Cold hearted ? It wasn't I who decided to defund Social Security with payroll tax deductions.
|
Cold hearted ? It wasn't I who decided to defund Social Security with payroll tax deductions.
I don't know about that. That boy is on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Seems your are judged by what you do, and giving even more tax breaks to the rich, while cutting back on the safety net seems cold and heartless to me. Especially when it doesn't balance the budget.
One of the reasons that deficit is so huge is because of shrinking revenues, and 23 million jobs would be a good remedy for not only the deficit, but those PROJECTED shortfalls in social security, and medicare.
I will have to address the real elephant in the room, the pentagon/security after I pick up my grand daughter, and adjust my lime up a bit more, as my red hot pitchers are cooling of fast. I will leave you with one thing though, and that's the Haliburton contract and other military contractors.
Lol I think Haliburton has gotten more contracts from the Obots than the previous adm.
So is there some significance in that
Haliburton has gotten no bid contracts now from 3 consecutive administrations.. It has nothing to do with cronyism... they are just the best at the service they provide to the government .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
We tend not to deal in absolutes when it comes to a social ethos. Too ideological for our liking.
Tut
Yes a lot of things are true there that we don't experience elsewhere
I forgot to answer this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What you have here is a type of dialectic. In other words, you seem to be putting forward the idea of trial and error and the elimination of error.There are of course different dialectical methods but all have one thing in common, viz they all deal with the study of change.
Basically I don't think you can study an institution in terms of how it once functioned and claim to know how it works now. I think you would have to pick one premise. Together they seem like a contradiction.
Tut
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...om-640x462.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
.Quote:
Especially when it doesn't balance the budget
There's been no effort to balance any budget, another "big" Obama promise broken. So far his laughable budgets have been voted down 610-0 since last May. Pretty pathetic for his boasting to get spending under ntrol...
Epic FAIL.Quote:
“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we've inherited. And we'll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”
Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
The 2013 budget the president submitted today does not come close to meeting this promise of being reduced to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.
The president noted in that 2009 speech the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.
The deficit was similarly $1.3 trillion in 2011, is projected to be $1.15 trillion in 2012, and the president's budget claims it will be $901 billion in 2013.
The only job growth spurred by the feds under Obama is in government jobs.Quote:
One of the reasons that deficit is so huge is because of shrinking revenues, and 23 million jobs would be a good remedy for not only the deficit, but those PROJECTED shortfalls in social security, and medicare.
Dude, the rest of you can't beat the unmanaged team in second place below me. :pQuote:
I will have to address the real elephant in the room, the pentagon/security after I pick up my grand daughter, and adjust my lime up a bit more, as my red hot pitchers are cooling of fast. I will leave you with one thing though, and that's the Haliburton contract and other military contractors.
Steve, this graph tells us nothing. What are we talking here- social expenditure or welfare expenditure? Both?
Tut
Hello again, TUT:Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
You hit the nail on the head... There's statistics, and there's damn statistics. I don't know who said that, but he's right.
Case in point. The governor of Wisconsin is being recalled. One side has statistics to PROVE that jobs were LOST during his watch... He has statistics to PROVE that jobs were GAINED. I don't know who to believe.
The chart Steve posted was prepared by a "severely right wing" senator. You can believe it if you wish. There was a time when you could COUNT on what your congressman told you... Not any more.
excon
It says we spend a lot of money.
Notwithstanding the fact that slashing budgets during a recession is in itself recessionary, since the government is the last resort for spending because the banks, corporations and consumers cannot,
Federal Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Are Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic
And that pesky recession thing again makes spending even more important and historically, the government safety net, you know the one that's supposed to catch people when times are hard,
Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012
So while you holler about spending, make sure you examine what the spending is on. And while raising taxes on the rich doesn't pay for the whole deficit, it sure does help. Isn't that the way Clinton balanced the budget, taxes, and cuts. One without the other does nothing but add to suffering.
And you like charts, lets examine the effects of those tax cuts, under Bush, that you protect so well at the expense of the old and poor, and mainly kids,Quote:
What's important to look at, according to OMB Watch's regulatory expert Jessica Randall, is the impact the regulations have had. Many have helped Americans, such as the health care reform act allowing children to remain covered under their parents' health insurance until age 26.
"The regulations issued under Obama have benefited people's lives more than they've cost them," Randall said
CHART: Without The Bush Tax Cuts, The Debt Would Be At Sustainable Levels | ThinkProgress
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts | Economic Policy Institute
Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts in one chart
As you see there are many sources that blow Mitts and republican protectionism out of the water, as they few benefit, at the expense of the rich, and the claims of job creators is but spin for trickle down, supply side economics. True job creators are consumers whose spending spurs demand, keeps factories, and warehouses booming, and corporations in business. Real job creators circulate money, not sit on it and claim they are afraid to spend because of regulations taxes, or pimples on the butt.
End of Economy 101. Questions??
Now if the Germans and the EU, do their own Marshall plan, what happened to Germany decades ago, can happen in Greece, and we all can relax. For sure we know if the austerity in Europe, espoused here by Republicans becomes reality, then we will get the same results that they are getting. Mitt and the crew get rich, and even higher unemployment. NO JOBS!
End of Economy 102, European Economics.
Funny how republicans don't want even the smallest tax hikes (.05%) on the 1%, to create much needed infrastructure projects, and jobs in the process. Wonder why? Oh that's right, if the president is right, then they are wrong!
Questions??
Hello tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
**greenie**
excon
[QUOTE=talaniman;3121174]Or in our case, won't because we have an administration that's extremely unfriendly to business... unless you're one of those they're picking as a "winner," like Solyndra.Quote:
Notwithstanding the fact that slashing budgets during a recession is in itself recessionary, since the government is the last resort for spending because the banks, corporations and consumers cannot,
Um yes, is the hyper-partisanship only on the right or does it infect Democrats, too?Quote:
Funny how republicans don't want even the smallest tax hikes (.05%) on the 1%, to create much needed infrastructure projects, and jobs in the process. Wonder why? Oh that's right, if the president is right, then they are wrong!
Questions??
Which type are these?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Early season ones..
excon
Stats that say I chose my team's name right.
Hey ;did you see where the Obots are all bothered that the Chinese are exporting heavily subsidized solar panels... ROFL . The only difference is that our heavy subsidized solar companies go under.
I Guess you missed the list of the more than 135 companies that got loans from the energy department. Solyndra was but one and not all of them survived, and Solyndra was not the only company that stands as a viable company for the future, after the lawsuits and tariffs have run their course.It may take a while, and believe it or not, rising costs in China may bring those corporations back to American shores. Stay tuned as there is a lot going on in that part of the world.Quote:
QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Or in our case, won't because we have an administration that's extremely unfriendly to business... unless you're one of those they're picking as a "winner," like Solyndra.
Back in the day when Republicans actually wanted to solve problems I had my heroes, McCain, Hatch, Lugar, actually there were a few who were very thoughtful and pragmatic. The ones that are replacing them are just rubber necks with no clue about what they are doing, I mean NONE, and have but one agenda, to do as they are told by the powers that be. Not the Tea Party, as many think, but the monied people in the background who have subverted the right wing and conservatives, and scare the hell out of them.Quote:
Um yes, is the hyper-partisanship only on the right or does it infect Democrats, too?
No I am not hyper partisan, but I do see the effects on real people when a consensus is not reached. I even respect Ronald Reagan to some degree for being flexible in the face of facts and events, to manage and govern fairly effectively, and do what he had to to keep things going. I don't believe in supply side economics at all, but he also raised taxes when he had to.
No I am not hyper partisan at all, just don't BS me with dumb ideas, and expect me to not say anything. You would do well to keep a pen and a calculator by the computer, and get your own facts, and not what's been told to you, because both sides lie and spin thing there way. It was Ronald Reagan that said TRUST, but VERIFY! Wise words!
After the off season I think its safe to say Josh has something to prove, he is on FIRE!
Socialist societies can do that! But the Chinese are not the all powerful you think they are. They are dependent on the outside world for basicsand a growing number of population centers are bring pressure to the government for much needed resources and social reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tal,Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You must have been listening to the John Saul lectures
Quote Saul:
The neo-conservatives who are closely linked to the neo-corporatists, are rather different. The claim to be conservative, when everything they stand for is a rejection of conservatism. The claim to present an alternative social model, when they are little more than courtiers of the corporatist movement. Their agitation is filled with the bitterness and cynicism typical of courtiers who scramble for crumbs at the banquet table of real power, but are always denied a proper chair.
Indeed socialist countries need a beggar thy neighbor policy because their economic policies can't stand on their own.Quote:
Socialist societies can do that!
Yeah I bet you had a 'McCain for President' placard on your front lawn.Quote:
Back in the day when Republicans actually wanted to solve problems I had my heroes, McCain, Hatch, Lugar, actually there were a few who were very thoughtful and pragmatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Good point. Saul forget to add neo-socialists to his quote.
Tut
Read the books but never heard the lectures, but its not hard to see what Rove, Limbaugh, Norquist, and Army are really about, MONEY/POWER, CONTROL. And its all based in scaring people of low information.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Socialist, or democratic, there are no nations that can stand on their own. All depend on the resources for sale by other nations. We sell them treasury bonds, they sell us stuff.Quote:
QUOTE by tomder
Indeed socialist countries need a beggar thy neighbor policy because their economic policies can't stand on their own.
He became irrelevant when he chose Palin as a running mate.Quote:
yeah I bet you had a 'McCain for President' placard on your front lawn.
Hello again, TUT:
Did I mention crony capitalism?? THIS guy doesn't have to compete. He has friends in high places...
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hi Ex,
I think you did.
I don't want to sound too much like Saul, but I think we are all courtiers of the corporate benevolent benefactors (left and right).
By granting corporations more power the left and right believes their power will increase accordingly. However, our power base was eroded once SCOTUS decided that interest groups are really economic interest groups.
As politicians the only way we can gain more crumbs is to appease the real arbitrators of power. I think we are bitter and cynical because they only throw a few more crumbs and then inquire of the political and legal systems as to whether they can have more power in return. We are mesmerized by the ideology.
Believe it or not this is not a criticism of corporations. Corporations will do what is necessary to gain maximum benefit. As a shareholder I would be disappointed if they didn't.
Corporations are not individuals. They don't get bitter and cynical with politics- only real people can do this. Corporations will side with what ever politician will realize the most benefit. Hopefully a few more crumbs will come our way.
Tut
I can hear the band playing now, it is playing the Colonel Bogie March it is probably unfamiliar to you but some words sung to its tune go Bullshlt, Bullshlt, it's all the band could play, they played it night and dayQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Clete,
Thanks for the insight. I think I can now see where Tom's comments are directed. The penny drops for me.
Tut
And with those comments it's clear that there is nothing else to contribute to the debate . See you .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
My apologies.
Your comment was in relation to socialistic countries. But you didn't refer to the countries.
My insight the belief on my part that I had worked out the country you were talking about.
I can assure you that my comment was not a suggest in any way that your comments are BS. This was never my intention and never will be.
Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Tut
No I did Tut, it's OK Tom you can spit the dummy, take your bat and ball, and go home
Sometimes you just have to call it how you see it
Seems the G8 summit at Camp David is turning the conversation from just austerity to investments in light of elections in Greece, Spain, and Germany. It's a start.
Hello tal:
Here's the crazy thing... Europe is having trouble... Our right wingers say it's because they spent too much, and that's where we're headed. I say it's because the government cut the people off at the knees, and that's where we're headed..
Seems like somebody should be able to figure out exactly WHAT is going on. No?
excon
Apparently Obama's vision for the G8 was to pander to women. He doesn't do anything without putting himself first.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
WHAAAAA? Explain that one or have a Starbucks on me!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What's goining on ex is the IMF got loose again they have only one agenda gut government spendingQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
It's the same here Clete, big banks want to implement more of what we call trickle down economics, which requires them to make the rules and the government being to weak to do anything about it. Europeans have never been really exposed to this type of corporate, and economic coup before, and its wrecking havoc.
The European Stabilization Mechanism, or How the Goldman Vampire Squid Just Captured Europe | NationofChange
European conservatives are no different than American conservatives, they hate governments of the people, and love the bankers of the wealthy.Quote:
The Goldman Sachs coup that failed in America has nearly succeeded in Europe—a permanent, irrevocable, unchallengeable bailout for the banks underwritten by the taxpayers.
Very Interesting article Tal but I found an error in it and if there is one error there will be more. The error refers to the Commonwealth Bank as a state owned bank
The reserve bank in Australia is the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Bank, a one time government asset put in place in the great depression due to bank failures, was privatised years agoQuote:
This is not a new idea but has been used historically to very good effect, e.g. in Australia through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia
That's no error though Clete, as this bank has morphed into what we have here in the states a private super big financial institute(S). The reference was to what the Europeans could model their state banks on the way Australia and Canada has done over the years.
Put simply, a state bank would let the Greeks, Spanish, and others leverage its own debt, without the strings of other banks and in the case of the Greeks specifically, a much lower interest rate (18% currently to 4 or 5%), refinancing the debt options, local private investments, bond issuance and best of all the formation of a Greek Federal reserve to value its own currency on the open market.Quote:
Alternatively, Eurozone governments could re-establish their economic sovereignty by reviving their publicly owned central banks and using them to issue the credit of the nation for the benefit of the nation, effectively interest-free. This is not a new idea but has been used historically to very good effect, e.g. in Australia through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and in Canada through the Bank of Canada.
Most nations have done this, even some Eurozone nations and had the greeks coat been pulled long ago, we wouldn't even be talking of their debt, or collapse, so the question is why weren't they, and why are they not now?
My guess its those high monthly, yearly revenue streams that greek debts bring some as they extract whatever wealth they can before anybody figures it out. Its simple really, poor nations have to do what other nations have done to become stable, and prosperous, and meet the challenges of globalization. Then no outside entity could impose austerity, and the poverty that comes with it.
Tal the Commonwealth Bank was originally a savings bank. However there was never a suggestion of loans made at low interest. Today that bank is very strong in the commercial and residential sectors and is very large even by world standards. It is not an instrument of government policy. Australia has had a long period of high interest rates, much higher than in US and Europe, its economy has thrived without government contrivence to force down interest rates. One of the reasons your economy is slow to recover is lack of incentive for investment caused by low interest rates. Greece on the other hand is below junk bond status and unlikely to attract investment, it therefore needs assistence at government level
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 AM. |