FOUR MORE YEARS

[Trilby]

...'because they're democrats...' that's rich.

8 years of Republican Bush=major deficit.

8 years of Democrat Clinton=major surplus.


Get over it, Adak. It is what it is. My guess is that your life will change very little.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

All conservatives are aware that Bush Jr. was a big spender - and not a fiscal conservative.

When do those bills come due? Now. That is how economics works. Nixon did the same thing in 1968 and 1970. When did his bills come due. We had that resulting recession in 1975 and 1979.

Mission Accomplished may end up costing as much as $3trillion. When due those bills come due? Obama is now paying them.

Tax cuts cause recessions and increased debts. When do we start paying those debts? When we increase taxes to pay for that borrowed money with interest. Tax cuts only demonstrate there is no free lunch.

No way around it. Today's debts are from the expression, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Quoted often because that sentence long ago predicted the coming debts and resulting recession. A balanced budget created by Clinton was subverted because George Jr's conservatives did what conservative do. Spend wildly. Increase spending on military, on welfare to big Pharma, useless wars with obvious violations of military doctrine, on welfare to the rich (also called tax cuts), etc. They even wanted to put SS in the stock market. Fortunately we did not let them spend as wildly as conservatives would do.

History shows debts are only solved by tax increases and other 'taxes' on the public. This included Carter's massive interest increases and tax increases by Reagan and George Sr. Jobs are created AFTER government reduces its debts. After government stops using money games and other myths to 'fix' the economy. Those are well proven lessons from history.

The Volt is a disaster. Created when George Jr's administration said automakers need not market hybrids originally designed in the early 1990 and paid for by government money. Because the hybrid was evil - a result of an agreement between Clinton and the auto companies. Then when patriotic companies (Honda, then Toyota) introduced hybrids, GM did what any business school graduate would do. Rushed to market a kludge - the Volt while also creating another disaster - the Camaro. Volt is a disaster created almost ten years after they could have introduced their first hybrid - the Precept.

Hybrids were another of so many Clinton ideas that were evil only because it was by Clinton.

Volt's defects resulted from business school graduates (in 2000 through 2007) who did not have to market their existing hybrids. And then needed some 'magic bullet' to compete against superior and patriotic Insight and Prius products. The Volt was started somewhere around 2002 - using concepts that engineers said would not work. Volt is the kludge that resulted when it would not work on the test track. And was then patched together - kludged. Because it designed when GM top management (ie Rick Wagoner) were MBAs. Search the Cellar to find additional details of why the Volt is so anti-American.

[Trilby]

Reagan: He Wasn't a Nut Job.

that's his legacy. He's the last non-nut job of the Republican party.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

There is some disagreement among economists as to how effective the stimulus package has been, and in some ways the jury is still out, but there's a couple of charts from the Center for Budget and Policy Analysis that explain the benefits (click on the link to see them):

The CBPA states:

The Great Recession Would Have Been Even Worse without Financial Stabilization and Fiscal Stimulus Policies and GDP Would Have Been Lower Without the Recovery Act...

The Recovery Act was designed to boost the demand for goods and services above what it otherwise would be in order to preserve jobs in the recession and create them in the recovery. The Congressional Budget Office finds that GDP has been higher each year since 2009 than it would have been without the Recovery Act (with the largest impact in 2010 when GDP was between 0.7 and 4.1 percent higher than it otherwise would have been). The economy is still benefiting from the Recovery Act in 2012, although as expected that effect is diminishing as the economy grows; CBO estimates that GDP in the third quarter of 2012 was between 0.1 and 0.7 percent larger than it would have been without the Recovery Act.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that because of the Recovery Act, the unemployment rate has been lower each year since 2009 than it otherwise would have been. CBO estimates that in the third quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate was 0.1 to 0.5 percentage points lower than it otherwise would have been and employment was between 0.2 million and 0.9 million jobs greater than it otherwise would have been.

You post as if Obama grabbed this money from Congress and then just threw it out the window, and watched it drift away on a gentle breeze as it floated off toward the Library of Congress building.

Originally Posted by Adak

It isn't just the amount of money Obama has spent, it's where the money was spent. At least with Bush, the money went into good purposes - Prescription drug law, HUGE donation to fighting AIDS in Africa, fighting Saddam and Al Qaeda. You know what the money went for.

I have no idea what all that money Bush got for the Iraq War went for really. I know a nice chunk went to Dick Cheney’s pals over at Halliburton. I know it cost quite a bit to drop bombs on 100,000 civilians or “collateral damage” as dead non-combatants are now called. As a matter of fact, the entire Iraq War was an unforgivable waste of American and Iraqi lives as well as money.

Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda were the ones responsible for 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with it, nor did he have WPMs. He was a very unpleasant, cruel man who deserved the end he received, but unfortunately, there are many countries run by cruel dictators. The US mostly turns a blind eye to them, but W. had a grudge against Saddam, so off we went to one more costly boondoggle in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Adak

Lots of finance guys got away scot free, we know that. That is how justice is done in America, and doesn't have much to do with either political party.

EXCUSE ME? “This how justice is done in America”????? Then America better start making some big changes and cracking some heads together now, if not sooner. Why should there be one set of laws for the rich, and another set of laws for the rest of us? I realize that all too often, this can be the case, but does this mean that we just simply turn our backs on malfeasance of such magnitude that the entire country was plunged into the worst recession since the 1930’s?

Your priorities are way out of whack You whine about the Obama spending $780 billion on the economic recovery, but don’t stop to think that due to the actions of a few well placed individuals on Wall Street who played fast and lose with the mortgage lending industry and those higher ups who turned a blind eye to what was going on, the cost to the tax payer almost defies belief. The $780 billion spent on the economic recovery is just a drop in the bucket.

$4.76 TRILLION was disbursed to keep the crooks who were “too big to fail” in business. $1.54 TRILLION remains outstanding, and who knows when that sum will be returned –if ever- to the tax payer. And no price can be placed on the suffering of the thousands of Americans who lost their jobs and homes as a result of the crisis.

You are indifferent as to the identity and fate of the corrupt and greedy individuals whose actions got us into this mess, but you want to draw and quarter the man upon whose shoulders it fell to get us out of it.

Originally Posted by Adak

You're drinking again or just being totally silly? Stop this nonsense

Too much time spent contemplating the sorry state into which our Republic has fallen might drive anyone to drink. However, as I have posted elsewhere, I prefer other types of poison.

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh yeah! I can see you've swallowed the "let's hate the rich" kool aid that the Democrats were selling.

I don’t believe I’ve even ever met someone with a $200,000 plus bank account. I presume that the rich are human like the rest of us, cut them, they’ll bleed, etc. I have no special reason to hate someone just because he’s rich, but if the wealthy think they have no obligations in regard to the nation which gave them the opportunities to reach their current level of attainment, if they think that they deserve to play by their own rules, and think “integrity” is a dirty word, then I hold them in the deepest contempt just as I would any other criminal.

Originally Posted by Adak

Let's remember that if they take off for Singapore (or wherever), we will all be substantially poorer here. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office, as reported by The Washington Times, the wealthy pay 70% of all our federal income tax monies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

Might want to think twice before you throw em overboard

I’m pleased to read that the uber wealthy are at least making a stab at paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe someday they’ll get honest and stop hiding considerable portions of their wealth in offshore accounts and pay what they REALLY owe. I get so tired of that old “Better kiss the assholes of the rich, otherwise they’ll take their toys and go home.” If it pleases you to pass their bullying threats along to the rest of us, go for it. But the truth is that if the extremely wealthy thought they’d be better off in another country, they are already there. The ones who are still here obviously benefit from US citizenship, and just enjoy throwing their weight around.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

[Ibby]

[BigV]

Welcome back Urbane Guerrilla. Happy Thanksgiving to you!

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

And the wealthy are so good at protecting pensions as it is. One theme has emerged over the past few decades, and that is leveraged buy outs where companies like Bain loot companies and this guy, leaving behind underfunded pension plans. The result is that a government agency has to take up the slack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension...ty_Corporation

During fiscal year 2010, the PBGC paid $5.6 billion in benefits to participants of failed pension plans. That year, 147 pension plans failed, and the PBGC's deficit increased 4.5 percent to $23 billion. The PBGC has a total of $102.5 billion in obligations and $79.5 billion in assets.[3]

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

I count the days until you decide to grace the Cellar with one of your pithy comments again. It's always interesting to hear from one of the primodial ooze contingent.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the upper 2% in wealth have to pay taxes at the same rate as they did during the Clinton era, they will retaliate by cannibalizing the pensions of everyone else in the country.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but corporations and businesses are doing this already. At the same time, people like the head of Goldman Sachs are trying to raise the age to 70 at which people can apply for Social Security. Given that sort of attitude, I doubt if him and his buddies are in favor of seeing anyone get any sort of retirement fund to see them through their final years.

If you're so damned worried about your retirement fund, how do you think it would fare under a Republican administration which is opposed to any kind of government regulation in regard to pension funds or anything else some CEO might get it in his head to do?

As far as corporate America is concerned, businesses should be allowed to solve the retirement thing by just taking all its employees over age 60 and dropping them out a window on the 44th floor of corporate headquarters. Helps with the bottom line, you know?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by SamIam

It's always interesting to hear from one of the primodial ooze contingent.

that's a great line, Sam.

it's going in the book.

[Stormieweather]

Kill your pension?

You mean like Hostess, who took it's employees self-funded pension fund and spent it? While the executives gave themselves insane pay increases and bonuses? Fair like that?

Pensions

Executive pay/bonuses

[DanaC]

As much as I detest the content, it really is nice to see Urbane's post

[Lamplighter]

Rich, very well said