Metro Jacksonville

Any thoughts on last nights address?

For anyone that missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/v/O08VHT6TsRM?version=3&hl=en_US

I thought it was a bunch of blame passing, fear mongering, and then quoting past presidents to try and make the public think that Obama actually stands for what they stood for.

Then Boehner did the same thing, but with his cool theatrical voice.

All in all, it's just sad that it has come to this.  A public he said she said just as a PR stunt.  If they had spent the 5 hours that each of them and their staffs spent prepping for that address on the debt issue, we might be finished with this. 

I'm glad the NFL players and owners can come to an agreement before our US Congress and the President.

I'm stocking up on gold and ammo.

I actually thought the President was pretty middle-of-the-road...didn't blame anybody specifically

Then Boehner came in and generally attacked the Preseident....it is as if he wasn't supplied with the President's speech ahead of time and assumed that Obama would attack the House Republicans

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 26, 2011, 09:05:24 AM
I actually thought the President was pretty middle-of-the-road...didn't blame anybody specifically

Then Boehner came in and generally attacked the Preseident....it is as if he wasn't supplied with the President's speech ahead of time and assumed that Obama would attack the House Republicans

Seriously?  Presbo's 2nd sentence was more "blame Bush".  I turned it off after that. I figured it was going to be as Captain Zissou witnessed. 

Quote from: Sigma on July 26, 2011, 10:14:57 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 26, 2011, 09:05:24 AM
I actually thought the President was pretty middle-of-the-road...didn't blame anybody specifically

Then Boehner came in and generally attacked the Preseident....it is as if he wasn't supplied with the President's speech ahead of time and assumed that Obama would attack the House Republicans

Seriously?  Presbo's 2nd sentence was more "blame Bush".  I turned it off after that. I figured it was going to be as Captain Zissou witnessed.

So you think that the bush era bullshit tax break for the wealthiest had absolutly nothing to do with the debt?

Before you get all "BUT HE'S JUST BLAMING BUSH!"

(http://i.imgur.com/cgNrh.gif)

Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
I think if we default, that John Boehner and the house republicans should probably be arrested and tried for treason.

The best suggestion i've heard all year...

How about even if we don't...they've done the damage...should'nt they pay?

Lots of political posturing through this entire debate.  There has been childish behavior on both sides.  However it seems in my circle of liberals and conservatives that the belief is the Democrats have the more correct position on this issue.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on July 26, 2011, 08:52:43 AM
I'm stocking up on gold and ammo.

Look at who's sponsoring the talk shows these days: emergency food suppliers, gold traders, etc. 

Rush and his guests (like Boehner) have a vested interest in sending our country into oblivion.

If Obama chooses to let the country default, he should be impeached.

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 26, 2011, 12:23:09 PM
If Obama chooses to let the country default, he should be impeached.

Not really. Both sides are to blame with this mess. If no one is willing to compromise, its not his fault. It will be shared blame. I just want them to get it done. Its time to think about the citizens and stop the political bickering.

Even if I thought that Obama should be blamed (and I don't) if Obama were impeached, then he'd be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate.

That would be a supreme waste of time and money, not to mention the pot v. kettle aspects of this farce.

I'm confused as to why the republicans think that we should believe anything they have to offer...it is their ideas, rules and regulations that caused this bs...why would anything they have to say be valid?....i usually don't follow those that make bad decisions and behave like thieves.

Quote from Clem: "If Obama chooses to let the country default, he should be impeached."

HUH????  It is Congress actual job to do this, not Obama's. Even if he went on vacation it is theior job to get it done.

Also, Obama was suberb last night. In 3 sentences he desribed how we goty into this mess, then proposed a balanced approach to get us out.  Boehner was like a spoiled little kid, "if I can't make the rules then I'll take my ball and go home." 

The other total falacy that the Repub's continue to "parrot" is this theory that tax cuts for the weathly create jobs.
Even though there is no eveidence to support this theory. We have had 10 years of this failed experiment, and all we got in return are a dead middle class and 2 % of the population with more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes.

Demand creates jobs. We have almost destroyed the middle class for the sake of the top 2 %, when will rank and file Repubs figure this out? 

^+1.  Anyone who wants to see what everyone fending for themselves and not taxing the wealthy looks like should look at third world governments.  There is virtually no middle class and lower classses are left to fend for themselves and often end up starving and in disastrous situations.  It is absolutely a failed system and does not create jobs.   It leaves money in the hands of a few while everyone else is left to fend for themselves.

Where was all this anger when Reagan and W raised the debt ceiling over and over and over again?  It’s all smoke and mirrors.  The “debt ceiling” was adopted in in 1917 when the president controlled the government’s budget.  It was Congress’ way of keep a check and balance on the presidential spending.  Since 1974 congress has controlled the budget.  The Treasury only borrows the money the amount of money the congress asks for.  There is no debt limit in the constitution.  The problem is congress can’t agree on an annual budget that works without tacking on additional dollars for their own personal agendas.  Obama is in a lose-lose situation.  If he obeys the debt ceiling, he can’t spend the money congress has already approved him to spend, which shuts down government â€" and everyone faults him.  If he spends the money congress has already approved him to spend, he violates the “debt ceiling” â€" and everyone faults him.  The “debt ceiling” actually makes the President less accountable to the Congress and the Congress more accountable to the President and the American people.  We should be holding the ones accountable who actually pass the annual comprehensive budget that details how the government taxes and spends and how much the Treasury Department is allowed to borrow…. Heelllllooooooooo Congress.  Personally I’m not going to worry about it until Boehner publicly sheds a few tears.  Then I’ll believe he is serious.  Our country has been down this road many times before without you knowing it â€" mainly because there was no real political gain to be had by either party.  Right now government is doing what they do best, they are being obscurely clear, which is the best way to keep you believing in the particular political party you subscribe.  If you truly want something done, pressure the congress person you voted into office.  Demand they do their jobs.

I think I'll set my own personal debt ceiling.

If Obama doesn't agree that I should raise it, then I'll blame Obama when my creditors come looking for me.

Debt...debt...what do so many not understand...under democratic rule we had no debt and jobs were aplenty...post republicans= debt and no jobs.....the debt is at the feet of the republicans...where is the confusion and why are we still listening to any republican when it comes to money...why? They fucked up...someone tell them to shut the hell up and go serve water or something constructive.

The majority of the debt being debated now comes from Reagan and George the first.  It was compounded under W.  They created it and have always voted to raise it and now that its under a demoratic President they are using it as political leverage.  Its ridiculuous

Sooooo...you guys support the administration's plan then?  $16 Trillion dollars in debt by the end of his first term?  At least $20 Trillion in debt by the end of a second Obama term?

George W. Bush's chickens are coming home to roost.  Republicans want to "correct" the gross mismanagement of the 2000s by sticking poor and working people with the bill.  Bump that.

Lay the bill for Bush's misadventures and follies at the feet of big business and the wealthiest workers.  They're the ones who prospered under the Bush policies.  They need to pay the piper now.

Congress passes the budget and sets tax rates.

Congress can decide for themselves whether or not to raise enough money to keep paying for the stuff that Congress has already authorized. 

If Congress decides not to raise enough money, then it's up to Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

If the US is in debt what makes the president responsible? 

I'd prefer to hear the answer from someone on the right, but at this point I'd welcome an explanation from anybody.

Finally DD, a post that seems to be written with some thought.  You are right, congress is responsible.  The house has passed two bills which the senate has not even considered.  Prior to that, two other plans were put forth by the house.  What other congressional answer has been put forth?  Is there a Democrat plan from the house?  From the senate?  From the President?  If there is, I would appreciate a link to it, because I can't find one.   Don't point me to "talking point" website, show me the legislation.

It might be that it is better to have this showdown now rather than waiting for real bankruptcy, when we just can't pay the bills.  Does anyone here really think that Medicare is going to remain viable in its current form for 30 or 40 years?  Every study I have seen, including the one put out by the Obama administration last year, says that is impossible.  Is there anyone here who really thinks that we can continue to spend $1 - 1.5 Trillion dollars more than we take in annually?  If so, can you show me where the interest on that debt won't consume the entire federal budget within a lifetime? 

Jimmy. we could tax the "rich" ($200k or more?) at 50% and that wouldn't make much of a dent.  I'm not sure how classifying people as "responsible" based on their income came to you, but it seems like a bad idea to me.  I shouldn't have to explain why.

This is a difference in philosophy of government. 

NN, the words you're trying to put in my mouth don't seem to fit.  Nowhere did I say to tax the "rich."  I said wealthier workers.  I would be fine returning to tax rates in place in the 90s or even during the Reagan era.  That would go a long way toward stemming the tide of this debt.  We were running surpluses in the late 90s.

Foreign misadventures have dug us a deep hole.  I lean with my libertarian friends toward calling back in the empire.  At least, let's close out the wars we're involved in and not start any new ones.

Republicans have dug for us a deep hole by funding these wars, adding on the prescription drug entitlement (without the tools needed to cut costs), and the TARP bailout.  They were aided more often than not by Democrats in saddling us with this unsustainable low tax rate.  It's time to pay the piper.

We need three legs for the 2011 deficit reduction stool.  Cut spending, raise revenue, and raise the debt ceiling for a meaningful time period.  It seems the President has met Republicans more than halfway by agreeing to their spending cuts.  Where are they on revenue increase?  Why do they propose a debt ceiling that will mire us in this discussion yet again before the next election?  Why do they play this perverse game of chicken with disaster?  I don't know.  Those are rhetorical questions.  You don't know either.

Quote from: NotNow on July 26, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Sooooo...you guys support the administration's plan then?  $16 Trillion dollars in debt by the end of his first term?  At least $20 Trillion in debt by the end of a second Obama term?

Debt caused by the previous president..mr bush...16 trillion...exactly...that's what is takes to repair the damage the wealthy have done to our country...remember...there was no debt...there was money in the fucking bank....what about that do people not understand?...we had money..now we have none and are in debt...all of that at the hand of the wealthy republicans...lay this at their feet.

This monstrous debt wouldn't be so bad if we had something to show for it. Instead we have nothing. All the Trillions spent on war in the middle east could have been invested here. It could have transformed us again into the worlds leading manufacturer of solar and wind powered devices, we could have repaired our crumbling infrastructure, we could have educated our citizens.....

Instead we got lots of great kids shipped home in body bags and the middle east remains a hell hole. Oh Yeah, and an unbelievably wealthy top 2%.

P.S. The Bush tax cuts added about 2 Trillion $$ to the debt: when do we get the return on that investment????
       The Bush wars added another 2 TRillion $$.  When we will get the return on that investment???

Jimmy, I suppose then that I would need your definition of "big business" and "wealthiest workers" before I could respond.  My point stands (actually DD's) that this ball rests squarely with congress.  The house has passed legislation, why doesn't the senate vote on it?  Where is the Democrat legislation?  What the Republicans (at least some of them) are trying to do is not increase the size of the federal government and stop this crazy deficit spending. 

Without rehashing the last twenty years, let's just agree that the current way of doing business is not workable.

GG, with all due respect, your numbers are just...wrong.  Try reading up.  Ranting is not debating, but if that is what you want to do...OK.

I can't put it better than MusicMan.  We have seriously squandered our future.  And the ideology that placed us into this ruin now plays the victim and pretends to innocence. 

August 2 is around the corner.  A part of me would be content to see the GOP gets its wish and default on our debt.  But since too many people would be hurt by that folly, I hope that Congress can be bent around to a reasonable compromise.  I think even the corporate masters of the GOP have had enough of this tea party/kill government nonsense.  We'll find out soon enough.

The grand deal was on the table SS / Medicare reform + defense and discretionary spending =4.7 tril in cuts with reasonable tax increases and reforms. Leading to a strong stable America.  The President and Speaker agreed and then they found out that the Tea Party and to a lesser extent the far Left are not interested in what is best for America.

If we weren't at war and if the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, then we could invest in education and infrastructure. 

If these investments are successful, then we could lower our tax rate without cutting too deeply into our revenue.

In the meantime my priorities are as follows

1-raise the debt ceiling
2-raise taxes or
3-cut spending

Quote from: NotNow on July 26, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
Jimmy, I suppose then that I would need your definition of "big business" and "wealthiest workers" before I could respond.  My point stands (actually DD's) that this ball rests squarely with congress.  The house has passed legislation, why doesn't the senate vote on it?  Where is the Democrat legislation?  What the Republicans (at least some of them) are trying to do is not increase the size of the federal government and stop this crazy deficit spending. 

Without rehashing the last twenty years, let's just agree that the current way of doing business is not workable.

GG, with all due respect, your numbers are just...wrong.  Try reading up.  Ranting is not debating, but if that is what you want to do...OK.

Here is a link to a table that shows control of congress as well as control of the Presidency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png

If anyone can help me out and post it, I would appreciate it.  In reality, responsibility for the debt is much more complicated than even this chart shows.  World economic conditions, world conflicts, and many other factors affect our budgets as much as which party controls congress or the Presidency.  What we ALL have to do is decide not to ruin the countries economy.   Wars?  Yes, we fought the Taliban in Afghanistan because they harbored and protected the people who attacked our country in 2001.  We fought the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait, and when they failed to live up to the surrender agreement they signed.  Both of those conflicts were approved by large majorities in both houses of congress.  We will see how the Libyan affair pans out, whether you approve of it or not.  And we face other armed adversaries around the world even now.  Bad decisions?   Between us all, we can rattle off probably hundreds of mistakes by both parties and all of the Presidents. 

We are at a time for decision.  Do we continue to grow federal government?  Or do we reduce the size of what many see as a bloated empire of political favors?  Me?  I don't want to emulate France...or Sweden, or any other European government.  I want the American experiment.  The one from 1776.  I think those men are just as right now as they were then.  That we all are children of God, and that we can govern ourselves with minimum interference from ANY government. 

Thanks, Stephendare!.

The problem I have will all of this is, "Entitlements," did not put the country into this incredible debt. Anyone who believes that is deluded. Rebates, a "supposed," 10 year tax cut and outrageously expensive wars are the leading culprits. (While I'm standing on my soap box let me add GREED!) So what is the solution? Cut programs for the poorest and the oldest. Show me one Republican politician who doesn't contribute to the debt and I will call you a liar. The tea party and the Republicans want  you to believe the Democrats only want to spend money. That too is a lie. They like to throw around the "trickle down effect," but it has never and will never work. Cutting taxes is stupid. Even sane Republicans know that, but they would rather bankrupt the country than break with the ideology of their side.  Greedy corporations will take their jobs to Chinese sweat shops for cheap wages either way. Let's just elect Michele Bachman. She wants to eliminate minimum wage. That would help. More people on Medicaid. Another thing. Never, ever complain about the 47 or so percent who don't pay taxes each year, until GE, BP and other monster corporations start paying taxes. (and stop getting refunds.) Keep in mind that even the lower income people who may not pay income tax, pay into SS, Medicare and sales tax that benefit everyone. NO ONE pays nothing. This whole thing is about getting the black man out of the White House. They have been talking about his for months. They openly admit it. They held us hostage in December, now they are doing it again. You can blame the Democrats for not having a plan, but you can be sure NO reasonably plan will make it out of the house. The Republican majority house just wants to kiss the butts of the tea party at the expense of the poor and the elderly.

Quote from: MusicMan on July 26, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
This monstrous debt wouldn't be so bad if we had something to show for it. Instead we have nothing. All the Trillions spent on war in the middle east could have been invested here. It could have transformed us again into the worlds leading manufacturer of solar and wind powered devices, we could have repaired our crumbling infrastructure, we could have educated our citizens.....

Instead we got lots of great kids shipped home in body bags and the middle east remains a hell hole. Oh Yeah, and an unbelievably wealthy top 2%.

P.S. The Bush tax cuts added about 2 Trillion $$ to the debt: when do we get the return on that investment????
       The Bush wars added another 2 TRillion $$.  When we will get the return on that investment???

This totally sums it up for even the simplest amongst us. Just want to add that the supply side economic ideaology also did tremendous damage to our economy: cut taxes for the wealthiest and "hope" for trickle down?!?!

This is the most ludicrous idea ever!!!!

America has turned into a third world country..........there is little demand in our economy due to an ever shrinking middle class that is continued to be squeezed while the wealthiest Americans are being protected. THAT is soooo third world and so far removed from the age old American ideal of "equal opportunity and prosperity for all."

It is hard to understand that the Republican electorate still buys into the failed concept of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, while the rest of us suffers greatly. Supply side economics doesn't work..........it's a failed experiment.

Only Demand side economics will help us out of this mess as happened after WW II.

Holey Smokes!!  :o  The few scant years republicans controlled congress... and the purse strings... they reduced or held steady on the debt??  Democrat controlled and split control congresses increased the debt??

I for one am shocked!! :)

(http://i.imgur.com/GvcnR.jpg)

Look at beautiful demand side economics helping reduce our national debt after the highest national debt as a percentage of GDP in the early 1940s occurred!!! Just LOOK at the very STEEP downward slope in the graph below proving how well Demand side economics works!!

(http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/prizonice_2/usgs_linephp.png)

Compared to those days we shouldn't even be in crisis mode today!

All we need to do is close out the wars and bring back the growth creating higher tax rates for the wealthy, and invest in our own economy!!

And guess what.........Demand side economics requires government spending!

The best government spending is the one that creates the greatest multiplier effect.

Wise investment in infrastructure has one of the greatest multiplier effects of any government spending.( see bar graph below)

Tax cuts for the wealthy (which really can be seen as a form of "government spending" since it reduces our revenue) doesn't create any additional demand and thus, there is absolutely no multiplier effect from that measure at all. (see bar graph below)

Now tax cuts for the middle class on the other hand DO create additional demand and therefor DO have a multiplier effect.

QuoteThe multiplier effect is how much a dollar spent by the government increases GDP. It also measures how much a tax decrease, or increase, increases or decreases GDP.

Here is one example of stimulus spending with a very high multiplier effect:

QuoteIncreased unemployment benefits have the largest multiplier effects â€" cash-strapped families spend every cent given â€" and meet vital social needs. It is imperative to provide health insurance to the unemployed: without that, a single serious incident can push a family into bankruptcy. Helping the unemployed meet house payments reduces foreclosures, addressing one of the underlying causes of the crisis. There are thus triple benefits.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/01/stiglitz-just-say-no-to-tax-cuts.html

Here is the comparison of the multiplier effects of various government spending programs:

(http://www.beatthesqueeze.com/images/issues/effective_stimulus.jpg)

Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2011, 10:28:41 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png)

Ah, BT doesn't want us to know that our debt as a percentage of GDP was highest following WW II, and that Demand side economics was super effective at remedying that very high debt by bringing it down in no time at all!!

Please see my previous posts.

Just some inconvenient facts for BT. Short-sighted vision to suit one's ideology.

As an economist I know we need to look long-range for effective solutions and not be caught up by the moment for purely political reasons.

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 27, 2011, 10:22:36 AM
Ah, BT doesn't want us to know that our debt as a percentage of GDP was highest following WW II, and that Demand side economics was super effective at remedying that very high debt by bringing it down in no time at all!!

Please see my previous posts.

Just some inconvenient facts for BT. Short-sighted vision to suit one's ideology.

As an economist I know we need to look long-range for effective solutions and not be caught up by the moment for purely political reasons.

Oh... well... your an economist??  Then you should understand about living within your means.  I hope you are not encouraging families to increase the use of the credit card to stimulate family income... or maybe you do...

Pretty sure there as many varying economic theories as there are... well... economists...

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

60% of the stimulus was tax cuts, which amounted to negative multiplier effects!

Obama wanted to please the right wng extremists by making the stimulus mostly about tax cuts, to his own and our country's detriment!!!

(http://www.beatthesqueeze.com/images/issues/effective_stimulus.jpg)

BT, You DO understand that for a business to grow sometimes it is necessary for it to borrow money and NOT live within its means.

Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country.  W and the Republicans didn't seem to understand that.

This country is in a liquidity crunch.  Consumers aren't spending so companies are not.  Common sense says that the government must spend MORE at a time like this to get the economy moving again.  Where are our infrastructure projects?  Where is our WPA?  Where is our CCC.  We need to put people to work again and right now only the Federal government can do it.

Federal and State spending cannot be cut enough to pay back the money that Bush borrowed.  We're going to have to grow our way out of this by stimulating the economy even if it raises the national debt in the short term.  We are stagnating now with an "official" unemployment rate of over 10%.  Unless fresh money is injected we are going to stay stagnant.  If government spending is cut we will go back into recession or depression.

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2011, 11:11:15 AM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference. (IT WAS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE AND POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE EPIC CRASH IN THE FIRST PLACE)

You can debate supply side and demand side but it has never been proven that governmental programs can direct the economy for the better. The economy arises from the energies of the millions of citizens working, saving, and investing. Most governmnetal actions get in the way of that process; many have unintended consequences, and all are based on rather complex unproven theories relying on faulty data.

One of the main reasons supply side economics can be beneficial is that it sometimes removes some of the burden of government from the backs of the participants. I think it would be better to argue for clearer objectives: encourage saving, reward investment, and limit the burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance. And never establish programs that reward bad behavior! Those are simple common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories."

Instead of trying to manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals, the best economics would be to empower and liberate the people--enhance their opportunity to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.

Quote from: RiversideLoki on July 26, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
Before you get all "BUT HE'S JUST BLAMING BUSH!"

(http://i.imgur.com/cgNrh.gif)

There are plenty of issues with this dubious NYT's chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here.  Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues.

The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis.  It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.

The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion â€" less than the annual deficit these days. It doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the bias that the NYTs wants to portray here.

The war costs used by the NYTs appears to contain mainly costs that would have been incurred by the Department of Defense whether or not we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

It also fails fails to include the costs of both wars under Obama for the first two years.  Similarly, the chart correctly notes the first tranche of TARP under Bush, but skips the second tranche under Obama.  Also, the category of “2008 Stimulus and Other Changes” seems pretty suspect, since the 2008 stimulus was scored at $150 billion, or less than one-fifth of the $773 billion the NYTs claims.

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 11:38:30 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2011, 11:11:15 AM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference.

In the Thirties the financial industry realized that nobody would invest again unless rules were set by th government that everyone could understand and follow.  In the post-Reagan era most of those government rules were undermined or eliminated, with the 2008 meltdown as a direct outcome. 

Now, instead of asking the government to straighten things out like in the Thirties, the financial industry would rather blame the government for its own greed and corruption.

The fundamental problem today is that we still want more from the government than we are willing to spend to support the government. 

In times of past economic prosperity taxes were very high compared to now.  For nearly all of us to better off in the future than we are today, the government simply needs more revenue.

I think this was already posted on another thread - inflation-adjusted spending and revenue over the last 50 years.

(http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/charts/2011/growth-federal-spending-revenue-600.jpg)

Note the slope of the increase from 2001-6, when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.  The rate of spending increases goes up significantly in that period, which is one reason that fiscal conservatives largely abandoned the GOP in the 2006 midterm elections, allowing Democrats to take control again after 12 years. 

However, look at the revenue from 2003 to 2007; the Bush tax cuts very obviously didn’t cut into Treasury revenue, but sparked economic growth that restored it to its highest level ever.

Now look at what happens after Democrats take control of Congress.  For the FY2008 budget, federal spending increased at a rate higher than that of the GOP budgets from FY2002-2007.

For FY2009, Democrats ended up playing keep-away from George Bush and passed continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office and signed the omibus bill that increased spending at a mindblowing rate.

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 11:38:30 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2011, 11:11:15 AM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference. (IT WAS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE AND POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE EPIC CRASH IN THE FIRST PLACE)

You can debate supply side and demand side but it has never been proven that governmental programs can direct the economy for the better. The economy arises from the energies of the millions of citizens working, saving, and investing. Most governmnetal actions get in the way of that process; many have unintended consequences, and all are based on rather complex unproven theories relying on faulty data.

One of the main reasons supply side economics can be beneficial is that it sometimes removes some of the burden of government from the backs of the participants. I think it would be better to argue for clearer objectives: encourage saving, reward investment, and limit the burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance. And never establish programs that reward bad behavior! Those are simple common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories."

Instead of trying to manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals, the best economics would be to empower and liberate the people--enhance their opportunity to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.

No, it was government deregulation that contributed most to the EPIC crash: the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I see meaningless right wing jargon all over your post:

- without government interference ( ie government is bad)

- government gets in the way (ie government is bad)

- unintended consequences (ie government is bad)

- unproven theories and faulty data (don't believe the scientists, government is bad)

- burden of government from the backs of participants ( government is bad)

- burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance (government is bad)

- common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories." (laisez faire, government is bad)

- establish programs that reward bad behavior (laisez faire, social programs are bad, government is bad)

- manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals (laisez faire, government is bad)

So why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

Let me tell you.........in countries with a strong safety net, entrepreneurship flourishes because entire families don't have to be subjected to excessive risk taking:

(http://noapparentmotive.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sb1-2009-08-400x270.jpg)

Using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the lowest level of self-employment (except Luxembourg).

QuoteAn important part of our national identity is built around the idea that â€" thanks to low taxes, limited
regulation, unfettered labor markets, and a national spirit of entrepreneurship â€" the United States
offers an environment for small business that is unmatched anywhere else in the world.

The international economic data, however, tell a different story about the state of U.S. small
business. By every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s
smallest small-business sectors (as a proportion of total national employment).

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

QuoteSo why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

why, pray tell, don't you go live in a country that has even more government interference - Greece perhaps?  I hear they are doing a jam up job over there.  you don't like this country, that's obvious - the whole risk/reward and being the beacon of the world is too much for you.  life is easier somewhere elsewhere.  go for it. someone will take care of you. places where their government economists are scratching their heads right now.

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 12:13:27 PM

QuoteSo why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

why, pray tell, don't you go live in a country that has even more government interference - Greece perhaps?  I hear they are doing a jam up job over there.  you don't like this country, that's obvious - the whole risk/reward and being the beacon of the world is too much for you.  life is easier somewhere elsewhere.  go for it. someone will take care of you. places where their government economists are scratching their heads right now.

You are the one that hates government, I don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for:

QuoteEqual opportunity and prosperity for all

That is no longer the case due to the coup of corporatism and the protection of the ultra-wealthy at the expense of THE PEOPLE.

QuoteI don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

Quote from: Dog Walker on July 27, 2011, 10:55:39 AM
BT, You DO understand that for a business to grow sometimes it is necessary for it to borrow money and NOT live within its means.

Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country.  W and the Republicans didn't seem to understand that.

This country is in a liquidity crunch.  Consumers aren't spending so companies are not.  Common sense says that the government must spend MORE at a time like this to get the economy moving again.  Where are our infrastructure projects?  Where is our WPA?  Where is our CCC.  We need to put people to work again and right now only the Federal government can do it.

Federal and State spending cannot be cut enough to pay back the money that Bush borrowed.  We're going to have to grow our way out of this by stimulating the economy even if it raises the national debt in the short term.  We are stagnating now with an "official" unemployment rate of over 10%.  Unless fresh money is injected we are going to stay stagnant.  If government spending is cut we will go back into recession or depression.

Yes I do DW.  You yourself say that.  ("Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country. ")

This is EXACTLY what we are doing.  If I thought for a minute that we were simply borrowing money so we could build bridges, wind turbines and solar panels for the entire country...IE WPA or CCC more people might support it.  But when our resident "economist" suggests we should follow the lead of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain... I get a bit skeptical.

Quote from: Garden guy on July 26, 2011, 03:26:36 PM
Debt...debt...what do so many not understand...under democratic rule we had no debt and jobs were aplenty...post republicans= debt and no jobs.....the debt is at the feet of the republicans...where is the confusion and why are we still listening to any republican when it comes to money...why? They fucked up...someone tell them to shut the hell up and go serve water or something constructive.

HUH?

We talkin Jimmy Carter? Clinton?

Oh... N/M. It's Garden Guy.

This is theater. Look at it like TARP II. Just a bailout for bond holders and banksters.

The greedy rich and the greedy poor will put an end to the middle class. Captain has the right idea. You could also do well to find stocks with good numbers but declining prices due to the current semi-panic in the market. Buy gold and silver at the dips. You should already have the guns/ammo. You're American, right?

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 12:48:54 PM

QuoteI don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

Huh? The U.S. borrowed to finance the Revolutionary War, and has continued to borrow for pretty much everything since.

At what point in time did this country reflect what you're claiming it stands for? I don't get this revisionist history.

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 27, 2011, 12:03:46 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 11:38:30 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2011, 11:11:15 AM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 27, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference. (IT WAS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE AND POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE EPIC CRASH IN THE FIRST PLACE)

You can debate supply side and demand side but it has never been proven that governmental programs can direct the economy for the better. The economy arises from the energies of the millions of citizens working, saving, and investing. Most governmnetal actions get in the way of that process; many have unintended consequences, and all are based on rather complex unproven theories relying on faulty data.

One of the main reasons supply side economics can be beneficial is that it sometimes removes some of the burden of government from the backs of the participants. I think it would be better to argue for clearer objectives: encourage saving, reward investment, and limit the burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance. And never establish programs that reward bad behavior! Those are simple common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories."

Instead of trying to manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals, the best economics would be to empower and liberate the people--enhance their opportunity to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.

No, it was government deregulation that contributed most to the EPIC crash: the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I see meaningless right wing jargon all over your post:

- without government interference ( ie government is bad)

- government gets in the way (ie government is bad)

- unintended consequences (ie government is bad)

- unproven theories and faulty data (don't believe the scientists, government is bad)

- burden of government from the backs of participants ( government is bad)

- burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance (government is bad)

- common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories." (laisez faire, government is bad)

- establish programs that reward bad behavior (laisez faire, social programs are bad, government is bad)

- manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals (laisez faire, government is bad)

So why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

Let me tell you.........in countries with a strong safety net, entrepreneurship flourishes because entire families don't have to be subjected to excessive risk taking:

(http://noapparentmotive.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sb1-2009-08-400x270.jpg)

Using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the lowest level of self-employment (except Luxembourg).

QuoteAn important part of our national identity is built around the idea that â€" thanks to low taxes, limited
regulation, unfettered labor markets, and a national spirit of entrepreneurship â€" the United States
offers an environment for small business that is unmatched anywhere else in the world.

The international economic data, however, tell a different story about the state of U.S. small
business. By every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s
smallest small-business sectors (as a proportion of total national employment).

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

Glass-Steagall was the one piece of legislation that could have prevented the boom/bust of the housing market. The causes were legion, however. Let us not forget Fannie/Freddie and the trillions in government (taxpayer) backing afforded to banksters.

The bad news: The horse has left the barn. It's useless to shut the gate now. companies/jobs/operations/assets have moved overseas. The "rich" have hedged their bets. US collapses... no worries. The term rich does not include Mr $400,000 annually or Mr $10M in assets. That is the middle class expected to carry the burden of government for the rest of the citizenry. Those guys own some hedge of their own hopefully, however.

We the paupers will need to be able to sell our goods and services to someone in the near future!

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 27, 2011, 01:14:26 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 12:48:54 PM

QuoteI don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

Huh? The U.S. borrowed to finance the Revolutionary War, and has continued to borrow for pretty much everything since.

At what point in time did this country reflect what you're claiming it stands for? I don't get this revisionist history.

not at this rate

Quote from: avs on July 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

the wealthy do not stuff it in mason jars and bury in the back yard.  they invest it where there is profit to be made - new businesses, etc.  which create jobs. 

I know we want to say that either too much government interference or not enough caused the crash.  The truth is it was and is both.  Too much Government being willing to buy risky home loans encouraged bad loans.  Too little regulation allowed Wall Street, Mortgage Companies and Banks to commoditize and other wise package and hedge and on and on with practices detrimental to our countries people's success.  Too much tax incentive to move jobs overseas.  Too little tariffs on foreign goods. Too much stimulus money. Too little regulation on how the stimulus money should be used by those who accepted it.

It is not big government v small government it is about good government.  I don't like the argument that our government doesn't do a good job so we should relive them of responsibility.  If my son does a bad job taking the garbage out by spilling some or forgetting to put a bag back in the can.  I do not then say you will no longer take the trash out I demand better.  Let's demand better from our government.

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: avs on July 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

the wealthy do not stuff it in mason jars and bury in the back yard.  they invest it where there is profit to be made - new businesses, etc.  which create jobs. 

Sorry, wrong.  They are NOT investing it in new business.  They are speculating on various financial instruments in what is essentially a zero-sum game.  There are no wealth multipliers in their activities.  Do you buy reverse mortgage default swaps?

DG you are picking out one thing to focus on. and a very risky financial scheme as well.

Do you know why venture capitalist require a 50% return?  because most of the time they lose.  But small companies with big ideas and innovation (who banks won't touch) are fueled by those evil rich who don't pay their fair share  ::)

Right now - there are a lot of smaller investors at this moment on the sideline due to markets and a volatile economic climate.  but they are contantly looking for ways to invest - you and me included through mutual funds etc.

the longer the government tinkers with the economy - the longer its gonna take.  want a recovery? eliminate corporate taxes (the consumer pays it anyway) and get out of the way.  American investors and business people will take it from there. 

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
DG you are picking out one thing to focus on. and a very risky financial scheme as well.

Do you know why venture capitalist require a 50% return?  because most of the time they lose.  But small companies with big ideas and innovation (who banks won't touch) are fueled by those evil rich who don't pay their fair share  ::)

Right now - there are a lot of smaller investors at this moment on the sideline due to markets and a volatile economic climate.  but they are contantly looking for ways to invest - you and me included through mutual funds etc.

the longer the government tinkers with the economy - the longer its gonna take.  want a recovery? eliminate corporate taxes (the consumer pays it anyway) and get out of the way.  American investors and business people will take it from there. 

Yeah that rosy picture you're painting is like 1% of the financial services / investment market. The rest is pretty much as DogWalker is implying, much of it is simply parasitic behavior with no real benefit to anyone but the investor and the broker/manager.

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: avs on July 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

the wealthy do not stuff it in mason jars and bury in the back yard.  they invest it where there is profit to be made - new businesses, etc.  which create jobs.

We have a hell of a lot more millionaires and billionaires after bush did his madness..ok..where are all of these jobs and inovation and investment at? Hmmmm?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 27, 2011, 03:33:19 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
DG you are picking out one thing to focus on. and a very risky financial scheme as well.

Do you know why venture capitalist require a 50% return?  because most of the time they lose.  But small companies with big ideas and innovation (who banks won't touch) are fueled by those evil rich who don't pay their fair share  ::)

Right now - there are a lot of smaller investors at this moment on the sideline due to markets and a volatile economic climate.  but they are contantly looking for ways to invest - you and me included through mutual funds etc.

the longer the government tinkers with the economy - the longer its gonna take.  want a recovery? eliminate corporate taxes (the consumer pays it anyway) and get out of the way.  American investors and business people will take it from there. 

Yeah that rosy picture you're painting is like 1% of the financial services / investment market. The rest is pretty much as DogWalker is implying, much of it is simply parasitic behavior with no real benefit to anyone but the investor and the broker/manager.

facts?

Quote from: Garden guy on July 27, 2011, 03:44:37 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: avs on July 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

the wealthy do not stuff it in mason jars and bury in the back yard.  they invest it where there is profit to be made - new businesses, etc.  which create jobs.

We have a hell of a lot more millionaires and billionaires after bush did his madness..ok..where are all of these jobs and inovation and investment at? Hmmmm?

faye, is that you?

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 03:50:15 PM

Quote from: Garden guy on July 27, 2011, 03:44:37 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: avs on July 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

the wealthy do not stuff it in mason jars and bury in the back yard.  they invest it where there is profit to be made - new businesses, etc.  which create jobs.

We have a hell of a lot more millionaires and billionaires after bush did his madness..ok..where are all of these jobs and inovation and investment at? Hmmmm?

faye, is that you?

cmon sigma, facts

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
DG you are picking out one thing to focus on. and a very risky financial scheme as well.

Do you know why venture capitalist require a 50% return?  because most of the time they lose.  But small companies with big ideas and innovation (who banks won't touch) are fueled by those evil rich who don't pay their fair share  ::)

Right now - there are a lot of smaller investors at this moment on the sideline due to markets and a volatile economic climate.  but they are contantly looking for ways to invest - you and me included through mutual funds etc.

the longer the government tinkers with the economy - the longer its gonna take.  want a recovery? eliminate corporate taxes (the consumer pays it anyway) and get out of the way.  American investors and business people will take it from there. 

The large corporation effectively pay about zero in taxes.  G.E. seems to make money from being taxed.  There is no bang for the buck in cutting taxes.  We have a relatively high corporate tax rate but we also have a million and one ways for large corporations to use loopholes and incentives to avoid them.

By all means lower the corporate tax rate but put in a floor of 10% no matter what.

I understand where you are coming from Jeffrey I liked that preivious post you made.  Point is though that corp will pass along the taxes to the consumer, regardless of rate. 

I agree but I think as long as they aren't to high that circle of life process with taxes is needed.  They will pass them along kinda creates a pseudo fair tax.

Quote from: Garden guy on July 26, 2011, 12:07:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
I think if we default, that John Boehner and the house republicans should probably be arrested and tried for treason.

The best suggestion i've heard all year...

I ll take it one step further. Fire them , PERIOD.   

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 12:48:54 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 27, 2011, 12:26:26 PM

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 12:13:27 PM

QuoteSo why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

why, pray tell, don't you go live in a country that has even more government interference - Greece perhaps?  I hear they are doing a jam up job over there.  you don't like this country, that's obvious - the whole risk/reward and being the beacon of the world is too much for you.  life is easier somewhere elsewhere.  go for it. someone will take care of you. places where their government economists are scratching their heads right now.

You are the one that hates government, I don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for:

QuoteEqual opportunity and prosperity for all

That is no longer the case due to the coup of corporatism and the protection of the ultra-wealthy at the expense of THE PEOPLE.

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

Glad we agree about the "equal opportunity and prosperity" for all as a bedrock of joined American ideology. The thing we disagree on is the role of government.

You are talking about the role of government back in the days when corporatism did not yet exist and there were very few ultra-wealthy people with congress in their pocket.

Now both corporatism and the ultra-wealthy yield enormous power and in my view the role of government is to PROTECT the people.

Just like I cannot protect myself from foreign invaders, so too can I not protect myself from the hugely disproportionte power of corporatism and the ultra-wealthy looking after themselves at the expense of the people and our country.

So instead of small government we need effective government that fights for THE PEOPLE!!

I guess we all must accept that this and life is about the "haves" and the "havenots"...it's always been about that and always will...the haves try to keep and take as much as they can and the have nots just try to make it through this thing called life...

Quote from: Garden guy on July 28, 2011, 08:13:40 AM
I guess we all must accept that this and life is about the "haves" and the "havenots"...it's always been about that and always will...the haves try to keep and take as much as they can and the have nots just try to make it through this thing called life...

Yes Garden Guy..........it's always been like that...........except the American People aspired for MORE: a level playing field.

Back when America was a beacon for the world............we actually DID have a more level playing field, but this has been systematically dismantled since the 80's by corporate interests and the ultra-wealthy who did not believe in "shared prosperity" or "shared sacrifice" for themselves!!!!!

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses is all around us!!

(http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/charts/2011/increases-us-debt-limit-600.jpg)

Fact:

Of the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling we have now, $4.5 trillion got added by Democrat-controlled Congresses since taking control in 2007.

In the six years preceding this $4.5 trillion expansion of debt limits, Republicans expanded it by $3.85 trillion. 

wow another heritage foundation ideologically driven chart by sigma  :o

Gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP is a more accurate comparison, and looking longer range to another time we were facing a DEEP crisis when the country actually pulled together under President Truman

(http://terraverde.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/800px-us_federal_debt_as_percent_of_gdp_by_president.jpg)

uh Faye - Heritage did not make up the numbers - please note the source of the information.  your efforts to conflate the issue has not succeeded - much like your Keynesian economic belief - or should we say "cash for clunkers".

OK - Let's take the chart at face value. 

It goes down during every postwar Democratic administration.  Its lowest point is at the end of the Carter administration.

For Republicans it only goes down during Eisenhower's and Nixon's administrations.

It went up at the beginning of the Clinton administration and then it went down.  So give Obama another year or two and then let's see what happens.

The simple truth is that Republicans would rather cut taxes than deficits.

Quote
The simple truth is that Republicans would rather cut taxes than deficits.

and it doesn't work

I feel like the balanced approach the democrats have been "talking" about is better.  At this point however they have not tried to put a detailed plan to a vote so it is hard for them to throw stones.

^ would like to see an actual plan as well Jeffrey - it seems that both sides are more interested in how to pin blame after the Aug 2 deadline than working to get it done.  However, the Dems have not had a budget in the 2 years Obama has been in office and don't seem to have one now.  No plan - just blame. 

QuoteSo give Obama another year or two and then let's see what happens.

You mean congress, right? 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 27, 2011, 09:54:08 AM

Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2011, 10:28:41 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png)

The chart Stephen found says it best of all...

Quote“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 US Government can not 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.”   

-- Senator  Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 28, 2011, 03:03:41 PM
I feel like the balanced approach the democrats have been "talking" about is better.  At this point however they have not tried to put a detailed plan to a vote so it is hard for them to throw stones.

Actually here is the projection forward based on current law:

(http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Budget-Deficits-as-per-cent-of-GDP.jpg)

Not too shabby at all and put together by the non-partisan CBO!!

Conclusion: the budget crisis is manufactured by the Republicans because we have a Democratic President for once who has presided over increased budget deficits due to inherited wars and and an inherited recession.

Then why isn't the President pointing to that when he is out there spinning his case.  I am a big fan of the President but we have to present something in order to decide if it is good or bad.  He can present just a raise in the ceiling if he wants and use those figures as justification. We can not pass any legislation that is not written out as legislation.  I think the Dems are on the right path but at this point that is just a guess.  The Republicans have put forth plans for the the CBO to score, for congress to debate.  The Dems have just done brainstorming. It is a bit late in the game to not have a bill you could contrast with the Republican bill.  Then it will be in writing the common areas and the conflicting parts.

Quote from: Sigma on July 28, 2011, 03:22:11 PM

QuoteSo give Obama another year or two and then let's see what happens.

You mean congress, right?

The chart shows presidential administrations, and I was reading from the chart. 

Nevertheless I do agree that Congress' is responsible for the deficit, not the president.

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 28, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
It is a bit late in the game to not have a bill you could contrast with the Republican bill.  Then it will be in writing the common areas and the conflicting parts.

That is actually the point of the CBO bar graph: NO bill is required for the deficit as a percentage of GDP to come down to pre-Obama levels!

The entire crisis is manufactured by the Republicans to score points against the Dems and Obama at the expense of our country, and I'm not even much of a fan of Obama!

Well Faye, the former CBO Director happens to disagree with you.

QuoteWhy are we making Uncle Sam a trillion-dollar lender?
Jul 28, 2011 10:28 EDT

By Douglas Holtz-Eakin
The opinions expressed are his own.

America is on a path to fiscal disaster.  The skyrocketing national debt will continue to force the Nation to make fundamental decisions about what the government will and will not do, and how to share budget resources across competing programs.  Too bad Congressional budget rules give misleading signals on the best path forward.

In spite of the impending crisis, in just the past two years Congress and the President have committed the United States government to lend directly more than a trillion dollars of student, home and other loans.  That is over a trillion dollars of new borrowing at a time when debt threatens the foundations of the U.S. economy.  More startling, the borrowing was done in the name of deficit reduction.

How could this be?

Budget law requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to assume that loans made directly by the government earn huge profits, with virtually no risk that such estimates could be wrong.  As a former CBO Director, it is easy for me to point out that most of the governments financial transactions are fraught with risk â€" the support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being the prime examples that came back to haunt the taxpayer.  So it is a paper fantasy that the federal government will surely recoup more money than it lends out.  If a bank were to use the same accounting, the Securities and Exchange Commission would charge them with overstating their earnings and throw the book at them.  Congress gets to call these phantom profits “savings.”

CBO understands the pitfalls ,and has told Congress that in the two largest federal lending programs â€" federal direct student lending and housing loans made by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) â€" the estimates ignore real-world risks and put taxpayers on the hook for huge inevitable future shortfalls. Worse yet, Congress spends the fictional “savings” the day legislation is passed, while leaving unsuspecting taxpayers to pick up the tab down the road.

The rules â€" specifically the Federal Credit Reform Act â€" need to be changed so that the budget reflects the risks associated with federal lending.  If those rules were in place, Congress would not have an incentive to explode the federal balance sheet and would have an incentive to pare back taxpayer burdens.

Consider student loans.  Armed with a CBO projection of $68 billion in taxpayer “savings” from establishing the Department of Education as a student loan monopoly, Congress and the President drastically increased the government’s role in delivering student aid. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has a tough enough job as head of U.S. education efforts.  Why ask him to also be a banker? Nobody could perform both roles well.

It gets worse.  Congress and the President turned around and spent the so-called “savings” that have no guarantee of materializing.  Worse yet, they knew it as they did it.  Months before the legislation was passed, Republican Senator Judd Gregg asked CBO to project the savings if the real world risks of owning such a large volume of loans were considered.  In response, CBO told Congress that the official score was overly optimistic by $28 billion.

Bottom line: The Secretary of Education is now one of the top financial executives in the U.S., and Congress spent nearly all of the over-estimated “savings” on the President’s health care reform and unaffordable education entitlements.  This one piece of legislation will add more than a trillion dollars of risky loans to the national balance sheet by 2017, and all in the name of fiscal responsibility.  Backed by unsuspecting taxpayers, the federal government is now the last American institution with a financial incentive to make more and more loans, irrespective of whether individuals can pay them back.

The same rules for estimating loan costs mean that any attempt to rein in federal lending â€" even if done to protect individuals from overborrowing â€" would be portrayed as “costing” federal revenue.  In light of the threat to this Nation of the debt, these incentives are untenable.

In April, the S&P rating agency cited the potential for losses on federal loans as a “material fiscal risk” to the creditworthiness of the United States. Accordingly, any serious effort to reform our growing debt must include a change in rules so that the budget reflects the risks associated with federal lending.  Accurate budgeting will reflect the real costs to taxpayers, and thereby remove the incentive for Congress to make a bad situation even worse.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/07/28/why-are-we-making-uncle-sam-a-trillion-dollar-lender/

So our government, at a time when it needs to raise capital, is re-leveraging i.e. Lehman Brothers.

Raise taxes? Uhhh.. something. Lower spending? Uhhh maybe...

If the US is Lehman who will buy us out? Answer: no one.

This current debt/deficit/default/budget "crisis" is an issue that is being manufactured. By the Tea Party? By the Pres?By the Fed? by Wall ST?

Your guess is as good as mine. We have grown up work to do, and all of the above are simply leveraging this issue for advantage. No one is willing to do what must be done.


Bicker on!

I'd like to hear..."we are now going to stop listening to the republicans or the tea people that put us where we are"....they should'nt even be at the table...can we trust anything a republican or tea person says?

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 28, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Then why isn't the President pointing to that when he is out there spinning his case.  I am a big fan of the President but we have to present something in order to decide if it is good or bad.  He can present just a raise in the ceiling if he wants and use those figures as justification. We can not pass any legislation that is not written out as legislation.  I think the Dems are on the right path but at this point that is just a guess.  The Republicans have put forth plans for the the CBO to score, for congress to debate.  The Dems have just done brainstorming. It is a bit late in the game to not have a bill you could contrast with the Republican bill.  Then it will be in writing the common areas and the conflicting parts.

Good point Jeffrey.  Where is the administrations plan?  Where is the democrat version?  My guess is the White House does not want their plan in public or in writing because not many of his base will like what is in it.  In fact... if they are serious... it is probably very much like the republican plan.  Pelosi said not one democrat will vote for the Boehners plan... fair enough... Where is her plan?  Where is Reids?  Where is Obamas?  My guess is they are not really interested in getting a deal done...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 29, 2011, 10:02:26 AM

Good point Jeffrey.  Where is the administrations plan?  Where is the democrat version?  My guess is the White House does not want their plan in public or in writing because not many of his base will like what is in it.  In fact... if they are serious... it is probably very much like the republican plan.  Pelosi said not one democrat will vote for the Boehners plan... fair enough... Where is her plan?  Where is Reids?  Where is Obamas?  My guess is they are not really interested in getting a deal done...

BT, no plan gives us this:

(http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Budget-Deficits-as-per-cent-of-GDP.jpg)

You have any problems with that?

Besides the fact that it is a fantasy... no.

Actually Stephen... I was quite critical of W's spending habits.  He was certainly not the fiscal conservative most of us wanted...  But he certainly looks to be a spending rookie compared to the current bunch... As the graphic you provided illustrates...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png)

Actually, I'm for the Fair Tax.  I do support killing the people who killed three thousand (and counting) Americans and swear to kill more.  I (and BT as I recall) opposed many of the Bush administration initiatives (see the drug bill).  I believe that my economic opinion is as valid now as it always has been.  No one (with any intellectual honesty, or competency) can say with a straight face that $20 Trillion dollars of federal debt is acceptable for this country.  We are scheduled to whiz past that number in 2015.  My economic opinion is that common sense must apply sooner or later.  Blaming me, BT, or President Bush is just dumb.  President Obama's administration has contributed $4 Trillion dollars in deficit spending in just the short time he has been in office.  But you can't just blame him either. 

It is this simple...the party is over.   We have borrowed too much money and now we have to live within our means.  Some slick politician may get a few more years out of the old system, but fundamentally we must change.  We can do it on our terms or we can wait for credit rating driven interest rates to drive us out of the borrowing party.   So if the end of borrowing is a fact, then there is really only one question left to ask, isn't there?  THAT is where the real debate is. 

I disagree with most of the regular posters here over the proper role of the Federal Government.  In my mind, that is pretty simple as well.  To me, it is spelled out in no uncertain terms.  I realize that others see things differently, and that recently even the judiciary has seemed willing to violate the clear language of the Constitution.  But of course, they are wrong.... :).

Just saying goodbye to more jobs due to higher taxes with the "you'll know what's in it after we pass it" health care reform bill.   :o

QuoteMedtech asks Congress to repeal device tax
Rick Merritt
7/18/2011 1:18 PM EDT
SAN JOSE, Calif. â€" More than 420 companies including Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical and Stryker signed on to a letter asking the U.S. Congress to repeal a planned 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. The tax could cost $20 billion a year and is set to take effect in 2013 as part of broad health care reform package passed last year.

"The tax is already having an adverse impact on R&D investment and job creation, jeopardizing the U.S. global leadership position in medical device innovation," said the letter."If this tax is not repealed, it will continue to force affected companies to consider cutting manufacturing operations, research and development, and employment levels to recoup the lost earnings due to the tax," it said. "It will also adversely impact patient access to new and innovative medical technologies," it added.

"The medical device excise tax is a serious burden for companies struggling to maintain America's global leadership in the development of medical technology," said Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), a medtech lobbying group that drafted the letter.

The device tax was one part of a sweeping package of health care reforms passed last year. Sponsors of the bill said the fact that it extends health care coverage to an estimated 30 million currently uninsured people will offset the lost revenue from the tax.

AdvaMed took issue with that claim. The letter noted that similar legislation in Massachusetts provided 400,000 more people access to health insurance in that state but "there is no evidence of a device 'windfall'" there, the letter said.

The letter said the U.S. medtech sector employs more than 400,000 U.S. workers, generates approximately $25 billion in payroll at salaries that are 40 percent more than the national average and invests nearly $10 billion in research and development annually.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217937/Medtech-asks-Congress-to-repeal-device-tax

The FDA does not have the money it needs to do the job it has been given.  A 2.5% excise tax on medical devices is a drop in the bucket, a pittance for the companies and the hospitals.  An excise tax does not go into the general fund, but is targeted to a particular purpose.  If this is for the FDA and will speed up its review and approval  process it will be a net benefit for the entire industry.

I was in the medical device business for many years as the owner and chief executive of the business.  I didn't just make obscene profits, they were absolutely pornographic.  The market for medical devices is so lucrative that there won't even be a blip in the number of people trying to get into it.  It is unbelievably competitive, but not on prices.

Everybody is trying to make the "next best thing".  Hit that and market it properly and the money just rolls in.  It's as risky, exciting, fast-moving and really, really profitable.  Having the baby boomers coming into their big device using years means big money for everybody.

Johnson & Johnson just paid $2.2 billion dollars for Synthes, a company that was owned by one man.  J&J so poorly manages its medical device businesses that they are a far bigger threat to the industry this little tax.

just curious and don't mean to take you off subject, but if it was so lucrative, are you retired now? why not still in the business?


and back to the point - regardless of what you or I think, jobs are nonetheless leaving the country and several companies are telling why. 

Why won't anyone talk to the bucket?

Not me, I was at the Salvation Army volunteering on Stuff the Bus all day yesterday.

Just putting that out there for NotNow, since I'm such a greedy $&@! who never contributes to charity, and all.  ::)

I didn't say you were greedy Chris.  I said to give some of that unearned income to sheclown for her halfway house efforts.  I do apologize for teasing you about your family wealth though.  And I hope you appreciate what your family has done for you as well.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2011, 09:15:42 AM

Quote from: Sigma on July 29, 2011, 05:24:14 PM
just curious and don't mean to take you off subject, but if it was so lucrative, are you retired now? why not still in the business?


and back to the point - regardless of what you or I think, jobs are nonetheless leaving the country and several companies are telling why.

Yes, Jobs are leaving the country.  Thanks to the policies that you endorse.

So I guess, um,.... .thanks once again Sigma.

what policies would that be Stephen?  Obamacare?  I believe that's your baby.

Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2011, 09:15:42 AM

Quote from: Sigma on July 29, 2011, 05:24:14 PM
just curious and don't mean to take you off subject, but if it was so lucrative, are you retired now? why not still in the business?


and back to the point - regardless of what you or I think, jobs are nonetheless leaving the country and several companies are telling why.

Yes, Jobs are leaving the country.  Thanks to the policies that you endorse.

So I guess, um,.... .thanks once again Sigma.

Hmmm, yeah, I just LOVE this chart that proves Republican's idea of government's role is wrong. CUT taxes on the wealthy and corporations, is the worst government can do to promote growth and recovery! In fact, it will continue to put us in a negative, downward spiral!!

(http://www.beatthesqueeze.com/images/issues/effective_stimulus.jpg)

And yet Republicans cannot let go of this flawed brainwashed ideology that is destroying our country.

The reality is,.............social programs contribute soooooo much more to economic stability and growth, Republicans should learn to embrace them as a legitimate and very basic role of government in a civilized society that is concerned about economic growth and stability.

Besides, each and every one of them will come to rely on a social program at some point in their lives.

Instead of all the chaos Republicans are creating based on their flawed ideology, they should read up on
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy.............after all, our economy has become as rocky as a third world country's economy!!!

http://steadystate.org/

Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

Quote from: Sigma on July 29, 2011, 05:24:14 PM
just curious and don't mean to take you off subject, but if it was so lucrative, are you retired now? why not still in the business?


and back to the point - regardless of what you or I think, jobs are nonetheless leaving the country and several companies are telling why. 

Medical device jobs are not leaving this country because of a tiny excise tax.  The volume of most medical devices does not justify moving jobs to a low wage country.  Labor costs are a tiny part of the cost of devices.

There is even a good deal of device manufacturing here in Jacksonville.  Both Medtronic and J&J, two largest medical device manufacturers in the world, have manufacturing facilities here.  And, yes, your Vistakon contact lenses are medical devices.

My company and most of the others do our development work outside the US because of the tort system in the US and the greater predictability of the regulatory approval process.  The FDA is underfunded and completely swamped by its duties for food safety, drug safety and device safety.  Their decisions are always slow and sometimes capricious.  The FDA needs to be split into two separate agencies, one for food safety and the other for drugs and medical devices.

Devices, even those developed by American companies and manufactured here, are always available in other countries before they are available here in the US.  If I ever need my hip replaced, I'm going to Germany.

Why out of the business?  Try spending three months of the year in one and two week bites flying around the world to train surgeons to use your devices.  After a while all airports, hotels and hospitals begin to blur together no matter what country they are in.  Try having a hundred or so families depending on the quality of your business decisions.  Try being told by the FDA that your company isn't big enough to put certain kinds of devices on the market.

One gets tired and older.  I am not an empire builder and at some point more money doesn't matter.  I have everything I need and now have time to enjoy life and do things like post on this forum.

You have an interesting story and point of view DW.  What would be your "top 3" actions to add jobs to our economy?

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

The US Constitution was written before the threat of take-over of governments by large corporations existed.

Lets protect the PEOPLE from this travesty.

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 30, 2011, 10:46:08 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

The US Constitution was written before the threat of take-over of governments by large corporations existed.

Lets protect the PEOPLE from this travesty.

Soooo you believe that the Federal government is well under the influence of evil corporations, and yet you want to give the Federal government more power and money? 

Limit the Federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers and you will solve the problem that you seem to see.

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:53:49 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 30, 2011, 10:46:08 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

The US Constitution was written before the threat of take-over of governments by large corporations existed.

Lets protect the PEOPLE from this travesty.

Soooo you believe that the Federal government is well under the influence of evil corporations, and yet you want to give the Federal government more power and money? 

Limit the Federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers and you will solve the problem that you seem to see.

I want government to have the power to protect the People from enemies within as well as enemies from outside our borders.

Republicans are anti-government, except for defense, and the protection of large corporations and the wealthy.

I understand what you want.  In this country we have a government of laws.  It starts with the Constitution.  That will not change.

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 11:45:40 AM
I understand what you want.  In this country we have a government of laws.  It starts with the Constitution.  That will not change.

Thank you. Fortunately it is not against the constitution to protect the PEOPLE from the disprorportionate power of corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

May we both agree on that too.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government certain powers.  The States, and the people (are supposed to) retain ALL other power.  We agree that one of the functions of government is to protect its citizens, we just don't agree on which government and the methods.  Thanks for your thoughts though Faye!

The fixation on the intrepretation of the Constitution keeps us from addressing the most pressing common problem we have that is destroying us from within:

The fact that there has been a corporate take-over of government.

Corporations LOVE it that we are squabbling amongst ourselves about the constitution, it keeps us distracted from the REAL enemy: the abuse of the power elite ie the corporations and the ultra-wealthy that are sucking the life-blood out our country.

Remember it isn't them that create the jobs..........it is our Demand for goods and services that create jobs. Without REAL purchasing power among the general public, our economy will collapse!

The fixation on the Constitution is what will keep America free.  Heed the lessons of the past.  "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin.

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 12:46:13 PM
The fixation on the Constitution is what will keep America free.  Heed the lessons of the past.  "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin.

I beg to differ. Western European societies are as free if not free-er than the US!

The US was established bringing European free ideas to the US. Land and resources is what brought most European immigrants to the US.

Many of our earliest Presidents were European born.

I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

All US Presidents were born in the current US.  Natural born citizenship is a requirement, always has been.  See the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 01:20:21 PM
I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

All US Presidents were born in the current US.  Natural born citizenship is a requirement, always has been.  See the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.

Many third world nations have freedom from government as their governments are hugely in-effective.

Government is not our enemy, it should be used for the common good.........things we cannot do on our own.

QuotePreamble

Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in 1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of the United States of America.

Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who had served as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder:

1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia.

The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.

Of the several search engines we tried only Bing gave the correct answer by stating some of the US presidents were born under the British crown controlled colonies in North America and listed the US presidents in order with their birth days. Google search referred us to Wickipedia, which wrongly identified the 8th .US president Van Buren as the First US born president. President Van Buren was born in December 5th. 1782 in the British colony of New York. The treaty of Paris establishing USA as a New Country was not signed until nine months later in September 3, 1783

http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html

You said:

"Many of our earliest Presidents were European born."

The Constitution says:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

No US President was born in Europe.  Obviously, prior to the formation of the US, citizens of the American colonies were British subjects. 

I'll just leave it at that.

And of course you are mistaken when you conflate "limited government" with "ineffective government".  You do understand the American principles of limited government, right?

You said:

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 01:20:21 PM
I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

To be free of government means having pretty much NO government just like third world nations.

Complex civilized nations by their very nature require an effective government for oversight, accountability and protection of its citizens from enemies, domestic and foreign.

Currently the US is under siege from a corporate coup and the uttra-wealthy that are only looking after themselves at the expense of our citizenry.

Republicans and many Democrats do their bidding.

QuoteOp-Ed Columnist

Republicans, Zealots and Our Security

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 23, 2011

IF China or Iran threatened our national credit rating and tried to drive up our interest rates, or if they sought to damage our education system, we would erupt in outrage.


Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof


On the Ground



Well, wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists.

We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack. But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength â€" and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.

House Republicans start from a legitimate concern about rising long-term debt. Politicians are usually focused only on short-term issues, so it would be commendable to see the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party seriously focused on containing long-term debt. But on this issue, many House Republicans aren’t serious, they’re just obsessive in a destructive way.

The upshot is that in their effort to protect the American economy from debt, some of them are willing to drag it over the cliff of default.

It is not exactly true that this would be our first default. We defaulted in 1790. By some definitions, we defaulted on certain gold obligations in 1933. And in 1979, the United States had trouble managing payouts to some individual investors on time (partly because of a failure of word processing equipment) and thus was in technical default.

Yet even that brief lapse in 1979 raised interest payments in the United States. Terry L. Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University and co-author of a scholarly paper about the episode, says the 1979 default increased American government borrowing costs by 0.6 of a percentage point indefinitely.

Any deliberate and sustained interruption this year could have a greater impact. We would see higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, business loans and credit cards.

American government borrowing would also become more expensive. In February, the Congressional Budget Office noted that a 1 percentage point rise in interest rates could add more than $1 trillion to borrowing costs over a decade.

In other words, Republican zeal to lower debts could result in increased interest expenses and higher debts. Their mania to save taxpayers could cost taxpayers. That suggests not governance so much as fanaticism.

More broadly, a default would leave America a global laughingstock. Our “soft power,” our promotion of democracy around the world, and our influence would all take a hit. The spectacle of paralysis in the world’s largest economy is already bewildering to many countries. If there is awe for our military prowess and delight in our movies and music, there is scorn for our political/economic management.

While one danger to national security comes from the risk of default, another comes from overzealous budget cuts â€" especially in education, at the local, state and national levels. When we cut to the education bone, we’re not preserving our future but undermining it.

It should be a national disgrace that the United States government has eliminated spending for major literacy programs in the last few months, with scarcely a murmur of dissent.

Consider Reading Is Fundamental, a 45-year-old nonprofit program that has cost the federal government only $25 million annually. It’s a public-private partnership with 400,000 volunteers, and it puts books in the hands of low-income children. The program helped four million American children improve their reading skills last year. Now it has lost all federal support.

“They have made a real difference for millions of kids,” Kyle Zimmer, founder of First Book, another literacy program that I’ve admired, said of Reading Is Fundamental. “It is a tremendous loss that their federal support has been cut. We are going to pay for these cuts in education for generations.”

Education programs like these aren’t quick fixes, and the relation between spending and outcomes is uncertain and complex. Nurturing reading skills is a slog rather than a sprint â€" but without universal literacy we have no hope of spreading opportunity, fighting crime or chipping away at poverty.

“The attack on literacy programs reflects a broader assault on education programs,” said Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut. She notes that Republicans want to cut everything from early childhood programs to Pell grants for college students. Republican proposals have singled out some 43 education programs for elimination, but it’s not seen as equally essential to end tax loopholes on hedge fund managers.

So let’s remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let’s also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24kristof.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:53:49 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 30, 2011, 10:46:08 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

The US Constitution was written before the threat of take-over of governments by large corporations existed.

Lets protect the PEOPLE from this travesty.

Soooo you believe that the Federal government is well under the influence of evil corporations, and yet you want to give the Federal government more power and money? 

Limit the Federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers and you will solve the problem that you seem to see.

After doing a bit of my own (ongoing, and perhaps disorganized) research, I have come to the conlusion that the closest Corporate entity to our government is Goldman Sachs. They virtually run the fed. Other Too Big To fail behemoths are in the mix as well.

It aint big oil running the show. (though they do their part to get their share of the booty)

Quote from: NotNow on July 30, 2011, 10:37:04 AM
You have an interesting story and point of view DW.  What would be your "top 3" actions to add jobs to our economy?

1. We are in a cash crunch right now.  Consumers can't spend and companies won't spend until they see that consumers are.  Companies are being smart and hoarding their cash.  It is a perfect time for a true Keysian stimulus program;  government spending that gets the most money into the pockets of middle class and unemployed people as quickly as possible.  FDR actually had it right early in his administration.  Put people to work in infrastructure projects.  Revive the WPA and the CCC.  Pay the best and brightest of our young people a stipend to go to college.

This would increase the deficit in the short term, but prime the spending pump of our economy and allow us to pay it back later.  We are stagnating now.

2. Universal, single payer health care i.e. Medicare for everyone.  US companies are at a huge disadvantage trying to compete when they have to make healthcare part of their reimbursement package.  Having only employer assisted  healthcare also locks people into jobs to protect their families.  We would unleash a huge wave of new small businesses if people could try to start a business without fear of losing healthcare for their families.  Other countries have many, many more small businesses proportionally than we do because they have health care coverage in a single payer system.  It makes employees easier for a small business to hire too.

3. Re-balance our tax system to dis-incentiveize finance "products" and trading plus incentivize manufacturing.  A zero corporate tax rate for income derived from manufacturing in the USA would be a good start as would extending the Medicare and Social Security taxes (FICA) to ALL earnings on all individuals.  Make $10 million a year trading derivatives and  pay FICA on every penny.

"2. Universal, single payer health care i.e. Medicare for everyone.  US companies are at a huge disadvantage trying to compete when they have to make healthcare part of their reimbursement package.  Having only employer assisted  healthcare also locks people into jobs to protect their families.  We would unleash a huge wave of new small businesses if people could try to start a business without fear of losing healthcare for their families.  Other countries have many, many more small businesses proportionally than we do because they have health care coverage in a single payer system.  It makes employees easier for a small business to hire to".

Yeah this alone would do soo much! 

Thanks DW!  Though I disagree on several points I do respect your opinion.

QuoteThe President Can And Must Invoke 31 USC 3102 To Pay Our National Debts


There has been some talk that the President can act unilaterally to raise the nation debt limit based on Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned". The argument has been made that since Congress has ALREADY authorized BY LAW each obligation represented in the national debt, by appropriating the funds for various expenditures, any overall "debt limit" is artificially redundant. It would be like writing a bunch of checks and then refusing to deposit the funds in your account to cover them. While a constitutional challenge of the debt limit law may be a defensible argument in the spirit of the 14th Amendment it is not unequivocally compelling, as the 14th Amendment does not expressly authorize what proponents are asking the President to do.

With this context, it is astonishing that apparently nobody has bothered to read the text of Public Debt Law of 1941 itself, embodied in 31 USC 3101, which is what codifies a national debt limit. That law states that

"The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than [some arbitrary huge number] . . . "

Please take careful note of the words "EXCEPT guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of The Treasury". By undeniably clear law as passed by Congress, such obligations are NOT constrained by any so-called debt limit. Now all you have to do is run your finger down to the very next section 31 USC 3102 [Bonds] and you will read

"With the approval of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow on the credit of the United States Government amounts necessary for expenditures authorized by law . . . "

By this section Congress gives the President the EXPRESS, inherent and unilateral authority to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to incur obligations to cover all expenditures authorized by law, which is to say the sum of the appropriations bills Congress has already passed. And as we have just so clearly demonstrated such obligations are immune from any so-called debt ceiling limitation. Surely there is some White House attorney smart enough to figure this all out as we have.

The President must invoke this authority now, as he is fully empowered to do by 31 USC 3102. And then Congress needs to get serious about raising the revenues to pay its bills, and not just on the backs of poor people.

The one click form below will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject "The President Can And Must Invoke 31 USC 3102 To Pay Our National Debts." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1082.php

So just leave the debt ceiling in place, and let the president use his legislated authority to keep paying for the stuff that will keep our credit rating high?  I like that idea.  Then when the social security checks don't go out, the people will know that Congress isn't raising enough money.

Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 08:32:58 AM
Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

He never was a radical........always been a conformist so he doesn't mind making "statements" when it's safe to do so:

QuoteSenator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway

January 05, 2011 3:00 PM



On Sunday, President Obama’s top economic adviser, Council of Economic Advisers chair Austan Goolsbee, cautioned members of Congress not to “play chicken” by voting against raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling â€" despite the fact that as a senator in 2006, President Obama voted that way.

“I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee told me on ABC News’ THIS WEEK.  “If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

Goolsbee said a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause “a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008…This is not a game. The debt ceiling is not something to toy with.”

Four year ago, however, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted the exact way President Obama is now cautioning senators not to do.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

The debt limit was raised by a vote of 52-48.

Asked about that quote â€" and vote -- today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that it was important that “based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt.”

Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/gibbs-senator-obama-only-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-in-2006-because-he-knew-it-would-pass-an.html

Still, I despise such game playing and voters prefer authenticity you would think.

I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 08:32:58 AM
Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

I think it makes him exactly what he has said it makes him "wrong about that decision".

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 31, 2011, 09:22:12 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

When Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling he was making a statement... which you seem to approve of.  hence you must also approve of those who are making a statement now.  You could almost call Senator Obama a prototypical Tea Partier...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 10:07:57 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on July 31, 2011, 09:22:12 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

When Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling he was making a statement... which you seem to approve of.  hence you must also approve of those who are making a statement now.  You could almost call Senator Obama a prototypical Tea Partier...

Did you not see my last sentence?

QuoteStill, I despise such game playing and voters prefer authenticity you would think.

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 31, 2011, 08:32:58 AM
Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

I think it makes him exactly what he has said it makes him "wrong about that decision".

Perhaps... he very clearly felt pretty strongly about it.  I mean... he makes some pretty specific "Tea Party type" claims here.  I think I heard Rand Paul say the exact same thing the other day...

Quote“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 US Government can not 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.”   

-- Senator  Barack H. Obama, March 2006

The problem is that we vote for people who tell us what we want to hear instead of what we need to know.

Does anybody remember who Paul Tsongas was?  If you don't then I've made my point.

Quote from: stephendare on July 31, 2011, 11:12:28 AM
Im not sure if Im following your reasoning here, Bridge Troll.

Are you saying that causing the country intolerable harm as a result of group identity and ideology, and a lone senator voting against a bill to make a statement are the same thing?

And why in hell are you supporting deficit reduction now?

You didnt give two flying figs about it when Senator Obama voted against a three trillion dollar drain on our economy back when you were implying that anyone who disagreed with your pals was anti american or just didnt understand world politics?  Remember?  You know.. 911 and all?  That whole international terrorist thing?  In fact, you werent content with taking money out of all our pockets, didnt you also tell us that Al Quaeda was so powerful that we needed to sacrifice our constitutional liberties to be protected against big bad Osama?

That was back when you were calling Senator Obama an unelectable liberal I believe, and Charleston Dave and NotNow were 'weeping for this country' because people didnt see the connection between your three trillion dollar wars and the events of 911.

Of course Senator Obama became President Obama and he had Osama Bin Laden killed with a very small operation that acted independently of the two wars that you and your pals started.

Oh yeah, it was also in a different country----Pakistan.

Im trying to get a 'takeaway' from all this.

He was not the lone senator... and here is the punch line... if it wasnt so sad it would be hilarious...



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress â€" 2nd Session

As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.47 )
Vote Number:54 Vote Date:March 16, 2006, 11:17 AM

(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Roll-Call.gif)

No doubt both parties have played politics with this.  I do not believe however these past votes have had anyone seriously considering default.  I think many of the Tea Party representatives consider default an acceptable outcome.  At the very least weather you think that is acceptable it is a radical departure from what we have believed in the past about paying our bills.  We decided to spend that money we have to pay the piper.

Balance the budget by closing tax loopholes and bringing the troops home.

It would hurt you to post unbiased information wouldn't it Stephen.  Heck, why not just slap a vid of Bill Maher up there while you're drinking the kool-aid?

I doubt Mr. Hartman is forgetting the many other factors in his "analysis" that contribute to the few examples he gives, he's just another leftist disregarding those issues while demonizing Bush.  Most people understand that fault does not lie in the hands of a few in one party, but many in both parties. So will the solution.

Quote“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 US Government can not 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.”   

-- Senator  Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Quote from: Sigma on July 27, 2011, 11:51:55 AM

Quote from: RiversideLoki on July 26, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
Before you get all "BUT HE'S JUST BLAMING BUSH!"

(http://i.imgur.com/cgNrh.gif)

There are plenty of issues with this dubious NYT's chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here.  Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues.

The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis.  It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.

The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion â€" less than the annual deficit these days. It doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the bias that the NYTs wants to portray here.

The war costs used by the NYTs appears to contain mainly costs that would have been incurred by the Department of Defense whether or not we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

It also fails fails to include the costs of both wars under Obama for the first two years.  Similarly, the chart correctly notes the first tranche of TARP under Bush, but skips the second tranche under Obama.  Also, the category of “2008 Stimulus and Other Changes” seems pretty suspect, since the 2008 stimulus was scored at $150 billion, or less than one-fifth of the $773 billion the NYTs claims.

http://youtu.be/YOtOqDyH_x8

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/29/the-facts-about-spending-cuts

QuoteThe Facts About Spending Cuts, the Debt, and the GDP
Separating economic myths from economic truths

Veronique de Rugy | July 29, 2011

Editor's Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Raising the debt limit might put off a downgrade disaster in August, but that still isn’t enoughâ€"as Standard & Poor’s recent warning made clear. Perhaps the most important shot not heard around the world was S&P’s other admonition: Namely, that the U.S. bond rating will be downgraded in three months, if not sooner, unless we do something about government spending. Beyond raising the debt limit, S&P laid out clear criteria for avoiding a downgrade: 1) reduce the debt by about $4 trillion; 2) agree to a credible plan within three months; and 3) guarantee that this newfound fiscal discipline will actually stick.

If S&P isn’t bluffing, then lawmakers should get serious about reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, and they should do it quickly. But how do we achieve such a task?

Myth 1: You cannot reduce the deficit to an appropriate level without also raising taxes.

Fact 1: Spending cuts are the most effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.


We are not the first nation to struggle with a dangerous debt-to-GDP ratio, and thankfully, the academic world has already produced great insights into what can be done to reduce this ratio without hurting the economy.

Take the work of Harvard’s Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna. They examined 107 efforts to reduce the debt in 21 OECD nations between 1970â€"2007. Their findings suggest that tax cuts are more expansionary than spending increases in the cases of a fiscal stimulus. Also, they found that spending cuts are a more effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio:

    For fiscal adjustments we show that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt and avoiding economic downturns. In fact, we uncover several episodes in which spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions. We also investigate which components of taxes and spending affect the economy more in these large episodes and we try to uncover channels running through private consumption and/or investment.

As you can see in this chart, in cases of successful fiscal adjustmentsâ€"defined by the cumulative reduction in debt-to-GDP ratio three years after fiscal adjustment greater than 4.5 percentage pointsâ€"spending as a share of GDP fell by about 2 percentage points while revenue also fell by half a percentage point (left bars). On the other hand, unsuccessful fiscal adjustment packagesâ€"cumulative increases in debt-to-GDP ratioâ€"were made of smaller spending reductions (only 0.8 percentage-point reduction) and large revenue increases (right bars).

(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/RCdebt1.jpg)

The IMF found similar results and reports that fiscal adjustment on the requisite scale of what we need today is actually not unprecedented:

    During the past three decades, there were 14 episodes in advanced economies and 26 in emerging economies when individual countries adjusted their structural primary balance by more than 7 percentage points of GDP. Several economies were also able to sustain large primary surpluses for five or more years afterwards, though the record is more mixed in this regard.

For those who are not ideologically inclined toward austerity measures, it is key to remember that this research is consistent with the work of former Obama Council of Economic Advisers chairman Christina Romer and her economist husband, David Romer, which shows that increasing taxes by 1 percent of GDP for deficit-reduction purposes leads to a 3 percent reduction in GDP. In fact, Alesina and Ardagna discuss the work of Romer and Romer  starting on page five of their paper.

Myth 2: Lawmakers facing economic catastrophe forget about politics and adopt measures that address genuine fiscal issues.

Fact 2: Politicians rarely put politics aside. Historically, four out of five fiscal adjustments were primarily comprised of tax increasesâ€"and were unsuccessful.


(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/RCdebt2.jpg)

Following and building on Alesina and Ardagna’s work, a new paper by Andrew Biggs, Kevin Hassett, and Matthew Jensen of the American Enterprise Institute studies fiscal adjustments covering over 100 instances in which countries took steps to address their budget gaps. Their results are consistent with those of the Harvard economists; expenditure cuts outweigh revenue increases in successful consolidations. Moreover, their work shows that even in a time of crisis (or especially in a time of crisis), lawmakers tend to adopt policies for the sake of politics. Countries in fiscal trouble generally got there through years of catering to interest groups and pro-spending constituencies (on both sides of the political aisle), and their fiscal adjustments tend to make too many of the same mistakes.

As a result, failed fiscal consolidations are the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, 80 percent of the fiscal adjustments Biggs, Hassett, and Jensen studied were failures. The United States cannot afford to follow this pattern.

Myth 3: We have had higher debt-to-GDP ratios before so we shouldn’t worry now.

Fact 3: We should worry. The debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the size of the government’s real liabilities.

(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/RCdebt3.jpg)

As government debt and deficits have swollen, we often look to the past for guidance. From that point of view, history appears to be reassuring, since several advanced countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios much higher than the one we have now. The United States after World War II had a public debt/GDP ratio of roughly 110 percent, while Britain’s was 250 percent. In fact, the UK’s national debt has averaged almost 100 percent of GDP since its creation in 1693. France's public debt was about 280 percent of GDP at the end of World War II. And yet neither of these countries defaulted. So why should we worry?

Two main reasons: First, while our debt is big now, it’s only going to get bigger in the coming years. This year, the debt held by the public is $9.7 trillion, which is roughly 69 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will reach 200 percent in 2037--if the economy doesn’t collapse first (which it likely will). These projections aren’t surprising considering that the president’s budget doubles the debt held by the public from $9 trillion today to $18 trillion in 2021.

Second, the debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the scale of our debt problem. Here is why:

1. Intragovernmental debt. This $4.6 trillion of debt is money that the federal government owes to its various trust funds. In other words, it’s a liability to the government but an asset to the trust funds, so in accounting term it’s zeroed out. However, over time the programs will redeem the IOUs as they need the money to fund benefits. As that happens, the intragovernmental debt decreases but debt held by the public increases. Eventually, this $4.6 trillion will be converted into public debt.

2. Unaccounted liabilities. There exists a broad range of liabilities that are debt, yet are not captured in the debt-to-GDP ratio. To take one example, the Financial Statement of the United States values the government’s civil-service pension liabilities (that is, the contractual claims on government accumulated to date by civil servants) at $5.7 trillion. That amount is not captured by the debt-to-GDP ratio. A share of this $5.7 trillion will be paid for by IOUs included in the intragovernmental debt, which we know will be converted into public debt. In addition, the unfunded share of this liability will have to be paid for with more debt, which isn’t accounted for in the debt/GDP metric. The Financial Statement of the United States shows another $1.5 trillion of such liabilities, including payments due to government-sponsored enterprises.

3. Unfunded liabilities. There is a balance of $39 trillion in unfunded liabilities over 75 years for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

While we can’t add all these numbers up because it would be the equivalent of comparing oranges to apples (some of these numbers represent the net present value of beneficiaries’ future claims on the government), considering them in context still helps to illustrate why the debt-to-GDP ratio underestimates how much present and future debt has been accumulated over the years. Hopefully, this also helps illustrate why the current debt-ceiling debate shouldn’t just focus on Treasury’s ability to pay our bills today, but must focus on our overall debt problem.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

(http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e3542c96bb3f73216000026/chart.png)


http://www.businessinsider.com/a-few-more-charts-that-should-accompany-every-discussion-about-the-debt-2011-7

A relevant chart along with an insightful essay offered by a writer employed by a left leaning publication via a site which is also leftward leaning .

A daily read for me thanks to the advice of a mutual friend (who says it's the aliens running the show... who am I to disagree?).

I found that quite interesting myself. Your  quick response indicates that you did not read the article.

There's a whole lotta "Hide the military budget from any cuts" going on all around the aisles.

Quote from: stephendare on July 31, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
interesting how business insider spread the military costs across the entire pie chart, dont you think?

interesting how social security is included as well.  I thought ss paid its own way?

Quote from: stephendare on July 31, 2011, 04:25:34 PM
also dumb and just a recitation of political opinions.  no facts.

No wonder you have these quaint opinions.

you got facts.  and all you have is petulant remarks. 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png)

An eye opener:

QuoteTraitors.

Joshua M Brown July 31st, 2011
Ladies and gentlemen, today is August 1st 2011.  We are no longer flirting with disaster, we are getting to second base with it in the backseat at Inspiration Point.

The worst thing about these Tea Party assholes is that they're actually right - even as what they are about to do may go down as the worst self-sabotage in the economic history of the United States.

Any rational, non-partisan person can see that the reckless spending and gigantic government of the last ten years are absurdities that need to be corrected - but there is a time and a place.  How dare these sonofabitches choose now to put the US on a collision course with a ratings downgrade?

How dare they stand in the way of a routine debt roll with over 9 percent of the workforce unable to find a job and at a time during which we're still trying to claw our way back from the worst recession in 70 years?

To be clear, the risk here is not one of real default or a lack of ability to make payments on the debt.  The estimated interest on our debt for 2011 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $225 billion, a large number but not an insurmountable one when you consider that total revenues for the Federal government should exceed $2.228 trillion this year.  For an illustration of this, please see the below chart via Barron's:



What we're really talking about is a rattling of confidence in the $14 trillion Treasury market, the most important asset class on the planet.  Keep in mind that Lehman Brothers, which precipitated a global asset market crash less than three years ago, had total debt outstanding of just $600 billion, less than 5% of the US debt pile we're flicking a zippo in front of.  While there are large and obvious differences between what Lehman Brothers was and what the US Treasury is, there is one commonality between these two situations that cannot be waved away:  The fear of a large institution missing a debt payment causes a shockwave through global markets as people freak out and begin losing faith in everything.

This "freaking out" leads to a repricing of risk as everyone looks twice at what their capital is funding.  Correlations shoot toward 1.0 and everything, safe or unsafe, is liquidated en masse.  Raise your hand if you think a hardline "message" being sent is worth risking this...Yeah, I didn't think so.

I think we can all agree that a ratings downgrade will come come in the not-too distant future if we are unable to get serious about the budget and deficit.  But to roll out the red carpet for that via technical default at this very moment just to "appease the base" is suicidal and, frankly, unpatriotic behavior.

I ask you to bear in mind that this intransigent clutch of radicals within the GOP have chosen to force this issue during a time when China, India and Latin America are tightening rates.  In the meanwhile, Europe is in the worst shape its been in since the Bubonic Plague swept westward in the mid-fourteenth century, adding even more heat to the pressure cooker.  And to top it off, our own economy is showing daily signs of weakening despite the ungodly amounts of stimulus we've seen thrown at it.

Now you'll have to forgive me, I'm not a Harvard Professor of Economics and so I can't tell you exactly what to do about a GDP run rate that's barely registering above 1%...but I can tell you what NOT to do:  Chris Brown-ing the credit markets by forcing a ratings downgrade while simultaneously imposing a shock-and-awesterity on the middle class would pretty much guarantee a double dip (or worse).  Go dig up Herbert Hoover and have Michelle Bachmann rouse him with an incantation.  He'll school you, retards.

As to the Tea Party's insistence on a "balanced budget" constitutional amendment and the end of casual deficits?  Okay - totally reasonable and I'd love to see them win out on both issues.  In a true, unhurried vote, I bet they could.  But at this moment we are in an emergency, largely a political one that they've forced upon us.  A patient in surgery doesn't start exercising and eating a salad with his fucking chest cavity wide open on the operating table.  Again, a time and place for everything.

There will be plenty of time to vote on spending cuts and amendments between now and the 2012 elections.  In fact, let's make this issue the focal point of the 2012 elections for a change, instead of the gay stuff and the religion stuff the rest of us are so tired of.   But come August 18th we've got a $29 billion payment due on debts we've already run up.  Fiscally, there's no reason we can't make it.  Not paying it will be catastrophic, regardless of what the lunatic fringe wants us believe.

Since these people like to dress up in costumes and embroider their rhetoric with Revolutionary War era motifs, here's a bit of a history lesson from those early days that ought to make it clear just how important not missing coupons truly is.

In September 1789, the recently victorious United States of America was saddled with a national debt accumulated during the war of $54,124,000 dollars.  Alexander Hamilton was only in office as Secretary of the Treasury for ten days when the House of Representatives asked him for a plan.  Europeans expected that there would be some kind of reduction in what the bondholders could expect from the fledgling nation and not a soul in America expected to be made whole.

And that's when Alexander Hamilton shocked the world and set the standard for what it meant to do business in America.

He told the House that every single promised penny would be paid to holders of United States debt.  He insisted that foreign creditors get full principle and interest so as to establish the US as a serious entity.  He also fought a brutal battle with Congress over whether or not the speculators who had bought up so many bonds from patriots and soldiers should be made whole.  "But they're just miserable speculators, we don't owe it to them to pay in full," Congress said.  But Hamilton strenuously disagreed and eventually carried the day.  This was a great man who instinctively understood the importance of doing what you say you will do, political pressures be damned.

For these so-called representatives of ours to even consider the notion of betraying that legacy is completely beyond the pale.  The potential damage to our still-fragile economy and the well-being of our citizens makes this type of behavior totally unacceptable.  In fact, in an earlier time it would be considered borderline treasonous.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines traitor as "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty."  The duty of our elected representatives in the Senate and the House is to avert calamity, economic or otherwise, and often times this means compromise.  You would think that people who like to wear tri-corner hats and powdered wigs on Youtube would understand this.

And the only thing worse than an economic dilettante voting idiotically in Congress is when someone who's actually worked on The Street acts like they don't know any better.  For shame to the hedge fund managers and finance guys who are providing intellectual cover for the bastards who dare push this nation closer to the cliff's edge!

To Stanley Druckenmiller and the rest of the Oldtimers' Game brain trust, let me say this:  Your ideas about missing a Treasury coupon "just to see what would happen" are so dangerous that I fear someone's been tampering with your meds.  How is it possible that otherwise intelligent people could reasonably believe that the world's reserve debt instrument should be used for a political gambit?  Mr. Druckenmiller (and friends), we agree on the need to get our house cleaned up, just not on your plan of swinging a wrecking ball at it to get the maids' attention.  Congrats on your retirement, please don't feel the need to ever offer public comment again.

And finally, to the narrow group of GOP holdouts in the House who have thus far "refused to negotiate," even with their own party, I say this:

No matter how principled you think you are being, it doesn't give you the right to torpedo your own country just to make a point.  Fuck your principles and your warped sense of conscience, start thinking with your brains instead.  Before the situation gets away and there are no further options left to any of us.

Joshua Morgan Brown
August 1st 2011

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/07/31/traitors/

Quote from: buckethead on August 01, 2011, 08:36:24 AM
An eye opener:

QuoteTraitors.

Joshua M Brown July 31st, 2011
Ladies and gentlemen, today is August 1st 2011.  We are no longer flirting with disaster, we are getting to second base with it in the backseat at Inspiration Point.

The worst thing about these Tea Party assholes is that they're actually right - even as what they are about to do may go down as the worst self-sabotage in the economic history of the United States.

Any rational, non-partisan person can see that the reckless spending and gigantic government of the last ten years are absurdities that need to be corrected - but there is a time and a place.  How dare these sonofabitches choose now to put the US on a collision course with a ratings downgrade?

How dare they stand in the way of a routine debt roll with over 9 percent of the workforce unable to find a job and at a time during which we're still trying to claw our way back from the worst recession in 70 years?

To be clear, the risk here is not one of real default or a lack of ability to make payments on the debt.  The estimated interest on our debt for 2011 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $225 billion, a large number but not an insurmountable one when you consider that total revenues for the Federal government should exceed $2.228 trillion this year.  For an illustration of this, please see the below chart via Barron's:

(http://www.thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/barrons.png)

What we're really talking about is a rattling of confidence in the $14 trillion Treasury market, the most important asset class on the planet.  Keep in mind that Lehman Brothers, which precipitated a global asset market crash less than three years ago, had total debt outstanding of just $600 billion, less than 5% of the US debt pile we're flicking a zippo in front of.  While there are large and obvious differences between what Lehman Brothers was and what the US Treasury is, there is one commonality between these two situations that cannot be waved away:  The fear of a large institution missing a debt payment causes a shockwave through global markets as people freak out and begin losing faith in everything.

This "freaking out" leads to a repricing of risk as everyone looks twice at what their capital is funding.  Correlations shoot toward 1.0 and everything, safe or unsafe, is liquidated en masse.  Raise your hand if you think a hardline "message" being sent is worth risking this...Yeah, I didn't think so.............

No matter how principled you think you are being, it doesn't give you the right to torpedo your own country just to make a point.  Fuck your principles and your warped sense of conscience, start thinking with your brains instead.  Before the situation gets away and there are no further options left to any of us.

Joshua Morgan Brown
August 1st 2011

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/07/31/traitors/

Yes, NOT NOW!!!!

"After months of talk about the nation's runaway debt, lawmakers managed to agree on a plan that, at most, will cut spending by a mere 5%. Is it any wonder federal spending is out of control? ... According to IBD's analysis of available budget numbers, the deal's $2.4 trillion in 10-year cuts amounts to a mere 5% trim off total projected federal spending during that time. It's like a 400-pound man boasting that he plans to drop 20 pounds over a decade, while his doctors warn about the risks of losing weight so fast. Even calling these 'cuts' is a bit of a stretch, since spending will continue to increase, just at a slightly slower pace. ... By 2021, federal spending would still equal 22% of the nation's economy, above the post-World War II average of 20%. Not really a cut, is it? Plus, in the short term, these 'deep,' 'sharp,' 'slashing' cuts would still leave the federal government spending roughly 4% more in 2012 than it did in 2010, and 20% more than it did in 2008. Shorn of all the hyperbole, what this agreement really demonstrates is why it's so hard to get federal spending under control. Both sides routinely use budget gimmicks to exaggerate spending cuts, while armies of special interests swarm Washington to make sure their pet programs don't get touched. All the while, spending marches upward. And reporters too dumb, lazy or biased to understand how budgets work keep falling for this nonsense." --Investor's Business Daily

f*ck your principles NotNow!  you and your stupid sense of logic! shame on you! ;D

we are now walking into bankruptcy, instead of running - good find

QuoteWhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you...you may know that your society is doomed.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Quote from: Sigma on August 03, 2011, 01:06:19 PM

QuoteWhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you...you may know that your society is doomed.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

That Rand quote just says it all, doesn't it?

I heard Paul Ryan say the other day that next year we won't spend as much as we did this year and that is a big shift.  NN and Sigma I think if you had the notion that the debt ceiling which previously had no conditions set on it was going have produce a deal that solved everything you were naive.  You obviously did not expect that but have joined the chorus of those who are complaining that it did not fix everything (debt wise).  It was a good first step and calls for more to be done.

I do not think of myself as naive, I am worried for the future of my country.  While the deficit and debt is not our only concern, it is one that we have direct control over.  As I have stated before, this seems to be a simple problem and the failure of most of our politicians to show ANY leadership is very dissappointing.  And yet, most of the media reports I see show the same ignorance of reality that the politicians seem to have.

From the Washington Post:

The debt deal:  Disaster averted, decline straight ahead
  Text Size Print E-mail Reprints
By Matt Miller, Published: July 31
So this is what we’ve driven the global economy and America’s credit rating to the brink for?

This is why Republicans (who voted for the Paul Ryan plan that would add $5 trillion in red ink over the next decade) decided it was vital to not lift the debt ceiling to accommodate their own budget’s outsized debt?



Matt Miller

A senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center,” Miller writes a weekly column for The Post.




Fast Fix - A deal on the debt ceiling is reached, but the economy is far from fixed.


President Barack Obama says a deal has been reached to raise the government's debt ceiling and avoid a default. He said the deal includes more than $2 trillion in gradual spending cuts and no initial cuts to Social Security and Medicare. (July 31)

This is the best the White House could salvage after inexplicably failing to insist that the debt ceiling be raised as part of December’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts â€" which would have let the country avoid this unprecedented exercise in self-inflicted damage?

If you put aside the talking points both sides will peddle, the disappointing contours of the emerging endgame run as follows:

First, Washington will do nothing more to boost jobs and growth. The best that can be said is that the spending cuts will be tiny in the next two years, so the feds won’t be contracting demand, save for the end of the stimulus. Our epic jobs crisis remains ignored.

Next â€" as to long-term deficit reduction, supposedly the reason the GOP put the country through this costly fiasco â€" the deal remains utterly inadequate, even if the joint congressional committee the plan would empower to address this succeeds.

Here’s why. The Congressional Budget Office says Uncle Sam will spend around $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Assume the committee proposes and Congress enacts a further $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction atop the deal’s $900 billion in initial cuts, and that all this is done on the spending side (though “tax reform” is supposed to be included). That means we’ll have trimmed less than 6 percent from federal spending that is already slated to increase from $3.6 trillion to $5.7 trillion by 2021.

In other words, the numbers sound big and can be sold as “historic,” but they’re not even close to what’s needed.

Sen. Lindsey Graham had it right Sunday. “It’s a $3 trillion package that will allow $7 trillion to be added to the deficit over the next decade,” he said, instead of $10 trillion. “We’re no longer running toward oblivion, we’re walking toward it.”

Politically, however, it’s a sufficient escape hatch. The Tea Party can claim it changed the debate. Other Republicans can say “this is the best we can do without the presidency.” President Obama can tell independents he got “a major down payment on deficit reduction” while still casting the GOP as unreasonably opposed to fair tax hikes on hedge fund managers, oil companies and corporate jet owners.

And the president got the only thing that was ever nonnegotiable from his perspective: a big enough increase in the debt limit to ensure he doesn’t have a repeat of this fiasco during the 2012 campaign, which would make him look fatally weak.

There’s a good chance this package will pass with majority Republican support. The Tea Partyers can huff and puff and say no, because House Speaker John Boehner can still find enough Republicans who will be satisfied to “disapprove” of the debt-ceiling hikes while nonetheless voting for the package. Most Democrats will back their leaders and take credit for “slashing the deficit” while keeping Medicare and Social Security safe.

As for the infamous “trigger” meant to assure the joint committee does its work? I’m told the cuts from any sequester it imposes for failure won’t take effect until January 2013 â€" about the time the Bush tax cuts expire. So it’s not clear the long-term parts of this deal will have any impact, because we’ll be revisiting everything after the election, with whatever cast of characters is sent back to Sodom to do the people’s business.

Taken together, then, the deal is an almost perfect blend of policy punt and political ploy. That’s what passes for “accomplishment” in Washington nowadays.

The media will now parse the byzantine details and the mechanics of passage. But the depressing big picture is this: We’ve averted disaster only to double down on decline.

The only sane agenda â€" more tax cuts and spending stimulus in the near term, coupled with much more deficit reduction in the long term, triggered once unemployment is back below 6 or 7 percent â€" is not even on the table. Nor is there room made for needed investments in infrastructure, research and development, and a new generation of teaching talent. All because the interest groups and ideological litmus tests in both parties ban an expression of a common-sense plan for American renewal â€" as well as utterance of the simple truth that as the boomers age, we’ll need to slow the growth of Medicare and Social Security, trim defense and raise taxes.

If you’re convinced people have more appetite for these truths than our “leaders” believe, now would be a good time to sign up for Americans Elect’s online nominating convention to put an independent ticket on the ballot that offers an alternative to these continuing charades.

Matt Miller is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center.” He writes a weekly online column for The Post.

I don't think you are naive either. I do think we should be excited that for the first time in thirty years a Government not headed by Clinton is seriously looking at the deficit as a problem. The debate has been changed. I give the Tea Party credit it is not business as usual, I give the Republicans and Democrats credit they both sacrificed a little on the projects they want money spent on and I give the President credit he has convinced most Americans that corporations and the rich should share in the sacrifice of a balanced solution.  The journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.  Ok feel free to slap the Pollyanna right out of me.

Not naive Jeffrey - and your assessments in your statements are fair.  I think most rational people realized that whatever happened that the deal would not correct everything.  I think you are right on that the debate has been changed.  I don't think Obama has the political savvy as Clinton.  Clinton moved to center and worked with the Republicans on several issues and it worked.  Obama can keep playing the "evil" corporations gig.  But I think its at his own demise. 

As you said - this is step 1 - it will only get more interesting from here to see if our representatives can execute. 

I do get that if we don't take step number 2 we have not accomplished much.

I'm asking a question here, 

QuoteIt is clear that the defense budget will be cut, though whether dramatically or modestly depends on how things play out. Even with minor cuts, military items may be lost, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, “a $300 billion program that is both behind schedule and over cost,” says Travis Sharp, a budget analyst at the Center for a New American Security. In addition, Pentagon officials may decide to take stock of current plans and money, roughly $200 billion, that is needed to modernize their stockpile of nuclear weapons.
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-worst-nightmare-032608302.html

I know that 300 B isn't a drop in the bucket, so while those of us (even on the right) that are willing to cut defense budgets, who has the oversight of the complete budget failures when it comes to defense contracts?   This is just one aspect and I've read many similar stories that come to the same conclusion - we're (taxpayers) writing checks to cover the costs of a mis-budgeted or intentionally mis-budgeted proposal and covering the difference so that the corps can still make their profits.  This does not make sense.  This is prosecutable in the private sector.  I'm just sayin'.