best outcome, but the process is not at fault.
Had this issue been addressed when it was an issue rather than a crisis, the outcome may have been very different.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
On the contrary. This is not an example of a flaw in our system. This is an example of the finest feature of our system of government.
Our founding fathers wanted to make decisions like this a fight. They wanted the representatives of the people to be battered an bloodied by such decisions. That's why a simple majority wouldn't do.
It's not just the decision that is important it is the changing perception of the representatives that happens as a result of the decision. This fight and the thousands of fights that preceded it over the past 229 years, have shaped our nation and leadership.
Without this exact process we would never get an opportunity to identify the principled from the simply political in our representatives.
If this was just a majority decision we would be a nation led by whatever party happens to be in power.
Sure, it hurts when your side loses, and the result may not be the very best outcome, but the process is not at fault.
Had this issue been addressed when it was an issue rather than a crisis, the outcome may have been very different.
Now That's funny....I did not know you had the clown in you too...
How can anyone ever say that American Democracy exists when a small band of selfish, idiotic ideologues can hold the whole country hostage to achieve their selfish aims when a huge majority of Americans do not support them? This selfishness comes from both sides of a systemic failure in our country.
What's the next "crisis" your people will conjure up to divide the nation, cloud priorities, and anger the people?
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
How can anyone ever say that American Democracy exists when a small band of selfish, idiotic ideologues can hold the whole country hostage to achieve their selfish aims when a huge majority of Americans do not support them? This selfishness comes from both sides of a systemic failure in our country.
I know. Thank goodness for the tea party that kicked those folks out of local, state, and federal government last November.
Now children, here are your words for the day: Belligerent, Indulgent, Incendiary, Egotistical, Arrogance, Pontificate, Dissonance, Bloviation, Chauvinism, Exaggeration, Misconstrue and Condescension.
Your task is to match up each word or personality trait with its author in the previous posts! You have 2 minutes which is about the same time it took to make the posts. For additional insights position yourself on the asphalt parking lot of a nearby downtown church, in sight of a bank time/temperature sign, with your laptop.
Good luck. No cheating.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
Now That's funny....I did not know you had the clown in you too...
How can anyone ever say that American Democracy exists when a small band of selfish, idiotic ideologues can hold the whole country hostage to achieve their selfish aims when a huge majority of Americans do not support them? This selfishness comes from both sides of a systemic failure in our country.
What's the next "crisis" your people will conjure up to divide the nation, cloud priorities, and anger the people?
Again, this was not a crisis back in 2009, 2010. The trajectory was set and even the president found it necessary to spend millions of dollars assembling a blue ribbon panel who's singular responsibility was to report and present a "road map" to solve the problem.
This became a crisis when the president opted to kick the can, rather than confront the very problem he himself recognized and sought solutions to.
For most of us of the conservative persuasion, this was his own self-manufactured crisis. Had he decided to address the problem the crisis would have been little more than a 22 minute motion and vote that no news agency would even bother to cover.
He turned it into speeches, and golf outings, and campaign stops.
President Obama leads through crisis. From the campaign to the stimulus, to the auto bail-out, to cash for clunkers, to the debt ceiling increase, he uses crises as his only means to motivate. He leads by push rather than pull. If you cannot see that, then you are hopelessly blind.
So Obama is the one that decided to tie the debt ceiling increase to bringing the budget closer to balanced?
Bonus words!
Naivete, Gestault, Diagnostician, Projection (psychol)
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2011, 02:59:31 PM
So Obama is the one that decided to tie the debt ceiling increase to bringing the budget closer to balanced?
Heck no, he would never suggest means-based spending or any spending measure that could threaten his ability to spend freely. :D That's why he refused to take even one of the suggestions presented by the debt committee he assembled. That's why he didn't act on a single point from his "budget framework" speeches. He's all campaign, and campaigns need to spend!
He wouldn't' even commit that any revenue increases agreed upon would be used to pay down the debt, because he knew they would be used for new spending.
You kids are on a roll!
Empath (trekkie), Empathetic (pschol), Dogmatic, Demonize, Deprecative
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2011, 03:20:41 PM
Heck no, he would never suggest means-based spending or any spending measure that could threaten his ability to spend freely.
Funny how you so happily contradict yourself.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2011, 04:14:47 PM
Funny how you so happily contradict yourself.
Please demonstrate in your usual non sequitur style that we so enjoy.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
Please demonstrate in your usual non sequitur style that we so enjoy.
Oh for God's sake, please don't.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 02, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
Now That's funny....I did not know you had the clown in you too...
How can anyone ever say that American Democracy exists when a small band of selfish, idiotic ideologues can hold the whole country hostage to achieve their selfish aims when a huge majority of Americans do not support them? This selfishness comes from both sides of a systemic failure in our country.
What's the next "crisis" your people will conjure up to divide the nation, cloud priorities, and anger the people?
All this tea party crap being "terrorists" and holding "hostages" has been over the top hyperbole. Here's, gulp, Sarah Palin speaking the truth with mega-hilarity:
.
guido,
Step away from the bong!!
You have had way too much!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 03, 2011, 02:02:28 PM
guido,
Step away from the bong!!
You have had way too much!!
I said "gulp". ;) It was kinda funny how Obama hangs out with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, and his party with balls the size of basketballs calls out tea partiers as terrorists.
Quote from: guido911 on August 03, 2011, 02:24:21 PM
I said "gulp". ;) It was kinda funny how Obama hangs out with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, and his party with balls the size of basketballs calls out tea partiers as terrorists.
Didn't Bin Laden, Chavez, Amadinnerplate, and Gaddafi call Americans terrorists too?
I guess when you get pillage-blocked by a bunch of constitution thumpers, you just say stuff.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-85H0W6ZGoAk/Tjd3Lw-lV3I/AAAAAAAACEA/uNts-TpsI1E/s1600/Joe+Biden+Crazy.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 02, 2011, 08:53:09 PM
All this tea party crap being "terrorists" and holding "hostages" has been over the top hyperbole.
Tell that to Mitch McConnell:
Quote
... McConnell said he could imagine doing this again.
"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting," he said. "Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this — it's a hostage that's worth ransoming.
. . .and concluding this thread, The Washington Times reports today:
U.S. debt shot up $239 billion on Tuesday — the largest one-day bump in history — as the government flexed the new borrowing room it earned in this week's debt-limit increase deal.
The debt subject to the statutory limit shot way past the old cap of $14.294 trillion to hit $14.532 trillion on Tuesday, according to the latest the Treasury Department figures, which are released on the next business day.
That increase puts the government already remarkably close to the new debt limit of $14.694, which means one day's new borrowing ate up 60 percent of the $400 billion in space Congress granted the president this week.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/3/us-eats-most-debt-limit-one-day/
Quote from: guido911 on August 03, 2011, 02:24:21 PM
I said "gulp". ;) It was kinda funny how Obama hangs out with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, and his party with balls the size of basketballs calls out tea partiers as terrorists.
And I have "hung out" with a group that also has a bunch of drug addicts, alcoholics, and other sinners. The Salvation Army. Doesn't mean I am one, or have been one.
He "hung out" at an anti-poverty group called Woods fund. ( http://www.woodsfund.org/ )
I don't know much about them, but if you go by the RWRE fantasy world propaganda, then anyone who ever had anything to do with Salvation Army, John 3:16, 12 & 12, Neighbor For Neighbor, and others, is immediately suspect, and should be crucified for that relationship! Ok, I am guilty of association/support of all those, except for 12 & 12, so crucify me!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 04, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
And I have "hung out" with a group that also has a bunch of drug addicts, alcoholics, and other sinners. The Salvation Army. Doesn't mean I am one, or have been one.
He "hung out" at an anti-poverty group called Woods fund. ( http://www.woodsfund.org/ )
I don't know much about them, but if you go by the RWRE fantasy world propaganda, then anyone who ever had anything to do with Salvation Army, John 3:16, 12 & 12, Neighbor For Neighbor, and others, is immediately suspect, and should be crucified for that relationship! Ok, I am guilty of association/support of all those, except for 12 & 12, so crucify me!
Wow. Equating the Salvation Army to the Weather Underground. I'll look around to see how many bombings the Salvation Army or John 3:16 carried out. And Palin never said Obama was a terrorist, just that he "pals around" with them. And she's right. Obama did pal around with Ayers, until the right found out and there went little Billy and his terrorist wife under the bus. The loving couple heiron likens to workers at the Salvation Army:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQE7sPw49bM19QrEAQ3PMbQKV3BYu26OFaUX-TnQUaZW97b6ims)
I think I recognize this guy Obama is glad handing as a 12 & 12 worker:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYKhAyHar58WnL0Arkor7qI4v8UEzKvHeUmsDrZTvOVg0-yhOMkw)
Do you read as much as every third or fourth word?? Geez....
And understand half of that???
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 04, 2011, 01:36:39 PM
Do you read as much as every third or fourth word?? Geez....
And understand half of that???
You don't like getting your @ss handed to you, do you? That's what happens when your raging PDS gets in the way of rational thought. Look genius, you tried to take out Palin's little poke at Obama (as a result of the WORST gaffe-man in government--Joe "J-O-B-S" Biden and the loony left's meme accusing tea partiers as terrorists) with what was just the dumbest retort.
Here's how I think you came up with that idea. Mumbling to yourself and hand-wringing: "You know, that unemployed grandmother Palin woman makes me so mad I could just hold my breath. Oh, wait. I know. I'll show her. Just because a person works alongside an organization doesn't make them a member nor a beneficiary of its work. Genius. Now, to my keyboard!"
Oh I know where you got mixed up. You thought I was referring to this Weather Underground:
http://www.wunderground.com/
Sorry if I led you to believe Obama was palling around with weather reporters.
Rep. Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS! ??? ??? ??? ???
Racial Wealth Gap Worst in 25 Years
http://boycewatkins.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-study-racial-wealth-gap-worst-in-25-years/
"The evidence clearly shows, without question, that black people are not better off under Obama."
"The great Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, is the one who sent our nation into the tailspin of deficit spending and greed that puts our country on the brink of its first default in history."
Like as if it had been handed to me...
No, I understood the reference to the radical Weather people. It is the ignorance of the people that put out that BS about Obama and Ayers being 'pals' that I refer to - but you know that, too. (Much like the Swift Boat BS from several years ago - lies, misinformation, misdirection about a topic that had NO basis in fact or anything approaching reality, but was spread by the people misrepresenting themselves as the "moral compass" of America.) The RWRE, led by the Murdoch/Cheney/Rove cabal. Which they are not - the moral compass, of course. As can most recently be seen by the little Murdoch newspaper in England.
PDS? I don't know anything about the Pearl District Sluts, but I haven't been to Portland area in a long time. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 04, 2011, 02:07:41 PM
Like as if it had been handed to me...
No, I understood the reference to the radical Weather people. It is the ignorance of the people that put out that BS about Obama and Ayers being 'pals' that I refer to - but you know that, too. (Much like the Swift Boat BS from several years ago - lies, misinformation, misdirection about a topic that had NO basis in fact or anything approaching reality, but was spread by the people misrepresenting themselves as the "moral compass" of America.) The RWRE, led by the Murdoch/Cheney/Rove cabal. Which they are not - the moral compass, of course. As can most recently be seen by the little Murdoch newspaper in England.
PDS? I don't know anything about the Pearl District Sluts, but I haven't been to Portland area in a long time. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
It's his defense mechanism for all things Mama Grizzly kicking in...
Quote from: Gaspar on August 04, 2011, 01:06:27 PM
That increase puts the government already remarkably close to the new debt limit of $14.694, which means one day's new borrowing ate up 60 percent of the $400 billion in space Congress granted the president this week.
We had been in a debt issuance suspension period since May 15th. That means all the money that goes into retirement accounts and normally gets converted into government debt didn't have that happen. Did you expect them not to make the trust funds whole? It'll be interesting to see in the weekly release exactly how much is public debt and how much is intragovernmental.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 04, 2011, 01:57:43 PM
Rep. Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS! ??? ??? ??? ???
Racial Wealth Gap Worst in 25 Years
http://boycewatkins.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-study-racial-wealth-gap-worst-in-25-years/
"The evidence clearly shows, without question, that black people are not better off under Obama."
"The great Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, is the one who sent our nation into the tailspin of deficit spending and greed that puts our country on the brink of its first default in history."
I've seen what you've done here. If we had a Repiglican Prez, you'd blame him, instead you blame the highest ranking Rethug so you can give cover to the man who has no clue how jobs are created.
Quote from: nathanm on August 04, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
We had been in a debt issuance suspension period since May 15th. That means all the money that goes into retirement accounts and normally gets converted into government debt didn't have that happen. Did you expect them not to make the trust funds whole? It'll be interesting to see in the weekly release exactly how much is public debt and how much is intragovernmental.
The new credit cards arrived!!! Time to go to Macy's!!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 05:00:43 PM
The new credit cards arrived!!! Time to go to Macy's!!!!
Uh, do you even understand what a debt issuance suspension period means? And were you aware that it's unconstitutional for a President to not spend appropriated funds? (unless that appropriation is specifically meant to be at the executive's discretion, of course)
Normally, when Treasury receives money destined for one of the trust funds, Treasury issues a nonmarketable security and deposits that instead (thanks, Reagan!). These securities count toward the debt ceiling. When the debt ceiling is reached, nothing can go into the trust funds because, by law, Treasury has to give them debt instead. When the Secretary of the Treasury declares a debt issuance suspension period, Treasury gets to temporarily stop doing that, but they have to make the funds whole once said suspension is over. Looking at the intragovernmental holdings, it looks like we were over $100 billion behind with trust fund investments, and that's just what matured and didn't get replaced. That's not including any new contributions that should have been made in the last 3 months.
So yeah, $113,662,607,204.02 was due to the rearranging of the deck chairs that allows Treasury to remain under the debt ceiling longer, while $124,683,694,907.85 was new borrowing. It just goes to show that one ought not to read Sun Myung Moon's paper if you want to actually be informed.
Lighten up Francis. Use your credit card to go buy a sense of humor. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 07:36:00 PM
Lighten up Francis. Use your credit card to go buy a sense of humor. ;)
I've long been told that's something that can't be bought. :(
Quote from: nathanm on August 04, 2011, 08:05:58 PM
I've long been told that's something that can't be bought. :(
It's too difficult to tax.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 04, 2011, 08:23:24 PM
It's too difficult to tax.
;D
Tell that to Jay Leno. 8)
Oh, wait..that proves your point perfectly.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 04, 2011, 05:00:43 PM
The new credit cards arrived!!! Time to go to Macy's!!!!
Already did. Spent 60% of the increase on the first day!
Pace yourself Mr. President.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 05, 2011, 07:29:38 AM
Already did. Spent 60% of the increase on the first day!
Pace yourself Mr. President.
Get with it Gassy!
QuoteUh, do you even understand what a debt issuance suspension period means? And were you aware that it's unconstitutional for a President to not spend appropriated funds? (unless that appropriation is specifically meant to be at the executive's discretion, of course)
Normally, when Treasury receives money destined for one of the trust funds, Treasury issues a nonmarketable security and deposits that instead (thanks, Reagan!). These securities count toward the debt ceiling. When the debt ceiling is reached, nothing can go into the trust funds because, by law, Treasury has to give them debt instead. When the Secretary of the Treasury declares a debt issuance suspension period, Treasury gets to temporarily stop doing that, but they have to make the funds whole once said suspension is over. Looking at the intragovernmental holdings, it looks like we were over $100 billion behind with trust fund investments, and that's just what matured and didn't get replaced. That's not including any new contributions that should have been made in the last 3 months.
So yeah, $113,662,607,204.02 was due to the rearranging of the deck chairs that allows Treasury to remain under the debt ceiling longer, while $124,683,694,907.85 was new borrowing. It just goes to show that one ought not to read Sun Myung Moon's paper if you want to actually be informed.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2011, 10:04:23 AM
Get with it Gassy!
Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with Moonies.
Hey here's some more hilariousness. When asked about how the president intends to work on the jobs crisis now that the debt crisis is over Jay Carney replies "The actions that [Congress] can take could create more jobs right now, if it passed the patent reform, if it passed the free trade agreements."
Both, part of the Republican jobs agenda, but not as important as making more realistic changes, and neither would make it passed Senate Democrats. http://majorityleader.gov/Jobs/HRP_JOBS_SUMMARY.pdf
It's like he was completely unprepared for reporters to ask him about jobs. Then the best he could do was to pull something obscure out of his @ss?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/04/tapper_peppers_carney_what_is_obama_doing_to_create_jobs.html
That tells me that not only do they have no idea how to handle their jobs, but they also have no intention of addressing the issue at hand.
We are really in trouble.
Read this exchange, it's frightening:
JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS: I believe the Dow has gone down -- obviously, the day is not over -- but I believe the Dow's gone down now more than during that controversial TARP vote. And analysts are saying that the reason that this is happening is because of uncertainty about the American economy, that we are entering a double-dip recession, or at the very least, a period of real softness and weakness for the U.S. economy. What is the administration doing about that?
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE: Well, the analysis I saw today did not -- was not about the American economy, particularly, in terms of what's happening.
TAPPER: I'm talking about analysis from the last 20 minutes.
CARNEY: But there are obviously -- there are a lot of global issues that affect the global economy and that obviously affect the American economy. We strongly believe, as I've said, that we will continue to grow and we will continue to create jobs, and we need to take the measures necessary to do that.
We have encountered in this calendar year a number of economic headwinds that could not have been foreseen: the tsunami -- earthquake and tsunami in Japan that disrupted global supply chains; the unrest in the Middle East, which has an impact on oil prices; and the situation in Europe. So, you know, obviously that has hurt the economy globally and has slowed growth and job creation, but we believe that growth and job creation will continue.
My interpretation:
Gaspar: What steps are being taken to address the weak economy?
Carney: Yeah, there's like a lot of global stuff, and other stuff, that like we don't know about, and it's all really complicated, and there are tsunamis and earthquakes and stuff, and disruptions in global supply chains that like make stuff hard to do, and we need to make it easier for people to get patents and like sell stuff and that's not our fault, it's like congress that needs to do stuff. The President is going to have some meetings and talk to some people about what can be done to like make jobs happen and stuff.
Is Jay Carney banging The Poodle now? Holy crap!
That's all funny though, issues like that were totally irrelevant to the Jay Carnies of this world as barriers to new jobs when President Bush faced them.
"We don't know how to fix this so we will just blame someone or something else."
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2011, 01:35:11 PM
"We don't know how to fix this so we will just blame someone or something else."
They know precisely how to fix (well, soften the blow) it, but there's no political will for another stimulus, even though economists from AEI and their ilk are agreeing with the unholy trinity on the left that further stimulus is necessary.
Two things would help dramatically for the long run. Eliminate NAFTA, and eliminate "most favored nation" trade status to China.
Quote from: nathanm on August 05, 2011, 06:25:40 PM
They know precisely how to fix (well, soften the blow) it, but there's no political will for another stimulus, even though economists from AEI and their ilk are agreeing with the unholy trinity on the left that further stimulus is necessary.
If they had a clue how to fix it, they would be making some progress by now. I think everyone but you realizes a stimulus is nothing but a temporary measure and has no lasting impact on the economy. Especially now with so much uncertainty with the debt rating being down-graded and unemployment remaining static. Yes, it's noted that the private sector is creating jobs and the bulk of new job losses appear to be coming from gubmint, yet most people don't look closely at that metric.
If you dumped a bunch more money out there in the form of tax rebates to individuals, I suspect a good amount will be hoarded.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 08, 2011, 08:51:06 AM
I think everyone but you realizes a stimulus is nothing but a temporary measure and has no lasting impact on the economy.
...
If you dumped a bunch more money out there in the form of tax rebates to individuals, I suspect a good amount will be hoarded.
Yeah, it's temporary, but the point is to stimulate enough demand that the private sector picks up on its own. Or, in the present situation, hasten the day that people have their debt situation worked out and are therefore willing to spend on their own. The sooner we get the private balance sheet problem worked out, the sooner we can be back on the treadmill of growth and compounding our gains. Every year we sit in the toilet we permanently lose gains we could have made.
And yeah, people who have enough income to pay for what they need will just save (or pay off debt with) whatever we give back to them. That's why we need fiscal stimulus rather than more easing of tax policy.
And now that most of the Super Committee has been announced, all I can say is wow. When I saw Reid's picks earlier, I was uninspired, to say the least, but I was at least able to console myself with the fact that Baucus is pretty far right on budget issues, as far as Democrats go, anyway.
McConnell and Boehner also released their choices today. Every single one of them is an anti-tax nutter. The only thing that can be said for the Republican picks is that at least they're not all Tea Partiers. Somehow I see some automatic cuts in our future, whether because the committee can't make a recommendation at all when over half of it is made up of partisan ideologues or because they manage to report a bill that it won't pass the full Senate or is so stuck on stupid Obama goes for the veto.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/harry-reids-path-of-least-resistance/2011/08/10/gIQAjaha6I_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-gop-chooses-its-debt-super-committee-negotiators--poorly/2011/08/10/gIQAcBl06I_blog.html
Super committee best bust a move.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/u-s-debt-will-top-15-trillion-mark-today/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/u-s-debt-will-top-15-trillion-mark-today/)
QuoteU.S. Debt to Top $15 Trillion Mark Today
Super Committee. . .Every time I hear that I laugh. It's like you can add "Super" to any word and people naturally think it's somehow better.
First of all, a committee is a group of people who's job is to evenly distribute the blame for incompetence.
A Super Committee must do that much better? Right?
Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 03:26:03 PM
Super Committee. . .Every time I hear that I laugh. It's like you can add "Super" to any word and people naturally think it's somehow better.
First of all, a committee is a group of people who's job is to evenly distribute the blame for incompetence.
A Super Committee must do that much better? Right?
Love the new avatar. I could just hear VP Biden at the Adelson's house a couple of months ago when he came for a smash and grab:
"George, this is a really bucking big deal!"
Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 03:26:03 PM
Super Committee. . .Every time I hear that I laugh. It's like you can add "Super" to any word and people naturally think it's somehow better.
First of all, a committee is a group of people who's job is to evenly distribute the blame for incompetence.
A Super Committee must do that much better? Right?
Projecting Rush Limbaugh? yes...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2011, 03:29:55 PM
Love the new avatar. I could just hear VP Biden at the Adelson's house a couple of months ago when he came for a smash and grab nooner:
"George, this is a really bucking big deal!"
FIFY
Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 03:26:03 PM
Super Committee. . .Every time I hear that I laugh. It's like you can add "Super" to any word and people naturally think it's somehow better.
A Super Cluster?
Oh, hey, lookie here, the GOP can't seem to find one person to talk to NPR about how a surtax would keep them from creating jobs:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much
Quote from: nathanm on December 09, 2011, 02:56:03 PM
Oh, hey, lookie here, the GOP can't seem to find one person to talk to NPR about how a surtax would keep them from creating jobs:
That's a real sassy hat ol' Thune's got on there.
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/12/08/john-thune.jpg?t=1323393804&s=3)
How about a ma'am tax instead of a surtax? You never hear of the ma'ams getting a special tax, just the surs and the syns.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 05:29:21 PM
How about a ma'am tax instead of a surtax? You never hear of the ma'ams getting a special tax, just the surs and the syns.
This week, while no one is looking, the president will phone in a request from Makaha Resort & Golf Club, on the island of Oahu.
He will ask for a $1.2 Trillion increase in the debt limit, pushing it past 16 Trillion dollars, or about $135,000 per tax payer!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 10:04:33 AM
This week, while no one is looking, the president will phone in a request from Makaha Resort & Golf Club, on the island of Oahu.
He will ask for a $1.2 Trillion increase in the debt limit, pushing it past 16 Trillion dollars, or about $135,000 per tax payer!
You should probably cite the post.
Quote from: Townsend on December 27, 2011, 10:18:56 AM
You should probably cite the post.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/27/us-usa-treasury-debt-idUSTRE7BQ0KU20111227
or you could just use the google. It's news, except for MSNBC, Huff, MoveOn, and Kos.
The debt limit is 50% higher since President Obama took office.
During President Reagan's term it went up 100%.
How dare Obama not go into debt as much as Reagan!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:35:50 AM
The debt limit is 50% higher since President Obama took office.
During President Reagan's term it went up 100%.
How dare Obama not go into debt as much as Reagan!
Kinda funny how that works...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:35:50 AM
The debt limit is 50% higher since President Obama took office.
During President Reagan's term it went up 100%.
How dare Obama not go into debt as much as Reagan!
I used to be twice as old as my little sister when I was two.
You are talking about $69 billion dollars over 8 years VS $5
Trillion dollars in three. That's 72 times as much!
Saint Reagan screwed the future by going into debt, yet republicans only remember him as the guy who tore down the Berlin Wall.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:48:09 AM
Saint Reagan screwed the future by going into debt, yet republicans only remember him as the guy who tore down the Berlin Wall.
Perhaps we will just remember President Obama as the guy that got Bin Laden, and be able to forget the rest?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 10:47:52 AM
I used to be twice as old as my little sister when I was two.
And you could once get a hot bath and a steak for a quarter.
You think the only way to compare things is by raw numbers? Did you not learn percentages in school?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:52:05 AM
And you could once get a hot bath and a steak for a quarter.
You think the only way to compare things is by raw numbers? Did you not learn percentages in school?
I think that would be a fair comparison if it was inflation we were correcting for, but it is not. President Obama has spent more in interest obligation than Reagan did in deficit spending.
I'm not debating that Reagan was a spender, but the comparison you are making is niter important or relevant. Makes a nice pitch though.
What would you say is the return we can expect from President Obama's spending campaign vs. Reagan's or even Clinton's spending cuts?
It seems that spending is the only way the Obama administration knows to stay afloat. It's kinda like people who see nothing wrong with paying one credit card using another. Somewhere in their minds they think that either they are going to catch up, or come into money. Eventually, they just blame the credit card company, and file bankruptcy.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 10:24:34 AM
or you could just use the google. It's news, except for MSNBC, Huff, MoveOn, and Kos.
Or you could cite your posts.
There are tremendous similarities between Reagan and Obama presidencies.
In his second and third years, Reagan faced unemployment well over ten percent and it started to come down by deficit spending. November of 83 it was 8.5% and November of 2011 it is 8.6%.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:35:50 AM
The debt limit is 50% higher since President Obama took office.
During President Reagan's term it went up 100%.
How dare Obama not go into debt as much as Reagan!
Reagan had 8 years. (So far) Obama has had about 3 years.
Reagan had more than twice as long to raise the debt limit 100% as Obama has had to raise it 50%.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:52:05 AM
You think the only way to compare things is by raw numbers? Did you not learn percentages in school?
Yes, I learned about percentages. I also learned they could be used to deceive.
Example:
Company A has 2 employees. They hire 2 more. That is 100% growth.
Company B has 100 employees. They hire 50 more. That is only 50% growth.
Clearly, Company A has had twice the growth as Company B.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2011, 12:13:20 PM
Yes, I learned about percentages. I also learned they could be used to deceive.
Example:
Company A has 2 employees. They hire 2 more. That is 100% growth.
Company B has 100 employees. They hire 50 more. That is only 50% growth.
Clearly, Company A has had twice the growth as Company B.
1/2the head aches.... ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 27, 2011, 12:36:50 PM
1/2the head aches.... ;)
I didn't say anything about it being a Union shop. ;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 11:18:38 AM
There are tremendous similarities between Reagan and Obama presidencies.
In his second and third years, Reagan faced unemployment well over ten percent and it started to come down by deficit spending. November of 83 it was 8.5% and November of 2011 it is 8.6%.
Those are some striking similarities. If it was spending alone that causes a turn in joblessness, then by that logic, we should be rolling in jobs right now. Actually, if that logic holds, according to the math we should have negative unemployment under president Obama's spending.
Since that is not the case there must be some other element introduced by Reagan, but not present within president Obama's formula. What could that be?
Anywhoo. . .I heard an interesting comment at lunch yesterday while discussing this subject with a less than conservative friend. He said that the reason President Obama has not seen the job growth that Reagan saw was because the rich liked Reagan, and hired people just to make him look good, and they do not like President Obama, so they are refusing to hire people just so he will look bad. I found that a very interesting defense.
Does anyone else think that businesses don't like President Obama, and are therefore holding back just to get him out of office?
No President wasted more money than this goon.... 3 trillion plus.
I must say this interviewer has too much chutzpah. And I will say Bush was a man of his own convictions.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 12:54:45 PM
Does anyone else think that businesses don't like President Obama, and are therefore holding back just to get him out of office?
If businesses don't like Obama so much, the next question would be why?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2011, 01:00:15 PM
If businesses don't like Obama so much, the next question would be why?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but perhaps businesses are racist?
I mean, there can't be anything he's done to make them dislike him. Can there?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 01:09:12 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but perhaps businesses are raciest?
I mean, there can't be anything he's done to make them dislike him. Can there?
I doubt it.
From Google:
Quote
raciest superlative of rac·y (Adjective)
Adjective:
1. Lively, entertaining, and sexually titillating.
2. (of a wine, flavor, etc.) Having a characteristic quality in a high degree.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2011, 01:15:31 PM
I doubt it.
From Google:
Iphone spell checker? or intentional?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 11:18:38 AM
There are tremendous similarities between Reagan and Obama presidencies.
In his second and third years, Reagan faced unemployment well over ten percent and it started to come down by deficit spending. November of 83 it was 8.5% and November of 2011 it is 8.6%.
You know. . .now that I think about it, I'm glad you mentioned that. The BLS changed the way they calculate unemployment in 1994-1995. Instead of counting unemployed against existing population of working age, they started counting against "labor force" (those working, or actively looking for work). This meant that anyone who stopped looking for a job, or obtained part-time employment were no longer counted. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
That's why we keep hearing that our effective unemployment rate is about 20% now. So it seems that Reagan really didn't face as much of an unemployment hurdle at 8.5% as President Obama does at 20%.
So even if you forget the percentages, the average duration of unemployment spiked to 20 weeks under Reagan. We go well over 40 weeks now, and with the new calculation method, the moment someone "leaves the labor force" (gives up), or runs out of benefits and gets a part time job, they are no longer part of the equation.
I find this rather discriminatory. I think there are a lot of people out there that would appreciate being counted as unemployed. We need to get rid of the Clinton era BLS calculations, and show unemployment using real numbers.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 27, 2011, 12:59:51 PM
And I will say Bush was a man of his own convictions.
He wasn't much for focus groups, was he?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 27, 2011, 01:20:09 PM
Iphone spell checker? or intentional?
Funny. My Android actually doesn't know the word "racist."
Yippee!!! More debt.
No one is in favor of more debt. The issue is why we have a federal government that does this.
Obama is trying to create jobs and asking Congress for the ability to go further into debt. The last President took us spiraling into debt for a war.
Which of the two would I prefer?
Guess.
Quote from: guido911 on December 27, 2011, 03:17:55 PM
Yippee!!! More debt.
We probably can't even get most of them to flip the lights off when they leave the room.
I bet he will have it spent in less than 60 days after it's approved.
We have to pay for votes with tax cuts and unemployment checks, and we have to pay those out of Social Security, and we have to pay Social Security out of loans from China, and then we have to pay interest on the loans from China out of the loans themselves, and then when we run out we just raise the debt ceiling again.
Buy stuff on AMEX, pay AMEX with MasterCard, pay MasterCard with Visa, pay Visa with Discover. . .get a home equity loan to pay off Discover and charge more stuff on AMEX! KEEP GOING! Imagine all the miles! Fly around the world and play golf with campaign donors. Sling some stimulus cash to keep donors happy. Deliver more unemployment checks. Make Fanny and Freddy pull more cash from the poor and middle class trying to get mortgages. . .Shhhhh! "Put the rest on my China Card!" Jobs? Jobs are for suckers. If it ain't public sector, it ain't $h!t!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 10:04:33 AM
This week, while no one is looking, the president will phone in a request from Makaha Resort & Golf Club, on the island of Oahu.
He will ask for a $1.2 Trillion increase in the debt limit, pushing it past 16 Trillion dollars, or about $135,000 per tax payer!
What does the location of the call have anything to do with this? Would it be better if the call was being made from his Crawford Ranch in Texas???
Quote from: JCnOwasso on December 27, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
What does the location of the call have anything to do with this? Would it be better if the call was being made from his Crawford Ranch in Texas???
Nevermind that if he didn't many in Congress and the folks running agin' 'im would start screaming that he's trying to shut down the government.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on December 27, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
What does the location of the call have anything to do with this? Would it be better if the call was being made from his Crawford Ranch in Texas???
I guess Scott forgets that our President was born in Hawaii. And does have relatives there.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 03:35:30 PM
I bet he will have it spent in less than 60 days after it's approved.
We have to pay for votes with tax cuts and unemployment checks, and we have to pay those out of Social Security, and we have to pay Social Security out of loans from China, and then we have to pay interest on the loans from China out of the loans themselves, and then when we run out we just raise the debt ceiling again.
Buy stuff on AMEX, pay AMEX with MasterCard, pay MasterCard with Visa, pay Visa with Discover. . .get a home equity loan to pay off Discover and charge more stuff on AMEX! KEEP GOING! Imagine all the miles! Fly around the world and play golf with campaign donors. Sling some stimulus cash to keep donors happy. Deliver more unemployment checks. Make Fanny and Freddy pull more cash from the poor and middle class trying to get mortgages. . .Shhhhh! "Put the rest on my China Card!" Jobs? Jobs are for suckers. If it ain't public sector, it ain't $h!t!
I see what you are doing there with all the golf references. You are subtly pointing out the promise that President Obama made a couple of years back that he would not rest until unemployment was under control. Well, for your information, he's not rested. He's played a lot of golf in that time, hosted concerts at the White House, traveled abroad extensively, and generally lived the life of the celebrity he is. I assure you that's not resting, that's well, uh,
not resting, okay? It's hard work being famous 'n stuff.
Quote from: Hoss on December 27, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
I guess Scott forgets that our President was born in Hawaii. And does have relatives there.
It's Hawaii though. We aren't all in Hawaii so the anti-Obama crew will say "he's in Hawaii."
Ok, it's bad to criticize without offering reason.
RM, you are correct, it is necessary to spend in some areas to stabilize and soften the impact of cyclical recession, but that is only a small part of what the government can do.
In the past, or typical philosophy was to; encourage growth and investment by taking measures to decrease energy and production costs. increase spending in some areas, and cut spending on unessential programs, stimulate economic movement by making capital more available to encourage innovation and expansion, and suspend or eliminate regulations that check growth. The perception of recovery was managed with realistic milestones, and uncertainty was minimized by the flow of capital.
We did very little of that, and every carrot offered was attacked to a giant stick. Capital did not flow into the private sector where the jobs live. We got exactly what we purchased.
The philosophy necessary for economic growth is very contrary to the philosophy of President Obama and most on the left, because it requires recognition that small businesses (and that means wealthy people) are where recession starts, and where it ends. Their business decisions, positive and negative, are what makes the economy of this country ebb and flow. It would also require recognition that innovation and expansion requires capital, and capital diverted for public sector growth diminishes private sector growth to an even greater measure because the public sector is not sustainable on its own.
It's not to say that the Keynesian/Obama way returns NO positive results. It does, but they are so very anemic that it is unwise to implement centralized economic philosophies during a recession if quick recovery is a goal. I think ideals got in the way of reason.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 27, 2011, 04:25:29 PM
I see what you are doing there with all the golf references. You are subtly pointing out the promise that President Obama made a couple of years back that he would not rest until unemployment was under control. Well, for your information, he's not rested. He's played a lot of golf in that time, hosted concerts at the White House, traveled abroad extensively, and generally lived the life of the celebrity he is. I assure you that's not resting, that's well, uh, not resting, okay? It's hard work being famous 'n stuff.
No! I love golf, and I'm happy for him. The hardest working man I know golfs all day, every day he can. . .my father! He's retired and tries to play at least 20 or 30 times a year.
The president has a lot to be proud of. He set a record yesterday!
Obama Golfs for the 90th Time as Presidentby KEITH KOFFLER on DECEMBER 26, 2011, 9:07 PM
After an hour of hiking, President Obama Monday got down to the serious business at hand, heading out to golf for the second day in his first three days of vacation. He was back on the course at Marine Corps Base Hawaii.
With this one, Obama reaches a new milestone, having gone golfing 90 times in less than three years as president. That's about three months of golf, given that the excursions generally take about five hours – much of the useful portion of the day.
What's more, it's the 32nd time he's been on the links this year, a record for the president. His 32 outings eclipses the 2010 mark of 30 and is far ahead of his 2009 tally of 28 rounds as president.
And remember, there are still five days left in the year for Obama to pad his new record, which he almost certainly will.
Along for Monday's round were three of Obama's Hawaii friends, Mike Ramos, Greg Orme and Bobby Titcomb. The latter, you may remember, was arrested in April in a prostitution sting.
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has reportedly played 119 rounds of golf in 2011 alone. With all the problems in the country and he is playing golf every three days.
Is gaspar upset about it?
If he was a democrat, gaspar would be typing in all caps and having a stroke.
Hypocrite.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:54:36 PM
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has reportedly played 119 rounds of golf in 2011 alone. With all the problems in the country and he is playing golf every three days.
You should be happy he is playing golf instead of running the HOR.
I just wish Obama could keep up with him.
:D
George Bush set the all-time record for vacation days as a President.
Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation. To put this into context, John F. Kennedy spent fewer days in office, 1000, than George W. Bush spent on vacation. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport.
But 90 rounds of golf in three years by Obama...OMG!
Gaspar has written about Obama and his golf game dozens of times on TulsaNow alone. I wonder why it bothers him so, while George Bush being gone for more than a third of his Presidency never got a mention by gaspar.
Oh I forgot, Obama is a democrat.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 04:39:34 PM
Ok, it's bad to criticize without offering reason.
RM, you are correct, it is necessary to spend in some areas to stabilize and soften the impact of cyclical recession, but that is only a small part of what the government can do.
In the past, or typical philosophy was to; encourage growth and investment by taking measures to decrease energy and production costs. increase spending in some areas, and cut spending on unessential programs, stimulate economic movement by making capital more available to encourage innovation and expansion, and suspend or eliminate regulations that check growth. The perception of recovery was managed with realistic milestones, and uncertainty was minimized by the flow of capital.
We did very little of that, and every carrot offered was attacked to a giant stick. Capital did not flow into the private sector where the jobs live. We got exactly what we purchased.
The philosophy necessary for economic growth is very contrary to the philosophy of President Obama and most on the left, because it requires recognition that small businesses (and that means wealthy people) are where recession starts, and where it ends. Their business decisions, positive and negative, are what makes the economy of this country ebb and flow. It would also require recognition that innovation and expansion requires capital, and capital diverted for public sector growth diminishes private sector growth to an even greater measure because the public sector is not sustainable on its own.
It's not to say that the Keynesian/Obama way returns NO positive results. It does, but they are so very anemic that it is unwise to implement centralized economic philosophies during a recession if quick recovery is a goal. I think ideals got in the way of reason.
In all fairness, let's take a larger look at what was driving the private sector during all the expansion leading up to the major cataclysm of '08 (or '07 depending on who's figures one cares to use to establish when the, ahem,
second Bush recession began.)
To President Obama's credit, he was handed the biggest pile given a new U.S. President since FDR took office. In many ways this was actually worse than what FDR faced because of a very complex modern financial system due to all the tools and gimmicks developed by degenerate gamblers who helped bring that system to its knees while getting fabulously wealthy with zero risk. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and I'm not really certain that John McCain could have achieved much more right now but at least we wouldn't have hurdles like Obamacare or "Doddering Funk" (Dodd-Frank for those of you who don't get my humor) which small business keeps identifying as one of the ways their plans for growth have been stifled.
Unfortunately, President Obama seems overwhelmed and under-prepared to meet such a challenge. His own defense and that of his supporters is to try and conflate figures to point out how he's no worse than his predecessors. After eight years of George W. Bush, that's a really low bar. Trying to conflate by percentages how $5 trillion in new debt over three years is somehow less harmful than $69 billion over eight years is really tortured logic, but that's how Obama's sycophants roll though. Sully up the predecessors so he doesn't look quite so incompetent or reckless, that's usually the first line of defense in defending overwhelming incompetence.
He brought with him a cadre of idealistic advisors who shared his vision for the country. In better economic times, they might be viewed with great success and be heading for an easy re-election while the economy keeps motoring along. Had unemployment stayed around 5% and had there not been a complete collapse of the financial system, I believe many of his initiatives would have gone largely un-noticed and with little complaint. Well, that's not entirely true, but his policies might have been looked upon with the same lens Clinton's policies were looked at. In spite of every attempt of the conservative talking heads to claim otherwise, Clinton was very business-friendly. Well, aside from what that whole NAFTA thing he left us with, but apparently, even the globalist neo-cons were on board with it.
One thing President Reagan did which was a proven success for previous presidents was increased defense spending. He had the advantage of doing that at a time when we had no major engagements anywhere in the world. That spending helped bring advances in technology sectors which have come to the consumer level now with things like GPS, advanced composites, nano-technology, etc. ad nauseum. The space program, specifically the shuttle program was also a boon for many high paying jobs both in the government and with many contractors. He also reaped the benefit of the burgeoning PC market, networking technology, and great advances in telecommunications, including cell phones, which was gaining ground throughout his term. In 1980, it was unusual to see a computer terminal on virtually every desk in any business you might frequent. By 1990, it was unusual to not see a terminal on a desk.
Presidents Bush and Clinton also reaped continued growth in those markets plus Clinton got the benefit of robust growth with telecom, the internet, and bio-tech, as well as how much capital came into play via the big rage in IPO's in the late 1990's thanks to relaxed regulations.
Again, to President Obama's credit, he's not had an explosive growth industry under his watch. That's not his fault. If the next integrated circuit, home PC, cell phone, or widget were coming through the pipeline, there would be plenty of money chasing it and plenty of jobs to follow. Instead of really following a winner and helping to fund it, he tried to create a winner by funding business models which made no sense, offered no real innovation, and were even duplicitous to what is already available or even behind what the current state-of-the art is. It's very well-documented now that there were some great PR coups and photo-ops in supporting incredibly high-risks simply because they represented a technology his supporters wanted to see.
President Obama fell prey to the idea that green jobs represented the next great technological breakthrough and has gambled heavily on it, ostensibly at the urging of significant campaign donors who stood to gain from enthusiastic government support and money. In reality, most all the "green" technologies have existed for decades, if not centuries or millennia. Old research has simply been re-packaged with modest gains in production and plenty of hyperbole and fear tactics like "global warming". The human race has harvested the various energies in different ways over time. There have really been no major breakthroughs in the last 20-30 years in alt fuels or kinetic or radiant energy like hydro, wind, or solar energy. Bio-fuels and syn-fuels are also not anything new and have been exposed as having too high an energy requirement to create them. I suspect green jobs may be his Waterloo. The unfortunate reality is that this administration is investing far too much hope in really old technology. If they spent money on real research instead of regurgitated older technology which has an economic disadvantage to foreign competition, they would not now be such a laughingstock in the international community.
From my perspective, it's not changed my job one iota, but I know my boss intends to keep our company leaner than we used to run it when I came
on board seven years ago. He might hate Obama personally, might be paranoid, or might just be like millions of other small business owners who have been frightened to their core over the last five years and want to stay in business to feed their families and have something of value when they retire rather than employ people for altruistic means, I'm not sure. We've endured a lot but to be perfectly honest, we are the busiest I've seen the business since I signed on in Oct. of '04. Instead of splitting out load amongst a bigger work force, my boss has raised the remuneration for contribution. We all work a little harder, but I don't hear anyone complain when the profit sharing checks come every quarter. As of Friday I will have had my best single year earnings in a 25+ year career in sales. Two years ago, I couldn't say the same thing as I endured a 30% cut in pay.
Interestingly, my company made a lot of money selling equipment to bio fuel companies and natural gas compressor plants from '05 to mid '08. That business has not even tried to rebound. There are still many dealers with brand-new circa 2008 shrink-wrapped expellers, fermenters, boilers, etc. sitting in their warehouses and back lots. The only reason we are even in business these days are the traditional sectors like petroleum exploration and refining, petrochemical, and agricultural have been really going great guns. We also seem to have hit a lucky cycle on government facilities and private industry alike where they finally maxed out the life-span of old equipment and have no alternative but to buy new equipment for reasons of safety and efficiency.
I also did really well under Clinton. It has nothing to do with which ever president brought me the greatest gains. They didn't do it. I did it in spite of whatever paradigms are out there. I've always felt like if I buy into "the economy sucks" I will fail personally.
If I were Obama, I'd invest in improving our petroleum exploration, delivery, and refining capacity even though that seems wildly unpopular amongst his supporters. I'd permit 10 or so major regional refineries with the latest technology in efficiency and emissions, and co-locate ethanol and bio-diesel refining on the same plots of land, using the many different sources of waste heat you can find on a refinery. Drive past Holly's two refineries on any given day and you will see steam, a flare, or the heat signature of a hot gas escaping to the atmosphere. There are BTU's in all that waste which would decrease the amount of new energy required to refine green fuels. building 10 mega refineries and updating the distribution network would easily create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs over the next decade in addition to all the ancillary jobs that would lead to and long-term employment within the refineries.
That would accomplish many means including driving down oil prices which would allow the consumer economy to rebound. I suspect there are several million jobs that no longer exist which might exist if gasoline were $2.25 and diesel was consistently less than $3.00.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 11:31:41 PM
George Bush set the all-time record for vacation days as a President.
Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation. To put this into context, John F. Kennedy spent fewer days in office, 1000, than George W. Bush spent on vacation. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport.
But 90 rounds of golf in three years by Obama...OMG!
Gaspar has written about Obama and his golf game dozens of times on TulsaNow alone. I wonder why it bothers him so, while George Bush being gone for more than a third of his Presidency never got a mention by gaspar.
Oh I forgot, Obama is a democrat.
This has become one of the dumbest straw men of the last few years. I suspect President Obama does spend time getting briefings every day, and
abdicating delegating responsibility to others including Christmas no matter where he is. And if I had his job, I would have been on the links more than 90 times in three years. I'd probably also be on my third trip to rehab by now, but that's a different story.
I don't recall President Bush regaling all sorts of gadflies and political supporters on the public dime at the ranch in Crawford or requiring two or three aircraft at $100,000 per hour to get to Crawford or Camp David. Just like President Reagan's ranch in California, both presidents were well-reputed to have working vacations, spending much time at their personal retreats working on the nation's business where they could be outside the pressures and negative influences of the beltway and have positive ways to unwind. Other presidents have chosen their own homestead for a get-away from the pressure of such a stressful job by clearing land or chopping wood amongst a day of conducting the nation's business. That's an old tradition dating to the days of George Washington. Also sounds better than playing golf with donors.
Where Obama has failed in terms of PR is that he seems really disconnected and distant from what is happening in the lives of the 20% of unemployed in the U.S. and even more disconnected from the other 20% or so of "working poor" when he and his wife take separate jumbo jets to Martha's Vineyard, Oahu, Spain, or the Far East to stay at some fabulous estate. There's a palpable arrogance that you
don't get from a president pictured on his horse on a hill side at Camp David, his mountain bike in Crawford, Texas, or with an axe in his hand at a remote ranch near Santa Barbara, or even at the family compound at Cape Cod or Kennebunktport. A tumbleweed and mesquite-infested ranch in the middle of some God-forsaken part of Texas doesn't represent a slice of paradise to most people so 400 some days there is hardly a "vacation" in the eyes of the public compared to two weeks at a borrowed estate in Oahu.
I agree, it's pretty sophomoric to consistently lambaste this president for his vacation choices, but he really makes himself an easy target because he's got this indifference like he's a celebrity and not the leader of a nation which is in great turmoil. Sure, he's more than welcome to conduct business where he sees fit and to play as many rounds of golf as he likes. Just seems like in times like these, he might want to keep the image toned down by staying at Camp David or publicly trumpeting out how he's cutting the White House travel budget by spending Christmas vacation in Wichita tracking down the roots from his mother's side of the family. Contrary to popular belief, there is no ancestral Obama family compound on Oahu like there was on Cape Cod for President Kennedy.
All that said, I'd love to see a comparison of travel budgets for the last four or five presidents and I think we might all be shocked by the results.
Oh, and Boehner and all his golf? The GOP leadership needs to remove him from SOTH after 2012 if not sooner. He's a complete donkey, maybe even worse than Gingrich. Sure a lot of business can be done on the golf course, but this guy wouldn't understand a compromise if it came wrapped in a shelf bra and crotchless panties ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 27, 2011, 10:54:36 PM
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has reportedly played 119 rounds of golf in 2011 alone. With all the problems in the country and he is playing golf every three days.
Is gaspar upset about it?
If he was a democrat, gaspar would be typing in all caps and having a stroke.
Hypocrite.
What makes you think I'm upset about either?
The less time congress and the president spend making laws, and ending money the better!
Besides, Boehner only has a part-time job working as a member of the house. Great way to spend that extra time before he retires.
So, back to the president. . . How long do you think 1.2 trillion will last him?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 06:18:49 AM
So, back to the president. . . How long do you think 1.2 trillion will last him medicare/medicaid/military/foreign aid/congressional pork?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 12:11:53 AM
I don't recall President Bush regaling all sorts of gadflies and political supporters on the public dime at the ranch in Crawford or requiring two or three aircraft at $100,000 per hour to get to Crawford or Camp David.
It has been estimated that Bush's trips to Crawford totalled about 20million in flight time alone, I am not even sure of the costs to get back and forth to camp david. This does not include the costs of the "working vacation" aspects like, flights for the entire cabinet staff etc. The $4M estimate for the Hawaii trip for the Obama's is for EVERYTHING.
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 08:25:06 AM
Hey, I'm good with that too! We had the opportunity to turn things around with Erskine Bowles' and the president's super committee recommendations. In fact, President Obama hand picked the members of the Super Committee and demanded that they provide a solution. He gave them a solid deadline and recognized and pontificated that the recommendations of the Committee might be "painful" but necessary in stabilizing our economy, reducing debt, and creating jobs.
We still never got a reason from the president as to why he ignored the committee's "Moment of Truth" report. Not a word was said, it was just quietly slid to the side of the Resolute Desk, where i'm sure it still sits today over a year later. We had an opportunity to choose the blue line, but we went with the green line. No explanations. No reasons. Just a quiet decision to slouch forward blindly.
http://momentoftruthproject.org/sites/default/files/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 09:06:19 AM
Hey, I'm good with that too! We had the opportunity to turn things around with Erskine Bowles' and the president's super committee recommendations. In fact, President Obama hand picked the members of the Super Committee and demanded that they provide a solution. He gave them a solid deadline and recognized and pontificated that the recommendations of the Committee might be "painful" but necessary in stabilizing our economy, reducing debt, and creating jobs.
We still never got a reason from the president as to why he ignored the committee's "Moment of Truth" report. Not a word was said, it was just quietly slid to the side of the Resolute Desk, where i'm sure it still sits today over a year later. We had an opportunity to choose the blue line, but we went with the green line. No explanations. No reasons. Just a quiet decision to slouch forward blindly.
http://momentoftruthproject.org/sites/default/files/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Congratulations. You're the most full of crap member of the forum now. How do you expect anyone to trust your posts?
http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html (http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html)
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 09:13:59 AM
Congratulations. You're the most full of crap member of the forum now. How do you expect anyone to trust your posts?
http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html (http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html)
So you are saying that the report delivered by the super committee in 2010 is somehow related to this?
Once they realized they were going to be played as scapegoats, and none of their original recommendations considered, they should have just joined the president on the course.
Looks like a growing number in Congress wants the president to re-consider the original Simpson Bowels recommendations: http://momentoftruthproject.org/node/306
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 09:13:59 AM
Congratulations. You're the most full of crap member of the forum now. How do you expect anyone to trust your posts?
http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html (http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html)
I think you rely on the Google a little too much now. You do understand that the Super Committee delivered their original report over a year ago to the total disregard of the president?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 09:18:25 AM
So you are saying that the report delivered by the super committee in 2010 is somehow related to this?
Once they realized they were going to be played as scapegoats, and none of their original recommendations considered, they should have just joined the president on the course.
Looks like a growing number in Congress wants the president to re-consider the original Simpson Bowels recommendations: http://momentoftruthproject.org/node/306
Where'd you get "handpicked by the president"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-names-her-picks-to-supercommittee-completing-12-member-debt-panel/2011/08/11/gIQALKDu8I_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-names-her-picks-to-supercommittee-completing-12-member-debt-panel/2011/08/11/gIQALKDu8I_story.html)
QuoteOn Wednesday, following the lead of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced their picks for the new panel.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 09:41:46 AM
I think you rely on the Google a little too much now. You do understand that the Super Committee delivered their original report over a year ago to the total disregard of the president?
You mean the follow up story?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 09:13:59 AM
Congratulations. You're the most full of crap member of the forum now. How do you expect anyone to trust your posts?
http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html (http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-super-committee-watched-football-hung-around-150322495.html)
Scott, please don't ever run for public office.
Or do. You exhibit the laziness and lack of research skills that are currently tantamount in our elected officials today. At least we'll know what we're getting.
Quote from: Hoss on December 28, 2011, 09:50:04 AM
Scott, please don't ever run for public office.
Or do. You exhibit the laziness and lack of research skills that are currently tantamount in our elected officials today. At least we'll know what we're getting.
Please explain. Did you do the same thing and just ignore the Simpson Bowels recommendations from 2010?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 09:42:30 AM
Where'd you get "handpicked by the president"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-names-her-picks-to-supercommittee-completing-12-member-debt-panel/2011/08/11/gIQALKDu8I_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-names-her-picks-to-supercommittee-completing-12-member-debt-panel/2011/08/11/gIQALKDu8I_story.html)
You are correct. He only got to pick 6 members and the two co-chairs. Pelosi got to pick 3, Reid got to pick 3, and the Republicans got 6.
Executive Order 13531
The Commission shall be composed of 18 members who shall be selected as follows:
(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.
So, because he did not get to pick them all, their research and opinions do not count?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 09:43:39 AM
You mean the follow up story?
That was not a follow up. That was related to the 2011 recommendations.
After returning the recommendations in 2010 and being ignored, a delay tactic was approved in congress on debt reduction, and a set of automatic triggers agreed too. This was a clear signal that the Super Committee was "designed to fail" and serve as a scapegoat. After all, they couldn't simply re-deliver the recommendations they provided in 2010, and the president made it clear that he was only willing to accept tax increases on the wealthy as the primary option. They were patsies, and they knew it.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 09:57:57 AM
So, because he did not get to pick them all, their research and opinions do not count?
I was commenting on the posts you make up. It's why I ask you to cite your posts.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 10:05:32 AM
They were patsies, and they knew it.
Probably should've turned down their appointments if they knew they were patsies huh?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 10:07:26 AM
I was commenting on the posts you make up. It's why I ask you to cite your posts.
Sorry, I am unaware of those.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 09:06:19 AM
In fact, President Obama hand picked the members of the Super Committee
then me:
QuoteWhere'd you get "handpicked by the president"?
Then you:
QuoteYou are correct.
You do that often. It swiss cheeses your reliability.
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 10:23:25 AM
then me:
Then you:
You do that often. It swiss cheeses your reliability.
My dearest apologies. There were 6 of the 18 picked by those outside of his party.
I must be affected by too much right-wing propaganda. Please don't hesitate to set me straight.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
My dearest apologies. There were 6 of the 18 picked by those outside of his party.
I must be affected by too much right-wing propaganda. Please don't hesitate to set me straight.
We try.
Conan....what's changed?
??? ??? ???
You seem more flexible with regard to our blackie black man President's performance..... :)
quit drinking?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 10:49:58 AM
Conan....what's changed?
??? ??? ???
You seem more flexible with regard to our blackie black man President's performance..... :)
quit drinking?
No actually, I was smile-faced when I wrote that and my white guilt overcame me ;)
I'll give any leader credit where and when it's due.
Without the growth in computer technology in the 1980's, job growth under President Reagan might have been stagnant. There's a certain amount of luck in presiding over good or bad economic times. There's simply no new "IT" technology to get all that money off the sidelines right now and that will play into a negative legacy for President Obama just as much as it played into positive legacies for Reagan, Bush, and especially Clinton.
Perhaps, but the technology age is still young!!!!
Lots more advances coming in bio-tech and in high-tech....
Quote from: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 04:39:34 PM
Ok, it's bad to criticize without offering reason.
RM, you are correct, it is necessary to spend in some areas to stabilize and soften the impact of cyclical recession, but that is only a small part of what the government can do.
If this were a standard cyclical recession based on supply/demand mismatch, our rebound would be much farther along and much stronger. Unfortunately, this is a balance sheet recession -- and one of the worst in modern memory. Our recession is based on a burst credit and real estate bubbles, and unfortunately these are very slow to recover from (cf. Reinhart and Rogoff's
This Time It's Different (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459001609215112.html) an historical survey of 800 years of economic crises.). As the WSJ review of the book says,
Quote"This Time Is Different" doesn't simply explain what went wrong in our most recent crisis. The book also provides a roadmap of how things are likely to pan out in the years to come. Real-estate bubbles invariably give way to banking crises. Losses in the financial sector are followed by the sharp deterioration in government finances amid bailouts and decreased tax revenue. The decline in economic output that follows the bust is sharp, but the recovery tends to be slow and protracted. The situation is especially dire when the crisis is geographically widespread."
We did very little of that, and every carrot offered was attacked to a giant stick. Capital did not flow into the private sector where the jobs live. We got exactly what we purchased.
QuoteThe philosophy necessary for economic growth is very contrary to the philosophy of President Obama and most on the left, because it requires recognition that small businesses (and that means wealthy people) are where recession starts, and where it ends. Their business decisions, positive and negative, are what makes the economy of this country ebb and flow. It would also require recognition that innovation and expansion requires capital, and capital diverted for public sector growth diminishes private sector growth to an even greater measure because the public sector is not sustainable on its own.
What's interesting about this paragraph is that Obama has done exactly that. Government payrolls have shrunken dramatically under his watch. He's upped small business loans to work around the failure of the private banking sector, etc etc etc. Do you know what he's actually done? If you did, I think you'd be much more pleasantly surprised than you are.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 11:09:41 AM
Government payrolls have shrunken dramatically under his watch.
See, even you admit it. He's contributed to unemployment ;)
On a more serious note: Small business credit is still very difficult to obtain, especially for start-ups. That's really not a policy issue so much as a risk issue with lenders when they've got less risky ways to make money right now.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 11:05:15 AM
Perhaps, but the technology age is still young!!!!
Lots more advances coming in bio-tech and in high-tech....
That is true. According to Kurzweil we are getting very close to the "singularity." Our processing power is growing exponentially and with the newest generation of microprocessors we have overcome many of the software hurdles of the past. Now, as in the 80's, we are back in a position of waiting for the software to catch up with the hardware, however the hardware is now progressing faster than developers can push code.
The result is that we have now developed more impressive tools for coding that basically write their own code.
This is a very exciting time to live in.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 11:44:02 AM
That is true. According to Kurzweil we are getting very close to the "singularity." Our processing power is growing exponentially and with the newest generation of microprocessors we have overcome many of the software hurdles of the past. Now, as in the 80's, we are back in a position of waiting for the software to catch up with the hardware, however the hardware is now progressing faster than developers can push code.
The result is that we have now developed more impressive tools for coding that basically write their own code.
This is a very exciting time to live in.
Who would ever need more that 640 KB?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 11:46:41 AM
Who would ever need more that 640 KB?
My farts have more than 640 kb now!
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 11:46:41 AM
Who would ever need more that 640 KB?
The first PC I ever bought had a 40 meg hard drive and 1 meg of RAM. The salesman said "You won't fill a 40 meg hard drive in 100 years and that meg of RAM will never see a program it can't handle!"
I don't get it. The green tech "revolution" (for lack of a better word) is pretty much a new space race to the nth degree, with multiple international players, some pretty rigorous scientific background (as well as impetus), and enough transformational work to do to engage us for decades. And here it is, sitting in our lap, tied up real pretty with a bow. I don't get the dismissiveness.
I DO get that we live in the ancestral home of American oil and gas, and that it's not only part of our current economic reality but part of our history and our culture . . . so it's not going to be a surprise that we're part of the folks saying no no no. But the opportunities out there are just astounding.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 01:22:09 PM
The first PC I ever bought had a 40 meg hard drive and 1 meg of RAM. The salesman said "You won't fill a 40 meg hard drive in 100 years and that meg of RAM will never see a program it can't handle!"
My first PC had 4k and a cassette tape drive.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
I don't get it. The green tech "revolution" (for lack of a better word)
I think evolution (no "r") would be more appropriate. I think one difference between this and the space race is that NASA could pretty much declare a direction to be wrong and go another way. Beanie and Cecil helicopter hats were rejected early. The green revolution has too much politics tied to it. I am not talking about government funded research, which I think has a place, but continued subsidies for things like corn to ethanol. That should be mature enough to support itself.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
I don't get it. The green tech "revolution" (for lack of a better word) is pretty much a new space race to the nth degree, with multiple international players, some pretty rigorous scientific background (as well as impetus), and enough transformational work to do to engage us for decades. And here it is, sitting in our lap, tied up real pretty with a bow. I don't get the dismissiveness.
I DO get that we live in the ancestral home of American oil and gas, and that it's not only part of our current economic reality but part of our history and our culture . . . so it's not going to be a surprise that we're part of the folks saying no no no. But the opportunities out there are just astounding.
What remains a mystery to me is why companies like ADM and Cargill aren't churning out bio-diesel by the tanker-load right now. With current road diesel prices, bio-d should be able to stand on it's own without subsidy and make the manufacturer about $1 a gallon profit.
There is a lot of profitability in oil and plenty of government subsidies built into a barrel of oil. It's also an incredibly efficient source of energy. If there were mass quantities of money to be made in green industries, you'd see a lot more movement in that direction with private enterprise. Red is correct, the administration has taken a political, rather than practical approach on how to develop such industries.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
What remains a mystery to me is why companies like ADM and Cargill aren't churning out bio-diesel by the tanker-load right now. With current road diesel prices, bio-d should be able to stand on it's own without subsidy and make the manufacturer about $1 a gallon profit.
There is a lot of profitability in oil and plenty of government subsidies built into a barrel of oil. It's also an incredibly efficient source of energy. If there were mass quantities of money to be made in green industries, you'd see a lot more movement in that direction with private enterprise. Red is correct, the administration has taken a political, rather than practical approach on how to develop such industries.
Small amounts from recycling efforts is feasible, but not as a primary replacement for petroleum.
Still costs too much to produce in mass. Plus it poses a dangerous pricing loop. Because in large quantities it would be produced from stocks like corn, rapeseed, soy, and other oil grains, to produce it in mass would inflate food costs. To further subsidize the production of such food stock, would turn farmers to fuel production over food, further increasing the price of food (as ethanol did). Once the market began to turn to surface energy production as opposed to pumping it out of the ground, we would need to devote ever increasing amounts of surface area to bio-fuel crops. This would increase the cost of production, food, and eat up a lot of land. To be sustainable in the market it would have to be priced competitively with regular diesel, and that would require regulation to artificially increase the price of petroleum diesel as demand for the product fell.
Natural demand is not there, and manipulated demand never turns out well.
This thread will change to a discussion on pot in 3. . .2. . .1
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 03:45:59 PM
Small amounts from recycling efforts is feasible, but not as a primary replacement for petroleum.
Still costs too much to produce in mass. Plus it poses a dangerous pricing loop. Because in large quantities it would be produced from stocks like corn, rapeseed, soy, and other oil grains, to produce it in mass would inflate food costs. To further subsidize the production of such food stock, would turn farmers to fuel production over food, further increasing the price of food (as ethanol did). Once the market began to turn to surface energy production as opposed to pumping it out of the ground, we would need to devote ever increasing amounts of surface area to bio-fuel crops. This would increase the cost of production, food, and eat up a lot of land. To be sustainable in the market it would have to be priced competitively with regular diesel, and that would require regulation to artificially increase the price of petroleum diesel as demand for the product fell.
Natural demand is not there, and manipulated demand never turns out well.
This thread will change to a discussion on pot in 3. . .2. . .1
Actually, there is plenty of recycled stock and the technology exists to harness it. Chicken fat is ideal to use as roughly a #2 grade oil. You can use yellow grease (fryer oil and bird fats) and tallow as boiler fuel with no refining conversion. Main issue is making sure you strain solids from it and you use heat exchangers (trim heaters) to pre-heat the oil to get better atomization. We've designed and installed many of those systems.
There's plenty of grain production capacity across the nation to produce a significant amount of virgin feed stocks for bio-diesel without upsetting the food chain, it's simply not being utilized at this time. At some point, bio-diesel and petroleum diesel would eventually find a price equilibrium because as the price would fall on p-diesel, demand would increase and the price would come up accordingly. At $3.75 a gallon for p-diesel right now, mass scale production of bio-diesel should be very attractive with a pricing advantage of about .25 a gallon. At least from what my contacts tell me, bio-d is retailing for $3.50 a gallon. That should create a good demand. For large-scale production, without subsidy, it should cost about $2.50 a gallon to produce these days.
Perhaps the farmers and processors are simply waiting for their
hand-out subsidies to make it
much more profitable more feasible.
Even at a 20% blend with p-diesel, that's 20% less dependence on petroleum stocks and it will run in any diesel engine.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 04:08:40 PM
Actually, there is plenty of recycled stock and the technology exists to harness it. Chicken fat is ideal to use as roughly a #2 grade oil. You can use yellow grease (fryer oil and bird fats) and tallow as boiler fuel with no refining conversion. Main issue is making sure you strain solids from it and you use heat exchangers (trim heaters) to pre-heat the oil to get better atomization. We've designed and installed many of those systems.
There's plenty of grain production capacity across the nation to produce a significant amount of virgin feed stocks for bio-diesel without upsetting the food chain, it's simply not being utilized at this time. At some point, bio-diesel and petroleum diesel would eventually find a price equilibrium because as the price would fall on p-diesel, demand would increase and the price would come up accordingly. At $3.75 a gallon for p-diesel right now, mass scale production of bio-diesel should be very attractive with a pricing advantage of about .25 a gallon. At least from what my contacts tell me, bio-d is retailing for $3.50 a gallon. That should create a good demand. For large-scale production, without subsidy, it should cost about $2.50 a gallon to produce these days.
Perhaps the farmers and processors are simply waiting for their hand-out subsidies to make it much more profitable more feasible.
Even at a 20% blend with p-diesel, that's 20% less dependence on petroleum stocks and it will run in any diesel engine.
But wasn't that the same argument made for ethanol in the late 90s and early 2ks?
I understand the recycling possibilities and that I am 100% behind, but can we sustain the replacement of petroleum diesel with terrestrial alternatives?
Fossil fuels (I'm thinking gasoline, but also NG AFAIK) are the still the most efficient medium for energy per unit out there, though competing costs are falling in a variety of different arenas. Solar is becoming much more efficient and is just starting to rival traditional coal in cost per unit; wind power is an increasingly important supplemental; fission reactors based on thorium are reportedly much more stable and produce much less waste; biofuels are made from everything from switchgrass to cooking oil to poultry offal to algae . . . none of which are perfect fossil fuel replacements but which can diversify our fuel supply; even wave capture technology has made leaps and bounds and there're now underwater turbines getting juice from the tides.
But as Conan says, fossil fuels aren't some sort of perfectly competing product, either. Hefty government subsidies are baked into each barrel price. The market is already not only imperfect but highly skewed towards the existing producers and existing technologies.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 04:26:42 PM
I understand the recycling possibilities and that I am 100% behind, but can we sustain the replacement of petroleum diesel with terrestrial alternatives?
There's enough land and seed to do it. Problem is, farmers and producers want their Obama money.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Fossil fuels (I'm thinking gasoline, but also NG AFAIK) are the still the most efficient medium for energy per unit out there, though competing costs are falling in a variety of different arenas. Solar is becoming much more efficient and is just starting to rival traditional coal in cost per unit; wind power is an increasingly important supplemental; fission reactors based on thorium are reportedly much more stable and produce much less waste; biofuels are made from everything from switchgrass to cooking oil to poultry offal to algae . . . none of which are perfect fossil fuel replacements but which can diversify our fuel supply; even wave capture technology has made leaps and bounds and there're now underwater turbines getting juice from the tides.
But as Conan says, fossil fuels aren't some sort of perfectly competing product, either. Hefty government subsidies are baked into each barrel price. The market is already not only imperfect but highly skewed towards the existing producers and existing technologies.
I like the idea of underwater turbines. I had a dream as a kid about hooking generators to floating buoys that would turn with every wave. I even made a crude diagram (I think I was 10). I wonder if I can file a claim for royalties?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 04:29:04 PM
There's enough land and seed to do it. Problem is, farmers and producers want their Obama money.
What if they each gave $50,000 to the Obama2012 campaign? Perhaps. . .
I would agree with conan and disagree with gaspar on this issue. Alternative sources don't have to be food. Switchgrass has excellent potential to be grown, refined, and consumed locally and at an affordable price. I also believe there is plenty of unrecovered material that could be used in many types of engines.
I collect both used motor oil and spent cooking oil at each of our thirteen recycling centers. I spend a lot of money on tanks, spill kits and hauling, but now I get paid by the gallon. It varies in amount and value, based on local demand. I have been paid up to $2 a gallon for cooking oil and at little as zero. For motor oil I have paid the recycler as much as $1 a gallon and been paid a$1 a gallon.
I have collected as much as 58,000 gallons in a year and as little as 20,000 gallons in a calendar year.
The issues are mostly around sophisticated demand. Entreprenuers come into the marketplace with grand ideas and sometimes the federal or state government will offer a few incentives, but we have yet to have a well-funded and experienced national player vertically integrate the entire system under one set of goals. This seems to me to be a simple fix, but I don't see the political leadership to push this agenda. There is so much mistrust and political agendas to anything energy related that simple ideas become weapons.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 28, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
I would agree with conan and disagree with gaspar on this issue. Alternative sources don't have to be food. Switchgrass has excellent potential to be grown, refined, and consumed locally and at an affordable price. I also believe there is plenty of unrecovered material that could be used in many types of engines.
I understand that but if I am Jim the farmer and I raise soy beans for feed and food, and the opportunity for me to grow switchgrass with less maintenance than soy, and more profit, I am going to naturally choose to turn my fields to switchgrass, as will many of my fellow farmers. The result is a drop in soy production and increase in price. We've already seen this with feed corn vs. ethanol corn. Subsidies off the table, if there is more profit in growing energy than growing food, farmers will grow energy.
There's not anything essentially wrong with that because as food demand increased, more farmers would enter the market and clear cut additional land to grow soy beans. Unfortunately that is never the case. Government will see an opportunity to interject, subsidize, and regulate because the opportunity to purchase votes will simply be to great. So subsidies have to be put back on the table, and the imbalance maintained.
Either way, food crops will be diverted, and additional land will be claimed for production.
I don't fully understand the variables but there simply cannot be enough recycled oil laying around to satisfy the 42 billion gallons of diesel we use every year.
The key word is satisfy. Yes, we cannot do it today.
But if we can get a three-pronged attack of reducing consumption, making plant-based fuel, and investing in better battery technolgy, then we can make it quickly away from foreign oil.
The third one is my favorite. The man who can invent a high output, long life and lightweight battery is the new Bill Gates.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 28, 2011, 04:55:42 PM
The key word is satisfy. Yes, we cannot do it today.
But if we can get a three-pronged attack of reducing consumption, making plant-based fuel, and investing in better battery technolgy, then we can make it quickly away from foreign oil.
The third one is my favorite. The man who can invent a high output, long life and lightweight battery is the new Bill Gates.
I agree.
The demand is growing. Our choice is wether we promote the idea through force or free-market.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 05:01:54 PM
The demand is growing. Our choice is wether we promote the idea through force or free-market.
What you fail to understand is that there is presently no free market in fossil fuel energy. If the price of fossil fuels included the cost of the negative externalities that get pushed onto the commons instead of being paid for by users, we'd have moved to renewables 30 or 40 years ago and we'd be arguing about something else. Instead, fossil fuel producers get subsidized by the rest of us and here we are.
There is no free market if the cost of the good doesn't include
all of the cost, whether that cost is paid for by consumers directly or by a mix of consumers and transparent government subsidies. Read some economics textbooks, and I don't mean those of Keynes and his ideological offspring.
Quote from: nathanm on December 28, 2011, 07:07:19 PM
What you fail to understand is that there is presently no free market in fossil fuel energy. If the price of fossil fuels included the cost of the negative externalities that get pushed onto the commons instead of being paid for by users, we'd have moved to renewables 30 or 40 years ago and we'd be arguing about something else. Instead, fossil fuel producers get subsidized by the rest of us and here we are.
There is no free market if the cost of the good doesn't include all of the cost, whether that cost is paid for by consumers directly or by a mix of consumers and transparent government subsidies. Read some economics textbooks, and I don't mean those of Keynes and his ideological offspring.
I have no doubt that subsidy, and regulation though taxation have completely corrupted the fossil fuel market. We may not agree on the exact direction of that corruption, but none the less, the outcome is the same. Artificial manipulation creates artificial levels of demand ALWAYS, and eventually leads to either collapse or additional subsidization.
I do disagree with your 30 - 40 year estimate on renewables. The technology did not exist for any renewable energy source at that time to feed growing demand. In fact we are still behind the curve. The innovation necessary to move to renewables requires the energy from current sources to power industry and build enough capital to push research and development.
RM is on point with his observation of Batteries as our weakest link. We do not currently have a method of energy storage that would allow our existing renewables to be very useful to us. If we could produce a battery with a capacity to weight ratio and an efficiency that was decent, we could live with the inefficiency and inconsistency of solar and wind. Unfortunately, we are not capable of storing energy very well except for hydrocarbon states.
A lithium battery gives you about 1-1.4 megajoules per KG of power and it's efficiency is greatly affected by temperature.
Our very best battery technologies are lithium air batteries and can provide about 9 megajoules per kg of storage, but lithium batteries are too dangerous to use in things like automobiles, so they are relegated to your cell phone or your computer. Lead Acid is the preferred battery for automobile use, but it will only store about 2.6 megajoules of power.
This is rather ridiculous when you consider that Diesel and Gasoline store 45-48 megajoules per KG in their native chemical form, and hydrogen is well over 100. All of these are rather silly when you consider that a single KG of Uranium stores 20,000,000 megajoules of energy.
So, no matter what the power source, safe and efficient storage is our primary hurdle. Overcome that, and where the energy comes from becomes far less important.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 29, 2011, 09:34:35 AM
If we could produce a battery with a capacity to weight ratio and an efficiency that was decent, we could live with the inefficiency and inconsistency of solar and wind.
Weight and volume are obviously important for mobile applications but wouldn't be as important as efficiency in a stationary application. There have been some attention getting stories about lithium-ion batteries catching fire. Could that danger be mitigated for a large stationary battery? Do we have an efficient
really large scale inverter to convert back to AC to go back on the grid?
Sorry for the snarky reply earlier when I was leaving my office yesterday. The relative small size of many bio-diesel plants doesn't represent a jobs windfall. IIRC, the Prarie Pride plant in Deerfield, Mo. employed about 65 workers at full production. It's also a soybean processing facility so I don't have any idea how many jobs were directly related to bio-diesel. Not real sexy numbers when it comes to job creation figures when there's so much pressure to create jobs.
The government mis-handled the issue during the Bush years, IMO. They tried to lead with micro-plants capable of only doing about 2 million gallons a year. A plant that size only needs a staff of three to five to operate. There was one which lasted all of 6 months in Chelsea, if that. It was operated by a couple of AA mechanics on their spare time. They got grants and loans as well as a supposed contract to sell the fuel to the military. In other words, somewhat of an incubator-type project for small, disadvantaged businesses, regardless of their experience or qualifications. I believe peak employment was maybe 3 workers, one full time and the other two guys part time. They had really no resources and left behind a huge mess when they locked the doors and walked away. That's hardly an isolated story.
Earth Bio-Fuels, the company associated with Willie Nelson skipped out owing my company around $7K for some work getting equipment up and running for them.
I worked with another plant in Colorado, owned and operated by a construction company. The state of Colorado gave them incentives to make their own bio-d as they burn about 5000 gallons a day of road and off-road diesel in their trucks and heavy equipment. The state felt it would help reduce emissions which is a real problem on the front range. I believe that went along okay for about a year until they realized there was really nowhere to go with the glycerine which was a by-product of the refining process, plus the operating cost of running their own micro-refinery and transportation really didn't make it an economical option even with incentives.
I believe the focus should have honed in on larger refineries with companies which already had a lot of the agricultural purchasing, transportation, and distribution networks in place which would make the business have a whole lot better chance at survival. I believe encouraging cooperative efforts between big oil and ag giants like ADM or Cargill would have made a whole lot of sense as well as it would have brought a whole lot more stability to the industry.
Oh, and doing further research on what's happened to the Deerfield plant? ADM bought it earlier this year. I need to ask my customer whose office is just down the road if he knows if they are actually producing bio-d again.
Not sure about the veracity of this but the Navy is paying stupid money for bio-fuel if there's truth to the article and Tulsa's Syntroleum is getting a piece of the action.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/11/navy-buys-biofuel-for-16-a-gallon/
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
I believe that went along okay for about a year until they realized there was really nowhere to go with the glycerine which was a by-product of the refining process,
Great, another by-product that no one talks about to deal with.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 29, 2011, 10:39:37 AM
Great, another by-product that no one talks about to deal with.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html)
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 29, 2011, 11:35:34 AM
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html)
Methanol is also commonly found in the glycerine by-product.
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 29, 2011, 11:35:34 AM
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html)
Great, now we will have nitroglycerine labs in addition to the Meth labs. ;D
Actually, it looks like there are plenty of options. It just depends on whether those options are used.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 29, 2011, 09:34:35 AM
I have no doubt that subsidy, and regulation though taxation have completely corrupted the fossil fuel market. We may not agree on the exact direction of that corruption, but none the less, the outcome is the same. Artificial manipulation creates artificial levels of demand ALWAYS, and eventually leads to either collapse or additional subsidization.
The disconnect here is that you don't see a coal plant emitting tons of methylmercury each year without paying a dime as an implicit subsidy from the rest of us. If the health, behavior, and other effects of that on humans alone were priced in, it wouldn't be cost competitive with renewables and wouldn't have been since the 1970s. The fossil fuel subsidies are a large part of why there had been so little work on batteries and other forms of storage before the mid 90s.
As I've said, I'm a big believer in using people's greed to produce the best outcomes. Unfortunately, when the price doesn't reflect the whole cost of a good, people will usually make the wrong economic choice, even if you believe in the rational actor model.
RA, I don't know the specific numbers regarding huge honkin' inverters, but given the increasing use of HVDC transmission, it's clearly possible to do at multi-megawatt scale with efficiency high enough to have an overall loss less than long distance AC transmission.
Quote from: nathanm on December 29, 2011, 01:03:57 PM
RA, I don't know the specific numbers regarding huge honkin' inverters, but given the increasing use of HVDC transmission, it's clearly possible to do at multi-megawatt scale with efficiency high enough to have an overall loss less than long distance AC transmission.
Long distance HVDC appears to have
some advantages but the electric still has to be distributed as AC at the local level. Local distribution at lower voltage levels is also a point of inefficiency for AC.
I read about 1/2 of the link below. I actually have something to do today besides sit on TNF so I'll have to read the rest of it later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Hey look. . .as of today the national debt is now over 100% of the GDP and climbing fast!
Yey for us! Yes we can!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 04:57:06 PM
Hey look. . .as of today the national debt is now over 100% of the GDP and climbing fast!
Yey for us! Yes we can!
So the debt is who's fault now?
Quote from: Townsend on January 05, 2012, 05:01:10 PM
So the debt is who's fault now?
Come on, you know it's Bush's fault. We all do.
Quote from: guido911 on January 05, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Come on, you know it's Bush's fault. We all do.
I blame lobbyists and the people that allow them.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 04:57:06 PM
Hey look. . .as of today the national debt is now over 100% of the GDP and climbing fast!
How much of that do we owe to ourselves again? I can't get very worked up about money my left pocket owes my right pocket.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 05:04:23 PM
I can't get very worked up about money my left pocket owes my right pocket.
Then it must be your fault. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 05:04:23 PM
How much of that do we owe to ourselves again? I can't get very worked up about money my left pocket owes my right pocket.
Would you honestly approach it from that viewpoint if John McCain were president and we had majorities in the House and Senate?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2012, 07:40:17 PM
Would you honestly approach it from that viewpoint if John McCain were president and we had majorities in the House and Senate?
Yeah. I simply don't think it matters much if we owe 40% of GDP to foreigners and 60% to ourselves. Beyond that, I don't think our present debt level is by any means unsustainable and I don't think the rate of growth is an enormous problem so long as we continue to mostly borrow from ourselves. At worst we're using excess reserves in a more productive manner.
The dire predictions of the doomsayers as far as interest rates will come true if we go stupid and keep borrowing at this rate even after private sector investment and reserves return to normal. As long as we're in a recession, it doesn't really matter unless we can find a way to borrow every excess dollar that would otherwise be idle, which is not something we're in any danger of doing at present.
The irony is that if the doomsayers get their way and get the Fed to stop with the expansionary monetary policy and get their way on budget cuts, it will only serve to increase the chance of their dire predictions being realized. Just like cutting taxes can sometimes decrease revenue less than the face value amount, decreasing spending can sometimes improve the fiscal condition by less than the face value amount. You can't have it one way and not the other, as they are two sides to the same coin.
There is both a revenue maximizing tax rate and a revenue maximizing outlay amount.
Quote from: nathanm on December 29, 2011, 01:03:57 PM
RA, I don't know the specific numbers regarding huge honkin' inverters, but given the increasing use of HVDC transmission, it's clearly possible to do at multi-megawatt scale with efficiency high enough to have an overall loss less than long distance AC transmission.
All the discussion in the link RA provided is geared to some pretty specific "special cases" - like the undersea transmission. For the big cross country grid we have here - the big towers with bare lines, sometimes doubled and tripled - that does not apply. There is no insulation on those - all capacitive effects are just to the air with nowhere near the charging/discharging effects they are talking about for insulated conductors.
The best, most cost effective method to reduce losses for the conventional grid powered by nukes, coal, hydro, and gas plants is to add conductors - cut the heating losses in the wire itself.
Wind power from a large farm may benefit slightly from HVDC (probably not), but the equipment being installed is all AC now, so would kill the 'efficiency' to do a retrofit.
If you put in a system at home, you definitely want to work in DC right up to the point of use, then put a VFD (variable frequency drive) on the device to power. Will ALWAYS benefit from that configuration.
You could achieve a significant improvement in efficiency and reduction in power usage right now by putting VFD's on your air conditioning equipment - on the compressor. Commercial buildings typically use larger air conditioning equipment and can benefit even more. Just a VFD on the blower motor in a 5, 10 or 20 ton (or bigger) unit would pay for itself in months and save money for years. And it would be even more dramatic with a VFD on the compressor(s), especially in a multi-stage system (2 or more compressors). And given the choice, 4 smaller compressors in a system will ALWAYS be more efficient and save much money in operating costs over the same size system with only 1 or 2 larger compressors. Yeah, a little bit higher in initial equipment cost, but saves it quickly - you only have to run just enough compression for the load at that time. Wish I could get one for the house!!
And no matter what - the transformers and wires putting the juice on the line and taking it back off at the other end will always be less susceptible to EMP than ANY inverter equipment.
Lots of stuff we could do today, and mostly don't.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 04:57:06 PM
Hey look. . .as of today the national debt is now over 100% of the GDP and climbing fast!
Yey for us! Yes we can!
Hey look...since what's-his-face took office, each years deficit has been lower than the previous - climbing at a slowing rate compared to the previous climbing at an ever faster rate.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 06, 2012, 01:15:41 PM
Hey look...since what's-his-face took office, each years deficit has been lower than the previous - climbing at a slowing rate compared to the previous climbing at an ever faster rate.
You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 06, 2012, 01:26:16 PM
You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?
Someone's gotta respond to the gas bubble..."blorp"...uh oh
Quote from: Conan71 on January 06, 2012, 01:26:16 PM
You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?
Nope. Not even a little bit. But I am very MUCH against the lies and distortions spread by the adherents to "The Script".
(Have you not read my comments about Blowbama -
especially as relate to "Fast and Furious"?)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138672183228712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
QuoteJANUARY 6, 2012
Washington Isn't Spending Too Much
It's normal for deficits to rise during a downturn.The real fiscal challenge is decades down the road.
By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
The Iowa caucuses presented the full range of views of the Republican hopefuls. When it came to fiscal strategy, however, there was almost no daylight among them. Each candidate decried the rise of government spending and wants to cut taxes.
Again and again they noted that spending under President Obama rose to 25% of the economy in 2009, the highest in decades and well over the 20%-21% norm of the last 30 years.
To hear the GOP candidates tell it, this fact explains the deficit, explains America's long-run fiscal problem, and explains why new taxes cannot be tolerated. Congressional Republicans have the same outlook. The deficit is up thanks to government spending, so we must cut spending right now in every form.
Yet the long-run fiscal problem facing the country—which is real—has almost nothing to do with the reasons that the deficit is currently large or that spending is abnormally high. They are high for the same reason taxes are abnormally low: because of the economic downturn. We should debate the real issues, not try to pretend the recession never happened.
The Congressional Budget Office forecast a $1.2 trillion deficit before the Obama administration even came into office. The stimulus added only around $250 billion a year, and more than one-third of that came from tax cuts, especially the tax credit in the stimulus bill's "Making Work Pay" provision.
Most of the increase in the deficit during a downturn doesn't come from new policies in Washington. The deficit rises because both spending and taxes automatically adjust when the economy struggles. Unemployment insurance payments rise and more people qualify for Medicaid and food stamps. Incomes fall so people pay less taxes.
It's completely normal that spending rises during big downturns. The government's share of the economy jumped significantly during the big recessions in the 1970s and '80s. As the economy grows back to health, the government share of the economy will fall (and many analysts forecast just that for the coming year).
The same dynamic applies to tax revenues. You would think that—using the same logic they apply to the rise of government spending—the GOP candidates would be trumpeting the last three years as one of the greatest tax cutting periods of the century.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's data predict that in 2011 taxes will have fallen more as a share of national income than during almost any other comparable period in U.S. history (including under Ronald Reagan) and may hit their lowest level since World War II: 14.4% of GDP, compared with the more than 18% average of the last 30 years. Individual income taxes may hit their lowest level as a share of income since 1950 and corporate income taxes the lowest since 1936.
The deficit shot up in basically equal measure from taxes falling and spending rising. Spending rose to 25% of GDP from 20.5% in the recession and soon it will fall back down. Taxes fell to 14.5% of GDP from 18.5% and will also return to more normal levels.
The true fiscal challenge is 10, 20 and 30 years down the road. An aging population and rising health-care costs mean that spending will rise again and imply a larger size of government than we have ever had but with all the growth coming from entitlements—while projected federal revenues as a percentage of GDP after the rate cuts of the 2000s will likely remain below even historic levels of 18%.
To hear the Republican candidates, you would think our problems were about discretionary spending running wild. Yet, if you take out the aging of the population and health-care cost increases, government spending is going to shrink over the next decade. A cap on government spending at past levels and a balanced-budget constitutional amendment would force huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
So let's talk about the trade-off between new revenues versus cuts to entitlements. We have known about that issue for decades. We also know it would be much easier to address if the economy were growing again.
The election should lay out each candidate's fiscal grand bargain and growth strategy. Let us compare them. They matter. This could make up the heart of a historically important presidential contest. Instead, Iowa showed us a series of candidates trying to outdo one another with condemnation for the short-term rise in spending while simultaneously proposing tax policies that would add trillions to the long-term deficit.
Mr. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, was chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers from 2010 to 2011.
Some things you just know....even WSJ has centered and balanced.....but just occasionally. :)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 06, 2012, 01:12:58 PM
All the discussion in the link RA provided is geared to some pretty specific "special cases" - like the undersea transmission. For the big cross country grid we have here - the big towers with bare lines, sometimes doubled and tripled - that does not apply. There is no insulation on those - all capacitive effects are just to the air with nowhere near the charging/discharging effects they are talking about for insulated conductors.
As I remember, the orientation of the high voltage 3 phase lines are changed every once in a while to counteract the effects of capacitance. It may not be a major player but it's enough to change the wires.
Quote
The best, most cost effective method to reduce losses for the conventional grid powered by nukes, coal, hydro, and gas plants is to add conductors - cut the heating losses in the wire itself.
Agreed
Quote
You could achieve a significant improvement in efficiency and reduction in power usage right now by putting VFD's on your air conditioning equipment - on the compressor. Commercial buildings typically use larger air conditioning equipment and can benefit even more. Just a VFD on the blower motor in a 5, 10 or 20 ton (or bigger) unit would pay for itself in months and save money for years. And it would be even more dramatic with a VFD on the compressor(s), especially in a multi-stage system (2 or more compressors). And given the choice, 4 smaller compressors in a system will ALWAYS be more efficient and save much money in operating costs over the same size system with only 1 or 2 larger compressors. Yeah, a little bit higher in initial equipment cost, but saves it quickly - you only have to run just enough compression for the load at that time. Wish I could get one for the house!!
We had new heating and A/C equipment installed a few years ago in our house. The heating is 2 stage and the A/C is 2 stage. Two stage heat is by having 5 burners. I think 3 burners normally fire and if more is needed the other 2 fire. The A/C compressor has 2 stages but I don't know how it is done. It's pretty good. Air handling is by brushless DC motors on the house fan. The A/C runs nearly full time at low level in normal summer temperatures which keeps the humidity down. High stage kicks in when needed. Last summer was a good test. The system couldn't quite keep up with the 115F temps as the house got up to 80F inside but that's not too bad for as extreme a summer as we had. We haven't had any problem with the heater keeping up, even last winter when it got so cold. The house never got colder than 65F at the thermostat.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 06, 2012, 09:44:53 PM
We had new heating and A/C equipment installed a few years ago in our house. The heating is 2 stage and the A/C is 2 stage. Two stage heat is by having 5 burners. I think 3 burners normally fire and if more is needed the other 2 fire. The A/C compressor has 2 stages but I don't know how it is done. It's pretty good. Air handling is by brushless DC motors on the house fan. The A/C runs nearly full time at low level in normal summer temperatures which keeps the humidity down. High stage kicks in when needed. Last summer was a good test. The system couldn't quite keep up with the 115F temps as the house got up to 80F inside but that's not too bad for as extreme a summer as we had. We haven't had any problem with the heater keeping up, even last winter when it got so cold. The house never got colder than 65F at the thermostat.
There are a few ways that companies do the 2 stage compressor thing. And new ones every year or two. Most are pretty good - will help efficiency even if they aren't the "best" way to do it.
Unless the system is grossly oversized, it is tough to get much better than about a 25 degree difference outside to inside. If you got a bigger system that could keep up well at 115 outside, you would really pay for it at more normal temperatures with humidity to efficiency to power consumption. Around here the dealer should size it to our normal average temperatures and humidity. That means the severe extreme will suffer a little. Turn on some fans....
I have even thought about building my own system just so I could get the 4 compressors. Would put a VFD on the first, so would have variable control on first, then 25% increments of capacity to add in as needed. Would use one particular commercial control board set that I know of to run the thing. Very slick, VERY efficient. VERY unavailable unless do a home brew.
Unless you have a huge house that leaks a lot, the standard 60,000 to 100,000 btu heater will keep you toasty always. I have 60,000 with 2 1/2 ton unit and never get cold, even with my small somewhat leaky house. Typical with cooling system in the 3 to 5 ton residential range. If it does get too cold, put some incandescent bulbs back in!