Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

"What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap. Money isn't circulating. The stimulus package may have been over-sold by Obama, but the principle was correct. We need government spending to get out of the trap." -- Bruce Bartlett, former official under Reagan and Bush 41

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

gl0bal74

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"These ideologues on the right can't seem to fathom the simple fact that tax cuts dont solve all economic problems "


And those on the left don't seem to understand that punishing prosperity has negative effects on all.

These ideologues on the right can't seem to fathom the simple fact that tax cuts dont solve all economic problems "

Worked for Bush, except for that whole economic collapse thing.

-" Bruce Bartlett was a lieutenant in the Reagan revolution. As an aide to congressman Jack Kemp, he helped write the legislation underpinning Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut and then worked in the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations."

Another liberal socialist, for sure.

And those on the left don't seem to understand that punishing prosperity has negative effects on all.

Cuz national defense, roads, bridges, police, firefighters, air traffic control, etc. are all free in the republican mind.

Cuz national defense, roads, bridges, police, firefighters, air traffic control, etc. are all free in the republican mind.

Are you in the wrong thread? What do any of those have to do with banks or liquidity traps?

Cuz national defense, roads, bridges, police, firefighters, air traffic control, etc. are all free in the republican mind.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2009-10-22 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope, just not 60% of the budget like entitlement programs are. 60 cents on the dollar for worthwile funding of ACORN and the like. Don't know why anyone would want to see tax cuts when their money goes for such noble causes.

There is a balance between the necessary taxes and the unabashed transfer of wealth. Govt. is TOO big. Bush made it bigger for sure. Big ears is already eclipsing Bush in just 10 months. Balancing the budget includes taxes and spending cuts. Something politicians never seem to be able to do.

There is a balance between the necessary taxes and the unabashed transfer of wealth.

Tax rates were higher under Ike and Reagan and GOPpers tell you those were the best of times. Righties have developed a penchant for off loading their lifestyle costs on their grandkids. Or preferably somebody else's grandkids. Must be from the endtime wet dreams sold to them by the fundies.

I guess the concept of responsibility got lost in their adoration of all things corporate.

60 cents on the dollar for worthwile funding of ACORN and the like.

This "fact" smells like bullshit.

Link please.

Balancing the budget includes taxes and spending cuts. Something politicians never seem to be able to do.

#6 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-10-22 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:Big Clinton Fan

By all means, El Cid, push for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and servicing of the National Debt. After all, that's the vast majority of your "entitlements".

Perhaps you could explain how ACORN is an entitlement.

Perhaps you could explain how ACORN is an entitlement.

Elsquid has to wait for tonight's talking points from Crybaby Beck. Like sarah failin, he'll get back to ya with that, there, also.


Too.

"We'll get a VAT when liberals figure out it's a money machine and conservatives figure out it's regressive."

This guy is pushing for tax increases that fall on average Americans primarily not on the wealthy who don't spend the majority of the income they make.
Never trust a conservative, even a slightly reformed conservative, they are always trying to protect the rich from paying taxes. We need to keep the graduated income tax and raise the rates on the highest income earners just like we did in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's when there were no deficits, there were plenty of jobs and wages kept rising.

ACORN is just a word to throw into the middle of any thread where the right is getting its ass kicked.


ACORN is just a word to throw into the middle of any thread where the right is getting its ass kicked.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-22 02:29 PM | Reply:


As opposed to the liberal's go to words...Rush, Bush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox, Sara, and Halliburton

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years is now approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

* Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
* Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
* Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
* New policies from President Obama (10%).

CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration,

10% in 10 months is a sliver? 30% when you factor in his support to 43s failed policies. So at this rate, in 4 years his % should be 78%?


By all means, El Cid, push for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and servicing of the National Debt. After all, that's the vast majority of your "entitlements".

#10 | Posted by satansbeard at 2009-10-22 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

All for it - except for servicing the debt. Where do I sign to enact it into law?

All for it - except for servicing the debt. Where do I sign to enact it into law?

#18 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-10-22 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag: can I still get food stamps if I leave my parents house?

why are yall still clinging to this Friedman-esque style of free-market is God and infallible; Government is the Devil and always wrong?

The right wing party controlled government for close to 10 years.
REPUBLICAN congressional years 1994 - 2006 (and 2000-2008 President Bush years)

You got exactly what you wanted in terms of deregulation, tax cuts, deficit spending and war (as it pertains to economic policy)

Look where it got us.

Cant you see that this ideology has failed?

Two words: Paul Volker.
Look it up, left-wing kooks. He made our economy a disaster yet Obama used him as an advisor.
It would maybe reach you if a future repub used Bush's treasury sec (Pauleson? My eyesight is bad hence spelling)as his advisor for 'recovery.'
Liars are liars. Do not let party affiliation stroke you otherwise.
Volker is evil....as was Pauleson.

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax?
The words of a god damned fool. If there is nothing to tax, why does the community organizer want to raise taxes? Why don't the fools in the Dem leadership let US citizens keep the money they earn? Be a patriot, execute them today!!!!

"As opposed to the liberal's go to words...Rush, Bush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox, Sara, and Halliburton"

#15 | Posted by 101Chairborne


You left out Palin...


SHOW US YOUR TITTIES, MOOSE MOMMA!

"Two words: Paul Volker.
Look it up, left-wing kooks. He made our economy a disaster yet Obama used him as an advisor."

It's official, you are the dumbest poster to post on DR. Paul Volder was appointed by President Carter to be the Chaiman of the Fed and to combat inflation which he did. Yes, high interest rates were part of his method. Oh, and Yes, Ronald Reagan did keep him on for another term as Chairman because what he did actually worked. As opposed to the Reagan economy which witnessed higher unemployment than we have today, the nation's first 3 trillion dollars of debt and the biggest crash on Wall ST. since the great depression.

Reaganomics is dead, at least for a long time but like many things, it'll probably be resurrected some day. I would say that those who believe in one economic theory to the exclusion of all others look at life simplistically, just as those who are so rigidly wedded to one party and ideology. What works in one economic market (situation) does not necessarily work in another.

In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap.

Yea, because the money is all tied up in 1% of the population's off shore accounts and tax shelters.

Gee, somebody from Reagan's administration finally figured it out.

"Reaganomics is dead, at least for a long time but like many things, it'll probably be resurrected some day."

Too true. Someday, people will forget what a disaster it was.
IN the mean time we need to get about reversing Reaganomics. WE need to repeal the Bush and the Reagan tax cuts. WE need to make our country sovent again. Realize, it hasn't been since the Reagan Presidency.
He created more debt than all the presidents that preceded him.
Some credit him with causing the downfall of the USSR, it's bull shit, by anyway, we may someday soon, be able to credit him with the downfall of the USA.

How is Obama accomplishing making us solvent again, given his balooning deficits?

Are you of the mind we can tax our way to recovery and prosperity? If so, how do you justify that?

Under Reagan debt went from 33% to 55.6% of GDP.
Clinton 55%>58%.
GW Bush 58% to 90%.

Republicans have a horrible record of getting us in debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending, then whining about the debt afterwards.

"Republicans have a horrible record of getting us in debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending, then whining about the debt afterwards."

I think they refer to it as "starve the beast."
With them, it's not an accident, it's intentional.

To repeat:
"How is Obama accomplishing making us solvent again, given his balooning deficits?

Are you of the mind we can tax our way to recovery and prosperity? If so, how do you justify that?"

Or are you suggesting he's cutting spending? If so, where is the evidence?

Thank God the irresponsible GOP tax cuts will sunset next year.


Under Reagan debt went from 33% to 55.6% of GDP.
Clinton 55%>58%.
GW Bush 58% to 90%.


Republicans have a horrible record of getting us in debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending, then whining about the debt afterwards.

#29 | Posted by Timex


Is there a link?

I agree that the spending by Repubs was atrocious--that is why they lost in 2006 and 2008.

I am not sure that some of them have learned any lessons.

But the Dems have gone over the cliff with spending.

So where is your indignation over their spending??

We're 'spending' what the GOP left us as a legacy.

Is there a link?

#33 | Posted by MURPHY

Hundreds if not thousands for curious minds.

Year---DEBT------------% of GDP
1980-- 909.0 -- 33.3
1990-- 3,206.3 ---- 55.9
2000-- 5,628.7 ---- 58.0
2001-- 5,769.9 ---- 57.4 (Clinton's last budget)
2002-- 6,198.4 ---- 59.7
2003-- 6,760.0 ---- 62.6
2004-- 7,354.7 ---- 63.9
2005-- 7,905.3 ---- 64.6
2006-- 8,451.4 ---- 65.0
2007-- 8,950.7 ---- 65.6
2008-- 9,985.8 ---- 70.2
2009- 12,867.5 ---- 90.4 (Bush's last budget)


As to link about Republican whining about debt they caused? How long can posts be here? Not long enough by a million inches.

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax?

And what good is redistribution when people have no wealth to redistribute, you stupid sack of Keynesian shit?

"Reaganomics" isn't dead.

"Reaganomics" is the basic economic reality of the human condition. It was around long before he was, and will be around long after we're gone.

"Wealth" isn't this little value x locked away in a box somewhere waiting for a Workers' Hero to snatch its contents from the greedfucks who posess it.

It gets so fucking ridiculous listening to people whose discussion of macro-economics can't even grasp the most basic tenets of common fucking sense.

It gets so fucking ridiculous listening to people whose discussion of macro-economics can't even grasp the most basic tenets of common fucking sense.

#38 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Cut taxes, raise spending through the roof, create debt, and then whine about it as the GOP did and continue to do. Basic common sense? Maybe to an ox.

#36---- Timex, interesting post. I think the folks are missing the point. This whole mess we're in was inevitable and it ultimately didn't matter who was in the charge of our country. It all started with the creation of the fed but then moved downhill with F.D.R. taking the country off the gold standard (1933). Then Nixon finally putting the last nail in the coffin in 1971 when he took us off the international gold standard and made the dollar the fiat reserve currency. Everybody on this board can argue all they want about tax cuts, revenue cuts etc., however, there is no easy answers anymore. One answer is certain, the standard of living we've enjoyed in the past is history. This is exactly what our founders warned us about-- a central bank and not having our money or legal tender (money) being something not backed by something of value such as gold/silver. They understood the evil of large government and the weakness of men especially if you allowed the unfettered creation of money or fiat currency.

Reagan was a big supply side guy but actually got the idea from J.F.K. who cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

Just about every country in history that could print money carte blanche ended up the way we are in the process of ending--- but that is almost expected. When we're born we are already dieing; when governments are born, they are already in the process of dieing. Our founders gave us a tremendous constitution and opportunity and we didn't maintain its' values and premises but messed with it through our courts and government and now we're going to finally pay the piper. All governments with time decay with each succeeding generation, especially morally-- it's the normal evolution.

"What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax?"

Soupy Sales is dead but others carry on the obligation to make me laugh!
Is the object of Obamadism to eliminate income so it can no longer be taxed?? This must have been a misquote. Not even a Stalinist would write something so stupid.

Considering the fact that the democrats are bought and paid for I can understand not voting for them, but for the non-wealthy voting republican is like the jews in germany who voted for hitler.

It has always been this way.

Useful idiots.

Matsop

Reagan tripled it, Clinton added half a billion and had a plan to pay it off, then W and Co cut taxes, dramatically increased spending and more than doubled it to 12 trillion (thru October 2009). It's a myth Republicans are fiscally conservative.

These ideologues on the right can't seem to fathom the simple fact that tax cuts dont solve all economic problems

Ideologies on the left can't seem to understand the difference between America and every Third World tyrannical government, the difference between freedom and tyranny. The constant Progressive tweaking of the free market is in large part the reason for this current recession. Freddy and Fanny were Progressive ideas. Government getting involved in private markets in order to make it "fair" is a progressive concept. The truth is if you don't have the will or the ability to improve your situation the fair thing for you to do is not to demand someone else do it for you. You've made yourselves and your children dependant on others for so long you can't even see it any longer.

Right wingers here express economic theories they have heard others spout, which they really don't understand, have no idea about consequences and which most economists would laugh at still think that if they sound tough enough, mean enough, elite enough they are sensible. Fact is, if you ever really enacted they types of economic changes advodated by MATSOP, STIRSUMUP, etc. you would have mass starvation, chaos and revolution. That is exactly the recipe which created the unrest resulting in Communist revolutions around the world.

WOW! That's MOM spelled upside down - somebody put a post up just for danni! Now that it's dead, will you give it a proper funeral, put your clothes back on and stop wallowing in it?

Tax cuts coupled with REDUCED SPENDING would put a huge dent in the problem.

"Tax cuts coupled with REDUCED SPENDING would put a huge dent in the problem."

Yeah, if there is one thing we need, it's more unemployed people.

Tax cuts coupled with REDUCED SPENDING would put a huge dent in the problem.
#48 | POSTED BY NANC

Sure it would help.... not. It would be tax cuts for the rich while the poor get fucked as usual.

In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap.

Yea, because the money is all tied up in 1% of the population's off shore accounts and tax shelters.

#26 | Posted by RingMaster

sooo, ya sayin' that higher taxes will coax that money back into circulation? - - -
how so?? I'm anxious to hear.

Why do all you right wingers cry about "redistributing the wealth" when it is Reagan who redistributed it in the first place (from the middle class to the wealthy)? All we want to do is redistribute it back to the people it was stolen from to begin with.

The difference between Reaganism and Obamaism.
Reaganism: deficits and tax cuts.
Obamaism: massive deficits and no tax cuts.

It's always the spending.

Fact is, if you ever really enacted they types of economic changes advodated by MATSOP, STIRSUMUP, etc. you would have mass starvation, chaos and revolution. That is exactly the recipe which created the unrest resulting in Communist revolutions around the world.
#47 | Posted by danni

That misses the mark by a mile. It is the destruction of capitalism that leads to communism. Don't know how far it will go, but that's the road America is on

I just heard on the Radio that Russia isn't very happy with the effects of free market capitalism. They are looking towards moving their economy closer to that of China.

All we want to do is redistribute it back to the people it was stolen from to begin with.

#52 | Posted by igmoramus

how was it stolen?

I just heard on the Radio that Russia isn't very happy with the effects of free market capitalism. They are looking towards moving their economy closer to that of China.

Russia doesn't have free market capitalism any more than this country does. It makes a handy scapegoat to deflect blame from their own incompetence.


#36 | Posted by Timex
Year---DEBT------------% of GDP
1980-- 909.0 -- 33.3
1990-- 3,206.3 ---- 55.9
2000-- 5,628.7 ---- 58.0
2001-- 5,769.9 ---- 57.4 (Clinton's last budget)
2002-- 6,198.4 ---- 59.7
2003-- 6,760.0 ---- 62.6
2004-- 7,354.7 ---- 63.9
2005-- 7,905.3 ---- 64.6
2006-- 8,451.4 ---- 65.0
2007-- 8,950.7 ---- 65.6
2008-- 9,985.8 ---- 70.2
2009- 12,867.5 ---- 90.4 (Bush's last budget)
------------------------------
----
Here is the rest of Clintons debt
Year---DEBT------------% of GDP
1994 -- 66.7
1995 -- 67.2
1996-- 67.3
1997-- 65.6
1998-- 63.5
1999-- 61.4

Here is Ronald Reagan

Year---DEBT------------% of GDP
1982 -- 35.2
1983-- 39.9
1984-- 40.7
1985-- 43.9
1986-- 48.1
1987-- 50.5
1988-- 51.9
1989-- 53.1


Reaganomics is being practiced in Texas, Government Spending is being practiced in California.

Since 1980 Texas has had 1 maybe 2 recessions, California on the other had has had like 4-5 since 1980.

Also California has one of the highest cost of livings in the country, Texas one of the lowwest.

I'll take Reaganomics Texas proves it.


I'll take Reaganomics Texas proves it.

#58 | POSTED BY 90C2CAB

Texas isn't without it's problems. 2nd most uninsured state. 2nd worst Education system. There needs to be a happy medium. Reaganomics helps some but it also hurts a lot of people.

you know we can always ask a similiar question.
why should people who pay no income tax get a tax cut like they did..

OH I KNOW,.....a black democrat in the white house.
well WHY DIDNT YOU say so....

and here is a toast to the NEXT REAGAN who will show themselves soon in the face of CARTER RE DUX'

uh larry and celisary and lisa

thats as in carter AGAIN>....

and jacks ass..

tax cuts for small business
in last or period before last.
texas created more jobs than the other states COMNINED according the the houston chronicle

texas created more jobs than the other states COMNINED according the the houston chronicle

#62 | Posted by afkabl2

Just shut up, stupid.

#59 | Posted by jackass

Texas isn't without it's problems. 2nd most uninsured state. 2nd worst Education system. There needs to be a happy medium. Reaganomics helps some but it also hurts a lot of people.
---------------------
That is because the hoards of uneducated uninsured illegal crossing the Texas border, not because of Reaganomics.

Just shut up, stupid.

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at


I am going to print this and save it
what better example of a response from a complete and total fool with nothing to ever add to anything except to show what a complete fool they are.

thanks.

there are also twice the amount of doctors coming into this great state and many in rural areas that had none

why?

low cost of insurance premiums for thier practice.

and now here is where you say something else showcasing your ineptitude.

I am going to print this and save it
what better example of a response from a complete and total fool with nothing to ever add to anything except to show what a complete fool they are.


thanks.

#65 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-24 10:46 AM

Or they could just read the drivel you post on a daily basis.

That is because the hoards of uneducated uninsured illegal crossing the Texas border, not because of Reaganomics.

#64 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-10-24 10:26 AM | Reply


BINGO BABY

okay PROBABLY NOT the entire REASON for these unsubstaniated stats but its like a really large part.

Or they could just read the drivel you post on a daily basis.

#67 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2009


ah yes another in the long line of retorters who have no clue or idea on how to discuss issues other than the same old gibberish.

and just like larry
once upon a time we all had some hope for you
but alas...when the nullifan virus infects liberals, they just cant stop it.

"That misses the mark by a mile. It is the destruction of capitalism that leads to communism."

Baloney, in China, Russia, Cuba, wherever Communism became the model it followed an era of destruction of the middle classes by the wealth elite. When they go too far with that the impoverished workers finally rise up and take what they feel is owed to them by the rich. There is generally no opportunity for Commusnists in a country with a prosperous and large middle class. The last time the US had any realistic fear of Communists was in the 1930s during the Great Depression. FDR's programs helped difuse that threat and kept this nation from considering a Communist revolution.

so danni
you just ignore the 40's where we now know for sure that some in the federal govt were spies

rosenberg
hiss

ah but not to worry.


when it comes to obamacare...he used the 'dead kennedy card' yesterday in telling people that when it passed that chris dodd would be one of the reasons....you think his oppenent will use that line?

and the suggested state option to have a govt option

BEWARE STATES because in OBAMAS WORLD...they will punish you harshly if you DONT take the option of the govt option.

"so danni
you just ignore the 40's where we now know for sure that some in the federal govt were spies"

Wasn't talking about the Cold War, of course there were spies, Russia still has some here I am quite sure. I was just talking about a real Communist movement within the United States that was gaining popularity among average citizens. After WWII and prosperity returned to the US, no Communist movement could ever have gained popularity here.
It can only gain popularity when people are suffering and when the rich take too much of the wealth. Sort of like now. The present imalance of wealth is very bad for American democracy and Reaganomics is responsible for that imbalance.

Danni, in your post of #47 you referred to my indominable name and the economic changes I've advocated-- in all my posts I don't think I've advocated any specific economic philosophy-- NOW DON'T RUN THE OTHER WAY but inform me what the economic changes are that I've advocated. Danni, I'm constantly educating you-- look up the definition of the word indominable-- after awhile I'm going to have to charge a fee for educating you and constantly cleaning up the misinformation you keep spewing-- Waiting expectingly for your answer to the above question. DON'T RUN AND HIDE, DANNI.

The "dead kenedy card"

www.youtube.com

well I would call commies in the govt and passing secrets to the commies a 'real communist movement'....but I SEE what you are referring to.

AH SO in your last line..are you admitting that obama is moving us into that area????

uh???


will read your response later


BREAK FOR LUNCH!!!!!!!!!

Baloney, in China, Russia, Cuba, wherever Communism became the model it followed an era of destruction of the middle classes by the wealth elite. When they go too far with that the impoverished workers finally rise up and take what they feel is owed to them by the rich. There is generally no opportunity for Commusnists in a country with a prosperous and large middle class. The last time the US had any realistic fear of Communists was in the 1930s during the Great Depression. FDR's programs helped difuse that threat and kept this nation from considering a Communist revolution.
#70 | Posted by danni

I'm always amused when a know-nothing like Danni lectures me about capitalism.

The middle class IS being destroyed as a consequence as a destruction of capitalism. Socialism has no means of creating wealth. Only capitalism does. This country has been getting by on debt. That era is coming to an end with the end of the middle class. No person. No nation. Can borrow and spend its way to prosperity. It's mathematically impossible!

Ray I know you want the downfall of this country, don't even deny it. I've been to the slums of Brazil and it is a very violent place. We all better be prepared to survive by any means necessary.

considering he wasn't smart enough to even know what he was doing.. yeah its dead.

Jackass, I know one thing-- our standard of living is going down and the question is how far. The seeds of destruction have been sown over many years and ideologues of both the right and the left share the responsibility---when people from both sides no longer understand there is a balance and we lurge from one end of unyielding to the other end, all you get is constant reaction to the previous reaction--- physics (for every action there is a reaction.)

Ooooooooh, Danni, where are you? I'm waiting for your answer to post #74. DANNI, Don't run away and hide. Are you trying to figure out your answer because you don't have a clue or support to your innane (look it up on wikipedia) comment--- can you imagine if you had to pay for the education I'm giving at one our institutions of "higher learning." Oh, that's right, you probably would expect it for free. Danni, DON'T RUN AND HIDE-- I miss you.

"The middle class IS being destroyed as a consequence as a destruction of capitalism."

Riiight. Capitalism is alive and well, it's profiting quite handsomely by outsourcing production of almost everything. The middle class is shrinking because of it not because of some imaginarly socialist agenda paranoid righties talk about. Wealth hasn't left America, it has just become concentrated in the hands of fewer people due to the lowering of taxes. If we want to rebuild the middle class all we need to do is look back in history a little way and see how we built it in the first place. High taxes on the wealthy, generous deductions for investment into job creating industries, and no special tax rates for those who gamble in the stock market. It isn't rocket science and defeatists like Ray can't make it impossible just by repeating their rants over and over and over.

"indominable"

The word is indomitable.
Now wipe the egg off your face.

And here is a quote from the post that my post was referring to:

"Just about every country in history that could print money carte blanche ended up the way we are in the process of ending--- but that is almost expected."

Apparently, you don't think you are talking about economic theory here, well you are whether or not you understand that.

Danni

The difference between you and me is that I look at the numbers, you ignore them. You CANNOT escape the math. You'll find out eventually.

Long gold and silver.

These Welfare-Red-States have been receiving too many handouts of blue-state money for far too long.

Time to cut them loose.

Fucking leeches!

The difference between you and me is that I look at the numbers, you ignore them. You CANNOT escape the math. You'll find out eventually.


Long gold and silver.

#85 | Posted by Ray

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

"The difference between you and me is that I look at the numbers, you ignore them."

No I don't Ray, I recognize the problem we face but I just don't believe we are helpless to turn things around. If we raies taxes to pre-Reagan levels we can make our government solvent fairly quickly. If we start refusing to allow corporations to manufacture everything in cheap labor countries then ship it here to sell then we can create employment. Things aren't hopeless no matter how badly the right has screwed things up, we can still undo what they did. Sooner rather than later my view will be shared by the majority of Americans and we'll then see the renewal America is looking for.

#84--- Danni, excellent, I wondered if you would catch that-- Are you telling me that you don't believe history is replete with examples of the problem of carte blanche creation of money by countries. You mentioned in another one of your posts about how Clinton helped with deficits (with a conservative congress that held his feet to the fire)--- you seem to be proud of that-- even though they loaded SS benefits off budget. Now let's take this one step further. What do you think is one of the ultimate factors that ultimately lead to budget deficit probleems(which in your post you disdain)---get those betz cells working---come on you can do it---voila, that's right it's uncontrollable printing of money. There are other causes as well. Now in deductive reasoning let's take it the final step and that based on your comments you must agree with economic positions. Excellent, Danni, maybe, you will ultimately think rationally. Like Obama, you're out of your league.

No I don't Ray, I recognize the problem we face but I just don't believe we are helpless to turn things around. If we raies taxes to pre-Reagan levels we can make our government solvent fairly quickly. If we start refusing to allow corporations to manufacture everything in cheap labor countries then ship it here to sell then we can create employment. Things aren't hopeless no matter how badly the right has screwed things up, we can still undo what they did. Sooner rather than later my view will be shared by the majority of Americans and we'll then see the renewal America is looking for.

#88 | Posted by danni

#1 Raising taxes will never make this government solvent. Only cutting spending will do that.

#2 Not you or anyone else has any control over where a private corporation manufactures Their products.

#3 Progressive concepts from both the left and the right like freddie mac, fanny Mae, medicare, medicaid, social security, The Federal Reserve, tweaking the markets to make them fair to people too stupid to be invested and last but not least pushing your progressive ideas of fairness on school children for the last forty years is the reason things are screwed up now.

#4 Thankfully fewer and fewer Americans share your ideals each day. I don't know if you've ever considered the fact that Wealth has to be created before it can be shared. So you guys just keep bitching and complaining and we'll keep creating the wealth. That is until we give up and let you leaches starve.

"#1 Raising taxes will never make this government solvent. Only cutting spending will do that."

BS. Ronald Reagan and George W both 'cut taxes' and increased spending. The two of them account for 3/4's of our national debt. Reagan $3 trillion, W 6+ trillion

If you're running up debt (spending) and taking a cut in pay (tax cuts) you're running up debt twice as fast. It's irresponsible to do both. GOP speak with forked tongue. Tax revenues are down more because of the recession.

No I don't Ray, I recognize the problem we face but I just don't believe we are helpless to turn things around. If we raies taxes to pre-Reagan levels we can make our government solvent fairly quickly. If we start refusing to allow corporations to manufacture everything in cheap labor countries then ship it here to sell then we can create employment. Things aren't hopeless no matter how badly the right has screwed things up, we can still undo what they did. Sooner rather than later my view will be shared by the majority of Americans and we'll then see the renewal America is looking for.
#88 | Posted by danni

Like hell you do! You haven't the foggiest idea what your talking about. Socialists like you are part of the problem. Dream on.

#88--- Danni, there is no way to get us out of this if you raise taxes to pre-reagan levels. You would have to in addition raise taxes through cap/trade, a vat tax, inheritance tax increase, take away the Roth IRA special exemption taxes, tax tha net worth of individuals, let the Bush tax cuts on capital gains melt away,etc--- especially if the current congress (and Obummer) increase spending to the degree they want to. Currently, debt is 90% of GDP. Just paying the interest on the debt will be a reach. Then there is the issue of all the taxes this crew will try to put on the American people. What is going to happen to the discretionary income (what's left)of most consumers when you raise all those taxes---they won't have much to spend. Ooops, more lay--offs, less spending and the vicious cycle continues to repeat. Oh, and how about small business who do the most hiring in this country-- with all the increase in taxes-- this is just too easy-- you make the usual sound-bite type of comments but don't have a clue as to the consequences of the simple solutions you give.

"if the current congress (and Obummer) increase spending to the degree they want to."

All the health care reform bills are deficit neutral. You must be talking about the tab for Iraq, Medicare Part D, and the other GOP/Bush initiatives that increased govt by 50%. Tax cuts and spending increases are why we have huge natl. debt now. Reagan and George W Bush account for 3/4's

Long gold and silver.
#85 | Posted by Ray
You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

#87 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

What is that supposed to mean?

#91 | Posted by Timex

Read it again Dumb Ass! Cutting taxes is not the same as cutting spending.

Let me put it in terms you understand. Your over your head in debt. Your current income will Never cover the cost of all the porn you've downloaded. So you decide to turn tricks at your local park to make ends meet. You make so much the first month you decide to buy that new Jag you've been looking at. The first payment comes due and after you pay it you are still too broke to cover all your bills.....and on and on it goes....

Tax cuts are irresponsible until we're debt free. Were under Reagan, were under Bush. Why we're so heavily in debt. Well, that and their massive spending sprees. GOP speak with forked tongue.

Cutting taxes reduces revenue. Duh. If you're going on a spending spree don't cut your income or you'll be even more in debt. Duh.

People who retort with insults are incapable of carrying on a debate on the facts.

The last thing we need are lectures from people of the same party (GOP) that got us in this mess.

Reagan and W account for 3/4's of our national debt.

People who retort with insults are incapable of carrying on a debate on the facts.

#99 | Posted by Timex

Then read slloowwwer next timex.....


The last thing we need are lectures from people of the same party (GOP) that got us in this mess.


Reagan and W account for 3/4's of our national debt.

#100 | Posted by Timex

It may be the last thing you Want,but it's exactly what you need.

Total private and public debt: $57 Trillion
Federal unfunded obligations: $100 Trillion
OTC derivatives: $700 Trillion
GNP: ~$12 Trillion
Federal income: $2 Trillion

According to:
Bernanke, Geithner & Summers
Congress
Obama
The solution is to borrow and spend faster, raise taxes, expand warfare and welfare.

It doesn't get anymore fucked up than that. Long gold and silver.

#103 | Posted by Ray

My portfolio (however meager by some standards) is up 12.5 %.

#95---Timex, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the OMB says these so-called healthcare reforms are not budget neutral-- they're going to add 800 billion to the debt over the next decade. Now we all know from past experience that when the OMB has come out with their predictive costs for other past congressional programs years later the costs have been exponentially higher.

Ray, I've been long (major part of my portfolio) gold and silver for the last 4 years. Got out of the markets in the fall of 2007 before the dump since I saw this carnage coming. In a perverse way, I would say let Obummer and his minions have their way since it would be extremely bullish for my portfolio; on the other hand I don't want to see this country destroyed.

#104 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

So what? Silver is up over 50% for the years, and gold is up over 20%.

If your money is in stocks, the market is terribly over bought with P/E ratios divorced from reality.
The banking system is insolvent. Citibank in an act of desperation, raised credit card interest rates to 30-36%.
Foreigners are slowly pulling their money out of dollars.

I don't think you understand the impact of those numbers.
Nothing has been resolved, only papered over and allowed to worsen. This economy is an accident waiting to happen.

I also am buying gold but unlike Ray I don't plaster my info all over the net. Ray won't be able to blame anyone but himself when the hungry take his gold.

I don't think ray realizes what life will be like if his fantasies come true.

Jackass
Ray won't be able to blame anyone but himself when the hungry take his gold.

I'm sure, that's your fantasy, prick!

#107 | Posted by Ray

That IS gold and silver. Mostly gold. Since May. Beats 1.5% in mutual funds. And with the comming crash in stocks(no matter what the dow is) I'm happy with 12.5%.

"but the OMB says these so-called healthcare reforms are not budget neutral-- they're going to add 800 billion to the debt over the next decade."

Uh, huh. Link? You get your info from Fox or Newsmax? CBO says exactly the opposite. I just went to OMB. BS.

It may be the last thing you Want,but it's exactly what you need.

#102 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Sure. Get lectures from the party who brought us $10 trillion in natl. debt through irresponsibility. Y'all talk a good game. That's about it.

Ray won't be able to blame anyone but himself when the hungry take his gold.

#108 | Posted by jackass

My old buddy Rasta the Commie. Van Jones wannabe. You may fantasize about the fall of the United States and the total collapse of society, but it will be your kind that starts it, not mine.

"Now we all know from past experience that when the OMB has come out with their predictive costs for other past congressional programs years later the costs have been exponentially higher."

Like Medicare Part D the Bush WH touted as $100 billion when they knew it was a trillion and threatened to fire the actuary if he testified to Congress as to its true cost? Or that $50 billion Iraq War?

Sure. Get lectures from the party who brought us $10 trillion in natl. debt through irresponsibility. Y'all talk a good game. That's about it.

#113 | Posted by Timex

Hummmm....Fannie mae, Freedie mac, FDR & LBJ. Plus all the unfunded obligations... I think 10 Trillion falls a little short don't you think?

Like Medicare Part D the Bush WH touted as $100 billion when they knew it was a trillion and threatened to fire the actuary if he testified to Congress as to its true cost?

#115 | Posted by Timex

I agree. Lets get rid of it. Have the Great Lord Obamama end it tomorrow with an Executive Order.

"LBJ"

Debt/GDP went from ~55% down to ~40% with a minimum at the end of Carter's term of ~33%.

Reagan/Bush ~30% up to ~65%.

zfacts.com

Pretty soon now we'll be back at WWII levels.

Hopefully, this will be a cycle that won't be a total nightmare.

It's amazing to me that the left didn't adore Bush for the drug prescription plan.

#118 | Posted by Zatoichi

LBJ moved turned Fannie mae ( a government funded organization) into a semi private organization just as FDR did with Freddie mac which allowed them to take the debt of the public books. When it comes to public debt implicit and explicit are the same thing unless your trying to get elected. Then you only have to account for explicit debt.

#118 | Posted by Zatoichi

Most charts I've seen show GW Bush took it to 90% debt>GDP through his 2009 budget. From 57% at the end of Clinton's term

It's amazing to me that the left didn't adore Bush for the drug prescription plan.

#120 | Posted by matsop

The plan was a good idea at the cost the WH touted. At 10X's as much and trillion $ hole, no

#115--- I agree, Timex.

"I think 10 Trillion falls a little short don't you think?

#116 | Posted by STIRSUMUP"

Actually, Bush's 2009 budget will leave the natl debt at $12 trillion+

GOP Presidents have been great at massively increasing natl debt. Dem Presidents at reducing it. Facts.

"#125 | Posted by Timex

What I said in my prior post was that between Reagan and GW Bush they added $10 trillion to the national debt.

Actually, Bush's 2009 budget will leave the natl debt at $12 trillion+

#125 | Posted by Timex


When does Obama take responsibility for HIS debt to the nation?

#107--- Ray, market value is probably over fair value but can remain that way for longer then imagined because of the easy money dumped into the system and the "dollar carry trade". People once again are taking on greater risk and most likely another bubble is forming and eventually may end badly. We probably have further to run but in all likelihood are still in a secular bear market that should last for a minimum of 8-10 years.

I agree. Lets get rid of it. Have the Great Lord Obamama end it tomorrow with an Executive Order.

#117 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-10-24 02:54 PM |

Funny how the same players who fucked that Prescription Bill up, are still there wrtiting this inevitable fucked up legislation. Of course Obama doesn't have a clue what the hell is or isn't in or out. He just wants something to sign.

When does Obama take responsibility for HIS debt to the nation?

#128 | Posted by Beachbuzz

Are you kidding!!! The Progressives have been waiting years for an opportunity like this. Rack all the debt up you want and blame it on the last guy.

When does Obama take responsibility for HIS debt to the nation?

#128 | Posted by Beachbuzz

His budget started October 1st. It includes hundreds of billions of $'s in debt payments per year your heroes left behind.

He just wants something to sign.

#130 | Posted by crispee_oc

How about a resignation?

Timex, I feel some of your statements are factual and you say that dems have been more fiscally responsible. That's probably true when we have balance in government. What makes the current situation different is the fact that congress is controlled by the dems with most in power positions left of center. Then, when you have a president who could be a closet marxist, you have the possibility of a situation that this country has never been in. Just a thought.

#134 | Posted by matsop

lol You lost me at 'closet marxist'. You should be glad we have someone who proposes revenue neutral legislation.

"...dems have been more fiscally responsible. That's probably true when we have balance in government.."

All the years after WW2 we had Dem Prez/Dem Congress our debt>GDP ratio went down.

When Carter left 33% (down).
Reagan 55%
Bush 41 58%
Clinton 57%
Bush 43 90+%

It's a myth Republicans are fiscally responsible in light of glaring facts

#130---"He just wants something to sign". I think that is a strong possibility-- he'll throw his left supporters under the bus since I feel this guy has strong narcissistic traits or has NPD. If you have noticed everything coming out of the system is from Pelosi and gang. Obama will make his speeches but other then that will stay out of the fray. Narcissists love themselves and want love from others-- they'll try to destroy those that are not obsequious and are critical--Fox (Danni, if your out there get your dictionary out, again). They also hate to make tough and controversial decisions (e.q. Afghanistan) and will avoid controversy. Many of them are very bright but shallow.

#135---- Timex, revenue neutral?--- remember the OMB, OMB, OMBBBBB, OMMMMMMMMMMB,OMMMMMMMMMMMMB. Let's deal with facts please. Also the dems after WWII were not like the breed we have today. The southern group was conservative (could have been republicans) and then you had a strong moderate component and then a relatively small subset of liberals. Also, you should acquaint yourself with some of the folks the Prez has surrounded himself with in the past and the president (czars).

"Timex, revenue neutral?--- remember the OMB"

I went to the OMB site. Saw nothing of the kind

"#84--- Danni, excellent, I wondered if you would catch that--"

Hilarious. When I get caught making a dumb comment I admit it and move on, I don't try to pretend I was "testing" the person I was arguing with. All of your arguments are just talking point nonsense which can be disproven by any examination of our own during the twentieth century. We had a catastrophic collapse of the economy in the thirties but through what I call "Keynesian Economics on steroids" we taxed and spent our way back to prosperity. It continued for decades until someone decided to upset that apple cart with huge tax cuts for the rich. It has been in a death spiral since. Therefore, I don't care much about Austrian economics, I don't care much for supply side economics and even less for gloom and doom predictors. No, what I want is a President and a Congress who will recognize that the exact reverse process of what got us into this mess is what will get us back out. When I get lost I retrace my steps and find my way home, when I lose something I look in the last place I remember having it, when the economy is collapsing we need to look at the last time it was expanding (not false expansion based on cheap credit but real expansion based on wealth creation like manufacturing).
And I don't care how many Rays there are out there preaching gloom and doom, it isn't rocket science to see what we need to do but it will be difficult because of the unbridled greed that demanded the tax cuts, the outsourcing, the free trade in the first place is still there wanting even more of the same.

these right wingers sound like a broken record. I can see now that they will never admit their part in the destruction of the US economy.

Its just like the Iraq war. Part of me was really expecting an apology from the conservatives for cheerleading such an unmitigated disaster.

I now understand that the apology will never come. just more empty rhetoric based on a false, flawed, dangerous ideology

#141 | Posted by gl0bal74

Geeeee...I sure sorry for the 38k I paid in taxes last year and the estimated 42K I have to pay this year and.......well that's about it. ........


Your turn.....

Um, uh huh

"Geeeee...I sure sorry for the 38k I paid in taxes last year and the estimated 42K I have to pay this year and.......well that's about it. ........"

You want sympathy??? To pay that kind of tax you had to have an incredible income. Excuse me if I don't cry for you.
Hey, make taxation your cause, prevent increases in income tax for the wealthy, and then when the entire economy collapses thank yourself.

Dig Up that No Goog,Fucking Piece-of_Shit Reagan!!!!

Reaganomics may be Dead but it was not before Ronald Reagan and his Corporate Criminal Cronies Sold Off and "MURDERED" the American Economy!!! Reagan that Lousy,No Good,Piece of Shit Fucking Whore,they should dig him up and put what's left of his shitty,putrid remains on Pennsylavania Ave and let the populace line up to take a good fucking piss on them!!!!!!

Danni? Try the truth. You wrote:

"Oh, and Yes, Ronald Reagan did keep him on for another term as Chairman because what he did actually worked. As opposed to the Reagan economy which witnessed higher unemployment than we have today, the nation's first 3 trillion dollars of debt and the biggest crash on Wall ST. since the great depression."

Reagan dumped Volker and appointed Greenspan. Even Clinton kept Greenspan as had King Bush I. Talk about bipartisan agreement!
Reagan did NOT keep Volker on for another term, Danni. Are you sober?
Danni: stop making up things because you want to believe them.

"Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said about him in an interview:

Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn't believe he was an adequate de-regulator. Our country has thus suffered from the consequences of choosing as regulator-in-chief of the economy someone who didn't believe in regulation."

Deregulation has had horrific consequences.

the nation's first 3 trillion dollars of debt

Reagan,ran against Carter.hundred dollar bills stacked 60 miles high.(i'm not pretending that is an exact quote,but you know what I mean)

Oh Reagan,there you go again

"These ideologues on the right can't seem to fathom the simple fact that tax cuts dont solve all economic problems "

The Republican tax cuts do solve one economic problem - how to stealthily redistribute wealth from the Working Class and the Middle Class, those who do honest work for a living, to the opulently wealthy - who already have so much money they don't know what to do with it all except to buy $15,000 shower curtains, $5,000 umbrella stands, and multiple $20 million mansions. The class war is over - the rich won.

And those on the left don't seem to understand that punishing prosperity has negative effects on all.

This assumption that taxation automatically punishes prosperity is based virtually entirely on the simplistic and simple-minded Laffer curve, fittingly enough first drawn by Arthur Laffer on a bar cocktail napkin.

Laffer reduced the unimaginable complexities of economic and social motivations to a penciled bell curve on a tiny piece of paper.

There is really no evidence (outside of Laffer's theory) that taxation, when applied fairly and progressively, and when the tax money is used to benefit the taxpayers, has a negative effect on prosperity. Unless, by prosperity, the poster is referring to the prosperity of the one-tenth of one percent of the richest Americans - who are in the least need of worrying about prosperity.

Clinton raised taxes (almost exclusively on the rich) in his first year in office, only to see 8 years (96 months) of unbroken increased productivity. Bush, Jr. instituted several rounds of massive tax cuts - primarily benefiting the rich, and immediately saw his first recession begin two months into his first term, and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression during the last two years of his stewardship.

Up until Reagan, the maximum tax rate on the top level of income was 69.125 on all income over the $212,000 cutoff. It had been as high as 92% for income over the $400,000 cutoff under Eisenhower. It was cut back into the 70-75% range on income over the $200,000 cutoff under Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.

Yet these were all prosperous years for America and most Americans, and, not only saw the wealthy living in luxury, but saw the emergence of strong and stable working and middle classes.

Reagan immediately cut the marginal tax rate to 50% (cut-off 106,000) and left office with the maximum rate 28% for all income above $29,750. Bush, Sr. was forced to raise it finally to 31% on income over the $86,500 threshold. During this period, we had several recessions, and most Americans' wages stagnated or dropped. The rich, of course, got very much richer.

cont...

"Reagan did NOT keep Volker on for another term, Danni. Are you sober?"

Paul Volker served as Chairman of the fed from August 1979 to August 1987. So, yes REagan replaced him at the very end of the Reagan Presidency and for the reason TIMEX gives which just adds more reason to remember Reagan as a primary cause of our present economic woes.

#149 | Posted by BlueSun

Great post! And, sadly, all true

...cont

Clinton raised it to 39.6% for income over 250,000 and continued to move the threshold level at which the rate kicked in up until the max only applied to income above $297,350 when he left office. During his administration, earnings for ordinary Americans began rising again, although modestly, and the Reagan/Bush bounces between recession (Reagan tax cuts led to the worst recession since the Great Depression - at least until Dubya) and weak recovery were turned into unbroken increases in production - setting the all-time record for consecutive months of growth. Clinton was able to convert the last Bush, Sr. record annual budget deficit of over $290 billion to a record annual budget surplus of $235 billion in a mere 8 years.

By the way, the Laffer curve is a bell curve intended to indicate the relationship between percentage of taxation and incentive to work and the effect on government revenue. With 0% taxes, where the worker keeps every penny he makes, incentive is maximum, but government revenue is zilch. Under 100% taxes, there is no incentive to work at all, so government revenue is also zilch.

The lower you move the percentage, the higher will be an incentive to work, up to a point. At some point along the curve, the incentive to work will outweigh the level of taxation, and lowering taxes really won't increase the incentive, merely stifle public revenues.

The curve is an attempt to pinpoint at exactly what level of taxation, rising incentive to work is offset by shrinking tax rates - the break-even point.

Unfortunately for most supply-siders, though they blindly assume that the lower the tax, the higher the revenue due to higher incentive, economic studies consistently indicate that the break-even point is about the %70 tax level. This means that maximum taxation above 70% will cause enough disincentive to work to cut government revenues, while maximum taxation below 70% will increase revenues without significantly cutting incentive to work.

This explains why the first year of Bush tax cuts saw that for every $1.00 of revenue lost in tax cuts to the rich saw a return of only 7 cents in increased revenue to the country at large - a net loss of 93 cents on every dollar cut from taxes.

BTW, for those complaining about Obama's humongous 2009 deficit of well over a trillion dollars, I should point out two things. 1) The 2009 budget was the last budget of the Bush administration, drawn up last fall - NOT the Obama administration; and 2) Obama revised the budget to include costs that the Bush administration was concealing by keeping it off-budget, like much of the cost of the two wars. That produces a more accurate figure of the true Bush deficit.

It would be interesting to go over all of Bush's budgets since we first invaded Iraq and recalculate them with the costs of his wars included.

"Reagan did NOT keep Volker on for another term, Danni. Are you sober?"

Reagan reappointed Volker in 1983 for four more years

The GOP shuffle since Reagan has been to build debt to tear down social programs by then saying 'we're too far in debt to do this or that'.

Listening to Meet The Press 10 minutes ago I heard that exact premise from John Cornyn. Funny how the GOP builds most of the debt and then whines about it.

They've used that exact line for 30 years while as they piled on the debt recklessly on their watch

#155 | Posted by Timex

Both sides are guilty of that, but progressive social programs will be what breaks the dollar. It would be interesting to see a complete and accurate accounting of federal expenditures for the last hundred years. Including all the explicit and implicit debt. It will never happen. You can raise taxes to 100% and you will never pay the debt off unless you cut the spending. Neither side is willing to do this or even admit it. We're headed for higher inflation, because that's our only way out.

I watched Cornyn and Schumer too and I thought Schmer did a fairly good job but missed an opportunity when asked about how the Dems are lining up for the health care vote. He should have made it clearer that the sixty votes aren't necessary on the actual health care vote but they are to break the REpublican filibuster. Once they break the filibuster by voting cloture then conservative Dems could vote how they wish on the actual vote. This needs to be made clear because it helps to underscore to the American people that obstructionists are blocking health care reform and that all Democrats should at least vote to allow a real vote to occur or they themselves should be labeled as obstructionists right along with the party of No.

In other words Democrats need to start repeating....."up or down vote, up or down vote" just like the Republicans did before them.


#159 | Posted by danni

Yes. Remember Cornyn's line about debt/healthcare, even though ours is deficit neutral and the GOP borrowed for their biggies - tax cuts, war, war machine, and Medicare Part D for umpteen years?

#157 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Not true. Lest you forget Clinton's WH OMB drew up two budgets with surpluses. Bush and the GOP Congress said we should reward the wealthiest Americans with the surplus instead of being rational and responsible and paying off debt.

Ray, you are correct. We are already witnessing the next irrational investment bubble on Wall Street inflating with lightning speed. I am a software consultant with 30 years of experience, most of it on Wall Street. I've had most of the major players as clients at one time or another, so I've watched (in horror) for years as the runaway train of complex derivatives, representing irrational risk with other peoples' money, massive rewards if you win, and no disincentive if you lose, build up to the collapse that started in September of 2007.

Ironically, although I can no longer stomach working for companies like Merrill, BofA, Goldman Sachs and the lot, over the past couple of months I have been bombarded with inquiries about returning to these companies because of my previous experience designing software used to set prices and calculate risk on derivatives like the notorious MBS (mortgage-backed securities) as well as CMBS, CMO, CDO, etc. They're back to monkey-business as usual.

The Wall Street investment houses and hedge funds have figured that they've weathered this storm (primarily by sucking trillions in taxpayer money from the FED and the TARP funds - like a vampire sucking the life's-blood from the neck of the American public).

They figure they've beaten Obama and his crew of insider advisors (mostly ex-Goldman Sachs execs), who have yet to enact a single meaningful or effective regulation; the Congress, which knows that Wall Street can make or break anybody in Congress with its money and power; and the American people, whose righteous anger and rage flares and then fades just as fast.

These companies have quietly began re-marketing REMICS (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits), which include MBSs, as RE-REMICS, with brand-new AAA ratings. These are really just resecuritized toxic mortgage investment conduits re-bundled, and are 'safely' outside of any jurisdiction of the SEC.

A new highly distasteful form of derivative is now becoming popular. Instead of pooling mortgages as the underlying security of a derivative contract, the industry is pooling individual life insurance policies. They buy up life insurance policies from desperate elderly people for pennies on the dollar and then bundle them and then consolidate them into derivatives and sell them to investors. Given the nature of how they work, they are nothing but a monstrous Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff gasp. The sooner a policy holder dies, the greater the payoff, while the longer you live, the returns go down and can even pass into negative territory. No wonder Wall Street is so hostile to health care reform ;). Just imagine investors all over the world praying for a monstrous swine flu epidemic.

This threatens to do to the life insurance industry what MBSs did to the mortgage industry.

So, its back to business as usual, except that the situation is materially worse right now, with the promise of the next collapse making this one look like a ladies' tea party. Instead of 10 or 12 major financial institutions controlling the financial economy, there are now something like 4, most of which used some of their TARP money to buy up weaker sisters and grow even bigger - now TOO, TOO BIG TO FAIL. The most dangerous are Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase.

In fact, on of my friends still heavily involved on Wall Street tells me that the joke going around is that at the end of the year, the country is changing its name to the United States of Goldman Sachs.

#157 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

When Reagan took office our debt was Treasury bonds to pay for Vietnam. Instead of paying it off he went on a spending spree AND cut taxes. Bush squandered our surpluses on tax cuts for the wealthy AND went on a spending spree. We were fine 'til those two Bozos live at the WH.

#161 | Posted by Timex

I'll agree with you that Clinton cut the budget. But the budget and the public debt are two different things. They don't address all of the Federal Governments obligations. There never has been a Social Security Trust Fund. Just a line item that comes out of the general fund. They don't address the Quasi government corporations that the government created and are obligated to fund but are not budget items. Things like the Fed guaranteeing loans to foreign banks that make interest off them. Freddie and Fanni that the government created and funded but removed from the books because it looked bad in the budget. But when they fail we still have to bail them out. Like you cosigning the loan for your neighbors house. The payment doesn't show up in your household budget, but if he defaults, you still owe it.

#164 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Whoa pardner!! Clinton balanced two budgets in a row. Clinton said "We can pay off the debt AND shore up SocSec in 10 years". Bush the Bozo and Bonzo's Buddy before him said we should give it away and then some. "Deficits don't matter". When Carter left office our Debt to GDP ratio was down to 33%. When Bush the Bozo left office it was 90%.

STIRSUMUP - Conservatives have been crying for decades that progressive policies are what break the dollar. Not true. In fact, under progressive Democratic administrations, deficits are consistently lower (both LBJ and Clinton handed off the country to their Republican successors with a surplus), and annual levels of productivity are almost twice as high as under Republican administrations (where deficits rise, debt piles up, productivity decreases, incomes stagnate, and the job market shrinks).

When Reagan introduced 'supply-side' economics, the entire national debt, incurred under the previous 39 Presidents was $995 billion. At the end of 12 years of Reaganomics, the debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion dollars. Three of every four dollars that the American economy (and the American people) owed in 1993 was thanks to a mere 12 years of Reaganomics. Until Bush, Jr. came along, that looked like a record that would stand for a century.

What really eats up the dollar is the stranglehold on revenue caused by massive tax cuts, the massive defense spending (much of which is unnecessary pork going directly into the coffers of the defense industry that funds the politicians under the false flag of 'defending the nation'), and the costs of Iraq, a totally irrational war fought under false pretenses against a country that was no threat to us, and Afghanistan, a war that lost its one opportunity to accomplish a goal that would have made America safer when Bush and Cheney lost interest, failed to capture bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and gave the world the message that you CAN attack America and get away with it. And that was 8 years ago.

Not all borrowing (or deficit spending) is equal. There is a dramatic difference in a company that borrows money to meet the current payroll and utilities bills and one that invests in new machinery and worker training. The former will never see that money come back, but the latter is making an investment that will pay off many times over.

Progressive policies are primarily designed to benefit Americans. Education, job training, health care, infrastructure repair, and many other progressive policies are investments in the future that will ultimately produce a more skilled and productive workforce, which in turn will provide more productivity to the country and return the borrowed money to the treasury with interest.

Regressive Conservative tax cutting does exactly the opposite.

Stirsumup

You're no doubt glad Obama's putting some of them back in the light of day for all to see 24/7 online?

BLUESUN or TIMEX, what I want to know is why is the President letting Geithner and Summers run the show??? Why isn't anyone talking real tax increases??? Why are they doing nothing to discourage outsourcing??? Why haven't they repealed the bankruptcy law passed by the Republicans???Health Care reform is going to be meaningless to an unemployed nation.
I have wondered if the big money guys haven't threatened a complete economic collapse if any real action is taken to reign them in but it seems to me that if they did that it would cost them more than they want to lose so I can't quite figure it out.

#167 | Posted by Timex

I know that was one of his campaign promises but have yet to see it fulfilled. got a link?

#168 | Posted by danni


Why in the world would you tie tax increases to unemployment. Unless your talking about government jobs. A large part of the reason we're still in a recession is the fact that people who can afford to hire people are hesitant to because of the potential tax increases.

"Why in the world would you tie tax increases to unemployment."

When you have capital gains taxes at a maximum of 15% is the owner of a small business going to invest his profit back into the business, thereby creating more jobs, or is he going to go gamble in the stock market with it? If an owner earns $500K profit and can pay only 34% income tax he may pay the tax and keep the rest but if he were going to have to pay 50% he might not take all 500K in profit and instead reinvest 250K which would create more jobs. That was the basic theory that build our middle class and why we built it when income taxes were up to a maximum of 90%, later lowered to 70% but when lowered all the way to 28% we saw the great unravelling.

I can't speak for other small business owners, only for myself. I've taken All the risk and put in all the time building my business. I have absolutely no intention in giving up 90% of my profits to a bunch of looters and leaches. All you will do is build a bigger welfare state because many small business owners will chose to shut down and join the rest of the non-producers. But I guess that's all part of the progressive plan.

" I have absolutely no intention in giving up 90% of my profits to a bunch of looters and leaches."

Nothing like creating a straw man argument. Remember Bill Clinton talked about "growing the economy" and he raised income taxes to 39% and voila, the economy grew. Businesses grew too. It is amazing to me to read posts like yours, basicly arguing to keep the status quo on the economy, while I can drive down Federal Highway right now and see hundreds of closed businesses that were doing fine just a few years ago.

In 1979 you would have needed net earnings of $215,000 to be in the top tax bracket, which would equal $629656.92 in 2008. Even then the top rate was 70% not ninety and you can see that the owner of a business would probably decide to reinvest about 400,000 back into the business and thus avoid paying taxes on the rest of his profit. That way he would be paying on the lower tax brackets and creating jobs, enlarging his business and thus increasing his wealth. And...growing the American economy.

#168-- "why is the president letting Geithner and Summers run the show???"---because once again you have a president that's a strawman for the powerful and the powerful happens to be wallstreet. Why do you think the TARP went where it did and none filtered down to mainstreet? "Government Sachs (yes, Danni, I intentionally mispelled it) has been wedded to the gov. for years and if TARP hadn't occured, all those partners would have lost their big houses, yachts, and the like. Do a little background on Larry Summers and based on what I would believe is your overriding beliefs, I don't think you're going to like what you (overall) read.

#172----I started another business (2 partners) about 7 years ago and as many have experienced this year has not been the most fun--we'll make a minimal amount of money this year and could have helped our bottom line more if we had participated in lay-offs, however, we refused to do that for a number of reasons. Even though many businesses don't think 2010 is going to be a particularly good year, for us it'll probably be a lot better then this year due to a number of factors. I walked away from personal income the last few years and put most of it into the business and we keep pouring most of the cash-flow back into it, thus our free cashflow is negligible. What the gov. is talking about is tremendously demoralizing--there is only so much we can do to avoid laying folks off but there comes a time---

"Do a little background on Larry Summers and based on what I would believe is your overriding beliefs, I don't think you're going to like what you (overall) read."

Like I didn't do that a long time ago.
I recognize what Summers and Geithner represent but I do not accept your evaluation of Obama. Bill Clinton was "schooled" just before he took office too. I believe the big money boys have warned both Clinton and now Obama that any major reforms will be met with a collapse of the banking system. I don't hold the President responsible for that but I do think that he is going to have to take some radical steps to prevent these bastards from controlling our future. Probably that is why the right wing media has been selling this "socialist" nonsense to make any attempt by him to supplant thier power with the claim that he is trying to become a dictator when, in reality, he is trying to free us from an evil oligarchy.
My money is on him unless they just assasinate him like they have done before.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable