PDA

View Full Version : 5 important lessons


Dave Schwartz
01-10-2012, 11:05 AM
I saw this today and really like it.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

boxcar
01-10-2012, 12:31 PM
Good stuff, Dave! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

LottaKash
01-10-2012, 12:49 PM
......... that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

The last line is where we are, I'd say....Plain as day to me...(sadly)

best,

horses4courses
01-10-2012, 01:50 PM
These may be important lessons according to you, Dave.
No doubt, you will also receive plenty of support from subscribers on here.
Your arguments, however, are flawed.

The biggest flaw is that higher taxes for the top 5-10% of earners in the U.S. will never affect their prosperity.
Does it reach into their pocketbook? Yes.
Does it lower their living standard? Not to any noticeable degree.

There is always talk about taking away from those who have earned their wealth.
None of that focus is ever upon those with unlimited wealth who have never worked a day in their lives.

My family and I are comfortably off, but by no means big earners.
Am I willing to pay taxes to contribute to running the system, at both local and federal levels? Yes, I am.
So are most people in a civilized society.

Are there those within society who take advantage of the system? Yes.
Could the system be more equitable and efficient to benefit those who truely deserve aid? Yes.
Where I think we agree is that there must be a higher incentive to work, and to achieve, than there is at present.

One must remember, also, that the majority of our tax dollars are not direct handouts. They go towards maintaining that which runs our daily lives, such as infrastructure, etc. Is there waste and mismanagement? Of course.

A society where only the strongest survive borders on catastrophic.
Is there a need to widely re-distribute wealth in this nation?
I don't believe so. No need for a socialist takeover - just some common sense.

The system needs a lot of tweaking, though, and that would best be started by higher tax levels for the very top level earners, imo.

mostpost
01-10-2012, 02:09 PM
I saw this today and really like it.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
This might be true if that were the goal. The object is to get the wealthy to give up some of their prosperity to aid the country as a whole. We do this by imposing minimum wages, by strengthening unions, and by not allowing corporations to influence elections. When we do all this things (and others) we find that we all prosper including the wealthy.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
Some people receive more than they deserve for their work; some people deserve more than they receive. The deck is stacked against the poor.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
Government exists to level the playing field. Money is power. Think of harness racing. Imagine if their were no breaking rule. Why would anyone go to see a race in which anyone could win just by not maintaining the proper gait. Government keeps the contest fair.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
Yes we can!! I mean yes you can. If fact dividing wealth is the best way of multiplying it. Keeping wealth concentrated in a few hands stagnates it. Spreading it out ensures that it will be used; that it will multiply.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
This one goes back to the belief that because almost half the people don't pay one type of federal income tax, that half the people aren't working. That is patently false. The unemployment rate is now 8.5% not 50%. Most of that 50% are working and are working very hard. They just are not getting paid very much for their labor.

I know that you think a person who earns $1m a year by sitting in an office deciding to move a factory to Mexico and layoff a thousand workers is working harder than a person who earns $20K a year at McDonalds. I do not.

boxcar
01-10-2012, 02:11 PM
The system needs a lot of tweaking, though, and that would best be started by higher tax levels for the very top level earners, imo.

You almost got something right. The "system" is broken and needs to be replaced -- not merely tweaking. Thanks, though,, for confirming for us that social engineering schemes that were constructed on the basis of contrived civil rights that people are entitled to own this thing, that thing or something else leave very much to be desired.

Punishing success with taxation is hardly the answer.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-10-2012, 02:16 PM
This one goes back to the belief that because almost half the people don't pay one type of federal income tax, that half the people aren't working. That is patently false. The unemployment rate is now 8.5% not 50%. Most of that 50% are working and are working very hard. They just are not getting paid very much for their labor.

I know that you think a person who earns $1m a year by sitting in an office deciding to move a factory to Mexico and layoff a thousand workers is working harder than a person who earns $20K a year at McDonalds. I do not.

The real rate is much higher than 8.5%. What about all the unemployed whose unemployment benefits have expired and are no longer counted because they have fallen off the radar screen? Or what about all the underemployed?

Boxcar

Tom
01-10-2012, 02:57 PM
Real life unemployment is far higher than the 9% we have had reported.

LottaKash
01-10-2012, 03:16 PM
Real life unemployment is far higher than the 9% we have had reported.

A simple way to keep score these days, may simply be, to track the numbers of people now living beneath the bridges of the big roads, or in the alleyways, or deserted buildings of Amerika....They are growing by the day in my neck of the woods....Out of work, out of money, out of housing, and out of hope....That is what I see....

So F- all the graphs and such.....We must get real, you can't fake this aspect...

best,

Ocala Mike
01-10-2012, 03:23 PM
Here's another important lesson:

You can't win an election in 2012 by IGNORING the high unemployment/underemployment figures and OBSESSING on things like gun control, a state's right to ban contraception, gays marrying, and which R is greedier than the other. This seems to be the takeaway from this primary fight. Republicans forget what happened in 1992.


Ocala Mike

Tom
01-10-2012, 04:01 PM
Is that the fault of the candidates or the morons who call themselves moderators? I have not yet seen one single moderators worth a damn.

I have not yet seen one real debate.

You can't win an election in 2012 by IGNORING the high unemployment/underemployment figures and OBSESSING on things like gun control, a state's right to ban contraception, gays marrying

This all can apply equally to Obama. And he very well might win it by doing these very things. When voting him out of office will mean an end to the free ride 40% of the urban population enjoys in key electoral states, the results are pretty much inevitable.

bigmack
01-10-2012, 04:31 PM
Show the post from Mostpost to a team of doctors. A consensus of recommended institutionalization would burst forth from the lot of 'em.

This guy needs to be in a protective environment with thoughts like those.

sammy the sage
01-10-2012, 08:11 PM
Everybody posting in THIS thread is debating the "Tip/Top" of the iceberg...which is ONLY 10% of THE problem...

The 90% just like the iceberg is below THE surface...

That would be....what you ask....

The CREATION of fiat money outta thin air...it's DOUBLED since 2007...just like the national debt or if you will...the price of gas or gold...

Oh and the upper 1% FILTHY rich DID it...period...

The outlay for social programs PALES when compared TO this crap...

I had two customers in today...both w/Master's degrees coming from college...backing Ron Paul...I said to them...to bad he's un-electable...and if he was to win....there'd be an accident...

The BIG banks CONTROL all...

sorry to interrupt...remember...don't take yourself so seriously....you just gonna die anyways :p

boxcar
01-10-2012, 08:23 PM
Here's another important lesson:

You can't win an election in 2012 by IGNORING the high unemployment/underemployment figures and OBSESSING on things like gun control, a state's right to ban contraception, gays marrying, and which R is greedier than the other. This seems to be the takeaway from this primary fight. Republicans forget what happened in 1992.


Ocala Mike

So, you have noticed how the media moderators in these "debates" have been ducking this embarrassing issue on behalf of their man child. They ask all these stupid questions about secondary issue, while the avoiding the big problems in our country today.

Boxcar

sammy the sage
01-10-2012, 08:33 PM
So, you have noticed how the media moderators in these "debates" have been ducking this embarrassing issue on behalf of their man child. They ask all these stupid questions about secondary issue, while the avoiding the big problems in our country today.

Boxcar

Ask yourself...who CONTROLS the media...why that's be...in other words...don't matter if Romney or Obama wins...just so's it not Paul

horses4courses
01-10-2012, 08:39 PM
Ask yourself...who CONTROLS the media...why that's be...in other words...don't matter if Romney or Obama wins...just so's it not Paul

The kicker is this, and it's a longshot......
What if Paul runs as a third candidate (ala Perot or Nader)?

Actor
01-10-2012, 10:20 PM
The kicker is this, and it's a longshot......
What if Paul runs as a third candidate (ala Perot or Nader)?He loses and takes votes away from the G.O.P. nominee. :lol:

To paraphrase Jefferson, that's a "truth I hold to be self-evident." :lol:

JustRalph
01-10-2012, 11:15 PM
The kicker is this, and it's a longshot......
What if Paul runs as a third candidate (ala Perot or Nader)?

Obama would pay him to do it

Btw, there threats being made that if he does it, Repubs will refuse support his son ever again.

lsbets
01-10-2012, 11:22 PM
Obama would pay him to do it

Btw, there threats being made that if he does it, Repubs will refuse support his son ever again.

He won't, and his son is probably the reason. Rand will be one of the front runners next time.

Also, has anyone noticed that Paul has gone after Gingrich and Santorum, and to a lesser extent Perry and Bachmann, but he pretty much leaves Romney alone. That might be an interesting back story to this campaign, and I bet Rand's future has something to do with it.

boxcar
01-11-2012, 12:15 AM
Anyone getting the feeling yet that this nation is in full self-destruct mode?

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
01-11-2012, 12:31 AM
Anyone getting the feeling yet that this nation is in full self-destruct mode?

Boxcar

That domain is reserved for the righties. :rolleyes:

Robert Goren
01-11-2012, 05:49 AM
Anyone getting the feeling yet that this nation is in full self-destruct mode?

Boxcar Not the country, the republican party is. They have sorriest bunch of conservative candidates that anyone has ever seen. The likely nominee, Romney is not exactly the kind of guy you want as nominee either. The claim that as a businessman he knows how to create jobs doesn't match his history. He was a head of a company that took over in trouble business and liquidated them. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not creating jobs. It makes his claims that he knows how to create jobs ring hallow. I know that you and a lot of posters here will vote for anybody not named Obama. But not a lot people feel that way. They want a reasonable alternative. This may go down as the election the republicans blew because they could not find a candidate. Surely someplace in the republican party there has to be someone who has a history of governing who can articulate the conservative point of view. What I don't understand is why he or she did not step forward. There are people like Sen Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who I don't like because of his anti gambling views and wouldn't vote for, but would make a much better standard bearer than any of the current bunch. Obama might have been beaten this year, but it is unlikely to happen now because republicans didn't put up one of their best people.

sammy the sage
01-11-2012, 07:13 AM
also interesting observation...many righties are have started to realize that THEIR party is corrupt here on this board and on the street...

whilst those on the left are MUCH slower coming to the realization that their party IS as well...

last TWO comments by NJS & RG prove that...too MANY free loader's wanna continue just that :bang:

Tom
01-11-2012, 08:29 AM
Bobby, you forget the party that dug the 15 trillion dollar hole we are in.

As bad that bunch of candidates is, all of them would be FAR better than the current jerk in the WH.

Dave Schwartz
01-11-2012, 12:02 PM
Not the country, the republican party is.

Oh, okay. And other than the Republicans, everything on the other side of the aisle is just fine.

Why, if Obama had his way, we'd be just fine in a few more months, right?


Puh-lease.


While I give you that the repubs ARE a mess, the dems are no better. That is the real point: the whole system IS broken, but turning far LEFT is certainly not going to fix it any more than turning RIGHT would.

PhantomOnTour
01-11-2012, 12:16 PM
Oh, okay. And other than the Republicans, everything on the other side of the aisle is just fine.

Why, if Obama had his way, we'd be just fine in a few more months, right?


Puh-lease.


While I give you that the repubs ARE a mess, the dems are no better. That is the real point: the whole system IS broken, but turning far LEFT is certainly not going to fix it any more than turning RIGHT would.
Correct, which is why this country is ripe for a 3rd party candidate with some backing.

Dave Schwartz
01-11-2012, 01:21 PM
Correct, which is why this country is ripe for a 3rd party candidate with some backing.

If only the system would work that way.

When you add a 3rd party they get what? If we are fortunate, 15% of the vote? Dream, maybe and get 25%? Then we wind up with one of the other 2 fools anyway.

I contend that the system is broken.


Dave

elysiantraveller
01-11-2012, 01:33 PM
A third party is much more valuable in the house and senate than it is on the ticket for the presidential election. 5-20 third party seats in the senate would have hugely positive impacts on our system. Losing the presidential race with 20% does nothing.

Dave Schwartz
01-11-2012, 02:11 PM
A third party is much more valuable in the house and senate than it is on the ticket for the presidential election. 5-20 third party seats in the senate would have hugely positive impacts on our system. Losing the presidential race with 20% does nothing.

Good point.

mostpost
01-11-2012, 02:44 PM
Bobby, you forget the party that dug the 15 trillion dollar hole we are in.

As bad that bunch of candidates is, all of them would be FAR better than the current jerk in the WH.
Yes, the Republicans. Of our $10T debt as of Sept 30, 2008 $7.837T can be traced directly to Republican Administrations. Even adding Obama's $5.195T to the Democrats' pre 2008 share of $2.163T gives the Democrats $7.358T. Still less than the Republicans.

And this does not take into account the carry over effect of Republican policies. Things like wars we are still paying for; Financial mismanagement we are still paying for; a Republican recession (the worst in Eighty years) we are still paying for; a trillion dollars in tax cuts we are still paying for.There is no doubt in my mind that Republicans are responsible for at least $10T of our current $15T national debt and very likely much more.

Continuation of Bill Clinton's policies and tax structure was projected to eliminate the debt entirely by this time. The repudiation of those policies by George W Bush has put us in the situation we are in right now.

elysiantraveller
01-11-2012, 02:52 PM
Yes, the Republicans. Of our $10T debt as of Sept 30, 2008 $7.837T can be traced directly to Republican Administrations. Even adding Obama's $5.195T to the Democrats' pre 2008 share of $2.163T gives the Democrats $7.358T. Still less than the Republicans.

And this does not take into account the carry over effect of Republican policies. Things like wars we are still paying for; Financial mismanagement we are still paying for; a Republican recession (the worst in Eighty years) we are still paying for; a trillion dollars in tax cuts we are still paying for.There is no doubt in my mind that Republicans are responsible for at least $10T of our current $15T national debt and very likely much more.

Continuation of Bill Clinton's policies and tax structure was projected to eliminate the debt entirely by this time. The repudiation of those policies by George W Bush has put us in the situation we are in right now.

Still blaming Bush....?

How is one President, 3 years removed, to blame for raising the debt while our current President who has spent faster gets a free pass? If spending was a problem with one administration how is it not with the other?

Just curious.

LottaKash
01-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Still blaming Bush....?

How is one President, 3 years removed, to blame for raising the debt while our current President who has spent faster gets a free pass? If spending was a problem with one administration how is it not with the other?
Just curious.

Perhaps, it is just a "commie" fetish, and, if that is it, then you just can't knock the one who wants to own you lock, stock, and barrel...Can you ?....Well MP can't, and won't, I don't think....Some sort of a "loyalty over truth and sensibility" thing, I'd guess.....

best,

mostpost
01-11-2012, 03:11 PM
Still blaming Bush....?

How is one President, 3 years removed, to blame for raising the debt while our current President who has spent faster gets a free pass? If spending was a problem with one administration how is it not with the other?

Just curious.
First of all, can you deny that more than 73% of the increase in our national debt occurred under Republican administrations? You can look it up.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

As for Bush; you do understand that the effect of an Administration's policies does not magically cease when that Administration leaves office? The war in Afghanistan is still going on. The war in Irag continued well into the Obama Presidency. We are still saddled with the Bush tax cuts. Bush looked the other way on financial regulation. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act removed barriers to financial transactions which were the cause of the Recession. Gramm, Leach and Bliley were all Republicans. Despite having control of Congress for six years, no legislation addressing subprime lending ever made it out of committee, much less to a floor vote.

Any attempts to correct these problems in the last three years have been blocked by Republican filibuster in the Senate and/or a Republican majority in the house.

Tom
01-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Good point.

Excellent Point!!!!!

Tom
01-11-2012, 03:16 PM
And this does not take into account the carry over effect of Republican policies.

When was the last time we had a republican majority?
When was the last time we had a democratic majority?

Why didn't they fix things when they had the chance?
The STILL have not passed a budget yet!


We are still saddled with the Bush tax cuts.

Correction - the OBAMA tax cuts - they were renewed, under Bammy.....remember? HE insisted we needed them.

elysiantraveller
01-11-2012, 03:37 PM
First of all, can you deny that more than 73% of the increase in our national debt occurred under Republican administrations? You can look it up.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

As for Bush; you do understand that the effect of an Administration's policies does not magically cease when that Administration leaves office? The war in Afghanistan is still going on. The war in Irag continued well into the Obama Presidency. We are still saddled with the Bush tax cuts. Bush looked the other way on financial regulation. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act removed barriers to financial transactions which were the cause of the Recession. Gramm, Leach and Bliley were all Republicans. Despite having control of Congress for six years, no legislation addressing subprime lending ever made it out of committee, much less to a floor vote.

Any attempts to correct these problems in the last three years have been blocked by Republican filibuster in the Senate and/or a Republican majority in the house.

You president hasn't done ANYTHING to curtail our deficit... NOTHING.

Also unlike the GOP he has two ways he can cut the deficit he can A) cut spending and B) raise taxes. He has done neither one of them!

1) He extended the Bush tax cuts... including to the richest Americans.
2) He raised the estate tax threshold.

Finally, he had a third thing that enabled him to cut the deficit any way he wanted to; his regime has a supermajority for the first TWO years of his presidency.

If you want to blame Bush for the balance sheet thats fine but don't pretend that your executive hasn't had one of the easiest paths in history to correct it HIS WAY and has failed miserably.

HUSKER55
01-11-2012, 05:37 PM
DAMN GOOD POINT!

bigmack
01-11-2012, 06:16 PM
First of all, can you deny that more than 73% of the increase in our national debt occurred under Republican administrations - You do understand that the effect of an Administration's policies does not magically cease when that Administration leaves office?
Ya see how when you put those two sentences together you completely contradict yourself?

NJ Stinks
01-11-2012, 06:29 PM
Finally, he had a third thing that enabled him to cut the deficit any way he wanted to; his regime has a supermajority for the first TWO years of his presidency.

If you want to blame Bush for the balance sheet thats fine but don't pretend that your executive hasn't had one of the easiest paths in history to correct it HIS WAY and has failed miserably.

Usually you are fair and balanced. The statement above is crazy inaccurate. If the Dems controlled the Senate, it would be true. They didn't and it's not!

bigmack
01-11-2012, 06:34 PM
Usually you are fair and balanced. The statement above is crazy inaccurate. If the Dems controlled the Senate, it would be true. They didn't and it's not!
Check the expiration date on the crack you're smokin'.
'
2009-2011 Dems control House/Senate/Double-O.

elysiantraveller
01-11-2012, 06:34 PM
Usually you are fair and balanced. The statement above is crazy inaccurate. If the Dems controlled the Senate, it would be true. They didn't and it's not!

I guess I'm still fair and balanced.

Dems controlled the Senate by a 57 - 41 margin from 2009-2011. With two independents that caucus with them. What are you talking about?

NJ Stinks
01-11-2012, 06:35 PM
also interesting observation...many righties are have started to realize that THEIR party is corrupt here on this board and on the street...

whilst those on the left are MUCH slower coming to the realization that their party IS as well...

last TWO comments by NJS & RG prove that...too MANY free loader's wanna continue just that :bang:

Just so you know, Sammy. The only thing I really worry about so far is Habeas Corpus. Otherwise, Obama is doing OK. Not great but OK. Certainly better leadership than we would have gotten by Republicans.

Call it denial if you want. I don't care.

Republicans wouldn't recognize a solution let alone legislate one to any of our problems.

johnhannibalsmith
01-11-2012, 06:41 PM
Check the expiration date on the crack you're smokin'.
'
2009-2011 Dems control House/Senate/Double-O.

:D

Poor Nj

NJ Stinks
01-11-2012, 07:19 PM
I guess I'm still fair and balanced.

Dems controlled the Senate by a 57 - 41 margin from 2009-2011. With two independents that caucus with them. What are you talking about?

Even Mack knows one needs 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.

Dave Schwartz
01-11-2012, 07:34 PM
Call it denial if you want. I don't care.

It absolutely IS denial.

IMHO, Bush was terrible and Obama is worse.

thaskalos
01-11-2012, 07:48 PM
It absolutely IS denial.

IMHO, Bush was terrible and Obama is worse.

A ringing endorsement for the importance of casting our vote come election time...

Although we are usually presented with two terrible candidates...we do, through the democratic process, get to choose the best of two evils...

Tom
01-11-2012, 11:03 PM
Even Mack knows one needs 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.

And you realize three traitorous repubs voted with the dems on key bills, right?
Wonder how much they got paid off for their integrity?

chickenhead
01-11-2012, 11:29 PM
I saw Kyle Bass describe our current (meaning say the last 15 years or so) political predicament as Democrats and Republicans are both standing on the green at the golf course, each facing a 70 ft putt with multiple sharp left-right breaks, uphill, then downhill, with gusting 50 mph winds.

And they turn to each other and say "Good, good?" ,pick up their balls and walk off.

The problem for the country is someone actually has to both attempt, and actually sink, the putt at some point.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 12:51 AM
The problem for the country is someone actually has to both attempt, and actually sink, the putt at some point.
Here's your man. I call him Egofree L7. (check local settings for beatniks)

Not much of an ego and fairly Squaresville. Have you seen the fam?

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2007/06/22/1182522683_1965.jpg

Squares, the lot of 'em. :ThmbUp:

Gonna be a good 8 years. I can see it now.

delayjf
01-12-2012, 12:56 AM
[QUOTE]Continuation of Bill Clinton's policies and tax structure was projected to eliminate the debt entirely by this time. The repudiation of those policies by George W Bush has put us in the situation we are in right now.[/QUOTE

No it would not - intergovermental borrowing (the amount of money the Gov borrows from itself / SSN) increased under CLinton as did our national debt every year durring Clintons Administration - only it was shifted from public to private debt. And finally, Clinton himself didn't follow his own policy - his last budget ran a deficit.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

mostpost
01-12-2012, 01:19 AM
[QUOTE]Continuation of Bill Clinton's policies and tax structure was projected to eliminate the debt entirely by this time. The repudiation of those policies by George W Bush has put us in the situation we are in right now.[/QUOTE

No it would not - intergovermental borrowing (the amount of money the Gov borrows from itself / SSN) increased under CLinton as did our national debt every year durring Clintons Administration - only it was shifted from public to private debt. And finally, Clinton himself didn't follow his own policy - his last budget ran a deficit.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
I'll take the official figures thank you.
year revenues outlays surplus.
1998 1,721,955 1,652,685 69,270
1999 1,827,645 1,702,035 125,610
2000 2,025,457 1,789,216 236,241
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190 128,236

Those are from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html
Table 1.1

mostpost
01-12-2012, 02:06 AM
Continuation of Bill Clinton's policies and tax structure was projected to eliminate the debt entirely by this time. The repudiation of those policies by George W Bush has put us in the situation we are in right now.[/QUOTE

No it would not - intergovermental borrowing (the amount of money the Gov borrows from itself / SSN) increased under CLinton as did our national debt every year durring Clintons Administration - only it was shifted from public to private debt. And finally, Clinton himself didn't follow his own policy - his last budget ran a deficit.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

No it would not - intergovermental borrowing (the amount of money the Gov borrows from itself / SSN) increased under CLinton as did our national debt every year durring Clintons Administration - only it was shifted from public to private debt. And finally, Clinton himself didn't follow his own policy - his last budget ran a deficit.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

I will also take the facts of Factcheck.org. over the opinions of a hack economist for Townhall finance.

Excerpt:
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

Yes Clinton borrowed from Social Security. Every President since its inception has. Social Security is required by law to invest its surplus in United States Treasuries. Social Security had a large surplus in those years. The fact that the government would have to pay back that loan in the future does not change the fact that it had a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

As to why the Treasury shows an increase in the debt from year to year even when there is a surplus, that too is explained in the Factcheck article. Treasury is using an alternate method of accounting. They are using accrual accounting as opposed to cash basis accounting. Cash basis is what the government has always used.

To change from one accounting method to another in midstream is like changing the distance of the Kentucky Derby to a mile and sixteenth when the horses are entering the far turn.

elysiantraveller
01-12-2012, 08:35 AM
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

I will also take the facts of Factcheck.org. over the opinions of a hack economist for Townhall finance.

Excerpt:


Yes Clinton borrowed from Social Security. Every President since its inception has. Social Security is required by law to invest its surplus in United States Treasuries. Social Security had a large surplus in those years. The fact that the government would have to pay back that loan in the future does not change the fact that it had a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

As to why the Treasury shows an increase in the debt from year to year even when there is a surplus, that too is explained in the Factcheck article. Treasury is using an alternate method of accounting. They are using accrual accounting as opposed to cash basis accounting. Cash basis is what the government has always used.

To change from one accounting method to another in midstream is like changing the distance of the Kentucky Derby to a mile and sixteenth when the horses are entering the far turn.

I'm still waiting on what Obama has done to curtail the deficit? Funny you chose to ignore that. No need to be pro-active and forward thinking as long as you can keep blaming Bush right?

johnhannibalsmith
01-12-2012, 09:31 AM
I'm still waiting on what Obama has done to curtail the deficit? Funny you chose to ignore that. No need to be pro-active and forward thinking as long as you can keep blaming Bush right?

Ahhh leave him be... I've been waiting a week to hear him tell me that Rachel Maddow is as idiotic as the rest of us hopeless primitives that agreed with her premise in the "Bill of Rights" thread. :cool:

delayjf
01-12-2012, 10:13 AM
Suit yourself but I would trust the US Treasury over the CBO anytime. I would also point out that Clinton's best years economically occurred after a tax cut in 97 and a reduction in Federal spending implemented by a Republican Congress.

Interesting that the fact check article doesn't offer any stats just his opinion of a accounting procedure.


Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion



As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Tom
01-12-2012, 11:22 AM
CBO only analyzes data given to them. Garbage in , garbage out.

PaceAdvantage
01-12-2012, 02:06 PM
There is always talk about taking away from those who have earned their wealth.
None of that focus is ever upon those with unlimited wealth who have never worked a day in their lives.Do you know how inherently horrid the idea is that in your little world, someone out there should be in charge of determining just whose wealth IS or ISN'T legitimate?

What country did you grow up in?

You want to take from the rich to give to those who are poor and WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN THEIR LIFE, correct?

But those who are rich AND NEVER WORKED A DAY IN THEIR LIFE, they are the ones who should be penalized?

What awesome logic... :faint:

Tom
01-12-2012, 02:58 PM
So let me get this straight, it is ok to take from those rich people who hve never worked a day in their lives and give it to those poor people who have never worked a day in their lives?

bigmack
01-12-2012, 03:06 PM
What a raging fool. Time for this one to go back to the shack.

6BX-NsPpzeM

mostpost
01-12-2012, 03:46 PM
Suit yourself but I would trust the US Treasury over the CBO anytime.

My figures are not from the CBO. The CBO offers projections. The figures I provided are historical figures compiled by the Office Of Management And Budget. They are compiled in accordance with the way the government always determines surplus or deficit. The figures Mr. Steiner has used were compiled using the method he thinks the government should determine surplus or deficit. One is an official statement, the other is a "what if" statement. I will stick with the official statement.

mostpost
01-12-2012, 04:20 PM
I'm still waiting on what Obama has done to curtail the deficit? Funny you chose to ignore that. No need to be pro-active and forward thinking as long as you can keep blaming Bush right?
That would be an exercise if futility. If I told you the auto bailouts saved the American auto industry and led to the creation of 88,500 new jobs in that industry you would say the bailout had nothing to do with it. If I told you the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided funding for hundreds maybe thousands of construction projects, you would say we were spending money on things we don't need. Like bridges that don't collapse and schools with computers. :rolleyes: If I told you that investments by the Obama administration in schools had saved thousands of teachers jobs, you would tell me that we don't need public schools or public school teachers. If I pointed out that we have gone from losing hundreds of thousands of job each month to gaining jobs for the last year, you would ignore me.

In fact you would never acknowledge that government could ever do anything of benefit. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 04:24 PM
If I told you the auto bailouts saved the American auto industry and led to the creation of 88,500 new jobs in that industry you would say the bailout had nothing to do with it.
Linkiepoo to these 'new jobs', please.

mostpost
01-12-2012, 04:32 PM
So let me get this straight, it is ok to take from those rich people who hve never worked a day in their lives and give it to those poor people who have never worked a day in their lives?

No, it's okay that they never should have had some of that money in the first place. Contrary to your opinion, very few of the poor have never worked a day in their lives. In fact I would venture the opinion that the percentage of rich people who do not work is greater than the percentage of poor.

Then we have the question of why so many people are not working. Could it be because there are no jobs? Could it be because Mitt Romney and his vulture capitalist buddies have taken over companies and bled them dry. Because someone has decided it is more profitable to overwork someone than to fully staff an operation.
Most poor people who are not working, are not working because they cannot find work. Most rich people who aren't working aren't working because they don't want to.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 04:35 PM
No, it's okay that they never should have had some of that money in the first place. Contrary to your opinion, very few of the poor have never worked a day in their lives. In fact I would venture the opinion that the percentage of rich people who do not work is greater than the percentage of poor.
You wanna see that dirt under the fingernails or those papercuts on the hands from extreme mail sorting to prove folk is workin'. You old school like that.

Rich folk. The bane of your existence. :D

mostpost
01-12-2012, 04:52 PM
Ahhh leave him be... I've been waiting a week to hear him tell me that Rachel Maddow is as idiotic as the rest of us hopeless primitives that agreed with her premise in the "Bill of Rights" thread. :cool:
I thought it was a rhetorical question. To make you happy, Ms. Maddow and I disagree on this one.

mostpost
01-12-2012, 05:04 PM
Linkiepoo to these 'new jobs', please.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/10/31/gm-invests-millions-adds-jobs-at-romulus-plant/
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/gm-says-new-colorado-pickup-line-will-add-jobs-at/article_6ca1e7fc-062e-11e1-bc85-0019bb30f31a.html
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/25/gm-adds-2500-jobs-detroit-plant/
http://www.freep.com/article/20110510/BUSINESS01/105100361/GM-add-4-200-jobs-8-state-hiring-blitz
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/business/chrysler-workers-approve-pact-that-adds-2100-jobs.html?_r=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42971638/ns/business-autos/t/gm-ready-add-jobs-toledo/#.Tw9YIqVAark
http://news.yahoo.com/chrysler-adds-1-250-jobs-detroit-233246513.html
http://blog.irwinzone.com/toyota-plant-adds-1500-jobs/


I think that's enough.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 05:12 PM
I think that's enough.
Not to support this bald-faced lie.
If I told you the auto bailouts saved the American auto industry and led to the creation of 88,500 new jobs in that industry you would say the bailout had nothing to do with it.

What does one have to do, get a calculator and add up the total from your dopey links? The first link refers to added or retained. 'Nuff said.

Your dishonesty remains intact.

One of the links talks of 1500 jobs for Toyota. :lol: :lol:

johnhannibalsmith
01-12-2012, 05:34 PM
I thought it was a rhetorical question. To make you happy, Ms. Maddow and I disagree on this one.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Figures. Snarkypuss finally gets me on board and you think she's nuts. :D

PaceAdvantage
01-12-2012, 05:46 PM
No, it's okay that they never should have had some of that money in the first place. Contrary to your opinion, very few of the poor have never worked a day in their lives. In fact I would venture the opinion that the percentage of rich people who do not work is greater than the percentage of poor.You would venture? Is that a "vulture" kind of venture or no?

"They never should have had some of that money...." as soon as I read those words, I vomited a bit in the back of my throat. People who think like you do really don't belong in the United States of America. There are other countries that would really suit your ideological bend perfectly.

I often wonder why folks who think like you stick around in the USA...if it's as bad and cruel and heartless of a nation as you make it out to be...

You should PM Steve R . . . something tells me you two would get along swimmingly.

johnhannibalsmith
01-12-2012, 05:53 PM
...

You should PM Steve R . . . something tells me you two would get along swimmingly.

That's unfair to Mosite.

PaceAdvantage
01-12-2012, 06:01 PM
That's unfair to Mosite.Was I a bit too harsh? Maybe so...I'm sorry.

Just hate it when people think they're in any position to judge just who deserves their money and who doesn't.

I'm surprised Mosty isn't out there lobbying to eliminate all state lotteries.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 06:15 PM
Poysonally, I relish Mosties position. It drives him daffy that he can't quite figure out how to get to the other side & actually get the dough.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/xopen.gif

elysiantraveller
01-12-2012, 06:32 PM
That would be an exercise if futility. If I told you the auto bailouts saved the American auto industry and led to the creation of 88,500 new jobs in that industry you would say the bailout had nothing to do with it. If I told you the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided funding for hundreds maybe thousands of construction projects, you would say we were spending money on things we don't need. Like bridges that don't collapse and schools with computers. :rolleyes: If I told you that investments by the Obama administration in schools had saved thousands of teachers jobs, you would tell me that we don't need public schools or public school teachers. If I pointed out that we have gone from losing hundreds of thousands of job each month to gaining jobs for the last year, you would ignore me.

In fact you would never acknowledge that government could ever do anything of benefit. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

Oh no you don't!

I'm not talking about jobs I'm talking about reducing the deficit. What has he done to specifically reduce the deficit? You are just showing me more spending.

fast4522
01-12-2012, 08:52 PM
Spendthrift he has down pat.

boxcar
01-12-2012, 09:38 PM
That domain is reserved for the righties. :rolleyes:

Nope, it can't be. The leftists have a moral lock on it!

Boxcar

boxcar
01-12-2012, 09:46 PM
I guess I'm still fair and balanced.

Dems controlled the Senate by a 57 - 41 margin from 2009-2011. With two independents that caucus with them. What are you talking about?

NJ probably lives too close to that great NJ Tpke. The fumes after all these years has taken its toll upon the poor guy.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-12-2012, 09:50 PM
No, it's okay that they never should have had some of that money in the first place. Contrary to your opinion, very few of the poor have never worked a day in their lives. In fact I would venture the opinion that the percentage of rich people who do not work is greater than the percentage of poor.

Then we have the question of why so many people are not working. Could it be because there are no jobs? Could it be because Mitt Romney and his vulture capitalist buddies have taken over companies and bled them dry. Because someone has decided it is more profitable to overwork someone than to fully staff an operation.
Most poor people who are not working, are not working because they cannot find work. Most rich people who aren't working aren't working because they don't want to.

Talk about wanting it both ways! First, you claim that Obama has created a gazillion new jobs, but now you blame the lack of jobs for the poor not working?

You need some serious help...quickly.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-12-2012, 09:58 PM
Spendthrift he has down pat.

Rumor has it, QE3 is coming.

Boxcar

mostpost
01-12-2012, 11:21 PM
Was I a bit too harsh? Maybe so...I'm sorry.

Just hate it when people think they're in any position to judge just who deserves their money and who doesn't.

I'm surprised Mosty isn't out there lobbying to eliminate all state lotteries.

So let's start over and try to understand one another. I don't think that every person who owns a business is trying to rip off his employees. I think that most are totally fair. Or at least try to be. I don't think that every employee gives 100% effort 100% of the time. I think that most try to do that. But I recognize that in both categories there are those who will try to gain an advantage or get something for nothing. And I think that a business owner has a greater opportunity to gain that advantage.

I think that the larger a business is, the more likely it is that workers will be treated unfairly. I think with the way business is set up today, with decisions being made by people who have no connection to the day to day running of the business, there is a huge danger that decisions will be made solely on the basis of how the decision will fill the pockets of the investors.

Buying a business with no intent to improve it is not what I call the American way. Raiding the pension fund, selling the furniture, firing the workers and liquidating the assets of a company is not my idea of helping the economy.

You made this statement:
Just hate it when people think they're in any position to judge just who deserves their money and who doesn't.
Except I don't think that I am in a position to judge that in any particular case. My position is that no one should be able to determine how much they should take out of an enterprise without first determining the value of the contributions of others. I also think that no one can determine that value on their own. Human nature will not allow it. A person will always overvalue his own contribution while undervaluing the contributions of others. This will happen regardless of whether you are the owner of the business or one of the workers.

Which is why I say SOME owners of businesses don't deserve SOME of the money they earn from that business. If the business is one in which salaries are imposed from above without negotiation, than it is much more likely that the business is taking money that should be going to the workers. (Understand I am not saying this happens in all cases, just that it happens.)

If salaries are determined through negotiation between equal negotiating parties it is much more likely that the business will retain a fair share of the rewards of the business, while the employees will reap a just wage.

I'm not judging who deserves the money and who doesn't. I'm suggesting a method whereby that judgement can be fairly made.


Post script. I know there is a thread for what follows, but I'm putting it here anyway:
There is now a banner ad at the top of this page for a sale on TuTus. Really? Tutus? Shouldn't that ad be on BigMack's computer rather than mine. :lol: :lol: :lol:
There is a lovely yellow one up there. :lol: Pardon me, I'm going shopping. :eek: :eek:

mostpost
01-12-2012, 11:31 PM
Oh no you don't!

I'm not talking about jobs I'm talking about reducing the deficit. What has he done to specifically reduce the deficit? You are just showing me more spending.
How did that happen? I absolutely thought you were talking about jobs. :confused:

The answer to your question is he has done nothing. Neither have any of the past presidents with the exception of Bill Clinton. George W. Bush certainly did not. George HW Bush did not. Ronald Reagan did not. And so on back as far as I can remember.

I would also add that Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress have done nothing. Oh there are plenty of ideas. Cut spending but don't raise taxes. Raise taxes but don't cut spending. Cut spending but don't you dare cut my sacred cow. Raise taxes on Millionaires, but don't raise taxes on me. Make the poor pay more but don't make me pay more.

Everyone has done something about the deficit or the debt. Everyone has made it bigger. :bang:

Tom
01-12-2012, 11:31 PM
My position is that no one should be able to determine how much they should take out of an enterprise without first determining the value of the contributions of others.

Understand something....when you own the business, it is YOURS. YOU decide. Period. Business exist to rewards their OWNERS, no one else. If you do not like the cut you get from the owners, find another job or better yet, start your own business. Those who take the risks get the rewards.

bigmack
01-12-2012, 11:34 PM
Which is why I say SOME owners of businesses don't deserve SOME of the money they earn from that business.
Now, you know me, right? I Goo that line of yours and who else said the same dealio?

- Fidel
- Hugo
- Joseph
- Adolf
- Shemp

Tell ya what I'm gonna do. I'd like to get a wood burning kit. Then get me a big ol' piece o' wood. And I'm gonna burn that sayin' into that wood. Then I'm gonna send that to ya.

So you can put it on yer wall. Then when people walk in you can say - "Lookie there, I'm nuts" :kiss:

badcompany
01-12-2012, 11:42 PM
Considering that the Post Office is a state-backed monopoly that can raise prices and provide poor service without suffering the consequences that would befall a private enterprise, Mostpost doesn't deserve some of his money.

elysiantraveller
01-13-2012, 12:41 AM
The answer to your question is he has done nothing. Neither have any of the past presidents with the exception of Bill Clinton. George W. Bush certainly did not. George HW Bush did not. Ronald Reagan did not. And so on back as far as I can remember.

Then why is assigning blame on Bush so important to you?

You don't need to answer me.

mostpost
01-13-2012, 12:41 AM
Now, you know me, right? I Goo that line of yours and who else said the same dealio?

- Fidel
- Hugo
- Joseph
- Adolf
- Shemp

Tell ya what I'm gonna do. I'd like to get a wood burning kit. Then get me a big ol' piece o' wood. And I'm gonna burn that sayin' into that wood. Then I'm gonna send that to ya.

So you can put it on yer wall. Then when people walk in you can say - "Lookie there, I'm nuts" :kiss:

Quoting that idiot teabagger congressman, "You Lie"

Googling that quote produces no such results. Fidel and Josef would not have said that. They would have said that the owner deserved none of the earnings. If fact they would have said he did not deserve to be the owner.

The fact that you think Adolf was anti capitalism shows the depths of your ignorance. German companies made fortunes during Hitlers early years. As long as they provided the war materials he needed he did not care one bit how they treated their workers or how much money they made.

Perhaps you can provide a link of Hugo uttering that line.

Shemp? Shemp? Shemp never had a thought in his life.

bigmack
01-13-2012, 12:51 AM
Shemp? Shemp? Shemp never had a thought in his life.
I know people say they 'bust a gut' online, almost like speaking in tongues. I went to bible camp in Whisconsin as a kid and some group came in and spoke in tongues. I wanted in. Bad. Speed course in a foreign language, I figered. (Although nobody knew what anybody was sayin') :confused:

So anywhoo, back to the 'bust a gut' thing. I just did.

Muchas Gracias, Hombre.

Keep on keepin' on. :D

delayjf
01-17-2012, 01:08 AM
The fact that the government would have to pay back that loan in the future does not change the fact that it had a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Really?? So if I have a 10k debt and I make a 5000 dollar credit card payment on that debt – have I cut my debt in half??

As to why the Treasury shows an increase in the debt from year to year even when there is a surplus, that too is explained in the Factcheck article. Treasury is using an alternate method of accounting. They are using accrual accounting as opposed to cash basis accounting. Cash basis is what the government has always used.
Actually it’s the other way around, the Gov uses accrual accounting and the Treasury used Cash basis accounting. As much as you decry the wealthy in this country for not paying more taxes, I’m surprised you would support the use of Accrual accounting. Our tax system is based on accrual accounting, so is it any surprise the Gov would want to use it as well to manipulate its numbers. Below is the Wiki definition of our National Debt,
The US national public debt consists of two components:
• Debt held by the public comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments.[1]
• Intragovernment debt comprises Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government, such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
Thru the magic of accrual accounting, Intergovernmental debt simply disappears – at least according to the OMB.

The figures I provided are historical figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget.
The OMB is part of the Presidents Cabinet responsible for helping the President develop the Administration’s budget- the OMB leadership are Presidential political appointees. The Presidents agenda is their agenda, and their duties do not include tracking, managing or administrating the US Debt. That responsibility falls to the US Treasury Dept. – who is the source of Mr. Steiner’s figures, which prove that there never was a surplus under Clinton. They are the official word on the US Debt, not the OMB.

I would be interested in hearing your take on the fact that Clinton's best years occurred after his 97 tax cut coupled with spending reductions.