Post #310,659
7/9/09 9:57:49 AM
|
It may be. It may not.
I think I can explain the attitude. Over simplified, of course, but that's all I'm capable of.
This is posted simply for the drive by viewers, since as we all know (those of us who watched "Thankyou For Smoking")(or already felt this way), the people on the either side of this discussion are not about to be convinced that they are the slightest bit wrong.
W's excess drove us over the edge. It was done at random, foolishly, with his minions (or Cheney) manipulating the situations. Or simply not caring.
He (and his buddies) profited enormously via oil, services, military contracts, and all the assorted hardware. He killed many people in the process, both publicly (hey, just how many people died in Bush's wars over the last 7 years) and privately. Cheney hit squads anyone? Just part of normal military operations that happened to report up via the VP's office.
Military "investment" affects a very small amount of people, providing focused jobs in some areas, but not much else. It produces stuff that does nothing for our roads, schools, healthcare, or general public welfare. I'll assume some of the R&D gets fed back into commercial devices, having some positive affect, but not much. Bottom line, it is a net negative across the board if there is not an immediate need (blow up someone who's trying to blow us up), and it is easy to throw money around on dumb stuff because you are called unpatriotic if you argue with it.
Don't assume I don't think the military is not an important component of our national infrastructure. Of course I do.
But the Bush years showed a huge imbalance in how the funds were gathered (tax cuts) and spent, and undermined the economy at a far faster rate than is reasonable to assume it can be fixed in a mere 8 year double term.
So, we have combination of Bush stupidy being manipulated by Cheney evil, with the next level down being administered by "true believers", who saw their mission as cutting government departments. And the easiest way to do that would be for their leaders to be incompetent, allow them to control staffing, and make sure the previous people (experts, techocrats, experienced agents who won't toe the line) are either directly pushed out or hounded out.
Care to tell me what happened at the whistleblower's office? You know, the office that is in charge of investigating whistleblower complaints since if they went through normal channels they'd be silenced? Their own people were pushed out, illegally, in the exact manner the agency was created to stop.
No good, none, can come from that. That administration was a perfect storm of incompetence and malice.
So now it O's turn. And what does he have? A steaming pile of shit. Eight years of W made sure of that. Economy in shambles, oversight wiped out, multiple war fronts we can't support, a runaway health system, huge swaths of the country spiralling down, and for what?
Clinton's surplus had this country on a hell of an upward trajectory financially. Did you forget that? This country could have rode the housing bubble for a LOT longer if W didn't tank the economy. I don't pretend it could last forever, it had to fall sooner or later, but if a lot more people had jobs, it would have been far gentler.
No, it is pretty easy for some of us to guage the difference.
O's various spending seems overwhelming to those who see it being all thrown away. I assume you feel there will be no payback, and just make everything worse.
I don't pretend he's perfect, all sunshine and happiness. But he's obviously smarter (way, not just a little), than anyone he was competing against. The question seems to be whether he will use those brains for his personal benefit or for the country, and if for the country, push it in a direction you don't like.
I like the majority of the directions he is going. I have no idea if the payback (or paydown) numbers thrown around are the slightest bit realistic. The key difference is I am SURE McCain would have followed on Bush's policies, for the most part, and McCain didn't know shit about economics.
So no matter what, it's better than the alternative.
He has to spend the money, huge amounts, at this point. If he doesn't, we are dead. We will stagnate, and our international competitors will pick us clean until we are in full blown isolationist mode.
Oh well.
|
Post #310,663
7/9/09 11:10:50 AM
|
ah, the magik surplus that never existed
pull the other one.
as for as O's economic policy it isnt one. All spending to date on stimulus programs is gathering the wish lists of the democrats since johnson and rolling them into one massive spending plan to try and accomplish them all at once.
That is social engineering, not economics
Maybe they will be good for the country, maybe not.
The housing downnturn sucks for some but benefits others. My son will not have a mortgage payment or rent for the near future. Skip owns a house free and clear. Would not be possible without the crisis.
Lets not confuse social engineering with financial recovery. It is two different things
thanx,
bill
|
Post #310,665
7/9/09 11:34:36 AM
|
Not to you
Without the financial collapse Obama would not have been swept in.
A lot of people are in significant agreement with his social policies. ;-}
So I consider it a crisis, a perfect moment, with winners and losers.
With the stock market and housing collapse, he's put in a position of having to deal with no-win situation. But it sure granted him the presidency.
With the Greenhouse gasses == human harm EPA ruling, he essentially got all the leverage he needed to take on energy interests, across the entire spectrum of production to consumption.
With the autos tanking, he was handed the industry on a silver platter. Which means he has to do something, and why not have some fun with it?
Sure, he has a social policy bend that pisses you off. Oh well. I like most of them. I'll expect it to go too far, And in 10 years there to be another "get off welfare" push, and it'll swing around. At that point, maybe the economy is strong, maybe not, but that portion is long overdue for some help after the Bush years.
I know there will be a shitload of abuse, there always is. But I'd rather see a lot of people screw the system for a few dollars apiece, then a few at the top rake in billions and just tank the whole damn thing for the fun of it.
Crisis == Opportunity
Always.
BTW: Hey A'Scott: Am I full of shit, or is box, or is it somewhere in between? I don't claim to be able to analyze 8 years ago, but I sure as hell remember the good times, and anything I was reading at that time talked about the surplus.
The combined tax cuts with the "emergency" war allocations pretty much wiped it out, and we've been digging deeper ever since.
|
Post #310,668
7/9/09 12:02:27 PM
|
if you remove payroll taxes collected
that are dedicated funds, the feds under clinton spent more than they collected. Granted the economy was in great shape at the time, a nicely gridlocked government cant spend like drunken repulicans or drunken democrats and the budget actually was able to pay down some debt, but a surplus? Didnt happen and during Clinton's last State of the Union Address he projected spending all of it and running up some huge deficits.
Shrub went straight to chaotic financial theory and spending went wild because he owned the house and senate
Spending is going wild because Obama owns the house and senate
Give me a gridlock during the next election cycle please
thanx,
bill
|
Post #310,679
7/9/09 1:09:20 PM
|
No gridlock for me
Gridlock is fine when the country is going in a good forward motion.
Gridlock right now would simply solidify our downward spiral.
You may be good with that, you can go camping in the woods as the world goes to shit, but I can't. I depend on the infrastructure and some semblance of a rational society.
It has not been rational for the last 8 years.
So a vote for gridlock is a vote to lock into the US as it has been. Nope, seen it, don't want to see it again.
|
Post #310,678
7/9/09 1:08:56 PM
|
Hmmmm
Without the financial collapse Obama would not have been swept in.
A lot of people are in significant agreement with his social policies. ;-}
52% "swept" him in, 54% agree with the stimulus. So if his support is "significant", so is his opposition.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #310,681
7/9/09 1:28:20 PM
|
they deserve a shot
I remember being interviewed when reagan was running about voodoo economics. I stated, we have tried it their way for several decades and we are still in the toilet, why not try it.
The same argument after Bush is "he failed abjectly, let the new guy give it a try"
he is trying and failing so the pendulum will swing yet again
|
Post #310,684
7/9/09 1:46:05 PM
|
"he is trying and failing"
Wow.
What's the date? How long have you given to accomplish the goal?
Ok, this comes down to: Holy shit, how dumb can you be if you expect much yet?
On the other hand, stuff is happening that you don't like. He's not failing, he doing stuff. Whether or not that stuff will accomplish the final goal is unknown to most people. It'll take years, possibly a decade for this stuff to play out.
For some reason, you feel you know. Wanna tell me who to bet on in the next superbowl while you're at it?
|
Post #310,686
7/9/09 2:02:04 PM
|
if you can get 3-1 or better patriots
decades my ass. He used the financial crisis to push a social agenda, failure is measured by money expended versus financial results achieved measured not by dow jones but by demand and unemployment. So when do you expect the unemplyment rate to get to 6% decades? Hope not
thanx,
bill
|
Post #310,689
7/9/09 2:15:04 PM
|
6%? Decades? Maybe
Go ahead box, give me a solution to put to work those people that are not part of the current recovery. And make sure you have it complete in 7 months.
Don't forget to account for their salary loss and health care costs. Add in all those "discouraged" people who they don't count anymore.
No, I'd say the world has changed, and the vast majority of the elder (40+) that are out of work due to economy shifts are not going back to work any time soon, and when they do, their salary will be far less than it was before.
It is a new world, and those who can't shift with it are screwed. And it is not necessarily any fault of their own, but it doesn't matter. They are screwed. A combination of protectionist policies could have delayed it, but it was inevitable once we started trading internationally heavily and the internet allows a large portion of the activity to happen "unnattended", which means less grunt work, which means the jobs left have a higher demand.
|
Post #310,691
7/9/09 2:27:29 PM
|
so a much smaller population making less money
to support a much larger percentage of the population to the same lifestyle that the working get?
hmm, with those parameters it makes more sense to be a non worker, the rent food and bennies are the same but you get to sleep in
somehow I dont think that is going to work
Housing forclosures are going up but rental vacancies are also going up. Not good
|
Post #310,694
7/9/09 2:49:40 PM
|
For a while
I'd expect more people to be living together, multiple generations in a household, just like the old days. That reduces cost of living for these groups. That will drive down housing prices as demand remains soft, as well as rental requirements.
But that other comment was classic red-herring. Why should I work if these people who are not working get these benefits that I am paying for, and they live as good as me.
Well, they won't. Not as good as you box, because you are well qualified to make far more than these people, and you know it. This issue is the part of the population that barely qualifies for a "joe-job", and the fact that most of them are going away based on the current scenarios of industrial implosion.
What will there decision process be? Try to get the government to pay for their life, or get a job that barely allows them to get more than they'd get anyway?
Which I say is also bullshit. You have visions of a sub-class of people living off of you, and this makes you annoyed. I have no idea how that will play out, and what requirements there might be to get benefits, or if a 70s style welfare state is coming back. I guess it is possible.
The father of my grandson would do this. Or at least he'd try. He's a worst case stereotype. Which means I accept that you have a powerful emotional argument. Emotional arguments are worthless, except to and from true believers.
But the next time you are making a standing rib roast (yum), enjoying your multiple houses (you just bought one for the kid, right? Cool), take a moment to think about that blameless kid standing outside the closed emergency room. There are many scenarios that come into mind, and they simply don't matter. The room is closed. So, do you fund the hospital or preventative care? Or do you ignore it until it goes away.
|
Post #310,696
7/9/09 3:03:53 PM
|
not really kid used his own money for the house
and standing rib roast, a monthly thing is now twice yearly. Yeah I make but barely. Still shop at goodwill and food depot, IGA etc. without that I couldnt afford anything else
where is the closed emergency room? the ones around here are standing room only and only a few have funds to pay. The working folks pay for the rest. Walk in any emergency room. They HAVE to treat you regardless. Lets change that. Unless you are in immediate need of crisis medical help you get steered to the equally long but cheaper line at the county health clinic,
My one brother already has his daughter and husband plus gran moved in. More are angling for the spots on the living room floor.
A subclass of people is when you have workers thrust into minimum wage from stimulous money grants that specify davis bacon but the non profs want more for administrative salaries so are fighting to get the laws changed.
Greed of the mid level gummint apparatchiks is just as high an the mbas of wall street no different.
I dont resent, I dislike true believers of all stripes whether its the mullahs, peta or obamaites. They all have one thing in common,
let us prey
(thanx ash)
|
Post #310,683
7/9/09 1:42:02 PM
|
So more people support what he is doing than voted for him?
Cool.
And yes, swept is exactly what he got. As opposed to stole via brother's governership and Katherine Harris.
Here's a key issue that you seem to forget. More people disagree with you than agree with you, and those numbers are getting larger on the social side as the older people die off. Standard generational change. The financial fluctuates, but the social advances. The culture war (and it is a war, people do die from it) is what triggers most people to vote, both on the right and the left. Everything else is details until people lose jobs. Then they get pissed.
So as the revolt against (and revulsion of) of the Christian dominated government happens, and we spend some time throwing aside 8 years of poor decision making, we will find out if the rational players or the true believers can get the hearts and minds to the people. Or if another "I BELIEVE" asshole jumps in and scares enough people to counteract the growing non-religious base.
Yeah, you'll give the standard "but I hated (or disagreed, etc) with Bush too", and pretend we don't notice the level of support you give to his policies, no matter how badly enacted. Occasionally you seem to pretend to not care either way, when someone calls you to task on it, but the bottom line, he (and repubs in general) are more closely aligned to your world view. So matter how bad they do, it is the lesser evil to you, so you seem to try support it without being overt about it.
Well, not really. You are very overt for the most part (to us), but seem to be embarassed and deny it. Which should really make you think, are you really choosing the lesser evil? If abortion is your litmus test, then I assume you can always vote that way, and not care. But then you spend an awful amount of time defending the rest of the crap that happens from the same belief system.
Those numbers are a tipping point. We find out in 2 years (mid-term elections) whether or not the public continues to support or yanks back.
|
Post #310,688
7/9/09 2:11:20 PM
|
why wait
he won the independents the dems didnt have the numbers
http://www.rasmussen...ial_tracking_poll
since there is now almost more old farts as a percentage of population than ever before your other point doesnt make it either
|
Post #310,692
7/9/09 2:30:01 PM
|
I simply responded to Beep's numbers
I know any number from any survey is suspect, driven by the questions.
My comment on cultural issues remains. Older people die. Attitudes concerning rebellion any type of organised religion (which then leads to independent thinking) is the typical path. Almost all children wake up and stop believing in Santa Claus sooner or later. The same thought process happens in some adults for the rest of the sky pixies. Those that it doesn't, oh well, they weren't strong competitors anyway unless they are clinging to their group. Or outbreeding the rest. But more kids == more people to turn away from the bullshit, sooner or later. At least to me.
This cycles back and forth, which each swing being a bit louder. The non-religious can't really understand how bad it can be, so they aren't very active. Until we experience something like King George, and then it pushes them into action.
So we get to see how the other side reacts now. Will we find some hidden majority? Will another Karl Rove show up and weave the various fighting factions together to elect someone as bad as Bush? Sure, it could happen. But now there is enough people who have seen it once, and will fight it.
|
Post #310,701
7/9/09 4:36:58 PM
|
Think you went a bit further than that...
..into the common theme of placing me on a side and then pretending the other side is this "vast majority". In pure numbers, yes 52 and 54% are more...but it isn't vast by any stretch of the imagination.
And, in general, Rep will be alot closer to Libertarian than the Democrats will be, so saying I will generally like more of what they do than less is quite possibly fair...but it misses the entire point I make over and over and over again...which you seem to think is pretend. View #1 is that Washington is bad. It doesn't matter which side. And if we can solve a problem without them getting involved, we should...because they are more likely than not going to muck it up even worse.
I would be equally critical of this stimulus had it come from Bush, as I was with the initial bank bailout that did come from Bush. Hell, we're still dealing with that impact on the hospitality industry (which is huge) because all of a sudden "meetings" became taboo...even the ones that had a real purpose, agenda and benefit.
I can't wait to see what lands in this cap&trade bill that has nothing to do with environmental change...already we are hearing of the huge amount of pork and earmark in healthcare.
All stuff that was supposed to go away...change...you know?
Right. Its inside the beltway. The only change we get is to our expectation that things would be different, somehow.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #310,693
7/9/09 2:47:17 PM
|
Actually, the incoming old farts . . .
. . are quite different from the outgoing ones. Outgoing are the WWII knee-jerk patriots, incoming are the Vietnam generation.
|
Post #310,695
7/9/09 2:50:19 PM
|
Yay. Good point. Thanks.
|
Post #310,710
7/9/09 9:24:05 PM
|
Depends on how you look at it.
Oh wait, I guess it doesn't....
http://www.gpoaccess...et/fy10/hist.html
On Budget:
1997 $1,187,433M in, $1,290,681M out, $-103,248 deficit
1998 $1,306,156M in, $1,336,081M out, $-29,925M deficit
1999 $1,383,177M in, $1,381,257M out, $1,920M surplus
2000 $1,544,873M in, $1,458,451M out, $86,422M surplus
Off-Budget:
1997 $391,990M in, $310,626M out, $81,364M surplus
1998 $415,799M in, $316,604M out, $99,195M surplus
1999 $444,468M in, $320,778M out, $123,690M surplus
2000 $480,584M in, $330,765M out, $149,819M surplus
Total:
1997 $1,579,423M in, $1,601,307M out, $-21,884M deficit
1998 $1,721,955M in, $1,652,685M out, $69,270M surplus
1999 $1,827,645M in, $1,702,035M out, $125,610M surplus
2000 $2,025,457M in, $1,789,216M out, $236,241M surplus
In other words, the on-budget budget was balanced in 1999 and 2000, and the overall total budget was balanced in 1998 - 2000.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #310,714
7/9/09 9:47:10 PM
|
those fugures are counting soc and med remittances
take those out because they are not general funds and deficits are still the order of the day. Mind its still an order of magnitude greater than anything since and It was Bill Clinton who fufilled the contract with america to do it
|
Post #310,717
7/9/09 9:57:09 PM
|
No, they're not.
Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, I think you're wrong about this.
http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=13856
If I'm wrong, please provide a linky. Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #310,725
7/10/09 8:17:26 AM
|
from your link
Though Social Security and the Postal Service are now off-budget, they continue to be Federal programs. Indeed, Social Security currently accounts for about one-fourth of all Federal receipts and over one-fifth of all Federal spending. Hence, the budget documents INCLUDE THESE FUNDS and focus on the Federal totals that combine the on-budget and off-budget amount
Caps are mine
|
Post #310,741
7/10/09 11:31:14 AM
|
That's not a contradiction to there being a surplus.
If the off-budget numbers are included in the on-budget figures, then it isn't really off-budget, is it? The statement you highlight simply says that the total is made up of the on- and off-budget numbers, as I read it.
But let's look at text from a different source - http://clinton4.nara...dget_framewk.html
· The $211 billion unified surplus this year [2000] will be the largest on record. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would rise to $455 billion in 2000. Instead, this year the projected surplus is a record $211 billion -- a $666 billion improvement relative to forecast in this one year alone.
· The on-budget account will be in surplus for the first time since Medicare was established. In 2000, the on-budget surplus, excluding both Social Security and Medicare, is projected to be $39 billion. This is the only surplus on this basis since the Medicare program was established in 1965.
As indicated before - http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=13850 , the on-budget surplus was larger than this projection.
There was a real, honest to G_d, surplus under Clinton.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #310,742
7/10/09 12:00:49 PM
|
I disagree but you knew that :-)
|
Post #310,674
7/9/09 12:40:02 PM
|
Lots of stuff there. I'll attack it later today. :-)
|
Post #310,713
7/9/09 9:41:02 PM
|
I can't read their minds.
I don't know what Bush and Cheney's thoughts were while they were pushing their policies. I think they were tragically and sometimes criminally wrong in what they ended up doing, but I don't think they were doing it to make their buddies rich. Cheney made over $100M (IIRC) before coming back into the government. Bush was set for life even before getting into government.
I think that they thought they were doing things that were best for moving the country in a way that would make things better. I don't think they were kleptocrats. I think they were far too wedded to their ideology and refused to look at evidence - e.g. they didn't learn from Reagan.
In many ways, Clinton was a 1960's moderate Republican even though those on his right tried to paint him as evil. He was also asleep at the switch in some ways - remember the dot-com boom. Speculation got way out of hand and he didn't work hard enough to invest in the future. Also, many of the seeds of the current banking crisis were planted on his watch, while Bush's people dumped on the fertilizer and turned up the grow-lights. Clinton was a brainiac compared to Bush and his people.
As I indicated earlier, you were right about Clinton's surpluses (on-budget 1999 and 2000; total budget 1998 - 2000). Bush acknowledged that fact while he was running - http://www.4presiden...h2000brochure.htm
I think we're extremely lucky to have Obama as president now. McCain would have been a mavericky disaster, and Clinton would not have been able to get anything done because of the perpetual soap opera around her and Bill....
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
