BS: Obama Goes For Broke

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:43 PM

Good grief - I had no idea the man said so many memorable, insightful things. No wonder he garnered so many devotees.

I went looking only for the quote: "We will do something. If it doesn't work we will try something else, but above all we will do something."

As Wolfgang and some others would happily point out, my quote is not accurate. OTH, that's why I checked on it. So there.

Here are some applicable lines- it's hard to stop - These statements were made at different times and on separate occasions but they are things we are saying today.

* Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

* I'm not the smartest fellow in the world, but I can sure pick smart colleagues.

* In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.

* In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

* It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

* It is the duty of the President to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose.

* Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.

* More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars - yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments. I love this one. Eb

* Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

* One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along. (Restated, amplified)

" The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart.


* There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

* Those newspapers of the nation which most loudly cried dictatorship against me would have been the first to justify the beginnings of dictatorship by somebody else.

* We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:52 AM

Cleverly omitted the other two, and the fact that the surplus was Clinton''s accomplishment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:15 AM

People seem to like leaving out the Kennedy Tax Cuts...read more here:    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

"Tax Cuts and National Income
Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Tax Cuts and Budget Resources
Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy's tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan's tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush's tax cuts are smaller than Reagan's—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan's tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy's tax cut.

Tax Cuts and Defense Costs
When the Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, defense spending constituted a whopping 42.1 percent of the federal budget. When President Reagan pushed though his tax cuts, the Pentagon consumed 22 percent of the budget. Today, defense spending consumes just 17.1 percent of the budget—25 percentage points below Kennedy's defense spending.

Tax Cuts and Deficits
President Kennedy passed his tax cuts as he ran a deficit equaling 1 percent of national income. In 1981, Reagan cut taxes while running a deficit of 2.8 percent of national income. In contrast, Bush passed the largest of his three tax cuts, EGTRAA, in 2001 with a budget surplus of 1.5 percent of income."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:12 AM

The extraordinary job loss figures in the US, and the contracting economy, are basically going to blow away all the fiddling around over whether tax revenues are going to go up or down. That kind of discussion only matters in a normal economy.   This economy is in a crisis: in a crisis the normal economic rules, clearing markets, etc., disappear. The whole point of Keynes, which has nothing to do with the details, is that an economic crisis wrecks the standard rules for a variety of reasons (including human behaviour, e.g. normal saving rates and so on falter).

Oh yes, and "economists of all persuasions" are not remotely convinced that increasing taxes on the rich cuts back on revenue. Certainly the opposite is wrong: that has been proved twice, both in the Reagan years and in the Bush years.   Way higher taxation rates on the rich in the 1950's seem to have done nothing to stall the economy.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:54 AM

I was just listening to this video a little while ago...

http://fora.tv/2009/02/24/Dan_Roam_Back_of_the_Napkin#chapter_01

(It may be necessary to click on "Full Program" and then on "Introduction" in order to hear the whole thing.)


The guy talks about how people come up with ideas using pictures. He described how some guys were in a bar and one of them drew a primitive sort of a curve on a napkin and explained that it showed how tax revenues could increase if taxes were cut. The other two guys that were with him were Rumsfeld and Cheney. They took the napkin to Gerald Ford, and the rest is history.

Figures it would be an idea someone came up with while drinking in a bar.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:25 AM

The Wall Street Journal


"...What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice...."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:22 AM

"Is it any wonder that revenues dropped after the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy???"

I respectfully and politely request the source of your information Bobert.

My information shows otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM

The core engine gets overheated because the capacity for injecting new money is shared by lenders (>90%) and government (<10%). This potential for rapacious lending is built in to the system and reinforced by the media used to enhance commercial sales.

To fix the system, the capability of generating new money must be dramatically shifted so that banks can only lend, say, 125% of what they have, dampening their inflationary drive, and government controls >90% of money supply additions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM

Well, the economics textbooks, such as they are, are only working from past history and models (which are deeply flawed). The theory is that governments should be working counter-cyclically (straight Keynes) and taking over the role that private financial institutions are unable to take over in periods when trust in the institutions and their capacity for lending is crippled (like now). The gamble, and the danger, as remarked over and over again -- even by Keynes -- is inflation with the injection of new money. The gamble is that the deflation of the economy is worse temporarily than the inflation that will come later -- and will somehow have to be paid for. The United States is in a weird position in that its currency is the cornerstone of the international market, so it has been able to do all this fantastic borrowing without paying too much of a cost. But the day will come. The question is: will the economy be around to cope with that? The part that no one knows.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:32 AM

This is not the time to stand around and point fingers of blame back in history, or standing on the sidelines screaming go team, go and boo to the other team .... there are serious problems with the economy ... econ 101, 201 basics point out the dangers of continuous spending when you don't have the money, let alone already having a debt that is beyond reason .... the country can't afford to keep on borrowing, and it just can't go and print paper money to solve the problem ... at this rate it will be in the same situation as GM ... and there won't be any big sugar daddy around to hand out the cash.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:53 AM

Yeah, thanks for the Econ 201 refresher course... Lotta folks here seem clueless about this stuff when it comes to their defense of George Bush's lack of understanding on just what is what when it comes to the economy...

Is it any wonder that revenues dropped after the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy??? This ain't rocket suregry here, folks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 08:53 PM

Fascinating stuff, biLL. Lots of information there.

Thanks for posting the links.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:57 PM

here's the actual clock BTW ... for those who are interested and maybe missed the link on that other page .....

debt clock

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM

Here's an interesting site ... lots of info .. graphs, pie charts, faqs etc regarding the national debt, deficit etc.   .... to mull over when one has nothing better to do on a Thursday evening in the month March.

U.S. National Debt Clock

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: bald headed step child
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:06 PM

And it don't get any easier to figure when you have 10-12 billion a month that is off the books.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:43 PM

Exactly so, Peter.

I had to remind someone who PMed me that the National Debt and the budget surplus/deficit are two different things.

Let's get straight what it is we're talking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM

The view that the 2001 recession was caused by Clinton, even if it didn't start until after Bush took office, is equally absurd; Obama has inherited a Force 10 recession/depression from the Bush administration. The Bushites inherited a light breeze at worst.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM

" In March 2001, the U.S. economy went into recession for the first time in ten years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.) NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001:

    The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

NBER's president, Martin Feldstein, was a Bush campaign adviser who has long been close to the Bush family, as the National Review's Lawrence Kudlow recently noted"

(From Don's link up thread).

I thought as much--the whole "inherited recession" line was a black PR stunt engineered by the Cheney-Rove Axis of Malpractice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:15 PM

we've talked about this on numerous threads.   Economics 100: national debt is not like household debt. It is made up of many things, including long term infrastructure costs. The budgets that are talked about as "budget surplus" etc., are the rolling budgets of governments. My country (Canada) has been running budget surpluses for a number of years, but hardly any of the national debt has been paid down -- people talk about it from time to time (it has to do with whether longterm interest rates on government bonds etc, are flexible enough), but no one worries about it much in a reasonable country with some prospects of a future with a return on bonds.

The US is not in that state yet.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 02:10 PM

I always thought the "People's Friend" (UK mag) was a commie mouthpiece.

ok ... I'm outta here.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 02:06 PM

"Business Week" is a liberal mouthpiece? What???? Where was I when this happened?

Maybe the Wall Street Journal would be an acceptable source...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

Patience, Doug, patience. I was doing a bit of research. I highly recommend reading widely rather that limiting yourself to material that supports your viewpoint..

The first article I encountered in searching "Clinton recession" was by a contributing editor to "The National Review," the Conservative organ of the late William F. Buckley. Buckley was one of the few people who was able to give an intellectual spin to some of the principles of the conservative movement. Some years ago, there were some great debates on television between Buckley and Liberal advocate Gore Vidal. Would that we could hear intelligent debates like those these days, instead of self-styled conservative television personalities whose idea of an intelligent debate is to tell their liberal guests or anyone else who doesn't share their prejudices to "SHUT UP!!"

But how low the mighty have fallen! I don't know who's running the store at "The National Review" these days, but Buckley would never have allowed a story as patently refutable as THIS to be published in his magazine. One of the points about Buckley that I appreciated was that he considered his readers to be intelligent, not fools. The NR article linked to is put in more measured terms, but it's the same sort of revisionist history that someone like Rush Limbaugh might come up with if he had the necessary verbal skills and emotional restraint.

This tells the real story:   CLICKY.   And before you start, I don't really believe that "Business Week" can be accused of being a member of the "liberal media."

Here's another on the same subject:   CLICKY #2

And there are heaps more where that came from. Revisionist history is quite easy to blow to bits.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:29 PM

I believe the problem is this: the "budget" in a piece of paper that directs next year's spending. The actual spending does not seem to always follow the "plan".

In any case, by definition, if the federal government spends more than it takes in, the National Debt will rise.

If the federal government spends less than it takes in, the National Debt (which is about 235 years old by now) will get smaller. That last time that happened about 1950-1960.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:11 PM

pdq, she asks mildly, Isn't there a difference between the US National Debt and a given year's Budget?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM

Don Firth: Let me get this straight. You don't accept the posting by National Review because it is more associated with conservative policies than Liberal ones, and you are going to provide us with information from Liberal sources to support your POV.

Is that correct?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:08 PM

The last time the US National Debt decreased (slightly) was between 1959 and 1960.

Clinton's best year was 2000 when he had an $18 billion deficit. This good show was caused by a huge boom in federal revenue from "dot.com" stock value explosion (to a large extent).

What followed was a serious drop in federal revenue:

          $2,025 trillion total federal revenue ~ 2000

          $1,798 trillion total federal revenue ~ 2004

That drop in revenue would increase the National Debt by $227 billion (annually) even if spending did not go up.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM

Looks like the debt was decreased only from 1926-1930, and sSome slight decreases in the 1950s.
Thanks for posting the figures. Up, up and away!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:38 AM

US National Debt (raw data):


http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/TheNationalDebt.htm


                                              or...here

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:29 AM

pdq- try the debt link again (doesn't work). Sounds interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:15 AM

Phone call ... U.S. to China ... "the cheque's in the mail"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:12 AM

The US National Debt is the result of the US government spending more money than it takes in: overspending.

The current US National Debt is the result of overspending by the US government for the last 100+ years.

Politicians are able to confuse many people by talking about an annual "budget deficit" which refers to the amount of money authorized for a given year. The problem seems to be that the executive branch spends what it wants, regardless of the budget.

Don't be fooled by the tricks. In a year when the US government takes in less than it spends, the US National Debt goes up. In a year when the US government takes in more money than it spends (rare), the National Debt goes down.

Here the raw numbers from 1900 on. No spin, no BS, no "blame game". Here are "just the facts, m'am":

                                                    raw data: US National Debt 1900-2005

Note the National Debt change between 1959 and 1960. Also note the change between 1999 and 2000.

Another interesting figure is the revenue that came into the federal government in 1995-2005. The annual debt will change equally do to lower revenue or increased spending. Usually it is from a spending increase, other times a drop in revenue (rare).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:00 AM

Yes, Doug, according to "The National Review." (Surprise surprise)

But "Business Week" says that's a crock, and they have the figures.

Past my bedtime right now. I'll provide you with links tomorrow.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:57 AM

IT was a pissant recession; the market had been climbing regularly for eight solid years and the national budget had a surplus.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:24 AM

Oops! Didn't supply a source. Google Clinton Recession. Lots' of info there about the Recession Bush inherited from Ole' Bill.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:13 AM

Don Firth (and other misguided "lefties") The country was in a recession when Bush became president. That is a fact. Check it out.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:30 PM

Continued (or new) investigations, documentation and possibly prosecution of the Bush/Cheney actions are worthwhile expenditures of time and money. It may seem backward looking, but it could help point up future indiscretions when they occur, and prevent a lot of harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 08:57 PM

Nevertheless, GfS, Clinton did leave a budget surplus at the end of his term. I was answering Doug's erroneous assertion.

I am fascinated at how the Right-Wing-nuts try to blame Bush's eight years worth of serial blunders and general bad judgment, both foreign and domestic, on one Democrat or another. It's a bit like watching a whole pack of bewildered dogs trying to bite their own tails.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 08:32 PM

Well, Dougie... Seems that a senior moment has set in upon you yet again... Awww, jus' funnin'...

But really... If ya recall back to 2000 it was Bush who was going out of his way to talk down the economy... Everything he said on the subject was negative... But bottom line, Clinton handed him a surplus... But Bush's people (campaign donors) wanted a big tax cut... So Bush dialed 'um up the rest is well known history... It didn't quite work out for our economy and in not working for our economy has meesed up everyone elses...

Real nice, Dougie... Real nice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:45 PM

Fannie Mae wasn't the cause of the problem, it was only a part of the problem. Other banks were engaging in predatory lending practices with no external pressure other than the desire/need to be competitive with other banks. And none of those bad loans would have had the kind of devastating effect on the world economy that we see now had they not been bundled into derivatives and sold as the best of the best for investment purposes, and had the banks been using open and honest bookkeeping and evaluation of assets.

This is where having Obama in the White House will help to correct these kinds of problems, if, as he promised, he helps to strengthen the way banks and the market are regulated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:41 PM

That was all part of the "any free market capitalist is more efficient than any government" nonsense. It is fairly clear that a large part of the Iraq debacle was due to private contractors.   
The Medicare situation is similar. Complete ignorance about how to orchestrate public - private partnerships.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:37 PM

One of the biggest wastes of money I have seen was all the out sourcing and private contractors being given goverment work.

Obama today has decreed that the private slush fund for private contractors is going to end.

Wow

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:24 PM

Sorry, forgot my name, again

Compare this paragraph in the New york, Times, that i posted in its entirety:.......

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

To this blind opinion:..........From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM


It was my understanding that Clinton left a budget surplus at the end of his term. Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Isn't this a cause of what is happening now??....Denial Denial!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM

Only HALF crazed? I think you're underestimating the depths of his psychosis.

He still doesn't get it - and never will- that its his kind of thinking that got the U.S. in the $hithole its currently in.

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:33 PM

Aw, JEsus, Doug, wake up and smell the numbers. The budget and general economic picture in 2000 was a HELL of a lot better than it was in 2004 or 2008; you'd have to be stone blind or half-crazed not to see that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM

Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Never has, never will.

Don't try to change his mind with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM

????

It was my understanding that Clinton left a budget surplus at the end of his term. Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:21 PM

P.S.: Let me know when you personally feel the positive effects of all of Obama's spending, por favor.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:20 PM

December 31, 2009? No problemo! Bring your bib.

Amos: So Obama inherited a Recession on Bush's watch. So what? Bush inherited one on Clinton's watch. Obama can no longer point the finger at Bush (Oh he can, and I'm sure he will) but Obama is spending all the money now, not Bush.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:14 PM

Sayeth DougR?

Pay no attention to the irrelevancy behindg the curtain.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM

In one year? The deal was "by the year's end". That would be December 31, 2009.