Republicans no longer a viable party? [Archive]

talk2glenn

Jul10-11, 02:31 PM

It is a curious thing.

The intent of a legislated debt ceiling is to restrict the ability of the government to borrow excessively. Republicans have conceded to raising that limit, not because it is too low, but because spending is too high - effectively defeating the purpose of having a limit in the first place.

In exchange, though, they want spending reform such that it won't be necesarry to raise the limit again in six more months. The Democrats in Congress since 2006 and the Obama administration since 2008 are on track to have borrowed more in 5 years than the combined totals of every prior administration since the end of WW2, and the CBO projects the trend will continue ad infinitum until default is the only option, excepting any arbitrary debt ceiling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The administration and Democrats do not want any meaningful spending reform as a condition of a hike in the debt ceiling. At best, they will agree to large tax increases and minor spending reform, only. As repeated as infinitum in numerous prior threads, there is no revenue shortage, and there is substantial historical precedent to suggest that dramatic tax hikes beyond current levels (which are more or less a Laffer optimum) will deter and/or shift production rather than raising the desired revenues. The administrations senseless appeal to the depcreciation schedule on corporate purchases of private jets is a great example. Forget for a moment that the subsidized schedule was approved by Obama and the Democratic congress to stimulate the domestic manufacturing industry as part of the stimulus package. If the older schedule is restored, businesses will not continue buying corporate jets at current rates, obviously. They will reduce expenditures thereon, and total revenues will be some fraction of the change in effective rates. They could even be negative. Democrats consistently appeal to some 1:1 relationship between tax policy changes and revenue changes, which is ridiculous on its face. The same thing is true of countless progressive policies. Higher mileage standards are expected to reduce gasoline consumption only if you assume consumers don't change their driving behavior in response to a change in the cost of driving. If it costs less to drive more miles (eg, your car is more fuel efficient) we can reasonable assume people will drive more, and consumption savings will be reduced.

Given that, Republicans aren't willing to concede. Ergo, Republicans must bedestructive and want to ruin the country - because they want to keep in place a borrowing limit that was installed to protect the country from ruin by excessive borrowing. A curious line of reasoning, indeed.

mege

Jul10-11, 02:49 PM

NYTimes, Conservative columnist? Does not compute...

Oh you're talking about David Brooks... basically someone whom calls himself a conservative so he can 'go to the meetings'. He was the "Run, Barack, Run" guy, right? From my perspective this guy is only a conservative in so far as he hates to be called a Democrat. So in that sense he has 1/2 a brain :p

But overall - what's your point other than to flame the TEA Party? It's interesting that the TEA Party are considered idealoges for wanting to not spike taxes and (those in Congress) want to bring down spending maybe to the level it was 1-2 years ago (25% less??). But the Democrats in congress (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/07/debt.talks.progressives/index.html?hpt=po_bn1) have even warned the President and stated that they won't support reducing spending on entitlements even if the Republicans capitulate on taxes. The scariest thing about these congressional Dems is that the only valid reason they can give for not cutting entitlements is that it would look bad in the next election. That's one of my biggest turn offs to any policy arguement: it will effect reelection next year. I know it's a side effect of the system, but doesn't make it right. So, who's really being immovable on their position? At least President Obama has said he's willing to reduce entitlement spending (how much is yet to be seen) as a start to reform while eliminating some of the tax loopholes.

dlgoff

Jul10-11, 03:43 PM

Both parties have posers and irresponsible "leaders" that get in the way of real effective reform, IMO. Here's Michael Roth's analysis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-roth/our-desperate-need-for-ho_b_893804.html

Turbo!!!!! :wink:

Proton Soup

Jul10-11, 06:54 PM

the heck with it. let it default. then we can dissolve the FED and start printing greenbacks.

russ_watters

Jul10-11, 09:37 PM

Wait, I'm having deja vu - we already had this thread several years ago, didn't we? Probably also started by Ivan? It was sometime before the sweeping victory by the Republicans in the mid-terms last year. So this sounds like a great re-tread to me!

SixNein

Jul11-11, 04:32 AM

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 06:51 AM

I think the US is in a very vicious cycle where failed policy drives the population towards more extremist ideas. The tea party mindset is becoming more and more common. I notice tea party ideas even on this forum.

Hmmm, you may have a point - this indicates as many as 70 Congressional Democrats might be members of the Democratic Socialists of America?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

russ_watters

Jul11-11, 11:26 AM

What scares me about the process is that our leaders seem certain to lay out a roadmap to financial ruin, yet no doubt will come out congratulating themselves for how much worse it wasn't. Can you imagine if the politicians were forced to state their plans in terms of what they will do to the balance sheet how idiotic they would sound? 'I plan on increasing the national debt by 50% over 4 years... but you should thank me for not doubling it!' [and that's based on overoptimistic growth projections!]

This really could break us.

phinds

Jul11-11, 02:38 PM

Some examples of those fundamentalists that are killing their own party should be chiming in soon in this very thread!

Well, you called that right ... but it was an easy call wasn't it. They're everywhere. :frown:

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 03:01 PM

Why aren't we viewing this as Democrats trying to extort concessions out of the Republican party?

That is what's happening - isn't it? If you step back and analyze the situation - if the Republicans do nothing - a cut in spending will be mandated by the spending cap that is in place - won't it?

turbo

Jul11-11, 07:02 PM

That is what's happening - isn't it? If you step back and analyze the situation - if the Republicans do nothing - a cut in spending will be mandated by the spending cap that is in place - won't it?Let's be adults. If my wife and I spent ourselves into a hole, we would have to evaluate our budget. We could cut spending, or we could try to bring in more revenue, or we could do a combination of both.

If we had spent ourselves into a hole to the point that we'd have to pay a lot of interest to service our debt and couldn't default on that debt without losing assets, we would have to cut a LOT of spending, and bring in more revenue in order to keep up.

Right now, we have a shortage of adults in DC (on both sides), but IMO the most irresponsible children are in the GOP. They insist that there is no way that revenue (income) can be enhanced because that would entail tax-increases ( in their parlance). Forget moderating decades of tax give-aways to the rich and tax-cuts to the wealthy that led to the current US deficit. The US tax code is over 9000 pages long because of the give-aways and special incentives that have been inserted to favor wealthy donors. We need to start over.

Today, the only way the GOP would agree to balance the budget is through benefit-cuts in SS, Medicaire and other previously paid-for payroll taxes that common people might need to sustain themselves when they are elderly and at risk. Where is the GOP that used to claim to be fiscal conservatives? Why cannot businesses and the wealthy shoulder part of the load?

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 07:07 PM

turbo

Jul11-11, 07:24 PM

Aren't they currently spending the Social Security funds in other areas - that is a spending problem - isn't it?Let's be real. The GOP says that military spending is out of bounds. That is really huge and out of control, IMO. They also say that increasing revenue through rescinding or rolling back targeted tax cuts to industries, the wealthy are off-bounds because those are "tax increases". Is it unreasonable to cut off the ethanol subsidies? Ethanol decreases the performance of your car, and will degrade the physical condition of your older gasoline-powered machines. Plus, it forces you to buy expensive additives like Sta-Bil in order to keep the gas usable for more than a few months. Ethanol is really enriching some people, but nobody that I know.

BTW, spending of the SS funds is done through the purchase of those funds by the Treasury, which pays the fund back with bond-level interest. The people who claim that SS recipients only pay ~30% of the money that they eventually collect from SS are evidently a bit shy of a course in compound interest.

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 07:50 PM

Let's be real. The GOP says that spending is out of bounds. That is really huge and out of control, IMO. They also say that increasing revenue through rescinding or rolling back targeted tax cuts to industries, the wealthy are off-bounds because those are "tax increases". Is it unreasonable to cut off the ethanol subsidies? Ethanol decreases the performance of your car, and will degrade the physical condition of your older gasoline-powered machines. Plus, it forces you to buy expensive additives like Sta-Bil in order to keep the gas usable for more than a few months. Ethanol is really enriching some people, but nobody that I know.

BTW, spending of the SS funds is done through the purchase of those funds by the Treasury, which pays the fund back with bond-level interest. The people who claim that SS recipients only pay ~30% of the money that they eventually collect from SS are evidently a bit shy of a course in compound interest.

I'll let President Obama sum it up - his stimulus spending must be kept up or Government job losses will continue? His claim is the stimulus "worked"?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/11/obama_public_sector_job_losses_are_evidence_that_s timulus_worked.html

In response to getting real - the Dems spent a lot of money and it didn't fix the problem - now it's time to cut those programs and tighten the belt - IMO.

DevilsAvocado

Jul11-11, 08:25 PM

... The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

Ivan, how can you say this!! :grumpy:

There are many very brilliant ladies in the Tea Party, who have deep skills in analyzing those numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I&hd=1
1fRxO_Yx99I

You’ve got to believe Michele Bachmann when she says:
"The Tea Party is a dynamic force for good!"

Michele Bachmann is the only one capable of delivering a dynamic and balanced solution for the public debt:
"All of America, coming together, to beat back a totalitarian aggressor."

http://jamesesz.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ww2_iwo_jima_flag_raising.jpg

A miracle and it can happen again!

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 08:34 PM

Ivan, how can you say this!! :grumpy:

There are many very brilliant ladies in the Tea Party, who have deep skills in analyzing those numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I&hd=1
1fRxO_Yx99I

You’ve got to believe Michele Bachmann when she says:
"The Tea Party is a dynamic force for good!"

Michele Bachmann is the only one capable of delivering a dynamic and balanced solution for the public debt:
[I]"All of America, coming together, to beat back a totalitarian aggressor."

What part do you object to - her claim that President Obama spent over $3 Trillion and now has to find a way to pay the bill - or that his spending was a failure?

DevilsAvocado

Jul11-11, 08:52 PM

What part do you object to - her claim that President Obama spent over $3 Trillion and now has to find a way to pay the bill - or that his spending was a failure?

Who says I’m objecting? :bugeye: We all know that President Obama is guilty of everything that is wrong in the universe, and some say he even did wrong before he was even born (in the U.S.??)...

Heck, some old Germans blame Obama for losing the war (both)!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

WhoWee

Jul11-11, 08:58 PM

Who says I’m objecting? :bugeye: We all know that President Obama is guilty of everything that is wrong in the universe, and some say he even did wrong before he was even born (in the U.S.??)...

Heck, some old Germans blame Obama for losing the war (both)!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

From your graph - it looks like he's trying to keep pace with FDR's spending - if GDP falls - do you think he might exceed FDR's record spending?

DevilsAvocado

Jul11-11, 09:13 PM

From your graph - it looks like he's trying to keep pace with FDR's spending - if GDP falls - do you think he might exceed FDR's record spending?

You’ve got to think much bigger. Look what the man did in just a few months!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/GDP_Real_Growth.svg/800px-GDP_Real_Growth.svg.png
World map showing real GDP growth rates for 2009.
(Countries in brown are in recession)

Proton Soup

Jul11-11, 09:41 PM

SixNein

Jul11-11, 10:07 PM

Proton Soup

Jul11-11, 10:36 PM

I don't understand the logic used here. Default a good option?

Do you know anything at all about bond markets?

The type of government we have favours a two party system. If the tea party is successful, it will become the republican party.

i don't think you're reading what i wrote.

"tea party" at best just represents a populist element that shows up almost every election cycle. and their candidates never do more than make a bunch of noise, then disappear in smoke. Nader, Buchannan, Perot... their people can never stay organized long enough to make a lasting dent in the political scene. seen it time and time again. "tea party" is nothing but a fart in the wind.

SixNein

Jul11-11, 10:44 PM

i don't think you're reading what i wrote.

"tea party" at best just represents a populist element that shows up almost every election cycle. and their candidates never do more than make a bunch of noise, then disappear in smoke. Nader, Buchannan, Perot... their people can never stay organized long enough to make a lasting dent in the political scene. seen it time and time again. "tea party" is nothing but a fart in the wind.

They are quite influential in the house right now.

Vanadium 50

Jul12-11, 12:58 AM

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

mege

Jul12-11, 01:00 AM

Let's be adults. If my wife and I spent ourselves into a hole, we would have to evaluate our budget. We could cut spending, or we could try to bring in more revenue, or we could do a combination of both.

If we had spent ourselves into a hole to the point that we'd have to pay a lot of interest to service our debt and couldn't default on that debt without losing assets, we would have to cut a LOT of spending, and bring in more revenue in order to keep up.

Right now, we have a shortage of adults in DC (on both sides), but IMO the most irresponsible children are in the GOP. They insist that there is no way that revenue (income) can be enhanced because that would entail tax-increases ( in their parlance). Forget moderating decades of tax give-aways to the rich and tax-cuts to the wealthy that led to the current US deficit. The US tax code is over 9000 pages long because of the give-aways and special incentives that have been inserted to favor wealthy donors. We need to start over.

Today, the only way the GOP would agree to balance the budget is through benefit-cuts in SS, Medicaire and other previously paid-for payroll taxes that common people might need to sustain themselves when they are elderly and at risk. Where is the GOP that used to claim to be fiscal conservatives? Why cannot businesses and the wealthy shoulder part of the load?

Thr trick to this is: spending has increased from ~20% of GDP to almost 25% of GDP in the course of two years (25% increase). How much revenue would actually be gained by the tax increases proposed? Enough to make a dent in that? To make up that gap individual income taxes would need to increase by more than double. The policys that have been forced through in the previous two years are exactly WHY checks and balances are present (much to the dismay of Rep. Pelosi). No Republican is under the illusion that President Bush was a fiscal hawk, and President Obama (& friendly congress at the time) blew him away in overspending and mismanagement. I, for one, hope there isn't a WW3 to pull us from this depression which saved FDR and his attempt to spend his way out.

Looking at the situation in a vacuum is where the problem is; in my mind the TEA Party is more about reversing much of the last decades regarding spending more than just the last 2 years. Looking at charts like this (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203) always are humbling wrt the Bush Tax cuts. By 2006 the individual + corporate tax incomes were higher than they were in 2002. That was the real point of the Bush cuts, right? Instead of taxes being 5:1 personal to corporate, they're more like 4:1 or 3:1 with businesses being levied a little more, relatively, over time. Expect the wealthy to invest in businesses, and according to the revenues - that plan seemed to work. Unfortunately, the crys to stop the reckless lending and trading practices regarding the subprime housing market fell on deaf politically correct "gotta do everything we can for the poor" ears and we're where we're at now. Sound like some of the arguements to continue entitlements even still? Give a government-subsidized health insurance industry 10-15 years and it could be the same thing all over again.

While I don't think the Bush tax cuts should be extended ad infinum, I think in this case the tax increase would be largely symbolic because of the idealogs in the Democratic Party which feel the need to redistribute wealth at every turn. What really needs to happen IMO is total tax reform so people and companies at all levels can't game the system and pay little, no, or the absolute minimum taxes - however you want to slice it. GE as the corporate-posterchild for running with subsidies and the 50% of individuals that only paid their SS and Medicare taxes need to be contributing more. This type of tax reform isn't what's on the table. The President is trying to bump taxes up on the wealthy only rather than a comprehensive reform which has been thrown around from time to time.

I wish there was a way to remove the political straight jacket that drives these policy changes. While the Republicans may be considered idealogs, at least they're pretty consistent. Our current President is only consistent in his inconsistency and attempt to play the high political card at every turn. If 51% of American's thought he should jump from a bridge, he probably would to maintain popularity. Isn't that one of the lessons we learned in grade school? Just because your friends think it's cool, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. He needs to make hard decisions, not easy ones. Easy decisions are too political in nature and only solidify power rather than actual resolve the situation.

mege

Jul12-11, 01:11 AM

i'm still trying to figure out all the angst over hitting the debt ceiling. what exactly do people think will happen? there's a lot of talk about "default", but that seems unlikely. the bankers are not going to go without their cut, they'll be paid first. from there, it'll be a quick lesson in what is, and what is not essential government services. i'm going to suggest to you that this will be a more efficient and intelligent way to go about it than 500+ people in congress fighting over their pet pork.

all this talk about tea partiers seems a bit suspect, too. it's not that the republican party is not viable, but the tea partiers are not viable. tea party is more of a talking point and scarecrow, a convenient straw man for democrats to knock down on squawk shows. but tea party has no legs and will not make it past the primaries. dems would like it very much if Bachman could be nominated, but she will only end up looking foolish when the heat is turned up.

IMO what's happened is the ideas from the TEA Party core have been combined with the Christian Conservatives and these candidates are some sort of neo-con part deux. While the TEA Party ideals generally align with classic liberalism, some of the TEA Party aligned candidates (esspecially with the current Presidental batch) also have the core set of Christian Conservative beliefs which turn people off (which I find ironic, because what legislation regarding these type of beliefs has ever come close to passing?). There's a core of TEA Party voters that don't really care about the moral legislation, but will support these candidates anyhow because they see gay marriage/abortion as non-issues at the federal level anyhow.

While I don't think it's totally prudent to have Rep. Bachmann or Palin run as a Presidental candidate, I would love to have them headline the ticket just so I can call all my Democratic friends sexist for not voting for them.

russ_watters

Jul12-11, 05:54 AM

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.
The last point looks like 94% to me. There's three flaws in the graph:

1. 2009 is attributed to Bush since the budget was passed under Bush. Problem: Stimulus spending started in 2009 and that was passed by Obama. That's hundreds of billions on the wrong balance sheet.
2. TARP paid out in 2008 and has paid back since then. Obama had nothing to do with getting it passed, but it basically has shown up as spending for Bush and income for Obama.
3. Bush also had limited control over tax revenue for 2009 due to his limited control over the recovery. Obama promised he'd keep unemployment below 8% and give it a downward trajectory pretty quickly - Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.

The revision history shows revisions in the shadings and shows that this graph may be unreliable.

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 08:59 AM

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

It seems they quit counting in 2009?:rolleyes:
(I didn't see Russ's post.)

DevilsAvocado

Jul12-11, 11:12 AM

... Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.

Exactly! This is what I’ve been saying all along! Everything is Obama’s fault!!

I mean, for god’s sake, GWB was in *full* control of the economy until he started these 'secret meetings' with Obama, behind closed doors... that’s when the real problem started...

Until then GWB had it all under control.

On Saturday August 30, 2008, in the President's Radio Address, GWB was focusing on the good economy, and told the hardworking Americans that this Labor Day weekend was a good opportunity to stop worrying about the nation's economic health. GWB welcomed the fact that economic stimulus package signed by him earlier this year, is having its intended effect, and the growth package will return more than $150 billion back to American families and businesses, this year:

Bush: Economy Is Getting Better (August 30, 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxF4zJz3jzg
ZxF4zJz3jzg

(Then 8 days later, 'something' happened, right out of the blue...)

On September 7, 2008, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers (the fourth largest investment bank in the USA) filed bankruptcy.

On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch (the world's largest brokerage with $2.2 trillion in client assets) is purchased by Bank of America at a discount of 61% from its September 2007 share price.

On September 16, 2008, American International Group (AIG) (the 29th-largest public company in the world) received a secured credit facility of up to $85 billion from the FED, to prevent the company's collapse, in an exchange for warrants for a 79% equity stake, the largest government bailout of a private company in U.S. history.

On September 20, 2008, President Bush proposes a $700 billion bailout plan (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/bailout_proposal/index.htm).

Bush Warns "Entire Economy is in Danger" (September 24, 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqxN1XBMH8
TXqxN1XBMH8

This is the historical facts, right there; GWB was indeed a 'dynamical swinger', in full control, who could handle the financial 'ups & downs' – even if they were only 3 weeks apart! :approve:

All this is Obama’s fault, alone, no doubt about it!! :grumpy:

DevilsAvocado

Jul12-11, 11:14 AM

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

Thanks Vanadium 50, I think russ_watters presented a 'compelling story' about this... :wink:

mheslep

Jul12-11, 11:50 AM

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Willowz

Jul12-11, 11:53 AM

Hot-potato!
NBWQCHb95rg

turbo

Jul12-11, 11:59 AM

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 01:04 PM

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Let's not forget Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - both steering the financial sector - Barney even claimed Freddie and Fannie were in good shape - give credit when due.

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 01:05 PM

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

...and now President Obama is in another...

talk2glenn

Jul12-11, 01:38 PM

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget.

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.

Care to explain, turbo? The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for with money appropriated by Congress through supplemental budget bills. These are published - with specific dollar amounts - in the federal register, and available for you to perude as your leisure.

Perhaps you mean that the operations should have been part of the general fiscal budget debate in Congress. On its face, this doesn't sound unreasonable (which is probably why it makes such a good 10 second talking point). In practice, though, the process of budgeting is slow, political, and painstaking (which is why its a really seneless idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds). The process actually begins over two years before the fiscal year in which the budget is due. Eg, the 2011 budget - if we had one, I mean - is not worked on in 2010, but in 2009-2010.

This is not an effective means to fund a war. Perhaps the administration and Congress could have shifted some of the more stable, ongoing and predictable costs of the wars onto the general budget sooner than they did, but in any case it isn't reasonable to expect these operations to be entirely funded by the general budgeting proecss. Indeed, President Obama has continued the trend. In 2010, the wars were funded by two supplemental appropriations bills. In 2009, when the previous Supplemental Appropriations Act was passed, Obama promised - promised - that this was, for real guys seriously, the last time that'd ever be done.

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 01:47 PM

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

Now THAT'S what I call a talking point!:approve:

talk2glenn

Jul12-11, 01:50 PM

And Avocado, I always enjoy graphs that chart deficit spending over the party in control of the White House, as though it weren't in fact the Congress that writes a budget and appropriates funds. Pity the constitution.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Dow%20roller%20coaster.jpg

I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

turbo

Jul12-11, 01:54 PM

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

mheslep

Jul12-11, 02:09 PM

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO.You recognize of course Obama would have also engaged in the Afghanistan conflict, and now is in Libya.
Those costs are not insignificant,Depends on the context. In the context of the total US $3.6T annual budget one can argue the wars are not significant.
and they are going to continue.No, they will end as all wars do and as the Iraq war is imminently doing. However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 02:40 PM

WhoWee

Jul12-11, 02:46 PM

However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

As long as the global welfare mindset doesn't become too popular.:rolleyes:

DevilsAvocado

Jul12-11, 04:55 PM

... I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of The Budget Message of the President (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html):
[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."
Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh?? :bugeye:

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

DevilsAvocado

Jul12-11, 05:01 PM

Hot-potato!
NBWQCHb95rg

:rofl:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10171.gif

Willowz

Jul12-11, 05:28 PM

Charts are only the tip of the iceberg.

mheslep

Jul12-11, 06:15 PM

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh?? :bugeye:
Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House. Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill#United_States

Proton Soup

Jul12-11, 07:19 PM

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

russ_watters

Jul12-11, 09:30 PM

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of The Budget Message of the President (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html):
[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."
Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.
So he's saying that no part of the state of the American economy up to Feb 1, 2010 was his doing. You can believe whatever you want, but I'd say that based on the 2010 election results, the voting public didn't buy it.

russ_watters

Jul12-11, 09:31 PM

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default. The way the media and the politicians are harping on this issue, it makes one forget that the due date here is more than 3 weeks away. They can grandstand about this for another 2.5 weeks before even trying to get anything done! And I'm already fatigued from the last three times they did this!

russ_watters

Jul12-11, 09:36 PM

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/ It doesn't look to me like you read past the header, tubo-1. "supplemental spending" still happens and it is still off-budget (by definition). They gave him a pass because he also put some war funding on the budget and didn't say he wanted to end their use, just their "abuse" (which is meaningless). Obama has asked for more suppliments (3) than budgets (2).

mege

Jul13-11, 12:01 AM

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of The Budget Message of the President (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html):
[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."
Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh?? :bugeye:

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

As I've already pointed out - Bush Tax Cuts weren't the issue. 2006-7 Individual+Corporate tax income was higher than it was in 2000 even accounting for inflation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203 (note - TPC is associated closely with the Brookings Inst. which is generally associated with collectivists). While you can attribute 3 years of debt under President Bush to the tax cuts, that doesn't hold any water any further (esspecially since President Obama extended them...). IMO, the 2008 crash could have been prevented if policy earlier in the decade wasn't hamstrung by Democrat's political correctness. Let's not forget that clinging to our entitlements caused the economic mess we're in now, not 2 wars (in this case a 'stealth' entitlement in the form of sub-prime loan subsidies). It could be argued that the wars actually staved off the crisis a little bit because of the additional spending that was happening. The GD plant near my old house in metro Detroit produced land systems, that plant would have likely been idled if it weren't for the demand of the wars.

Also, lets not forget that the 'Iraq war' was still approved by almost 1/2 of the Democrats in congress. The 'Afghan War' had almost zero nay votes from either party. Only when the wars started becoming unpopular did Democrats start bailing. It's also important to note that President Obama's decisions to withdraw troops from both Iraq and Afghanastan were not good ideas in the eyes of his military heads. Withdrawing is a political move only, and in noone's best interest (except maybe the DNC).

Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

daveb

Jul13-11, 07:41 AM

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

Threaten??? He didn't threaten. He merely stated that a consequence is that he cannot guarantee checks will go out. That's a far cry from threatening. If nothing happens, he can't send out checks, since that would be tantamount to forcefully usurping Congressional power, an (IMO) impeachable offense.

Basically, if nothing happens, his hands are tied.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 08:52 AM

Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

Actually, the President will have to run against his own sound bites in 2012 - all of the flip flops too.

Jimmy Snyder

Jul13-11, 09:14 AM

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:22 AM

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

IMO - the people who protested outside the Democrat Convention in 68 are now the core of the Party.
http://www.google.com/search?q=democratic+convention+1968&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tKkdTouMEJGEsALcqISxCA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1216&bih=780

Isn't the President's re-election campaign based in Chicago?:eek:

Ivan Seeking

Jul13-11, 11:38 AM

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

mege

Jul13-11, 12:10 PM

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

Funny you bring up golf vacations. How many rounds does the President have in this term?

Why is this solely on the Republicans, even in perception? I blame the Democratic monopoly for almost 2 years which failed to get anything done except spend more money. Why aren't we talking about that? They had an open ticket to raise taxes to nearafter-WW2 rates if they wanted. Instead, President Obama extended the Bush cuts and he and congress started spending more money in the form of health insurance subsidies. (well, taxes will go up ~2% to collect for Obamacare, but even shy estimates say that's not nearly enough). The media is still giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt on policies because of the perception that 'Bush ruined everything!' (even though Congress was Democrats for the last 2 years of his term).

Where's that conversation?

talk2glenn

Jul13-11, 12:20 PM

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

At the top of the forum, you'll find a stickey titled "Tutorial On Argument and Fallacy". Click it, and review the links provided. When you're done, if you have any substantive critiques of the data - sourced from the CBO and independently verifiable - look me up.

Your data isn't being questioned; I don't need to question it. It is true, during the latter half of Clinton's term the deficit declined. It is also true that the Congress was dominated by Republicans during this same period. I believe the omitted fact of divided government is infinitely more relevant than the legally meaningless fact that the President was a liberal. The connection between the President and the deficit is tenuous at best, and relies on an appeal to the symbolic authority of the office. The budgeting responsibility lies exclusively and absolutely with the Congress of the United States. I belive this is 3rd grade social studies.

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

Seriously? And you presume to debate budget policy?

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 12:38 PM

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 12:41 PM

This seems like a good place to insert this bit of opinion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff284.html
"The Bubble That Must Burst"

daveb

Jul13-11, 01:02 PM

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257, but the republicans are unwilling to consider even one tax increase, but still also demand reduced spendinghttp://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Competing-US-Deficit-Reduction-Proposals-Debated-125449003.html.

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

Under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan, passed by the Republican-controlled chamber in April, federal spending would be slashed by $6.2 trillion. The plan would also lower tax rates paid by corporations and top earners, bringing projected savings down to the $4 trillion range.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 01:13 PM

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257, but the republicans are unwilling to consider even one tax increase, but still also demand reduced spendinghttp://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Competing-US-Deficit-Reduction-Proposals-Debated-125449003.html.

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.

daveb

Jul13-11, 01:18 PM

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

Char. Limit

Jul13-11, 01:19 PM

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

daveb

Jul13-11, 01:26 PM

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 01:37 PM

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 01:40 PM

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

daveb

Jul13-11, 01:45 PM

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

daveb

Jul13-11, 01:47 PM

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 02:12 PM

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

daveb

Jul13-11, 02:13 PM

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 02:14 PM

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

How many accountants and IRS agents do you want to put out of business?:wink:

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 02:20 PM

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

The President worried me a few days ago when he said he wanted a "big deal". Are there any Congressional hearings underway (now) regarding specific budget cut options (actual numbers) - or are they 100% focused on the politics?

SixNein

Jul13-11, 02:59 PM

Back to the point of the OP, I don't think the republican party will go the way of the dodo. It may be set back several decades, as the dems were after civil rights, or their gambit may work and the democrats might get blamed if things tank even further, regardless of which budget bill passess. But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

The structure of our government encourages a two party system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

I think a better question is if the United States is becoming ungovernable. This tax issue is a good example. I don't see a bridge anywhere in sight to build an agreement on taxes or spending for that matter. Many matters of state have left the realm of reason and entered the realm of religion. In my opinion, the foxification of news combined with a lack of critical thinking has been very damaging to our political system. Can our political system survive the information era?

Proton Soup

Jul13-11, 03:02 PM

Threaten??? He didn't threaten. He merely stated that a consequence is that he cannot guarantee checks will go out. That's a far cry from threatening. If nothing happens, he can't send out checks, since that would be tantamount to forcefully usurping Congressional power, an (IMO) impeachable offense.

Basically, if nothing happens, his hands are tied.

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

daveb

Jul13-11, 03:06 PM

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

SixNein

Jul13-11, 03:54 PM

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 04:00 PM

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?:rofl:

SixNein

Jul13-11, 04:07 PM

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?:rofl:

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

Personally, I don't see anything remotely funny about the possibility of the debt limit not being raised. It's economic suicide. Which brings me back to the point of governance. Is America governable today?

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 04:11 PM

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

Char. Limit

Jul13-11, 04:44 PM

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

Under what crime? Being wrong about constitutionality? (That's assuming he IS wrong, which is for the courts to decide)

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

talk2glenn

Jul13-11, 05:16 PM

Under what crime?

Err....ignoring the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a legal limit. If the President instructs the Treasury to ignore the law, he can (and probably would) be impeached. As part of the article, the House would probably toss on a whole pile of added offenses, including the stimulus and bailouts, and the war in Libya, etcetera. It'd get ugly for the President, indeed.

The courts have no independent standing to decide anything, including the consitutionality of a debt ceiling. To weigh, an independent party with standing but bring suit. In the case of impeachment, the President would have standing to appeal the constitutionality of his impeachment, on the basis that the underlying law itself was unconstitutional.

To reverse the order, a party would have to show direct harm as a result of the presidents decision to break the law in order to sue. With the debt ceiling, this would be very difficult to do; the most likely candidate would be a group of lawmakers (whose authority has been circumscribed), but here the courts have historically been skeptical. Lawmakers are encouraged to manage their disputes internally using their existing constitutional powers, through legislative or impeachment means. It would probably take a majority of even supermajority of lawmakers to make "standing", and if such a majority exists, why not impeach rather than bring suit?

As an aside, there is not a chance in hell that the courts would agree with an interpretation of the 14th Amendment which authorizes the President to ignore congressional spending power (specifically, the 14th amendment says debt authorized in article 1, which gives congress the authority to borrow, shall not be questioned - it doesn't give the president the authority to issue new debt unilaterally). It won't matter, though; the Senate would almost certainly fail to follow the House in formally impeaching the president. The damage would be entirely political, but it would be severe. The president is much too politically aware to ever go this route.

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 05:49 PM

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.
Yay! http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8819.gif

Finally one thought in the right direction!! THANKS!

(... and of course cuts should not mean the poor will be left without food ...)

KingNothing

Jul13-11, 05:54 PM

I have read this thread and I must say, I am not the least bit shocked by the responses in it!

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 06:26 PM

Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House.

Ah, of course you’re right, I’d forgotten about Richard Nixon’s dictatorial tendencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget. When newly-elected President Richard Nixon began to refuse to spend funds that the Congress had allocated, Congress needed a more formal means by which to challenge him. The Congressional Budget Act created the Congressional Budget Office and directed more control of the budget to CBO and away from the President's Office of Management and the Budget. The Act passed easily as the administration was embroiled in the Watergate scandal and unwilling to provoke Congress.

Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.

Seems consistent with other expert opinions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Overview_of_the_budge t_process

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.
...
Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.
...
The President's budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 06:34 PM

... You can believe whatever you want

Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer.

The only way to find any logic in some of the arguments in this thread, is to assume that President Obama have a "top-secret & vicious" goal to completely ruin the U.S. economy, by running the public debt to $20 trillion??

But, the "clever & evil" President Obama says something completely different the budget, just to trick the whole world...

Come on guys, what’s next?? He’s working for Al-Qaeda??? :eek:

When it comes to draw conclusions on what the worst recession since the Great Depression do to the U.S. and world economy, that’s worse than a no-brainer, all you have to do is open your eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG/800px-Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG
GDP real growth rates for 2007

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/GDP_Real_Growth.svg/800px-GDP_Real_Growth.svg.png
GDP real growth rates for 2009

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 06:53 PM

... Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true.

Cool! I should trust an anonymous PF user instead? :rofl:

His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him.

I think you’ve got a point there. Personally, I think it might be superfluous to spend money on a campaign... where are the (liable) alternatives...??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/MicheleBachmann2012.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Newtgingrich12.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg/100px-Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Sharkey.JPG/116px-Sharkey.JPG
Jimmy McMillan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_McMillan) Jonathon Sharkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Sharkey)

Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

It was a reply to the political graph from Republican Paul Ryan.

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 06:58 PM

IMO - the people who protested outside the Democrat Convention in 68 are now the core of the Party.
http://www.google.com/search?q=democratic+convention+1968&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tKkdTouMEJGEsALcqISxCA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1216&bih=780

Isn't the President's re-election campaign based in Chicago?:eek:

Interesting link, but maybe you should try Google’s calculator (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+%3D) first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 07:15 PM

Interesting link, but maybe you should try Google’s calculator (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+%3D) first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...

It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 07:30 PM

It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.
Thank god WhoWee! I was real worried there for awhile... http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10171.gif

:wink:

OmCheeto

Jul13-11, 07:35 PM

Is America governable today?

I don't know about America, but we just re-elected an ex-governor that said we weren't.

There was a time when Oregon’s then-and-future governor, John Kitzhaber, famously declared the state ungovernable.

But Kitzhaber learned from that experience. Come 2011, he not only showed Oregon is governable but also that it can be a model for the nation.

I think we admired his honesty. Oregoonians are a bit like other Americans. Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow.

:smile:

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 08:17 PM

At the top of the forum, you'll find a stickey titled "Tutorial On Argument and Fallacy". Click it, and review the links provided. When you're done, if you have any substantive critiques of the data - sourced from the CBO and independently verifiable - look me up.

I think misleading information is a violation of the PF rules. You better check that out before further accusations.

Here is the Double then Triples the Debt (http://budget.house.gov/GraphsandCharts/fy2012charts.htm) graph from Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan (Republican).

Are you trying to tell me that all this labeling "Democrats Take Control Of Congress", now 'updated' with "OBAMA TAKES OFFICE" is nonpartisan "data" from CBO?? :eek:

I’ve seen some real bad arguments on PF, but this must be one of the worst.

They graph you provided is Republican political rhetoric, period.

At least, Paul Ryan had the decency to stamp the graph "REPUBLICAN STAFF", to avoid this kind of mishmash, which you seem to have 'missed' completely.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2e657rr.png

mheslep

Jul13-11, 08:33 PM

Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer....So you pretty much closed the book after "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal)" or "I am not a crook" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/06/03/AR2005112200801.html)?

DevilsAvocado

Jul13-11, 08:39 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/SGg-OMo9MUI/AAAAAAAAPQE/XpRx-6DlPvk/s400/richard+nixon.jpg

:biggrin:

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 08:45 PM

... Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow. :smile:Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.

lisab

Jul13-11, 09:03 PM

Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:11 PM

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:19 PM

... But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:23 PM

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.Maybe it won't be a matter of buying in to (or accepting as part of the platform) the more extreme views if the more moderate views prevail. Isn't this what's most likely to happen?

KingNothing

Jul13-11, 09:23 PM

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:27 PM

I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?

I don't think the Republican Party will be diminished - unless the Tea Party grows solid legs and is taken over by small business owners and professional managers - those groups are currently unrepresented (IMO).

lisab

Jul13-11, 09:28 PM

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/11/social-conservative-cuts-bit-about-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:29 PM

IMO, the majority of them have the same #1 priority the majority of democrats have.

To gain/retain political power.

I'm in favor of term limits in the House.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:29 PM

Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.

SixNein

Jul13-11, 09:31 PM

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

Agreed...

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:35 PM

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:35 PM

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/11/social-conservative-cuts-bit-about-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:37 PM

Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:38 PM

I'm in favor of term limits in the House.Me too. Is it possible that most everybody except the members of the House is in favor of term limits in the House?

lisab

Jul13-11, 09:39 PM

Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

o:)

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:39 PM

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).Haven't been there in about 40 years. Why do you say that the Left wins the weird title there?

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:40 PM

Agreed...

If you go back to the reason the impeachment comment was made - your agreement might not be as certain. The President is not above the law - it's doubtful the House would allow a power grab of that magnitude.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:46 PM

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

o:)

That Lisa and her sassy rats.:biggrin:

lisab

Jul13-11, 09:47 PM

Me too. Is it possible that most everybody except the members of the House is in favor of term limits in the House?

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 09:47 PM

lisab

Jul13-11, 09:49 PM

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).

Oh I agree. It's wacko there. Not IMO, I do think that's an actual fact.

WhoWee

Jul13-11, 09:49 PM

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 10:00 PM

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc. I want them to actually read the legislation they vote on. So, one term of six years is quite enough for any individual imho. I stopped voting for incumbents at a young age. About 20 years ago I stopped voting for Republicans and Democrats. Well, maybe I'm the weird one, eh?

What makes you think that career staff members' power would increase given term limits?

lisab

Jul13-11, 10:07 PM

A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc. I want them to actually read the legislation they vote on. So, one term of six years is quite enough for any individual imho. I stopped voting for incumbents at a young age. About 20 years ago I stopped voting for Republicans and Democrats. Well, maybe I'm the weird one, eh?

What makes you think that career staff members' power would increase given term limits?

Because over a career, they'd serve many different Representatives. While the elected people are replaced by newbies every 6 years, they would serve decades. They would learn how things work, make contacts, etc.

lisab

Jul13-11, 10:10 PM

That's why I said in the House - not the Senate. There are more House members and once a Representative hits a limit - they could run for Senate.

It could work for Wyoming (one Representative, two Senators), but California or Texas (each with dozens of Representatives, two Senators) would be a tough sell.

SixNein

Jul13-11, 10:18 PM

If you go back to the reason the impeachment comment was made - your agreement might not be as certain. The President is not above the law - it's doubtful the House would allow a power grab of that magnitude.

The executive branch is obligated by law to fund mandated services. So the debt limit creates a conflict between funds and obligations required by law. So the President would be well within the law to declare the debt limit unconstitutional.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 10:27 PM

Because over a career, they'd serve many different Representatives. While the elected people are replaced by newbies every 6 years, they would serve decades. They would learn how things work, make contacts, etc.With term limits, things would work differently. A Congressman can learn everything he needs to know to be a good Congressman in a few months or less. With term limits, some Congressmen will be more powerful (in terms of influencing the legislative votes of others) than others through the force of their personalities and/or intellects. But what actual power does a staff person have simply because he's been at his job for, say, 20 years?

SixNein

Jul13-11, 10:32 PM

lisab

Jul13-11, 10:55 PM

With term limits, things would work differently. A Congressman can learn everything he needs to know to be a good Congressman in a few months or less. With term limits, some Congressmen will be more powerful (in terms of influencing the legislative votes of others) than others through the force of their personalities and/or intellects. But what actual power does a staff person have simply because he's been at his job for, say, 20 years?

Well this is well outside of my area, but I'm pretty sure that in politics it's not what you know, it's who you know. Having contacts is critical. Being around for a few decades, you'd know a lot of people.

lisab

Jul13-11, 10:57 PM

I agree that there would almost certainly be a brain drain because many of these members become knowledgeable in specific areas and serve on committees. I can see this effect in the house right now with all of the freshmen members.

I'm not saying that term limits are across the board bad - I'm just saying, there may be unintended consequences if they're ever implemented.

It's best to be skeptical when talking about changing such a fundamental element of our democracy, I think.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 11:17 PM

Well this is well outside of my area, but I'm pretty sure that in politics it's not what you know, it's who you know. Having contacts is critical. Being around for a few decades, you'd know a lot of people.What you know is still of paramount importance. It's just that this often depends on who you know. But a one-term Congressman wouldn't need to deal with that to the extent that a possible multi-term Congressman does now -- if he wants to get reelected that is. Anyway, so a staffer knows a bunch of people. That doesn't mean that they're telling him anything.

The absence of term limits breeds corruption of a few sorts. The idea is to minimize that. So, I vote for term limits.

ThomasT

Jul13-11, 11:24 PM

It's best to be skeptical when talking about changing such a fundamental element of our democracy, I think.I don't consider the absence of term limits to be a necessary fundamental element of our democracy. In fact, I would consider the absence of term limits to be antithetical to our democratic ideals, in that it sets the stage for several sorts of corruption that are simply structured out when terms are limitied.

mege

Jul14-11, 12:06 AM

Agreed...

One person said 'impeach Obama' over a very specific incident declaring something 'unconstitutional'. There is this concept called 'checks and balances' and the President is still bound by certain laws. If he breaks them egregiously, then he's meant to be held liable.

But I thought recalls/impeachment, etc was the proper way to get your party's policies through? (I still see 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers on the road, and President Obama has only expanded on any of President Bush's weak impeachable offenses).

(It's important to note I dont think many see President Obama in an impeachable light except when he's specificially failing to enforce Congressional policies, Conservatives aren't big whiners like that... look at WI. A bunch of congressmen LEFT THE STATE for a month+ and aren't getting recalled, whereas a bunch of folks are getting recalled for doing what they campaigned for? Spoiled whiney brat much?)

mege

Jul14-11, 12:07 AM

I don't consider the absence of term limits to be a necessary fundamental element of our democracy. In fact, I would consider the absence of term limits to be antithetical to our democratic ideals, in that it sets the stage for several sorts of corruption that are simply structured out when terms are limitied.

Well I agree that something needs to be done wrt corruption and elected officials, I'm not 100% sure if term limits are the right thing. Basically then you have a bunch of lame-duck congressmen whom DONT have to worry about what people think. The point of this thread was too many people are idealoging - what happens with you have 4/535 lame ducks?

SixNein

Jul14-11, 01:23 AM

One person said 'impeach Obama' over a very specific incident declaring something 'unconstitutional'. There is this concept called 'checks and balances' and the President is still bound by certain laws. If he breaks them egregiously, then he's meant to be held liable.

But I thought recalls/impeachment, etc was the proper way to get your party's policies through? (I still see 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers on the road, and President Obama has only expanded on any of President Bush's weak impeachable offenses).

(It's important to note I dont think many see President Obama in an impeachable light except when he's specificially failing to enforce Congressional policies, Conservatives aren't big whiners like that... look at WI. A bunch of congressmen LEFT THE STATE for a month+ and aren't getting recalled, whereas a bunch of folks are getting recalled for doing what they campaigned for? Spoiled whiney brat much?)

There is also a concept called the judicial branch of the United States government. If the president declares the debt limit unconstitutional, the question will go before the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide if the president is correct or incorrect. The supreme court will have the final decision on the issue.

I disagree with you that Obama is doing something unconstitutional.

ThomasT

Jul14-11, 01:56 AM

Well I agree that something needs to be done wrt corruption and elected officials, I'm not 100% sure if term limits are the right thing. Basically then you have a bunch of lame-duck congressmen whom DONT have to worry about what people think. The point of this thread was too many people are idealoging - what happens with you have 4/535 lame ducks?I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:25 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

Personally I think not doing what people think is one of the positive benefits of placing term limits. Our republic is looking more and more like a democracy.

ThomasT

Jul14-11, 02:41 AM

Personally I think not doing what people think is one of the positive benefits of placing term limits. Our republic is looking more and more like a democracy.
I don't think it looks much like a democracy at all. But then, it's not supposed to.

What does "not doing what people think" refer to? mege said that term limits entail that Congressmen wouldn't have worry about what people think, which I disagreed with. Just because they can't be elected to another term doesn't mean that they can't be voted out of office before their term expires.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 03:29 AM

I don't think it looks much like a democracy at all. But then, it's not supposed to.

What does "not doing what people think" refer to? mege said that term limits entail that Congressmen wouldn't have worry about what people think, which I disagreed with. Just because they can't be elected to another term doesn't mean that they can't be voted out of office before their term expires.

Politicians are currently running a continuous never ending campaign. They are scared of sound bytes and other media hurting their re-election chances. In addition, they must almost always keep up a fanatical stance to appeal to their particular bases, or they may destroy their re-election chances. So by placing limits, politicians could have more open and honest discussions, and they could tackle the hard problems facing the nation. A democrat and republican could sit down and think and exchange ideas without worry about what the base thinks about it.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 03:41 AM

Politicians are currently running a continuous never ending campaign. They are scared of sound bytes and other media hurting their re-election chances. In addition, they must almost always keep up a fanatical stance to appeal to their particular bases, or they may destroy their re-election chances. So by placing limits, politicians could have more open and honest discussions, and they could tackle the hard problems facing the nation. A democrat and republican could sit down and think and exchange ideas without worry about what the base thinks about it.

The debt limit discussion is a text book example of this problem. First and foremost, I highly doubt there would be any political theatre over the debt limit if congress was not worried about the next election. In addition, the debt limit would have been raised a long time ago if it would even need to be raised at all. A great deal of our spending and tax problems are a direct result of congress worried about elections. The downside to having a republic is accountability. Blame is very difficult to assign in a republic. So members can give tax cuts and create spending programs without so much worry about the consequences of those actions. If negative consequences occur, politicians can just point fingers at each other. And most likely, the public will be unable to assign blame, so it will rely on those narratives fed to it by the parties and ideologies.

russ_watters

Jul14-11, 05:53 AM

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.
Agreed... Try doing a forum search for "impeach Obama", then another for "impeach Bush" and let me know if you still think that.

Also, I had trouble finding the original quote - did more than one person say it or is "you guys" just one person?

mege

Jul14-11, 06:19 AM

There is also a concept called the judicial branch of the United States government. If the president declares the debt limit unconstitutional, the question will go before the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide if the president is correct or incorrect. The supreme court will have the final decision on the issue.

I disagree with you that Obama is doing something unconstitutional.

Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

Are any of these things impeachable? I doubt they're extreme enough to warrant the strain on the American people, but according to rule of law and the structure of our government it seems to me like President Obama tries daily to tug at his Constitutional chains (Libya without congressional consent, declaring laws unenforcable, appointing cabinet-level 'czars' without congress, etc - basically ignoring congress as much as possible). It will take something more obviously egregious for it to be possible, politically, for the President to be impeached. But let me emphasise that I'm not advocating for Presidental impeachment because the case would be a little weak and cause more harm than good.

I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

The recall system I feel is flawed in a fundamental way. To all of the whiners in MI and WI - suck it up. They were elected fairly to start and did nothing illegal. Basically unions campaigned and these are special interest driven recalls and special elections. How much government money is being wasted because the biggest special interest in the country got crapped on? (if you want to attack corruption, look there) That's the problem with recalls - the time and effort of government gets wasted on it. The same applys to single term limits in your situation - don't like someone, recall them as enforcement! So you've effectively made that individual campaign again in the middle of the session because of a recall vote. It doesn't seem efficient and any waste that would be saved from eliminating corruption would just be reinjected as waste because we'd need an IRS-sized election comission to deal with all of the petty recalls. Our elections are often already only won by a few percentage points, is the disruption caused to government worth the popularity change of 2%? Lastly, I think term limits would also encourage popularity contests more than actual policy decisions. When there's little legislative history to go on, all there will be is name dropping and mud slinging. Who's going to have the well known names? Likely a business leader or someone without the public interest in mind. They'll already be 'corrupt' (maybe not in an evil sense), and be working towards their own goals without any recourse.

Like I've said before - the face value idea of term limits is great, but I think it introduces many more problems than it attempts to solve.

mege

Jul14-11, 06:21 AM

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 07:13 AM

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 07:23 AM

The debt limit discussion is a text book example of this problem. First and foremost, I highly doubt there would be any political theatre over the debt limit if congress was not worried about the next election. In addition, the debt limit would have been raised a long time ago if it would even need to be raised at all. A great deal of our spending and tax problems are a direct result of congress worried about elections. The downside to having a republic is accountability. Blame is very difficult to assign in a republic. So members can give tax cuts and create spending programs without so much worry about the consequences of those actions. If negative consequences occur, politicians can just point fingers at each other. And most likely, the public will be unable to assign blame, so it will rely on those narratives fed to it by the parties and ideologies.

As you are probably aware, then Senator Obama had plenty to say about the debt limit - before it was his problem.
http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/
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.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.""

Then Senator Obama complained the national debt would reach $12Trillion (with a "T") by 2011 - he's now managed to push it over $14T (with a "T") and now wants to raise it enough to get to the other side of the 2012 election - correct?

daveb

Jul14-11, 08:19 AM

A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc.

While I agree that I want representatives concerned with what's good for the country, they don't represent the country, they represent their constituents. While I disagree with pork and earmarks for certain districts, I also understand that this is what the representatives are for. To get things for their constituents. Much as I despise the woman, Michelle Bachman taking taxpayer dollars for spending in her district means she's doing her job. I don't expect her to refuse the money. So, even though it may have been better for the country for certain reps to refuse some or all of the money from the federal government (by reducing spending), they still did their jobs - I can't fault them for that.

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 09:13 AM

... and now wants to raise it enough to get to the other side of the 2012 election - correct?

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!!

SixNein

Jul14-11, 09:19 AM

Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 09:25 AM

It was a response to your post that led to the impeachment quip.

"Originally Posted by SixNein
The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts."

I responded:
" I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?"

My point was a power grab of this magnitude - and yes, combined with all of his other stretches - might be enough to trigger the impeachment process in the House. There are limits to the Presidents power for good reason.

But there are also limits to congressional powers. The courts can trump anything congress does short of an amendment.

But I think you are missing the big picture. Congress is the problem here, in particular, the house. This is a suggestion as a last resort option.

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 09:28 AM

... How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?

I think this is not an American problem; it’s the "Global Light Bulb Conspiracy" raging in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. Personally I think it is pure madness, because the replacement doesn’t work...

A German entrepreneur, Siegfried Rotthaeuser, was so pissed over this that he 'invented' a new "heatball" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-germany-heatballs-idUSTRE69E3FS20101015) and imported them from China as "small heating devices", to outwit EU light bulb ban! :rofl:

SixNein

Jul14-11, 09:28 AM

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!!

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Moody's rated Greece debt as junk.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 09:28 AM

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 09:40 AM

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 09:43 AM

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Agree... :frown:

... this woman’s talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY) about "tell the truth" really bothers me ... she has obviously no clue …

russ_watters

Jul14-11, 09:50 AM

Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 09:52 AM

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 09:53 AM

SixNein

Jul14-11, 09:57 AM

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 10:00 AM

Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 10:03 AM

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

I fully understand the consequences - that's why I've been beating the drum to reverse the spending and the ever expanding debt for the past several years. The President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrat leaders have put (spent) us into a very dangerous place!

mege

Jul14-11, 10:09 AM

mege

Jul14-11, 10:11 AM

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 10:14 AM

Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443953024891120.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed) so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

I agree - the Democrats have made spending commitments that require either raising the debt limit and/or tax hikes - that might not increase revenues.

It's funny we aren't hearing how much money Obamacare is going to save us - as it was presented previously - where are those arguments?

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 10:16 AM

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

Correct again - the limit will have to increase - but the Republicans will get spending rollbacks whether the President or Harry Reid like it (IMO).

russ_watters

Jul14-11, 11:01 AM

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-11, 11:02 AM

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

russ_watters

Jul14-11, 11:04 AM

Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443953024891120.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed) so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years. I think regardless of if it is all we're going to get it is all we have now, so our budgets should be dealing with that reality.

russ_watters

Jul14-11, 11:07 AM

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party? Certainly not!

daveb

Jul14-11, 11:19 AM

I have no respect for both parties. I respect individuals. I may be a left wing wacko, but I respect the likes of George Will and William F Buckley. I may disagree with them at times, but I cannot fault their opinions which I consider well informed and thoughtful (I just disagree with some of their conclusions). I also respect liberal intellectuals such as Chomsky, even though I also disagree with his conclusions at times.

OmCheeto

Jul14-11, 11:20 AM

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

:rofl:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:

50% on the top 1% (currently $1,423,580 agi average)
40% on the top 1-5% (currently $227,950 agi average)
30% on the top 5-10% (currently $132,316 agi average)
20% on the top 10-25% (currently $85,891 agi average)
15% on the top 25-50% (currently $47,490 agi average)

Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 11:28 AM

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

Agree!! Kudos!! :approve::approve::approve:

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 11:29 AM

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

I also remember this:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425205730

"Moreover, I am concerned that a second round of quantitative easing will further aggravate market participants’ uncertainty about near-term economic conditions. There can be little doubt that a second round of quantitative easing would represent a near-emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve and a signal of duress about the future of our economy. In addition, quantitative easing and the concomitant ex nihilo creation of money will undoubtedly impact the inflation rate. Unsettlingly, it remains to be seen where inflation would settle after the proposed implementation of a second quantitative easing."

I don't think the printing of money can be separated from the discussion of the national debt.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 11:32 AM

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 11:34 AM

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

Absolutely not, Michele Bachman is a danger for herself and the surroundings*.

*global economy

Char. Limit

Jul14-11, 11:40 AM

Try doing a forum search for "impeach Obama", then another for "impeach Bush" and let me know if you still think that.

Also, I had trouble finding the original quote - did more than one person say it or is "you guys" just one person?

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 11:47 AM

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

Perhaps we can move this to a new thread - actions of President Obama - discuss what might be impeachable on their own merits (things like the level of our involvement in Libya, our relationship in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, our energy policy, czars, EPA administrative actions, expansion of the IRS to enforce health insurance) and collectively?

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 11:49 AM

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

Oh yeah!? :grumpy: So why calling for Obama to "tell the truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY), i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!"

mege

Jul14-11, 12:03 PM

:rofl:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:

Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:

The ultimate problem with this, and something Republicans worry about with any tax increase, is that it won't fix anything because spending will just increase as well. The country's total revenue has stayed fairly stable as a fraction of GDP over a few decades, it's our spending which has spiked in the last few years and is only projected to go up. The 'starve the beast' mantra is meant to not push the government into default, but to really find out what is neccessary for the government/country to function at a globally competitive level and what is not.

Unfortunately, the politically correct thing to do for the left is to tax the wealthy because it appeals to the masses with their hands held out. There is no other justifiable reason to do so, other than jealousy and greed. However, I am 100% in agreeance that our tax system is flawed. I think any tax increases need to be evaluated with a fundamental restructuring which eliminates much of the hand outs and levels out (proportionately, of course) the ammount of income taxes each pay. I think that exceptions in our tax code are part of what cause this perception of inequality more than the actual tax structure. The top marginal rate should top out at the 50k/100k range, not in the millions.

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 12:04 PM

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget.

Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2 C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg/600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2 C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg
California 1936

mege

Jul14-11, 12:14 PM

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

As a frequent listener/watcher of both Beck and Limbaugh - I can say that I've heard Rush call for the impeachment of President Obama exactly twice. Once when he mandated that the justice system ignore DOMA and once after the 60days of the Presidental war powers act expired. Beck never actually called for impeachment, but often questioned why President Obama was ignoring the constitution - esspecially for being a 'constitutional scholar'.

President Bush had 'impeachment investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush)' levied against him. Lead by the former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's left hand man Rep. John Conyers.

DevilsAvocado

Jul14-11, 12:27 PM

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/11/social-conservative-cuts-bit-about-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/
wowawow... I thought this was a sick joke at first... but apparently not...http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10171.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bvreW08X0
e9bvreW08X0

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 12:36 PM

Oh yeah!? :grumpy: So why calling for Obama to "tell the truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY), i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!"

The President does need to tell the truth - as for Bachmann - do you have a direct quote?

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 12:41 PM

Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2 C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg/600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2 C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg
California 1936
Didn't you just post something about scare tactics?:uhh:

SixNein

Jul14-11, 12:42 PM

Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?

The one about debt.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 12:54 PM

The one about debt.

I'll let this Congressman speak:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/john-cornyn-14th-amendment-debt-limit-crazy_n_889401.html

"John Cornyn: Invoking The 14th Amendment On The Debt Limit Is 'Crazy Talk'"

daveb

Jul14-11, 01:24 PM

From Wikipedia:
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. From the founding of the United States through 1917 Congress authorized each individual debt issuance separately. In order to provide more flexibility to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917,[30] Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling", on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.

The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was established in 1939. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling.

Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, prohibits questioning the validity of all lawfully authorized United States public debt.

It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 01:29 PM

I'll let this Congressman speak:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/john-cornyn-14th-amendment-debt-limit-crazy_n_889401.html

"John Cornyn: Invoking The 14th Amendment On The Debt Limit Is 'Crazy Talk'"

Crazy talk is the president doing nothing in the case of a congressional failure.

Would you rather see default?

SixNein

Jul14-11, 01:36 PM

From Wikipedia:

Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:

It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.

Even if the courts would agree with you, the review in courts would buy more time for congress. This of course being used as a last resort.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 01:38 PM

Crazy talk is the president doing nothing in the case of a congressional failure.

Would you rather see default?

The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

SixNein

Jul14-11, 01:51 PM

The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting united states credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 01:58 PM

The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:00 PM

Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting united states credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.

And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:05 PM

The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.

Why don't you support that - the Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency for 2 years - only now can the Republicans begin to slow down the Democrat spending habit.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:08 PM

Why don't you support that - the Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency for 2 years - only now can the Republicans begin to slow down the Democrat spending habit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Wikipedia - really?:rolleyes:

daveb

Jul14-11, 02:24 PM

While it's true that the information shows downward trends during democratic presidents (except Obama), WhoWee's point is that it is democratic Congresses that increase the debt (well, specifically, the last two years - he made no claims about prior Congresses).

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:30 PM

And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?

Playing chicken with America's credit rating is not a reasonable way to deal with budget problems. If the debt limit does not get raised, America will spend more money through economic decline and higher costs of borrowing than would be spent by simply raising the limit. Even the cost of loans for individuals will increase. Playing chicken with the bond market is very dangerous even during a healthy economy.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:31 PM

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:33 PM

Wikipedia - really?:rolleyes:

If you distrust the information, run the numbers yourself from government data.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:34 PM

Playing chicken with America's credit rating is not a reasonable way to deal with budget problems. If the debt limit does not get raised, America will spend more money through economic decline and higher costs of borrowing than would be spent by simply raising the limit. Even the cost of loans for individuals will increase. Playing chicken with the bond market is very dangerous even during a healthy economy.

Again, when do you expect interest rates to rise?

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:39 PM

The republican party commanded majorities during most of Bush's term.

I think we need to once again re-visit Senator Obama's famous speech:
http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

"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.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion."

Once again I need to remind everyone the President Obama has taken the Bush worst case scenario of a $12Trillion (with a "T") in 2011 and turned it into $14Trillion (with a "T") - what say you?

Proton Soup

Jul14-11, 02:40 PM

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

I also remember this:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425205730

"Moreover, I am concerned that a second round of quantitative easing will further aggravate market participants’ uncertainty about near-term economic conditions. There can be little doubt that a second round of quantitative easing would represent a near-emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve and a signal of duress about the future of our economy. In addition, quantitative easing and the concomitant ex nihilo creation of money will undoubtedly impact the inflation rate. Unsettlingly, it remains to be seen where inflation would settle after the proposed implementation of a second quantitative easing."

I don't think the printing of money can be separated from the discussion of the national debt.

yeah, we need to really think about not only what we're doing now, but what we've been doing. it's not as if the Fed hasn't been creating money ex-nihilo all along. only, the way money is usually created also creates debt that adds an additional "tax" that goes directly to bankers as interest.

this is before the bubble burst:

8pEiLHnjAiw

SixNein

Jul14-11, 02:44 PM

Again, when do you expect interest rates to rise?

Probably as late as next year unless default occurs.

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 02:55 PM

yeah, we need to really think about not only what we're doing now, but what we've been doing. it's not as if the Fed hasn't been creating money ex-nihilo all along. only, the way money is usually created also creates debt that adds an additional "tax" that goes directly to bankers as interest.

this is before the bubble burst:

8pEiLHnjAiw

Unfortunately, Ron Paul strays from topics like this and becomes a target of ridicule - IMO. Listen to Bernanke's response at 4:18 to 4:30 (and beyond). It angers me to hear him talking about money being chased out of bad investments into the banks - when previously downward pressure on interest rates chased a great many dollars out of the banks and into the market.

Proton Soup

Jul14-11, 02:59 PM

Unfortunately, Ron Paul strays from topics like this and becomes a target of ridicule - IMO. Listen to Bernanke's response at 4:18 to 4:30 (and beyond). It angers me to hear him talking about money being chased out of bad investments into the banks - when previously downward pressure on interest rates chased a great many dollars out of the banks and into the market.

it angers me to hear bernanke with ridicule in his voice talking about the typical american keeping their wealth in dollars. those typical americans are bleeping idiots for believing that's a good investment, eh?

SixNein

Jul14-11, 03:16 PM

I think we need to once again re-visit Senator Obama's famous speech:
http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

"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.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion."

Once again I need to remind everyone the President Obama has taken the Bush worst case scenario of a $12Trillion (with a "T") in 2011 and turned it into $14Trillion (with a "T") - what say you?

The reason the deficit has grown so much over the last 2 years is because of the recession. Government revenues are much lower while unemployment has put pressure on safety nets. As a result, the government is taking in less money and spending more money. This has happened even in state governments: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb11-03.html

A great majority of government spending is mandated spending from previous administrations.

SixNein

Jul14-11, 03:29 PM

This article sums up Obama's spending....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/08/obamas-spending-exclusive-estimate-of-the-true-number.html

And here is another by the deputy of the NWO =P
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/2021-and-all-that/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/11/19/173020/linden-deficits/

Greg Bernhardt

Jul14-11, 03:37 PM

This article sums up Obama's spending....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/08/obamas-spending-exclusive-estimate-of-the-true-number.html

Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs.

Doesn't that mean he is raising less money and still spending more? How does that help!?

SixNein

Jul14-11, 04:10 PM

Doesn't that mean he is raising less money and still spending more? How does that help!?

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131879993/obama-s-tax-cut-deal-so-much-for-deficit-reduction

At the end of the day, the economy did need stimulus spending, and it may still need some more. The economy is very fragile right now. And people for some reason or another seem to be over looking this fact.

But again, its not fair to say that obama is spending trillions. Most of the spending comes from mandatory programs.

On a side note, the tax cuts largely backfired politically...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html

WhoWee

Jul14-11, 04:59 PM

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131879993/obama-s-tax-cut-deal-so-much-for-deficit-reduction

At the end of the day, the economy did need stimulus spending, and it may still need some more. The economy is very fragile right now. And people for some reason or another seem to be over looking this fact.

But again, its not fair to say that obama is spending trillions. Most of the spending comes from mandatory programs.

On a side note, the tax cuts largely backfired politically...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html

Please support your statement: "At the end of the day, the economy did need stimulus spending, and it may still need some more." Was stimulus spending the only option? Maybe the economy just needed Government to stop meddling and restore certainty? Maybe the economy needs global stability - not a speaking tour to the Mideast that apologizes for America and (possibly) encouraged young people to protest? Maybe we need a clear energy policy? Maybe the President shouldn't hire the CEO of GE (they didn't pay any taxes last year and sent thousands of jobs offshore) to work on his jobs project? Maybe the President should not interfere with the Federal Bankruptcy courts to protect his union supporters and at the same time create uncertainty in the bond markets?

Again - http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/
President Obama has exceeded the doom and gloom number he spoke about to criticize Bush - by $2Trillion (with a "T") - of course it's fair to blame him (and not Bush).

Last, the "tax cut for 95%" was political theater at best - what have you done with your extra money? btw - I didn't know it cost over $100Billion - what a waste!

CAC1001

Jul14-11, 06:40 PM

Fiscal stimulus hasn't been considered a viable form of economic policy for over thirty years now. The only people who still adhere to it are politicians because they don't like to have to admit that there is really nothing they can do to "fix" the economy and ideologues who never really got over the fact that socialism doesn't work.

And not raising the debt ceiling will not create a default. The U.S. government doesn't take on additional debt to service the existing debt. One of the key things looked at when measuring the country's creditworthiness is what percentage of the federal revenues go towards servicing the debt. What would cause major damage if the debt ceiling is not raised is the $1.6 trillion worth of government spending that suddenly would have to stop, which would shut down whole industries as their government agencies would stop functioning. Social Security and so forth would stop getting paid. And such.

As for the thread's premise, that all this is on the Republicans, I find rather silly. President Obama himself said he will not sign a deal for a short-term debt limit. So in other words, if the House and Senate approve a bill that increases the debt limit again for the short-term, then he will refuse to sign it. In other words, he is either playing politics or willing to sink the country for his own political purposes. The only reason he doesn't want a short-term debt limit increase is because he doesn't want this as an issue he has to deal with going into the 2012 election. He wants people to forget about the issues of debt and deficit. The Republicans want it to remain (and rightfully so) an issue going into the 2012 election.

People like Bachmann however, who says that not raising the debt limit wouldn't be a problem, that is nonsense. Not raising it would be catostrophic, so it needs to be raised.

mheslep

Jul14-11, 06:59 PM

This article sums up Obama's spending....
No it does not.

mheslep

Jul14-11, 07:09 PM

And not raising the debt ceiling will not create a default. It will force nearly 40% of current spending to either cease or be paid for from additional revenue such as selling off assets. The President may or may not choose to pay interest on the US debt, causing a 'technical' default for a short time. That's far preferable to a forced default, such as in Greece, where all current revenues combined are insufficient to pay the debt interest alone.

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-11, 10:52 PM

It will force nearly 40% of current spending to either cease or be paid for from additional revenue such as selling off assets. The President may or may not choose to pay interest on the US debt, causing a 'technical' default for a short time. That's far preferable to a forced default, such as in Greece, where all current revenues combined are insufficient to pay the debt interest alone.

However, as we have seen in the last two days with threats to downgrade the US credit rating [S&P, Moody's], it will still be viewed as a default as the good faith and credit of the country will be marginalized. We still won't pay all the bills. Now I realize that popular tea position is that we can pay the Chinese their interest instead of Americans what they need to live, but even not paying Americans is a failure to pay. And not paying any principle on our debt is also seen as a failure to pay. IF our credit rating is downgraded, it will cost more to sustain the debt that we already have, and we gain nothing. So the default or failure to pay the poor plans are great plans if you want to pay more interest to China and get nothing in return.

The REAL irony is that if this happens, some of the people that will be screaming the loudest will be the tea partiers. Recall for example the heated town halls regarding health care reform. In one random sample taken by a Congressman under pressure, at least half of those in the audience protesting the reforms were dependent on government money and apparently didn't even know it.

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-11, 11:20 PM

Fiscal stimulus hasn't been considered a viable form of economic policy for over thirty years now.

So you just make things up as you go? From that liberal rag, the WSJ.

Jan. 2009: Economists in the monthly Wall Street Journal forecasting survey generally agree with the size of President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus package but remain divided on where the money should be spent.

Congress released on Thursday details of the $825 billion package, including tax cuts and increase government spending. Like the political debate over the plan, economists differed on how best to trigger long-term growth—more "bang for the buck"—versus the need for more immediate relief. (See related article.)...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

CAC1001

Jul15-11, 01:03 AM

So you just make things up as you go? From that liberal rag, the WSJ.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/stimulus_rip.html (I doubt Cochrane is being disingenuous).

Plus there is no example of stimulus working in history. There are too many problems with it:

1) In order to inject money into the economy, the government must first take it out of the economy in another form, debt (in this sense, demand-side tax cuts will not work either if they mean the government must operate on debt)

2) What exactly is the multiplier effect? No one knows, and it may even be negative. If no one knows the actual multiplier (if there even is one), then no one knows how much to spend. How does one measure how much demand has dropped? All of it is using estimates and guesstimates essentially.

3) It takes too much time to get the money out in order to try to stimulate the economy

4) As the money is spent, there can be a lack of accountability in the spending of it

5) People and businesses can respond very negatively to a massive deficit, and thus hold back on their spending and/or hiring, thus the stimulus ends up reducing demand more than increasing it

6) If the government does succeed in creating demand, it can essentially keep the private economy depressed permanantly and prevent it from recovering. The traditional Keynesian idea was that the private economy could not recover without fiscal stimulus from the government. We know that is not true however. If left alone, the private economy will recover on its own and private demand will come back. But if the government steps in long enough and manages to make up for a large amount of that demand, the private-sector may remain permanently depressed, as the government replacing a lot of the lost demand can prevent the private demand from coming back.

This is what some believe happened with Japan. They spent half their GDP in fiscal stimulus, but the net result is that it likely made much of Japanese business dependent on Tokyo

7) The government trying to spend money to stimulate can crowd out private-sector investment, thus hamstringing the economy

8) One of the experiences some European nations have had with attempts at stimulus is inflation. If inflation occurs and drives up the prices of basic goods and services, this can cause consumers to cut back on their spending, thus reducing demand and undermining the very purpose of the stimulus

And so forth.

Greg Bernhardt

Jul15-11, 01:22 AM

However, as we have seen in the last two days with threats to downgrade the US credit rating [S&P, Moody's]

Here is a good interview with Jim Rogers

hLzP86UZwwM

talk2glenn

Jul15-11, 02:25 AM

The reason the deficit has grown so much over the last 2 years is because of the recession. Government revenues are much lower while unemployment has put pressure on safety nets. As a result, the government is taking in less money and spending more money. This has happened even in state governments: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea...s/cb11-03.html

A great majority of government spending is mandated spending from previous administrations.

Absolute nonsense. The recession certainly hasn't helped, but the problem is spending, not revenues. The Democrats in Congress have authorized over a trillion dollars in new federal spending, created a massive new entitlement, expanded the regulatory role of government, and increased dramatically the size and pay of the federal work force. These are all new expenditures instituted since 2006. Healthcare reform alone is estimated by the CBO to cost the federal government an average of $300+ billion per year over its first 10 years.

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

See there for the change in outlays since 2006, by department.

So you just make things up as you go? From that liberal rag, the WSJ.

You really want to bring the stimulus into this? Whatever articles the Journal ran in the run up to its passage, every academic study of the stimulus' effects since passage (that I am aware of) suggests the stimulus was a complete failure - at best not helpful, at worst harmful.

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

As you have been told several times now, presidents - regardless of color - do not increase or decrease the debt. I believe others have already directly quoted the relevant text from Wikipedia, the Constitution, and federal law. You'd have to be extremely confused about the relative habits of the two parties to ever conceive of a world in which Republicans outspend Democrats; it just doesn't make sense on its face. And the data supports the common sense conclusion. Spending by party in control of the Congress:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/nmleon/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Cong ress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.jpg

SixNein

Jul15-11, 02:53 AM

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/stimulus_rip.html (I doubt Cochrane is being disingenuous).

Plus there is no example of stimulus working in history. There are too many problems with it:

1) In order to inject money into the economy, the government must first take it out of the economy in another form, debt (in this sense, demand-side tax cuts will not work either if they mean the government must operate on debt)

2) What exactly is the multiplier effect? No one knows, and it may even be negative. If no one knows the actual multiplier (if there even is one), then no one knows how much to spend. How does one measure how much demand has dropped? All of it is using estimates and guesstimates essentially.

3) It takes too much time to get the money out in order to try to stimulate the economy

4) As the money is spent, there can be a lack of accountability in the spending of it

5) People and businesses can respond very negatively to a massive deficit, and thus hold back on their spending and/or hiring, thus the stimulus ends up reducing demand more than increasing it

6) If the government does succeed in creating demand, it can essentially keep the private economy depressed permanantly and prevent it from recovering. The traditional Keynesian idea was that the private economy could not recover without fiscal stimulus from the government. We know that is not true however. If left alone, the private economy will recover on its own and private demand will come back. But if the government steps in long enough and manages to make up for a large amount of that demand, the private-sector may remain permanently depressed, as the government replacing a lot of the lost demand can prevent the private demand from coming back.

This is what some believe happened with Japan. They spent half their GDP in fiscal stimulus, but the net result is that it likely made much of Japanese business dependent on Tokyo

7) The government trying to spend money to stimulate can crowd out private-sector investment, thus hamstringing the economy

8) One of the experiences some European nations have had with attempts at stimulus is inflation. If inflation occurs and drives up the prices of basic goods and services, this can cause consumers to cut back on their spending, thus reducing demand and undermining the very purpose of the stimulus

And so forth.

First and foremost, you make the assumption that the government must take from the private sector at the same time it offers stimulus spending; however, credit allows the government to take from the private market at a future date. In addition, most of the actual spending was on infrastructure and saving the automotive industry. The largest part of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. You go on to affirm the consequent with talk of how businesses can respond to debt, wasteful spending, and so forth; however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt.

CAC1001

Jul15-11, 03:29 AM

First and foremost, you make the assumption that the government must take from the private sector at the same time it offers stimulus spending; however, credit allows the government to take from the private market at a future date.

Yes, it takes from the private economy in one form to inject money into it in another form, though I get your argument, but that is one of the problems with attempts at stimulus.

In addition, most of the actual spending was on infrastructure and saving the automotive industry.

Only a small portion of the stimulus was on infrastructure.

The largest part of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts

Around $260 billion over two years of it was tax cuts, but temporary tax cuts that aren't structural are not necessarilly stimulative.

You go on to affirm the consequent with talk of how businesses can respond to debt, wasteful spending, and so forth; however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt.

Investors are gobbling up U.S. debt because as bad as things are for the U.S., the U.S. is still the safest haven. The U.S. can service its debt even if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, and if worse came to worse, the U.S. could implement something like a VAT tax which it does not yet have, so U.S. bonds are a pretty safe investment. What I was talking about was that a lot of businesses and consumers could be spooked by the rising deficit and decide to hold off on hiring and spending, which is going to hamstring the economy. If the government runs a huge deficit and no one cares, behavior would be different, but if people care to an excesive amount, it can undercut the stimulus.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 05:34 AM

Investors are gobbling up U.S. debt because as bad as things are for the U.S., the U.S. is still the safest haven. The U.S. can service its debt even if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, and if worse came to worse, the U.S. could implement something like a VAT tax which it does not yet have, so U.S. bonds are a pretty safe investment. What I was talking about was that a lot of businesses and consumers could be spooked by the rising deficit and decide to hold off on hiring and spending, which is going to hamstring the economy. If the government runs a huge deficit and no one cares, behavior would be different, but if people care to an excesive amount, it can undercut the stimulus.

The largest reason the US is the safe haven is because its relatively stable politically. If the government defaults for just one second, it is not going to be viewed as politically stable because it is a self inflected economic crisis. I think you are confusing the budget stand-off with the debt limit stand-off. They are very different situations. Right now, investors are betting that the debt limit will be raised because the consequences of not raising the debt limit are so high that it's unthinkable for the government not to do it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576446234221437942.html

WhoWee

Jul15-11, 08:17 AM

First and foremost, you make the assumption that the government must take from the private sector at the same time it offers stimulus spending; however, credit allows the government to take from the private market at a future date. In addition, most of the actual spending was on infrastructure and saving the automotive industry. The largest part of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. You go on to affirm the consequent with talk of how businesses can respond to debt, wasteful spending, and so forth; however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt.

Please support your post.

Is credit not a limited supply - if the Government uses it today - it takes away from someone else using it - correct?

Your comment about "most of the actual spending was on infrastructure and saving the automotive industry" needs to be supported with actual numbers - how much was spent propping up the states - or are you calling that "infrastructure"?

And my favorite "largest part of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts" please expand - a post yesterday claimed about $116Billion (if I recall?) was allocated to the 95% of working families tax cut - there seems to be a conflict in your information. Now, is most (infrastructure and union bailout) more than the largest (tax cuts) - please clarify?

Then you state "however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt" :rofl:- please explain - who is "gobbling" - or do you mean printing?

mheslep

Jul15-11, 10:30 AM

Spending by party in control of the Congress:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/nmleon/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Cong ress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.jpgThe case is even more lopsided if one looks only at which party controls the House in particular, as that's where the appropriation bills originate. The Democrats and Speakers O'neil/Wright controlled the House during all of the split control period in the 80's, during which O'neil began the giant 'omnibus', take-or-leave-it budgets, prompting Reagan's campaign for the line item veto.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 05:09 PM

Please support your post.

Is credit not a limited supply - if the Government uses it today - it takes away from someone else using it - correct?

Your comment about "most of the actual spending was on infrastructure and saving the automotive industry" needs to be supported with actual numbers - how much was spent propping up the states - or are you calling that "infrastructure"?

And my favorite "largest part of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts" please expand - a post yesterday claimed about $116Billion (if I recall?) was allocated to the 95% of working families tax cut - there seems to be a conflict in your information. Now, is most (infrastructure and union bailout) more than the largest (tax cuts) - please clarify?

Then you state "however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt" :rofl:- please explain - who is "gobbling" - or do you mean printing?

On credit, no because we have a fiat money system. If we were on a money system like gold, you would be correct.

Yes, I would call states infrastructure.

The tax cuts passed in 2009 were worth 282 billion over two years:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html
The tax cuts passed in 2010 were worth 858 billion over two years:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/house-votes-to-debate-obama-s-858-billion-tax-cut-deal-with-republicans.html

Total amount in tax cuts: 1140 billion dollars.

Treasury has had no problem in selling debt to investors. You yourself called America the great safe Haven for investors.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 05:22 PM

Absolute nonsense. The recession certainly hasn't helped, but the problem is spending, not revenues. The Democrats in Congress have authorized over a trillion dollars in new federal spending, created a massive new entitlement, expanded the regulatory role of government, and increased dramatically the size and pay of the federal work force. These are all new expenditures instituted since 2006. Healthcare reform alone is estimated by the CBO to cost the federal government an average of $300+ billion per year over its first 10 years.

What spending programs created by Obama are in effect right now exactly? See,
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/john-taylor-and-the-zombies/

Also, care needs to be taken when comparing federal budgets. Obama included things in his budget that the bush administration kept off the budget.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/nation/na-obama-budget24

A side note, spending also increases when a recession takes places because of safety net programs.

mheslep

Jul15-11, 05:37 PM

What spending programs created by Obama are in effect right now exactly? See,
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/john-taylor-and-the-zombies/
...

Krugman is wrong. ...
http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/paul-krugman-versus-budget-facts.html

SixNein

Jul15-11, 06:20 PM

http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/paul-krugman-versus-budget-facts.html

Taylor is misleading and the following shows why:

For years, the White House and Congress have engaged in a kind of Kabuki theater around the federal deficit. The president would release a budget in February that would show declining deficits into the future. But that budget would exclude most war costs and use several unrealistic assumptions, including over-optimistic predictions of economic growth and rising federal revenue.

"There were significant costs that were excluded from the budget because the Bush administration pretended that certain policies that everyone knew would continue wouldn't continue," said Jim Horney, a budget expert with the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

One practice was including revenues from the alternative minimum tax in the projections. Congress passed the AMT four decades ago to prevent millionaires from escaping taxes. But because lawmakers neglected to index the income levels for inflation, the higher tax rate would now hit a large swath of middle-income taxpayers unless lawmakers pass AMT relief -- which they do every year.

But for budget reasons, the Bush administration continued to assume that the AMT would take effect in future years, raising tax revenue assumptions by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years.

Similarly, every year the Bush administration would issue an initial deficit projection that was much higher than other economists' projections. That way, when the final deficit count was released, the administration could claim it had brought the deficit down.

Deficits accumulated each year that President Bush was in office, from $158 billion in fiscal 2002 to $455 billion last year, totaling roughly $2.5 trillion altogether.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/nation/na-obama-budget24

Where as Taylor says this:

For all of 2007, spending was 19.6 percent of GDP. For all of 2021—after the impacts of the recession and the final year of the budget window—the budget submitted in February proposed spending equal to 24.2 percent of GDP.

talk2glenn

Jul15-11, 06:20 PM

Also, care needs to be taken when comparing federal budgets. Obama included things in his budget that the bush administration kept off the budget.

This flat out false. The only thing the Obama administration requests as discretionary spending in its budgets that the Bush administration did not is some portion of the operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the president has actually shifted significant portions of classically discretionary spending into the "mandatory" categories in its budgetary requests, in order to conceal the true cost of new policies. And, cleverly, the President only moved some of the costs of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq onto the regular budgets, then proposes reducing that "book" cost over the course of the year, producing a "discretionary savings reduction". See the gimmickery there?

Specifically, the president proposed and congress agreed to move spending on student loans and the stimulus and bailouts from discretionary to mandatory spending in 2009. This enables guys like Krugman to come along and claim the president is "reducing" discretionary spending, when all they've done is move expenses from one column to another. This produced a phantom savings of approximately $70B per year.

Even allowing for the presidents budgetary absurdities, by my estimate discretionary spending has increased by 20% since the President took office, versus a 4% increase in mandatory expenditures and a roughly 2% growth in GDP. The presidents 2010 budget proposal - rejected by congress - proposed a further increase to 23% of the FY2008 level, after moving the items listed above off the discretionary budget.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 06:38 PM

This flat out false. The only thing the Obama administration requests as discretionary spending in its budgets that the Bush administration did not is some portion of the operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the president has actually shifted significant portions of classically discretionary spending into the "mandatory" categories in its budgetary requests, in order to conceal the true cost of new policies. And, cleverly, the President only moved some of the costs of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq onto the regular budgets, then proposes reducing that "book" cost over the course of the year, producing a "discretionary savings reduction". See the gimmickery there?

Specifically, the president proposed and congress agreed to move spending on student loans and the stimulus and bailouts from discretionary to mandatory spending in 2009. This enables guys like Krugman to come along and claim the president is "reducing" discretionary spending, when all they've done is move expenses from one column to another. This produced a phantom savings of approximately $70B per year.

Even allowing for the presidents budgetary absurdities, by my estimate discretionary spending has increased by 20% since the President took office, versus a 4% increase in mandatory expenditures and a roughly 2% growth in GDP. The presidents 2010 budget proposal - rejected by congress - proposed a further increase to 23% of the FY2008 level, after moving the items listed above off the discretionary budget.

Moving an item from discretionary to mandatory does not change the overall figure for the budget; however, adding an item to the budget that was done in appropriations off the budget does increase the size of the budget.

But at the end of the day, your making my point for me. The comparison of the budget from 2007 to 2011 is meaningless. And even more meaningless is a comparison between projections.

talk2glenn

Jul15-11, 06:50 PM

Moving an item from discretionary to mandatory does not change the overall figure for the budget; however, adding an item to the budget that was done in appropriations off the budget does increase the size of the budget.

Your point, and Krugmans in the linked article, was that discretionary spending was falling and mandatory spending rising. My point, in pointing out the budgetary gimmicks employed by Obama and the Democrats, was to show that to the extent that discretionary spending has "fallen" and mandatory spending "risen", it has not been due to any real reductions in expenditures or due to countercyclical government policies, but the shifting of traditionally discretionary spending items (like student loan payments and stimulus funds) into the mandatory column.

Further, the 20% increase is over FY2007 levels in FY2010 - discretionary only, from 1.1T to 1.34T. This is real spending, authorized by the Democratic congress and signed into law by the president. The only reason the FY2011 budget, which would have further increased discretionary spending to $1.386T, didn't pass was the 2010 election cycle, which decimated the progressive majority.

The comparison of the budget from 2007 to 2011 is meaningless.

What is that supposed to mean, exactly?

SixNein

Jul15-11, 09:02 PM

Your point, and Krugmans in the linked article, was that discretionary spending was falling and mandatory spending rising. My point, in pointing out the budgetary gimmicks employed by Obama and the Democrats, was to show that to the extent that discretionary spending has "fallen" and mandatory spending "risen", it has not been due to any real reductions in expenditures or due to countercyclical government policies, but the shifting of traditionally discretionary spending items (like student loan payments and stimulus funds) into the mandatory column.

Further, the 20% increase is over FY2007 levels in FY2010 - discretionary only, from 1.1T to 1.34T. This is real spending, authorized by the Democratic congress and signed into law by the president. The only reason the FY2011 budget, which would have further increased discretionary spending to $1.386T, didn't pass was the 2010 election cycle, which decimated the progressive majority.

What is that supposed to mean, exactly?

Discretionary spending on budget for the department of defence was 430 billion in 2007 and 663 billion in 2010. That's 233 billion right there.

mheslep

Jul15-11, 09:05 PM

The following has nothing to do with gimmicks for predictions, but is now documented, historical fact totaling up *all* government spending, on wars or otherwise: For all of 2007, spending was 19.6 percent of GDP.Krugman also concedes the figure "is true".
For all of 2021—after the impacts of the recession and the final year of the budget window—the budget submitted in February proposed spending equal to 24.2 percent of GDP.This is the figure from the Obama budget.

WhoWee

Jul15-11, 09:20 PM

On credit, no because we have a fiat money system. If we were on a money system like gold, you would be correct.

Yes, I would call states infrastructure.

The tax cuts passed in 2009 were worth 282 billion over two years:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html
The tax cuts passed in 2010 were worth 858 billion over two years:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/house-votes-to-debate-obama-s-858-billion-tax-cut-deal-with-republicans.html

Total amount in tax cuts: 1140 billion dollars.

Treasury has had no problem in selling debt to investors. You yourself called America the great safe Haven for investors.

I disagree with regards to the supply of credit - it is limited as someone must be willing to extend terms.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 09:21 PM

The following has nothing to do with gimmicks for predictions, but is now documented, historical fact totaling up *all* government spending, on wars or otherwise: Krugman also concedes the figure "is true".
This is the figure from the Obama budget.

He was looking at projections of the obama budget.

My dispute is the method of argumentation used here. If the bush budget was projected to run to 2021 under the same assumptions, would the figure be higher or lower than Obama budget projections?

WhoWee

Jul15-11, 09:22 PM

Treasury has had no problem in selling debt to investors.

Are you certain about this?

SixNein

Jul15-11, 09:54 PM

Are you certain about this?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576446493806299046.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

mheslep

Jul15-11, 09:56 PM

... If the bush budget was projected to run to 2021 under the same assumptions, would the figure be higher or lower than Obama budget projections?Did you see the spending 2009-2011 increases via federalbudget.com shown graphically in post #221 by T2Glenn?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3404244&postcount=221

turbo

Jul15-11, 10:01 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576446493806299046.html?m od=googlenews_wsjPlease don't talk sense. It enrages the trolls.

ParticleGrl

Jul15-11, 10:02 PM

Are you certain about this?

The real rate for 5 year treasuries is NEGATIVE. Think about that- its CHEAPER to borrow money than to pay cash upfront. My question is- why aren't we exploiting this to rebuild some of our crumbling infrastructure?

mheslep

Jul15-11, 10:32 PM

ParticleGrl

Jul15-11, 10:43 PM

Because there is no free lunch. There is only so much money to borrow, and that which the government borrows, even if cheaply done, can not be borrowed to fund the private sector, that is, the government is crowding out the private sector.

We don't have a dearth of available cash-on-hand. Companies are sitting on billions in cash right now that they aren't investing in anything. How exactly is this crowding out supposed to be happening? The normal story with crowding out involves higher interest rates- which is an important part of the story. Right now, any investment with a positive real rate is BETTER than a 5 year treasury. What is getting crowded out?

Again, the demand for treasuries is so high that the real interest rates on five years are actually negative- this is not exactly a sweet deal for the lender. Also, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure can't help but be an obvious boon to the economy- putting idle construction resources to work, while lowering the cost of doing business for private firms.

And finally, much of the purchase of treasuries are foreign governments (in particular China, which has been using treasuries to control the renminbi)- IF China doubled its holdings of US treasuries, how does US competitiveness suffer?

EDIT: Bear in mind, crowding out is generally important in economies at or near full capacity. The US has above 9% unemployment.

mheslep

Jul15-11, 10:55 PM

We don't have a dearth of available cash-on-hand. Companies are sitting on billions in cash right now that they aren't investing in anything. How exactly is this crowding out supposed to be happening? The normal story with crowding out involves higher interest rates- which is an important part of the story. Right now, any investment with a positive real rate is BETTER than a 5 year treasury. What is getting crowded out? ...Right, Microsoft, GM, etc are not being crowded out, the smaller businesses and private investors are. They are not sitting on large sums of cash and can't get it from the banks, who have it invested largely in T Bills.
“Approximately a third of the decline in capital investment as a share of cash flow is directly attributable to the crowding out by the U.S. Treasury,” borrowing the savings of Americans ahead of all other borrowers, Greenspan told CNBC in an interview.

“Those numbers are significant,” Greenspan said. The same is happening in the United Kingdom, but “so far, it’s most dominant in the United States.”...
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Greenspan-Treasury-Crowding-Out/2010/12/03/id/378841?s=al&promo_code=B3B7-1

Edit: more ...
...Greenspan noted that major corporations like Microsoft and I.B.M. are not affected by crowding out in a deficit of this size—the deficit would have to increase two-fold to affect such major entities. The ‘who is being affected’ then, said Greenspan, “are ones which are known to be B-rated corporations. Where the shortfall is in investment is very largely in small businesses and in construction.”
I can attest the commercial construction business in the US has completely crashed in many places.

SixNein

Jul15-11, 11:08 PM

Did you see the spending 2009-2011 increases via federalbudget.com shown graphically in post #221 by T2Glenn?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3404244&postcount=221

Yes I seen it. The argument is about why short-term deficit (the last 2 years) is going up. My position is that its primarily due to the recession. Both loss of revenue and increase demand for safety net programs have contributed to it. Others seem to take the position that its all Obama's doing.

mheslep

Jul15-11, 11:16 PM

Yes I seen it. The argument is about why short-term deficit (the last 2 years) is going up. My position is that its primarily due to the recession. Both loss of revenue and increase demand for safety net programs have contributed to it. Others seem to take the position that its all Obama's doing.The President now has the responsibility for the anemic economy in July 2011, nearly four years after the beginning of the recession. The President has the responsibility for not only doing nothing about reining in the entitlement programs, but actively blocking and mocking ideas on the table.

ParticleGrl

Jul15-11, 11:21 PM

Right, Microsoft, GM, etc are not being crowded out, the smaller businesses and private investors are. They are not sitting on large sums of cash and can't get it from the banks, who have it invested largely in T Bills.

This is nonsense. Interest rates on treasuries are LOW, not high. What is the mechanism for crowding out? Read your economics text- the way crowding out works is that interest rates go up, and certain capital investments aren't profitable. Right now, rates are rock bottom.

The story of crowding out doesn't make sense right now. If you buy a treasury right now, you LOSE money. Banks should be clamoring for any investment that ISN'T a treasury.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Greenspan-Treasury-Crowding-Out/2010/12/03/id/378841?s=al&promo_code=B3B7-1

Greenspan flat out made-up a number. He "thinks" its high, and he "supposes" its true. The actual data is that banks have excessive reserves- their money isn't tied up in treasuries, its not tied up at all. They are sitting on loanable cash.

I can attest the commercial construction business in the US has completely crashed in many places.

Which may be true, but it isn't related to crowding out. Interest rates (again) are absolute rock bottom.

I don't have data on hand, but my guess is (with 9% unemployment) there isn't as much demand, so companies have no reason to expand.

edward

Jul15-11, 11:33 PM

Why were the Repubicans so afraid of a budget surplus in 2001??

[unacceptable source deleted]

mheslep

Jul15-11, 11:40 PM

This is nonsense. Interest rates on treasuries are LOW, not high. What is the mechanism for crowding out? Read your economics text- the way crowding out works is that interest rates go up, and certain capital investments aren't profitable. Right now, rates are rock bottom.

The story of crowding out doesn't make sense right now. If you buy a treasury right now, you LOSE money. Banks should be clamoring for any investment that ISN'T a treasury. Not if you are a major bank and can borrow from the Fed at 0.00000000001% (http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/omo/dmm/fedfundsdata.cfm), and can then turn around and buy T Bills at 3%.

Greenspan flat out made-up a number. He "thinks" its high, and he "supposes" its true. The former federal reserve chairman say's there's crowding out, a lot of it. If you have a counter reference I'd like to see it, as I'm not interested in your opinion of Greenspan.
The actual data is that banks have excessive reserves- their money isn't tied up in treasuries, its not tied up at all. They are sitting on loanable cash.
Banks Choosing Treasury Bonds Over Lending. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/09/banks-choosing-treasury-bonds-over-loans/)
According to the Federal Reserve’s latest weekly measure of bank assets and liabilities, released every Friday, banks held 1.37 trillion of Treasury and Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac debt securities at the end of October and $1.37 trillion of commercial and industrial loans

Which may be true, but it isn't related to crowding out. Interest rates (again) are absolute rock bottom.Really? For small businesses and investors, you know this how? Because you read the prime rate and just know that ACME Construction can borrow at prime plus one?

mege

Jul15-11, 11:44 PM

SixNein and mheslep I think are debating a moot point regarding how things get budgeted (wrt to the deficit graph). Since the numbers there are total debt owed by the government, how the money is allocated/budgeted doesn't really matter. That is showing how our spending has increased passed our revenues and the last few years that difference has spiked significantly. No matter how the money comes in or goes out - that difference is too great, and that's the point which is being lost in the discussion about budgetary spending.

@ParticleGrl - How much of the 'crumbling infrastructure' is actually federal property? Interstates are mostly funded by fuel tax from various levels (shared local/federal) and water/utility systems are managed locally. Unless you want to allow state/county/city governments to start 'charging' to the treasury - how is this going to happen? Another stimulus? How's that high-speed railway coming along? I think more people need to be looking towards their local governments for these issues. Far too many put all issues on the federal government's shoulders without regard for whom the bill really should be going to (including local politicians).

edward

Jul15-11, 11:55 PM

mheslep

The banks aren't loaning to small businesses.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100325/BIZ/703259908/1005

mege stated,

I think more people need to be looking towards their local governments for these issues. Far too many put all issues on the federal government's shoulders without regard for whom the bill really should be going to (including local politicians).

Right now it is difficult to find a state or local government that isn't in the dumper financially.

ParticleGrl

Jul15-11, 11:58 PM

Not if you are a major bank and can borrow from the Fed at 0.00000000001%, and can then turn around and buy T Bills at 3%.

But literally ANY other investment the bank could make is BETTER. Are you really arguing that treasuries (with their negative real rate) are a good buy? In fact, SUCH a good buy that they are being chosen over other investments?

The former federal reserve chairman say's there's crowding out, a lot of it. If you have a counter reference I'd like to see it, as I'm not interested in your opinion of Greenspan.

In the article, Greenspan reference no data. He actually says things like "I can't prove it", "I suspect", etc. He doesn't actually reference any data. Here is a nobel laureate in economics addressing just this crowding out issue in May (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/the-doctrine-of-immaculate-crowding-out/). The blog post has a chart of corporate AAA and BBBs. Rates are low.

He is making my exact point (and the point anyone who actually passed econ 101 should also be making) government distorts the market BY CHANGING INCENTIVES. It distorts pricing. Crowding out is specifically distortions of the interest rate from excessive borrowing. If the interest rate is very low, then what is the mechanism for crowding out?

Really? For small businesses and investors, you know this how? Because you read the prime rate and just know that ACME Construction can borrow at prime plus one?

Because rates are low, across the board. See AAA and BBB yields above. Every piece of data that exists suggests rates are very, very low.

If companies are having trouble getting loans its not because the banks money is tied up in treasuries, lots of banks haves excess reserves right now. Maybe its the passage of Dodd-Frank (so called "regime uncertainty"), or maybe they're currently very risk-averse, or maybe the bank's long term outlook on various small business is grim (and so they judge the loan very risky). However, its not because treasuries are an attractive investment, because they aren't.

Banks Choosing Treasury Bonds Over Lending...

This article is from 2009. It is now 2011. Things change. In particularly, treasury rates were MUCH, MUCH higher due to "the flight to quality" that happened after the panic. The banking system more or less froze up temporarily.

How much of the 'crumbling infrastructure' is actually federal property? Interstates are mostly funded by fuel tax from various levels (shared local/federal) and water/utility systems are managed locally. Unless you want to allow state/county/city governments to start 'charging' to the treasury - how is this going to happen? Another stimulus?

Why not another stimulus? Maybe one specifically focused on upgrading parts of the power grid, US airports, etc. There are certainly parts of the country where high-speed rail would actually be useful once built, why not build it? Right now, the government can borrow money essentially for better than free, why not use that ability? Also, I wouldn't put crumbling infrastructure in quotes- ever look at the report card on America's infrastructure?

mheslep

Jul16-11, 12:28 AM

... However, its not because treasuries are an attractive investment, because they aren't.

This article is from 2009. It is now 2011. Things change. In particularly, treasury rates were MUCH, MUCH higher due to "the flight to quality" that happened after the panic. The banking system more or less froze up temporarily.In 2009? What are you talking about? Look, ten year T's were 4%, now they are 3% (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-LongTerm-Rate-Data-Visualization.aspx), while the Fed funds rate and interbank rates are ~0.nothing.

mheslep

Jul16-11, 12:30 AM

... If the interest rate is very low, then what is the mechanism for crowding out?
...
Because rates are low, across the board. See AAA and BBB yields above. Every piece of data that exists suggests rates are very, very low.
Across the board? No. Those are low ratings for commercial paper to corporations, likely still huge, not small businesses.

As to why there's crowding out: (http://relooney.info/SI_ME-Crisis/0-Important_195.pdf)
...In mid-2011, the supply of ordinary bank credit to firms and households continues to fall from what it had been in mid-2008. Although large corporate enterprises again have access to bond and equity financing, bank credit is the principal source of finance for working capital for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) enabling them to purchase labor and other supplies.
...
Why should zero interest rates be causing a credit constraint? After all, conventional thinking has it that the lower the interest rate the better credit can expand. But this is only true when interest rates—particularly interbank interest rates—are comfortably above zero. Banks with good retail lending opportunities typically lend by opening credit lines to nonbank customers. But these credit lines are open-ended in the sense that the commercial borrower can choose when—and by how much—he will actually draw on his credit line. This creates uncertainty for the bank in not knowing what its future cash positions will be. An illiquid bank could be in trouble if its customers simultaneously decided to draw down their credit lines

If the retail bank has easy access to the wholesale interbank market, its liquidity is much improved. To cover unexpected liquidity shortfalls, it can borrow from banks with excess reserves with little or no credit checks. But if the prevailing interbank lending rate is close to zero (as it is now), then large banks with surplus reserves become loath to part with them for a derisory yield. And smaller banks, which collectively are the biggest lenders to SMEs, cannot easily bid for funds at an interest rate significantly above the prevailing interbank rate without inadvertently signaling that they might be in trouble. Indeed, counterparty risk in smaller banks remains substantial as almost 50 have failed so far this year.
...

mheslep

Jul16-11, 12:33 AM

mheslep

The banks aren't loaning to small businesses.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100325/BIZ/703259908/1005
Thanks, yes I know.

ParticleGrl

Jul16-11, 12:50 AM

In 2009? What are you talking about? Look, ten year T's were 4%, now they are 3%, while the Fed funds rate and interbank rates are ~0.nothing.

5 year treasuries dropped from near 3% to around 1%, and 5 years is what I've been consistently discussing.

The fed funds rate and interbank rates don't have much to do with the deficit, so why even bring them up?

As to why there's crowding out..

Your article is NOT about crowding out. You are confusing different things. The argument that the article is making is that a low interbank rate makes it hard for small banks to get money from larger banks. This is related to the fed funds rate, but doesn't have much to do with the deficit. The US could have no deficit, but (if the argument is correct), the low interbank rate would still be squeezing small banks.

I'm not sure I buy the argument, I'll have to think about it more, but it is at least lucid. However, it isn't really related to the deficit, so its sort of tangential to what we've been discussing.

mheslep

Jul16-11, 01:09 AM

5 year treasuries dropped from near 3% to around 1%, and 5 years is what I've been consistently discussing.

The fed funds rate and interbank rates don't have much to do with the deficit, so why even bring them up? In answer to your question about why banks would be holding treasuries, and why they are not loosing money on them as you stated in 248.

Your article is NOT about crowding out. You are confusing different things. The argument that the article is making is that a low interbank rate makes it hard for small banks to get money from larger banks. This is related to the fed funds rate, but doesn't have much to do with the deficit. The US could have no deficit, but (if the argument is correct), the low interbank rate would still be squeezing small banks. McKinnon demonstrates how small investment/borrowing is failing despite low prime rates, which normally should not happen. The low Fed/interbank rates makes the purchase of T bills possible, especially in a risky environment, i.e. federal borrowing is indeed crowding out retail borrowing. If the large borrowing for the deficit did not exist, the small banks would have no choice but to lend retail again to generate income.

SixNein

Jul16-11, 02:04 AM

The President now has the responsibility for the anemic economy in July 2011, nearly four years after the beginning of the recession. The President has the responsibility for not only doing nothing about reining in the entitlement programs, but actively blocking and mocking ideas on the table.

He put entitlement programs on the table. Lets be honest, a deal could have been reached with trillions in spending cuts plus additional revenue from taxes. Ideologically, one party doesn't want tax increases, so the entire thing is being stalled. In addition to the above, presidents have been kicking the problem down the road for decades. So lets not pretend this problem has emerged with the election of Obama.

As far as the bad economy, did you expect the economy to recover from such a deep recession overnight with some of our global economic partners still in disarray?

ParticleGrl

Jul16-11, 03:15 AM

In answer to your question about why banks would be holding treasuries, and why they are not loosing money on them as you stated in 248.

It was rhetorical, I was making the point that treasuries are a terrible investment right now, which goes against the general story of crowding out.

McKinnon demonstrates how small investment/borrowing is failing despite low prime rates, which normally should not happen. The low Fed/interbank rates makes the purchase of T bills possible, especially in a risky environment, i.e. federal borrowing is indeed crowding out retail borrowing. If the large borrowing for the deficit did not exist, the small banks would have no choice but to lend retail again to generate income.

McKinnon's argument has nothing to do with treasuries. You haven't read correctly. The argument is that small banks are illiquid because large banks aren't providing liquidity. McKinnon's argument only works if small banks don't have the money to loan anybody. I'm not entirely sure I buy it, but if debt overhang has hurt the liquidity of small banks, its plausible. But this story has NOTHING to do with crowding out. Its more about liquidity constraints in small banks. I'm not sure I buy McKinnon's story, but given the large debt overhang that could be hurting them, it seems plausible.

You want to turn it into a crowding out argument by insisting that the large banks are buying treasuries with their money, and implying that the TED spread is creating an incentive to buy treasuries. This doesn't hold up- the spread is a bit smaller than its historical norm. While LIBOR is certainly low, so are the treasury rates. Borrowing interbank to buy treasuries isn't any more profitable than normal.

WhoWee

Jul16-11, 12:42 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576446493806299046.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

From your link:
"Why Buying Treasurys Isn't As Crazy as It Might Seem"

I don't think your link supports your original post: my bold

"however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt."

WhoWee

Jul16-11, 12:44 PM

The real rate for 5 year treasuries is NEGATIVE. Think about that- its CHEAPER to borrow money than to pay cash upfront. My question is- why aren't we exploiting this to rebuild some of our crumbling infrastructure?

Do you mean the "shovel ready" projects - didn't the stimulus address those???

WhoWee

Jul16-11, 12:48 PM

Why were the Repubicans so afraid of a budget surplus in 2001??

http://investmentwatchblog.com/how-the-republican%C2%ADs-are-conning-america/

Have we forgotten what happened to the economy after September 11, 2001?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02700r.pdf

OmCheeto

Jul16-11, 01:59 PM

Why were the Repubicans so afraid of a budget surplus in 2001??

I asked the same thing a while back and got the following answer:

....

Once there was concern that there would not be enough low-risk paper around if the US government paid down its debt. I don't think that's a problem at present.

So assuming it is not (a proposition I would be glad to hear arguments on, either way), why would it be beneficial except in the short term for the US government to run large debts? I understand the "we must stop the Axis powers"-type emergency spending, as well as the Keynesian "we must pump money into the sagging economy"-type spending. But supposing that neither applies (surely not the former, and with good fortune not the latter, at least soon enough), I don't see why debt would be preferred.

Unfortunately, I don't know what "low-risk paper" is, nor why it's shortage would be bad.

Trying to figure out what it is from it's use in context is a bit difficult, as what some people called "low-risk paper", turned out to be a bit of a misnomer:

“QUANTS GONE WILD” – THE SUBPRIME CRISIS (http://247wallst.com/2008/03/27/quants-gone-wil/)
Posted: March 27, 2008 at 7:51 pm

As the meltdown began, holders of CMOs/CDOs/SIVs realized they couldn’t measure the true value of this supposedly low-risk paper and quickly found their assets and liabilities mismatched with billions lost in the squeeze.

My guess is that it is similar to a low risk investment.

Having these acronyms spelled out doesn't help me any, but their initial popularity and current lack of popularity seems to say something:
CMO = Collateralized mortgage obligation (first created in 1983 by the investment banks Salomon Brothers and First Boston)
CDO = Collateralized debt obligation (The first CDO was issued in 1987 by bankers at now-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. ...... Global investors began to stop funding CDOs in 2007, contributing to the collapse of certain structured investments held by major investment banks and the bankruptcy of several subprime lenders.)
SIV = Structured Investment Vehicles (Invented by Citigroup in 1988, SIV's were popular until the market crash of 2008.)
ref = wiki

ps. all bolding mine

pps. I know this doesn't seem to tie into why the Republicans may or may not be a viable party anymore, but I think it is a piece of the systemic puzzle of "what's destroying America?".

Proton Soup

Jul16-11, 03:31 PM

it looks like the place to be now is investing in the federal reserve. member banks receive 6% on capital invested, and dividend payments are up significantly in the past few years. from table 11, dividend payments have nearly quadrupled in the past decade.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/files/2010-annual-report.pdf

SixNein

Jul16-11, 03:35 PM

From your link:
"Why Buying Treasurys Isn't As Crazy as It Might Seem"

I don't think your link supports your original post: my bold

"however, investors have been willing to gobble up US debt."

Did you bother reading the article or did you simply stop at its title?

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 02:17 AM

Why not another stimulus? Maybe one specifically focused on upgrading parts of the power grid, US airports, etc. There are certainly parts of the country where high-speed rail would actually be useful once built, why not build it? Right now, the government can borrow money essentially for better than free, why not use that ability? Also, I wouldn't put crumbling infrastructure in quotes- ever look at the report card on America's infrastructure?

Because it likely wouldn't stimulate and would only drive the country deeper into debt. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private-sector spending. Probably the most nortorious example is Japan which spent half their GDP trying stimulus and lots of infrastructure projects, with very anemic economic growth. Today they have the highest level of debt-to-GDP in the Western world (about 230%) and a AA bond rating. As for high-speed rail, that would take years. America isn't like China where they can just build it. There are much more stringent construction and materials standards here, issues of property and eminent domain, and also the environmental impact for either every acre or mile (I forget which) of the railroad would have to be assessed. It also likely would cost the state governments more as it would have to be subsidized. Even in the European countries where it is used, it is subsidized, with the lines that lose large amounts of money being closed down. Infrastructure itself also takes time, as one cannot just suddenly start spending a bunch of money on infrastructure.

That said, if fiscal stimulus was/is workable, in addition to infrastructure, I'd say one major area to gun up spending is on the national defense, as the military needs a lot of vehicles, equipment, and weapons replaced and upgraded, and also a lot of newer equipment might be simpler and thus cheaper to maintain, allowing a reduction in the defense budget in the future opposed to what it otherwise would need to be.

There's also the corruption issues. If one decided to gun up defense or infrastructure spending, there would probably be a major lack of accountability regarding how a lot of the money is spent and thus a lot spent on stuff it shouldn't be.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 02:20 AM

On the Republicans and spending during the Bush years, well President Bush and the Republicans decided to govern as big-government conservatives. They made no attempt whatsoever at being limited government conservatives.

WhoWee

Jul17-11, 11:44 AM

Did you bother reading the article or did you simply stop at its title?

Your statement was not supported by your link.

htf

Jul17-11, 12:29 PM

OmCheeto

Jul17-11, 12:36 PM

The ultimate problem with this, and something Republicans worry about with any tax increase, is that it won't fix anything because spending will just increase as well.
Yes, they worry about this. But is it justified?
The country's total revenue has stayed fairly stable as a fraction of GDP over a few decades
I assume by "country's total revenue", that you mean the government's revenue?

This will be at least the third time I've posted this image:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11014/MainText_HseVersion.28.1.3.png

Obviously, keeping our "revenue" relatively flat while spending exceeded our "revenue" only drove us into debt. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now.

, it's our spending which has spiked in the last few years and is only projected to go up. The 'starve the beast' mantra is meant to not push the government into default, but to really find out what is neccessary for the government/country to function at a globally competitive level and what is not.

I would imagine our spending has spiked for numerous reasons. As for the 'starve the beast' philosophy, I don't buy it. We left wingers view all people as family. (Not that we don't recognize that leach of a brother in law who really does deserve to live under a bridge. Lazy B******!)

Unfortunately, the politically correct thing to do for the left is to tax the wealthy because it appeals to the masses with their hands held out.
If you look at my tax rates, everyone in the upper 50% has an increase in their federal/payroll taxes. This might be where the right wing and I are in agreement; Obama should have never made the promise to that plumber.....
There is no other justifiable reason to do so, other than jealousy and greed.

I disagree. But that's just me. I don't know that I've ever been jealous of rich people. I dont' know how old you are, but there used to be a show called "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". Most of us po' folk watched it religously, and dreamed one day of living like that. Never in my dreams did I think that we should tax them so I could have all their money. I suppose that is the Republican nightmare. "The poor people want our money!"

And as I've said many times before, I have many rich friends, and admire them, and hope to be one one day. And logically, I know that I can't become one by taxing my friends and giving me the money. I don't know anyone who has become rich in this way.

Now as for greed, well, that's a concept which I've only come to recognize in myself over the last 3 or so years. That's when I started investing in the stock market. That's when I no longer gave a percentage of my income to charities. That's when I started saying to myself; "Hey! Money! Free Money! I can make money without working for it! This is cool!"

Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one's self. Greed - like lust and gluttony - is a sin of excess. Greed is inappropriate expectation. However, greed is applied to a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

However, I am 100% in agreeance that our tax system is flawed.
Yay!
I think any tax increases need to be evaluated with a fundamental restructuring which eliminates much of the hand outs
"Hand outs"? There are many levels of "Hand outs".

There are people who get food stamps, and there is Boeing(et al).

and levels out (proportionately, of course) the ammount of income taxes each pay.
This is somewhat ambiguous, so I will not comment.

I think that exceptions in our tax code are part of what cause this perception of inequality more than the actual tax structure. The top marginal rate should top out at the 50k/100k range, not in the millions.

I see no good reason why we shouldn't go back to 10 or 20 tax brackets, other than billionaires might claim it's "too complicated". sarcasm mine.

Ivan Seeking

Jul17-11, 12:43 PM

I am German and when watching this spectacle I have to rub my eyes in disbelief. This completely destroys my picture of America! My picture of America was that the US politicians are all patriots and at the end of the day the do what is best for the country - at least they try to do so.

But now I have the feeling there are irrational fundamentalists at work. They have already caused great damage to America's renown. They pretend to be patriots but they are scarifying the nation's future for their goals and are trying to turn back the clock. Can people be so stupid to ignore the consequences of their actions?

America is in deep trouble and running into dept at that frighting speed can't go on forever. But is also seems clear to me that low taxes for the super-rich and cutting welfare spending can't be the answer. This is ruthless client politics (I hope this is the right word). So there has to be a consensus between all parties and social classes how to get out of this mees - maybe this is a typical German attitude.

I am trying to understand what caused these hardened fronts. The only explanation I found is, that America is afraid of loosing their role as the last remaining superpower and that the Chinese will eventually become number one (an idea I don't like at all). Maybe you insiders can comment on this!

I hope, thing will take a turn to the better for America!

As an American and former Republican, I agree 100% less the fear of losing #1 part. This is mostly about economic philosophy and, as David Brooks says in the article linked in the op, this is about ideological fanaticism:

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.

It is an economic philosophy [my own!] run amok and turned into a religion. In fact, in spite of popular opinion, many of our politicians are patriots. But patriotism can be taken to the point of insanity, which I think is now the case. And we see this in the logic. Many would destroy our good faith and credit, something that has never happened before, in order to serve the country. On its face the philosophy is nuts. But this is because many tea partiers and Republicans have rejected academics for ideology. They then appeal to fear, bias, and anger.

As one analyst said this week, "Who are you going to believe; Michelle Bachman, or Ken Bernanke?"

OmCheeto

Jul17-11, 01:46 PM

I am German
Willkommen! Hans, oder Heidi, oder Helmut, oder Hilde, oder.... :wink:
and when watching this spectacle I have to rub my eyes in disbelief.
As do we from the inside. :bugeye:
This completely destroys my picture of America! My picture of America was that the US politicians are all patriots and at the end of the day the do what is best for the country - at least they try to do so.

No. American's, whether poor, rich, or politicians, are the same as everywhere else.

But now I have the feeling there are irrational fundamentalists at work.
We had a thread about you guys (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=330574) a while back. I can only imagine that things have gotten worse.

Ha! I knew there was a reason I loved foreigners:

I've gotta say that I've never seen it spelled that way before, but agreed.

The truth is that while Braindead Bush was in power, we both ridiculed and feared the US. There's nothing like having someone with the IQ of an eggplant in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal to disturb one's sleep.
Obama has been rapidly changing that ever since his election. The right-wing extremists are still good for a laugh now and then, but the nation as a whole is beginning to gain some respect.

They have already caused great damage to America's renown. They pretend to be patriots but they are scarifying the nation's future for their goals and are trying to turn back the clock. Can people be so stupid to ignore the consequences of their actions?
um. To quote America's favorite philosopher:

Momma says stupid is as stupid does.

America is in deep trouble and running into dept at that frighting speed can't go on forever. But is also seems clear to me that low taxes for the super-rich and cutting welfare spending can't be the answer. This is ruthless client politics (I hope this is the right word). So there has to be a consensus between all parties and social classes how to get out of this mees - maybe this is a typical German attitude.

hmmm.... Welcome to the United States of Germany. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

Wie sagt man; "We are you." auf Deutsche?

I am trying to understand what caused these hardened fronts. The only explanation I found is, that America is afraid of loosing their role as the last remaining superpower and that the Chinese will eventually become number one (an idea I don't like at all). Maybe you insiders can comment on this!

Fear! Yes. I am sure you are correct.
People are afraid of being wrong.

Do you watch the TED video's? I watched this one (http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html) yesterday. It was very interesting.

:bugeye:

Please don't take the opening intro to this TED video personally, my mother was in the German Luftwaffe during WWII.

BTW, She hated it when we sat around and watched "Hogan's Hero's".

Anyways, the complexity of our planet is such that no one can understand or accumulate all of the information needed to run it perfectly, as there are around 7 billion different opinions on how it should be run.

I hope, thing will take a turn to the better for America!

And we hope, that the rest of world also takes a turn for the better.
(That's strictly a democratic view by the way...)

ps. Send my thanks to Solarworld for investing 1/2 billion dollars in my neck of the woods.

German to English translations (Shut up Andre! ;) ):
willkommen = welcome
oder = or
Wie sagt man; "whatever" auf Deutsche? = How do you say; "whatever" in the German Lanuguage.
Luftwaffe = Air Force

turbo

Jul17-11, 03:22 PM

russ_watters

Jul17-11, 03:48 PM

Obviously, keeping our "revenue" relatively flat while spending exceeded our "revenue" only drove us into debt. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now. Where, on that graph do you think we are "now" and when does Obama's influence begin? It looks to me like things got much worse in the past two years and are projected to be much worse over the next 10 years than the previous 20. Are you saying you think all 30 of those years are Bush's/Reagan's faults and none is Obama's?

Also, are you blaming Reagan for the debt that was accumulated before he took office? :confused: I would imagine our spending has spiked for numerous reasons. Agreed - do you think those reasons add up to a position that we shouldn't try to substantially reduce spending? Ie, it looks to me like we should reduce spending by about 25%, to roughly where it was in 2000. Does that seem reasonable?

[an important caveat about that graph: it's a couple of years out of date. It's my understanding that the past two years have unfolded to be much worse than people's projections]

OmCheeto

Jul17-11, 06:37 PM

Where, on that graph do you think we are "now"
We are where we are on the graph. Though as you say below, the graph is now in the past.

and when does Obama's influence begin?
Obama's influence, I would say, begins quite a while before I had ever heard of him. I hear he made a very nice speech during some Democratic convention, back when I thought I had lost all hope in the American political process.

It looks to me like things got much worse in the past two years
Much, much, worse. I concur.

and are projected to be much worse over the next 10 years than the previous 20.
As an armchair quarterback, I can tell you that the last tweny years are much easier to analyze than the next 10. But I have faith in our youth.

Are you saying you think all 30 of those years are Bush's/Reagan's faults and none is Obama's?
10 of those years have yet to happen, so those are just fantasy. 20 of those years are now history. They are the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush history.

I analyzed why Clinton cut the capitol gains tax from 30 some odd percent down to 15 percent the other day. In hindsight it looked like a stupid move. But the gains in the market at the time, over the preceding years meant that if everyone had cashed out their earnings, and were taxed at that rate, the entire national debt would have been paid for.

Also, are you blaming Reagan for the debt that was accumulated before he took office? :confused:
No, and if I've spouted out some schizophrenic blather in the past, that would make you think that my mind works that way, please point out my previous posts.

Our debt to GDP was ~31% when Reagan took office, and it was ~65% when G.H.W.Bush left. If we'd kept the same spend and don't tax ideology over the next umpteen years, where would we be now. hmmm... Care to follow the graph, without that Clinton glitch in the middle?*@*

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/nmleon/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Cong ress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.jpg

I would imagine our spending has spiked for numerous reasons. Agreed - do you think those reasons add up to a position that we shouldn't try to substantially reduce spending? Ie, it looks to me like we should reduce spending by about 25%, to roughly where it was in 2000. Does that seem reasonable?

No, as I've said before, when your wife is sick in the hospital with cancer, you mortgage the house to save her.
If you don't, then you didn't really care about her.

This might strike you as some type of sick Gingrich type of Democratic slam.

And I suppose, it really is.

[an important caveat about that graph: it's a couple of years out of date. It's my understanding that the past two years have unfolded to be much worse than people's projections]

I'm tired of doing graphs. Do you know how many freaking graphs I've researched for this stinking forum!?

A lot.

That's how many.

A lot.

*@*ans: 16.38 Trillion would be our current debt, vs our current 14.5 Trillion.

simple point slope intercept:

31% 1981
65% 1993

y=mx+b
m=y1-y2/x1-x2

31 y1
65 y2
1981 x1
1993 x2

2.83 m

-5581.83 b=y-mx

2011 x
116 y

hmmm....

not that bad a percentage difference.

What are we argueing about again?

Oh!

I hate Republicrats!

skeptic2

Jul17-11, 07:29 PM

Since the above graph is debt in terms of percent of GDP, it is as much affected by GDP as it is by accumulated debt. Below is a graph of GDP growth in percent. Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 07:48 PM

I am German and when watching this spectacle I have to rub my eyes in disbelief. This completely destroys my picture of America! My picture of America was that the US politicians are all patriots and at the end of the day the do what is best for the country - at least they try to do so.

They are. The debt and deficit are very serious issues, so the GOP is doing its best to keep it as an issue going into the 2012 election. I am amazed by how the view right now so much seems to be that for anyone who disagrees with the Democrats/President Obama, that they should all just do the "patriotic thing" and go along, with no resistance. Yet during the Bush years, if anyone suggested that with regards to the Republicans and President Bush, they were called a sheep.

The Democrats were right, dissent is a form of patriotism, but it applies with regards to both parties. Also, "doing the right thing" is a little difficult when both parties have differing views on exactly what the right thing is.

America is in deep trouble and running into dept at that frighting speed can't go on forever. But is also seems clear to me that low taxes for the super-rich and cutting welfare spending can't be the answer.

High taxes for the wealthy aren't the answer either. What is probably really needed is something like a VAT tax, which taxes primarily the poor and middle-income, that's how the European nations do it, along with a lot of controls on spending, but good luck getting either of those passed (if the government got ahold of loads more revenue, they'd manage to spend it). Another solution could be to simplify the tax code and close all loopholes up (but I highly doubt the Democrats would allow things like the Make Work Pay tax credit, the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (ironically a Republican creation), etc...to be done away with. And businesses would probably lobby to preserve certain loopholes they exploit.

This is ruthless client politics (I hope this is the right word). So there has to be a consensus between all parties and social classes how to get out of this mees - maybe this is a typical German attitude.

Germany has different political parties with differing views as well.

I am trying to understand what caused these hardened fronts. The only explanation I found is, that America is afraid of loosing their role as the last remaining superpower and that the Chinese will eventually become number one (an idea I don't like at all). Maybe you insiders can comment on this!

I hope, thing will take a turn to the better for America!

The politics are because one party wants big government while the other party wants limited government. As for China, I do not think China will overtake the U.S. anytime soon and I really think their economy is in a bubble right now that is going to blow up soon.

turbo

Jul17-11, 08:15 PM

The politics are because one party wants big government while the other party wants limited government. As for China, I do not think China will overtake the U.S. anytime soon and I really think their economy is in a bubble right now that is going to blow up soon.I take issue with the notion that one party wants limited government. The GOP has never found any fault with military spending (erroneously called "defense spending", IMO). We have the largest military budget in the world, the largest navy in the world, and foreign military bases that probably number well over a thousand if the covert bases were revealed. I find it incomprehensible that our elected representatives can't find any way to cut spending except to roll back SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Drop 2-3 carrier groups, close 600+ foreign military bases, and stop buying and building planes that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Is that so hard?

SixNein

Jul17-11, 08:20 PM

I am German and when watching this spectacle I have to rub my eyes in disbelief. This completely destroys my picture of America! My picture of America was that the US politicians are all patriots and at the end of the day the do what is best for the country - at least they try to do so.

But now I have the feeling there are irrational fundamentalists at work. They have already caused great damage to America's renown. They pretend to be patriots but they are scarifying the nation's future for their goals and are trying to turn back the clock. Can people be so stupid to ignore the consequences of their actions?

America is in deep trouble and running into dept at that frighting speed can't go on forever. But is also seems clear to me that low taxes for the super-rich and cutting welfare spending can't be the answer. This is ruthless client politics (I hope this is the right word). So there has to be a consensus between all parties and social classes how to get out of this mees - maybe this is a typical German attitude.

I am trying to understand what caused these hardened fronts. The only explanation I found is, that America is afraid of loosing their role as the last remaining superpower and that the Chinese will eventually become number one (an idea I don't like at all). Maybe you insiders can comment on this!

I hope, thing will take a turn to the better for America!

Extremist views can take hold when people are uncertain about their future because these views provide a simple narrative for people to follow with an illusion of certainty. And once people bite into those narratives, they are almost impossible to reason with because they would be forced to leave a certain world view. To make matters worse, there is a great deal of unfiltered information available to people today. But none of these problems are limited to the United States; instead, they occur throughout the world.

At any rate, you are correct in that many Americans are afraid of losing the super-power status. So they are buying into various narratives.

SixNein

Jul17-11, 08:27 PM

Mitch McConnell wants Congress to abrogate its responsibility and cede the authority to raise the debt limit to Obama. That way, the GOP can use that tar-baby plan to point to Obama when they rail about the debt, without having their fingerprints on it. Normally, the debt-limit is raised quietly and without fuss whenever necessary, but the GOP has picked this fight and wants to use it against Obama in 2012. Where are the responsible adults in the GOP?

It is sad to see elected officials willing to drive our economy right back into the ditch in order to score political points. Hopefully, Obama (constitutional scholar) will insist that Congress pass the resolution and hand it to him for his signature. It is unconstitutional for him to assume that responsibility as President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/17/washington-insiders-say-m_n_900940.html

I wonder if damage is not already occurring from pushing it so close to the deadline. Our government looks very dysfunctional, and it could create a situation where enough confidence is lost that we end up losing our ratings anyway.

At any rate, I agree about the constitutionality of the plan. One of the dangesr is if it is challenged, the courts could make a decision that puts America in immediate default. And I think the courts would likely rule it unconstitutional.

turbo

Jul17-11, 08:32 PM

I wonder if damage is not already occurring from pushing it so close to the deadline. Our government looks very dysfunctional, and it could create a situation where enough confidence is lost that we end up losing our ratings anyway.It could well happen. Unfortunately there are enough morons in the US to ensure that the GOP message of "Obama caused it" will stick with them. Very few people have the intelligence or the resources to research the history of raising debt limits in Congress, so the right-wing will probably be able to smear Obama with this, as if it is his fault that Congress abrogated their responsibilities.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 08:34 PM

I take issue with the notion that one party wants limited government. The GOP has never found any fault with military spending (erroneously called "defense spending", IMO). We have the largest military budget in the world, the largest navy in the world, and foreign military bases that probably number well over a thousand if the covert bases were revealed. I find it incomprehensible that our elected representatives can't find any way to cut spending except to roll back SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Drop 2-3 carrier groups, close 600+ foreign military bases, and stop buying and building planes that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Is that so hard?

Defense spending isn't something that kills the budget, it's the entitlements that kill the budget. I also don't see how our having the largest military budget or the largest navy is a reason to reduce the size of them. It isn't so much that the U.S. overspends as everyone else spends very little. Remember too that the U.S. already halved the size of the Navy after the Soviet Union broke up, and significantly reduced the size of the Army and Air Force as well. The Navy as it currently is is really too small, and likely should be increased in size, not decreased. Same with the Army. But the money isn't there. Also, what planes are they building that the Pentagon doesn't want? The Air Force very much wanted the F-22, what blew that was the cost.

turbo

Jul17-11, 08:37 PM

Defense spending isn't something that kills the budget, it's the entitlements that kill the budget.SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. Untrammeled spending is.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 08:37 PM

I wonder if damage is not already occurring from pushing it so close to the deadline. Our government looks very dysfunctional, and it could create a situation where enough confidence is lost that we end up losing our ratings anyway.

At any rate, I agree about the constitutionality of the plan. One of the dangesr is if it is challenged, the courts could make a decision that puts America in immediate default. And I think the courts would likely rule it unconstitutional.

The country would not go into default if the debt ceiling was not raised. The problem would be all the other areas of government that get their funding cut, which could mess up the economy, and also things like SS possibly not being paid out (which if a legitimate problem shows that the whole claim many have made for years that the SS trust fund is solvent and self-funding is utter nonsense; if SS is paid from taking on debt, it is not self-funding).

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 08:41 PM

SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. Untrammeled spending is.

That's a claim often made, but if the debt ceiling is not raised, many are saying it means SS and I supposed Medicare might not be paid out, which would mean that they are not self-funding.

turbo

Jul17-11, 08:43 PM

SixNein

Jul17-11, 08:47 PM

SixNein

Jul17-11, 09:07 PM

The country would not go into default if the debt ceiling was not raised. The problem would be all the other areas of government that get their funding cut, which could mess up the economy, and also things like SS possibly not being paid out (which if a legitimate problem shows that the whole claim many have made for years that the SS trust fund is solvent and self-funding is utter nonsense; if SS is paid from taking on debt, it is not self-funding).

The country would be making the choice to default, but it's still a default. In addition, the real problem is loss of confidence in the American system by members around the world. If the US is so dysfunctional that it can't agree to pay its bills, how can anyone expect it to do other needed actions? Right now America is playing a political game with something extremely dangerous with very real and long term consequences. This situation is a economic black hole, and if America strays too close, it may never escape the pull.

I pray that people don't have to learn this the hard way. Especially since I have to suffer the consequences too.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 09:07 PM

SS is solvent, and can be made so for many decades by lifting the maximum cap. The general treasury borrows money from the SS surplus and pays it back in the form of interest from government bonds. None of this is a secret. Can you provide any support for your claim that SS is not solvent?

I'm not claiming it isn't solvent (as I don't know what the full truth is because I've seen multiple claims made), but that if the debt ceiling not being raised meant that SS wouldn't get paid out, it means it isn't self-funding. I was referring to two articles I had read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031005932.html

http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 09:09 PM

The big government, small government slogan is meaningless. Just because a government is small does not imply that the government is efficient, nor does it imply its useful. If a smaller government is always more efficient then Somalia should be the most efficient nation on earth.

Somalia is an anarchy with really no government. The small government or limited government argument is not arguing for no government, just a limited government. Government by its very nature tends to be inefficient, that is one reason why you want it to be limited in size and scope.

turbo

Jul17-11, 09:17 PM

I'm not claiming it isn't solvent (as I don't know what the full truth is because I've seen multiple claims made), but that if the debt ceiling not being raised meant that SS wouldn't get paid out, it means it isn't self-funding.SS is self-funded. The money being paid for by payroll taxes adds to the surplus, and the government borrows those funds with interest being paid back by the bonds (promise to pay). The breathless pronouncements about the collapse of SS are a shallow attempt by the right to privatize some or all of the fund, relying on private funding that is not guaranteed, and would have plunged SS into an abyss during the current economic collapse. It is time to raise the maximum income-levels that can be subjected to payroll taxes to ensure the health of the SS funds. Nothing more is needed. No increased retirement ages, no reduced benefits, and no means-testing. This isn't rocket-science, just accounting.

SixNein

Jul17-11, 09:21 PM

Somalia is an anarchy with really no government. The small government or limited government argument is not arguing for no government, just a limited government. Government by its very nature tends to be inefficient, that is one reason why you want it to be limited in size and scope.

Tends to be inefficient at what exactly?

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 09:22 PM

The country would be making the choice to default, but it's still a default.

Not sure what you mean here, why would they choose to default?

In addition, the real problem is loss of confidence in the American system by members around the world. If the US is so dysfunctional that it can't agree to pay its bills, how can anyone expect it to do other needed actions? Right now America is playing a political game with something extremely dangerous with very real and long term consequences. This situation is a economic black hole, and if America strays too close, it may never escape the pull.

The U.S. does agree to pay its bills, as the debt would be serviced irregardless, the only reason the politics here are being played is because one party wants the debt to remain an issue while the other one doesn't want it to and neither party will just roll over for the other one.

Regarding other actions, I think many other countries around the world already are losing the expectation of the U.S. to do other actions. The countries of Eastern Europe question whether the U.S. will provide a counter to a more beligerent Russia, the countries of Asia question whether the U.S. will provide a counter to a more beligerent China, Israel questions whether the U.S. will continue to provide it with support (with the President's recent assertion that Israel should go back to the 1967 lines), etc...

I pray that people don't have to learn this the hard way. Especially since I have to suffer the consequences too.

I think they will raise the debt ceiling because to not do so would be catostrophic. If the onus is put on President Obama, he will fold and sign a bill that raises the debt limit for the short-term, if the onus is put on the Republicans, they will pass somethng, or else they will get the blame.

ParticleGrl

Jul17-11, 09:23 PM

Because it likely wouldn't stimulate and would only drive the country deeper into debt.

Why wouldn't it stimulate anything? Are you telling me that employing electrical engineers to rebuild our embarrassing power grid wouldn't lower the unemployment rate? Also, real rates on 5 year treasuries ARE negative. Given that maintenance work in infrastructure MUST (absolutely MUST) be done at some point, doing it now will PREVENT FUTURE DEBT. If you are really concerned about the long term deficit, you should want to minimize long term expenditures, which means borrowing now while the rates are negative, not slashing now and borrowing in the future when the costs and rates are higher.

Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private-sector spending.

Simply not true- right now lots of companies and banks are hoarding money. One more dollar of borrowing by the government is one more dollar of private sector spending THAT ISN'T BEING PUT TO USE RIGHT NOW. Banks and companies both have cash on hand that isn't being used. I know that a negative real rate on government bonds is crazy and counter-intuitive, but seriously try to think through the actual implications.

Probably the most nortorious example is Japan which spent half their GDP trying stimulus and lots of infrastructure projects, with very anemic economic growth. Today they have the highest level of debt-to-GDP in the Western world (about 230%) and a AA bond rating.

Japan has roughly half our unemployment, and one of the highest qualities of life in the world, despite anemic GDP growth. And their government bonds are still high quality! Given that our problem right now is terrible unemployment, why not follow their example?

As for high-speed rail, that would take years.... Infrastructure itself also takes time, as one cannot just suddenly start spending a bunch of money on infrastructure.

But planning for infrastructure employs people, and begins the process. Who cares if it takes a few years? Right now we have idle workers whose skills are getting rusty AND our infrastructure sucks. Why not use the former to fix the latter? Further, it will literally NEVER be cheaper to do the repairs (borrowing money is CHEAPER than paying cash!), and a stich in time saves nine, as they say. Doing it now costs less then doing it in five or ten years, and borrowing now costs less then cash!

Also, many of the projects suggested by civil engineers in the nations infrastructure report card (things like replacing failing parts in the power grid) could easily begin quickly.

There's also the corruption issues.

Welcome to life- there is corruption in pretty much everything, private or public sector. You can add this caveat to anything you do with your time or money.

The politics are because one party wants big government while the other party wants limited government

That isn't true- Republicans have proven to be just as much a big government party as the democrats. The republicans explicitly want business-friendly "big" government policies and democrats want social-safety-net friendly "big" government policies. However, the definition of "big" is actually quite limited for both parties- President Obama and his policies would be considered conservative in pretty much any other country

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 09:25 PM

Tends to be inefficient at what exactly?

Take a look at government-run enterprises. The nature of government is to grow and grow. Part of this is just the incentives. No government program or agency seeks to spend as little money as possible. The goal for the head of a government program or agency is to increase its size, scope, and budget.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 09:30 PM

SS is self-funded. The money being paid for by payroll taxes adds to the surplus, and the government borrows those funds with interest being paid back by the bonds (promise to pay). The breathless pronouncements about the collapse of SS are a shallow attempt by the right to privatize some or all of the fund, relying on private funding that is not guaranteed, and would have plunged SS into an abyss during the current economic collapse.

I don't think anyone wants to fully privatize SS for the reasons you said, but to add some elements of privatization to it. Regarding it being funded, well I hope you are correct, but then that would mean President Obama and Timothy Geitner are being disingenious in saying the benefits won't get paid out if the debt ceiling isn't raised, right?

It is time to raise the maximum income-levels that can be subjected to payroll taxes to ensure the health of the SS funds. Nothing more is needed. No increased retirement ages, no reduced benefits, and no means-testing. This isn't rocket-science, just accounting.

The thing is that SS is "supposed" to be a program in which you get paid out what you paid in. So if you raise the maximum income levels that can be subjected to it, you are going to have to also up the amount SS pays out to those people, which many of the masses wouldn't like. If you raise the income level subjected to payroll taxes without increasing the amount paid out, you turn SS into a de-facto entitlement program.

ParticleGrl

Jul17-11, 09:51 PM

I'm not claiming it isn't solvent (as I don't know what the full truth is because I've seen multiple claims made), but that if the debt ceiling not being raised meant that SS wouldn't get paid out, it means it isn't self-funding.

When it is suggested that social security is not paid out, what is being suggested is that the government default on the bonds that it holds first (specifically, the treasuries held by the social security trust), before defaulting on bonds held by others.

SixNein

Jul17-11, 10:06 PM

Not sure what you mean here, why would they choose to default?

By not raising the debt limit, the government makes the choice to default.

The U.S. does agree to pay its bills, as the debt would be serviced irregardless, the only reason the politics here are being played is because one party wants the debt to remain an issue while the other one doesn't want it to and neither party will just roll over for the other one.

The treasury does not have the ability to service its obligations without a raise in the debt limit. Past obligations are being mixed with a discussion over future obligations. This debate should occur when congress forges a budget. Congress should not agree to use a credit card then debate when the bill comes due.

Regarding other actions, I think many other countries around the world already are losing the expectation of the U.S. to do other actions. The countries of Eastern Europe question whether the U.S. will provide a counter to a more beligerent Russia, the countries of Asia question whether the U.S. will provide a counter to a more beligerent China, Israel questions whether the U.S. will continue to provide it with support (with the President's recent assertion that Israel should go back to the 1967 lines), etc...

Whether the US should become involved in these military issues is a different debate. I'm specifically referring to the status of the United States as a financial safe haven.

I think they will raise the debt ceiling because to not do so would be catostrophic. If the onus is put on President Obama, he will fold and sign a bill that raises the debt limit for the short-term, if the onus is put on the Republicans, they will pass somethng, or else they will get the blame.

The markets are betting on them doing something as well; however, this is starting to get close enough to make people nervous. This situation could become a disaster before the august 2nd deadline. The real question is when will investors decide to bail.

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 10:10 PM

Why wouldn't it stimulate anything? Are you telling me that employing electrical engineers to rebuild our embarrassing power grid wouldn't lower the unemployment rate?

If you take on debt to try to employ electrical engineers, you can be preventing the employment of other people via private investment because the added debt absorbs savings that would otherwise go into private investment. Employing people also isn't necessarilly going to stimulate the economy. That's like saying you just spend money to hire a lot of people to dig trenches and another group of people to fill them back in. If you want to greatly increase the number of people hired to do this, give them spoons as opposed to shovels. It also would take time to figure out exactly what projects to work on.

Also, real rates on 5 year treasuries ARE negative. Given that maintenance work in infrastructure MUST (absolutely MUST) be done at some point, doing it now will PREVENT FUTURE DEBT. If you are really concerned about the long term deficit, you should want to minimize long term expenditures, which means borrowing now while the rates are negative, not slashing now and borrowing in the future when the costs and rates are higher.

I think borrowing in the future provided the deficit would be a lot smaller or a surplus would be fine, even if it costs a bit more. Future debt is not a problem so long as it would not be excessive, the problem is the massive amounts of debt currently being taken on. Spending a lot on infrastructure right now could saddle the country with a massive amount of debt that hamstrings the economy from recovering completely and could also result in a massive amount of inflation in the future. Infrastructure can stimulate if it will result in increased future tax revenues for the government by facilitating more GDP growth, but there are some big ifs there.

Simply not true- right now lots of companies and banks are hoarding money. One more dollar of borrowing by the government is one more dollar of private sector spending THAT ISN'T BEING PUT TO USE RIGHT NOW. Banks and companies both have cash on hand that isn't being used. I know that a negative real rate on government bonds is crazy and counter-intuitive, but seriously try to think through the actual implications.

Given time, they will get tired of hoarding all that cash and start releasing it.

Japan has roughly half our unemployment, and one of the highest qualities of life in the world, despite anemic GDP growth. And their government bonds are still high quality! Given that our problem right now is terrible unemployment, why not follow their example?

Because the problem of their very anemic GDP growth was likely caused by their excessive amounts of spending. Japan's bonds are rated AA now, as they lost their AAA rating some years ago. Their national debt is so large that if they were to raise their interest rate by one percentage point, it would wipe out whole sectors of the Japanese government. They are likely able to get around doing this because Japan itself holds 90% of its own debt.

The U.S. doesn't hold 90% of its own debt, and if a AA bond rating results, interest rates will go up, which would greatly increase the amount of money it takes to service the debt (which also threatens the credit rating further). In addition, I would say many of the policies of the current administration, simply via creating a lot of uncertainty, are artificially keeping the unemployment rate higher than what it really should be.

But planning for infrastructure employs people, and begins the process. Who cares if it takes a few years? Right now we have idle workers whose skills are getting rusty AND our infrastructure sucks. Why not use the former to fix the latter? Further, it will literally NEVER be cheaper to do the repairs (borrowing money is CHEAPER than paying cash!), and a stich in time saves nine, as they say. Doing it now costs less then doing it in five or ten years, and borrowing now costs less then cash!

It employs people, over time, but the idea is that the economy should not be stuck in a recession for years, which means by the time such a stimulus begins to take effect, the economy would be recovering. Also provided it does start to reduce unemployment, it can create an artificial view of recovery, because if the private-sector remains depressed due to the infrastructure spending, then essentially we have a government debt-driven economy, which when the government reaches its limit and must curtail spending, we end up back at square one, only now with a lot more debt.

Also, many of the projects suggested by civil engineers in the nations infrastructure report card (things like replacing failing parts in the power grid) could easily begin quickly.

If the debt to do such projects wouldn't be excessive, that could be a good thing to work on I think if the work could begin quickly.

Welcome to life- there is corruption in pretty much everything, private or public sector. You can add this caveat to anything you do with your time or money.

Yes, but depending on the level of corruption, how much bang does one get for the buck exactly? Are the contractors going to try to milk the government for as much as they can and drag the length of the work out much longer than it really takes so as to get more money? It's like if you tried to stimulate by gunning up the defense budget, you would have to be very careful about defense contractors trying to drag things out and milk the taxpayer.

That isn't true- Republicans have proven to be just as much a big government party as the democrats. The republicans explicitly want business-friendly "big" government policies and democrats want social-safety-net friendly "big" government policies. However, the definition of "big" is actually quite limited for both parties- President Obama and his policies would be considered conservative in pretty much any other country

The people who vote Republican do not want big government. The Republican party wrt to the politicians themselves, yes, is really just a big-government party in disguise, something the Republican voters have always lamented. The Republican party tends to be a big government party for Big Business (which benefits from big government), while the Democrats tend to be a big government party for the social welfare state and the labor unions, trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby (all of which also benefit from big government, albeit a slightly different kind of big government then Big Business; Big Business likes regulations so long as they hurt smaller competitors, and also loves welfare if it means handouts for them).

CAC1001

Jul17-11, 10:13 PM

By not raising the debt limit, the government makes the choice to default.

How so? The debt can be serviced from the revenues the government takes in.

The treasury does not have the ability to service its obligations without a raise in the debt limit. Past obligations are being mixed with a discussion over future obligations. This debate should occur when congress forges a budget. Congress should not agree to use a credit card then debate when the bill comes due.

If I am reading correctly, you mean the Treasury, even if it has the money, just technically can't do something like service the debt without a raise in the debt limit?

ParticleGrl

Jul17-11, 11:07 PM

CAC1001, you have completely ignored my points. There are two really important factors- right now the private sector is holding a lot of uninvested cash, AND right now real interest rates on 5 year government treasuries are negative. Your responses are ignoring these points, which are really important, because thats the current reality.

Yes, sometimes the government selling treasuries decreases cash in the private sector (thought not always the US private sector, in recent years, selling treasuries in the US has largely influenced the private and public sectors of China and the Middle East). However, WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ISN'T SPENDING, government borrowing is simply putting idle cash to work. It doesn't matter that they will "eventually" spend, because we are talking about taking it from them today, using it, and paying them back later (when they do want to spend).

You can see this in the treasury rates- if you have a little money chasing a lot of investments, then demand is low, and rates go up. In this case, flooding the market with treasuries will raise rates, and private sector investments get crowded-out. If you have a lot of cash, chasing few investments, demand is high, and rates go down. The key point is that you can see how much government borrowing is hurting the private sector by looking at rates. Right now, the market rates suggest that no, government borrowing isn't suppressing anything.

Think of interest rates in this case as some measure of opportunity cost imposed. If the government is taking money away from really useful private sector stuff, it has to compensate the private sector more (thats how markets work). What, then, does a low rate tell you?

I think borrowing in the future provided the deficit would be a lot smaller or a surplus would be fine, even if it costs a bit more.

The deficit doesn't matter nearly as much as the total debt. Doing the infrastructure project when rates are at their lowest AND costs are at their lowest is the best way to control the actual debt.

You are arguing that we should incur MORE total debt because of bad cash flow right now. Thats ludicrous. You want to spend more on the project, borrow money when we are out of recession (which will reduce private sector investment proportionally, because we will be at full capacity), AND pay proportionally more in debt service.

If debt is bad, and if the government should interfere as minimally as possible in the private sector THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO BUILD.

SixNein

Jul17-11, 11:10 PM

Take a look at government-run enterprises. The nature of government is to grow and grow. Part of this is just the incentives. No government program or agency seeks to spend as little money as possible. The goal for the head of a government program or agency is to increase its size, scope, and budget.

The motivation of government entities is not profit but solutions to problems. And often times aspirations to solve problems don't agree with budgets. NASA is a very good example. The real question is if a situation needs improved and is government the most effective way to provide the solution. Just look at the state of the elderly before and after the implementations of social security and Medicare. In my opinion, this analysis must be made on a case by case basis. And in many of these cases, let the market decide is synonymous with lets ignore the problem. Sometimes the end may not justify the means, but sometimes the end does justify the means. There is no independent law to decide.

On a completely different note, I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the economic drag caused by religion?

SixNein

Jul17-11, 11:16 PM

How so? The debt can be serviced from the revenues the government takes in.

If I am reading correctly, you mean the Treasury, even if it has the money, just technically can't do something like service the debt without a raise in the debt limit?

If we had the money to service our current obligations, there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling. In addition, even if we had enough money to do so, the money may be tied up which causes a need for short term credit.

CAC1001

Jul18-11, 12:19 AM

The motivation of government entities is not profit but solutions to problems.

I think it depends. The motivation of government often is to grow, and in doing so, often creates more problems than solutions in the process. As a problem solver, government has a rather poor reputation. However, there are certain things only government can really do, or which government is more appropriate for doing.

And often times aspirations to solve problems don't agree with budgets. NASA is a very good example.

NASA is also a good example of how a government agency can blow insane amounts of money above and beyond what it should on various projects.

The real question is if a situation needs improved and is government the most effective way to provide the solution. Just look at the state of the elderly before and after the implementations of social security and Medicare. In my opinion, this analysis must be made on a case by case basis. And in many of these cases, let the market decide is synonymous with lets ignore the problem. Sometimes the end may not justify the means, but sometimes the end does justify the means. There is no independent law to decide.

On a completely different note, I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the economic drag caused by religion?

What makes you think religion creates an economic drag? (not saying you're wrong, just curious). The workaholic aspect of Americans is often attributed to the old Puritan work ethic of the country.

If we had the money to service our current obligations, there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling. In addition, even if we had enough money to do so, the money may be tied up which causes a need for short term credit.

We do have the money to service our current obligations if you mean the servicing the debt, as revenues can be used for that. What we do not have enough money for is all of the government spending, the things the government uses debt to finance.

CAC1001

Jul18-11, 12:48 AM

CAC1001, you have completely ignored my points. There are two really important factors- right now the private sector is holding a lot of uninvested cash, AND right now real interest rates on 5 year government treasuries are negative. Your responses are ignoring these points, which are really important, because thats the current reality.

Yes, sometimes the government selling treasuries decreases cash in the private sector (thought not always the US private sector, in recent years, selling treasuries in the US has largely influenced the private and public sectors of China and the Middle East). However, WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ISN'T SPENDING, government borrowing is simply putting idle cash to work. It doesn't matter that they will "eventually" spend, because we are talking about taking it from them today, using it, and paying them back later (when they do want to spend).

You can see this in the treasury rates- if you have a little money chasing a lot of investments, then demand is low, and rates go up. In this case, flooding the market with treasuries will raise rates, and private sector investments get crowded-out. If you have a lot of cash, chasing few investments, demand is high, and rates go down. The key point is that you can see how much government borrowing is hurting the private sector by looking at rates. Right now, the market rates suggest that no, government borrowing isn't suppressing anything.

Think of interest rates in this case as some measure of opportunity cost imposed. If the government is taking money away from really useful private sector stuff, it has to compensate the private sector more (thats how markets work). What, then, does a low rate tell you?

The deficit doesn't matter nearly as much as the total debt. Doing the infrastructure project when rates are at their lowest AND costs are at their lowest is the best way to control the actual debt.

You are arguing that we should incur MORE total debt because of bad cash flow right now. Thats ludicrous. You want to spend more on the project, borrow money when we are out of recession (which will reduce private sector investment proportionally, because we will be at full capacity), AND pay proportionally more in debt service.

If debt is bad, and if the government should interfere as minimally as possible in the private sector THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO BUILD.

Here is an interesting article that addresses the issue of spending and debt right now: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14/too-much-debt-means-economy-can-t-grow-commentary-by-reinhart-and-rogoff.html

SixNein

Jul18-11, 01:29 AM

What makes you think religion creates an economic drag? (not saying you're wrong, just curious). The workaholic aspect of Americans is often attributed to the old Puritan work ethic of the country.

I'm simply curious if a study as been performed on it or not. But lets let that be a topic for another time.

ParticleGrl

Jul18-11, 02:02 AM

Here is an interesting article that addresses the issue of spending and debt right now: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...nd-rogoff.html

The article is entirely about the debt, not the deficit. As I tried to make clear- borrowing money today at low rates in order to avoid borrowing tomorrow at higher rates LOWERS the expected debt.

If you seriously care about the debt, you should be advocating more infrastructure spending now, while its cheap.

We do have the money to service our current obligations if you mean the servicing the debt, as revenues can be used for that. What we do not have enough money for is all of the government spending, the things the government uses debt to finance.

Congress's budget is supposed to be legally binding. That means everything in the current budget is an obligation. The proper time to worry about spending is while making that budget. Once you order all those services, and the bill is due, you can't say "sorry, my spending was TOTALLY out of control." Or at least, you can't if you want to be taken seriously as a bond market.

CAC1001

Jul18-11, 03:35 AM

The article is entirely about the debt, not the deficit.

The deficit is tied to the debt.

As I tried to make clear- borrowing money today at low rates in order to avoid borrowing tomorrow at higher rates LOWERS the expected debt. If you seriously care about the debt, you should be advocating more infrastructure spending now, while its cheap.

I linked to the article because it addresses this point though:

Indeed, there is a growing perception that today’s low interest rates for the debt of advanced economies offer a compelling reason to begin another round of massive fiscal stimulus. If Asian nations are spinning off huge excess savings partly as a byproduct of measures that effectively force low- income savers to put their money in bank accounts with low government-imposed interest-rate ceilings -- why not take advantage of the cheap money?

Although we agree that governments must exercise caution in gradually reducing crisis-response spending, we think it would be folly to take comfort in today’s low borrowing costs, much less to interpret them as an “all clear” signal for a further explosion of debt.

Changing Interest Rates

Several studies of financial crises show that interest rates seldom indicate problems long in advance. In fact, we should probably be particularly concerned today because a growing share of advanced country debt is held by official creditors whose current willingness to forego short-term returns doesn’t guarantee there will be a captive audience for debt in perpetuity.

Those who would point to low servicing costs should remember that market interest rates can change like the weather. Debt levels, by contrast, can’t be brought down quickly. Even though politicians everywhere like to argue that their country will expand its way out of debt, our historical research suggests that growth alone is rarely enough to achieve that with the debt levels we are experiencing today.

While we expect to see more than one member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development default or restructure their debt before the European crisis is resolved, that isn’t the greatest threat to most advanced economies. The biggest risk is that debt will accumulate until the overhang weighs on growth.

It also points out that knowing the true amount of debt on the government is tricky because the federal government might have to bear the burden of many state and local governments as well. We see this in China right now which may have to handle as much as $2 trillion in local government debts.

Congress's budget is supposed to be legally binding. That means everything in the current budget is an obligation. The proper time to worry about spending is while making that budget. Once you order all those services, and the bill is due, you can't say "sorry, my spending was TOTALLY out of control." Or at least, you can't if you want to be taken seriously as a bond market.

I am no advocate for not raising the debt limit, that I think would be disastrous, I am just pointing out that the government's revenues could be used to pay the interest on the national debt.

DevilsAvocado

Jul18-11, 07:26 AM

NASA is also a good example of how a government agency can blow insane amounts of money above and beyond what it should on various projects.

I understand it’s not an easy task to keep track on all those "Socialism-Tax-Threats", but I feel a strong need to inform you that the name of this site is Physics Forums.

Are you sure you’ve come to the right place??

What’s your solution for the future? Rear-gear full speed into the Medieval? Tea-Troglodytes carry out "maverick magic" to fix future problems? Or does your "theory" include the assumption that MacDonald’s will start fundamental research and space exploration, once the U.S. Government and NASA is closed down, so that future generations of reactionaries also will be able to spread their deranged ideas globally?

CAC1001

Jul18-11, 07:32 AM

I understand it’s not an easy task to keep track on all those "Socialism-Tax-Threats", but I feel a strong need to inform you that the name of this site is Physics Forums.

Are you sure you’ve come to the right place??

What’s your solution for the future? Rear-gear full speed into the Medieval? Tea-Troglodytes carry out "maverick magic" to fix future problems? Or does your "theory" include the assumption that MacDonald’s will start fundamental research and space exploration, once the U.S. Government and NASA is closed down, so that future generations of reactionaries also will be able to spread their deranged ideas globally?

Not sure where you're getting all that from, however, if for example one points out how the different branches of the military can be prone to wasting money on certain weapons systems that aren't necessarilly needed, does this mean that they are advocating getting rid of the military?

Similarly, my pointing out how an agency like NASA can be prone to wasting money does not at all mean I am advocating closing down the agency.

DevilsAvocado

Jul18-11, 07:48 AM

Not sure where you're getting all that from, however, if for example one points out how the different branches of the military can be prone to wasting money on certain weapons systems that aren't necessarilly needed, does this mean that they are advocating getting rid of the military?

Sounds coherent:
... I'd say one major area to gun up spending is on the national defense, as the military needs a lot of vehicles, equipment, and weapons replaced and upgraded,

But okay, could you please give us the name of one NASA project that you just know is a complete waste of money & time?

CAC1001

Jul18-11, 07:52 AM

Sounds coherent:

When I said gun up spending on the defense, I meant on the stuff needed, and also pointed out how in doing so, care would have to be taken so as to make sure that the money is not blown on unnecessary projects that waste money.

But okay, could you please give us the name of one NASA project that you just know is a complete waste of money & time?

The Space Shuttle is the most infamous I'd say.

WhoWee

Jul18-11, 08:12 AM

SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. Untrammeled spending is.

The expansion of those programs was never included in their design - correct? Websites like this help people to participate. my bold
http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx

"3. Ask if the bipolar disability meets or equals a medical listing. Bipolar is listed under mental disorders. To satisfy the listing criteria for bipolar disorder, a number of variables are considered:
Anhedonia
Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Psychomotor agitation or retardation
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Thoughts of suicide and hallucinations
Delusions or paranoid thinking
In assessing bipolar disability relative to a listing level impairment, the following areas of functioning are evaluated:
Restrictions of activities of daily living
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration
Persistence or pace
Repeated episodes of decompensation--each of extended duration
An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

How many drunks qualify?

http://www.ssa.gov/compassionateallowances/

DevilsAvocado

Jul18-11, 09:31 AM

The Space Shuttle is the most infamous I'd say.

And this proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you never heard of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station?

Space shuttle applications have included:

Science
Astronomy
Crystal growth
Space physics
Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
Manned experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
Components for the construction of the ISS
Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
Carried satellites with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D)
Chandra X-ray Observatory
Many TDRS satellites
Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System)
A Defense Support Program satellite
Magellan probe
Galileo spacecraft
Ulysses probe

The whole point of fundamental research is that we know from the beginning that all projects won’t be successful. But some of them will be very successful, and make all the difference in the world.

I.e., we need to "waste" money, on some project that will not be successful, to find those that is very successful – that’s the whole point!

No one can handpick the "good stuff" in advance, not even Einstein. Not one person on this planet could predict the importance of the research by Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, et al, on quantum theory/quantum mechanics. Not one.

Still, without the hard work of these guys, there would be no nuclear power, no internet, no IC computers, no cellular phones, no communication satellites, no GPS, no LCD, no HDD, etc, etc, etc, etc...

What do you think Michele Bachman would have said to these QM geniuses?
- Sorry guys, it looks interesting, maybe, but we’re going to buy guns and bibles...

Yes, there were tragic disasters in the Shuttle program, but there is no way for you today, to evaluate if the program was a complete waste of money, or not.

Unless Michele Bachman becomes President, the exploration of space has just begun, and all the knowledge gained in the Shuttle program will of course have great value in the future, for coming generations.

There's only one way forward, and that's forward.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 01:47 PM

SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. ....If that were actually the case then there would be no threat to either from forcing the federal government cease borrowing any more money. And this statement:
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,"
would have no grounds.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 01:51 PM

... Remember too that the U.S. already halved the size of the Navy after the Soviet Union broke up, ...But the US has not cut defense spending accordingly. It should.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 02:05 PM

SS is self-funded. The money being paid for by payroll taxes adds to the surplus, and the government borrows those funds with interest being paid back by the bonds (promise to pay). ...Source please.

turbo

Jul18-11, 02:11 PM

Source please.http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Just go to SSA, not to the GOP windbags who are trying to lie us into entitlement cuts instead of cutting programs and raising taxes. The SSA surplus is totally healthy into 2037, and it can be fixed in perpetuity by raising the cap on payroll deductions by high-income earners. No need to cut benefits for people who have already paid in all their lives.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 02:23 PM

He put entitlement programs on the table....Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 02:42 PM

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.htmlDid you read it?

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983

The numbers are as follows for 2010 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQxQEwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv% 26q%3Dcache%3AKYBrEu8csG4J%3Awww.cbo.gov%2Fbudget% 2Ffactsheets%2F2011%2F5-oasdi.pdf%2B%25225-oasdi%2522%2BCBO%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26 srcid%3DADGEESisiRQlnyuO3QDOTXHNtloB_fTrhOBaitQNl-gFI3ZQqQFkabrw8tQ3KoCNSAUyjAyRG_p5XgV1d784ex0-c2xHRK0JO3ZgWsvNhmZvoOvLVD-ftAF7Bq-QyfrLX9TocoXaSk_b%26sig%3DAHIEtbRQrZQkXKq4khO0KH-Qd4NKzjXPRw&ei=XIkkTuSfC8e10AGZ1cy5Aw&usg=AFQjCNHUU7IcsVGTykR9y8lqVVpfdEj2mg&sig2=d8oNyiNwsq4l3UX2suONMg): For Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, the government brings in $669B*, it spends $706B. In 2020 that deficit is projected to be ~$100B/yr.

*Revenues: $632B, taxes on benefits $23B, Fed employer share $15B.

turbo

Jul18-11, 03:37 PM

Yes, and note that they said "non-interest income". Treasury bonds, which form the holdings of the SSA fund, pay interest. Non-interest income can be increased simply by raising the cap on the amount of income subject to payroll tax withholding. It's not as complicated or dire as the GOP claims.

WhoWee

Jul18-11, 06:37 PM

I like Tom Coburn's attitude - not likely to go anywhere - but it shines the light into some dark spots - show large adjustments are possible.
http://chippewa.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_2c19d44b-095c-529a-ad62-5ebc6eb367e1.html
"One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets. "

turbo

Jul18-11, 06:50 PM

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 36. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull off another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

Edit age due to old-timer's syndrome.

WhoWee

Jul18-11, 06:56 PM

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 46. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull of another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

He is offering specific solutions to a problem. My guess is most everyone under the age of 55 already expect to retire at a later age.

turbo

Jul18-11, 07:10 PM

He is offering specific solutions to a problem. My guess is most everyone under the age of 55 already expect to retire at a later age.How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.

If you are an old guy that has run paving machines or has laid and finished concrete all your life, can you be expected to hold such demanding jobs until you are 70? That is unrealistic, as anybody who has done such work can tell you. His "plan" is a way to marginalize and punish older workers.

As I have explained countless times, we can make SS solvent into the foreseeable future simply by raising the cap on the amount of income that will be subject to payroll withholding. There is no need to slash grandma's benefits or force older people in demanding jobs to work longer. The GOP and their media sponsors (FOX and right-wing hate-radio) love to make this situation look very complex and incomprehensible, but the situation is very simple and easy to understand. SS is NOT in trouble if adults are in charge. SS is in trouble if people allow the GOP to play Chicken Little and actually believe the lies.

WhoWee

Jul18-11, 07:16 PM

How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.

If you are an old guy that has run paving machines or has laid and finished concrete all your life, can you be expected to hold such demanding jobs until you are 70? That is unrealistic, as anybody who has done such work can tell you. His "plan" is a way to marginalize and punish older workers.

As I have explained countless times, we can make SS solvent into the foreseeable future simply by raising the cap on the amount of income that will be subject to payroll withholding. There is no need to slash grandma's benefits or force older people in demanding jobs to work longer. The GOP and their media sponsors (FOX and right-wing hate-radio) love to make this situation look very complex and incomprehensible, but the situation is very simple and easy to understand. SS is NOT in trouble if adults are in charge. SS is in trouble if people allow the GOP to play Chicken Little and actually believe the lies.

I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?

Hurkyl

Jul18-11, 07:16 PM

As I have explained countless time
Quite honestly, your last several posts look like
I'm right, you're wrong. Here are several sentences explaining the consequences of me being right. Here are several sentences belittling those who disagree with me.
As such, they aren't very persuasive....

Jimmy Snyder

Jul18-11, 07:37 PM

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.
But surely this is a problem with every pension system. Those who die young subsidize those who live long. Life insurance works the other way so there's some compensation there. Anyway, as it is, if a person is truly disabled, they get the SS payout without reaching the retirement age.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 07:42 PM

Yes, and note that they said "non-interest income". Treasury bonds, which form the holdings of the SSA fund, pay interest.So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.

SixNein

Jul18-11, 09:17 PM

Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/president-obama-expresses-support-for-means-testing-medicare/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html

Though I don't understand why a source would be needed for what is now common knowledge. He put entitlement cuts on the table in negotiations.

mheslep

Jul18-11, 09:24 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html
...In the end, Obama only feinted at entitlement reform, mentioning no specifics....

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

SixNein

Jul18-11, 10:07 PM

I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

Ivan Seeking

Jul18-11, 10:51 PM

So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.

Every economist that I've heard says that is not driving the current crisis. It will come back to haunt us but it's not the problem today.

russ_watters

Jul18-11, 11:11 PM

Obama's influence, I would say, begins quite a while before I had ever heard of him. I hear he made a very nice speech during some Democratic convention, back when I thought I had lost all hope in the American political process. You know what I meant. You're trolling. As an armchair quarterback, I can tell you that the last tweny years are much easier to analyze than the next 10. But I have faith in our youth. I'm talking about what you posted. It's your graph. Your prediction. Again, you're trolling here.
10 of those years have yet to happen, so those are just fantasy. 20 of those years are now history. They are the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush history. Except that several years of Obama is also history - are you not figuring on that? Are you blaming Bush and Reagan for that? This is what I tried to ascertain with my previous questions, to which you responded with trolling. No, and if I've spouted out some schizophrenic blather in the past, that would make you think that my mind works that way, please point out my previous posts. It's in the quote I posted above. Here it is again: "The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now." The graph clearly shows substantial debt accumulated before Reagan took office, when Clinton was in office and since Obama took office, yet you are claiming the debt is Reagan and Bush's fault only.
Our debt to GDP was ~31% when Reagan took office, and it was ~65% when G.H.W.Bush left. So then assuming your numbers are correct, the "debt level" is roughly half due to what happened over the past 30 years; of Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. Right?!?
No, as I've said before, when your wife is sick in the hospital with cancer, you mortgage the house to save her.
If you don't, then you didn't really care about her.

This might strike you as some type of sick Gingrich type of Democratic slam.

And I suppose, it really is. Yes, it's certainly a propaganda slam. It twists the reality that it ain't just your house that's at risk, it's your kids. The choice isn't your wife vs your house, it's more like your wife vs your kids. Worse, everyone seems to agree the kids are at risk and so far, Obama's sacrificed the kids in a failed attempt to help the wife. So in the end, he's losing both.

SixNein

Jul18-11, 11:19 PM

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.

daveb

Jul19-11, 08:09 AM

SixNein

Jul19-11, 08:23 AM

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

I think great care should be taken in all of these spending cut plans. Immediate cuts could damage the economy since its so fragile. Hopefully, any spending cuts will be on the back end instead of the front end.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:35 AM

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

SixNein

Jul19-11, 08:44 AM

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

SixNein

Jul19-11, 08:47 AM

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:48 AM

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:49 AM

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

SixNein

Jul19-11, 09:07 AM

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

People with bipolar disorder usually have multiple issues and some of them can be so extreme as to limit their ability to function in society, and these issues are often long term.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23037&lstid=325

Vanadium 50

Jul19-11, 09:08 AM

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

And the Senate refused to pass a budget.

SixNein

Jul19-11, 09:16 AM

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

In order for your condition to be considered severe, it must interfere with your ability to perform basic work-related activities. Basic work-related activities include things such as exerting yourself physically (walking, carrying, climbing stairs, etc.), tolerating certain environmental conditions (temperature extremes, noise, vibrations), maintaining concentration and attention, understanding, remembering and carrying out instructions, responding appropriately to other people, coping with change, etc.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 09:27 AM

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

mheslep

Jul19-11, 11:29 AM

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 01:41 PM

I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

The President now favors the Gang of 6 Proposal?
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/July/international_July965.xml&section=international&col=

"President Barack Obama threw his support behind the proposal by the “Gang of Six” senators, saying it was broadly consistent with his approach on reducing debt and deficits.

Obama urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to start “talking turkey” about it.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues.

The group briefed about half of the 100-member Senate and “the response was very favorable,” Conrad told reporters.

He said the group asked fellow senators to take 24 hours to look at the proposal and “report back to us.”

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."

mheslep

Jul19-11, 02:39 PM

...

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 02:42 PM

Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

It sounded like and "smoke and mirrors" to me as well - let's see what kind of impact Coburn has now that he's re-joined the group.

turbo

Jul19-11, 04:37 PM

David Brooks is at it again. The GOP is dysfunctional, and is in the sway of ideologues. I think he's right. IMO, any Republican that votes in favor of tax increases is going to find themselves facing a tea-partier in the next primary, financed by Grover Norquist and his organization. Thanks to SCOTUS' Citizens United decision, hapless incumbents could find themselves outgunned and outspent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 05:38 PM

Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor.
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8fb4c641-3b8c-48e9-af40-72389ad4d61b

"“Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

“On the one side are those who believe that failing to rein in spending now could be calamitous, and that a government which borrows 42 cents for every dollar it spends needs to sober up. Washington needs strong medicine to heal its spending addiction now, not a false promise of it later.

“And on the other side are those who want to pretend the status quo is acceptable — that everything will be fine if we freeze current habits in place, raise job-killing taxes on small businesses, and do nothing about the long term fiscal imbalance that imperils our economy.

“Republicans have tried to persuade the President of the need for a course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to balance and economic growth.

“So we’ve decided to bring our case to the American people.

“And that’s why this week, Republicans in the House and the Senate will push for legislation that would cut government spending now, cap it in the future, and which only raises the debt limit if it’s accompanied by a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.

“The Cut, Cap, and Balance plan is the kind of strong medicine Washington needs and the American people want — and Republicans in both houses of Congress will be pushing it aggressively this week. "

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 05:49 PM

As a follow up - perhaps the Republicans should declare the real long term debt ceiling requirements given President Obama's runaway spending - start a discussion of a $20Trillion debt ceiling and send it to the President to sign - let him own the number?

turbo

Jul19-11, 05:50 PM

Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 05:58 PM

The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.

turbo

Jul19-11, 06:16 PM

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.Edited to attribute to McConnell.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 06:20 PM

Edited to attribute to McConnell.

What does that mean?

turbo

Jul19-11, 06:44 PM

What does that mean?I edited the post to indicate that McConnell made those statements, not you.

SixNein

Jul19-11, 07:13 PM

SixNein

Jul19-11, 07:22 PM

Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor."[/I]

There is nothing strange about it honestly. I'm sure Obama realizes that McConnell is doing a little political theatre for his base. If he doesn't appeal to some of those tea party fanatics, his bill could get locked up in the house.

Voters are not always right, but it's the politicians job to make them think their right.

lisab

Jul19-11, 07:23 PM

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 07:26 PM

Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?

Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 07:30 PM

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?

What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.

turbo

Jul19-11, 07:32 PM

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 07:37 PM

Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.

Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?

lisab

Jul19-11, 07:42 PM

What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.

I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.

turbo

Jul19-11, 07:46 PM

Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

If you want to start a thread about how drunks can game SS, please feel free. Also please be prepared to provide some supporting documentation, because you will be challenged.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 07:53 PM

I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.

I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.

Hurkyl

Jul19-11, 07:54 PM

turbo

Jul19-11, 07:56 PM

I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 07:57 PM

Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Again, Coburn and McConnell are both back in the game in the Senate - the House Republicans are not alone - we will soon see the results.

mheslep

Jul19-11, 08:02 PM

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:03 PM

Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.

Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO. If you think there is no fraud in the SS system - you're entitled to that opinion as well. Why don't you support your strawman claim that I'm quoting Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

Maybe we should move this discussion of fraud in Social Security claims to another thread.

Hurkyl

Jul19-11, 08:06 PM

Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO.
That doesn't make you exempt from being called out for talking out of your rear end. :tongue:

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:09 PM

for turbo
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5206.pdf

"III. Impact of fraud on the SSA benefits
p r og rams
The Ti t l e I I progr ams have suf f e red
s ig n i fi c an t ep i so d e s o f fr a u d , a n d th e c o st s t o th e
S o c ia l S e c u ri ty tr u s t f u n d s c a n n o l o n ge r b e
ignor ed. One who wrongful ly appl i e s for and/or
receives benefits payments under any of the Title
II programs may be subject to criminal liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(1)-(8), which sets forth
penalties for felony fraud violations un der Title II
o f th e Ac t . T h e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty fe l on y fr a u d
statute can be used separately or in concert with
g e n e ra l f e d er a l c r imi n a l s ta t u te s fo u n d i n T it le 1 8 ,
to pros e cut e f r aud in bene f i ts progr ams . A key
risk factor in Title II programs are individ uals
w h o fe ig n or ex a gg er at e s ym p to m s t o b e co m e
eligible for disability benefits, and those who fail
to r epor t change s in r e sour c es or othe r
circumstances that would make a recipient of Title
I I bene f i t s ine l igibl e to cont inue to r e c e ive
payments. Eligibility for the Title II programs is
often complex and difficu lt to verify, and SSA's
abi l i ty to prope r ly de t e rmine a r e c ipi ent 's ini ti a l
and continued eligibility, an d the correct month ly
b e n e fi t d u e th a t r e ci p ie n t , i s d i re c tl y d e p e n d en t
u p o n S SA' s o n g o in g a c ce s s t o ac c u ra t e a n d
current information regarding the recipient."

lisab

Jul19-11, 08:11 PM

$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.
AG Holder - "Every year we lose tens of billions": http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html)- "By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud."

Large enough to qualify as wholesale.

I think the fraud mentioned in that link is due to things like charging for services that are never delivered, etc. In other words, it's perpetrated by providers.

The kind of SS fraud WhoWee and I were discussing is "front door" fraud, i.e. bogus claims by individuals who are capable of working but try to scam the system. My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:12 PM

I apologize for the garbled text - please see page 3 of my link.

turbo

Jul19-11, 08:16 PM

My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.MUCH harder than most people think! Much harder. Legitimate claims get denied over and over again through many levels of review until you end up before an Administrative Law judge. Then, SS has to pay for the 5+ years of denied benefits. Been there, done that.

turbo

Jul19-11, 08:18 PM

BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 08:23 PM

BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled

Didn't you start the derailment with this post in response to my comment about Coburn?

turbo:
"Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 36. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull off another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

Edit age due to old-timer's syndrome."

Was my link regarding fraud in the SS Disability (page 3) adequate?

WhoWee

Jul19-11, 09:08 PM

The Republican leadership in the House was successful tonight (234 to 190) to pass their cost cutting and debt containment plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/19/house-approves-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

"The bill imposes caps on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It also allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in exchange for both the Senate and House approving a balanced budget amendment. "

OmCheeto

Jul19-11, 09:22 PM

Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Does that mean that there never was an argument, and that I can excuse myself from this discussion? I've pneumonia, predict that I'll be working about 70 hours a week for the next two months, and can barely think.

please. let me go........ I need the sleep........ :cry:

SixNein

Jul20-11, 02:53 AM

Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.

SixNein

Jul20-11, 03:04 AM

ThomasT

Jul20-11, 05:25 AM

mege

Jul20-11, 05:35 AM

Just some political theatre. The bill to watch for is coming from the senate.

The Senate can start a bill to raise taxes? I guess the Democrats are campaigning on ignoring every facet of the constitution and President Clinton is encourage President Obama to be a dictator, so it could work.

The bill that the House voted on (Cut, Cap, etc) is a political smokescreen for sure, just as the President is 'putting entitlements on the table' (other than the President mentioning this in speeches, there's never been any enumeration) to try and make any debt-celing issues seem like they're all on the GOP. Also notice how noone's talking about the McConnell plan in the media which would grant the President the ability to step the debt celing up while essentially allowing all congress to have deniability because they could do symbolic votes?

This whole debt celing issue has been political theatre. All of them know that fundamental reform is needed in many aspects of the government's operation to truly solve any issues, but it's not politically worthy to do so. So, there'll be some political comprimise which will shove the issue off another few years so we can deal with it then - not really solving anything now. I don't think it's neccessary to have a plan to eliminate our federal debt, but paying double-digit percent of the yearly budget on interest seems too much.

So to answer the OP question, again, in the context of the debt-celing/budget issues - the GOP may be losing viability because they want to make hard choices rather than charge our future away. They're making idealogical stands because doing what's popular, they believe, isn't what is right. While I understand what ParticleGrl is saying about now being a good time to borrow to improve infrastructure - that's not happening (from what I understand) in this situation. SS/Medicare are over half of the government's budget and Medicare is only going to be getting larger as more ACA planks fall into place. We're taking on 'bad debt' because borrowing the money now isn't allowing us to save anything in the future, it's just emergency patchwork. I just don't have trust that any additional debt that the government takes on to fund another stimulus is going to have any significant impact because of the inefficiencies already present - it's just passing the buck to the next administration/congress/generation (take your pick).

Even Nordic countrys are cutting taxes and spending (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-13/sweden-sees-surplus-plans-tax-cuts-as-economy-beats-europe.html) in prudence for the down economy. I looked and couldn't find a comparative chart of European spending by country over the last 10 years, but the article linked indicates that most countrys have reduced spending (and taxes) over the last few years.

Lastly, on a purely philosophical side of the political parties in the US - I can never totally grasp the consistency of the 'redistribution of wealth' arguement that the collectivists/leftists in our country make. Using the redistribution of wealth mentality, isn't it a better thing for the US to have an extremely strong military since we are one of the wealthiest countrys in the world (so it's our job to protect the less wealthy)? How does the redistributive measures work on a global scales - aside from a little bit of food/medical help that gets thrown around by the government, how are we helping other disadvantaged countries? Personally, I think the leftists are unwilling to give from their own pockets (ie: USFG) in the name of social justice - it's too easy to demand it from others in a local perspective.

mege

Jul20-11, 05:40 AM

Regarding recent posts on the abuse of entitlements to the poor and disabled, although this does exist, I don't think it's a major problem. The big problem seems to be the legitimate inflating of costs by the healthcare industry, including insurers, practitioners, suppliers, distributors, etc., and the failure of the legislature to do something simple like, say, raising the cap on social security taxes. Also, insofar as it seems that in the future we're going to want people to retire earlier rather than later, then the talk of increasing the retirement age to 70 (for regular SS payment eligibility) would seem to a bad alternative, possibly creating more problems than it solves.

Wrt fraud, there was a rather large industry of fake distributors of medical supplies in the Miami area for a time. However, I think they pretty much cleaned this up, though I don't know.

Anyway, wrt the viability of the Republican party, of course it's viable. It's not going anywhere. It's the more conservative, libertarian oriented half of what might be viewed as the Republican-Democrat megaparty.

What worries me about Medicare, in particular, is that there are businesses that can make money off of someone's medicare payments and provide more/better service. If the system is such that a middle-man can make money off of the government service - something is wrong.

I said in another thread that I have a tendancy to blame medicare/aid for the current health care situation because of their fixed rates. Unless they're right on the market price, they're going to skew the entire system (as we're seeing) forcing individuals and other insurance companies to pay more.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 07:17 AM

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.

my bold
Changing the discussion again? Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations?
I Googled SS Disability Bi-polar and returned multiple pages of how to apply for benefits - looks a bit like a new cottage industry? Included in the results was a little gem that happpens to be on point.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/21/i-used-to-be-drunk-but-now-i%E2%80%99m-bipolar/

"“I used to be a drunk, but now I’m bipolar.” A guy who was applying for Social Security disability benefits once said these words, which sum up the problem with this entitlement program. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article about a “just say yes” Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) in West Virginia who granted benefits to 100% of the people on his case docket during this fiscal year highlights one problem with the program, but its roots are deeper. "

In response to your current question - same link:

"Currently, the only real brakes on a poorly performing judge are the threat of an audit by the inspector general or a reassignment to a hinterlands post with few amenities and lousy airline service. To make disciplining even more difficult, Social Security’s ALJs are unionized — represented by the AFL-CIO for “protection” even though ALJs are civil servants with six-figure incomes and excellent benefits."

I did not know that federal judges were unionized.

mheslep

Jul20-11, 12:39 PM

I think the fraud mentioned in that link is due to things like charging for services that are never delivered, etc. In other words, it's perpetrated by providers. Yes, agreed.

The kind of SS fraud WhoWee and I were discussing is "front door" fraud, i.e. bogus claims by individuals who are capable of working but try to scam the system. My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.Perhaps so, but then in the case of Medicare pretty much only the providers get paid, so to that extent only they can defraud the system.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 12:45 PM

Yes, agreed.

Perhaps so, but then in the case of Medicare pretty much on the providers get paid, so to that extent only they can defraud the system.

It's quite possible for Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries to commit fraud. One method is to re-sell prescriptions for pain meds, another is to re-sell medical equipment - like power chairs, another is to share benefits with 3rd parties. If the beneficiary works with a dishonest provider the fraud could be substantial.

mheslep

Jul20-11, 01:39 PM

It's quite possible for Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries to commit fraud. One method is to re-sell prescriptions for pain meds, another is to re-sell medical equipment - like power chairs, another is to share benefits with 3rd parties. If the beneficiary works with a dishonest provider the fraud could be substantial.Yes, edited above: 'on-> only'

SixNein

Jul20-11, 02:36 PM

my bold
Changing the discussion again? Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations?
I Googled SS Disability Bi-polar and returned multiple pages of how to apply for benefits - looks a bit like a new cottage industry? Included in the results was a little gem that happpens to be on point.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/21/i-used-to-be-drunk-but-now-i%E2%80%99m-bipolar/

"“I used to be a drunk, but now I’m bipolar.” A guy who was applying for Social Security disability benefits once said these words, which sum up the problem with this entitlement program. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article about a “just say yes” Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) in West Virginia who granted benefits to 100% of the people on his case docket during this fiscal year highlights one problem with the program, but its roots are deeper. "

A guy "once said these words." This is your evidence?

The WSJ article that your link is referencing did not mention bipolar; instead, it talked about a judge who was approving a high rate of disability claims from a specific lawyer. What was being claimed was not mentioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333682478147922.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

And No I'm not changing the discussion at all. You made the claim that some symptoms could also be claimed by drunks and therefore leads to increase chance for abuse, so show something on medical experts on how they are unable to make a proper diagnosis of someone with bipolar extreme enough to warrant disability.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 02:58 PM

A guy "once said these words." This is your evidence?

The WSJ article that your link is referencing did not mention bipolar; instead, it talked about a judge who was approving a high rate of disability claims from a specific lawyer. What was being claimed was not mentioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333682478147922.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

And No I'm not changing the discussion at all. You made the claim that some symptoms could also be claimed by drunks and therefore leads to increase chance for abuse, so show something on medical experts on how they are unable to make a proper diagnosis of someone with bipolar extreme enough to warrant disability.

Now you want to change the discussion again - this time to medical experts? Are you a troll?

The link I posted is an exact match to the possibility of fraud you challenged - it is directly on point. The Government link I posted on the subject in response to turbo discusses the (Government reported) problem of fraud and the legal remedies available. Where is the confusion?

Alfi

Jul20-11, 03:35 PM

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 03:49 PM

The topic is : Re: Republicans no longer a viable party?
- medical fraud is not exactly on topic. Where is the confusion?

Is it safe to say that the Republicans are not viable as a party as far as the next presidential election?
There is no challenge to Obama winning a second term, as I see things so far.

I would prefer to not respond to the off-topic questions. The challenge to Obama is a Republican Party united around this spending debate and a willingness to put specifics on the table. Agree with them or not, McConnell and Coburn are showing leadership and the House Republicans have moved legislation forward for a balanced budget amendment - more leadership.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 04:08 PM

I would prefer to not respond to the off-topic questions. The challenge to Obama is a Republican Party united around this spending debate and a willingness to put specifics on the table. Agree with them or not, McConnell and Coburn are showing leadership and the House Republicans have moved legislation forward for a balanced budget amendment - more leadership.

As a follow up point - the White House Press Secretary says the President is showing leadership by not proposing a plan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Lxk0C2JJ8

turbo

Jul20-11, 04:13 PM

Is it safe to say that the Republicans are not viable as a party as far as the next presidential election?
There is no challenge to Obama winning a second term, as I see things so far.The GOP is making it their prime objective to paint Obama as a failure and deny him a second term. They seem quite unified in this goal. The problem for Congressional Republicans is that they have strong internal divisions, and whoever votes to "raise taxes" by rolling back give-aways made in past years will find their seats in jeopardy. Grover Norquist and his minions will recruit Tea-Party candidates to try to knock them out in their primaries. Thanks to Citizens United, they probably can do it, simply by swamping the air-waves with negative ads targeting the incumbents.

Is the Republican party viable? IMO, not in its current configuration. After they tear themselves apart (and they are headed in that direction) and convince Independents that they cannot govern effectively, due to all their intransigence, the Democrats will probably take back the House and make gains in the Senate. David Brooks is no idiot, and he sees the handwriting on the wall.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 04:16 PM

To be fair - President Obama does plan to raise taxes after the 2012 election - not now while the economy is strugggling - to pay for his spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fHcmMjmPc&feature=related

By contrast, the Republican leadership is trying to slow the spending so the taxes don't have to be increased in the out years beginning 2013 - doing something now (Republican plan) seems more like leadership to me.

turbo

Jul20-11, 05:08 PM

To be fair - President Obama does plan to raise taxes after the 2012 election - not now while the economy is strugggling - to pay for his spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fHcmMjmPc&feature=relatedAgain, Congress passes spending bills, not the President. If all current spending is Obama's please show how that is true. If the Dems manage to roll back the Bush tax cuts and give-aways to special interests, that is is not a bad thing. Tax-cuts for the wealthy and special deductions for special interests are spending in the purest sense of the word. Want to cut spending? Cut tax-breaks for the wealthy, cut subsidies for ethanol, energy companies, agri-giants, and other entities with strong lobbies. All of that is spending, and it pulls taxes from the middle-class and shoves the money up to the rich.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 05:18 PM

Again, Congress passes spending bills, not the President. If all current spending is Obama's please show how that is true. If the Dems manage to roll back the Bush tax cuts and give-aways to special interests, that is is not a bad thing. Tax-cuts for the wealthy and special deductions for special interests are spending in the purest sense of the word. Want to cut spending? Cut tax-breaks for the wealthy, cut subsidies for ethanol, energy companies, agri-giants, and other entities with strong lobbies. All of that is spending, and it pulls taxes from the middle-class and shoves the money up to the rich.

Let's be accurate regarding the "Bush tax cuts" - are they not more accurately described as the tax cuts initiated by Bush - then renewed by Obama - now blamed on Bush again (tax cuts)? I don't seem to remember President Obama referring to them as the "Bush tax cuts" when he was taking credit for their renewal - do you?

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 05:36 PM

The results of this study might indicate the Republican Party is still viable?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/20/shock-study-us-flag-only-boosts-gop

"Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don't believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What's more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

"A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants' Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months," the study found. "These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.""

DevilsAvocado

Jul20-11, 06:13 PM

These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Kudos Hurkyl, that’s a funny and viable question indeed.

We don’t know what’s going to happen yet, but if worst things happen, I can only tell you how it looks from a European perspective (maybe you guys don’t care...):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/GOP_Logo1.svg/300px-GOP_Logo1.svg.png
=
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/MicheleBachmann2012.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann_presidential_campaign,_2012)
+
e9bvreW08X0
+
http://i52.tinypic.com/fkmas2.jpg
+
http://i56.tinypic.com/34rars4.jpg
+
http://i56.tinypic.com/1589lye.jpg
+
http://i56.tinypic.com/bdjr6r.jpg
+
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg/400px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png
Gadsden flag
+
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/18/Second_Revolution_Flag_2x3.svg/400px-Second_Revolution_Flag_2x3.svg.png
Second Revolution flag
=
Total Mess + the A-bomb

This gang of Noodle-brains makes the monkeys of the NSDAP look like a bunch of Nobel laureates in comparison. Of course, that’s in a European perspective, and we might be missing something over here...

But we all wonder what the heck is going on... you guys voted twice for a man who’s being characterized as having the "IQ of an eggplant", who brag about never have read a book, who is a 'sober alcoholic', who started a costly war against the wrong country, and who almost drove the world economy into collapse.

And now (in worst scenario), you’re going to vote on Tea & Noodle-brains??? :bugeye:

Isn’t one "eggplant" enough for a hundred years or so???? :yuck:

The mere fact that you now have something called the Coffee Party USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Party_USA) is, to me, a strong indication that something is terribly wrong:
The organization's mission states that it is based on the underlying principle that the government is "not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans."
...
A key difference is in our emphasis on the democratic process, on respectful and civil engagement with one another and with our elected officials. In the current climate, too many Americans are afraid to participate, and find the process itself too alienating, because it is dominated by people with extreme opinions and extreme tactics. It's hard to speak up when others in the room are screaming. So in the end, we may want some of the same things, but we [are] hoping our journey getting there will be very different.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/CoffeeParty.jpg/400px-CoffeeParty.jpg

But please don’t take this wrong, we all love you and we do want you to stay #1 for many years still (China is cool, but we don’t understand the language, and why they’re cutting CAT-6 cables...).

... WE ARE WORRIED!! :frown:

P.S. What happened to this?
JLdA1ikkoEc

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 06:21 PM

We don’t know what’s going to happen yet, but if worst things happen, I can only tell you how it looks from a European perspective (maybe you guys don’t care...):

my bold
Probably not?

DevilsAvocado

Jul20-11, 06:33 PM

WhoWee, I’m not surprised about you showing this 'global attitude', but how about the rest of the 308,745,537?

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 06:42 PM

WhoWee, I’m not surprised about you showing this 'global attitude', but how about the rest of the 308,745,537?

You did pose the question.o:)

DevilsAvocado

Jul20-11, 06:48 PM

:grumpy::rofl:http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8831.gif:rofl::grumpy:

ThomasT

Jul20-11, 07:42 PM

This gang of Noodle-brains makes the monkeys of the NSDAP look like a bunch of Nobel laureates in comparison. Of course, that’s in a European perspective, and we might be missing something over here...

But we all wonder what the heck is going on... you guys voted twice for a man who’s being characterized as having the "IQ of an eggplant", who brag about never have read a book, who is a 'sober alcoholic', who started a costly war against the wrong country, and who almost drove the world economy into collapse.

And now (in worst scenario), you’re going to vote on Tea & Noodle-brains??? :bugeye:

Isn’t one "eggplant" enough for a hundred years or so???? :yuck:Hi DA. Another entertaining post. Here's one of my favorite George W. Bush quotations (I'll get to the topic momentarily):
Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.
Wrt the topic, it's precisely because the American people elected (sort of) George W. Bush to his first term and then to a second term that the current incarnation of the Republican party remains potentially viable wrt the upcoming election imo. I think they're probably not going to win, but who knows. This is, after all, America. The Coffee Party?

russ_watters

Jul20-11, 07:58 PM

Let's be accurate regarding the "Bush tax cuts" - are they not more accurately described as the tax cuts initiated by Bush - then renewed by Obama - now blamed on Bush again (tax cuts)? I don't seem to remember President Obama referring to them as the "Bush tax cuts" when he was taking credit for their renewal - do you? You forgot to point out the factually inaccurate characterization of the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy". The reality is that the tax cuts were for everyone, but Obama wants to cancel the tax cuts for the wealthy while keeping the tax cuts for everyone else. In other words, Obama wants to repackage them as tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy.

russ_watters

Jul20-11, 07:59 PM

my bold
Probably not? If he doesn't understand the greatness of "The Coffee Party", I'd say yeah, probably not.WhoWee, I’m not surprised about you showing this 'global attitude', but how about the rest of the 308,745,537? I'll tell you what: when Europe votes the President of the US to hold the title President of the World, or alternately, stops depending on the President of the US to be the President of the World, I'll start caring what they think about who we elect. Deal?

I found it to be hilarious that people thought it mattered that foreigners liked Obama. Foreigners have completely different desires for the US's direction than Americans do or even could!

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 08:02 PM

You forgot to point out the factually inaccurate characterization of the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy". The reality is that the tax cuts were for everyone, but Obama wants to cancel the tax cuts for the wealthy while keeping the tax cuts for everyone else. In other words, Obama wants to repackage them as tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy.

Good point. I do wonder how an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction might be described by the President?

turbo

Jul20-11, 08:15 PM

Good point. I do wonder how an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction might be described by the President?Let's see. The elimination of of the mortgage deduction on $1 Milllion-dollar homes might not be received too badly by tea-partiers, provided that they are actually capable of paying attention and they aspire to actually owning a multi-million-dollar house (realistically). The repeal of the mortgage deduction for $500,000 SECOND homes should not be rejected, either, provided any of those people can parse the information and hope to own such an expensive second home. Let's get real, people!

The GOP is acting on a field so far removed from normal voters that it is a wonder that they can get anybody elected.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 08:19 PM

Let's see. The elimination of of the mortgage deduction on $1 Milllion-dollar homes might not be received too badly by tea-partiers, provided that they are actually capable of paying attention and they aspire to actually owning a multi-million-dollar house (realistically). The repeal of the mortgage deduction for $500,000 SECOND homes should not be rejected, either, provided any of those people can parse the information and hope to own such an expensive second home. Let's get real, people!

The GOP is acting on a field so far removed from normal voters that it is a wonder that they can get anybody elected.

What makes you think your (or a friend or family member) mortgage deduction won't be taken away - and why shouldn't it - if it's ok for someone that signed their name to a $1million mortgage in good faith?

russ_watters

Jul20-11, 08:24 PM

What makes you think your (or a friend or family member) mortgage deduction won't be taken away - and why shouldn't it - if it's ok for someone that signed their name to a $1million mortgage in good faith? I think you missed the point: any tax can have a minimum eligibility requirement. While we talk about 'what happens if we eliminate the mortgage interest deduction', others may be thinking 'what happens if we cap the mortgage interest deduction in order to create a new stealth tax on the well-off.'

SW VandeCarr

Jul20-11, 09:33 PM

=
Total Mess + the A-bomb

This gang of Noodle-brains makes the monkeys of the NSDAP look like a bunch of Nobel laureates in comparison. Of course, that’s in a European perspective, and we might be missing something over here...

Actually, didn't Werner Heisenberg win a Nobel?

But we all wonder what the heck is going on... you guys voted twice for a man who’s being characterized as having the "IQ of an eggplant", who brag about never have read a book, who is a 'sober alcoholic', who started a costly war against the wrong country, and who almost drove the world economy into collapse.

Yes, but where can you find another eggplant that can cut brush in the hot Texas sun? And you forgot to mention Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter".

Isn’t one "eggplant" enough for a hundred years or so????

A hundred years?? That's beyond comprehension. I'm lucky if I can remember what happened last week.

The mere fact that you now have something called the
Coffee Party USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Party_USA) is, to me, a strong indication that something is terribly wrong:

Again. I don't understand. Can you put noodles in coffee too?

[I]The organization's mission states that it is based on the underlying principle that the government is "not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans."

Who wrote that commie propaganda? Hang 'em!
...
A key difference is in our emphasis on the democratic process, on respectful and civil engagement with one another and with our elected officials. In the current climate, too many Americans are afraid to participate, and find the process itself too alienating, because it is dominated by people with extreme opinions and extreme tactics. It's hard to speak up when others in the room are screaming. So in the end, we may want some of the same things, but we [are] hoping our journey getting there will be very different.

More seditious commie crap trying to poison our minds with rational thoughts.

But please don’t take this wrong, we all love you and we do want you to stay #1 for many years still ([I]China is cool, but we don’t understand the language, and why they’re cutting CAT-6 cables...).

How can you love us when we hate each other in the finest American tradition?

... WE ARE WORRIED!! :frown:

No need to worry. Just acquire a taste for noodles and eggplant.

P.S. What happened to this?
JLdA1ikkoEc[/QUOTE]

Who's he? Sounds like some foreigner with a funny accent trying to tell us what to do.

EDIT: By the way, Michele Bachmann is a tax lawyer who worked for the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Anyone who immerses themselves in US tax law too long can be excused if they longer can think rationally. They're lucky if they can think at all.

SixNein

Jul20-11, 09:38 PM

Now you want to change the discussion again - this time to medical experts? Are you a troll?

The link I posted is an exact match to the possibility of fraud you challenged - it is directly on point. The Government link I posted on the subject in response to turbo discusses the (Government reported) problem of fraud and the legal remedies available. Where is the confusion?

um hum

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.

to which you reply: "Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations? "

And again I state:

You made the claim that some symptoms could also be claimed by drunks and therefore leads to increase chance for abuse, so show something on medical experts on how they are unable to make a proper diagnosis of someone with bipolar extreme enough to warrant disability.

And now I'm changing the discussion again ? !

I'm simply looking for you to defend your argument that there is an increased chance for abuse for bipolar disability.

WhoWee

Jul20-11, 10:17 PM

um hum

to which you reply: "Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations? "

And again I state:

And now I'm changing the discussion again ? !

I'm simply looking for you to defend your argument that there is an increased chance for abuse for bipolar disability.

I really don't care to respond to any more trolling. Let's get back on topic.

mege

Jul21-11, 12:27 AM

The GOP is acting on a field so far removed from normal voters that it is a wonder that they can get anybody elected.

Or maybe the average collectivist is so far removed that they see even the slightest shift towards liberty and it scares them?

I find it quite odd that the left is trying to paint the GOP as extremists, as if the left's policies are so centrist. There are some seemingly crazy conservative ideas out there right now, but they're predictable and principled. Are taxes realistically going to be eliminated? No. Then why is it reasonable, in that same vein, that we make our taxes even more progressive? Now, I agree with one of your other posts - the tax code sucks. It needs to be revamped to eliminate the loopholes. But taxes aren't enough to get us out of this hole. Even if revenues went up a few percentage points that won't come close to putting a dent into the extra 25% that federal spending has ballooned over the past 2 years. In a related note - there's an interesting article about federal employees and how they're more likely to die than to get fired (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/debt-talks-continue-feds-are-hiring-and-never-firing). Are the government's hiring practices so secure that they only let go of 1/6th of the employees compared to private sector jobs?

Part of why I identify with the GOP, and TEA Party, in basic principle, is that when the government expands, it's almost impossible to shrink. What's an example of a major federal program which has just stopped existing? There have been a few name changes and revisions, but whenever a federal job/entity gets created it's generally around for good. That's a definite problem as time goes on - what's the leftist solution? Tax the rich! Even that will only work so long - what happens when there's no more rich to tax and your poor are still poor? Basically everyone is poor then, is that the leftist utopia? I hope not, and I will vote and campaign against it. I still stand by my opinion that if gay marriage and abortions were non-issues the GOP would win in landslides, over and over. Basically, in my mind the collectivists attempt to monopolize feminist ideals and present contradictory economic policys to attempt to rally their base whole heartedly against the GOP.

Finally there's the point of hate and how I feel many of the left have lost their perspective. Now my opinion may be a little slanted, but I cannot find any attempts by conservatives to silence liberals. How many petitions have circulated the internet, however, to 'ban conservative talk radio'. Where is the hate coming from? I don't feel any animosity towards political opposites, but turbo-1 in your ranting post about a slow driver - you made sure to point out that they had TEA Party bumper stickers (and I'm guessing you were seeing red because of it). Now, maybe this opinion is a bit hypocritical and I admit that - but it still doesn't mean I hate those of the opposite political affiliation. There are some that are posting in this thread which have some 'GOP ran over my dog' type hate in them, which is hardly productive - but to me it reinforces that many of the lefts policies are made with the heart instead of the head. This type of reaction is why I feel the arguement that the 'GOP has become extreme' is flawed - it's purely emotional and no real basis outside of 'a feeling'.

Unfortunately, the media takes hold of feelings more than it does facts - 'real life has a left slant' when you ignore reason and fact. Now there is a resurgance of intellectualism in an attempt to 'prove' the GOP wrong. It seems I see, from my collectivist friends on facebook, a new 'fact' weekly about how the GOP is biggoted and hateful. (my favorite was a survey of a bunch of folks from mississippi - one of the questions was regarding interracial marriage, 50% self-identified republicans thought it should not be allowed - the democrat data was mysteriously missing for that sub-question (but was present for other portions of the survey results). Of course the leftists immediately draw the conclusion that 'GOP = racist' rather than a more general 'southern more likely to be racist' which is probably the truth).

Ivan Seeking

Jul21-11, 01:12 AM

Or maybe the average collectivist is so far removed that they see even the slightest shift towards liberty and it scares them?

I find it quite odd that the left is trying to paint the GOP as extremists, as if the left's policies are so centrist. There are some seemingly crazy conservative ideas out there right now, but they're predictable and principled. Are taxes realistically going to be eliminated? No. Then why is it reasonable, in that same vein, that we make our taxes even more progressive? Now, I agree with one of your other posts - the tax code sucks. It needs to be revamped to eliminate the loopholes. But taxes aren't enough to get us out of this hole. Even if revenues went up a few percentage points that won't come close to putting a dent into the extra 25% that federal spending has ballooned over the past 2 years. In a related note - there's an interesting article about federal employees and how they're more likely to die than to get fired (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/debt-talks-continue-feds-are-hiring-and-never-firing). Are the government's hiring practices so secure that they only let go of 1/6th of the employees compared to private sector jobs?

Part of why I identify with the GOP, and TEA Party, in basic principle, is that when the government expands, it's almost impossible to shrink. What's an example of a major federal program which has just stopped existing? There have been a few name changes and revisions, but whenever a federal job/entity gets created it's generally around for good. That's a definite problem as time goes on - what's the leftist solution? Tax the rich! Even that will only work so long - what happens when there's no more rich to tax and your poor are still poor? Basically everyone is poor then, is that the leftist utopia? I hope not, and I will vote and campaign against it. I still stand by my opinion that if gay marriage and abortions were non-issues the GOP would win in landslides, over and over. Basically, in my mind the collectivists attempt to monopolize feminist ideals and present contradictory economic policys to attempt to rally their base whole heartedly against the GOP.

Finally there's the point of hate and how I feel many of the left have lost their perspective. Now my opinion may be a little slanted, but I cannot find any attempts by conservatives to silence liberals. How many petitions have circulated the internet, however, to 'ban conservative talk radio'. Where is the hate coming from? I don't feel any animosity towards political opposites, but turbo-1 in your ranting post about a slow driver - you made sure to point out that they had TEA Party bumper stickers (and I'm guessing you were seeing red because of it). Now, maybe this opinion is a bit hypocritical and I admit that - but it still doesn't mean I hate those of the opposite political affiliation. There are some that are posting in this thread which have some 'GOP ran over my dog' type hate in them, which is hardly productive - but to me it reinforces that many of the lefts policies are made with the heart instead of the head. This type of reaction is why I feel the arguement that the 'GOP has become extreme' is flawed - it's purely emotional and no real basis outside of 'a feeling'.

Unfortunately, the media takes hold of feelings more than it does facts - 'real life has a left slant' when you ignore reason and fact. Now there is a resurgance of intellectualism in an attempt to 'prove' the GOP wrong. It seems I see, from my collectivist friends on facebook, a new 'fact' weekly about how the GOP is biggoted and hateful. (my favorite was a survey of a bunch of folks from mississippi - one of the questions was regarding interracial marriage, 50% self-identified republicans thought it should not be allowed - the democrat data was mysteriously missing for that sub-question (but was present for other portions of the survey results). Of course the leftists immediately draw the conclusion that 'GOP = racist' rather than a more general 'southern more likely to be racist' which is probably the truth).

In all of that you did nothing to address Michelle Bachman's claim that there is no need to increase the debt ceiling. The link in the op was responding to this position and the unrealistic and absurd proposition that the tea partiers can bully the rest of the country into a fanatical policy. They would bring calamity to the economy. THAT is why the Republicans are unfit to govern.

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman].

SixNein

Jul21-11, 01:43 AM

Or maybe the average collectivist is so far removed that they see even the slightest shift towards liberty and it scares them?

I find it quite odd that the left is trying to paint the GOP as extremists, as if the left's policies are so centrist. There are some seemingly crazy conservative ideas out there right now, but they're predictable and principled. Are taxes realistically going to be eliminated? No. Then why is it reasonable, in that same vein, that we make our taxes even more progressive? Now, I agree with one of your other posts - the tax code sucks. It needs to be revamped to eliminate the loopholes. But taxes aren't enough to get us out of this hole. Even if revenues went up a few percentage points that won't come close to putting a dent into the extra 25% that federal spending has ballooned over the past 2 years. In a related note - there's an interesting article about federal employees and how they're more likely to die than to get fired (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/debt-talks-continue-feds-are-hiring-and-never-firing). Are the government's hiring practices so secure that they only let go of 1/6th of the employees compared to private sector jobs?

Part of why I identify with the GOP, and TEA Party, in basic principle, is that when the government expands, it's almost impossible to shrink. What's an example of a major federal program which has just stopped existing? There have been a few name changes and revisions, but whenever a federal job/entity gets created it's generally around for good. That's a definite problem as time goes on - what's the leftist solution? Tax the rich! Even that will only work so long - what happens when there's no more rich to tax and your poor are still poor? Basically everyone is poor then, is that the leftist utopia? I hope not, and I will vote and campaign against it. I still stand by my opinion that if gay marriage and abortions were non-issues the GOP would win in landslides, over and over. Basically, in my mind the collectivists attempt to monopolize feminist ideals and present contradictory economic policys to attempt to rally their base whole heartedly against the GOP.

Finally there's the point of hate and how I feel many of the left have lost their perspective. Now my opinion may be a little slanted, but I cannot find any attempts by conservatives to silence liberals. How many petitions have circulated the internet, however, to 'ban conservative talk radio'. Where is the hate coming from? I don't feel any animosity towards political opposites, but turbo-1 in your ranting post about a slow driver - you made sure to point out that they had TEA Party bumper stickers (and I'm guessing you were seeing red because of it). Now, maybe this opinion is a bit hypocritical and I admit that - but it still doesn't mean I hate those of the opposite political affiliation. There are some that are posting in this thread which have some 'GOP ran over my dog' type hate in them, which is hardly productive - but to me it reinforces that many of the lefts policies are made with the heart instead of the head. This type of reaction is why I feel the arguement that the 'GOP has become extreme' is flawed - it's purely emotional and no real basis outside of 'a feeling'.

Unfortunately, the media takes hold of feelings more than it does facts - 'real life has a left slant' when you ignore reason and fact. Now there is a resurgance of intellectualism in an attempt to 'prove' the GOP wrong. It seems I see, from my collectivist friends on facebook, a new 'fact' weekly about how the GOP is biggoted and hateful. (my favorite was a survey of a bunch of folks from mississippi - one of the questions was regarding interracial marriage, 50% self-identified republicans thought it should not be allowed - the democrat data was mysteriously missing for that sub-question (but was present for other portions of the survey results). Of course the leftists immediately draw the conclusion that 'GOP = racist' rather than a more general 'southern more likely to be racist' which is probably the truth).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906766
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf

mege

Jul21-11, 01:52 AM

In all of that you did nothing to address Michelle Bachman's claim that there is no need to increase the debt ceiling. The link in the op was responding to this position and the unrealistic and absurd proposition that the tea partiers can bully the rest of the country into a fanatical policy. They would bring calamity to the economy. THAT is why the Republicans are unfit to govern.

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman].

That's just it though - I did answer it. The left has moved as far off center, and not just because of this current situation. Spending has increased by 25% over 2 years (not just the budget, but real federal spending) - why isn't that being considered extreme? If anything the TEA Party is a reaction to the extreme leftists that have gripped the government, not the other way around. Now that someone is calling the tax and spend liberals on their crap, they're taking offense and the only recourse is to point and say 'extremist' before the spotlight shines on them. Are the Republicans being a little non-political about the situation? Yes, but what's happened before last november was a President and Congress that were arm in arm printing money and pushing every little pet project through (but yet they couldn't decide on a budget???). Now there's resistance and it's called extremism? C'mon.

What's happening at this point, anyhow, is all posturing in Washington. The President hasn't put any specific numbers on the table (and in fairness, neither did the house bill except as goals). There's tons of rhetoric being flung, but yet the GOP/TP is getting attacked for it? I think it's absurd to be pointing fingers like that, esspecially when this whole issue is the president and 2008-2010 congress trying to pass the blame onto the GOP - and the GOP is being attacked for resisting the blame. Ultimately, some poorly thought out, noone's happy, pass it to the next congress plan will get passed so even the basic of criticisms of the harms of the TEA Party won't be realized and the cycle starts again.

mege

Jul21-11, 02:18 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906766
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf

Both the report and the article have zero or limited bearing on this conversation. For every group like the KKK there's an equivalently violent anti-capitalist leftist/socialist organization. Just because they (the racist/radical groups) associate with a plank or two of a political party doesn't mean they're aligned with them. These articles, if anything, only reinforce my point about the character assassination that is attempting to being done by the left. You're trying to associate some report on radical racist groups to the GOP and taking some biased NPR article out of context. Either way - even if these associations are true (they're not...) there's still zero bearing to the viability of the policy decisions that the GOP makes.

How can the GOP be 'blindly supporting Israel' but at the same time have a 'racist core' that is anti-semetic? Answer: they can't - the racist fringe groups are just that, fringe groups with no pull in the party. Whatever overlap or correlation you're trying to make is coincidental at best. This isn't the 50s and 60s when some state's Democratic conventions were held at KKK rallys. This is yet another example of what I was talking about - there's an attempt to prove that these GOP ideals are somehow aligned with the fringe groups in an effort to discredit the GOP.

Also, where were the crys of political correctness when President Bush was being called every 'retard' name in the book? If it's President Obama vs Palin or Bachmann in 2012... and Obama wins the election, does that mean that the GOP can call every leftist a sexist now? (just like the GOP is being called racist now)

SixNein

Jul21-11, 03:19 AM

Or maybe the average collectivist is so far removed that they see even the slightest shift towards liberty and it scares them?

Why not just look at your own wording. A shift towards liberty? Your framing the discussion as if the only people who believe in liberty agree with you.

I find it quite odd that the left is trying to paint the GOP as extremists, as if the left's policies are so centrist. There are some seemingly crazy conservative ideas out there right now, but they're predictable and principled. Are taxes realistically going to be eliminated? No. Then why is it reasonable, in that same vein, that we make our taxes even more progressive? Now, I agree with one of your other posts - the tax code sucks. It needs to be revamped to eliminate the loopholes. But taxes aren't enough to get us out of this hole. Even if revenues went up a few percentage points that won't come close to putting a dent into the extra 25% that federal spending has ballooned over the past 2 years. In a related note - there's an interesting article about federal employees and how they're more likely to die than to get fired (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/debt-talks-continue-feds-are-hiring-and-never-firing). Are the government's hiring practices so secure that they only let go of 1/6th of the employees compared to private sector jobs?

I think many people have taken the tax issue to the point of religion. The economist recently had a good article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/18897489

Part of why I identify with the GOP, and TEA Party, in basic principle, is that when the government expands, it's almost impossible to shrink. What's an example of a major federal program which has just stopped existing? There have been a few name changes and revisions, but whenever a federal job/entity gets created it's generally around for good. That's a definite problem as time goes on - what's the leftist solution? Tax the rich! Even that will only work so long - what happens when there's no more rich to tax and your poor are still poor? Basically everyone is poor then, is that the leftist utopia? I hope not, and I will vote and campaign against it. I still stand by my opinion that if gay marriage and abortions were non-issues the GOP would win in landslides, over and over. Basically, in my mind the collectivists attempt to monopolize feminist ideals and present contradictory economic policys to attempt to rally their base whole heartedly against the GOP.

Why not name a few major federal programs you would think should disappear?

I'm liberal at least compared to you, and I could offer solutions on a number of issues. For example, Gay marriage is a result of where government has crossed the separation of church and state. Government should get out of the business of marriage entirely; instead, the government should have civil unions for any kind of partnership. Poverty in America could be partially combated with a focus on family. Many failed relationships with children produce single mothers raising children; as a result, poverty levels increase. There are many other areas that can be improved, but they require serious discussions instead of narratives. Unfortunately, serious discussions are hard to come by because of so many rigid ideologies.

I'm simply for practical governance where problems are identified, understood, and finally solved. My dream government is a boring one that functions scientifically instead of ideologically.

Finally there's the point of hate and how I feel many of the left have lost their perspective. Now my opinion may be a little slanted, but I cannot find any attempts by conservatives to silence liberals. How many petitions have circulated the internet, however, to 'ban conservative talk radio'. Where is the hate coming from? I don't feel any animosity towards political opposites, but turbo-1 in your ranting post about a slow driver - you made sure to point out that they had TEA Party bumper stickers (and I'm guessing you were seeing red because of it). Now, maybe this opinion is a bit hypocritical and I admit that - but it still doesn't mean I hate those of the opposite political affiliation. There are some that are posting in this thread which have some 'GOP ran over my dog' type hate in them, which is hardly productive - but to me it reinforces that many of the lefts policies are made with the heart instead of the head. This type of reaction is why I feel the arguement that the 'GOP has become extreme' is flawed - it's purely emotional and no real basis outside of 'a feeling'.

I think many Americans on both sides have lost perspective. Sometimes it is well to remember the person you argue with is a decent person and can be right.

Unfortunately, the media takes hold of feelings more than it does facts - 'real life has a left slant' when you ignore reason and fact. Now there is a resurgance of intellectualism in an attempt to 'prove' the GOP wrong. It seems I see, from my collectivist friends on facebook, a new 'fact' weekly about how the GOP is biggoted and hateful. (my favorite was a survey of a bunch of folks from mississippi - one of the questions was regarding interracial marriage, 50% self-identified republicans thought it should not be allowed - the democrat data was mysteriously missing for that sub-question (but was present for other portions of the survey results). Of course the leftists immediately draw the conclusion that 'GOP = racist' rather than a more general 'southern more likely to be racist' which is probably the truth).

I see this behaviour out of both sides. My greatest concern regarding media is unfiltered information. I'm not convinced that the average person has the ability to filter information.

SixNein

Jul21-11, 03:38 AM

Both the report and the article have zero or limited bearing on this conversation. For every group like the KKK there's an equivalently violent anti-capitalist leftist/socialist organization. Just because they (the racist/radical groups) associate with a plank or two of a political party doesn't mean they're aligned with them. These articles, if anything, only reinforce my point about the character assassination that is attempting to being done by the left. You're trying to associate some report on radical racist groups to the GOP and taking some biased NPR article out of context. Either way - even if these associations are true (they're not...) there's still zero bearing to the viability of the policy decisions that the GOP makes.

How can the GOP be 'blindly supporting Israel' but at the same time have a 'racist core' that is anti-semetic? Answer: they can't - the racist fringe groups are just that, fringe groups with no pull in the party. Whatever overlap or correlation you're trying to make is coincidental at best. This isn't the 50s and 60s when some state's Democratic conventions were held at KKK rallys. This is yet another example of what I was talking about - there's an attempt to prove that these GOP ideals are somehow aligned with the fringe groups in an effort to discredit the GOP.

Also, where were the crys of political correctness when President Bush was being called every 'retard' name in the book? If it's President Obama vs Palin or Bachmann in 2012... and Obama wins the election, does that mean that the GOP can call every leftist a sexist now? (just like the GOP is being called racist now)

No, I'm basing my sources off of discussions I have seen at heavy tea party traffic sites like the following:
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

The web site is like extremism in a bottle.

mege

Jul21-11, 04:45 AM

Why not just look at your own wording. A shift towards liberty? Your framing the discussion as if the only people who believe in liberty agree with you.

What's the implication? My premise is that this case for extremism is caused by a further shift on the left than on the right. My comment was meant to be taken a bit lightly as a transition. Your reaction to it might hint, as well, that you're less worried about it than I anyhow.

I think many people have taken the tax issue to the point of religion. The economist recently had a good article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/18897489

Ann Coulter wrote a book about the Church of Liberalism, and their blind adherence to ideals several years ago. It's quite good, actually.

Why not name a few major federal programs you would think should disappear?

Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Consumer Protection (or whatever they're calling it now), and Department of Labor to start. IMO these are all reactionary cabinet-level departments which had zero use outside of being political. "Hey look what I did for education, I created a department for it!" There's little that's done except be a clearing house for money, and between these 4 department the government employs over 100,000 people. They're self-serving with little practical purpose other than to have the government's obstructive hand in their respective areas.

I'm liberal at least compared to you, and I could offer solutions on a number of issues. For example, Gay marriage is a result of where government has crossed the separation of church and state. Government should get out of the business of marriage entirely; instead, the government should have civil unions for any kind of partnership. Poverty in America could be partially combated with a focus on family. Many failed relationships with children produce single mothers raising children; as a result, poverty levels increase. There are many other areas that can be improved, but they require serious discussions instead of narratives. Unfortunately, serious discussions are hard to come by because of so many rigid ideologies.

I agree on same-sex marriage, in a similar fashion. Marriage is a religious context that the government has decided to sanction for various legal simplifications. I feel that if same-sex couples feel so slighted under the law, then why not go to the source of the issue? If the discrimination was founded, why haven't gay couples sued, for instance, hospitals or insurance companies that denied coverage? This is a whole other debate - the relevency to this discussion, in my mind, comes down to the handling of DOMA. The President has little standing to 'declare the law void' like he tried to do. At least there's hearings in congress going on now about it.

Regarding family structure - I 100% agree. The welfare state, however, further allows for the degrading of the family unit. Single mothers no longer need to find a working husband, instead they can 'marry' the state in a sense. I'm OK with true-to-god safety nets being in place, but what needs to stop is the sustinance programs that exist in which people live their life tethered to government assistance. There needs to be exit strategies in place to move people off of government assistance. Unfortunately a 'get a job' ammendment to welfare isn't politically prudent.

I'm simply for practical governance where problems are identified, understood, and finally solved. My dream government is a boring one that functions scientifically instead of ideologically.

Here is some place I disagree - the government shouldn't need to be solving the issues of its citizens.

I think many Americans on both sides have lost perspective. Sometimes it is well to remember the person you argue with is a decent person and can be right.

I see this behaviour out of both sides. My greatest concern regarding media is unfiltered information. I'm not convinced that the average person has the ability to filter information.

No arguement here.

daveb

Jul21-11, 08:44 AM

Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Consumer Protection (or whatever they're calling it now), and Department of Labor to start.

I would have to disagree with you on these points (with caveats).

Dept. of Education:
As part of my M.Ed. program, I had to read (it seems) about a billion scholarly articles about a myriad of topics. I don't have them on my work computer (they're at home), but the crux of many of the articles is that K-12 STEM education in the US is mediocre at best when compared to educational systems worldwide (see the Nation's Report Card). Nordic countries such as Finland and Denmark, and S Korea have especially good educational systems. One of the main reasons for this was attributed to the the standardization of the curriculum in these countries (there were other reasons as well). The problem in the US is the Department of Education doesn't have standardization - it leaves the specific standards up to each state. So, if some state's students do poorly on their tests, the state just lowers the standard. The Department of Education needs to have national standards. So, in part, you are right. As it stands now, it isn't doing a very good job. If improved, there is a great need for it.

Dept. of Commerce
This department oversees the census, NIST, NOAA, and the patent office, among others. I don't see how eleimination of these programs would better the country.

Department of Consumer Protection
OK, since it's new, we'll have to wait and see. But (assuming their name reflects what they oversee), I would want Consumer Protection. Just like the ACLU's stated purpose is to protect civil liberties and defend the Bill of Rights (how can anyone disagree with wanting to protect those, despite disagreement about what constitutes civil liberties), I would want some type of government agency to ensure consumers are protected from dangerous products (I have to wonder why the FDA isn't under them, though).

Dept. of Labor
While I don't think it's as prevalent today as previous years, there is still discrimination in employment practices. In addition, OSHA is a necessary organization that protects workers from unsafe conditions.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with all their requirements, each of these serves a necessary function. Now, could some of the programs be eliminated - certainly (I can't say which since I don't have deep knowledge of all their programs). But elimination of the Departments is a tad extreme (IMO) unless you're simply advocating consolidating the necessary funstions of each into a single Department.

daveb

Jul21-11, 08:50 AM

Here is some place I disagree - the government shouldn't need to be solving the issues of its citizens.

While I respect his opinion, I disagree. The issues of a government are the issues of its citizens, and vice versa. Sometimes citizens are unable to solve their own issues due to physical inability, or more powerful interests preventing them from solving it. As I am fond of saying, while it's true I don't trust the government, I trust big business even less. Of course, that's the difference between those on the liberal side vs the conservative side - the role of government in its citizens' lives.

However, I do agree that the hate-mongering, vitriol and propaganda ia rampant on both sides. The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose.

WhoWee

Jul21-11, 08:59 AM

If Republicans allow the no-compromise tea party extremists to define the R party, and knowingly and willingly drive the US government into default, this may finally be the Republican mass suicide that I have predicted for some time now. Conservative columnist David Brooks commented on this in his July 4th column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

Re-starting with the OP is always a good idea - thank you Ivan.

David Brooks made a comment in your link that warrants discussion - his basic premise might be incorrect?
"The 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."

Did the Republicans change American politics - or did the voters send the Republicans back to Washington last Fall with a mandate to cut spending and lower the debt?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/poll-closing-key-east-coast-races-balance-power-line/
"Riding a wave of voter frustration over the economy and the federal government itself, the Republican Party sailed into the majority in the House of Representatives Tuesday with victories projected to be on a scale not seen since the end of the New Deal. "

Next, from SixNein's link
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124906766
"A new poll from Harris interactive finds that 40 percent of American adults think that Obama is a socialist; 25 percent believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore not eligible to be president; 20 percent say Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did; 14 percent say Obama "may be the Antichrist.""

If SixNein's information is correct - President Obama is the extremist with 40% of Americans thinking he's a Socialist- assuming socialism is still an extremist idea in the US?

As for your last post Ivan
"In all of that you did nothing to address Michelle Bachman's claim that there is no need to increase the debt ceiling. The link in the op was responding to this position and the unrealistic and absurd proposition that the tea partiers can bully the rest of the country into a fanatical policy. They would bring calamity to the economy. THAT is why the Republicans are unfit to govern.

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman]."

Again, MB is speaking for a large block of voters - the ones that put the Republicans back in the House. Her voice rally's the Tea Party base - and her NO vote on the debt ceiling isn't needed - is it?

We all know the debt ceiling will be raised - probably for another few months rather than until after the 2012 election as President Obama would prefer - but cuts in spending and a deficit reduction (debt repayment) plan will be necessary.

As for taxes - President Obama has made it very clear that taxes will need to increase to pay for his spending. Although he claims raising taxes on people who own corporate jets is the answer - we all know it's not enough. The only fair solution is to raise everyone's taxes - given only 40%+ of Americans actually pay FEDERAL income taxes presently.

President Obama made the tax increases required quite clear.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html
"Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals."

This budget was voted down by a large majority. However and again, if President Obama and Democrat leaders are unsuccessful in putting all of these tax increases onto the backs of people earning $250k and up - if cuts in spending are unacceptable then everyone will face the reality of tax increases as the bill must be paid.

WhoWee

Jul21-11, 09:11 AM

While I respect his opinion, I disagree. The issues of a government are the issues of its citizens, and vice versa. Sometimes citizens are unable to solve their own issues due to physical inability, or more powerful interests preventing them from solving it. As I am fond of saying, while it's true I don't trust the government, I trust big business even less. Of course, that's the difference between those on the liberal side vs the conservative side - the role of government in its citizens' lives.

However, I do agree that the hate-mongering, vitriol and propaganda ia rampant on both sides. The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose.

That is why we should take President Obama at his word?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
"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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

President Obama was also clear about the timing of tax increases to pay for his spending:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-i-want-raise-taxes-after-im-reelected

He specifies taxes need to be raised in 2013 "and the out years" - after the election and after he is out of office - the Republicans want to deal with the problem of spending and taxes NOW not later - is that wrong?

daveb

Jul21-11, 09:16 AM

That is why we should take President Obama at his word?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
"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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

President Obama was also clear about the timing of tax increases to pay for his spending:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-i-want-raise-taxes-after-im-reelected

He specifies taxes need to be raised in 2013 "and the out years" - after the election and after he is out of office - the Republicans want to deal with the problem of spending and taxes NOW not later - is that wrong?

Umm...WHAT? What in blazes are you disagreeing with in my post? I didn't say a single thing about Obama! And you ask others if they're trolls, or use strawmen?

WhoWee

Jul21-11, 09:28 AM

Umm...WHAT? What in blazes are you disagreeing with in my post? I didn't say a single thing about Obama! And you ask others if they're trolls, or use strawmen?

You posted "The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose."
My point is we must listen to what are leaders really say - regardless of how the pose the argument - the truth is in there somewhere. In my example, Senator Obama was against raising the debt limit and gave his reasons. Once elected, he oversaw huge spending increases. Now, he's clear the debt ceiling must be raised and taxes will need to be raised to pay for the spending. In lieu of cuts, I tend to agree with his words - as many others have - I just don't agree with his philosophy. This is not a strawman - I'm basically in agreement about your he said/she said argument - it goes nowhere.

Instead, you have to step back and look at the collection of a politicians speeches, votes, arguments, compromises, and strategies.

daveb

Jul21-11, 09:34 AM

You posted "The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose."
My point is we must listen to what are leaders really say - regardless of how the pose the argument - the truth is in there somewhere. In my example, Senator Obama was against raising the debt limit and gave his reasons. Once elected, he oversaw huge spending increases. Now, he's clear the debt ceiling must be raised and taxes will need to be raised to pay for the spending. In lieu of cuts, I tend to agree with his words - as many others have - I just don't agree with his philosophy. This is not a strawman - I'm basically in agreement about your he said/she said argument - it goes nowhere.

Instead, you have to step back and look at the collection of a politicians speeches, votes, arguments, compromises, and strategies.

Ah! As Emily Litella would say..."Nevermind!"

mheslep

Jul21-11, 12:23 PM

... WE ARE WORRIED!!

P.S. What happened to this?
JLdA1ikkoEc
The sentiment expressed in that inauguration speech, that the US will continue indefinitely to protect allies now utterly uninterested in protecting themselves is gone.

European politics
Charlemagne's notebook
Libya, Europe and the future of NATO
Always waiting for the US cavalry (http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato)

... However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.
...
Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.

BobG

Jul21-11, 12:57 PM

Regarding family structure - I 100% agree. The welfare state, however, further allows for the degrading of the family unit. Single mothers no longer need to find a working husband, instead they can 'marry' the state in a sense. I'm OK with true-to-god safety nets being in place, but what needs to stop is the sustinance programs that exist in which people live their life tethered to government assistance. There needs to be exit strategies in place to move people off of government assistance. Unfortunately a 'get a job' ammendment to welfare isn't politically prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something here, since states control their own welfare programs, supplemented by grants from the federal govt and a few limitations imposed by the federal govt if the states want to remain eligible for the grants.

Don't welfare recipients already have to find a job within 2 years?
http://www.welfareinfo.org/
The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.

I know there's some loopholes in some states, such as if the recipient is enrolled in some sort of job training program or college, but I thought the "get a job" amendment to welfare was implemented around 1996. In fact, welfare reform was one of the successes of a Republican Congress.

WhoWee

Jul28-11, 10:05 PM

I RARELY agree with Senator Lindsey Graham - but he said something very interesting in an interview tonight. In response to John McClain, he recalled the Balanced Budget Amendment missed by only 1 vote a decade ago - now we have at least $5 to $6Trillion more debt (he also cited George Stephanopoulis' book regarding how close the vote was). He called for a narrow Bill Up/Down for balanced budget - not a packaged deal - and I think he MIGHT be correct.

CAC1001

Jul29-11, 03:07 AM

And this proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you never heard of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station?

My computer's motherboard petered out on me so I was unable to connect to the Internet or the last week and a half (have to catch up on this thread!), but to answer your point, of course I have heard of them. I think you are mis-interpreting my point though (or maybe I wasn't writing my point in a clear way), I'm not saying NASA itself is some complete waste of money, but that, as an agency, it can blow money on things above and beyond what it should.

Space shuttle applications have included:

Science
Astronomy
Crystal growth
Space physics
Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
Manned experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
Components for the construction of the ISS
Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
Carried satellites with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D)
Chandra X-ray Observatory
Many TDRS satellites
Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System)
A Defense Support Program satellite
Magellan probe
Galileo spacecraft
Ulysses probe

The whole point of fundamental research is that we know from the beginning that all projects won’t be successful. But some of them will be very successful, and make all the difference in the world.

My understanding of it though is that the Space Shuttle costed far more than it was supposed to and was far more complex than it was originally supposed to be.

I.e., we need to "waste" money, on some project that will not be successful, to find those that is very successful – that’s the whole point!

No one can handpick the "good stuff" in advance, not even Einstein. Not one person on this planet could predict the importance of the research by Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, et al, on quantum theory/quantum mechanics. Not one.

Still, without the hard work of these guys, there would be no nuclear power, no internet, no IC computers, no cellular phones, no communication satellites, no GPS, no LCD, no HDD, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Hey, I am all for spending lots on a space program, but the space program must be devoted to actual space exploration and research, as it originally was, as opposed to becoming a government agency that just does everything it can in order to stay alive, which is what NASA became. Unfortunately this is a result of the public and the government losing interest completely in space.

What do you think Michele Bachman would have said to these QM geniuses?
- Sorry guys, it looks interesting, maybe, but we’re going to buy guns and bibles...

Actually, I think someone like Bachmann would be all for something like space exploration. Usually things like defense and space exploration are things Republicans are willing to spend lots of money on, they tend to be against things like entitlements. Usually (at least from what I have seen/read), it is the Democrats and Left who argue against spending money on things like outer space (usually the argument is put forward that we should use the money on poverty-fighting programs and healthcare and so forth).

Yes, there were tragic disasters in the Shuttle program, but there is no way for you today, to evaluate if the program was a complete waste of money, or not.

No, but it was like a typical government program in that the costs and complexity of it ballooned far beyond what they were supposed to.

Unless Michele Bachman becomes President, the exploration of space has just begun, and all the knowledge gained in the Shuttle program will of course have great value in the future, for coming generations.

Sure, but what makes you think Bachmann would kill the space program (or has she said such?). Current President Barack Obama killed the follow-on to the Space Shuttle NASA had planned. As it currently stands, unless Space-X can start successfully launching people into space, the United States is now dependent on the Russians to launch our astronauts into space.

mege

Jul29-11, 05:34 AM

Actually, I think someone like Bachmann would be all for something like space exploration. Usually things like defense and space exploration are things Republicans are willing to spend lots of money on, they tend to be against things like entitlements. Usually (at least from what I have seen/read), it is the Democrats and Left who argue against spending money on things like outer space (usually the argument is put forward that we should use the money on poverty-fighting programs and healthcare and so forth).

No, but it was like a typical government program in that the costs and complexity of it ballooned far beyond what they were supposed to.

Sure, but what makes you think Bachmann would kill the space program (or has she said such?). Current President Barack Obama killed the follow-on to the Space Shuttle NASA had planned. As it currently stands, unless Space-X can start successfully launching people into space, the United States is now dependent on the Russians to launch our astronauts into space.

Wrt GOP and space funding - it's tied into Global Competitiveness. If NASA is providing research that keeps the US globally competitive, then it's worth it. Because of the hyper-internationalization of the space projects in the last 20 years, GOP favor for NASA has slipped. It's seen has the US funding the competitiveness of other countrys in some ways, rather than just for the US.

Bottom line, however, if NASA was efficient and producing results within budget, the GOP would still give it a thumbs up. I think Rep. Bachmann is actually for limiting NASA, but mostly because it has become a poster-child for gov't waste more than any intrinsic scientific misgivings.

BobG

Jul29-11, 10:06 AM

Getting back on topic, I think the debt ceiling dilemma in the House may be the most realistic indication that the Republican Party may not be a viable party.

In order for this to be the nail in the coffin of Obama's re-election hopes, Republicans actually have to have a bill that gets voted on by the House - and then the Senate. If they can't even get a bill to a vote in the House, this whole thing falls apart for them.

And right now, your Republican House leaders can't get a bill that even Republicans agree on.

Or, as John McCain said:
The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama.... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth having defeated Mordor.

He goes on to say:
This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees.

The reality is the debt limit will be raised one way or the other.... If conservatives defeat the [GOP] plan, they will not only undermine their House majority, they will go far to reelecting Mr. Obama and making entitlements that much harder to reform.

Mark Meckler of the Tea Party Patriots responded via CNN.
Clearly he's been corrupted by the ring of power.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mccain-tea-party-20110728,0,2277765.story

Right now, I think it has to be acknowledged that the Republican Party has split and that the Tea Party is pretty much a de facto political party of its own, independent of the Republican Party. Regardless of whether that turns out to be true, the inability of Boehner to bring the Tea Party caucus into line pretty much dooms any chance of getting a legislative bill that has any chance of reaching Obama's desk.

BobG

Jul29-11, 01:35 PM

One effect of the debt ceiling debate will be Tea Party groups going on the attack against Republicans.

Tea Party groups targeting defectors (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174289-tea-party-groups-targeting-four-defectors)

Except in this case, defecting means Republicans voting for the Republican debt ceiling bill.

Does it matter? It sure does when Tea Party candidates run as Republicans in the primaries. Primary elections are notorious for poor turnout. Primary elections are the perfect target for fringe groups, since an effort to turn out your supporters for a primary election have a much better chance of paying off than in the general election.

Ivan Seeking

Jul29-11, 01:40 PM

BobG

Jul29-11, 01:49 PM

I think the credible Republicans should cut a deal with Dems in the House. That is the solution here.

They have to make the tea party irrelevant and force a split. But either way, the Reps have big problems. What they should do is target moderate Dems.

I'm pretty sure that that will be the final result after all is said and done. The debt ceiling bill will be written by a Democrat (maybe Reid's bill?) and will be just good enough to pull in just enough Republican votes to pass. They have to hold out as long as possible, though, and give Boehner every chance possible to make this a Republican bill. It's going to be pretty bad if the majority party winds up having the minority party write this legislation.

WhoWee

Jul29-11, 01:56 PM

I think the credible Republicans should cut a deal with Dems in the House. That is the solution here.

They have to make the tea party irrelevant and force a split. But either way, the Reps have big problems. What they should do is target moderate Dems.

I hope Boehner has a strategy worked out with a few key Senate Republicans - someone needs to close Harry Reid. IMO - the President will sign whatever Reid puts on his desk.

Ivan Seeking

Aug12-11, 10:04 PM

The Iowa Republican primary debate last night.

BAIER: Well, I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10 to one, as — as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases.

Speaker, you’re already shocking your head.

But who on this stage would walk away from that deal?

Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10 to one deal?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/12/full-transcript-complete-text-of-the-iowa-republican-debate-on-fox-news-channel/

I believe every candidate raised their hand. Not one would support any taxes even given a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases. However, when we consider what the American people want...

A slew of 23 recent polls compiled by the website Capital Gains and Games show that Americans overwhelmingly support tax increases as a way to reduce the deficit.

The polls, posted by Bruce Bartlett -- a former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush who later became a critic of George W. Bush, span the last several months and suggest that Americans consistently believe deficit reductions should not be achieved by spending cuts alone.

An August 10 Gallup poll cited in the compilation, 66 percent of respondents said they thought the federal debt should be reduced by including income tax increases for upper-income Americans
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20091210-503544.html

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. But they have no choice but to appeal to their base if they are to win the primary. Even worse, their position is logically and morally flawed. There is no justification for this absurd, purely ideological position. And, finally, America is smelling a rat. Congress has never seen such low approval ratings. It seems the tea party hasn't quite captured the heart of the country.

David Gergen's comment today comes to mind: ~ Obama has a lot of problems and he's injured. The only thing he has going for him is the field of Republicans!

The Republicans have allowed the radical right to completely define the party, and now they will pay for that.

CAC1001

Aug13-11, 01:14 AM

turbo

Aug13-11, 02:21 AM

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. But they have no choice but to appeal to their base if they are to win the primary. Even worse, their position is logically and morally flawed. There is no justification for this absurd, purely ideological position. And, finally, America is smelling a rat. Congress has never seen such low approval ratings. It seems the tea party hasn't quite captured the heart of the countryIt's worse than that, IMO. The GOP that I used to whole-heartedly endorse when I was in my teens an twenties (to the disgust of my father, whose family suffered through the Depression) has given in completely to the Grover Norquist-led anti-tax movement.

It is obvious that in order for our government to have revenues to work with, taxes and fees must be levied. The hard-right (which now encompasses most of the mainstream GOP, it seems) denies this, and claims that we must cut taxes to get out of our debt problems. Huh? If we look at our household finances (which the GOP continuously holds up as an example of "living within our means"), this would be tantamount to claiming that we would be in better financial shape by reducing our family's income (wage-reduction, or fewer worked hours, perhaps) because that would force us to budget and spend less. That's a pretty stupid idea. There are plenty of things that we can stop spending on (defense, ethanol, mega-farm subsidies, etc come to mind) to reduce spending without FIRST reducing our income. It is sad that our supposedly "liberal" media can't manage to cover this mendacity.

DoggerDan

Aug13-11, 04:44 AM

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

I agree. Show me the cuts, first. However, there's nothing wrong with cutting the taxes at the same time.

I've not done the best job of saving for my retirement. I did better in the second half of my career than the first, but had I done the same things during the first half, I'd have three to four times as much, not just twice as much.

Now I'm living in a 1 BR, 1 BA apartment, spend less than $50 on internet+phone+movies, and shop the generic foods. I'm spending about half of what I used to spend each month. Why? I have to, as that's all I can afford!

It's why I support both a balanced budget as well as a zero dollar debt ceiling.

WhoWee

Aug13-11, 11:54 AM

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

Exactly. Newt specified instead of a new group of 12 - why not send of all the existing committees back to find fraud, waste, duplication and other potential cuts ALREADY under their control? Why do we refuse to hold these people accountable?

WhoWee

Aug13-11, 01:08 PM

Rick Perry made it official - let the religious attacks from the (apparently God-less?) Left begin - IMO:rolleyes:.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/13/us-usa-politics-perry-idUSTRE77C1EI20110813?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

"Rick Perry, the conservative governor of Texas, declared himself a candidate for president on Saturday, shaking up the race for the Republican nomination to face Democratic President Barack Obama in 2012."

OmCheeto

Aug13-11, 01:49 PM

P.S. What happened to this?
JLdA1ikkoEc
me: democrat: April 2009: Decided I should invest in America, and asked my brother what he thought of GE as an investment
my brother: republican: April 2009: told me not to buy GE because they did business with Iran
me: democrat: April 2009: googled "American companies that did business with Iran". Saw Halliburton on the list. Bought GE.

me: democrat: May 2009: purchased a brand new Ford made in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Cities_Assembly_Plant).
my brother: republican: May 2009: purchased a car made in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_%28automobile%29).

me: democrat: April 2011: sold all my stock in GE when I found out they'd given America the "We don't need to pay no stinking taxes" finger. Invested all the profits in an upstart company. (The one that made me $500 in one hour on Tuesday. :!!))
my brother: republican: July 2011: Works as an engineer for Xerox. Told me his job was being outsourced to India.

being a democrat: free
paying taxes: ~$15,000/year
knowing my republican brother's job is being outsourced to India: priceless

There are some things that money can buy, but the best things in life are when you can just say; "Ha! Ha!"

:blushing:

Willowz

Aug13-11, 01:58 PM

Newt Gingrich = Dick Cheyney [?]

CAC1001

Aug13-11, 07:16 PM

It is obvious that in order for our government to have revenues to work with, taxes and fees must be levied. The hard-right (which now encompasses most of the mainstream GOP, it seems) denies this, and claims that we must cut taxes to get out of our debt problems. Huh?

The GOP recognizes that much of our problems are also due to spending too much. No amount of money will fix the problem of a government that spends too much. Just look at California's current financial predicament for example. That said, the idea behind the tax cuts many in the GOP are calling for is to reduce rates and simplify the tax code, but end all the various loop holes. That is what was done to a good degree under Ronald Reagan. Some people were ticked off when the top rate was reduced from 70% to 28% because certain loopholes they made use of were closed, and they ended up paying more money to the government.

Bill O'Reilly I know has called for a national sales tax to tap into the underground economy (a trillion dollars he says).

If we look at our household finances (which the GOP continuously holds up as an example of "living within our means"), this would be tantamount to claiming that we would be in better financial shape by reducing our family's income (wage-reduction, or fewer worked hours, perhaps) because that would force us to budget and spend less. That's a pretty stupid idea.

IMO, if a family is spending too excessively and getting themselves into crazy levels of debt, that is precisely one of the things that should be done. Cut their income enough to force them to start living within their means. What the Democrats are suggesting is to give this family that is spending excessively an even higher income to fix their problems. You do that, and you'll only see them get into even higher levels of debt.

There are plenty of things that we can stop spending on (defense, ethanol, mega-farm subsidies, etc come to mind) to reduce spending without FIRST reducing our income. It is sad that our supposedly "liberal" media can't manage to cover this mendacity.

Regarding areas of legitimate waste in defense, I agree with cutting, but many areas of defense need to be increased as it is, not decreased. They can't be done because the money isn't there right now, but cutting those areas would be too dangerous. Defense spending, as a percentage of the GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and as a percentage of government spending, is at historical lows as it is. Also, defense is not the main budget buster. You could eliminate the entire defense budget and still not close the deficit.

Ethanol I agree with, but that will never happen because any politician who supports cutting ethanol subsidies slits their throat with the Iowa vote (which I really find dispicable, as are so many Iowans of the mindset that they are entitled to freebies from the government and will punish someone who removes them?). Mega-farm subsidies I also agree with.

CAC1001

Aug13-11, 07:18 PM

knowing my republican brother's job is being outsourced to India: priceless

Part of free trade.

turbo

Aug13-11, 08:19 PM

There are some things that money can buy, but the best things in life are when you can just say; "Ha! Ha!"

:blushing:Years back, I owned one of the first Datsun/Nissan 4x4 pickups in the area. Some of the rabid flag-wavers on the paper machine gave me crap for driving a Japanese vehicle, even though it was built in Smyrna by US workers. Most telling was the fact that I was the only person in the paper machine crew that owned a Harley. Everybody else that had a motorcycle rode Japanese bikes. When one of those jerks gave me crap about my truck, I'd let it ride until a few of their "buy American" friends were present and let them have it and ask them what they were riding.

More recently, I got crap from a brother-in-law for buying a Honda Ridgeline pickup. Clueless, as usual, he had no idea that they are all built here in the US. There isn't a market in Japan for an AWD crew cab 3/4 ton pickup with 5000# towing capacity. The right-wing seems to have managed to tap into knee-jerk nationalism in their base - not that they haven't been working at it for decades.

russ_watters

Aug13-11, 09:59 PM

I believe every candidate raised their hand. Not one would support any taxes even given a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases. However, when we consider what the American people want...

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. Before the election last year, Obama called for an INCREASE in spending. So who'se really more out of step?

It's primary season - it is natural for them to appeal to their base.

turbo

Aug13-11, 10:16 PM

Before the election last year, Obama called for an INCREASE in spending. So who'se really more out of step?

It's primary season - it is natural for them to appeal to their base.Russ, that's all well and good during the primary season. What's going to happen to the GOP nominee in the general election when the Dems replay footage from the debate and NO GOP candidate would agree to take a deficit-reduction deal that had 10 parts cost-cutting to 1 part revenue increases?

IMO, Grover Norquist and his ilk are going to radicalize and marginalize the GOP to the point where the past checks-and-balances of a 2-party system will no longer be viable. That's not good for the country.

Ivan Seeking

Aug13-11, 11:01 PM

Before the election last year, Obama called for an INCREASE in spending. So who'se really more out of step?

It's primary season - it is natural for them to appeal to their base.

Since you didn't cite any specific reference and only provided a generic, unsupported allegation, there is no way to even in respond to that statement.

If you mean in terms of stimulus, that isn't a matter of appealing to the base. That is a matter of economics and a struggling recovery. I as much as anyone want to see a reduction in spending and a balanced budget, but how we do that, and how fast, are different matters all together. Drastic spending cuts now could stifle the recovery, reduce growth, and throw us into a double-dip recession. Given the problems in Europe, the situation is still quite critical. For now, and only for now, reduced growth could be far more costly than continued spending. We all know that we need to make major cuts as soon as the economy will allow. And Obama and Geithner are the first to say so.

Ivan Seeking

Aug13-11, 11:12 PM

IMO, Grover Norquist and his ilk are going to radicalize and marginalize the GOP to the point where the past checks-and-balances of a 2-party system will no longer be viable. That's not good for the country.

My guess: Either the tea party dies, it diverges from the Republicans, or we see a new more moderate party emerge. My vote would be for a new party that pulls moderates from both parties. I would sign on in a heartbeat.

I honestly don't know if the Republican party is even salvageable at this point. I do know that as the party stands, they will never get my vote again. Even for local elections, I may start voting a straight ticket as the norm; except where there are viable Independents.

turbo

Aug14-11, 01:56 AM

My guess: Either the tea party dies, it diverges from the Republicans, or we see a new more moderate party emerge. My vote would be for a new party that pulls moderates from both parties. I would sign on in a heartbeat.Between Norquist and the Koch brothers, they will arrange for fringe-y, unknown Tea Partiers to enter the primaries and challenge any GOP incumbent that even thinks about raising taxes. The partisans will buy massive blocks of ads for the TP candidates. In small TV markets like Maine, they might be able to make ad-buys so expensive that incumbents are hard-pressed to keep up.

Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the Citizens United ruling. If a large group of Republicans told the Tea Party where to go, Norquist and the Koch brothers might not have the resources to challenge them all in the primaries. Unfortunately, those GOP reps and senators want to keep their cushy jobs, their perks, their health-care and retirement, and most of all, those fat "speaking fees" for saying a few words over breakfast to the fat-cats that their most "generous" lobbyists shill for.

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 02:28 AM

Between Norquist and the Koch brothers, they will arrange for fringe-y, unknown Tea Partiers to enter the primaries and challenge any GOP incumbent that even thinks about raising taxes. The partisans will buy massive blocks of ads for the TP candidates. In small TV markets like Maine, they might be able to make ad-buys so expensive that incumbents are hard-pressed to keep up.

Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the Citizens United ruling. If a large group of Republicans told the Tea Party where to go, Norquist and the Koch brothers might not have the resources to challenge them all in the primaries. Unfortunately, those GOP reps and senators want to keep their cushy jobs, their perks, their health-care and retirement, and most of all, those fat "speaking fees" for saying a few words over breakfast to the fat-cats that their most "generous" lobbyists shill for.

Care to support your assertions? I could list all of the well known "fat-cat" Left Wingers (like Beck's "scary dude" character?) but you'll just cry not fair - I'll label IMO - and consider your narrative silly as well.

Ivan Seeking

Aug14-11, 11:36 AM

And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. Who comes in next? Ron Paul!

Watch her lie and obfuscate on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

This is the woman who, in stark contrast to economists of all brands, argued that we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, but now says she still would have paid all of the bills. Double-talk through and through. Apparently she skipped math class. It we could pay all the bills without raising the debt ceiling, there wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

She also now claims that when she says she will be "submissive to her husband", what she really means is that she respects him. So submission and respect are the same thing. Apparently she skipped her English classes as well as her math classes. [Isn't this precisely the sort of definition drift that Orwell talked about?]

I too was once very religious and I know exactly what is meant when a religious [fundamentalist Christian] person talks about women being submissive to their husbands. It means just that - the man is in charge. Apparently she skipped bible study - in particular the part about honesty.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/b131/1312835716-michele-bachmann-newsweek.jpg

Willowz

Aug14-11, 11:53 AM

Any appeals to Christian values by politicians is utter BS. If these people were true children of the Gospel, they'd all be socialists.

Vanadium 50

Aug14-11, 12:35 PM

If these people were true children of the Gospel, they'd all be socialists.

I think that's arguable. The case can be made that personal charity is a greater good than state-mandated charity.

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 12:50 PM

OmCheeto

Aug14-11, 01:06 PM

Years back, I owned one of the first Datsun/Nissan 4x4 pickups in the area. Some of the rabid flag-wavers on the paper machine gave me crap for driving a Japanese vehicle, even though it was built in Smyrna by US workers. Most telling was the fact that I was the only person in the paper machine crew that owned a Harley. Everybody else that had a motorcycle rode Japanese bikes. When one of those jerks gave me crap about my truck, I'd let it ride until a few of their "buy American" friends were present and let them have it and ask them what they were riding.

More recently, I got crap from a brother-in-law for buying a Honda Ridgeline pickup. Clueless, as usual, he had no idea that they are all built here in the US. There isn't a market in Japan for an AWD crew cab 3/4 ton pickup with 5000# towing capacity. The right-wing seems to have managed to tap into knee-jerk nationalism in their base - not that they haven't been working at it for decades.

I just went over the list of cars I've ever owned, there were 4 foreign made, and 4 domestic. My previous 7 were used cars, so I don't see that it made any difference in any nation's economy. When I was shopping for my new car, I was seriously looking at a PT Cruiser. But when I found out they were made in Mexico, it was dropped from my list. My younger brothers job(crane operator in a steel mill) was outsourced to Mexico about 5 years ago. He now mows laws for a living, and I'm quite certain he's one of those people who "doesn't pay taxes" now. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I don't have a problem with Mexico, or Mexicans, but I do have a problem with people who are too stupid to realize the effects of their being such cheapskates that they would buy foreign products, which results in the loss of decent paying American jobs, which results in the loss of tax revenue, which results in an increase in our debt, but they vote for people who've signed a pledge of "no tax increases", which only makes matters worse, for everyone. Except for rich people of course. But since we can't define what a rich person is, I guess my point is moot.

ps. I voted for Gordon Smith(R) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_H._Smith) in the last election. I'm a bad, bad, democrat. :blushing:

OmCheeto

Aug14-11, 01:13 PM

Personal attacks on women usually indicate fear on the Left - IMO.:rofl:

I would say that personal attacks on idiots indicates intelligence on the part of the attacker, regardless of the attackee's gender, race, and/or choice of breakfast cereals. - IMO :biggrin:

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 01:18 PM

turbo

Aug14-11, 01:30 PM

I would say that personal attacks on idiots indicates intelligence on the part of the attacker, regardless of the attackee's gender, race, and/or choice of breakfast cereals. - IMO :biggrin:How dare you? Who else knew that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire, and that the founding fathers worked tirelessly until there was no more slavery in the US? Where can we find her intellectual equal? Perhaps Sarah Palin will agree to take the VP slot, so we can learn more about how Paul Revere rode around ringin' those bells and warning the British...

It's scary that so many ignorant people want to give those loons a shot at running the country. They are dangerously misinformed even about grade-school history.

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 01:34 PM

How dare you? Who else knew that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire, and that the founding fathers worked tirelessly until there was no more slavery in the US? Where can we find her intellectual equal? Perhaps Sarah Palin will agree to take the VP slot, so we can learn more about how Paul Revere rode around ringin' those bells and warning the British...

It's scary that so many ignorant people want to give those loons a shot at running the country. They are dangerously misinformed even about grade-school history.

FEAR is hanging like a thick fog over this thread as the personal attacks continue.

turbo

Aug14-11, 01:36 PM

FEAR is hanging like a thick fog over this thread as the personal attacks continue.Quoting their ignorant statements is a personal attack? Let's get real. If Obama had said ignorant patently false things like these two have, you'd be all over him.

Willowz

Aug14-11, 01:37 PM

The case can be made that personal charity is a greater good than state-mandated charity.Why should personal charity be a greater good than state mandated charity? Can you provide reasonable justification for this assumption?

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 01:45 PM

Quoting their ignorant statements is a personal attack? Let's get real. If Obama had said ignorant patently false things like these two have, you'd be all over him.

Should the President of the United States know how many states we have (now) - or is it more important to have a working grasp of 200+ year old dates and events?

turbo

Aug14-11, 02:03 PM

You know exactly what I mean. Mis-speaking about campaign stops and/or the states and territories one has visited is a whole lot different than being ignorant of grade-school history. If you think that Obama truly doesn't know how many states are in the US, you have clearly drunk the Kool Aid.

I did not attack Bachmann or Palin - just quoted them. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether either if them is the sharpest tool in the shed.

Char. Limit

Aug14-11, 02:03 PM

Should the President of the United States know how many states we have (now) - or is it more important to have a working grasp of 200+ year old dates and events?

Can we just shut up already about the 57 states mistake? That's what it was: a mistake. You really expect me to think you've never made a mistake? Ever?

Jesus Christ, it was three years ago. And it's brought up by every single conservative in America daily (note: hyperbole). Let it go.

WhoWee

Aug14-11, 02:59 PM

Can we just shut up already about the 57 states mistake? That's what it was: a mistake. You really expect me to think you've never made a mistake? Ever?

Jesus Christ, it was three years ago. And it's brought up by every single conservative in America daily (note: hyperbole). Let it go.

My point is that Bachman made a mistake as well - it doesn't mean she's incompetent. If it's necessary to lump her together with things Palin has said - then perhaps we need to combine President Obama's words with his Vice President Joe Biden?

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 04:52 PM

And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll.

WTF??? :surprised She had 13% or something when I looked at CNN the other day??? :confused:

Double-talk through and through.

And I would add "Double-entry bookkeeping":
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bachmann-20110626,0,7475882,full.story

Bachmann's had her share of government aid - Los Angeles Times

But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

Isn’t it cute? I love this divine truth-teller! :!!) (:mad:)

http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/b131/1312835716-michele-bachmann-newsweek.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eesuH_9bSjM
eesuH_9bSjM

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 05:04 PM

my brother: republican: July 2011: Works as an engineer for Xerox. Told me his job was being outsourced to India.

Maybe Bachmann could be outsourced to North Korea?? :uhh:

(:wink:)

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 05:23 PM

P.S. What happened to this?
JLdA1ikkoEc
The sentiment expressed in that inauguration speech, that the US will continue indefinitely to protect allies now utterly uninterested in protecting themselves is gone.

There must be some misunderstanding... when GWB was in the House, we (Europeans) wondered if we should sell all our stocks in Planet Earth... now when Michele "Government Aid" Bachmann is staring at us – we know that’s the right thing to do.

This is not what I’m talking about. JFK’s speech seems like some wizard wisdom from the future, yet it’s 50 years old. The mantra of today seems to be – "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask how you can burn the damned thing down!"

:bugeye:

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 05:31 PM

.. Actually, didn't Werner Heisenberg win a Nobel?

Yes, but where can you find another eggplant that can cut brush in the hot Texas sun? And you forgot to mention Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter".

A hundred years?? That's beyond comprehension. I'm lucky if I can remember what happened last week.

Again. I don't understand. Can you put noodles in coffee too?

Who wrote that commie propaganda? Hang 'em!
...

More seditious commie crap trying to poison our minds with rational thoughts.

How can you love us when we hate each other in the finest American tradition?

No need to worry. Just acquire a taste for noodles and eggplant.

Who's he? Sounds like some foreigner with a funny accent trying to tell us what to do.

EDIT: By the way, Michele Bachmann is a tax lawyer who worked for the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Anyone who immerses themselves in US tax law too long can be excused if they longer can think rationally. They're lucky if they can think at all.

HAHA LOL!! :rofl::rofl::rofl: With this kind of excellent humor maybe everything will be okay!! :biggrin:

Proton Soup

Aug14-11, 05:31 PM

There must be some misunderstanding... when GWB was in the House, we (Europeans) wondered if we should sell all our stocks in Planet Earth... now when Michele "Government Aid" Bachmann is staring at us – we know that’s the right thing to do.

This is not what I’m talking about. JFK’s speech seems like some wizard wisdom from the future, yet it’s 50 years old. The mantra of today seems to be – "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask how you can burn the damned thing down!"

:bugeye:

nothing is harder to put out than a Greece fire, eh?

turbo

Aug14-11, 05:50 PM

Maybe Bachmann could be outsourced to North Korea?? :uhh:

(:wink:)If she would take Palin, then Palin might actually be able to see Russia from her house.

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 05:59 PM

If she would take Palin, then Palin might actually be able to see Russia from her house.

MUHAHAHA!!! :rofl::biggrin::rofl:

This getting better and better!!! 10++

DevilsAvocado

Aug14-11, 06:10 PM

nothing is harder to put out than a Greece fire, eh?

Yeah, I know exactly what you’re talking about... compared to Greece... well, you’re all in Disneyland over there. You don’t have any (real) problems, yet (but it will come if you don’t do something).

EU is a freaking academic kindergarten for overpaid adults that never had a "real" job in their entire life, IMHO. They try to 'play' "The United States of Europe", but someone forgot to bring all the rules, before starting, and now we’re f**ked up. Greece is going to burn down... no doubt about it.

However I live in the Kommunismus Kingdom of Schweden, and we voted NO to EMU (Euro), that is "We the People" (as Ted Nugent would have said :tongue:), not because we don’t wanna play with Berlusconi, but because it was easy to see that "the rules" wasn’t thought thru all the way.

The finance people called the NO voters – "Unemployed communists living on welfare above the Polar Circle"

They are very quiet today... :biggrin:

But when Greece goes, we all go, and probably to some extent even you guys over there.

That’s why this "dysfunctional mess" couldn’t have come at a 'better' moment...

*sigh*

P.S. Giorgos Papandreou doesn’t have the A-bomb, the only good thing at the moment...

CAC1001

Aug14-11, 06:33 PM

turbo

Aug14-11, 06:36 PM

What gets me with the media publication such as Newsweek is I remember reading somewhere where journalists were saying they expect the American people to trust them to report objectively on the different issues, but then they go and do blatantly biased things (such as the Michele Bachmann cover photo). No need to resort to such things to levy legitimate criticism on the woman.Do you remember a rather unflattering picture of a male Democratic presidential candidate hitting all the rags a while back? Hint: he was prominent in Dem national politics in the last few years. The TV networks all picked up his screaming to his supporters and ran it over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc

Yep! The "liberal" media only paints conservative women in unflattering lights.

CAC1001

Aug14-11, 06:43 PM

Do you remember a rather unflattering picture of a male Democratic presidential candidate hitting all the rags a while back? Hint: he was prominent in Dem national politics in the last few years. The TV networks all picked up his screaming to his supporters and ran it over and over.

Not sure which one you are referring to, but now that you mention it, I do remember this cover from (although I do not think was ill-intentioned on the part of The New Yorker as it endorsed Barack Obama):

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/obama-michelle-new-yorker.jpg

turbo

Aug14-11, 06:45 PM

No, it was Howard Dean, urging his supporters on after a 3rd-place finish in Iowa.

CAC1001

Aug14-11, 06:46 PM

turbo

Aug14-11, 06:56 PM

Ahhh, okay, yeah, Howard Dean, I remember seeing that. I was talking more about photos on magazines though. I also don't think the Left in the media were too concerned about Howard Dean as they had Hillary and Obama as their top picks.
Stills from that rally were all over the magazines, papers, etc all over the country, and that scream was practically being looped on FOX.

OmCheeto

Aug14-11, 07:28 PM

And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. ...

If it's any consolation to everyone on the planet, here are the results of the Ames Straw Polls from it's inception:

Year... A.S.P. winner .......... Elected President
1980... Bush, George H. W. ..... Ronald Reagan
1988... Robertson, Pat ......... George H. W. Bush
1996... Dole, Bob .............. Bill Clinton
2000... Bush, George W. ........ George W. Bush
2008... Romney, Mitt ........... Barack Obama
2012... Bachmann, Michele ...... TBD

And what were the results of the 2000 election again?

2000 election .. G.W. Bush ..... Al Gore
Popular vote ... 50,456,002 .... 50,999,897

So they've got a zero percent batting average.

There is a god (and may she smite Sarah Bachmann with a pox and some randomly placed boils....)

Proton Soup

Aug14-11, 08:52 PM

Do you remember a rather unflattering picture of a male Democratic presidential candidate hitting all the rags a while back? Hint: he was prominent in Dem national politics in the last few years. The TV networks all picked up his screaming to his supporters and ran it over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc

Yep! The "liberal" media only paints conservative women in unflattering lights.

that's right, it's not the liberal media, it's the establishment media. and they LOVE war.

that Dean scream is still funny, btw. maybe not fair, but to be honest, the reason it doesn't play very well is that it doesn't come across as particularly male.

and speaking of protecting your image, here's another blast from the past that came back to haunt a candidate.

X244jadVnRU

turbo

Aug14-11, 09:11 PM

that's right, it's not the liberal media, it's the establishment media. and they LOVE war.

that Dean scream is still funny, btw. maybe not fair, but to be honest, the reason it doesn't play very well is that it doesn't come across as particularly male.

and speaking of protecting your image, here's another blast from the past that came back to haunt a candidate.

X244jadVnRUAh yes, the Dukakis tank scene. If he hadn't been a conservative woman, the media would have given him some space.

NOT! There is a whole lot of history-blind revisionism being perpetrated by the right, instead of making fair appraisals of candidates' positions. Of course, rational discourse doesn't sell a lot of commercials.

OmCheeto

Aug14-11, 10:49 PM

...

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman].

Do you still feel that way after Romney's "exchange" the other day?

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Mr. Romney responded, as the hecklers shouted back, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” (ref) (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/us/politics/12romney.html)

Well, after googling and doing some research, I've found that the money is just sitting there, doing nothing:

# Back in the U.S., companies are squeezing more productivity out of staffs thinned out by layoffs during Great Recession. They don't need to hire. And they don't need to be generous with pay raises; they know their employees have nowhere else to go.

# Companies remain reluctant to spend the $1.9 trillion in cash they've accumulated, especially in the United States. (ref) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/)

$1.9 trillion? Math time! $1.9e12/($40,000/year salary) = 47,500,000 people? vs unemployment rate: 13.9 million (ref) (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
That can't be right. Someone check my math.

But Romney did have some good advice at the end:

When he realized he wasn’t changing any hecklers’ minds, he said they were free to vote for someone else. “I’m not going to raise taxes — that’s my answer,” he said. “And if you want someone who can raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama.”

Ok then, I will.

daveb

Aug15-11, 08:13 AM

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

By that logic, why agree to spending cuts if they never occur anyway, and just try to figure a way out without spending cuts?

daveb

Aug15-11, 10:11 AM

Why should personal charity be a greater good than state mandated charity? Can you provide reasonable justification for this assumption?

His point is that it's more moral to want to donate than to be forced to donate.

daveb

Aug15-11, 10:13 AM

Yep! The "liberal" media only paints conservative women in unflattering lights.

The media paints anyone they can in an unflattering light so as to sell more of their product to a society all too eager to gobble it up.

Char. Limit

Aug15-11, 01:22 PM

daveb, there's a multi-quote button in the bottom right of every post that I think might be helpful to you here.

CAC1001

Aug15-11, 03:34 PM

Russ, that's all well and good during the primary season. What's going to happen to the GOP nominee in the general election when the Dems replay footage from the debate and NO GOP candidate would agree to take a deficit-reduction deal that had 10 parts cost-cutting to 1 part revenue increases?

This one I'd think should be very simple to answer. The GOP candidate should just point out when taxes are increased, the corresponding spending cuts virtually never occur.

IMO, Grover Norquist and his ilk are going to radicalize and marginalize the GOP to the point where the past checks-and-balances of a 2-party system will no longer be viable. That's not good for the country.

This has been being said about the Republican party for the past fifty years or so.

Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the Citizens United ruling.

No it isn't. Citizen's United only allows for unlimited spending by corporations in elections (and only for domestic corporations at that I believe; foreign corporations are banned from engaging in unlimited spending, and there are other laws that limit foreign influence in American elections). It did not undo the law that prevents corporations from making unlimited donations to a politician's campaign.

mheslep

Aug15-11, 04:26 PM

... foreign corporations are banned from engaging in unlimited spending, and there are other laws that limit foreign influence in American elections). It did not undo the law that prevents corporations from making unlimited donations to a politician's campaign.For that matter foreign anything (individual, corporation, nation) is banned from funding US political campaigns.

moejoe15

Aug15-11, 04:32 PM

mheslep

Aug15-11, 05:55 PM

Of course the republican party is viable. Look at how it has evolved to bear almost no resemblance to the values it once had. It has been hijacked by religious zealots who would like nothing better than to hurry the apocalypse along so they can disappear in the rapture. If Americans think Obama is bad, wait till a Perry, Palin or Bachman gets in the white house. Our forefathers were religious and sprinkled government with references to god yet they still knew that mixing politics and religion was a bad idea. That seems to be lost on us now.In referencing 'party' I assume you mean this characterization is pervasive, widespread among Republicans:

The highest ranking Republican politicians in the US now are Speaker Boehner and Minority leader Senator McConnell. Please demonstrate how you known they plan to hurry the apocalypse. Or, if by 'hijacked' you mean recently elected officials we can examine them. From the 2010 elections in the Senate the freshmen are Boozman, Rubio, Coats, Moran, Paul, Blunt, Ayotte, Hoeven, Portman, Toomey, Lee, Johnson, and there are some ~80 freshmen Republicans in the House from 2010. Among them all: no Jerry Falwell (dead), no Pat Robertson. Please demonstrate how these officials express their religious zealotry; surely they have made some speeches far more religous than, say, Lincoln's 2nd inaugural (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html) ("...the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.")?

Now, perhaps the above damnation of Republicans was not meant to be taken literally, as an observation of reality; instead it may well be that the post derives from a strongly held belief on this subject, something taken on a faith gathered from family, friends, or even a political evangelist who sends letters containing fire and brimstone warnings about Republicans and asking for donations to the cause. In that case, Amen?

Oh, ps: Palin holds no office, is running for no office.