Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
18 votes (64.28%)

28 members have voted

AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
July 16th, 2011 at 10:58:03 AM permalink
Quote: Wavy70

It's good to see nothing but useless rhetoric seems to come from Duffs Keyboard. I do not think he is an idiot I just think he can't cease posting idiotic things. I often wonder if he is doing a parody like Colbert.

Once again what started out a thoughtful debate has been turned by AZ to a political rant. Yes Everything bad was from the Democrats and everything good comes from the GOP. Signal to noise issue as usual.



Nice to see Wavy distorting what I say. Despite several posts about if SSI takes economic factors into account; the fact that SSI-owned bonds are not saleable to the general public; and how the Bush Tax Cuts being packaged in one bill have casused Obama to be unable to remove some but not all--despite all that Wavy picks out one line he doesn't like and then makes it out that I am just adding "noise" to the board. One sharp-edged comment and he throws a hissy fit.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
July 16th, 2011 at 11:39:44 AM permalink
I sold all my equities and treasuries. I'm holding onto my CD's, TIPS and muni's for now. The brinksmanship is just too frightening. If no agreement is made this week, by the week after markets will tumble.

--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 16th, 2011 at 7:51:00 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

Thanks for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan raised the FICA taxes. Since my comment was limited in scope to the Social Security Trust Fund, I didn't think I needed to state everything that Ronald Reagan did to cause the incredibly huge debt burden that we have today but if you want to do that, may I recommend starting another thread.



Again ... bitching about paying the tip when dinner was free. More money was in the pockets at the end of the day.

As for the rest of it ... it's impossible to have any discussion with someone who denies truth. I may as well try to convince JerryLogan that Singer's VP system doesn't work. Some discussions are not worth engaging.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 7:22:11 AM permalink
Just for objectivity and clarity in framing the discussion, here's a table using data provided by the CBO at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist07z1.xls (dollar amounts in millions):

Years President Control of House Debt at BOP Debt at EOP Incr/(Decr) Annl. Pct.
1977-1981 Carter Dems 706,398 994,828 288,430 8.9
1981-1987 Reagan Dems 994,828 2,867,800 1,872,972 14.1
1989-1993 HW Bush Dems 2,867,800 4,351,044 1,483,244 10.9
1993-1995 Clinton Dems 4,351,044 4,920,586 569,542 6.3
1995-2001 Clinton Reps 4,920,586 5,769,881 849,295 2.7
2001-2007 W Bush Reps 5,769,881 8,950,744 3,180,863 7.6
2007-2009 W Bush Dems 8,950,744 11,875,851 2,925,107 15.1
2009-2011 Obama Dems 11,875,851 15,144,029 3,268,178 12.9
2011-2013 Obama Reps 15,144,029 17,453,482 (est) 2,309,453 7.3


Even this is a little deceiving because it doesn't account for programs instituted by a predecessor. For example, Obamacare doesn't "kick in" until 2013 or 2014. The new president (can't see Obama winning so long as the Republicans don't implode, which is entirely possible) is saddled with it, and, using only tools like this chart, may be accused of being a big spender when, in fact, the only thing he is, is unable to repeal Obamacare. The big jump the day W Bush took office would seem to suggest that something similar happened with him ... a Clinton "poison pill" kicked in. The only major program I remember W Bush implementing was the prescription drug thing. (BTW, wars are cheap compared to entitlements, see also p. 97 of your 1040 instructions, so it wasn't the wars that caused the jump in debt.)

Using the limited data, the only apparent trend is that a Republican-controlled House gives us the lowest increases in spending. The largest comes with Republicans as president and Dems in the House. But to say that "Reagan = huge increase in debt" is a bizarro over-simplification.

Looking forward, the chart should frighten anyone, and lend understanding to the position of the Tea Party. Your portion - each and every man, woman, and child - is about $48,900. I doubt most of us drive cars that expensive or have credit limits that high. Whatever and whoever is to blame - and there's plenty of blame to go around - is a matter of debate. But stopping the spending is no longer under debate.

Note that stopping the spending is the answer, and not increasing revenues via higher tax rates. First, higher tax rates does not = higher revenue. Second, revenues have been going up that whole period, and still the debt increases. Third, the economy "crashed" after years of increased government spending under W Bush. Rather than conclude, "Hmm, govt spending can stimulate the economy," this data seems to support, "Hmm, govt spending leads to crashing the economy." Obama is doing the exact opposite, indicating that something other than reality is driving his thinking. (At least, if you stay within the data shown, you have to conclude that ... but if you leave the confines of the chart, you also leave the confines of the "Reagan = big deficits" point. Your choice, I'll go either way.)

You simply cannot, with intellectual honesty, support a politician that thinks revenues-too-low-but-spending-more-is-okay and at the same time express concern about the state of historical or current spending. It is like supporting USA soccer and then saying you only support teams that have won a (men's) World Cup. You would be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6771
July 17th, 2011 at 8:09:10 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Your portion - each and every man, woman, and child - is about $48,900. I doubt most of us drive cars that expensive or have credit limits that high.



Of course it is MUCH worse than that. Most Americans will pay nothing towards that debt. Those of us that actually do pay federal taxes will pay some multiple of that. And remember, if you are the classic 'family of four', and are responsible for your proportional amount, that is 200k.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 8:14:37 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Just for objectivity and clarity in framing the discussion, here's a table using data provided by the CBO at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist07z1.xls (dollar amounts in millions):

Years President Control of House Debt at BOP Debt at EOP Incr/(Decr) Annl. Pct.
1977-1981 Carter Dems 706,398 994,828 288,430 8.9
1981-1987 Reagan Dems 994,828 2,867,800 1,872,972 14.1
1989-1993 HW Bush Dems 2,867,800 4,351,044 1,483,244 10.9
1993-1995 Clinton Dems 4,351,044 4,920,586 569,542 6.3
1995-2001 Clinton Reps 4,920,586 5,769,881 849,295 2.7
2001-2007 W Bush Reps 5,769,881 8,950,744 3,180,863 7.6
2007-2009 W Bush Dems 8,950,744 11,875,851 2,925,107 15.1
2009-2011 Obama Dems 11,875,851 15,144,029 3,268,178 12.9
2011-2013 Obama Reps 15,144,029 17,453,482 (est) 2,309,453 7.3

There are four double digit increases in debt listed in that table. Only one of them belongs to a president who is a Democrat. There are five single digit increases in debt listed in that table and only one of them belongs to a president who is a Republican. I hope that a Republican wins the White House in '12 so that we can go back to where deficits don't matter.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 9:34:56 AM permalink
Like a lot of liberals, you conveniently ignore the meat of the content, taking pieces out of context. To show that, most of my response is quotes from what I already wrote.

Quote: s2dbaker

There are four double digit increases in debt listed in that table. Only one of them belongs to a president who is a Democrat. There are five single digit increases in debt listed in that table and only one of them belongs to a president who is a Republican. I hope that a Republican wins the White House in '12 so that we can go back to where deficits don't matter.



Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Even this is a little deceiving because it doesn't account for programs instituted by a predecessor. For example, Obamacare doesn't "kick in" until 2013 or 2014. The new president (can't see Obama winning so long as the Republicans don't implode, which is entirely possible) is saddled with it, and, using only tools like this chart, may be accused of being a big spender when, in fact, the only thing he is, is unable to repeal Obamacare.



Am I Kreskin? Or are the responses of liberals simply that easy to anticipate? You choose which, but I'll give you the strong hint that I'm no Kreskin.

But let's stipulate to all the ignoring you do ... it's an excuse for Obama because others before him did it? To do the single-largest two-year increase in history? It worked so well that we should double-down on it?

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

You simply cannot, with intellectual honesty, support a politician that thinks revenues-too-low-but-spending-more-is-okay and at the same time express concern about the state of historical or current spending.



But even blaming Obama isn't consistent. It's Democrats in the House. Obama only gets blame insofar as he supported the House his first two years, which was pretty much 100%, so yeah, he rightfully gets a large chunk of blame. Never mind that any increase is a step in the wrong direction, a better way to say what you're saying is ...

Quote: s2dbaker

There are four double digit increases in debt listed in that table. Only one All of them belongs to a president House who is a Democrat. There are five single digit increases in debt listed in that table and only one of them belongs to a president who is a Republican. Every single time Republicans control the House, it is single digits. I hope that a Republican Democrats wins the White House in '12 so that we can go back to where deficits don't matter and certain double-digit increases in spending percentage.



You seek to assign blame in a place that validates your predisposition, never mind the condition of the nation. See also the Constitution, which says the House writes the spending bills, not the President. So, if you're really going to be that simplistic, at least follow the Constitution. If you truly think that spending bills originate somewhere other than the House, then that makes you insane. Until you can get past that, there's not much more to talk about.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Whatever and whoever is to blame - and there's plenty of blame to go around - is a matter of debate. But stopping the spending is no longer under debate.



Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Note that stopping the spending is the answer, and not increasing revenues via higher tax rates.



I don't care who stops spending, I want spending to stop. I couldn't have been clearer. But you only seek to assign blame.

But I guess that's what ignoring does to people ... it makes them sound stupid. I'm not saying you sounded stupid, but I am saying you did a bunch of ignoring. Why? To satisfy a predisposition. Predispositions are fine, and you're perfectly entitled to have them. Just don't say that it's anything but a predisposition, don't try to assign it any weight based on facts, and don't try to make it a basis for discussion and debate. I may as well be trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian that Jesus wasn't God. But your faith seems to be even stronger than that. At least the Christians have some brain-work behind their belief, whereas yours is utterly unsupported.

You can believe a ladder supports your weight, so you put your weight on it under that belief. The ladder might actually hold your weight, but you're still fucked if your structurally-sound ladder is leaning against the wrong building. "Government Spending" is a weak ladder no matter who steps on it, and "House controlled by Democrats" is the wrong building and should be avoided at all costs.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 10:18:13 AM permalink
I don't know why you're so hysterical. I already stated that I want a Republican to win the White House in '12 so that Deficits go back to not mattering anymore. What more do you want?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 17th, 2011 at 10:30:38 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

You simply cannot, with intellectual honesty, support a politician that thinks revenues-too-low-but-spending-more-is-okay and at the same time express concern about the state of historical or current spending.


Intellectual honesty hasn't been a major force in U.S. politics for a very long time now. Everyone's blaming each other for the same thing, and not all of them can be right. But all of them can be, and often are, wrong. The economy is broken because Congress is broken. Congress was never intended to be a divided entity the way it is now, where loyalty to party trumps loyalty to legislative body. That's thrown off the entire balance part of the "checks-and-balances" we all learned about in grade school. It's all well and good to deride "years of increased government spending" under both GOP and Dem Presidents, but that's the way Congress voted. They're the ones writing the spending bills. The President just signs them.

And now you have the Tea Party saying "no more taxes, period". Hundreds of GOP legislators have signed a pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform that they will never raise taxes, and that includes not repealing tax-break loopholes. Quite frankly, that's stupid. It implies that the current taxation policy is correct even while everyone who's paying attention agrees that it's not. So it's broken but we'll pledge not to fix it? That's nonsensical -- and intellectually dishonest.

The right thing to do is to examine the levels of government spending in the various programs that the public demands (e.g. "cut social security over my dead body") and then figure out how to pay for that. I recall that the big 3 entitlement programs are set to grow to more than 100% of tax revenues at some point in the next 20-25 years if everything stays as-is. The bare facts of an increasingly older population and increasingly longer post-retirement life make accelerated entitlement spending a certainty -- accelerated beyond the rate of tax revenue increases. Yet Congress has failed to make a credible attempt at putting in place a plan to smooth over the coming turmoil, because anyone who even brings it up will get voted out of office. So I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that blaming each other for the situation is the wrong one. I also know that rigid, dogmatic fixation on using only one of the two big levers in fiscal policy is wrong-headed. That's like trying to play roulette on a layout with only red numbers -- you're missing half the game.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
July 17th, 2011 at 2:12:09 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist


And now you have the Tea Party saying "no more taxes, period". Hundreds of GOP legislators have signed a pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform that they will never raise taxes, and that includes not repealing tax-break loopholes. Quite frankly, that's stupid. It implies that the current taxation policy is correct even while everyone who's paying attention agrees that it's not. So it's broken but we'll pledge not to fix it? That's nonsensical -- and intellectually dishonest.



Actually a base belief of most in the Tea Party is to repeal the right of congress to collect an income tax and replace that with a consumption tax. I'd be for this as long as the pols do not start handing out money to "make up" for the burden. Anything to get the bottom half of the country used to the idea they need to pay something and maybe then the next handout proposal we ask "how will this be paid for?"

The consumption tax could have an added benefit. The USA gets a lot of inflow of tourists, this would capture revenue from them. All the illegal aliens would start paying a fair share as well.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: