-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Special Report
Crisis? What Crisis?
This is no time for jack-in-the-box economics — or Republican leaders downplaying our alarming condition.
(Page 2 of 2)
To be sure, the U.S. is not Greece. Our legislature is slightly less dysfunctional than theirs, our president is only slightly more economically ignorant than their prime minister, and our health care system is only now being turned into the socialist disaster that Greece proved is destined to fail our nation’s old and sick. Most importantly, we have a Fed that can print money and “monetize the debt” which, in a debt crisis situation, might make interest rates appear nominally stable, at least compared to Greece, but at the expense of destroying the value of our currency and creating substantial inflation.
So what about the country that is much less of a basket case, namely Italy, the eighth largest economy in the world?
As you can see in the chart below, Italian interest rates had moved slightly higher over the course of 2010 but stayed below 5 percent until July 2011 when the “looming” problem turned into an “immediate” one. Rates spiked to over 7 percent for much of the fourth quarter of 2011 before drifting back down to under 5 percent today. But like Greece, the true damage was already done despite today’s bailout-backed interest rates masking true human suffering caused by years of government over-spending.
Italian unemployment, which had been fairly steady just above eight percent since late 2009, began a persistent, painful climb at about the same time the interest rate breakout about 5 percent began, and it has never looked back. An economic report released this month noted ominously “Italy Jobless Rate Jumps to Record High of 11.7 Percent in January.”
But these economies are small compared to the United States, and their debts, while high as a share of their GDP also pale in comparison to America’s national debt which is nearing $17 trillion. (Greece’s debt is about $470 billion, and Italy owes about $2.6 trillion.)
As the Wall Street Journal noted last year, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that “every 100 basis-point (one percent) rise in government borrowing costs over the next decade will trigger almost $1 trillion in new federal debt.” If there is an American debt crisis, the move in interest rates will be more than 100 basis points unless the Federal Reserve is willing and able to turn the U.S. Dollar into the Zimbabwean Dollar. (Perhaps Mr. Mugabe has a few containers full of billion dollar notes he could loan us… assuming we don’t quite get to needing hundred trillion dollar notes.)
And if you thought that the various debt problems in Europe shook the United States, imagine the impact on the world when the roles are reversed. This is what will happen when American jack-in-the-box economics turns the crank once too often.
The Treasury Department is wisely looking to extend the average maturity of U.S. debt, now at around 65 months. This remains low among the major economic powers and adds to the risk of increasing interest rates. Yes, the shorter-term money was cheaper, but it means that about half of the publicly-held federal debt will mature in the next few years. If interest rates go up in that time – which could happen despite Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s best (or, as many rational economists think, worst) efforts – our budget deficits will increase much faster than anyone has expected.
And if that happens, the required “austerity” will make the Ryan budget, which slightly slows the rate of growth of federal spending, look impossibly extravagant. The massive budget cuts that will be required will cause serious short term pain in much the same way that cutting off a dope addict’s supply causes him to shake and sweat. Yes, breaking the habit is a long run benefit, even a necessity, but our national DTs will be ugly and painful.
Governments around the world have used rhetoric like Barack Obama’s to kick the debt can down the road for decades. The can is kicking back with potentially disastrous consequences. Republicans should not abet this president’s dismissiveness of the fiscal sword hanging over our children’s future by making comments that Democrats and the mainstream media (if you will pardon my redundancy) will spin into reasons to remain on our current doomed path.
While Boehner and Ryan are right in an academic sense that our debt crisis is “looming” rather than “immediate,” they should reframe the discussion as not to give aid and comfort to the big-spenders in Washington, D.C. Republicans should aggressively argue that prudence dictates we act as if a crisis is hours, not years, away. We should do now what we would do if interest rates had already begun their inevitable climb, in order to ensure that the climb is gradual and limited rather than sudden and frighteningly large. Playing down the financial peril our nation faces substantially increases the chances that we will do nothing until it is too late.
Barack Obama, ever the economic enfant terrible, is treating the United States national debt like a jack-in-the-box. We don’t know how many turns we have until it pops open. Republicans must make sure the American electorate knows what a dangerous game our president is glibly playing with our nation’s future, and that the difference between a “looming” crisis and an “immediate” one, like the difference between a closed jack-in-the-box and one that pops open, is just a few turns of the bond market.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/19/crisis-what-crisis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
gene| 3.19.13 @ 6:39AM
I feel like I am listening to a great big bunch of "Chamberlains" just before WWII,
"Peace in our time". Yeah riiiight.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:32PM
More like the old "jump off a skyscraper and declare, as you're halfway down, that there's nothing wrong".
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 2:22PM
Let’s list Obama’s priorities: Middle class nightmare
1. Gun control – have middle class gun owners register their guns like cars- criminals will then register and problem solved
2. Environment – Let’s make energy cost more, drill less, more regulation on power plants and on cars- all goods cost more from production to distribution- Middle class pays vast majority of this “tax” Chinese love Gaia and treasure the pristine world we live in.
3. Health Care- raise “double” the premiums on the middle class that already buys health insurance so “everyone” can have it and it will be “cheaper”
4. Return regressive SS tax back to draconian levels. Fund is gone. Worthless T-Bills sit and wait,
5. Print money – On top of energy prices doubling let’s print trillions- inflation is killing the middle class
6. Destroy small business – regulations and “affordable care” take care of this
alice921| 3.19.13 @ 2:42PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. last monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83... per hour. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 3:53PM
Nobody wants to buy one of your Dildoes. (Maybe Arnie)
Trust me.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 12:51PM
The debt crisis is now.
A shortfall of a trillion dollars is covered with the private fed printing $$$ to cover the T-bills.
So we spend more money than we take in, no problem correct?
So we don’t have to pay, just print correct?
The tax is in inflation dummy.
1. Groceries
2. Health care
3. Gas
4. Electricity
Guess who pays the highest % of their income for these items?
Ding…..the poor and middle class.
Why not have no taxes and print all the money?
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 12:59PM
Great job again AMS. Stay on this theme. The middle class is paying the bill.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:03PM
The only Problem with your Thesis is that - For Obvious Reasons - they don't Count any of those things that you just listed, in their Inflation Equation.
You can sum it up thusly: The Prices of everything I DON'T NEED, are the only Prices that AREN'T going up.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 1:30PM
Good point.
AMS. Put your economists on this ASAP. What is the real rate of inflation? Scream it from the rooftops...so to speak.
Inflation is raging on basic necessities. Anecdotally, my trips to the grocery, hospital and gas station tell me prices have nearly doubled since 2008.
Or if we can print with no impact give us that data.
AMS, there is a cost to the middle class for taxation, inflation and regulation. Boehner has no clue how to communicate this. He may well be fine with the middle class growing his castle, the federal beast.
Who knows what he believes? But he is an idiot for sure. Help.
Stan Redmond| 3.19.13 @ 1:48PM
Not to worry David. Food, healthcare, and energy aren't included in our overlord government inflation statistics. So obviously there's nothing to worry about. Now excuse me while I call up my friends on my obamaphone and march forward
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 2:07PM
Well the price of beer concerns me.
The 50 million food stamp recipients cannot buy beer with their stamps. That will keep the price low correct?
Stan Redmond| 3.19.13 @ 4:46PM
The price of beer is hardley a concern when everything else is paid for. Free obamaphones, govt healthcare, food stamps, all free up cash for the important things like beer and big screen TVs.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 4:59PM
You are correct.
And lesbian studies on obesity and drinking.
Fighter jets to Egypt.
Emerald city we call Washington
Endless wars...false flags...money
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 5:52PM
They can use their EBTs to get cash at strip clubs and liquor stores to pay for their beer, lap dances and gin and juice.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 6:00PM
Middle class pays.
Stan Redmond| 3.21.13 @ 3:03PM
Why do I even work? Forward, to the fun-employment office.
Virtue| 3.19.13 @ 6:52AM
Bonds and interest rates are only important if you have a sound currency. Our house of cards is still standing because the Fed is buying T-Bills to maintain the pretense of value. All we're doing is printing paper and the day of reckoning is approaching. We are doomed.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 8:37AM
Exactly.
Everyone who sits at home in their pajamas and works from their Home Computers Trading Monopoly Money back and forth between the same 9 Guys every day, is all excited about the Never Never Land Dow Jones, and all the money they're makin on a buncha Fairytail Castles built on Foundations of Sand, just a few feet from the River.
What can you say, except: Where have I seen this before?
Has everyone Forgotten the Dot Com Bubble? Have they forgotten how many "Sure Thing Companies" crashed against the Reality Rocks, taking all of those Millionaires with them, and leaving a Recession in it's wake?
And, what about the Housing Crises? How is the (NEEDS TO BE GOTTEN RID OF) Fed, propping up the Banks with Funny Money from a Printing Press (that they then turn around and Buy Stocks with because everything else is a Nightmare Waitin to Happen) any different than what was going on between the Banks, the Mortgage Companies, Fannie and Freddie, and Corrupt Members of Congress?
It isn't.
Greece. Soon to be Zimbabwe. Last Stop - North Korea.
Yes We Can.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 9:21AM
TLP, without getting into the merits or demerits of trading, I think it's a mistake to confuse trading with what the Fed is doing.
There has been stupid trading for centuries. There has never been a balance sheet like this.
George S| 3.19.13 @ 9:39AM
If it wasn't for the Fed, who would be buying securities? At least you are technically correct -- buying is not trading. Trading requires money whereas buying requires what appears to be money. And when the Investor Class has no one to dump the stock on after the Chinese cut down on their Treasury note habit, that's when they'll go Cypriot on our asses and just take our cash to insulate Wall Street against financial ruin.
CrackerHound| 3.19.13 @ 9:50AM
Ross....there has never been a balance sheet like this at any time in history in any economy...if I'm not mistaken. This is the ultimate example of unsustainability. Double digit trillions may be an unimaginable number yet, here we are...in the hole by that much.
The most amazing part of this is that the whole world is in denial. Now apparently Paul Ryan is on that river and that is most distressing. I view him as the most serious person we have in government when it comes to wanting to solve the issue. Maybe everything I thought I knew is wrong and I am terribly naive and debts and the printing of worthless money are really not that relevant to an economy or finances in general. Perhaps everything will be OK....or I am right and common sense plus logic equal financial armageddon in the very near future.
Von Mises Jr| 3.19.13 @ 9:53AM
You are correct Ross in that what the Fed is doing is monetizing the debt. This affects stock prices and allows you to neutralize the inflation that is reported at 2% CPI, has been about 4% long-term and according to Peter Schiff is now about 6%.
JNJ is up from $61 to $79 in 18 mo. or a 30% gain not counting Dividends. But a third of that is inflation and the real gain closer to 20%.
This is occurring since the M2 has been increased from $3T to $9T in five years and the Fed Balance Sheet from $900B to $3T. It is nuts.
QE3 + QE4 are $85B per month that will fund our $800-900B deficit this year.
The real problem in my estimation is when ObamaCare taxes suck the liquidity from the private sector soon, VERY SOON. Buckle up.
Al Adab| 3.19.13 @ 12:18PM
We have to put it in simple English Jr. How long can we keep paying our Visa with our Mastercard? Someday they will want their money.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 10:59AM
This isn't Stupid Trading, dear boy.
It's a Crack Addiction.
Capisce?
Doctor Right| 3.19.13 @ 12:26PM
Timmy has spoken, Ross. The facts be damned!
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:07PM
I tried.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:46PM
For the record, I agree with TLP's comment that this is the economic equivalent of crack addiction. That's what I was trying to say with my reference to the DTs.
Cobalt| 3.19.13 @ 7:44AM
.....and the derivatives time bomb keeps ticking.
The global derivatives market is estimated to be $1,200 trillion dollars … 20 times larger than the global economy.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:20PM
That statement needs context.
If an homeowners insurance company has a million customers, and each has a $200,000 policy, then one could say that it's liable for $200 billion in payouts. But it doesn't have $2o0 billion in cash sitting around with which to make those payouts.
Is that a problem?
Of course not. All one million customers are not going to claim their full $200,000. Not now or ever. It's foolish to think that they could. The whole point of insurance is that people who can't afford a catastrophe contribute money far less than what is needed to pay for a catastrophe to a pool so that those few who actually experience catastrophe can get it paid for from the pool. The pool can't be large enough to cover simultaneous catastrophes for all unless all contribute enough to pay for their own catastrophes, at which point, why bother pooling at all?
This isn't some new wisdom. This was understood all along! Well, at least, by those who pay attention.
For the same reason, it's not inherently a "time bomb" if the face value of derivatives exceeds the value of assets.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:25PM
Another example: sports betting
By some estimates, $10 billion was bet on the last Super Bowl. Does that mean that bet-takers had to have $10 billion ready to pay out in case ALL the bettors won at once?
Of course not!
It's impossible for all the bets to win at once because many of them are contradictory. If half the betters bet on one team and half on the other, then by definition, only half of them can win their bets!
And for the most part, they'll be paid with the money that the losers bet.
Derivatives are the same. By definition, all of them can't be paid out, because they're bets on contradicting outcomes.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 5:56PM
If you use my bookie you better be ready to pay when you lose.
RABart| 3.19.13 @ 7:48AM
Ross I agree wholeheartedly. The Republicans should make it known just what type of ruse Obama is carrying out. Unfortunately, I don't believe there's one Republican that has the guts to step forward, let it be known (the upcoming disaster), and to challenge Obama on his (on purpose) policys. When the "crisis" finally hits, he'll just blame the Republicans anyway. So as Hillary says, "What difference will it make then"?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 9:06AM
I understand what you're saying, but you're wasting your time. Maybe after 2014's Election? Maybe after the Riots in the Cities? Maybe after the Inevitable Conflagration in The Holy Land?
Even if one of these Republican Invertebrates were to make its way to the Podium? (which they won't) Who would Report it?
You heard what Johnny Boner said in his Official Acceptance Speach as Obama's personal Gunga Din: "We don't have a Debt Problem."
And, with those 6 Words, our Fate is Sealed.
Every Man for Himself.
Al Adab| 3.19.13 @ 9:29AM
"What, me worry?" Alfred E. Newman
We are living in a strange new world.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:09PM
It's called: Bizarro World.
Move along.
Nothing to see, here.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 5:57PM
Wait until the EBTs stop working.
Gary B| 3.19.13 @ 10:59AM
“We do not have an immediate debt crisis.… But we all know that we have one looming.” - Boehner's back stab of the week.
RABart: "The Republicans should make it known just what type of ruse Obama is carrying out."
The Republicans should do a lot of things. That they don't, defines them as a large part of the problem. As has been said, "With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?"
Some who posted here a couple of weeks ago said something like, "What we need is a second party." Very clever remark and truer than most care to admit.
Pecos Pete| 3.19.13 @ 8:18AM
Ross, in regard to the unemployment statistics you have presented for Greece and Italy, are these statistics comparable to the USA's U3, or to U6 measurements?
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 8:24AM
That's a very good question, Pecos. It is NOT like U6.
Quote from data page: "In Italy, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force. "
Data source here:http://www.tradingeconomics.com/italy/unemployment-rate
Pecos Pete| 3.19.13 @ 8:58AM
In that case, Greece and Italy are really up the river without a paddle.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 9:10AM
Up the CREEK without a paddle.
Obviously, Ross has a Rule #1 as well, just for you.
I'm getting Diabetes reading your Love Letters.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 5:57PM
And not just any old creek.
Von Mises Jr| 3.19.13 @ 9:36AM
I do not know for fact, but I have heard it said on the business news that it is about equivalent to our U5 unemployment rate.
The U3 eliminates the discouraged unemployed who have given up looking for work (U4), the marginally attached who would like to work (U5) and the part-time workers who would like to work full-time (U6). So it counts those working any job or actively looking for work.
But that is not the issue, Pete and Ross. Since Obama took Orifice, the number of jobs has decreased by 8.5M.
The approximate numbers are that there are about 140M jobs in the U.S. With a reported unemployment rate of 7.7% gives you 10,780,000 unemployed.
If you add 8.5M unemployed not counted due to lack of jobs, the unemployed is actually 19,280,000 /148,500,000 = 12.99%.
Then if you add back the underemployed, it is probably really about 14-15 %.( U6 plus jobs destroyed).
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:15PM
I think it's called: Newspeak. Or, is it: The Big Lie? Gobbledygook? Nonsense? Bullsh*t?
It's more likely that it's: All of the above.
Pecos Pete| 3.19.13 @ 1:34PM
Von: Thanks for the short clear explanation. Maybe those who don't understand the current flim-flam game will understand better from your explanation.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.19.13 @ 8:29AM
The article makes the case that interest rates will be low for at least the next ten years.
Governments round the world promised too much and now have to pay. When they have to pay they have to keep interest rates low.
Look up articles for investing in low interest rate environments.
Ten years from now you will have done well.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:17PM
After seeing what's going on in Cypress?
You might do better stuffing all of your Money in your Mattress.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 5:59PM
You spelled Cyprus wrong.
nathan| 3.19.13 @ 8:30AM
Ross: Here's my question for you. In the post war period we've had 5 GOP presidents who served 32+ years. Please name one domestic initiative any of them are famous for. Newt was speaker of the House for 2/4? years? Name me one lasting domestic deed that carries forward till today. What I'm asking for here is name me one New Deal program that was abolished by any of these GOP leaders, one Great Society program that was eliminated. Reagan came in right after Carter created 3 new cabinent positions. How many of those did he get rid of? Paul quoted Reagan saying that for personal freedom to grow government has to shrink. Not counting defense spending, was federal domestic spending bigger or smaller at the end of Reagan's 8 years than at the start? Where there more or fewer regulations? Were there more or fewer federal gun laws? What did Reagan do regarding his own quote?
My point is that GOP leaders over 32 years did nothing to deal with a domestic threat that was every bit as dangerous as any external threat. Bush added 2 trillion to the debt with Plan D and Ryan voted for it and Newt verbally supported it. So again, in what way have GOP leaders been all that different in the post war period than the democrats?
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 9:24AM
Nathan,
I think you're asking the wrong guy. Romney was the first Republican I voted for in a presidential election in at least 20 years, and I wasn't enthusiastic about it except for how much I wanted to beat Obama.
I do have to say that Newt did a good job working with Clinton to cut spending (relative to GDP at least) and cut taxes.
Reagan could have been better on domestic spending, no doubt, but he was still a great and remarkable president for his other accomplishments and for reminding people (even if perhaps because they don't know his domestic record as well as his words) that government is the problem, not the solution.
It was a HUGE mistake for Bush to push Medicare Part D.
In short, you are basically right.
GobBluthe| 3.19.13 @ 11:34AM
People forget that GW Bush ran on expanding Medicare in 2000
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:27PM
I agree that "Republican" hasn't often meant "conservative". But tell that to Democrats, who insist that anything done by a Republican is a "conservative" policy.
I'm curious, Ross. Who have you voted for? Or are you afraid to post because there's a Democrat in there?
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:48PM
I voted Libertarian for president in every election between the first Bush's first election and this past election.
I usually vote Republican for other races, but sometimes Libertarian as well.
Please let's not start a debate about "wasted vote" right now...
JD| 3.20.13 @ 1:08AM
I don't intend to.
That said, believe that a vote is an asset that should be used in a way that will do the most good. Since it is anonymous, there is no particular statement to be made with your particular vote; hence I vote for the most agreeable candidate who has a chance of winning. That has always been the Republican.
I might vote for a candidate who doesn't have a chance to win in a situation where a surprising turnout for that candidate has a chance to impact future elections. To "send a message." Thus far, no such opportunity has arisen at the national level.
"But wait!" you say. "How can a libertarian make such a statement unless people like you vote for him?"
I consider that a cart-before-horse fallacy. Vote totals don't magically materialize on election day. They are a product of the time leading up to the election. You don't change America in the voting booth. The change happens during the years between elections. The voting booth just makes it official.
Von Mises Jr| 3.19.13 @ 9:55AM
nathan: Here is a question for you. Are you eating a hot dog right now?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 4:00PM
He's not eating it.
He's just licking it.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:48PM
That made me laugh out loud.
Mike G| 3.19.13 @ 8:30AM
I don't see what you're so up in arms about. Boner and Ryan are merely signalling that they will be caving in the next round of budget talks. They're hoping it will lessen the flack they will get when it happens.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 8:34AM
Hey Ross, can you explain why Republicans weren't sounding the alarm all over the place about the national debt while Bush cut taxes for the rich and started 2 wars on a credit card?
And let's review how we got here.
1. Reagan and the Bush 1 had the brought the debt up to about 3 trillion. At the end of Carter's administration, the previous debt of all presidents was below 1 trillion.
2. During the Clinton administration, another 2 trillion was added.
3. During the Bush Administration, with tax cuts for the rich, and 2 wars, it climbed by over 5 trillion.
4. Obama inherits an economy in free fall, where obviously, tax revenues are going to be less. The wars started by Bush were still going on. The tax cuts by Bush, were just repealed (and not completely) a few months ago, no thanks to the Republican opposition to tax hikes for the previous 2 years. So MOST of the debt is actually from Republican policies. Full stop. The total added during the Obama administration has been 6 trillion so far.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 9:27AM
Arnie,
The CBO has demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts were a small part of the increased deficit, and that is based on static modeling so the actual impact is even much less.
It's about the spending.
As for wars, they are expensive. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have done a particular thing, but it's not entirely fair to lump war in with permanent spending like entitlements.
Obama's spending makes Bush look like a piker, not that Bush has anything to be proud of.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 9:58AM
Ross, that CBO figure for the Bush tax cuts are responsible for 1.6 trillion of the debt.
That is not a small amount.
"As for wars, they are expensive. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have done a particular thing, but it's not entirely fair to lump war in with permanent spending like entitlements."
But we are talking about sources of the debt...are we not? Those 2 wars account for 3-4 trillion of the debt.
So take out the wars, and the Bush tax cuts, the lost revenue from a crashed economy, and the stimulus in response to it.....under Obama's leadership he is actually responsible for about 3 trillion in new debt.
He's actually not that different from Bush in this regard.
So spending has stayed relatively the same. And taxes actually haven't change that much in total either. Obama has actually proposed using a 2 pronged approach - more revenue, and cutting spending. This IS a compromise already. Republicans have refused to take this offer.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:19PM
Arnie, you can have your skewed worldview, but don't expect us to accept it.
Bush didn't cause the recession, yet you not only blame him for it, but you also use this to blame him for the stimulus? AND you blame him for ALL war spending even though the 9/11 terrorists entered the country in 1998, Bush had no real chance to prevent 9/11, and a fair portion of war spending was an inevitable response to it (and Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan)?
That's quite the stretch!
Not to mention that the true explosion - entitlement spending - comes from things Democrats created and few but Democrats support.
As for Obama's "two pronged" approach, it's only a compromise if you believe in funny accounting. Democrats set the "baseline" way out in their favor, then declare anything to the right of that baseline to be "compromise", even though taxes and spending increase under their "compromise". It's like me stealing your wallet and then offering to split its contents with you.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:44PM
But you still may not be as bad as Obama when it comes to lying about deficits. After all, Obama is a guy who spent years trying to account for TARP thusly:
1. $750 billion in spending under Bush in 2008
2. $750 billion in revenue under Obama in 2009
What actually happened was that TARP authorized a transfer of $750 billion to the treasury, which loaned out $400 billion of it, and within a year, nearly all of the $400 billion had been repaid to the treasury, which transferred all money, unloaned and loan repayments, back to the general fund.
So even though only $400 billion was loaned out and repaid, Obama tried to generate a $1.5 swing in relative deficits out of it. $800 billion of that was dishonest accounting of a loan and repayment, and $700 billion was never anything more than moving money between accounts.
Counting either operation as Obama did would get a corporate accountant arrested.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 12:46PM
JD, I'm in complete agreement with you about Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan.
And no, Bush did not have to start the wars.
And I'm not blaming Bush entirely for the meltdown. But the recession is definitely not Obama's fault for sure. Republicans dropped the ball. They should have seen the crises coming, but they nothing. Why? Because their whole philosophy is not to interfere with Wall Street. Don't regulate, don't monitor it....just do nothing. In fact, they are doing it again. They don't want to even fund the Dodd-Frank provisions, nor get these agencies staffed.
And the Republican offer is so radical and far off in right field, it literally can be described as "Fuck the Poor and Old, and don't fix revenues or military spending at all."
I'm sure many of you have family members on Social Security and Medicare. Be careful what you wish for.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:05PM
I have never said that Obama caused something that happened before he took office. His ideology did, but not him personally. He is, however, making things worse.
But how can you completely forget the Republican efforts to rein in the mortgage market in 2003-2004? Democrats quashed it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09.....e-mae.html
This was big news at the time, and I followed it. Unfortunately, it's now another common example of Democrats telling me that something that I remember never happened.
I have family members on SS and Medicare. I know far more people (including them) suffering from your economic policies.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 1:20PM
No, they are actually surviving on SS and Medicare, and hurt by conservative policies of the last 30 years. Get it straight.
You guys always go on about Fannie & Freddie. It's NOT the whole story. Damn, how often does this have to be explained to you?
What about Goldman Sachs, what about Bear Stearns, what about Citiback, what about AIG, what about Wells Fargo, what about Bank of America, what about credit default swaps, and the whole host of derivatives that were worth 60 trillion, what about CountryWide, what about Moodys? And most of all, what about commercial real estate, not residential?
Fannie and Freddie? Are you serious? They account for less than 5% of the meltdown.
Sorry JD. Your boys f*cked up. They were in charge of monitoring the financial institutions and they FAILED!!! Because they are a bunch of free market (read corporate power) ideologues.
This thinking all comes from you right wingers. Period. If liberals in America had had their way, we would have had a banking system like Canada, you know, the one that didn't crash. Get it?
There were no major financial industry crises between the Great Depression and the Savings and Loan crisis. Why because liberals were calling the shots on regulation up until the late 70s. Once you conservatives got involved, you fucked it all up.
Understand?
Probably not, because you are dense.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:34PM
Again you demonstrate that you don't understand what I'm saying.
You think that saying that big banks made bad loans proves me wrong, but it doesn't. It's exactly what I said happened. You just got the "why" wrong. I keep explaining how regulators' role in determining what everyone considers safe influenced lending regardless of whether specific loans were actually sold to Fannie, but you keep acting as though saying "debt that Fannie didn't hold went bad" proves me wrong. It doesn't!
Ratings agencies let themselves by guided by the Fed's "free" legwork. And given that the government bailed everyone out, it seems that they were right to do so!
You're so invested in the notion that conservatives are to blame if anything goes wrong in "business". Or at least, whenever you want them to be to blame. You have yet to demonstrate comprehension of what I'm actually saying.
And you counter with "correlation equals causation", and by conveniently ignoring the economic disaster that Leftists left for Reagan. And you declare that the Right controlled the last 30 years, even though the country has moved Left over that time!
Did you even read my NYT link?
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 1:47PM
Yes, I know about Fannie and Freddie. I agree they were part of the financial crisis. Like I said, about 5% of it.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:54PM
That Fannie held 5% of bad debt does not mean that government had zero responsibility for the other 95%.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:13PM
I'll tell you about the recession again, but I know you'll continue to ignore. Not counter; ignore.
Let's start with this:
http://www.boston.com/bostongl.....al_fiasco/
The simple fact is that no regulation prevented the issuing of subprime debt before. Banks just didn't issue it because it was stupid to issue it. You couldn't sell it to anyone. If you issued it, you owned it, and you ate the losses.
What changed?
Regulatory pressure to loan to poor and minorities.
Bad credit? No income? No problem. That's what the government said. It didn't just say such loans were ok; it de facto ordered banks to make them. Fannie had a mandate to buy them, and even to not buy other loans if it didn't get enough "poor and minority" loans.
What about people who bought securitized debt? Why didn't they scrutinize what they bought?
Because government took over that game. It established standards and did the legwork such that it was foolish for investors to do their own legwork (which cost money). Also, as long as debt could be sold to Fannie, why wouldn't people consider it safe?
All of this preceded Bush, who just "inherited a mess".
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 1:38PM
You gave me a link to one columnist.
Here, how about this. Read the wiki page.
I endorse all of the more than 200 sources it has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....is_of_2007–2008
Please read.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:50PM
I do not dispute the facts on that page, nor do any of them counter my points. I do dispute the article's quotes from left-wing politicians misplacing blame, but those are not facts or evidence.
Again, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. Yes, there was predatory lending. Yes, there was bad behavior. But the CAUSE was a regulatory framework that allowed and encouraged it, per directives that date back decades, but really grew in the mid-1990s. Without these causes, no "greedy" person could have profited from these practices, because no one would have bought the debt they issued!
I'm open to counter-arguments, but you're not making any. You're just not. You're demonstrating that you don't understand what I'm saying.
I linked to the columnist to avoid typing all those words myself.
BTW, yesterday you cited the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 as an example of egregious "deregulation". This was nothing more than an expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, which you people always insist wasn't to blame. Care to elaborate?
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 1:57PM
Oh really. You agree with the conclusions?
So I'm trying to find the part where it says that Fannie and Freddie, or the Community Reinvestment were the root cause of the financial crisis. Oh yes, it's not there.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 2:05PM
I said I agree with the facts on the page. You turned that into a different statement. Why?
The facts on the page are simple facts, not hows or whys. As I said, to the extent that wikipedia (what a source!) tries to push them, I disagree.
And again, the column I linked to is not my source. It just just a decent statement of my points. Linking to it saved me from writing them out.
Pecos Pete| 3.19.13 @ 1:41PM
JD: Well said. But, ol' Arnie ain't having none of it. He's stuck on stupid.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 1:53PM
He said nothing more than the smoke and mirrors that are displayed everyday on FAUX news and from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh and Beck and company.
There is not complete study of the financial crisis that lays complete blame on 'da gubment' helping some people get a few houses.
And yes, I'm done with this discussion, because JD has about 2 years worth of reading to do to catch up.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:56PM
There's a book by Thomas Sowell with about 70 pages of data citations. And many other sources. You are the one who has catching up to do.
But if you can't comprehend my posts here, I wonder what reading a book will help.
Try this: Tell me why nobody issued and sold subprime debt in 1985.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 2:07PM
Oh really, you know that for a fact?
Please, show me the source that tells the day that banks made their first sub-prime loan. I'm guessing it probably dates back to around the time banking started. But if it's 1985, then show me the link. Then we'll proceed.
"In finance, subprime lending (also referred to as near-prime, non-prime, and second-chance lending) means making loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule. These loans are characterized by higher interest rates and less favorable terms in order to compensate for higher credit risk."
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 2:15PM
And Thomas Sowell wrote a book? Wow. Good for him. Because there's about 100 other books on the financial crises that have a conclusion much closer to mine.....but whatever....I know what you guys say to that----Liberal media.
Right.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 2:34PM
Millions of people once thought the earth was flat. Their consensus didn't make them right.
You can't counter my position, which counters yours. Nor can anyone else on your side. That is evidence stronger than "consensus".
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 2:38PM
JD, did your argument not get off the ground?
Come on....let me read about the FIRST evil sub prime loan caused by evil government that was the direct cause of the Great Recession.
Sorry buddy, great discussion.....but your argument...weak tea.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 2:40PM
I'm not saying they started in 1985. However, YOU are saying that there was a time when regulators protected us, and that Republicans destroyed this protection. I want you to tell me how that worked back in the day. If your narrative is true, you should be able to answer.
You can't, because it was never true. There was never regulatory protection from the issue or sale of bad debt. The closest thing was government lending standards, which private lenders adopted, but those were relaxed by liberals in the name of helping the poor. It wasn't "deregulation!"
What was lacking in the past was the opportunity to profit by creating and selling bad debt. That opportunity was created by our government, primarily HUD and Barney Frank. That's what I've been saying all along. They created the opportunity to make gobs of money by issuing and selling bad debt. It didn't exist without them.
That's the key to all of this.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 4:19PM
Barney Frank people!!! That asshole brought down the economies of the USA and most of the Western world. Holy shit! And he did that so slick like...
That dude is amazing!!
Seriously JD? You might want to rethink your theory, it's got a few gaping holes.....about 10 banks, 40 trillion dollars in swaps, a few hundred thousand banker bonuses...wide.
YEA for capitalism!!!
JD| 3.19.13 @ 4:57PM
Again, total failure to comprehend.
The size and scope of the problem don't prove me wrong. That bankers got rich doesn't prove me wrong. That some bankers were unethical doesn't prove me wrong.
That you think those things prove me wrong proves that you don't understand what I'm saying.
And I don't think you want to.
Self-interest will always exist. The question is where it leads. Conservatives highly prioritize ensuring that self-interest finds that the easiest avenues to self-advancement are honest, ethical ones. Leftism does not consider this factor, and happily creates systems that can be scammed and abused. What results is natural and obvious, unless ideology requires you to be blind.
In a free market, no one would buy debt without scrutinizing it themselves. Bad debt would be hard to sell, and thus unlikely to be issued. But we did not have a free market. Government created tremendous incentives to issue and buy bad debt in the name of "home ownership". We see the results.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 5:00PM
You have no trouble saying Bush ruined everything, but when it's Frank, suddenly it's too much for one man?
I challenged you to explain how regulators of the past prevented the housing bubble, up until they "stopped". I used 1985, but pick whatever year you like. Quit evading.
You've made all manner of (bad) attempts to poke holes in what I've said. It's time you offered one shred of evidence for your own theory. "Lots of bad debt" is evidence that there was a problem, but not evidence of what caused it. The only "evidence" you've offered is your vaunted "consensus" - the say-so of the other members of the Leftist echo chamber.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 5:40PM
Yea, Bush was president, you know the executive branch in charge of oversight, with a lock step Republican Party in control of Congress, with also oversight powers, remember?
Barney Frank was a House member. Of the minority party.
But as to your comments, they are hilarious. I don't know what world you are living in. My comments inserted.
"Conservatives highly prioritize ensuring that self-interest finds that the easiest avenues to self-advancement are honest, ethical ones. (I doubt this, need I remind you of all the conservatives convicted of fraud.) Leftism does not consider this factor, and happily creates systems that can be scammed and abused. (For sure, the conservatives have never created anything that was ever abused. NOT. Harding by the way, Halliburton, Cheney, Enron and those private market conservatives...whatever, they were liberals, I understand) What results is natural and obvious, unless ideology requires you to be blind. (So you are saying business men are naturally corrupt, and the free market corruption is natural. Ok, understood. No disagreement.) (By the way, there is a conservative that is frequently posting ways for you to make money on google on this website. I swear it's not scam! He's just doing what's natural.)
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 5:45PM
"In a free market, no one would buy debt without scrutinizing it themselves (not unless that business figured out business model to sell it off and not be responsible for it). Bad debt would be hard to sell, and thus unlikely to be issued(ugh, um....credit default swaps, CDOs, made in the private sector.) But we did not have a free market (Right!! We had communism!! Wait, what?) Government created tremendous incentives to issue and buy bad debt in the name of "home ownership". "(hmmm, you are missing a link here, you have to establish how those incentives actually force the hand and pen of all the banking managers, and that these loans were the majority of the financial loses, which you can't, and if they are going to act evil naturally, then you are making an argument for determined oversight and regulation. THANK YOU!...and, like I have been saying, you are ignoring ALL the other factors and causes of the Great Recession)
Back to square one JD. You know, the reason why I don't understand you; it's because your theory is a bit crazy and not grounded in reality. I think YOU are the ideologue.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 5:57PM
So sad. Yet again you declare, as though it were definitional, that "rich guy doing bad thing" is conservative just because he was a rich guy. That he believed in free markets even as he got rich with anti-free market tactics.
You speak of an environment where there was tremendous money to be made my making loans to poor people, and Leftists all around were telling lenders how noble it would be to do so, and you consider it unethical for lenders to have then done so. You blame solely the lenders, then accuse me of "ignoring all other factors". Comical.
I explained how people came to think bad debt was safe to buy - government backing. You demonstrate inability to comprehend this.
Barney Frank ran HUD. HUD created the policies that caused the problems. The connection is simple enough. One of the biggest problems with our present system is the power concentrated in regulatory agencies, and the lack of understanding of the implications.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 6:12PM
Government backed loans were less than 5% of the all the bad finances. Period.
Your theory falls apart.
You repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
End. I win.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 6:50PM
False. Government-OWNED loans were 5%. Government backing - that is, conforming to standards set by government, which would qualify them to be bought by government if someone sold them to government - applied to virtually all of it. That is why private parties bought it - the belief that conforming to the standards of the US government meant that it must be safe.
You win only in your own mind, which allows you to simply ignore half of what I write in order to make the other half sound absurd.
And it is you who think that mere repeating creates truth, as your narrative has never been supported by any evidence other than you people's say-so.
This is simple:
If you are right, and if de-regulation allowed the housing bubble to happen, then you should be able to point me to the regulations and explain how things that they used to prevent were allowed to happen.
You have repeatedly refused to attempt this.
On my side, there are mountains of examples of changes in loan guidelines and regulations designed to encourage lending to poor and minorities. Not only did these create opportunity to make money; they also let people feel good about themselves by doing so. Of course people went along. What doesn't make sense is your insistence that these changes bear no blame whatsoever, simply because to allow otherwise threatens your message!
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 7:24PM
JD. WTF does this mean? Please explain:
"Government backing - that is, conforming to standards set by government, which would qualify them to be bought by government if someone sold them to government - applied to virtually all of it."
So, you mean, you think all the banks thought that the government was going to buy ALL their bad mortgages, and this explains the banks chopping up the mortgages and selling them across continents with bunk insurance? Seriously, what are you smoking, and where the hell did you hear such a ridiculous theory?
I still win by the way.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 7:42PM
Hey JD, I found a link regarding your little far fetched theory. Yea, businessweek.com blows it out of the water.
http://www.businessweek.com/th.....risis.html
"Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks."
"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness."
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 8:32PM
Yea, and your theory in the bigger picture:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/G.....etail.html
"the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans – a proxy for subprime loans – had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."
JD| 3.20.13 @ 1:10AM
I never said that the CRA was at the root of it. I merely called you out for citing a "deregulation" that was actually the implementation of the CRA.
As I've said in other conversations, congress doesn't run America anymore. Regulators do. They don't have legislation that you can cite, which creates wonderful deniability for Democrats.
Arnie| 3.20.13 @ 7:19AM
Let's go over the facts JD.
1. Up until about 2003-2004 sub-prime mortgages had only been about 10% of the market, and only about that same percentage of Fannie and Freddie. And through their whole history they had performed well. They were subject to the CRA regulations and actually performed quite well in the 90s.
2. In 2004, when Bush was president and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and no Democrat, including Barney Frank, was in charge of any committee - HUD, it was ran by Republican appointees Mel Martinez, and Alphonso Jackson during the early 00s. (I am not saying these guys are guilty of anything, just pointing out Barney Frank was not in charge.)
3. Deregulation and unenforcement of regulations: In addition to other deregulation passed in the previous 25 years, in 2004 at the behest of the Bush administration, the securities and exchange commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis. Also, at the behest of the Bush administration, the regulations of the CRA were not to be followed, or simply observed less, and influenced to different state laws.
Arnie| 3.20.13 @ 7:26AM
4. What do we see from 2004 to 2007? Subprime mortgages spikes. They became about 50% of what Fannie and Freddie (partly private by the way) owned. But guess what, they spiked in the private sector too. And in fact, the mortgages that fell under regulation of CRA, had a far LESS failure rate, than those, in the private sector, made by independent mortgage contractors, and under no influence by the government to sell a house to poor people!!! In fact, those mortgages, directed by HUD, regulated by CRA, AND owned by Fannie and Freddie and that went bad....yea, they account for less than 1-2% of all the bad mortgages!!!!! And had a better success rate than what was seen on the private sector owned ones.
5. The combination, of relaxed regulation, deregulation, and a simple attitude not to enforce regulations IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR allowed lenders to make lots of bad sub-prime loans. Why were they doing this? Because Wall Street, came up with ways to hide debt, cut it up, sell it, and then sell insurance on it, and sell that too, and bet on all of it. The responsibility of the lender was decoupled from the mortgage itself. And to top it off, pay structure at the banks encouraged this behavior and business model. The private market came up with this ALL BY ITSELF!
Arnie| 3.20.13 @ 7:29AM
6. All of this, has nothing to say about the other bad mortgages. From all the banks and lenders, the vast majority of bad mortgages were not subprime, or the result of some poor guy getting a mortgage through HUD or the CRA. ALSO, this says nothing about the huge commercial real estate market (Factory space, office space, etc..) that went bust too. Nor does it consider all the other financial instruments, created on Wall Street to scam for and skim money as best they could. It does not include the huge realm of shadow banking that had been created that was in now way influenced or regulated by the government.
So in the end, it was pure greed and profit seeking that caused the crisis. Simple capitalism baby.
JD, you got beat straight and simple. Totally debunked. Your theory is complete bullshit. I don't want to hear it again. Next time you bring, I will ridicule you like a child.
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 3:02PM
Purpie/arnie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
He enjoys calling women here "HONEY"
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purpie/arnie is a racist and misogynist.
Purp-arnie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:38PM
And Ross's point can't be overstated - the CBO's "static analysis" is God's gift to Democrats - a constant source of misleading claims.
Even Democrats admit that "if you tax something, you get less of it." Hence sin taxes like those on cigarettes. Yet they decide this isn't true when it comes to taxing income. Why? Blind ideology.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:51PM
Arnie,
The war spending does not add to baseline, permanent spending.
Obama's spending does.
Furthermore, the spending that Obamacare will engender has not even begun.
More on Bush tax cuts and deficit here:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/.....ys-deficit
I would also note that what a tax cut does is allow a person to keep more of his or her own money. You seem to think that the results of my work belong first to the government, and then only due to their generosity is there some left for me.
That is a world view that I consider evil, and I do not use that word as hyperbole.
JD| 3.20.13 @ 1:11AM
It is greed, the root of all evil. Even Democrats know that, which is why they work so hard to attribute greed to us.
Stan Redmond| 3.19.13 @ 1:55PM
As usual. Government created the problems so Arnie's solution is to have even more bigger expensive government.
It's always the same. REAGAN SPENT TRILLIONS. HW BUSH SPENT TRILLIONS. Clinton saved the universe with mythical surpluses (that didn't exist). GW BUSH SPENT TRILLIONS.
Obama is good and fair to all people and spent trillions on an unimaginable scale bailing out his cronies, failed banks, failed companies, BUT, it's OK because it's racist to bring it up. FORWARD!
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 6:05PM
"In 2010, over 70 percent of all federal spending went to dependence-creating programs.[13] It went to subsidize the living expenses of over 128.8 million individuals in the U.S. in 2011, which was more than 41 percent of the U.S. population. When the percentage of those living in a household where at least one person is subsidized is calculated, the number tops 49 percent. The problem is too much government subsidizing, and too much transfer of wealth from taxpayers to those who pay fewer and fewer taxes. After all, government does not create wealth by spreading it around. "
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....t-programs
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 8:35AM
Now, that we have established how we got here, what do we do? And Ross, you failed to mention the other side of balancing a budget - tax revenue.
If the U.S. raised tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, say just those earning 5 million or more per year by say 40% (this is less than .1% of the population), plus a 40-80% cut in the defense budget. End all tax breaks and deductions for corporations, and end all deductions for those making more than 1 million per year. Include price controls of drugs and equipment that are purchased through Medicaid and Medicare.
Within 10 years, the debt would be gone.
And this way, you don't raise taxes on 99.9% of the population. And we raise taxes on all those filthy rich Senators, lobbyists, hedge fund managers, George Soros, William Bennet, Hollywood celebrities, high paid sports stars...etc.
It's that simple.
So would you guys prefer this, or still prefer to have your taxes raised and your social security and Medicare cut?
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 9:27AM
arnie, anyone who argues for price controls is so economically ignorant as to not be worth spending a lot of time debating.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 9:40AM
Ok, I don't agree. But if you want Medicare to pay out more than it should....fine.
Take it out.
What about all the other things I mentioned?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 11:14AM
This is what Arnie forgot to say: "Okay Ross, I agree. That whole Price Controls thing, was Stupid.
But, what about all the other Stupid Crap I say!
What about Higher Taxes and More Free Stuff?
What about Taxing and Regulating Corporations right outta the Country?
We need to increase the number of Medicare/Medicaide Elligable, and CUT the amount of money that goes to those Doctors, so they'll stop seeing Medicare Patients, and go back to Cutting Off Hands and Feet.
The Government needs to Gut The Military, and use that Money to Buy Up all of the Gun Ammunition in the World, like they're already doing.
We need to let All of the Criminals outta Jail, not just the Illegal ones.
And, we should put Everyone on Unemployment, because that's the Best Stimulus that you can get.
How about that?"
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 11:28AM
TLP, you are not a serious person. Just shut the fuck up you dumb man. You can't even read what I wrote.
God, you write like an 8 year old. Retard.
Here's an idea. How about you actually try to debate my specific points instead of wondering into nonsense-ville? Can you do that? Or are you some retard that freaks out with some auto-response when you hear taxes and starts having conniption fits?
The only taxes I mentioned were on the top .1%. These don't even affect you.....MORON.
YOU. ARE. STUPID.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:49PM
I don't agree with TLP's style, but I understand it.
He's sick of you. You and many like you. He's had all the conversations before, and he knows that having them again won't achieve anything. Though you don't hold a candle to Jack London when it comes to losing an argument, then making the same claim the next day in the hope that the person who debunked you yesterday won't be around, the same general futility is felt.
So TLP skips to the end of the conversation, and does so in ways intended to amuse... himself, as much as anyone.
Oh, and taxes on the top .1% do affect us. It's a wonder how you people are so quick to tell us that everything we have comes indirectly from other people, such that we always owe "society", but when you propose to tax others, we're supposed to blindly vote for it if we're not the one's being taxes.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:38PM
Exactly, JD.
Mr. I hate Retarded People thinks that by Punishing the Rich,there won't be any Unintended Consequences. Because, everybody knows that Liberal Policies NEVER have any Unintended Consequences. Just ask The Black Community.
After all, it's not like they can pick up and move someplace else. It's not like they Spend lots of Money buying Cars and Houses, and Dinners at the Restaurants. They don't buy Clothes and Jewelry, and Boats, and Airplanes. Let'em go. Who cares about all the jobs that will be lost in all of those Industries, and all of the Sales Taxes. Just ask Arnie's Boyfriend, in France. He'll tell ya.
He doesn't care that, by Throttling American Corporations, they'll up and leave for Greener Pastures in Asia, taking all of those Jobs, as well as all of the Taxes they pay, with them.
He doesn't care about all off the Lost Charitable Contributions they make, every year.
"GOOD RIDDANCE! THAT'LL SHOW'EM!"
He's an Idiot, who lives with his Mom, and spends most of his time typing his Inanities on his Keyboard, until it's time to peek at his Mom in the Shower.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 2:43PM
You screwed up, TLP.
You mentioned "lost charitable contributions."
You should know by now that a good Leftist will seize on that one line, expound on how "tiny" a percentage of the "greedy evil" rich's tax savings are likely to go to charity, and declare victory, having ignored everything else you wrote.
You have to be more careful to not enable them to dodge your arguments. Not that that's easy...
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 4:08PM
I screwed up?
Who do you THINK makes all of those Multi-Million $ Charitable Contributions?
The Poor?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 4:10PM
And, I'm not talking about their Tax Savings.
I'm talking about how much Charities will Lose, when these guys hop on a Plane, and LEAVE for Singapore.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 4:51PM
You honestly think a Leftist would take it that way?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 5:43PM
Probably not.
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 3:56PM
Troll alert. purpie trolling as arnie.
GobBluthe| 3.19.13 @ 11:38AM
Raising the TOP tax rate to 80% wont collect any additional revenues. While I support cutting defense a 40-80% cut is irresponsible and idiotic.
I also challenge to show that your proposals would result in annual surpluses of $1.6t, because that is what youre saying.
Youre entire post is a have your cake and eat it too child-like post. You want to eliminate the debt? You cant shield the middle class. A 20% VAT to start.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:50PM
Arnie has several times written proposals to eliminate the deficit, and each time, his proposals wouldn't come close to doing it. I liked the one last week - he proposed a new set of tax brackets that would have amounted to a spike in taxes on the poor and a cut for many rich people. But he didn't know it! I called him on it, but he never responded.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:52PM
Evidently, Mr. Wonderful doesn't consider Defence Jobs to be Real Jobs, so who needs'em. Or, why people put their Money in The Cayman Islands.
And, they're not a Child-Like posts.
That's an Insult to Children, everywhere.
Grzmlyk| 3.19.13 @ 1:28PM
Price controls! If only they'd thought of that in the old Soviet Union - oh, wait. They did. Hmm. No bread on the shelves because bread cost 20 rubles to make but it had to be sold at 18 rubles. Wonder why it didn't work?
Guess there wasn't a bright liberal around from the Ivy League, or one of his boot-lickers like Arnie, to stand by and utter the magic Progressive incantation, "Abracadabra, when elites wish it, it is so!"
That would have filled those shelves with bread loaves as far as the eye could see.
Could you tell me which page in Mao's Little Red Book the bit about price controls is? My copy is so dog-eared and faded, I can't seem to find it.
Thanks, Arnie. You've reminded us all how cheap delusion is. You are about to learn how costly it is when delusion is the basis for policy.
Oh wait - as a Party Apparatchik, you'll be exempt from living in the world you'll force others to live in at the point of a gun (funny how guns are good as long as they're in the hands of the state and pointed at the citizens).
Never mind. Enjoy your stolen loot!
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 1:56PM
Obviously, Arnie is a Huge Fan of Richard Nixon, who was the last President to institute Wage and Price Controls.
And, we all know how that turned out.
And, by "We all know"?
I mean: Everyone but Dumbass.
R Martin| 3.19.13 @ 2:51PM
If I may expand a bit. Nixon’s price controls were the handiwork of his Economic Council president, Herbert Stein. Yes, that Stein, the father of Ben “let’s raise taxes” Stein who often shares his thoughts on alluring females with us. As mentioned, controls did not work and the elder Mr. Stein later admitted in his writings (particularly his book, “On the Other Hand”) that he and the Council simply did not know what to do.
Now, Herbert Stein was a gentleman and a scholar of such magnitude that the poster to whom this string of derision is directed would not qualify to carry his luggage. Accordingly, any comments on price controls or other issues of economics by that poster are best ignored.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 4:13PM
You know that I have a Man Crush on you, Little Rickey, but The Buck Stops with the President.
At least, it used to.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 3:02PM
Leftists vaguely remember badness under Nixon, but he had an R by his name, so they declare that it was all conservatives' fault.
Never mind that JFK was more conservative than Nixon.
Grzmlyk| 3.19.13 @ 3:43PM
True dat.
Nixon actually suffered from classic liberal disease: LOVE ME LOVE ME LOVE ME!
And so he allowed his otherwise formidable brain to acquiesce to all sorts of idiocy, like the EPA and OSHA, taking America off the gold standard, global warming shenanigans, SCOTUS appointments Blackmun, Burger, Powell, Roe v. Wade, China.
Watergate was the least of his insults to America.
Grzmlyk| 3.19.13 @ 3:16PM
I thought about raising the specter of Nixon. DISASTER.
It's very simple: Price controls always lead to shortages and, to the extent they can be enforced (however briefly), they are enforced at the point of a gun. There are no exceptions. It's kind of basic economics.
Let's see how amenable good old Arnie is to price controls on what HE produces. Once inflation is REALLY untethered, he will of course find an exception for himself and his fellow travelers, but, like all insensate blocks of liberal wood, he will continue to insist that doctors only charge $25 for a $3,000 procedure.
If you're dumb enough to think that's a good deal, you're probably too stupid to study medicine.
Sorry, R Martin - it's good that Stein recognized his folly; but you have to question the extent to which liberal foolish infected his common sense, for there are countless examples throughout history - ancient Rome, China, Revolutionary France, America in WWI, WWII just for starters - that price controls never work, and it's not exactly rocket science to understand why. Stein should be forever excoriated for such idiocy.
Also, his groveling son buys into the idea that we can tax our way to prosperity. I don't know much about Herb, but, IMHO, Ben is an insufferable gasbag with a terminal case of white guilt.
A pox on the whole family.
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 4:03PM
FDR imposed wage controls during WWII. The unions and companies then negotiated benefits, primarily health insurance, which was not classified as a wage. As a result the employer still paid but paid for health insurance, and this became a standard item for negotiations in labor contracts. Non union employers then followed to offer their employees health insurance.
While there were some employers that offered health insurance before FDR, it increased after his wage controls.
Now the FEDS will take it over thru Obamacare and eventually have a single payor, the US government.
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 4:06PM
continued:
The bottom line is that individuals always expected someone else to pay for their health insurance and care, and did not exercise the scrutiny over medical costs that they would have if they paid for it.
The law of unintended consequences.
Grzmlyk| 3.19.13 @ 4:25PM
Yes, FDR's wage controls continue to wreak havoc today thanks to Americans' misconception that it is the employer's responsibility to provide health insurance. An un-virtuous circle then ensues: Employees never see the true costs of health care and they negotiate ever more lavish plans that cover more and more things, which is tolerated by a system in which doctors prescribe redundant and unnecessary tests and procedures to insulate them from malpractice suits; the tort lawyers feed at the trough of frivolous lawsuits and drive the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof; the cost of health care continues to rise as a result, and, meanwhile, as health care continues to comprise an ever-larger portion of an employee's compensation, the employee feels tethered to a job he or she doesn't necessarily want to keep.
There are other factors involved, of course, such as the universal demonization of insurance companies and the misunderstanding among consumers about what insurance is (i.e., a risk pool and not a sugar daddy).
The more people you have to cover for more and more issues, the more expensive health care becomes. When it's an unseen third party signing the checks, you don't care how much it costs. And now that government's going to be picking up the tab, people still think that a) Uncle Sam will reduce America's health care costs; and b) that rationing will not occur.
Both are 100% wrong.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 4:50PM
Ironically, many Democrats now argue that employer-provided health care, a vehicle they created with their policies under FDR, is bad and should be replaced by government health care. It was only the existence of employer-provided "insurance" that created the notion that such a thing should even exist!
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 4:57PM
JD
We were writing the same idea at the same time!!
CJW| 3.19.13 @ 4:55PM
We have come full cirle. FDR created the problem by having someone else pay for your health insurance. Now Obma has completed the circle by eventually having the feds, courtesy of taxpayers, pay for your health care costs.
Imagine if unions in 1941 negotiated auto insurance and home insurance as a benefit instead of health insurance. How careful would a driver be to keep his insurance low, and to select the appropriate coverage, if someone else paid for your auto insurance?
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 6:11PM
This is how we got there:
"In 2010, over 70 percent of all federal spending went to dependence-creating programs.[13] It went to subsidize the living expenses of over 128.8 million individuals in the U.S. in 2011, which was more than 41 percent of the U.S. population. When the percentage of those living in a household where at least one person is subsidized is calculated, the number tops 49 percent. The problem is too much government subsidizing, and too much transfer of wealth from taxpayers to those who pay fewer and fewer taxes. After all, government does not create wealth by spreading it around. "
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....t-programs
How we get out: Cut all welfare programs 10% a year from the year before with a phase out to zero in 18 years. Stop subsidizing illegitimacy and destructive behavior.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:52PM
Price controls:
http://mises.org/daily/1962
crankitup| 3.19.13 @ 9:17AM
This is the famous economic theory now being put in place by obamao and his regime, it's called the Alfred E. Newman Principle. It has been in place since the first obama jdingo term it allows the government and it's priviliged class of elites, you know ,buffet,soros,bloomberg,corzine, to name a few to suck the wealth of this nation dry. bernanke,krugman and maxine waters are the experts who are implementing the what me worry theory in the trenches, timmy geitner is now starting his own branch at H&R Block but at this point what does it matter. Hey !! you didn't build that. It's all Greek to me or is that geek ?
Russel| 3.19.13 @ 9:36AM
You left out the two most important players - pelosi and reid . One of them has boner's balls in their purse . And as long as I'm here , thanks Ross for column's that don't whine on daily, inexorably pessimistic like some posters here .
crankitup| 3.19.13 @ 9:19AM
you spelled geek wrong!
Derek Leaberry| 3.19.13 @ 9:24AM
Lawrence Kudlow on WMAL(Washington) was downplaying the debt just half and hour ago, chortling that bond yields were the lowest of all times. Kudlow isn't particularly honest with his assessments, however. He's mad about growth, no matter how growth is caused. Kudlow doesn't acknowledge that Fed manipulation not only keeps Wall Street humming but that the Fed artificially keeps interest rates low. Oddly, Kudlow, Bernanke, Obama and Boehner are all on the same page. The DC Big Barbeque will continue until the vile party ends in a terrible hangover.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 9:28AM
Derek,
In Kudlow's defense, growth is a very powerful cure for economic ailments. With decent growth, even just a modest cutback in the rate of growth of gov't spending would still allow the budget to be balanced.
That said, I don't like focusing too much on balance or deficits because the true measure of the burden of government is its spending, not the deficit.
Derek Leaberry| 3.19.13 @ 9:55AM
I agree. I believe most federal government spending is immoral and un-American. The deficit is important; the high spending is more important. But my position is a minority position within the country.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 10:35AM
...the true measure of the burden of government is its spending, not the deficit.
Ross,
I disagree...The true measure of government burden, is DEBT and it's evil progeny, monthly interest payments...which as we all know, is money flushed down the toilet. Assuming they would be Constituional in the first place, how many feel-good, liberal programs could be funded with the amount of cash we are currently using to pay the monthly vig on the debt?
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 10:42AM
Agreed.
Slash military spending. Let everyone collect their earned benefits. Raise taxes on the wealthiest people substantially. I'm talking only .1% of the population.
Cut out all the tax breaks for corporations and people earning more than 1 million per year and pay off the debt.
Interest payments are the enemy.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 10:50AM
Let me fix your post to something that is Constitutional and would actually work:
1. Eliminate all Federal spending on any agency or program not tied to a constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal government
2. Eliminate waste in the remaining programs/departments.
3. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with two other taxes: a) Excise/Use taxes in order to fund things such as roads & airports and a "head" tax to cover stuff that protects us all, such as the military, state department...federal courts etc. Everyone...to include kids, pays the exact same amount. As a head of household, you pay for yourself, your wife & your kids.
4. If you want to have a war over 90-days long, then it must be separately funded, again, with a special tax that everyone pays...that way we aren't so anxious to meddle in other folks' affairs.
5. Eliminate corporate income taxes entirely....they will still pay "use" taxes on fuel and other stuff, just like everyone else.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 11:17AM
Do we have a problem, Colonel?
That's two in a row that you sat out.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 11:30AM
Tim,
No Sir. I'm still your most ardent fan. I've had a hectic and odd schedule lately....I do have an entry I've been "grooming," but I'm waiting for the right week to submit it.
Regards,
Mike
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 11:18AM
Mike,
First of all, with all due respect, I really like some of your points. Others not.
1. This is simply debatable. If you want the literal powers enumerated by the Constitution, only a military (but no Pentagon, and all other forms of the national security state) and the Post Office are mentioned. Whatever, we could debate to the end of time which agencies are constitutional.
2. Of course.
3. This would mean, that guys like you and I would pay a larger percentage of our income on taxes than a guy making 100 million a year. It's extremely regressive, meaning that the tax burden is shifted to the poor and middle class. And essentially, unless you are talking about making tolls everywhere, most of the taxes for infrastructure come from the states and sales taxes anyhow. Plus this is a use tax....how do you start paying for a road that doesn't already exist?
4. That is a brilliant idea.
5. hmmm, not a bad idea. I just think that corporations would have way more power to pay this than say a small business. Now that's not much different than the situation today. I say, make all businesses under 20-50 employees pay no taxes. Over that they should pay quite a bit. This will encourage more entrepreneurs to start their own businesses and create more competition versus corporate dominated markets.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 11:37AM
3. So what? Taxes are payment for services rendered. government is a service...pure and simple. Pay for what you use (fuel taxes) and pay "head tax" for "general protection (military) for the other stuff. My life is worth the same as anyone else's correct? I am talking Federal taxes here...not state...that's a different discussion. Regarding the "regressive" argument....a) See above regarding same payment for same service & b) If you want to exempt some folks below a certain income level...fine...they don't get to vote.
5. Read what I wrote....corporations, both big and small, would pay according to their "use" via fuel taxes and other infrastructure that they actually use...but...no corporations would pay income tax. In that paradigm, neither size has any special advantage.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 11:46AM
3. Mike, limiting the vote to only certain segments of the population based on income (or other financial means) takes us back to the early 1800s when only men of property were allowed to vote. That's hardly a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
5. I see. Fair enough.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 11:51AM
Arnie,
3. Again (not meaning to be snarky) but...so what?
Here is the so what....My personal belief is that the 16th and17th Amendments have brought a lot of harm to our system of governance. Here is the fundamental question (taking the prohibition of a poll tax off the table for the purposes of discussion)....How is it right moral and proper for those who do not contribute to the kitty (Federal Taxes) to be allowed to help decide how that money should be spent and what the tax rate should be for those who are paying. Again...I am only speaking of Federal (general fund) taxes....Not State sales tax or FICA or Medicare...which I consider separate issues.
Skin in the game is important...hence my point about a "war tax."
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:22PM
Thanks to the 16th Amendment, even those who think they're on the right now consider it "fair" for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income to the government.
This presumes "you didn't build that" - that all income is a gift from God, er, government, such that we owe our tithes.
A fair price for anything is to pay for value received. This includes taxes.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 12:25PM
Mike,
Seriously, did we have this discussion before??
Anyhow, the 16th and 17th amendments came about almost 100 years ago. The debt that we are discussing only started to become a problem about 30 years ago. Therefore, I don't see the correlation between the two. Please tell me what you think it is if there is one.
As for having skin in the game, I seriously doubt that there is one person in America that has/or will go their whole life never paying any income taxes. The problem with what you are saying is that the people who can decide the future of the country is limited at any given point. And from the history of the United States, what makes you think they wouldn't like to keep it that way? This was done for over our first 190 years (to differing degrees).
A system like that will become increasingly oppressive with the deciders always deciding to keep the others out. That is not a representative democracy. Where does it stop? What if someone in this world told you that you don't have the vote? I don't think you would appreciate that.
The income tax and voting for Senators came about through popular movements. They are the expression of the will of the people.
If you are not committed to that...well, I don't know what to say....You're living in the wrong century? (And really, I don't mean to be snarky either.)
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:55PM
It's foolish to declare, without evidence, that factors causing a problem can only exist at the time the problem is first seen. That's like saying that an old man with lung cancer couldn't possibly have gotten it from smoking, since he quit 30 years ago!
The changing mentalities regarding taxation and social welfare authored by those amendments took time to saturate our society, and the social programs that sprang from them took time to evolve into debt disasters. Anyone who understands conservatism could have told you this would happen from the start. And some did.
Government provides protection for everyone. Everyone should pay for it. Under fair taxation, no one who lives here could possibly pay nothing. Mike's argument doesn't require some to lose the vote as much as it requires them to start paying for it.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 10:52AM
And after the federal government does all of that, they will collect an extra $10-15 billion a year. Just enough to pay for Congress's supply of booze and hookers.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 10:59AM
Yep....But spending will go down by a huge amount. The false assumption that appears to be going around, is that most government spending is legal....The fact is, it isn't. There is no, repeat no constitutional basis for SNAP, PELL, Housing & Urban Development or whatever it's called now. Although I will be the first to admit there is waste in the Pentagon, it seems odd that a power/program specifically enumerated in the Constitution is taking the majority of the fiscal pain, while a clearly unconstitutional program, OBAMACARE isn't.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 12:59PM
Defense spending is less than the deficit, even though it's about the only spending we have that government actually should be doing. Yet it's all Democrats focus on.
They've even invented language to rationalize it. Enter the term "discretionary". Democrats understand that their spending is bad to the extent that they always enshrine it into law with formulas that exempt it from being drawn down in the budget process, lest it be (rightly) cut. They've left us in a state where the large majority of spending is managed by such formulas that can't be altered without expending a lot of political capital. They call such protected spending "non-discretionary". Spending not protected in this way is "discretionary". And they've rigged it so that the "discretionary" is all stuff that Leftists care about less than the "non-discretionary".
Then, whenever we talk about spending cuts, they stick the word "discretionary" into every sentence. They insist that we can only cut "discretionary" spending, not because that's what they prefer, but because, somehow, it's absurd to suggest otherwise. Another classic case of a Leftist trying to win an argument by avoiding it.
And the public has largely bought it.
Pecos Pete| 3.19.13 @ 1:55PM
Colonel & JD: Tis good to have intelligent discussion even in the face of Ol' Arnie's stupidity. There are many who agree with Ol' Arnie because they've never been taught economics ... or accounting. Your discussion above is educational and worthwhile. Thanks for the effort.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 4:54PM
Just being (to mix metaphors) a good wingman for my foxhole buddy.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 2:11PM
Defence Spending is MINISCULE compared to Vote For Democrats Entitlement Programs.
In 2012, Defence Spending was around $680 Billion, while Unemployment was $520 Billion.
Education Spending was $107.6 Billion.
So, in just two Programs, we spend more that we do on Defence.
Something that the Constitution Specifies, as opposed to all of the Vote For Democrats, that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
And there are HUNDREDS of such Unconstitutional Welfare Programs.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 2:17PM
I added wrong.
In just two Vote For Democrats Federal Programs, we spend almost as much as we do on the Defence of this Country.
And there are HUNDREDS of such Programs.
That's better.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 3:13PM
Source: http://useconomy.about.com/lib.....budget.pdf
FY13 spending:
Social Security - $820 billion
Medicare - $523 billion
Medicaid - $283 billion
All other "non-discretionary" programs - $666 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans.
These programs together spend 3.5 times as much as defense. Democrats try to keep them off the table for cuts, without debate, by rephrasing all calls for spending cuts as needs to cut "discretionary" spending. The result is that even tiny cuts like the sequester are made to seem severe, because only a small portion of the budget is eligible for cuts.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 6:26PM
At least we have money for the DHS's 5,000 armored vehicles and the other federal agencies millions of rounds of hollow point (illegal to use in war) ammunition. Not to mention the Department of Education's SWAT team. We'll need all those to round the malcontents up into the re education camps.
TNcracker | 3.19.13 @ 10:20PM
You've used up enough space today with your idiocy. Please let rational commenters have a turn. Arnie, or purp, it's soooo boring.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:54PM
Mike,
Debt is a terrible legacy of government and a reasonable measure of some aspect of how bad a government is.
My particular point is that DEFICIT is not a good measure because one can balance the budget but still have a disastrously large, inefficient, prosperity- and liberty-sapping government.
mike 3/505| 3.19.13 @ 7:36PM
...one can balance the budget but still have a disastrously large, inefficient, prosperity- and liberty-sapping government.
Touché My Friend
Anthony| 3.19.13 @ 9:34AM
John Boner is Obozo's first mate on the good ship USS Debt Ridden. Boner, the good little Washington insider that he is, echos the Muslim Maxist with semantic word games of the defination of "immediate".
Ah yes, shades of Slick wee Willie, "it depends on what the defination of IS is".
Captain, the iceberg is dead ahead;" Naw, what are you talking about, why it's 300 yards ahead, we have at least 2 minutes before impact, what immediate crisis!!! So Boner says no need to panic we have "one, two, three, possibly 4 years" before sinking.
We are truly governed by a pack of morons, ignoramuses, and gutlless political hacks. Anybody who gives money to the GOP is a fool. Anybody who doesn't stock up on ammo is an even bigger fool.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 10:50AM
I am not one to praise Bernecke. Just the same, I am not one gloss over the impossible posiiton that he's been put in (yeah, yeah. He put some of it on himself). But, deflationary pressures are just as strong as the possibilty for hyper-inflation. In a large part, demographics in the G20 nations are the cause. They are rapidly aging and thus either are consuming capital, or they are borrowing to meet that need. Gold prices have been falling in recent months, and despite all the QE global GDP is nowhere where it should be. And if Bernecke raises interest rates even 50 basis points, asset and commodity prices will plunge. Bernecke is stuck because he has no place to go. Beware of deflation.
cicero| 3.19.13 @ 11:02AM
I am a bit tired of hearing how Clinton and Gingrich worked together to bring govt. spending down, and how the Republicans have nothing to show for their efforts at governance. If you will remember, Gingrich came in with the Contract With America at a time when Clinton and his administration were promising his (and Obama's) constituencies more stuff - like health care paid for by the treasury. Newt won the House, and forced Clinton to sign on for welfare reform, after Clinton had vetoed it on two previous occasions. Clinton did not "triangulate". He was pulled kicking and screaming to every point. He ever promised a school group, shortly before the 96 election that, once they reelected hiim, he would repeal the reforms.
The present problems are approaching panic proportions because the Democrats will do anythiing to stay in power. The Republicans are being prodded by the chattering classes, and as a result are timid where they needd to be bold. When all is said and done, it remains to be said that in Novermber, the majority of voters said that they were satisfied with the way things were going. That leads to one conclusion only - the citizens of this country are too stupid, and economically ignorant to preserve their republic.
The folks like Soros, etc., look only to their vaults. They believe that they will survive the cataclism, and emerge after the fire unscathed. Louis and Marie believed that, too.
GobBluthe| 3.19.13 @ 11:40AM
Back to Boehner. He is the worst GOP Speaker in living memory. Worse than Livingston.
kenc| 3.19.13 @ 11:45AM
Boehner's performance was absolutely appalling. Is this really the best we can do in terms of the GOP leadership??
Who Knows?| 3.19.13 @ 12:06PM
Ah, grasshopper, remember---
A crisis is both a danger AND an opportunity.
Also, keep in mind the gentle way, judo.
Use “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste” AGAINST the ones who think they own this admonition.
The overarching reality is that Obama and his gangsters are an existential crisis, and in all honesty, those who get THIS message must eventually “shit, or get off the pot”, because if BHO gets his way, it’ll be outhouses all around.
The liberals are in the position of Goldfinger, and the conservatives of James Bond, with the latter tied up and a laser slowly, but surely, nearing his gonads. The GOP “leaders” continue to be as confused as Bond, believing liberals want them to “talk”, whereas like Goldfinger, they want them to die.
Hell, all they do is TALK!
Me, I’m resolved to having ALREADY accepted that the crisis is too far gone, and pity the fools who still have hope.
Just get personally ready for the worst, and cry for the ALREADY lost free country of America.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 12:58PM
We pay for all this government with inflation. The middle class and the poor are paying for this, not the rich.
Print, print, print.....take a look at your grocery prices.
To run a government this big they need the middle class to pay. Only the middle class has the money to cover this. If they can't get the taxes then print and the middle class pays through inflation. Same result.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 1:00PM
The whole world pays. The inflation is worse elsewhere than here. It's legitimate to blame a lot of middle eastern unrest on price increases caused by our fiscal policy.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 1:42PM
The federal government can only continue to grow by using the middle class money. That is where the money is. Not with the rich, not with the poor.
We are printing enormous sums of money to pay for this beast and to keep interest rates at near zero. We are printing US dollars to pay to feed this beast. Lesbian studies on drinking and weight. Fighter jets to Egypt. Who really knows?
Is there inflation in Germany?
The cost of the US printing and taxation is killing the middle class. Obama says let’s pay our fair share, make the rich pay. This is untrue and not happening. The middle class is paying for Obama feeding this beast.
Not trying to solve the world’s problems, just want the middle class to know they are getting screwed on taxes, health care, inflation and regulation. Oil prices could be lower if we drilled.
Worried about the environment? The Chinese are not. They build a coal-fired power plant every week, while the EPA shuts our plants down. The middle class takes the hit for all this.
crankitup| 3.19.13 @ 1:55PM
who is the webmaster at TAS? I thought the postings were listed in chronological order?? why the shifting of postings??
Stan Redmond| 3.19.13 @ 2:00PM
The underlying response of Obama's "we don't have a problem, yet" response is so rediculously self serving I have garnered what I thought was impossible. I have found even more contempt for the manchild president.
What he is really saying is "Hey, it's not my fault even though me and my merry band of democrats are destroying this economy and forever turning America in to Argentina. But it's not my problem. You can't blame me because it's not happening now. And besides, I have my $40 million dollar estate in Hawaii with lifetime income and secret service protection so it doesn't effect me or my family one bit. I won"
JD| 3.19.13 @ 3:14PM
We will have a big deficit problem the moment a Republican takes the White House. Not a minute sooner.
Stan Redmond| 3.19.13 @ 5:24PM
That goes without saying. It will be the same crap just different names. Instead of "Bush inherited trillion dollar surpluses as far as the projections project but ruined it with the Iraq war," we will have." President Republican inherited a magnificent economy stabilized through welfare payments to failed corporations and record numbers of unemployed and quintillions of dollars of record surpluses but spoiled it because he's racist and hates poor people."
Kurt NY| 3.19.13 @ 2:00PM
Wait a minute. Boehner and Ryan make factually correct statements which still asserted the truth that we do indeed have a serious problem which needs addressing, and they're somehow at fault because opponents distort what they said and essentially lied as to their implications?
We don't have an immediate debt crisis and saying we do makes us look foolish and crying wolf, hurting our credibility. Our problems lie in long term entitlement spending and are indeed disastrous and must be addressed right away if we are to avoid even worse problems.
Had they said otherwise, their statements would just have been discredited by citing some stats showing that RIGHT NOW we can handle it (ignoring that such is not true going forward). Would that have been preferable?
JR| 3.19.13 @ 2:41PM
There's a tremendous amount of dollars being pulled out of the private sector and going to the public sector and is one reason we can't pull out of this recession. Until the debt spending gets under control, we're stuck right here.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.19.13 @ 6:55PM
Kurt,
Yes, they are at some fault because they are experienced enough to know that if half a sentence can be used to make them sound as if they were saying the opposite of what they were saying, it will be. And therefore, they must not utter those half-sentences.
JD| 3.20.13 @ 1:19AM
You're right, but at the same time, what an illustration of the difference between the Left and the Right!
Time and time again, when an unfair system imposes on a person, Leftists blame the person while the Right blames the system.
Ironically, when there is no artificial system, only natural reality, and a person who happens to be a minority fails to navigate it, then the Leftist defends the failure and determines nature to be unjust, demanding government intervention to fix it.
Oldefarte| 3.19.13 @ 4:18PM
It ain't the Republicans [though their hands have dirt on same]. ITS THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! My generation witnessed the Kennedys, the Johnsons, the Carters, the Clintons and now the Obamas as economic domestic terrorists with the taxpayers' stolen EBT/credit card firmly in use. What does the current POTUS care about debt? His and fellow socialists mission is the equalization of income, regardless of the morality of the aspect of its being """"""EARNED""""". Let them welfare mommies and daddy-inseminators keep on cranking out their little bastards within the projects of America and having taxpayers pick up the financial tab for same. As Alfred E. Newman said, WHAT ME WORRY? Were is the discussion on forced birth control; on workfare for EBT receipt requirements; on the demand for the chulluns in public education to PAY FOR their free education/free meals/free bus transportation by mentally working for same through studying, performing homework, and applying themselves in classrooms that are paid for by taxpayers? Oh wait, that RACIST or mean to mention that right? BS! Oh and finally as to the subject, forget Greece and Italy, okay? Try getting the mental midgets of America to focus on Cyprus currently and to extrapolate that situation to what will eventually happen in this nation to deal with our debt. Or maybe if the Chinese etc [for whatever reason] stop buying out debt. Oh and the Fed activities should be considered treasonous also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 4:28PM
The real goal is to take the middle class money and use it to expand government.
And all the while say they are protecting the middle class and taxing the rich to pay for all this.
Great strategy, until the middle class realizes what is occurring. Thanks AMS!
Kingofthenet| 3.19.13 @ 4:35PM
One reason your losing NOW and will in the Future, is your great success in 2010, you see the Conservative Tea Party wing won at just the time because of the Census the districts could be redrawn, and with the MASSIVE Gerrymandering you guys pulled off, you made TOTALLY SAFE 100% Hard-Core Conservative Districts, seems like a good plan, No?
Actually it turns out, against common sense it's a TERRIBLE plan, you made these district so safe, that the ONLY thing any Conservative Candidate has to fear is a Primary Challenge from the right, they have NO reason to compromise, and moderate and EVERY reason to be Belligerent, and to push 'personhood amendments' and other FAR Right Wing insanity. The Establishment Statesman can't bring these people to heel, and so the tail wags the dog.
JD| 3.19.13 @ 4:47PM
As always, the Left advances itself by declaring itself to be the moderate center and anything to its right to be extreme. They just hope that they're never forced to defend these assertions.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 4:54PM
Who's losing? The middle class is losing. Obama is not for the middle class but he says he is. Smart.
As far as Dems v Repubs.?
1. 30 governorships
2. safe control of the house
3. 30 state houses
Pretty split I would say.....
Are you with MSNBC?
megapotamus | 3.19.13 @ 4:46PM
Greek bonds were yielding 15% BEFORE the current unpleasantness? Wow, I don't see how anyone could think even THAT was not a crisis. But Greece is to the Euro not even what Illinois is to the US dollar. The spread between T-bills and Illinois munis is likewise the reading of a thermometer stuck in an especially feverish orifice, but it is the patient at large we must concern ourselves with. The ten year horizon is arbitrary but useful. It was a gaming of this habit of the CBO, to address only the next decade that inspired Paul Ryan to make his disastrous presumptions, not of the other day but of the last few years. To get super-Liberal Ron Wyden on board Ryan had to commit to the absurd: we will grandfather everyone on entitlements for ten years. Does no one remember that medical 'inflation' prior to O-care was 15% ANNUALLY? How can we have a ten-year hands-off policy with that sort of status quo? We cannot. That is why the Ryan Plan for entitlements landed with such a wet splat. In an attempt at 'bipartisanship' fantasy Ryan commits to something as unworkable from the Right as it was unpalatable to the Left; centrists or otherwise.
megapotamus | 3.19.13 @ 4:47PM
There has been a skosh of progress however from an unexpected quarter. Ms Noonan relates that at the Charmingly Offensive lunch Obama stated, more or less, that the problem with Medicare is people think it's their money that they are owed, when in fact they have paid one in three or four dollars for their 'coverage'. Holy moly! Do you have to know any more than that to understand the cul de sac we are shambling about in? How I would love to send this dude back in time to young Senator Obama. I hope the sequester has not undercut our temporal research budget. It may be our only hope.
Kingofthenet| 3.19.13 @ 5:10PM
Chris Christie should be your guiding light, do what he does. He is going to be reelected, most likely in a Landslide in one of the most Blue States.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 5:24PM
Not for me. East coast liberals love government.
The spending needs to be stopped. The middle class has no savior. Whoever can articulate the transfer of wealth and stop it is needed.
For now AMS can expose the lies of Obama asking for "fair share" and stop the patient from bleeding to death....it would be a start.
Kingofthenet| 3.19.13 @ 6:07PM
Palin is a Loser, so is Romney. If I as a Liberial wanted to get advice on how to win I wouldn't go to Michael Dukakis but instead the President. You can't learn a thing hanging with LOSERS.
davidh| 3.19.13 @ 6:26PM
Loser v winner? The middle class is losing.
Obama is screwing them and deceiving them saying he is helping them.
Forget affiliation. The conversation needs to change. AMS is a good start.
Obama is killing the middle class. Brilliant strategy but terrible for the middle class.
Once the middle class realizes they are getting screwed they will react.
Keep going AMS. It's a start.
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 6:27PM
When the collapse comes it will be sudden and catastrophic. No one will be there to bail us out.
Stan Redmond| 3.21.13 @ 3:04PM
Who will pay for our Obamaphones?
markenoff| 3.19.13 @ 6:28PM
Barak Obama's face should be on the trillion dollar bill. His name already is.