End of Civilization-$53 Trillion Deficit

[Booster4324]

I don't hate all politicians.

 

I hate the whole liberal ideal and anyone who subscribes to it. I ain't apologizing for that. I especially hate the finger pointing and clinging to meaningless sound bytes, as if Obama/Biden are going to be any different than those they're running against.

 

That stings. Why don't you spend some more time breaking down why you didn't win the only battle in the game that actually mattered?

 

Oh, and tell that to my safety. You know, the guy that scored the difference making TD yesterday.

 

 

I ain't in charge of that team. Fez runs a good one imo though. Scrimmage B word? You guys came asking for advice, took it (I actually withheld some stuff waiting to see if you shared as you (VABILLS) promised) and moved on. Not terribly successfully I should add. You are the brains in that group...reflects on you personally.

 

As to your political inclinations you really only take it out on liberals. You almost completely ignore the conservatives that really are liberals in sheeps clothing. Color you Republican who is afraid to admit it.

[StupidNation]

The record setting deficits we've experienced since the 1980's are courtesy of the GOP, wingnut.

 

That's right the GOP legislated laws to do so during the 80's when they were the minority. The only thing you can point to is military spending, but the LBJ 60's programs is/was the backbone of record spending.

 

We're still here. Eventually someone has to pay the piper.

 

We're called "people who work for a living". The problem is baby-boomers are rightfully retiring with no money saved, and more and more people are learning why work when someone else will give them their FREE MONEY because it's so free.

 

The difference between the Repigs and the Dems is that the Repigs want the middle class to shoulder the debt, and stay in debt forever, while they and their corporate bigwig buddies live high on the hog.

 

93% of all taxable contributions come from the top 10% of wage earners. You must suck at math or research. Which one I don't know.

 

The Dems have the "misguided" notion that those who benefit the most (which is NOT the middle class but the corporations who are reaping the benefit of all this government spending) should shoulder their fair share of the burden.

 

They also have this misguided notion that 1 to every 5.5 Americans can receive benefits, when it was 1 out of 12 during the Great Depression.

 

So the Repigs and neocon nutjobs take advantage of morons to keep them on this road screaming "They Want to Take Your Guns! They Want Homos to Marry! " etc. And you fall for it - they victimize the very people who put them in power and keep them there, knowing that appealing to COWARDICE works.

 

Who mentioned guns or homos? We can't afford Medicare, we can't afford welfare. They make idiots believe we can afford those things. The Repigs (good word by the way) focus on morality, the Dumbocrats focus on "da man". "Da man" pays the bills of this country.

 

"Live free or die". "Don't Tread on Me." Whatever happened to that?

 

How can you live free if people work so others don't have to? How was that part of the make-up of this country? I see you won't address the issue which is the social programs. You see you are part of the problem, blame partisanship, while being a colossal lackey. Neither of the big parties want to address the end of our society, except the GOP wants to do it slower than the Dems, except with Bush adding the prescription drug bill I don't think the GOP wants to go that slow either.

[StupidNation]

And do you want them to go away?

 

When will people finally admit that we are a better country since 1930.

 

Intervention works... People just don't want to admit it.

 

Better country=

-Record deficits

-Less manufacturing and good paying jobs per capita

-Less equity

-Less freedom

-Less creativity for Americans to open a business without legislation

 

And people wonder why Americans are shipping their work over to China? This country is over if people really believe we are better than before the 1930's. A man could have opened up shop at the corner of the road LEGALLY to sell chairs, and eventually had his own store and employees. That same man has to break about 15 laws to do so now, and once he's successful people are figuring out ways to throw him out of business and sue him.

 

Everyday you lose your liberties and think that the comforts of living on payments with nice furniture and cars that you really don't own is a benefit than you lost the American dream for the facade of socialism and slavery.

 

I would rather be broke and free and rich and enslaved. The slave can be controlled and his wealth can be taken from him under force, the poor man can make himself rich through creativity, and even if he never attains serious wealth he has the happiness of knowing no one can take it from him.

[Kelly the Dog]

I am no economic expert by any means, but the facts show that in the last 50 years, the economy does significantly better under the Democrats than it does under the Republicans, and the disparity between the poor and the rich lowers with the Democrats and rises with the Republicans. Those are just the facts. And yes, the President doesn't have enormous control over the economy, but it is not a statistical fluke. In fact, it's fairly consistent.

 

Economists and political scientists have known for a long time that income growth rates are higher for every percentile under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents, and that income inequality increases under Republican presidents and decreases under Democratic presidents. This has always been treated as a curious statistical fluke, because the other factors affecting income growth (e.g., technological change, globalization) surely dwarf the effects of a president.

 

In Unequal Democracy, Bartels undertakes to prove that this is not merely a statistical fluke. Bartels argues that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past 50 years is a direct result of the policies of Republican presidents, not impersonal (or inevitable) market forces.

 

After reading the book, I'm still not 100% persuaded, but not because Bartels' case was weak—it wasn't. To the contrary, it was a tour de force: cogent, methodical, data-driven, and statistically sophisticated. I just don't think there's enough data to arrive at a definitive answer. Specifically, I think monetary policy played a big role in income growth rates over the past 50 years; we simply don't have enough data to tease out the effects of monetary policy on income growth.

 

However, Bartels' argument was much more convincing than I expected. For my money, the most convincing piece of evidence was the fact that almost the entire difference in income growth under Democratic vs. Republican presidents occurs during the second year of each administration (the year you would expect a president's policies to start having an effect)

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/20...ls-unequal.html

 

And from another source referencing the same book:

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

 

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

 

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

 

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

 

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

 

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

 

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

[blzrul]

Assuming that we are in the fix we are in because there is a society of "great unwashed" in this country who WON'T work is living proof that there's a fool born every second (if it fits, Nation, wear it). Why don't you come right out and say it: "welfare queens"? "illegal aliens"? Oh sure they get the attention...people SCREAM about paying for breakfasts for children who didn't ask to be born. They freak out when they read some poor Mexican took time out from working his $4.00/hour backbreaking job to get hit by a car, and WE the taxpayers have to actually put our MONEY where our mouths are, and behave like the Christians we claim to be and give the guy medical treatment.

 

 

The Repigs have you people fooled. It just cracks me up that they take advantage of the fear and ignorance of America and then turn around and SCREW the very people who elected them. I guess that's what they deserve.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Better country=

-Record deficits

-Less manufacturing and good paying jobs per capita

-Less equity

-Less freedom

-Less creativity for Americans to open a business without legislation

 

And people wonder why Americans are shipping their work over to China? This country is over if people really believe we are better than before the 1930's. A man could have opened up shop at the corner of the road LEGALLY to sell chairs, and eventually had his own store and employees. That same man has to break about 15 laws to do so now, and once he's successful people are figuring out ways to throw him out of business and sue him.

 

Everyday you lose your liberties and think that the comforts of living on payments with nice furniture and cars that you really don't own is a benefit than you lost the American dream for the facade of socialism and slavery.

 

I would rather be broke and free and rich and enslaved. The slave can be controlled and his wealth can be taken from him under force, the poor man can make himself rich through creativity, and even if he never attains serious wealth he has the happiness of knowing no one can take it from him.

 

How old are you? Do you have family that made it through the Great Depression? Do you even know what times were like?

[TPS]

ummm.... who controled congress in the 80's? Who earmarked all the pork barrel projects? and Who actually pays the taxes in the US?

Stupid me. All this time I was arguing that the Reagan tax cuts didn't do what they claimed. sh--, it was the democrats who were responsible for the "reagan revolution."

Ok, I now believe supply-side was responsible for the expansion of the 1980s, but not the recession of 1991-2; and it set the foundation for the expansion of the 1990s. Way to go democrats!!!!

[GG]

I am no economic expert by any means, but the facts show that in the last 50 years, the economy does significantly better under the Democrats than it does under the Republicans, and the disparity between the poor and the rich lowers with the Democrats and rises with the Republicans. Those are just the facts. And yes, the President doesn't have enormous control over the economy, but it is not a statistical fluke. In fact, it's fairly consistent.

 

 

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/20...ls-unequal.html

 

And from another source referencing the same book:

 

Which could be a good reason to avoid delving into a topic.

 

Income inequality is a good way to rile up the voting proletariat as logic hints that the poor lose while the rich win. In reality, the politics of envy don't translate into real benefits for the poor. While the social programs that help the lower end in other Western economies keep the incomes at greater parity, it also comes at a greater cost to total employment. The US has generally kept a 1% gap in unemployment rates with UK, and over 3% with Germany & France. That would translate to at least 1.5 mil people out of work. So, who benefits then? Sure you would balance out the income inequality, but you would also throw millions out of the work force.

 

As all the reviews also point out to other factors that affect income. Haven't read Bartels' book, but any analysis of incomes should be done on a generational basis and see how many people have moved in and out of the quintiles. Also, heavy immigration waves and birth patterns heavily impact all income studies. Just a cursory look at the data, shows that big jumps in immigration patterns over the last 50 yrs happened during R presidencies. Coincidence, perhaps? But I hope that Bartels covers it in his book.

[/dev/null]

Stupid me. All this time I was arguing that the Reagan tax cuts didn't do what they claimed. sh--, it was the democrats who were responsible for the "reagan revolution."

Ok, I now believe supply-side was responsible for the expansion of the 1980s, but not the recession of 1991-2; and it set the foundation for the expansion of the 1990s. Way to go democrats!!!!

 

The Democrats had so much to do with it the Bill was named Kemp-Roth

 

Roth btw was a Republican Senator. And Kemp, well if you don't know then you're not really a Bills fan

[TPS]

The Democrats had so much to do with it the Bill was named Kemp-Roth

 

Roth btw was a Republican Senator. And Kemp, well if you don't know then you're not really a Bills fan

Enlighten me...the republicans passed it without any support from the democratic majority? How did the reagan revolution occur when the democrats were in power? Which is it? The democrats were responsible for only the increased spending and not the tax cuts?

[/dev/null]

Enlighten me...the republicans passed it without any support from the democratic majority? How did the reagan revolution occur when the democrats were in power? Which is it? The democrats were responsible for only the increased spending and not the tax cuts?

Ever hear of a Blue Dog?

[Alaska Darin]

I ain't in charge of that team. Fez runs a good one imo though. Scrimmage B word? You guys came asking for advice, took it (I actually withheld some stuff waiting to see if you shared as you (VABILLS) promised) and moved on. Not terribly successfully I should add. You are the brains in that group...reflects on you personally.

Why would we need to scrimmage? Did the game a few days ago not count? Or do you need a do over because you weren't ready? I guess you can remember back to that one game when the *Cows actually beat us. Congrats for that.

 

I didn't come asking for any advice and the fact that VA did is all on him. You don't know anything that's not available to pretty much anyone who wants to spend a few minutes a day on the forums, but if you need that to feel really smart or special, it's all you.

As to your political inclinations you really only take it out on liberals. You almost completely ignore the conservatives that really are liberals in sheeps clothing. Color you Republican who is afraid to admit it.

That's the problem with you Liberals. You "think" anyone who abhorrs your politics is automatically a righty/Republican. That's the big problem with the 2 party system.

 

And I haven't ignored anything about the Republicans. I don't vote for them and don't believe in most of their "planks". The fact that I don't join you liberals in your "soundbyte regurgitations" is because they're generally very bankrupt arguments with the basis backing of liberal ideology. Why the hell would I agree with that?

 

I have zero love for the Republican party and nearly all of their followers. I really don't give a crap what you "think" on the subject. Like your politics, your analysis is pretty much dead wrong.

[Alaska Darin]

The Repigs have you people fooled. It just cracks me up that they take advantage of the fear and ignorance of America and then turn around and SCREW the very people who elected them. I guess that's what they deserve.

You're actually correct about that. It's too bad you can't use the same critical eye on those you support, since they do EXACTLY the same things.

[StupidNation]

How old are you? Do you have family that made it through the Great Depression? Do you even know what times were like?

 

Actually, my grandfather and grandmother are both still alive and I actually spend time talking to the elderly. I'm actually leaving in 30 minutes to talk to about 40 of them on a Labor Day dinner they have in my townhouse complex which is mostly elderly. Every single one of them will tell you that we have less freedoms than back then. They were complaining about lack of freedoms in the 50's, and now it's 10X worse.

 

My grandfather boxed for a living until WWII and then joined the war from 41-45 and stayed in Germany after until 47. The one thing that always impresses me is how he could do business like he did back then until now. I know all his friends at the VFW who I talk to and all say how tough things are in comparison to when they were young. Having a bunch of old guys who are/were in business is a great reference. Have you ever tried and what have they told you? Every single one of those guys will tell you how they used to do things and usually reference "you can't do that today".

 

I'm only in my 30's, but being self-employed has taught me that it's not necessary to reap what the libtards have sown. We want all these programs for the employee against small business so what does small business do or is learning to do? Outsource their jobs or pay under the table. Considering I want to pay and hire Americans it makes it all the more disgraceful when I look at work comp, liability, SS tax of 7.5% I have to pay if I hire them when times are difficult so I'm forced to outsource or hire them illegally without those insurances or taxes. I choose outsourcing so I don't break the law. If you think I want to outsource you are crazy, but I'm forced to otherwise my business goes under when times get tough.

 

You have no idea how hard it is to have the American dream of freedom to have your own business until you do it. If you haven't done it talk to a local bar/grill owner when watching a game, or talk to a friend who is struggling and he'll tell you the #1 problem is all the regulation and taxation. You can't have it both ways when people ask for more jobs but more regulation as business will just leave.

[StupidNation]

You're actually correct about that. It's too bad you can't use the same critical eye on those you support, since they do EXACTLY the same things.

 

Wait are you telling me the dumbocrats do the same thing like fear that old women will be eating dogfood, or that they will force people to work and be a contribution to society? Well gosh, I've never seen the dumbocrats do that or campaign in the ghetto and shuttle people to vote under the threat of losing welfare. No, that never happens, it's only the repigs who use fear.

[Alaska Darin]

Wait are you telling me the dumbocrats do the same thing like fear that old women will be eating dogfood, or that they will force people to work and be a contribution to society? Well gosh, I've never seen the dumbocrats do that or campaign in the ghetto and shuttle people to vote under the threat of losing welfare. No, that never happens, it's only the repigs who use fear.

It's just really hard for too many people to believe that their "belonging" to a political party is enabling this sh-- to continue.