House GOP set to reject debt ceiling increase

[daveman]

So, now you're to the point of just making things up.

Reality is what it is, and no amount of leftist foot-stamping and hissy fits will change it. Your refusal to accept what's right in front of you says more about you than the information.

Okay, so I'm looking a the history of the misery index on The United States Misery Index

My question for you is this:

If there was some major change in the manner the index was calculated before and after 1990,

why are the indexes in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 all within 1.1 points of each other?

How is that possible if major changes in the calculations occurred around that time???

Be specific.

Questions regarding the miseryindex.us web site may be directed to [email protected]

 

[daveman]

So, according to daveman,

unemployment was 20% when Bush left office in 2009.

No, according to SGS. I think you'll find, if you put just a tiny amount of thought into it, that I am not SGS.

 

[Bern80]

Oh, I want Obama and the Democrats to let the GOP vote to default the Country. I think it would be a great political move for them. Everyone will remember who voted NO....again.

Actually you're wrong here. The U.S. will not default if the debt cieling doesn't rise. You default when you just plain stop paying your debt. The U.S. will not stop paying its debt even if the debt cieling doesn't rise. If the debt cieling doesn't rise all it does is prevent the U.S. from borrowing MORE money. Which is as good a way as any to curb government spending. The best way to do that is quite simply make them. If they can't borrow they will finally be forced to cut spending.

 

[saveliberty]

Three things that will preserve Social Security as a self-sustaining entity are;

(1) Increase eligibility age to conform with life expectancy ratio.

(2) Remove the contribution "cap."

(3) Apply a means test to suspend payments to individuals whose assets disqualify their need for income supplement.

As for Medicare, two ways to significantly reduce its cost is eliminate the Part D and the Advantage components, both of which were put in place by the Bush Administration to divert a significant percentage of the overall cost to the private sector (Bush's corporate "base").

The bottom line is there is no need or reason to include the lower income brackets as targets in any economic reform program. All that is needed is to focus on undoing the redistribution of wealth resources facilitated by Reaganomics -- which also is responsible for nearly collapsing the Economy. Our system has been methodically disrupted and our treasury has been looted by deviously cunning manipulation of laws and federal policies. We need to stabilize our economic system and recover those resources by restoring the New Deal laws and policies that benefited and protected us and by reversing the manipulations.

I.e., By fighting fire with fire.

Stealing money from those better off is NOT a role of government Mike. To be fair, the graph showing the rise in entitlements is really wrong. First of all Social security is a return of money invested by those who receive it for the most part. Also, there are baby boomers taking their SS, which has made the payouts MUCH bigger.

 

[MikeK]

(3) Apply a means test to suspend payments to individuals whose assets disqualify their need for income supplement.

so how would that work?

they going to wait till I get to 65 67 whatever, then tell me guess what you planned to well, you're too rich so you get to pay now, after having put into the pot for 50 years? pardon my vulgarity but I don't fucking think so.

To better understand the concept of a means test one must first understand that Social Security is insurance, not an investment.

Think of car insurance as analogous to Social Security. I've been paying for car insurance for about half a century. That's quite a bit of money. I've never had an accident so there has been no need to collect any insurance money. Should I feel outraged as you seem to be because of the possibility that you might become so wealthy that a monthly Social Security check would exceed any real need you might have?

I presently receive Social Security. I am not wealthy. But if the amount of my monthly Social Security check were reduced by $100 I wouldn't be compromised because my accumulated level of assets ensures my comfort and security. There are many Americans who would be equally comfortable with a $200 reduction, others with a $300 reduction, and so on, and still others who have absolutely no need for a monthly Social Security check at all.

Social Security is a socialist program, indeed. But it is a very good program because it has been eminently successful in preventing the kind of widespread misery and impoverishment of Americans that accompanied their old age in the years before the program was established.

 

[MikeK]

you are barking up the wrong tree.

and speaking of redundant, there are tons of gov. prgms that are duplicated and flat out money waters and yes that goes for the DOD too, however the DOD has been and is continuing to cut......how many times must that be said, yet entitlements are off the table according to the dems......

your turn.

That graph, which I suspect was produced during the Bush years, represents projections and conflicts sharply with the following actual figures. So the graph is misleading and irrelevant.

February 26, 2009

When including funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, and nuclear weapons activities, the United States spends significantly more, in FY 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense today than it did during the peak years of the Korean War (1952; $604 billion), the Vietnam War (1968; $513 billion), or the 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1985; $556 billion). U.S. defense spending is higher today than at any point since World War II.


Table 4. Budget Authority for National Defense, FY 1948-2009
(in billions of constant FY09 dollars; includes war & nuclear funding)
Fiscal Year Funding Fiscal Year Funding Fiscal Year Funding
1948 $171 1969 $497 1990 $492
1949 $160 1970 $454 1991 $447
1950 $181 1971 $411 1992 $443
1951 $460 1972 $398 1993 $416
1952 $604 1973 $378 1994 $383
1953 $504 1974 $362 1995 $381
1954 $385 1975 $352 1996 $371
1955 $343 1976 $357 1997 $367
1956 $347 1977 $383 1998 $358
1957 $363 1978 $377 1999 $375
1958 $361 1979 $378 2000 $387
1959 $376 1980 $385 2001 $426
1960 $364 1981 $428 2002 $448
1961 $366 1982 $470 2003 $547
1962 $416 1983 $502 2004 $570
1963 $418 1984 $522 2005 $565
1964 $404 1985 $557 2006 $605
1965 $390 1986 $536 2007 $660
1966 $458 1987 $519 2008 $709
1967 $510 1988 $508 2009 $687
1968 $513 1989 $502

Table/Chart Notes: Includes funding for wars and nuclear weapons. Data from Department of Defense, Congressional Research Service.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Current U.S. Defense Spending vs. Spending Since 1948


But I do agree with you in that there are many government programs and expenditures which are redundant or unnecessary and should be eliminated.

 

[MikeK]

[Stealing money from those better off is NOT a role of government Mike.

[...]

"Stealing from those better off" is a severely misguided comparison.

According to the Constitution, one critically important purpose of government is that of promoting the general welfare. Which presumably includes prevention of impoverishment during the non-productive senior years.

Or do you disagree?

Question: Are your parents living? Grandparents? Is their old age made more comfortable by Social Security? Were it not for Social Security is it likely that you would need to aid them?

 

[Polk]

John Williams, over at Shadow Stats, compiles economic data for inflation and unemployment the way it used to be calculated pre-1990. Based on that data, the CPI inflation rate is over 10%, and the unemployment rate is over 15% (see charts). The Misery Index is the sum of the current inflation rate and the unemployment rate. If it were to be calculated using the older methods, the Index would now be over 25, a record high. It surpasses the old index high of 21.98, which occurred in June 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. Most believe the height of the Index along with the Iranian hostage crisis is what caused Carter to lose his re-election bid.​

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Shadow Stat Misery Index Highest on Record

So, now you're to the point of just making things up.

Reality is what it is, and no amount of leftist foot-stamping and hissy fits will change it. Your refusal to accept what's right in front of you says more about you than the information.

What "reality"? All you did was post some random blogger's claim.

 

[Trajan]

Your first mistake is regarding the potential yield from slashing the redundant defense budget and scrapping the counterproductive drug war as "little parts." These are massive and unnecessary expenditures.

Your second mistake is presuming I expect those spending reductions to immediately solve the problem. Provided we can stop habitually spending the Nation into debt those reductions, alone, over time will pay down and resolve the deficit. But I'm not opposed to other spending cuts and I'm sure there are many prospects for that.

If you are determined to follow the Republican party line and go after Social Security and Medicare, considering your own parents' and/or grandparents' circumstances, specifically what kind of reforms do you have in mind?

you are barking up the wrong tree.

and speaking of redundant, there are tons of gov. prgms that are duplicated and flat out money waters and yes that goes for the DOD too, however the DOD has been and is continuing to cut......how many times must that be said, yet entitlements are off the table according to the dems......

your turn.

How can that chart predict what we'll be spending on defense in the next 10 years?

becasue its based on davemans source which is based on DOD large ( capital) expenditures cuts as they are planned via the quadrennial defense review 10 years out, which was conducted in 2010, and becasue we have cut several platforms already that had been factored in under Bush, ala the F-22 and 3 Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers, a downsize of 47,000 troops among others things....

 

[Trajan]

you are barking up the wrong tree.

and speaking of redundant, there are tons of gov. prgms that are duplicated and flat out money waters and yes that goes for the DOD too, however the DOD has been and is continuing to cut......how many times must that be said, yet entitlements are off the table according to the dems......

your turn.

That graph, which I suspect was produced during the Bush years, represents projections and conflicts sharply with the following actual figures. So the graph is misleading and irrelevant.

February 26, 2009

When including funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, and nuclear weapons activities, the United States spends significantly more, in FY 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense today than it did during the peak years of the Korean War (1952; $604 billion), the Vietnam War (1968; $513 billion), or the 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1985; $556 billion). U.S. defense spending is higher today than at any point since World War II.


Table 4. Budget Authority for National Defense, FY 1948-2009
(in billions of constant FY09 dollars; includes war & nuclear funding)
Fiscal Year Funding Fiscal Year Funding Fiscal Year Funding
1948 $171 1969 $497 1990 $492
1949 $160 1970 $454 1991 $447
1950 $181 1971 $411 1992 $443
1951 $460 1972 $398 1993 $416
1952 $604 1973 $378 1994 $383
1953 $504 1974 $362 1995 $381
1954 $385 1975 $352 1996 $371
1955 $343 1976 $357 1997 $367
1956 $347 1977 $383 1998 $358
1957 $363 1978 $377 1999 $375
1958 $361 1979 $378 2000 $387
1959 $376 1980 $385 2001 $426
1960 $364 1981 $428 2002 $448
1961 $366 1982 $470 2003 $547
1962 $416 1983 $502 2004 $570
1963 $418 1984 $522 2005 $565
1964 $404 1985 $557 2006 $605
1965 $390 1986 $536 2007 $660
1966 $458 1987 $519 2008 $709
1967 $510 1988 $508 2009 $687
1968 $513 1989 $502

Table/Chart Notes: Includes funding for wars and nuclear weapons. Data from Department of Defense, Congressional Research Service.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Current U.S. Defense Spending vs. Spending Since 1948


But I do agree with you in that there are many government programs and expenditures which are redundant or unnecessary and should be eliminated.

snip-America's role as a global leader depends on its ability to project power. In historical terms, the U.S. spends relatively little on defense today, even after the post-9/11 buildup. This year's $530 billion budget accounts for 3.5% of GDP, 4.5% when the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are included. The U.S. spent, on average, 7.5% of GDP on defense throughout the Cold War, and 6.2% at the height of the Reagan buildup in 1986.

But on coming into office, the Obama Administration put the Pentagon on a fiscal diet—even as it foisted new European-sized entitlements on America, starting with $2.6 trillion for ObamaCare. The White House proposed a $553 billion defense budget for 2012, $13 billion below what it projected last year. Through 2016, the Pentagon will see virtually zero growth in spending and will have to whittle down the Army and Marine Corps by 47,000 troops. The White House originally wanted deeper savings of up to $150 billion.

Mr. Gates deserves credit for fighting off the worst White House instincts, but his biggest defeat was not getting a share of the stimulus. Instead he has cut or killed some $350 billion worth of weapon programs. He told his four service chiefs last August to find $100 billion in savings. The White House pocketed that and asked for another $78 billion. Last year, Mr. Gates said that the Pentagon needs 2%-3% real budget growth merely to sustain what it's doing now, but it could make do with 1%. The White House gave him 0%.

snip-

"More perhaps than any other Secretary of Defense, I have been a strong advocate of soft power—of the critical importance of diplomacy and development as fundamental components of our foreign policy and national security," Mr. Gates said at Notre Dame. "But make no mistake, the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators and terrorists in the 21st century, as in the 20th, is hard power—the size, strength and global reach of the United States military."

Review & Outlook: The Gates Farewell Warning - WSJ.com


exit question- are entitlements on the table?

 

[daveman]

So, now you're to the point of just making things up.

Reality is what it is, and no amount of leftist foot-stamping and hissy fits will change it. Your refusal to accept what's right in front of you says more about you than the information.

What "reality"? All you did was post some random blogger's claim.

Good Gaea, don't you dare read it! You might be exposed to unapproved thought!

 

[The T]

No, its a default when you cannot pay your creditors. Then things go to Hell...literally.

Federal gubmint is taking in plenty of money to pay their creditors.....To the tune of $3 trillion.

Try again.

So, then let's forget about the debt ceiling. Let it pass and when we can't pay the Chinese, let's see what happens. Wait, maybe the GOP will get its wish and throw old people out in the streets. Then they can't vote!

The CHINESE are very dependent on what WE buy...they are in a more precarious position than WE are.

 

[Polk]

Reality is what it is, and no amount of leftist foot-stamping and hissy fits will change it. Your refusal to accept what's right in front of you says more about you than the information.

What "reality"? All you did was post some random blogger's claim.

Good Gaea, don't you dare read it! You might be exposed to unapproved thought!

I've heard the argument before. It hasn't become any stronger since.

 

[daveman]

What "reality"? All you did was post some random blogger's claim.

Good Gaea, don't you dare read it! You might be exposed to unapproved thought!

I've heard the argument before. It hasn't become any stronger since.

How do you know, if you refuse to read it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

 

[Polk]

Good Gaea, don't you dare read it! You might be exposed to unapproved thought!

I've heard the argument before. It hasn't become any stronger since.

How do you know, if you refuse to read it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

 

[daveman]

I've heard the argument before. It hasn't become any stronger since.

How do you know, if you refuse to read it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

Really? Where? HuffPo? They told you it was crap, didn't they? So you didn't have to read it on your own?

If you didn't read my link, you don't know what was in it, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Simple. Period. End of story.

 

[The T]

How do you know, if you refuse to read it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

Really? Where? HuffPo? They told you it was crap, didn't they? So you didn't have to read it on your own?

If you didn't read my link, you don't know what was in it, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Simple. Period. End of story.

He's a college BOY...therefore He's smarter than YOU...*BY DEFAULT*

 

[daveman]

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

Really? Where? HuffPo? They told you it was crap, didn't they? So you didn't have to read it on your own?

If you didn't read my link, you don't know what was in it, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Simple. Period. End of story.

He's a college BOY...therefore He's smarter than YOU...*BY DEFAULT*

Oh, Gaea's gargantuan gallbladder...spare us from the Poli Sci 101 and Howard Zinn history know-it-alls.

 

[Polk]

How do you know, if you refuse to read it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

Really? Where? HuffPo? They told you it was crap, didn't they? So you didn't have to read it on your own?

If you didn't read my link, you don't know what was in it, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Simple. Period. End of story.

I know what was in your link because you post an excerpt. I don't need someone to tell me what's wrong with your argument. It's pretty apparent to anyone who stops to think about it for even half a second. Even if CPI increased 10% calculated the way it was calculated in 1990 (which may or may not be true, I haven't ran the numbers and I certainly don't trust a random blogger with an axe to grind on it), it wouldn't be relevant. The goods consumers buy today are very different from the ones purchased in 1990. How does an iPad or an MP3 player fit into the typical family from 1990's budget? How about personal computers?

 

[Polk]

I haven't refused to read about the topic. I didn't read your link because I've heard the argument made elsewhere.

Really? Where? HuffPo? They told you it was crap, didn't they? So you didn't have to read it on your own?

If you didn't read my link, you don't know what was in it, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Simple. Period. End of story.

He's a college BOY...therefore He's smarter than YOU...*BY DEFAULT*

My university days are sadly past me now, but what does that have to do with anything? His weak arguments would still be weak arguments if I was five.