13 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, as I wrote in my posts my "references" are the data themselves as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Office of Management and Budget. I took their numbers from the years that I listed (which are apolitical) and did the calculations myself. I did not post url's to the table's because I looked up the tables on my work computer but did not want to open RHP on it as well. Therefore I'd have to do all from IPhone which is awfully cumbersome. If you doubt my figures then I'll tell you exactly where to go to get the data and you can check my math. Nevertheless I'm always going to do better than the article for two reasons. First, that piece was written by a puppet economist under the thumb of a political party. Second, the article uses mainly projected data for Clinton while I use the actual data (a benefit of writing about 15 years later).
I have to say, its hard to believe anything that comes out of Washington, isn't it Telerion. I would like it if you could post some of your references though. Of course, even if you could interpreting the facts can often be a daunting task, especially in light of so many people having something to defend or attack through such data. All I can tell ya is, a ...[text shortened]... acy of both Clinton and "W" is the credit crisis and their involvement in that occuring.
13 Jan 10
Whodey, I think some of what you are saying makes perfect sense. I suppose that I disagree when you characterize political figures as universally extremist. I don't think Obama is the radical left. I don't think that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were liberals in elephant suits so to speak. I think that these conflicts are often far less extreme. Nevertheless, the outcome is still very divided and current fiscal policy is still unsustainable. I hope that either party (or both) will eventually be forced to recognize that our spending over the long term must be brought in line with the tax revenues Americans are willing to pay.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionPerhaps you could point out to whodey what the federal budget deficit was under his conservative hero, Ronald Reagan.
Whodey, I think some of what you are saying makes perfect sense. I suppose that I disagree when you characterize political figures as universally extremist. I don't think Obama is the radical left. I don't think that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were liberals in elephant suits so to speak. I think that these conflicts are often far less extreme. Nevertheless, ...[text shortened]... over the long term must be brought in line with the tax revenues Americans are willing to pay.
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe "teabagger" wasn't the best choice of words. I apologize.
Appeal to liberals based upon facts? How about social security? They steal from it continually and is projected to reach a crisis level in the near future by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Want to raise taxes to beef up the funds in social security? They did that in the 1980's only to have them steal those funds. How liberals can flat out ignore such issues e. Any idea what this is in reference to, or are you purposefully trying to offend people?
My main problem with the Tea Party Movement it seems like just a lot of angry people who don't like politicians and they don't like taxes and they don't like spending and they don't like government. But I don't ever hear anything about the SPECIFIC THINGS that they'd like to cut. Do we cut Medicare? (oh no...death panels!!). Do we cut Social Security (oh no...I deserve that money!!). Do we cut national defense? (oh no...my community depends on that air force base!!). Do we cut Education? (oh no...my son depends on those Pell Grants). Do we cut back on infrastructure? (oh no...that bridge in Minnesota!!). Do we get rid of government subsidies for people with mortgages? (don't you dare...).
Okay. So maybe we can't cut anything. So how do we balance the budget? Perhaps we could raise tax...(HERESY!!!!!). Okay. We can't do that. Oh well. There's only one thing left to do.
Yo!! China...can we borrow some more money? What's that? You've finally decided to invest all the money into your own economy? Uh oh.
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's right. Deficits as a fraction of GDP were the largest under Reagan since WW II. I should point out that the current deficit/GDP ratio is larger than any under Reagan, but we all knew that was coming.
Perhaps you could point out to whodey what the federal budget deficit was under his conservative hero, Ronald Reagan.
Whodey, to see what I'm talking about go to www.OMB.gov . Click on the historical tables link. I'm refering to table 1.3 in the far right column. Again Iphone makes linking tedious.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo you don't have an issue with running up a federal deficit of $13 billion dollars? So you don't have a problem with government stealing from social security? So you don't have a problem with depending on China to lend you money so you can pay your yearly deficits? Well then, I guess you are in hog heaven then.
Maybe "teabagger" wasn't the best choice of words. I apologize.
My main problem with the Tea Party Movement it seems like just a lot of angry people who don't like politicians and they don't like taxes and they don't like spending and they don't like government. But I don't ever hear anything about the SPECIFIC THINGS that they'd like to cut. Do we cut ...[text shortened]... hat? You've finally decided to invest all the money into your own economy? Uh oh.
America has for many years been living beyond their means. The recent credit crisis is an indication of this problem. All we know is that we want "that", without careful consideration as to the cost. The notion that things really are not "free" is a hard concept for many Americans to fathom. Health care is not free. Social Security is not free etc, so we best assess the cost in order to decide if they are worth the cost. As with the credit crisis, however, everyone seems to be happy with this entitlement culture. After all, people are collecting social security, and politicians are stealing money from social security that is left over at the end of the year, however, the way things are headed, one day social security will run out of money. Compare that with the credit crisis. Mortgages were being treated like entitlements. The government under Carter forced lenders to give mortgages to high risk indiviuals they would not have ordinarily given mortgages to. Then they further deregulate this entitltement under Clinton. Everyone was happy. People were getting houses of their dreams, politicians were gaining support from both voters and mortgage industry alike as their businesses were booming. In fact, politicians like Senator Dodd were personally enriching themselves through mortage companies like he did through Countrywide via special "deals". Wall Street was packaging up these toxic mortgages in complex derivatives and making money from it. Everyone was happy.....until one day the house of cards fell apart. I see this coming with the rest of the entitlement legislation. This is one of the major reasons why I support the Tea Party movement. No one wants to be a kill joy, but someone has to try and blow the whistle.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionThanks for the info, and yes, I disagree with Reagans spending. 😲
That's right. Deficits as a fraction of GDP were the largest under Reagan since WW II. I should point out that the current deficit/GDP ratio is larger than any under Reagan, but we all knew that was coming.
Whodey, to see what I'm talking about go to www.OMB.gov . Click on the historical tables link. I'm refering to table 1.3 in the far right column. Again Iphone makes linking tedious.
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyDid I say that the deficit was not a concern?
So you don't have an issue with running up a federal deficit of $13 billion dollars? So you don't have a problem with government stealing from social security? So you don't have a problem with depending on China to lend you money so you can pay your yearly deficits? Well then, I guess you are in hog heaven then.
America has for many years been living be movement. No one wants to be a kill joy, but someone has to try and blow the whistle.
What I want to see from the tea party movement is a plan that goes as follows
1. We need to cut Medicare spending by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this.....Here's our plan to address anyone complaining about death panels...
2. We need to cut Social Security spending by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this....Here's our plan to address all the angry seniors who won't like it.
3. We need to cut Defense Spending by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this....Here's our plan to make sure the country will still be safe from
terrorists.
4. We need to cut Medicaid by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this...Here's our plan to make sure that poor people can still get the healthcare they need.
5. We need to cut Welfare and Food Stamps by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this...Here's our plan to make sure no one starves in the streets.
6. We need to make cuts to everything else -- Here's our extremely specific plan.
and MOST IMPORTANTLY
7. We pledge NOT to support ANY tax cuts until the budget has been completely balanced.
Have you learned nothing from the 6 years of GOP control under Bush? All of these Republicans got elected by making vague promises to reduce goverment. How did that work out? The ONLY way we can get the spending under control is if we get VERY specific about how we're going to go about doing it.
14 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe problem here is, once people have a meal ticket, the person taking it from them then becomes deomonized. I think the plan should be jobs, not entitlements. Get the majority of people working and NOT dependent on government spending. It would also bring in more tax revenue.
Did I say that the deficit was not a concern?
What I want to see from the tea party movement is a plan that goes as follows
1. We need to cut Medicare spending by at least 10-15% per year. Here's our plan to do this.....Here's our plan to address anyone complaining about death panels...
2. We need to cut Social Security spending by at least 10-15 nder control is if we get VERY specific about how we're going to go about doing it.
As Telerion once pointed out to me, the American people are schitzophrenic. They want less taxes and, on the other hand, free everything else. The only way out is to stinulate the economy, in my opinion. This should be the platform.
I can't help the fact that the "powers that be" have no such leaders currently. To insttitute change, we need fresh bodies. It can be summed up in two words which are "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE".
The US is sitting on tons of recently discovered Natty gas. In fact, I heard that other countries have turned to it for fuel for their cars. The US is far behind the rest of the world in this regard. Natty gas is around $1.20 per gallon and is much cleaner burning that what OPEC gives us. This should inspire those on the left who are screaming that the sky is falling in terms of carbon emissions, but all you hear are crickets chirping. As we are then converting more of our energy expenditures to Natty gas, we can then prepare long term goals via nuclear fission/fusion which is carbon free. Again, this should inspire the environmentalist wackos on the left but all you hear are crickets chirping. Energy is a national security issue and, as we know, the search for oil has started many a war. The US is not the only ones who have gone to war for it you know. In addition, war is not only hell on earth, it has robbed the US of trillions of dollars. All of this can be directly attributed to past administrations neglagence to make the US energy free. Again, this should inspire those on the left who hate the US presence in Messopotamia but all you hear are chirckets chirping.
And lastly, we need to find ways to stimulate small businesses since they employ up to 2/3 of the work force every year. Forget about GM, and AIG, Fanny and Freddie, and Citybank and tell them all to take a hike!! 😠On the one hand, they are all too big to fail so we prop them up artificially, but on the other hand they are our biggest problem. The best way to make them less significant is to help their competition. After all, they have all failed us, its time to move on to others who may not.
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt'll do no good to "throw all the bums out" if we replace them with a flock of new bums. If we expect the new faces to make real reforms, they'll need a mandate. Otherwise, they'll fill in the blanks by themselves and we'll be throwing tea parties every two years until they run out of tea.
The problem here is, once people have a meal ticket, the person taking it from them then becomes deomonized. I think the plan should be jobs, not entitlements. Get the majority of people working and NOT dependent on government spending. It would also bring in more tax revenue.
As Telerion once pointed out to me, the American people are schitzophrenic. ompetition. After all, they have all failed us, its time to move on to others who may not.
With that in mind, an "energy independence" platform seems like a really good idea. Forget the shopworn global warming debate - it's a really bad idea to have so much of the world's economy riding on one source of fuel (oil). Whether it's natural gas, nuclear power, electric cars, solar panels, or whatever. We need to be developing lots of alternatives. And the effort to do this will create lots of new jobs in cutting edge industries.
Surely there's a way to do this without it just becoming one more weapon for the Elephants and Donkeys to pound each other with. If we can get all the Tea Party people to rally around this, it would be the start of a real movement. If it makes a lot of people in the Texas "awl bidness" angry, so much the better.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesMake no mistake, both elephant and donkey alike are bought and payed for by big oil.
Surely there's a way to do this without it just becoming one more weapon for the Elephants and Donkeys to pound each other with. If we can get all the Tea Party people to rally around this, it would be the start of a real movement. If it makes a lot of people in the Texas "awl bidness" angry, so much the better.[/b]
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt makes the most sense....which is why I don't think it will happen. However, if it did, it would help address joblessness in the US as well as a general lift for the overall economy which is what is desprately needed. Trust me, people care more about having a job than they do "promises" by the entitlement culture in Washington. That is what must be appealed to in order for change to occur.
With that in mind, an "energy independence" platform seems like a really good idea. Forget the shopworn global warming debate - it's a really bad idea to have so much of the world's economy riding on one source of fuel (oil). Whether it's natural gas, nuclear power, electric cars, solar panels, or whatever. We need to be developing lots of alternatives. And the effort to do this will create lots of new jobs in cutting edge industries.
14 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeythe job issue ultimately comes down to figuring out how to get businesses to start hiring at a much faster rate than they currently are doing.
It makes the most sense....which is why I don't think it will happen. However, if it did, it would help address joblessness in the US as well as a general lift for the overall economy which is what is desprately needed. Trust me, people care more about having a job than they do "promises" by the entitlement culture in Washington. That is what must be appealed to in order for change to occur.
the problem is that businesses generally don't want to commit to hiring people until they're sure the economy is back on track. In the meantime, they're apt to do little more than just push their existing workers harder, or rely on temporary help.
In the meantime, the government's options are:
1. the government can provide extra benefits (temporarily) to help the current unemployed people until those new jobs materialize. But you generally don't like this idea.
2. the government can directly create jobs in the public sector. The big problem here is that once the private sector does start hiring again, all that surplus labor will be tied up in these public sector jobs. I generally don't like this idea.
One of the "benefits" of recessions is that it tends to push out a lot of the "aging business" in declining sectors, and makes way for fresh new businesses in rising sectors. It also pushes inefficient businesses over the edge, and gives the more efficient operations more room to expand. This is the main reason why I didn't really like the bailouts (if only there had been another way to prevent financial chaos).
I suppose government could offer various "incentives" to various "green businesses", but this involves having the government "picking winners" and who knows who the winners will be?
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo if you were a business owner how would you feel about hiring new people? With the new NHC on the horizen and cap and trade, you are taking some big chances along side of the already struggling economy. Who knows the impacts to businesses in terms of extra taxation these two money grabs will have? It will be devistating to the economy. Not to worry, thought, those on the left will simply smile and say it is further evidence of how capitalism has failed.
the job issue ultimately comes down to figuring out how to get businesses to start hiring at a much faster rate than they currently are doing.
the problem is that businesses generally don't want to commit to hiring people until they're sure the economy is back on track. In the meantime, they're apt to do little more than just push their existing worker ...[text shortened]... having the government "picking winners" and who knows who the winners will be?
Having said all that, I need to emphasize once again that small businesses employ up to 2/3 of the work force. In addition, they are in the most precarious financial situations as larger corporations have more room to contract. So how can they be helped? The only way I know is to reduce their current tax rates and/or future tax rates. In fact, why not keep the current tax rates on larger corporations and decrease them for small businesses?