Heh. The US problem explained.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Heh. The US problem explained.

James50

Okay then. Let's just bring back the Eisenhower era tax rates. Not only will the budget go back into balance over time but we will also sop up a lot of the extra money that being used to buy policicans currently.

I'm sure that that's not the intent of the author of the simple but unclaimed chart but hye, when you got an ink blot with no attrubation ya sees watch sees.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The polls show it. But I have noticed without a doubt that people on the left reject any information that doesn't support their ideology. They just ignore it. You have to to continue to believe what they believe after it has failed so badly so many times.

The polls right now show the following: Obama has about a 10 point deficit in his approval rating, and it's getting worse. But he only leads a generic opponent by a point or two, and leads all of the actual candidates, though the most moderate candidate Romney only barely. He leads the most conservative candidates by at least 10 points. The generic congressional ballot shows a slight edge for Democrats. Obama's disapproval rating probably includes many on the left who don't approve of him, as well as those on the right. Polls are subject to massive changes before November.

JPT, right-wingers like you "continue to believe what they believe after it has failed so badly," or else what failed so badly in 2008, and in 1992, and not to mention 1929, and 1893. We've had 30 years of your policies, and the result has been increasing poverty, decreasing class mobility, and greater inequality to the extent of making the USA more like a banana republic than a developed nation. As Ross Perot said, trickle down doesn't trickle.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Really have not posted that much recently.

I've been very busy recently, just renewed subscription to ancestry.com that I didn't renew 2 years ago. I've spent a bit of time researching more of my family history, which I've been able to trace back to at least 1600s. Maybe further.

In it I've found ancestors in nearly every war...Korea, WW1, Civil War, War 1812, American Revolution, even French/Indian War. Strangely none in WW2 or Vietnam.

I know this has little to do with the 2012 election, but I'll get to that near the end. Most of these ancestors lived their lives doing what they thought was best for their families, probably looking towards an unknown future. One wonders especially during the 4T's (Revolution, Civil War, WW2) what they thought of the future. A different world always ended up emerging. But life still went on.

Now I like guessing at what a re-election of Obama or election of Romney might mean for the country as a whole. The reality is though, we really don't know. Which is why I continue to lose patience with the typical Democrat vs Republican schtick exhibited by both sides here...or anywhere.

Now 2012 will be my 6th presidential election I will be voting in. Thus far my trend has been I have never voted to re-elect a President. Ever. I have never voted to continue the party in power in the WH. Ever. I have to say, Eric Greens post earlier about a parlimentary style government after this 4T sounds somewhat appealing.

In voting in 2012, I don't just consider the difference between Obama and the GOP nominee, but also the likely effect on the 2014 elections.

I'd say, the Supreme Court is something to consider.

Looking back, I have not voted to reelect a president either, and I go back before you were born.
I'm not sure about Obama either. But you need to consider whether you live in a swing state or not. That probably would have changed my vote to reelect democratic presidents in the only two cases when I had that option.
Not that I would have cast such a vote with any enthusiasm.
I of course have never voted Republican, except once in a congressional race. His name was Pete McCloskey.
We just haven't had very good presidents, of either party. Kennedy was probably the last.

Originally Posted by James50

Ten things to keep in mind for 2012



Anyone care to disagree with one of these?

I would say #8 is the one most frequently derided on this forum.

James50

I'll bite. I'll attack #1 and 2, about austerity and State government spending.

To help everyone, I'll reprint what the author has to say

1. Republicans have slashed government spending. While there are political reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to pretend that we’ve entered a new age of austerity, it’s not even close to true. According to figures released last week by the Treasury Department, federal spending this year is up by roughly 5 percent over the same period last year. That’s a $120 billion increase in just the first nine months of this year. That’s right: Despite a near shutdown of the government and “holding the debt ceiling hostage,” government spending is still increasing. And not surprisingly, we are borrowing more money in order to fund it. The deficit is already $23.5 billion higher this year — with three months still to go. As a result, our national debt continues to grow. This month it will close in on $15 trillion. Throw in the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, and our real indebtedness tops $120 trillion and rising. If Keynesian-style stimulus worked, we should be swimming in jobs.

2. States are firing teachers and firefighters because they are broke. Washington has to help. That’s the logic behind the president’s plan for $35 billion in additional federal aid to the states, a bill that the Senate is expected to vote on this week. In reality, however, state government spending has also been rising, up more than 10 percent in the past two years. And while some of that represents a pass-through of federal aid from earlier stimulus bills, state general-fund spending rose 5.2 percent this year. If state governments are laying off teachers and firefighters, it’s because they are failing to manage their priorities, not because they don’t have any money.

The points made in #1 are flawed, because the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 funding is not based on a Republican budget. It is based on a year-long Continuing Resolution (C.R.) that basically kept the FY 2010 rules in place. This C.R. was a result of a compromise between a GOP House and a Democratic Senate and Democratic President with veto power. Also, the figures are not adjusted for inflation or increased population. In addition, Aquarian Boomers are now retiring in massive numbers, resulting in more Government spending. And as Weave will be only to happy to point out, although we've been out of recession for 2 years, unemployment is still extremely high, driving up demand for food stamps, Medicare, WIC, school meals, SSI, and other Federally-funded Government programs.

What people who decry Republican austerity point to (and rightly so) is the Ryan budget that came out last Spring. It is what the House Republican party would like to do if they had control of the Senate and Presidency as well. And it is a very austere budget.

Now for point #2. Again, the numbers are not adjusted for inflation. Inflation ran at about 3 percent last year (because Social Security benefits are being adjusted for that much). Medical inflation rose faster, and States are responsible for a share of Medicaid spending. With unemployment rates still very high and many people running out of Unemployment Insurance, you have increased demand on State services. So yes, States can be trying to run a tight ship and still find unavoidable spending increasing and be forced to cut down on teachers.

Also, aren't schools largely funded by property taxes? Which fell sharply during the recession. The huge stimulus passed in 2009 helped for 2010. However, now those funds have been used, State and local governments have had to cut back.

I would like to see a table showing the number of teachers in 2011 compared to earlier years. I'm pretty confident that there will be a drop.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The points made in #1 are flawed, because the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 funding is not based on a Republican budget..

I don't see why you say it is flawed. The republicans have not cut spending. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, spending is not going down, its going up.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I don't see why you say it is flawed. The republicans have not cut spending. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, spending is not going down, its going up.

James50

Did you read my post? I never denied that Federal spending rose in the past year in nominal terms. My point is that the reason why spending hasn't fallen is because Republicans don't control the Federal Government, only the House of Representatives. I said that the current Federal government spending is not Republican spending, because the Senate and White House are controlled by Democrats. It is compromise, stay-the-course spending.

So yes, spending is going up, because we have 3 million more Americans than last year, prices are slightly higher, and more people are on Social Security and Medicaid. If you adjust for cost of living and population, Federal spending is probably flat. Which is not a surprising outcome with a divided Government.

The Ryan budget provides one perspective of what a Republican-controlled Federal Government might look like, and that does budget does slash spending.

Originally Posted by James50

Heh. The US problem explained.

James50

Anytime you come across anyone or anything that compares the US federal government finances to a household, a person, a business, a state or local government, or to a non-monetarily sovereign nation like Greece or the other EU nations, just stop paying attention. You are listening or reading something that is based on complete and utter ignorance and all that is derived from that is junk economics.

If, however, you do come across a person, household or business that is issuing dollars, please let the FBI know --- it's not only illegal to do that but illegal not to let the authorities know someone is doing that.


When one views the federal deficit clock with pride in the accumulating aggregate equity held in our great nation you will have arrived at enlightenment.

From David Brin's blog - JPT, go read a few samples and see where on your rogue's gallery of lefties you'd place *him* -

"David Brin said...

Anon... the difference between a lefty and a liberal has so many aspects. But this is paramount. A lefty refuses ever to admit that progress has been huge and significant. A liberal admits progress has happened, and uses that as a REASON to demand more.

The former is as crazy as grouchy right wingers. God save us from loons of right AND left... though one is currently more dangerous than the other.

5:21 PM"

BNote: he recognizes a difference between a liberal and a leftie, and it is NOT how far to the right he stands!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

From David Brin's blog - JPT, go read a few samples and see where on your rogue's gallery of lefties you'd place *him* -

"David Brin said...

Anon... the difference between a lefty and a liberal has so many aspects. But this is paramount. A lefty refuses ever to admit that progress has been huge and significant. A liberal admits progress has happened, and uses that as a REASON to demand more.

The former is as crazy as grouchy right wingers. God save us from loons of right AND left... though one is currently more dangerous than the other.

5:21 PM"

BNote: he recognizes a difference between a liberal and a leftie, and it is NOT how far to the right he stands!

The rumor that David Brin is nom de blog of David Kaiser has been denied.

He does sound like some one I would like. .. .

On topic: Michele Bachmann's entire NH campaign staff has quit, citing her lack of interest in the state. Bachmann says. . .that this is not happening. She seems to be taking a long swim in a river in Egypt.

I can't seem to resist this kind of challenge:

With an eye on 2012, here are ten important but sometimes counterintuitive facts to keep in mind:

1. There is no austerity. True.

2. There was no deregulation. Absolutely, utterly ridiculous.

3. You can’t trust Republicans on spending. True.

4. Wall Street loves Democrats. Not true any more. Romney is outraising Obama by a large margin.

5. People who voted for Barack Obama on civil-liberties grounds are fools. That is at least half true.

6. If you aren’t for massive entitlement reform, you’re for massive tax hikes. False.

7. But taxing the rich won’t close the deficit. [No, but it would reduce it, which is all that is necessary.

8. The housing bubble was largely a political creation. [Even more ridiculous.

9. Well-meaning politicians are just as dangerous as self-serving ones. It all depends.

10. There’s no way out of this jam without big cuts to popular programs. False.

Originally Posted by James50

I have read it. I would describe it as the story of what happened when people realized the housing bubble was about to burst. I don't think of it as a description of what caused the bubble.

James50

What??!! I found totally fascinating the descriptions of the CDO's, how they were tranched, how the original makers of the loans were totally taken off the hook in terms of risk-taking while still making pile of money, how the Credit Default Swaps came into being and how they were in turn leveraged until the total CDS's at risk were, according to some estimates, as much as $60 TRILLION world-wide?? How almost NO ONE understood what they were doing, including S&P, and Moodys??

Dear God, James, please don't tell me that you think that the bubble was caused by Welfare Cadillac Unwed Mothers collecting public largesse and screwing Bank of America out of its money because "the government" was forcing it to lend to her?

Originally Posted by TnT

Dear God, James, please don't tell me that you think that the bubble was caused by Welfare Cadillac Unwed Mothers collecting public largesse and screwing Bank of America out of its money because "the government" was forcing it to lend to her?

The bubble was cause by cheap credit provided by Freddie and Fannie. Without that, none of it happens. I am amazed that you and David deny this.

We are in a similar government provided credit bubble in higher education right now.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

8. The housing bubble was largely a political creation. [Even more ridiculous.

Fascinating that you continue to maintain this position. I am speechless.

James50

Misery index hits 28 year high.

James50

Wall Street did it.

But based on the number of toxic loans in the system in 2008, the government was responsible for not just a simple majority, but more than two-thirds. It's quantifiable — 71% to be exact (see chart). And the remaining 29% of private-label junk was mostly attributable to Countrywide Financial, which was under the heel of HUD and its "fair-lending" edicts.

Remember the left is fact based.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The bubble was cause by cheap credit provided by Freddie and Fannie. Without that, none of it happens. I am amazed that you and David deny this.We are in a similar government provided credit bubble in higher education right now. James50

Only partially true, James. It was also caused by greedy bankers encouraging their customers, some of them equally greedy, to purchase more house than they could afford...even under conventional loans. With so much more money being lent, prices rose to an unsustainable level. I know this because I bought my current home just as the bubble was blowing up out here. My lender approved me for more than double the loan amount that I ended up taking out. Of course, if I'd listened to them, i'd be upside-down right now. And if, Lord forbid, subsequently something happened to my job, there'd be zero incentive to try and keep paying the mortgage, rather than mailing them the keys.I do agree that one reason education is in a bubble is due to the availability of student loans, for similar reasons.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Only partially true, James. It was also caused by greedy bankers encouraging their customers, some of them equally greedy, to purchase more house than they could afford. I know this because I bought my current home just as the bubble was blowing up out here. My lender approved me for more than double the loan amount that I ended up taking out. If i'd listened to them, i'd be upside-down right now. And if Lord forbid subsequently something happened to my job, there'd be zero incentive to try and keep paying the mortgage, rather than mailing them the keys.

Same thing happened to us when we bought our house here in 2006. We were approved for twice the amount of the house we actually bought. I knew there was no way we could afford the mortgage on the loan amount we were approved for. At least we couldn't afford it if we wanted to be able to eat and pay our bills too. But we were older and understood these things. If we had been a young or first time buyers, we just might have believed that we could afford a mortgage that high...After all, the bank had said we could.

Ron Paul criticizes the last GOP debate.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-lates...031404645.html

Originally Posted by ASB65

Same thing happened to us when we bought our house here in 2006. We were approved for twice the amount of the house we actually bought. I knew there was no way we could afford the mortgage on the loan amount we were approved for. At least we couldn't afford it if we wanted to be able to eat and pay our bills too. But we were older and understood these things. If we had been a young or first time buyers, we just might have believed that we could afford a mortgage that high...After all, the bank had said we could.

I wonder if the banks were actually counting on a number of the lendees defaulting? With prices going through the roof, they could foreclose on a house, sell it for far more than the original sale price, and keep the original buyer's down payment to boot.

James is amazing to attribute it all to one bank plus F&F. I used to bank at WAMU. That was the greatest collapse of a bank in history. Chase bought them. It was all due to the housing bubble and the loans that they made. F&F processed a lot of the housing loans; that does not mean they made all the loans. Those were made by many lenders. We've heard countless stories about the big banks foreclosing on people. How can they do that if they had nothing to do with the loans? Of course, the Crisis was mainly caused by the bundles and derivatives with which the banks and financial investment companies gambled, without adequate regulation by the Bush administration. And this inadequate oversight also enabled the crooks at F&F. This is principally a Republican-caused crisis. But of course if you can blame it all on F&F, since they were originally set up by the government, and recently were encouraged by Democrats to make loans to poor people, then you can excuse Republican trickle-down, and tea partiers can go after all the wrong targets.

Yes James, the Left is fact-based, and we have values too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

James is amazing to attribute it all to one bank plus F&F. I used to bank at WAMU. That was the greatest collapse of a bank in history. Chase bought them. It was all due to the housing bubble and the loans that they made. F&F processed a lot of the housing loans; that does not mean they made all the loans. Those were made by many lenders. We've heard countless stories about the big banks foreclosing on people. How can they do that if they had nothing to do with the loans? Of course, the Crisis was mainly caused by the bundles and derivatives with which the banks and financial investment companies gambled, without adequate regulation by the Bush administration. And this inadequate oversight also enabled the crooks at F&F. This is principally a Republican-caused crisis. But of course if you can blame it all on F&F, since they were originally set up by the government, and recently were encouraged by Democrats to make loans to poor people, then you can excuse Republican trickle-down, and tea partiers can go after all the wrong targets.

Yes James, the Left is fact-based, and we have values too.

Just look at the graph in his link. You are exhibiting in perfect form what I said earlier. The left sees the world as it wants it to be, not as it is. Inconvenient facts meet a stone wall of irrational denial.

So far I agree with Ann Coulter: If Chris Christie doesn't get the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney will get it, and Romney will lose in November.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

So far I agree with Ann Coulter: If Chris Christie doesn't get the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney will get it, and Romney will lose in November.

Romney is the logical Republican candidate under normal circumstances, meaning the usual party politics as practiced forever. These times are not normal. However, I think the party machinery will cling to convention enough to nominate him. This is truly shaping up into a "hold your nose and vote for the lukewarm centrist" election, which may help bring peace - or attempts at peace - but is sadly uninspirational.

The election of 2016 will probably be either decided, or definitely shaped, by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Pity. I once had high hopes for 2012 as the Regeneracy Election.

All bets are off it My Candidate suddenly finds his voice, and one that resonates with the American people. Lincoln finally did. Has anybody noted that the speeches Lincoln is famous for were all from his second term?