18 total posts
Come back to America, Ziks
You start off this post
blaming the right for being elitist but somewhere along the line you finally recognize that people like Pelosi and the Kennedys et al are also in that group you mention in the last paragraph. So I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what you are bitc.ing about THIS time.
As for your time frame and how the 'right' has been abusing the 'poor' for the last 35 years, you do realize that the time frame puts it smack into Carter's lap?
Now...back to Wall Street......and all that Congressional insider trading that was and is still now allowed to continue. As long as elected officials can benefit, they will exempt themselves from harm and still take full advantage of whatever comes down the pike in their favor and the hell with everyone else. The only way you can stop that is to elect someone who has never held political office before but has run a business and had to scratch his/her way to success from the bottom up and has taken all the risks personally to achieve that success and still look out for his/her employees knowing that without them, he/she wouldn't have success in the first place. Stop putting ******** who have never actually had a job in their life at the head of our country and who believe they know how to succeed in providing jobs for us....and actually don't bother to try and do that and instead take more and more from the people to pay for personal agendas that lose money (because they have no experience in how to MAKE money).
had enough sense to keep the Bush approach to the homeless, which is why we haven't seen "Obamavilles" all over the place, so let's give him credit for that.
The President sounds more like the person you admire
than the elitist you condemn. BTW look who defeated Carter- the guy that quadrupled our national debit.
I don't condemn the rich and wealthy
I condemn the hypocrites who do and then suck up to them all in order to be 'cool' and get their money (which they wouldn't have if it wasn't for capitalism and not 'spreading their wealth' around.......how do you think they got rich in the first place?)
Your numbers/facts are wrong when it comes to 'quadrupled'......
And remember, that prices came down and employment soared during Reagan compared to the short period of time Carter was around.
As for Bush......you might notice the very last line during the last quarter of 2012 that we exceeded 100% of our GDP for the first time in history on BO's watch even with the drawing down in Afghanistan and the ending in Iraq a year or more ago. So what's he still spending and borrowing for and in desperate need of more taxes?
Wonder why I always heard that with Reagan the debit went
from 1T to 4T. Of course, if you put Reagan and Bush together, it did. In 8 years, Clinton only when up another trillion. The second Bush almost double it from 5.9T to 10.7T. Obama went up 4T so far.
Another site I find interesting is http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html which is the up and down of the deficit. The most interesting one is that the deficit during Clinton's last full year was $17907 and the next partial year was $133,285 and went to $1,017,071 during Bush's last full year. The previous Bush year was only $500,679. The last partial Bush year was $1,885,104. Obama's first full year was $1,651.794 and the last full year was $1,275,901. The projected deficit for this fiscal year is $1,401,494.
This is what makes me crazy
when people talk about the Clinton 'surplus'.......he only got that surplus because during his last couple of years he had Republicans take over both Congresses and Clinton was willing to compromise whereas BO has absolutely refused to and in fact doubles down every chance he can.
Bush, admittedly wiped out that surplus, however, he also had 9-11 to contend with and the hundreds of millions that were awarded to victims' families and health care for first-responders (nobody ever mentions that for some reason as part of why that surplus disappeared)....He also had two wars, whether you agreed with them or not, Katrina, and TARP, which not only increased the yearly deficit but also the National Debt.
BO has done away with one war, is ending another (both of which he campaigned against as Bush using a non-existent credit card to fund....but instead of using that 'savings' to pay down our debt he is using that money to fund more crap), but added to his deficit and National Debt because of not only the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Housing credits of $8000 per purchase, auto bailouts, and massive green energy 'investment' failures.....and now Obamacare, increased ease of welfare (wiping out Clinton's compromise that brought that entitlement down drastically), the takeover of the mortgage loan industry as well as the Student Loan industry.
The "savings" just means we are spending less
We are still spending more than we take in. That isn't real conducive to paying down the debt.
We can see what the Congress critters care about - their own inconvenience when trying to fly. Not meals on wheels or education or the GI or the middle class or the unemployed or the people that are upside down in their homes or have just plain lost them (remember the paid off house that the bank tried to foreclose on?).
Have seen that Congress would rather government employees (including teachers and firefighters and police) take a 10-20% cut in pay than charge millionaires an extra 3% in taxes.
That 'savings' isn't being
used for anything other than borrowing again on a non-existent credit card in order to keep spending more than we take it, Diana.....even if it's not used to pay down the debt, the savings could actually lessen the annual deficit meaning we would be borrowing less every year. That isn't what BO is doing with that 'savings'.......he is actually borrowing it again and instead of reducing our spending, he's increasing it by using that same dollar amount to spend it instead on his own agenda. If you paid off your car and no longer had that car payment, would you use that same payment amount each month to buy something else? That's what BO is doing with the money no longer being spent on Iraq and what he plans to do with the money no longer being spent in Afghanistan or don't you actually listen to what he says during his fancy-assed 'investment' speeches?
And that 3% increase on 'millionaires'.......you could increase their tax liability to 100% of their income and still never have enough to pay down anything because Dems don't know how to cut a damn thing......they use any new revenue for new spending every single time.
If you notice the deficit is going down
so he must be using it to reduce the deficit. The debt is a different matter. That will keep going up until the deficit is 0 or negative. Bush definitely didn't reduce the deficit and blew away the deficit reduction that Clinton had.
The only reason the deficit
is going down a little is because of those 'obstructionist' Republicans refusing to let loose of the money he keeps demanding, Diana.......Did you see the last three 'budgets' he has presented that would have increased that deficit tremendously? Twice he couldn't get his own Senate kissass Reid to present it and when he finally did, it was voted down without a single vote from a Democrat, INCLUDING REID. This time, he was late with his own budget (but had time to pick March Madness), and only presented it AFTER the House and the Senate had presented theirs.....totally halfass backwards to how it's supposed to be presented.
Actually, you need to subtract the previous president's
numbers from his last year in office from the current president's most recent year's finish. My calculation has Obama at about 5.7 billion in his first 4 years with Bush II at about 5 billion total over 8 years. If these numbers can be believed, Obama has racked up more debt than GWB in 1/2 the time.
That pace has been ongoing since first elected
In spite of winding down military actions overseas. Less being done, yet costing more. Odd.
You will notice that the Bush deficit kept going up
and Obama's keeps going down.
I regret that it is pointless to argue with the closed minds
here, Diana. They are addicted to their fantasy, just as we are addicted to our hopes. Of the two, I'd say that fantasy is the more dangerous addiction. Fantasies never change, Hopes do each year.
My post was a foolish exercise, for all that I think it a true estimate of what is going on. There are also quite a large number of economists and social philosophers on our side.
Did anyone notice the error in the basic data of the study of Reinhart and Rogoff?
<span id="yui_3_7_2_1_1367431638280_3731" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">"In the world of economic luminaries, it doesn't get much bigger than Reinhart and Rogoff, whose work has had enormous influence in one of the biggest economic policy debates of the age.
<span id="yui_3_7_2_1_1367431638280_3592" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Both have served at the International Monetary Fund. Reinhart was a chief economist at investment bank Bear Stearns in the 1980s, while Rogoff worked at the Federal Reserve, passing through Yale and MIT before landing at Harvard.
<span id="yui_3_7_2_1_1367431638280_3720" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Their study, which found economic growth slows dramatically when a government's debt exceeds 90 per cent of a country's annual economic output, has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for slashing spending."
A grad student went over the spreadsheets they used and re-calculated their work and couldn't get it to come out the same as their conclusions. Specifically, he found that there was no significant slowdown in growth. When he finally got them to respond they said they didn't use all the data they quoted, they cherry-picked and worked out the figures from that. And some of the data was ... odd. Data from New Zealand was from only one year, 1951. A particularly bad year for New Zealand, but right in line with the data Rogoff and Reinhart were looking for.
Google it for yourself if you don't believe me, though it is unlikely to change the granite like intransigance here.
This makes Global Warming scientists look like models of probity, but the controversy has been pretty small.
As usual Toni you see what you want to see. I named both
the Right and the Left as equally at fault, and that the problem was essentially that of several groups of people, constituting a ruling caste composed of the political elite, and the business and financial elites, and those with great sums of inherited wealth separating themselves from "regular folks" and ruling in a manner supportive of their own self interest rather than that of the country as a whole.
With regard to the time frame, This whole concept was clearly and loudly enunciated by Reagan, but the roots of it are in every society under the sun, People scrabbling to enter a class which has greater privilege and greater wealth than the rest of society. It is just that it has become so much more blatant since Ronnie said (not literally, figuratively) "Greed is good, greed works." You should all emulate the slimy creatures who slither around the laws or repeal them (like Glass Steagle under Bill Clinton) or simply spend the country into a crisis so deep that previously enacted legislation becomes unaffordable.
Nor is the US the only candidate, Canada's Auditor General, who is a non partisan watchdog on government and the Civil Service, has discovered $3.1 Billion (with a B) in completely untraceable spending on Security Issues. The Conservative government in the wake of 9/11 threw money at the problem, and some of it simply disappeared. There is no reason yet to suspect misappropriation, it is simply money lost in the accounting, somewhere. His report contains other instances of misappropriation in various places, but not in this instance.
What I'm trying to get at, and which Toni and James refuse to see, is that a fundamental American principle is under erosion with no one seeming to either notice or care. I care. I may be foolish to bother, but it seems that the unique nature of the foundation of the country is being pi$$ed away by selfish greedy people. Washington is the new Tammany Hall but it seems to embrace both parties now, and there is no organized opposition. No Fiorello LaGuardia, no FDR, no Eisenhower, and no Carter who at least had principles not involving self-aggrandisement, unlike Ronnie, who did very well out of the Presidency.
While I don't expect to see it, the weighing of Carter's soul, and the comparison of his with Mr. Iran Contra Reagan (two illegal and Unconstitutional impeachable acts in one, what kind of a$$ sells missiles to Iran??) and Donny Rumsfeld his envoy, and **** Cheney and Ollie North and all the rest of the toads in the cellar, promises to be a very revealing exercise. Indeed it will reveal whether the concept of the Elect has any validity or not. Personally, a God who will accept someone with evil acts durin his lifetime is not the kind of God I'd like to associate with. What are the odds on Hitler and Stalin being up there, if one's acts on earth count for nothing? If the Elect are predestined, then belief as well as behaviour is nothing.
And what kind of ***
gives F-15s and Abram tanks and cash to Egypt with a leader who hates Israel and the head of the Muslim Brotherhood?
I assume you weren't here during Carter's insane Kensian policies that are a close second to BO's? Interesting that you would say this though and make it appear that only the right is to blame........>>>You should all emulate the slimy creatures who slither around the laws or repeal them (like Glass Steagle under Bill Clinton) or simply spend the country into a crisis so deep that previously enacted legislation becomes unaffordable.>>> You don't believe that spending the country into a crisis so deep that previously enacted legislation becomes unaffordable is exactly what BO is and has been doing since day one? I gave you and Diana plenty of examples of his spending and although two wars will be done and no spending needs to be done for them anymore, he has no interest in leaving that unfunded money alone and instead plans to borrow the same amounts, driving up the national debt even more, in order to 'invest' in more crap that doesn't work. When will you finally admit that?
And I didn't say you weren't bemoaning BOTH parties......I'm saying that your TITLE for your post specifically targeted the 'elite' Right, so it was misleading in the same way you accuse James and me of doing with OUR titles...........