Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

Originally posted by AliceBlackman
reply to post by proximo

 

for comparative purposes we should stip out the interest payments on the debt inherited by both glorious leaders to see the real picture of their out of control spending.....

OK - as you will see that is really not very different between administrations due the Fed keeping the interest rate artificially low

Interest expense per year
2011 492 billion - Estimate
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
AVERAGE 429.6 billion

2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.4
Average 371 billion

If it makes you feel better take off the 60 billion per year off Obama's deficit, and take another 100 billion off for inflation

He is still running deficits more than 500% higher than Bush

There is a difference between accumulating the necessary funds to pay off our debts vs. those tax cuts merely contributing to that goal. He didn't say the tax cuts were the problem, he said the tax cuts within the context of more revenue was the problem.

So, in short, no, those tax cuts aren't being singled out; which he reinforces by saying it's more than this current administration and the prior administration. Nor does the international community matter concerning our domestic policies. This started at home and then it continued abroad. The latter is the consequence of the former, not vice versa, and the former is a consequence of government consumption.

Taxing and big government is the reason why the U.S. was downgraded.

Does it bother anyone on the left that almost 50 Million Americans are on food stamps?

Originally posted by korathin
Wow, trying to distort much? The housing bubble burst in 08. Democratic controlled Congress of 06 were the ones to over inflate an already slightly inflated industry.

Nope. 2006. it became a political drum during the following presidential elections, but it had been a problem already. Just because the term is "burst" doesn't make it instant. Think of them as less like a bubble, and more like a mylar balloon; it doesn't explode, but it does go down, and you're left with a piece of crap.

Now. While you're running yourself ragged trying to blame the Democrats for this problem, the real cause of the problem was not the democrats; nor, for that matter, was it the Republicans. Except, perhaps in a roundabout way that congress gets to occasionally shake its cane at the Federal Reserve. The housing market was already grotesquely overinflated, and the reason for this is not because of politics - nor was it the fault of the poor, as you so numbingly ignorantly try later in this post.

It was caused by investors looking for fast money by "flipping" houses. In fact this is the cause of pretty much every bubble, ever. Here's how it works. The Federal reserve dropped interest rates after the 9/11 attacks in an attempt to jiggle the economy back into movement. By 2003, interest rates set by the Fed were at 1% - which was lower than the inflation rate at the time. This actually made borrowing money negative cost - If you borrow $100 at 1% interest with 3% inflation, when you pay it back you've actually MADE $2, see? And of course, we're talking MUCH larger sums than just a piddly Benjamin, here.

This of course stimulated the housing market... and when the market began rising, investors took these cost-negative loans out to join in. Speculation drove prices sky-high. Of course a two-bedrom one-bath house is still[ just a two bedroom, one-bath, whether it's got six or eight digits on its price tag. its intrinsic worth is eventually going to be below what gets paid for it.

Now, here's the thing. The banks and investors were shielded from their own poor investments by all sorts of "creative accounting" loopholes. While you or I can say that a bad mortgage is a bad mortgage, no matter how you slice and dice it, it... didn't actually work that way in the world of finance. Thus the cost of the bad investments was shuffled down to the bottom level of the market - people buying homes for useas homes, rather than as temporary assets to be sold at a gain.

Eventually this high-stakes version of musical chairs was going to end; The prices would go too high to be worth investing in, and people would be left holding dud properties that they owed more on than the things were worth. The bubble pops, all that funny money vanishes into the digitized ether from where it was spawned, and LOTS of people found themselves loaded with debt. Interestingly, the banks lost nothing; they still turned profits thanks to the difference between interest and inflation, the commissions, and the fact that the money they loaned was then paid right back to themselves, and had in fact never existed - leaving htem with lots and lots of property in their tentacles.

Some among the Democrats and Republicans probably thought this was pretty awesome. But at the end of the day, they were just spectators.

Trickle down could work to a degree, problem is for the last 20-30 years it has been trickling down to foreign nations.

It works "in theory." Just like communism and the "Rocky" franchise. In reality it only works if there's a stipulation that the money saved on taxes be re-invested into the bottom tier of the business (i.e., the people working for you and the customers you cater to). And even that only works if there is actually such a bottom tier to invest into (most of the big moneymakers don't actually have that sort of infrastructure; the factory is a thing of the past)

So yes, 'in theory' it works. In practice it's simpler and more effective to collect taxes from the top and inject them into the bottom.

P.S Clinton started this depression back in the 90's with NAFTA and then the Dot com bubble. You lefties sure are a pathological bunch...

edit on 6-8-2011 by korathin because: spelling error

I think I've already adequately explained how DC has next to no influence on bubbling. But keep on chasing your tail.

As for NAFTA... this was actually quite a boon for the "American Economy;" granted, this is probably because we measure the state of our economy in a pretty terrible way; we measure total consumption, so cheaper goods = more consumption = "better economy." I share your antipathy for NAFTA, and think dismantling it (and CAFTA, and other such things) would be of great benefit to not only us, but our neighbors as well.

Think about it. Corn was invented in Mexico. But you can't grow corn for a living in Mexico, because NAFTA removed trade barriers, and made it cheaper for Mexicans to buy Iowan corn subsidized by the USDA, than to buy corn crown within view of their own yards. Basically NAFTA put mexican farmers out of business, except for a handful of crops that either can't grow in the US, or that the US wants in winter (NAFTA; ensuring that Fargo can have canteloupe in January). Another impact on Mexico was that it ended any trade protectionism that mexico had and allowed other NAFTA members to move operations into Mexico. Suddenly Mexican workers were either our of jobs or forced to take on much lower-paying jobs with worse hours and no protections.

So the unemployed farmers come here to do farm work. The exploited workers flee north, where there's at least SOME benefits to be had for their labor. And yet, for all the barking the republicans and their base do about "border security" and "illegal immigration," I've heard precious few link it to the obvious; because NAFTA is such a great way for them to make fast, easy money.

Why does everyone forget that the Democrats and Acorn and company bullied the banks into giving those bad loans in the first place? Heck Obama's actions before he became a Senator have more to do with this Depression(he helped organize the anti-Bank protest's) then anything else.

iusbvision.wordpress.com...

Uh... no. Sorry, no one "bullied" the banks into giving bad loans. The banks were happily giving them to anyone who came knocking because the banks made money either way. They even hired people to go out and find people to offer loans to - on commission ("sign up X people, get paid Y amount. Go get 'em"). Why? because the banks could then bundle these mortgages into securities and then sell them to investment firms who repackaged them again and sold them to hedge funds. At every step, the banks, the investment firms, the hedge funds are raking in money from each other, all on the backs of these bad loans.

The case you cite was a case where a bank was refusing to give loans to a number of black people, while it was giving loans to whites of similar economic standing. Which is, we should note, a violation of federal law. Imagine that, suing a bank because they may have broken the law. Novel idea, isn't it?

At any rate, while all this economic wizarding is going on, someone is going to get left with a pumpkin. it wasn't the hedge fund managers. it wasn't the investment firm CEO's. it wasn't hte incorporated banks. oh, some individuals in their number lost hefty chunks, but all together the lot of them came out ahead. The people who got left with the fairytale gourd were, almost one and all, the poor schmucks who had the actual properties in their hands. The banks - which remember, had just made a killing my selling the mortgage - comes and says, "so, I hear you owe us some money." Well, it doesn't so much say as it gurgles, what with all those extra chins the banking industry has now. Some people can pay, and the bank gets more money from them. Some people can't pay, and the bank made money on the loan thanks to the fact that it was borrowed at a profit anyway, sold for a profit, and now the bank owns the actual property.

The depression - as with depressions before it - didn't hurt the banks. What happens is that suddenly all these people - the folks who had the properties on their hands - have suddenly been economically demolished. They stop buying - or they simply can't buy - which starts an economic downturn... which snowballs in much the same way that a bubble does, just in a different direction.

You blame the poor for ultimately catching hte fallout from the bad investments of the wealthy, who were largely unscathed by their own asstacular decisions. What a good little kulak you are. Maybe if you're lucky, someday a boyar will descend from on high and give you a doggy treat. Be sure to wag your tail.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Let me ask you this. A community organizer and 14 months in the senate voting present is all he has on his resume for real life experience. His Treasurey Secretary couldnt even use Turbo Tax coreectly (or he was cheating). You believe in your heart and mind that this is adequate enough experience to handle the problems we have today.

reply to post by professornurbs


Yup. 'Course. What's wrong with our state of affairs that that many people need assistance just to get food on the table?

Does it bother those on the right that your only solution is to end the program and let these folks go hungry?

reply to post by professornurbs


Compared to what? McCain? Yes. next question, please.

reply to post by beezzer


I think that, if you really pay attention to it, the present administration's economic policies are pretty much the same as the previous administration. What's the difference? "Obamacare" as you guys call it. Nobody really likes it because it's a Democrat's idea with a WHOLE LOT of BS added that would make it more palatable to some of the corporate whores on the Republican side (not that there aren't a ton of Democratic corporate whores there). All I'm really trying to say is that nothing's changed, and if you hate this guy, you should feel pretty much the same about the last guy. Why don't we just put a moratorium on all federal taxes for six months or so, so we can all see how "Great" our country will look afterwards. We will look like Paraguay. I hope that you guys get it all your way, so that afterwards we can all agree that we should leave those ideas in the wastebin of history.

Ah more of the same bickering that got us in this mess. He did it, no he did it, no it was him. How about the government is to blame? Hmmmmm They are and have been for many years spending like they have blank checks in their pockets. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. They all have been spending, spending, spending. The S&P downgrade is just one result of this, and even without that we would still be in a world of hurt. China and others trying to get rid of the Dollar as a reserve currency, etc, etc, etc. Spending on stupid wars, broken agencies (CAUGH Post Office CAUGH), and entitlement programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office the debt for the first 10 months was already $1.1 Trillion, $950 Billion would have helped, perhaps even stopped the downgrade (not according to Moddy's though, they wanted $4 Trillion cut from the public held debt), but would not have stopped the real problem. And after you get rid of those tax cuts what is next? Raise taxes on Companies? Well that is a sure way to hurt the middle class as the companies would just pass on the costs to the consumer. How about raise taxes on people? Great, the rich will just find more loop holes, the poor won't have to pay as they can't afford it and again the middle class is stuck footing the bill.

The real problem is spending, and it is not just Obama's programs, but it is also things that were in place before.

We as Americans need to re-learn how to live within our means. We need to go back to our roots and look for solutions to problems locally instead of federally. We need to worry about the US for a while, and not keep sticking our noses in other people's problems, and ending up going farther in debt for them. We need to re-evaluate where our priorities are, and how best to achieve the results we want with out going farther in debt.

CBO Article: cboblog.cbo.gov...

What's happened to ATS? Why are we arguing with each other when we all really want the same thing? Have we all forgotten that NEITHER Democrats or Republicans that we voted for really give two ****s about us?

If you look at things honestly and objectively, pretty much every president/administration/congress for the past 30 years or so is equally responsible for the mess we're in right now. Why?

Oh yeah, because what we think of as "Democracy" is these days nothing more than cleverly disguised Plutocracy.

Money = Power.

reply to post by proximo


I think that it is noteworthy that the 2009 expenditures (TARP, etc) were obligations that the Bush Administration enacted, so if you're going to start pinning stuff on the present administration, to be fair, you really should start blaming Obama for 2010 onward. You should also blame Bush for anything between 2002 and 2010. Bill Clinton's policies appear more like a bubble than an economic upswing if you hold him accountable for everything between 1994 and 2002. This also makes Bush Sr. look less like a failure. Long story short, Every president's first year of economic accountability starts about 14 months after they actually get elected.

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
What's happened to ATS? Why are we arguing with each other when we all really want the same thing? Have we all forgotten that NEITHER Democrats or Republicans that we voted for really give two ****s about us?

If you look at things honestly and objectively, pretty much every president/administration/congress for the past 30 years or so is equally responsible for the mess we're in right now. Why?

Oh yeah, because what we think of as "Democracy" is these days nothing more than cleverly disguised Plutocracy.

Money = Power.

In other words NONE of these actions FAILED.

They did exactly what they were meant to do?

Who benefited?

reply to post by professornurbs


It bothers everybody that so many people are on food stamps. It's indicative of some kind of flaw in our economic system. When my parents were kids, the only ways to be poor were to either have too many kids, or not have full-time employment. Now, (and I don't know how many on the right are aware of this) it is entirely possible to have full-time employment and only one child and still be in need of food stamps. Conservatives think that people on food stamps are lazy and don't work. Most people on food stamps work full-time. Some people have two or three part-time jobs and still need food stamps to survive. I wish we lived in a time when full-time work at least guaranteed you the necessities. I know that I should feel sorry for the corporations that "can't afford" to pay people a livable wage for full-time work, but I don't because they aren't people. They only exist to make money, and it doesn't matter if they contribute nothing to society other than their product.

Originally posted by otakugenx
Ah more of the same bickering that got us in this mess. He did it, no he did it, no it was him. How about the government is to blame? Hmmmmm They are and have been for many years spending like they have blank checks in their pockets. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. They all have been spending, spending, spending.

Spending is not, in and of itself a problem. It's where that money is spent that you have to look at, as well as where it's not.

We're spending money on the military (98% waste), we're spending money on corporate welfare (100% waste) we're spending it on giving insurance and pensions to wealthy elected officials (100% waste), we're spending it on bailouts for banks and investment firms that caused their own problems (185% waste, since they spend like Bush Jr. on a bender), we spend on keeping little countries under our big thumb (100% waste plus human costs) and we spend on debating spending.

What we don't spend on is education, infrastructure, and we're constantly slashing giant chunks off security, health, and social services; all of which actually generate revenue when properly funded and maintained.

Basically if the US were a school, we'd be selling off the library at a loss and using the money to buy designer tires for the lacrosse team's private bus.

So. Whose fault is this? sorry, no namby-pamby hand-wringing, dewy-eyed egalitarian "Gosh, we can't just blame this or that bunch of people, that wouldn't be *sniffle* fair! garbage that so many here seem to love. it's the fault of the republicans. Not exclusively, mind, but the problem in the Democrats' case is that htey're pretending to be Republicans in order to try to woo the idiot cultists that the republican party base is composed of.

Well, to be slightly more fair, the bad ideas themselves trace back to conservative economists in the 60's who were all butthurt that the New Deal actually worked against their ancestors' prophecies (probably made by torchlight by reading the guts of some poor goat - idiot cultists are still cultists, after all). it was the republicans who instituted these terribly bad ideas of how economics work; first Nixon did it by proxy in Latin America, then Reagan did it here in the US. The idiot cultists have been worshiping at his wizened altar now for thirty years, and most of them are still claiming that it's "them ebil libruls" making them poorer, and not their own stupid voting habits that tell Washington "Hey! Make us poorer, but use less lube this time!"

Spending on stupid wars,

I'd just like to note that it wasn't Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama who started these spending sprees.

broken agencies (CAUGH Post Office CAUGH),

The post office is only "broken" if you expect it to turn a profit rather than provide a service. Which is to say, basically, that the USPS works fine unless you're some dink that believes governments are for-profit institutions. You're not a dink, are you?

and entitlement programs.

I spoke too soon. "Entitlement programs," as you term them, are a system of programs designed to reduce the impact of poverty and increase standards of living for those in need. These both translate into net gain in prosperity for all.

And after you get rid of those tax cuts what is next? Raise taxes on Companies? Well that is a sure way to hurt the middle class as the companies would just pass on the costs to the consumer.

It's cute that you think the US still has a middle class. When a majority if people have trouble having their medical needs addressed, once can safely say that a functional "middle class" has vanished from that society.

And sorry, no, you're being lied to. The cost would not be passed to the consumers any more than the savings of tax cuts are. They're both lies told to get you to fall into Stockholm syndrome. Tax profits. They can raise their prices if they like, that just means the tax inflates accordingly; they can either accede to the tax or they can drive themselves out of business; the competition pays tax, keeps costs low, does better business.

But that would be capitalism, something that free marketeers are allergic to.

How about raise taxes on people? Great, the rich will just find more loop holes, the poor won't have to pay as they can't afford it and again the middle class is stuck footing the bill.

Does it occur to you that loopholes can be closed?

The real problem is spending, and it is not just Obama's programs, but it is also things that were in place before.

No, again, the problem is misplaced spending. if you were to, say, cease all spending, you'd just cripple yourself even more. If you diminished spending, but kept the current pattern of where the money is going, you'd still cripple yourself, you'd just do it more halfassedly.

Some spending needs to be cut, sure. But more than that, most spending needs to be spent properly.

We as Americans need to re-learn how to live within our means. We need to go back to our roots and look for solutions to problems locally instead of federally. We need to worry about the US for a while, and not keep sticking our noses in other people's problems, and ending up going farther in debt for them. We need to re-evaluate where our priorities are, and how best to achieve the results we want with out going farther in debt.

CBO Article: cboblog.cbo.gov...

In other words, we need to give up the empire, destroy the Idiot Cultist ideologies, and start looking at ways to engage in real wealth, rather than phantom wealth.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

If the current administration had never spent they way they have, thn we'd not be in this mess in the first place.

Blaming republicans is a shallow and baseless argument.

When George Bush Snr came to office the debt ceiling was under 5 trillion..by the time his son left office it was closing on 13 trillion all up presidents before Obama had raised the ceiling at least 14 times without argument or contest...now I dont particularly like Obama either..but he inherited the majority of this current debt.
In fact the debt war began over thirty years ago...when obama was effectivly still sucking on his political pacifier.
See here: www.truth-out.org...

Originally posted by lildaddy985
I wish we lived in a time when full-time work at least guaranteed you the necessities.

Totally possible.

So why isn't it happening?

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
What's happened to ATS? Why are we arguing with each other when we all really want the same thing? Have we all forgotten that NEITHER Democrats or Republicans that we voted for really give two ****s about us?

If you look at things honestly and objectively, pretty much every president/administration/congress for the past 30 years or so is equally responsible for the mess we're in right now. Why?

Oh yeah, because what we think of as "Democracy" is these days nothing more than cleverly disguised Plutocracy.

Money = Power.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You know they're just going to say you're stupid and call you a liar. It does no good to argue with those people using facts and stuff. They cling to that crap out of moral obligation. They even call themselves "The Right".

reply to post by Jezus


The answer to that question is always the same. The banks.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You're still falling for the idea that the monetary system is designed to work, and that the Republican party is different from the Democratic party ?

Unbelievable. Talk about being locked in a box by MSM.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by macman


And yes, Obama is a socialist.

edit on 6-8-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Who seems to keep passing legislation tailored to conservative demands.

He is an awful socialist

Tell me, Did Reagan or The Bush twins sign a bill cutting Trillions from the federal budget?

Can you post links?


Let's see how Socialist he is

You think the bills being past are conservative???
We need to go grab a beer together to discuss this.
I know beezer and neo would be down.

As for a cutting a trillion? No, no they did not.
On the other hand, the overall debt was not this large for them.