• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Skunks in da House, deficit and debt

slimvintage

BSB Addict
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Posts
3,275
Reaction score
0
Location
The island next door to Ibiza
Let the truth be told

If you need "visuals" this will do you more good than all the explanations of all the pygmies in the House put together:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

And this will give you something else to call them besides pygmies:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...2011---nonfiction-captain-america?xrs=eml_tds

Dear Slim,

That Washington Post graph is so clear, why is it not on every billboard and TV in the US. Thanks for sharing it with us.
 
Yes Slim, thanks for sharing this with us.

There is so much dishonesty out there by the conservatives. Just this morning one Republican congressman of the Tea Party movement was berating Obama personally for increasing the national debt by 4 trillion dollars in 2 years. As the graft indicates the policies favored by all of the right wing have more to do with the current state of the country's finances than Obama's policies.

Since the economy did not fall off a cliff and send us into another Depression it's very hard for Obama to prove that the stimulus was necessary. We'll never know for sure if he saved us from disaster or not. One thing I know though is that if he hadn't pushed through a stimulus and the economy had imploded...the Republicans would have accused him of being another Herbert Hoover. Oops...Herbert Hoover was a Republican. So they would have accused him of being a Nero who played the fiddle while Rome burned.

The tax cuts for the wealthy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, the Great Recession, and many more..... Those were all issues that the Republicans had dumped on his lap when he came to office. Of course in American politics of the 21st century the truth doesn't matter. It's all about the spin you can put on your version of reality and see how many gullible people you can convince to buy it.

Where is the maturity and the discipline? Where are the mature grownup adults when you need them? The halls of Congress remind me more and more of the halls of a mediocre high school, rather than those of an Ivy League alumni association. Certainly MENSA it's not.
 
Last edited:
Right now, the republicans are relying on a well-financed propaganda machine, and they seem to be winning the rhetoric war (as usual). If Obama has any faults, it's that he's too slow on the draw. You've got to hit the repubs early and hard to forestall their blatant lies. It's just sad that there are too many gullible, uninformed people out there providing fertile ground for the repubs to propagate the bullshit. If they say "We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem" often enough, the sheep out there will swallow it and repeat it. For people who know nothing of how government works, or how it remedies a recession (by spending), this makes sense, and that's what the republicans are counting on. I sincerely hope Obama learns from this and starts the dialog sooner rather than later as he's been doing.
 
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. We have seen it all through history. Democrats are always elected to fix the problems that Republicans cause, everyone gets mad that they don't fix them fast enough, so they bring in Republicans and things get worse, then they elect Democrats to fix them, then...............

Before anyone squawks, I am not a Democrat, this is not about party loyalty. When ever anyone throws out one of those "Political Party" quizzes, to see what party you are, I fall dead center. Neither of the two extremes can fix anything. It takes people that are willing to throw out their own personal hang-ups and beliefs, to determine the best solution for the group. I think party loyalty, is the biggest obstacle this country faces.

I know that I have never been in Government, and can't say that the solutions are simple, but some things are common sense. Yes, the Government spends too much money on things that we don't really need, especially their own perks. When spending must be cut, things like gym memberships, employee vehicles and their expenses, and office redo's are frivolous, education and Social Security are not.

For a Government that constantly compares what we do, and how we perform, against other countries, education is the last place we should make cuts, instead of one of the first.

I was not a business or finance major for a reason. I hate math, but from an early age, I did learn that it takes longer to save money, than it does to spend it...........To bad we don't all learn the same lessons.

Just my own thoughts.
 
The problem with all Washington Ds and Rs is when they talk about cutting spending is they are cutting a % off of spending increases (so when they say they are cutting 1 trillion out of the budget they are cutting 1 trillion off of a 7 trillion spending increase
gov. has a 7% increase built in for each spending year) they need to freeze the increases and cut 1% off the baseline and we will have a balanced budget in 6 years that is if the economy does not grow if it does grow we will come sooner.
 
If we are talking about spending cuts, then begin with...

Lets be fair for once and legislate that the salaries of ALL top office holders in Washington and their staffs for all three branches of the federal government reflect what is actually going on in the real economy at real economy prices. We need to provide them additional compensation for bringing manufacturers back on shore, providing additional employment for out of work Americans, and rebuilding the US infastructure. In other words, actually looking out for America's future.

On the other hand, we waste entirely too much money providing limousines, health clubs, full retirement for their lifetime after serving as little as 30 days in Congress, and other perks that are rarely available in the public sector. Remember it is not us buy them that are termed as "PUBLIC SERVANTS". What servants do you know of that set the terms of their own employment? So too should we make Washington's office holders' health care benefits be in line with the public sector and better benefits should require additional premiums coming out of their salaries at their own discretion and at a fair-market price.

If they want all them perks by God, then they need to earn it legitimately doing the "Peoples bidding" and not answering solely to the special interest lobbyist and their endless campaigning.

Am I being too radical or do they need to earn their keep for once? They always want increased productive from American workers, teachers, and doctors. Who said they should be exempt from what they expect from everyone else? If this was already in place, I do not think there would be much discussion on defaulting on America's debt!

I AM MAD AS HELL AND I JUSTLY FEEL I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN AT THE OFFICE! Now it is their turn!

Sincerely,


Stimpy
 
Last edited:
Crazy politics

These increases have been going on for at least 30 years on average every 7 months. Obama got the top job and on his watch the debit got rediculous and rightly said he would veto another short term fix. He really instigated a big shit fight. It is really showing how disfunctional Washington politics are. I just wonder if he is really being clever to instigate proper change..... sitting back to show what Washington politics is really like and letting them cut their own throats.

Undie (much prefer underwear to politics)
 

Attachments

  • US debit ceiling.jpg
    US debit ceiling.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 6
projectin' somma that calm

The presidency was Bush's sandpile, full of toy soldiers in his own lovely desert. After 3 years of a leader who actually speaks like a grownup I'd forgotten what that sorry Texas toddler in the Oval Office sounded like during his presidency. Here he is in a rare recent interview, remembering, ten years later, his first leadership initiative seconds after hearing the 2nd tower had been hit:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush says his apparent lack of reaction to the first news of the September 11 2001 attacks was a conscious decision to project an aura of calm in a crisis.

In a rare interview with the National Geographic Channel, Bush reflects on what was going through his mind at the most dramatic moment of his presidency when he was informed that a second passenger jet had hit New York's World Trade Center.

Bush was visiting a Florida classroom and the incident, which was caught on TV film, and has often been used by critics to ridicule his apparently blank face.

"My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the attack and the innocence of children," Bush says in an excerpt of the interview shown to television writers on Thursday.

Bush said he could see the news media at the back of the classroom getting the news on their own cellphones "and it was like watching a silent movie."

Bush said he quickly realized that a lot of people beyond the classroom would be watching for his reaction.

"So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm," he said of his decision to remain seated and silent.

"I had been in enough crises to know that the first thing a leader has to do is to project calm," he added.

I've never felt especially betrayed by my fellow Americans for electing him the first time, you can make mistakes, but I'll hold a grudge till my dying day that they put the fucker back in office for a second term.
 
The presidency was Bush's sandpile, full of toy soldiers in his own lovely desert. After 3 years of a leader who actually speaks like a grownup I'd forgotten what that sorry Texas toddler in the Oval Office sounded like during his presidency. Here he is in a rare recent interview, remembering, ten years later, his first leadership initiative seconds after hearing the 2nd tower had been hit:

I've never felt especially betrayed by my fellow Americans for electing him the first time, you can make mistakes, but I'll hold a grudge till my dying day that they put the fucker back in office for a second term.

I've heard him recite this story before. And I still say he was thinking, "Oh shit!" like when you do when you've put off doing something and the shit hits the fan? Bush had been warned of the attack several times, and just days before of a pending attack with specifics of how it would go down. He chose to ignore it. It wasn't trying to appear calm, it was paralysis, and he knew his actions...or lack thereof, is what led to this.

I couldn't agree with you more, Slim. There have been knuckleheads in politics forever, but it's the real idiots who vote them in office. And for that, I too, cannot forget. The blame rests squarely on their shoulders, which is why they're now trying to put the blame on Obama. It must help them sleep at night.:sleep:
 
I've never felt especially betrayed by my fellow Americans for electing him the first time, you can make mistakes, but I'll hold a grudge till my dying day that they put the fucker back in office for a second term.

You and Balboa have certainly hit the nail on the head there. They wanted Bush in there a second time. Bush's debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the humongous debt and deficits, are his gifts that just keep on giving. They can blame Obama all they want. They can even make him a one term president if they think it will make them feel any better. But the ignorant people who put Bush in office a second time are getting exactly what they deserved. They are as much to blame for the mess we're in right now in 2011 as Bush himself. How many of them miss Dick Cheney yet? haha

It would almost be laughable. But of course we are all Americans, and we are all in the same ship together.
 
Ann Richards was right all along..."he was born with a silver foot in his mouth".

You and Balboa have certainly hit the nail on the head there. They wanted Bush in there a second time. Bush's debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the humongous debt and deficits, are his gifts that just keep on giving. They can blame Obama all they want. They can even make him a one term president if they think it will make them feel any better. But the ignorant people who put Bush in office a second time are getting exactly what they deserved. They are as much to blame for the mess we're in right now in 2011 as Bush himself. How many of them miss Dick Cheney yet? haha

It would almost be laughable. But of course we are all Americans, and we are all in the same ship together.

Dear Tampa,

Everything GW has headed up has been a complete financial disaster and even so, his supporters want to put off the blame to Obama. I feel this is directly due to the mis-connect with talk-radio hosts that have no accountability and are believed on faith alone with their version of re-written history. GW's lack of responsibility was known before he took office and even so people chose to go for his "good-old-boy charm" rather than having to think about the responsibility of the choice they made as voters.

Sometimes you get exactly what you deserve, a financial crisis due to mismanagement.

Sincerely,


Stimpy
 
Slim ,Tampa,Balboa,Stimpy and the rest of my frinds here YOUR Wrong! (not totaly but mostly) and your slaves to words

Its not bush or obama its all of the politicians

So, take a deep breath and put your reading glasses on (I have been working on this for a few days for yall.)


When someone gives you a check and the bank informs you that there are insufficient funds, who do you get mad at? In your own life, you get mad at the guy who gave you a check that bounced, not at the bank. But, in politics, you get mad at whoever tells you that there is no money.
One of the secrets of the growth of the welfare state is that politicians get a lot of mileage out of making promises, without setting aside enough money to fulfill those promises.
When Congress votes for all sorts of benefits, without voting for enough taxes to pay for them, they get the support of those who have been promised the benefits, without getting grief from the taxpayers. It's strictly win-win as far as the welfare-state politicians are concerned. But it is strictly lose-lose, big-time, for the country, as deficits skyrocket.
Anyone who says that we don't have the money to pay what was promised is accused of trying to destroy Social Security, Medicare or Obamacare-- or whatever other unfunded promises have been made. It is like blaming the bank for saying that the check bounced.
It is the same story at the state level as in Washington. The lavish pensions promised to members of public sector unions cannot continue to be paid because the money is just not there. But who are the unions mad at? Those who say that the money is not there.
How far short are the states? It varies from one state to another. It also varies with how large a rate of return the state gets on its investments with the inadequate amount of money that has been set aside to cover its promised pensions.
A front page story on the March 28th issue of Investor's Business Daily showed plainly, with bar graphs, how big mine and Tampas state; Florida's shortfall is under various rates of return on investments. Florida's own estimate of its pension fund's shortfall is based on assuming that they will receive a rate of return of 7.75 percent. But what if it turns out that they don't get that high a return?
A 6 percent rate of return would more than triple the size of Florida's unfunded liability for its employees' pension. The actual rate of return that Florida has received over the past decade has been only 2.6 percent. In other words, by simply assuming a far higher future rate of return on their investments than they have received in the past, Florida politicians can deceive the public as to how deep a hole the state's finances are in.
Political games like this are not confined to Florida. State budgets and federal budgets are not records of facts. They are projections based on assumptions. Just by manipulating a few assumptions, politicians can create a scenario that bears no resemblance to reality.
The "savings" to be made by instituting Obamacare is a product of this kind of manipulation of assumptions. Even when the people who turn out the budget projections do an honest job, they are working with the assumptions given to them by the politicians.
The fact that the end results carry the imprimatur of the Congressional Budget Office-- or of some comparable state agency or reputable private accounting firm-- means absolutely nothing.
When Florida arbitrarily assumes that it is going to get a future rate of return on its pension fund investment that is roughly three times what its past returns have been, that is the same nonsense as when the feds assume that Congress will cut half a billion dollars out of Medicare to finance ObamaCare. (Gov. Scott is trying to fix this and is catching hell from all ends for it.)
We would probably be better off if there were no Congressional Budget Office to lend its credibility to data based on hopelessly unrealistic assumptions fed to them by politicians.
One of the reasons why a federal "balanced budget" amendment is unlikely to do what many of its advocates claim is that a budget is just a plan for the future. It does not have to bear any resemblance to the realities of either the past or the future.
We do not need reassurances that do not reassure, whether these reassurances are in numbers or in words. No small part of the reason for the economic collapse we have been through is that federally designated rating agencies reassured investors that many mortgage-backed securities were safe, when they were not.
Not only investors, but the whole economy, would have been better off without these reassurances. "Caveat emptor" would be better advice for both investors and voters.

So we could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words. In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.
President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke, if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.
More fundamentally, tax rates-- whatever they are-- are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.
When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73 percent in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24 percent in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.
Then and now, people with the highest incomes have had the greatest flexibility as to where they will put their money. Buying tax-exempt bonds is just one of the many ways that "millionaires and billionaires" avoid paying hard cash to the government, no matter how high the tax rates go.
Most working people don't have the same options. Their taxes have been taken out of their paychecks before they get them.
Even more so today than in the 1920s, billions of dollars can be sent overseas electronically, almost instantaneously, to be invested in other countries-- creating jobs there, while millions of American are unemployed. That is a very high price to pay for class warfare rhetoric about taxing "millionaires and billionaires."
Make no mistake about it, that kind of rhetoric wins votes for political demagogues-- and votes are their bottom line. But that is totally different from saying that it will bring in more tax revenue to the government.
Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland-- and less tax revenue was collected from them.
In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51 percent of high incomes in taxes.
Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.
Similar things have happened in India and in Iceland.
There is no automatic correlation between the direction in which tax rates move and the direction in which tax revenues move. Nor is this a new discovery.
Back in the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper, because they were putting their money into tax shelters.
After the tax rates were cut, as Mellon advocated, investments flowed back into the private economy, producing higher output, rising incomes, more tax revenue and more jobs. The annual unemployment rate in the next four years never exceeded 4.2 percent, and in one year was as low as 1.8 percent.
Despite political demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," in human terms the rich have less at stake than working people. Precisely because the rich have so many ways of avoiding taxes, a high tax rate is likely to do them far less harm than it does to the economy, on which millions of people depend for jobs.
 
I accept the fact that lowering taxes can increase revenues but that is only to a point. If we lower rates down to 1% and make every last dime taxable, will governments take in more money? Some people would argue that. That's essentially the argument for reducing estate taxes, without the "every last dime" part. I don't think so. Like many things in life, it's a bell curve. Lower down the rate too far and revenues drop. Raise them too much and revenues drop. The trick is getting to the peak of the curve.

I think we have gone too far down the left hand side of the bell curve. Lowering taxes has gone from a good idea to a mantra. It's a pledge that can't be broken. Some common sense has got to come back into the discussion.

I go back and forth on a balance budget amendment.

As it is written now, with a super majority needed to raise taxes, it is unworkable. The federal government would become California, where initiative and referendum has voters telling the legislature to provide more services but not come up with a way to pay for them. I grew up in California. I thought we were so smart to have initiative and referendum. Now I realize it's one of the reasons the state is bankrupt.

There would also have to be a provision to run up a temporary deficit to pay for wars and other unforeseen events, with a rule that pays for that deficit immediately after the emergency.

On the other hand, an empty refrigerator is a pretty good way to start a diet. If you can't stop eating the cake in the fridge, don't have any cake in the fridge.
 
Smiley alot of what you say is true

I accept the fact that lowering taxes can increase revenues but that is only to a point. If we lower rates down to 1% and make every last dime taxable, will governments take in more money? Some people would argue that. That's essentially the argument for reducing estate taxes, without the "every last dime" part. I don't think so. Like many things in life, it's a bell curve. Lower down the rate too far and revenues drop. Raise them too much and revenues drop. The trick is getting to the peak of the curve.

I think we have gone too far down the left hand side of the bell curve. Lowering taxes has gone from a good idea to a mantra. It's a pledge that can't be broken. Some common sense has got to come back into the discussion.

I go back and forth on a balance budget amendment.

As it is written now, with a super majority needed to raise taxes, it is unworkable. The federal government would become California, where initiative and referendum has voters telling the legislature to provide more services but not come up with a way to pay for them. I grew up in California. I thought we were so smart to have initiative and referendum. Now I realize it's one of the reasons the state is bankrupt.

There would also have to be a provision to run up a temporary deficit to pay for wars and other unforeseen events, with a rule that pays for that deficit immediately after the emergency.

On the other hand, an empty refrigerator is a pretty good way to start a diet. If you can't stop eating the cake in the fridge, don't have any cake in the fridge.

I believe one of the major problems now is we have 50% of the people in the U.S. paying 100% of the taxes...

We are going to be on a long pothole filled road for a while untill our politicians in power now, get a clue (some do) or the people who vote them in get a clue and change them. I have my escape plan I truely hope you and everyone ealse gets theres because what we are seeing now is the start of the fall of Rome all over again and for mostly the same reason. But Americans have the power to change it but do they have the Eyes to see it and will to do it..


jt
 
For a second there, I thought you were going to throw in the Apocalypse, too.

It's not as bad as you think. Only eleven years ago, we had a balanced budget. Things got all goofed up over the past few years, mostly during the Bush administration. But the process is fixable. It's like any drunk, and certainly Washington is drunk on money, both spending it and receiving it in campaign donations. You've got to hit bottom first. I almost hope the Senate fails, too, over the next few days, just so everyone can see how broken the system is. The President can't come up with a compromise plan. The House can't draft a Republican one that will pass both houses. The Senate can't figure out a Democratic one, either. Three strikes and we're all out.

Even if the whole process crashes and burns this weekend, guess what will happen by Thursday? Both houses will pass a clean debt limit bill, with no cuts or tax increases, and save the Republic. But before that, everyone will see that the whole system is broken.

And like that drunk that's hit bottom, we can crawl our way back out.
 
For a second there, I thought you were going to throw in the Apocalypse, too.

It's not as bad as you think. Only eleven years ago, we had a balanced budget. Things got all goofed up over the past few years, mostly during the Bush administration. But the process is fixable. It's like any drunk, and certainly Washington is drunk on money, both spending it and receiving it in campaign donations. You've got to hit bottom first. I almost hope the Senate fails, too, over the next few days, just so everyone can see how broken the system is. The President can't come up with a compromise plan. The House can't draft a Republican one that will pass both houses. The Senate can't figure out a Democratic one, either. Three strikes and we're all out.

Even if the whole process crashes and burns this weekend, guess what will happen by Thursday? Both houses will pass a clean debt limit bill, with no cuts or tax increases, and save the Republic. But before that, everyone will see that the whole system is broken.

And like that drunk that's hit bottom, we can crawl our way back out.

Smiley I hope your on target and from what i can tell you do see the problem it not the parties its the men in them and its most of them there broken not the system.

love ya friend have a good weekend
 
I believe one of the major problems now is we have 50% of the people in the U.S. paying 100% of the taxes...

We are going to be on a long pothole filled road for a while untill our politicians in power now, get a clue (some do) or the people who vote them in get a clue and change them. I have my escape plan I truely hope you and everyone ealse gets theres because what we are seeing now is the start of the fall of Rome all over again and for mostly the same reason. But Americans have the power to change it but do they have the Eyes to see it and will to do it..


jt

What amazes me about taxes, is that there are people that get THOUSANDS of dollars back. :confused1:
 
Also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-or-not-loved/2011/03/04/gIQANC0vhI_blog.html

The pygmies in the legislature (Chinless Mitch and Cry Boehby) have been rolling their fried-egg eyes and bitching that Obama hasn't led, that he doesn't have a plan. Don't those idiots know that it's their J O B to get together with the dreaded Reid and Pelosi and whatever committees are out there, and present him with a plan he can sign? And that any intervention on his part has only taken place because they are running shit scared of the TP and have failed criminally in their duties?
 
Top