Lookin' For That Apology...

[NYcarbineer]

and the tax cut put 40 dollars a month in our pockets the rest were a mish mash that lacked any real economic oomph. obama apparently realizes that now, maybe.

the other 400 billion ( and dude we both know they passed other 'mini' stimulus along the way) supposedly created 3 million jobs? uhm no the cbo says between 1.4 and 3.3...wow can we get a bigger fudge factor than that? So lets say 3 million, so at what cost per job did that buy us?


10 days ago the unemployment rate went to 9.8%.......

And yet you're supporting doing essentially the same thing over again.

How about we stop believing the only way this country can survive is to go deeper and deeper and deeper in debt to the Chinese? Is that what we've come to?

Is this nation so dysfunctional, so inefficient, so misguided, so systemically flawed that all we can think of to keep our economy alive is to borrow more money? It's the inevitable answer now, almost reflexive,

every time the country hits a bad patch the answer to our problems takes some form of going deeper in debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you don't have to borrow money you don't spend ..hello.

Then why are the Republicans pushing even the president into the vortex of the tax cut death spiral without insisting on matching spending cuts?

 

[Madeline]

Madeline,

I didn't want McCain as the nominee in 08, but voted for him because it was a vote against the empty suit.

The biggest difference would have been that McCain would have worked on the economy straight up from the beginning instead of wasting 18 months on Health care. We would be way ahead of the game by now.

It is undoubtedly true that McCain would not have attempted any wide-ranging reform of health care. I'll even concede that Obamacare is not a significant step in the right direction.

So McCain would have had more time and political will to use in attending to other matters. I suspect he'd have deepened the war effort, Ollie, mebbe gone after Pakistan or North Korea. I have no reason to think there's any silver bullet for our economy, nor that McCain has one and has been selfishly hoarding it.

If the GOP has so many answers to what ails us, why aren't we hearing them?

 

[daveman]

No. I am curious why all the professed deficit hawks on the right are supporting this 900 billion dollar budget buster.

That's just as interesting a question as why all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending loved Obama's.

Your post is mentally retarded. You say all the lefties while talking to a lefty who is unequivocally opposed to this budget busting tax bill.

No one who supports this can call themselves a fiscal conservative. You can justify supporting in any way you want, but you are not a fiscal conservative if you support this.

Goodness, but you're not very bright. I didn't say "all the lefties"...I said "all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending".

Feeling your toes stepped on? Yeah, I expect you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a lefty would think that increasing taxes wouldn't have a damaging effect on the economy in 2011, when in reality the tax increase would result in lower tax receipts than under the current rate structure.

What if we were to cut 900 billion in government spending instead? How would that affect the economy/jobs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's just as interesting a question as why all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending loved Obama's.

Your post is mentally retarded. You say all the lefties while talking to a lefty who is unequivocally opposed to this budget busting tax bill.

No one who supports this can call themselves a fiscal conservative. You can justify supporting in any way you want, but you are not a fiscal conservative if you support this.

Goodness, but you're not very bright. I didn't say "all the lefties"...I said "all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending".

Feeling your toes stepped on? Yeah, I expect you are.

Bernie Sanders spoke for 8 HOURS yesterday against this budget busting bill. Is he lefty enough for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's just as interesting a question as why all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending loved Obama's.

Your post is mentally retarded. You say all the lefties while talking to a lefty who is unequivocally opposed to this budget busting tax bill.

No one who supports this can call themselves a fiscal conservative. You can justify supporting in any way you want, but you are not a fiscal conservative if you support this.

Goodness, but you're not very bright. I didn't say "all the lefties"...I said "all the lefties who condemned Bush's deficit spending".

Feeling your toes stepped on? Yeah, I expect you are.

Do you even have a position on this tax bill?

 

[boedicca]

Only a lefty would think that increasing taxes wouldn't have a damaging effect on the economy in 2011, when in reality the tax increase would result in lower tax receipts than under the current rate structure.

What if we were to cut 900 billion in government spending instead? How would that affect the economy/jobs?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We should cut taxes, cut spending, fix the monetary policy, and unwind the huge regulatory apparatus that has created a thuggery unbound by the rule of law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did earmarks become a central issue, PC?

Are you actually pretending that you don't understand the connection between deficits, that lead to debt, and how pork and earmarks are what increases deficits???

mmmm....earmarks amount to one-fifth of 1 percent of federal spending....

Interestingly....since they originated with the practice of actual marks farmers put on their pigs’ ears to identify them at market...there is something delightfully pignacious in the use of that designation along with the whole idea of political pork and boss hogs

Does that mmmmmm thing work for you?

Like so many things in life, Wiley, we never really get the full story....

from your link "In most cases, earmarks don’t add ..."

Now what could that mean?

It could mean that whether you call it pork or earmarks or gimmicks or 'accounting procedures,' you will never get a true picture of what the pols are doing.

Consider the following:

1. It should be enlightening, here, to explore accounting procedures…one of which is known as the Unified Cash Basis Budgeting. Just as with any one of us who writes a check, it is recorded as an expense, and when we receive a check, it is listed as income. Generally, government treats budgets in the same way. U.S. GAO - Search :: "Cash basis accounting"

a. So, a deficit means that the government spent more than it received during a specific fiscal year.

b. Now, think about this: using the cash basis method, you plan for a vacation in January by taking a $2,000 loan in December. This will appear as an asset in your bookkeeping- even though you will be obligated to repay this loan: it is actually a liability! This is exactly the situation that allowed Clinton to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and claim this as revenue, even though it is an obligation to pay in the future. Beck, Balke, “Broke,” p. 172.

c. Now, watch the sleight-of-hand: using the money received now as revenue, even though it is supposed to be for paying future benefits! http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05958sp.pdf
It is the Social Security surplus that helps offset the huge deficits!

d. So, by this method we can pencil it in when cash is paid: it gives a picture of finances at a given moment…but fails to account for resources used but not yet paid for. Retirement costs of employees? No! This is the method used by the CBO for budgeting purposes. The federal budget: politics, policy ... - Google Books

e. This is the preferred method to use if you wish to convince folks that things aren’t as bad as they really are.

2. The Modified Accrual Basis Budget is more accurate, in that it measures inciome and expenses when they are actually earned or incurred, when the transaction is actually agreed to: buy two steaks, and pay on the spot. This method gives a longer-term view of all obligations, as well as resources used that year. But…it doesn’t show how much has to be borrowed for that year’s activities.

a. This method takes into consideration the cost of retirement benefits of federal employees; the method is generally used by private-sector corporations and businesses, as well as the federal government, for reporting- but not for budgeting.

b. This method does not include expected tax revenues, since it is difficult to estimate same…so it is not accounted for until it is officially collected.

3. The federal government uses both methods, as well as several other financial statements. But even this totality makes it difficult to account for long term commitments that include Social Security and Medicare. (Thus, some of those other statements). No. 282: Federal Government 2009 GAAP-Accounting

4. In addition to the above methods of calculation, there are other factors that allow the flim-flam: the influence on the annual deficit of three major “off budget” items: Social Security payroll taxes, Social Security benefit payments, and the net balance of the US Postal Service. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05958sp.pdf

a. And, if you don’t think that the reporting is made purposely confusing, the costs of running the Social Security Administration (SSA) are “on budget,” making it almost impossible to match the costs of administration with the revenues taken in.

b. The total federal deficit is the sum of on-budget deficit and off-budget deficit. But, get this, the surplus of Social Security payroll taxes is called an “off-budget” surplus, is put in the Social Security Trust Fund, which is then lent to the government…which uses it as revenue!

c. Imagine you put away $5,000 every year for forty years, for retirement, but every year you lent yourself $5,000 to go on vacation- what would you have at retirement? Forty I.O.U.’s.

d. So, one of the usual accounting ‘tricks’ is what we call ‘double counting:’ they treat it as income and use it while pretending it is there for future benefits.

5. By designating legislation “emergency,” the legislation can avoid many of the normal budget rules, and, instead, enter the “supplemental appropriations process.” Realize, the process is designed for events like wars and natural disasters…but “each year over the last tw-and-a-half decades, Congress and the President have enacted between one and eight supplemental bills, rnging form $1.3 billion in FY 1988 to $120 billion in FY 2007.” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf

a. And, of course, pork projects always get added. “For instance, the War Supplemental Appropriations Act (2003) appropriated $348 million
for 29 projects unrelated to the war, such as $110 million for the National Animal
Disease Center in Ames, Iowa. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (2005) contained $1.13 billion
for projects that had nothing to do with defense or tsunami relief, including $55 million
for wastewater treatment in De Soto County, Mississippi and $25 million for the For Peck Fish Hatchery in Montana.” Ibid.

6. And the pols use the calendar, If the payout is due toward the end of a fiscal year, cutting the checks a few days later, in the next fiscal year, makes the bottom line look better.

7. Check this one out: David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, invented the “magic asterisk” which he added when he couldn’t justify expenditures: it included the phrase “Future saving to be identified.” An asterisk that made billions of expenditure disappear! More David Stockman Magic Asterisk Blogging - Grasping Reality with Both Hands

8. And if a new program is far too expensive to reveal, use the ‘Healthcare’ gambit: get OMB to calculate the costs over 10 years, but don’t set the program to begin for two or three years, essentially costing for seven years. They did this Medicare Part D, 2003, which didn’t fully phase in until 2006. This gave it the expense of ‘only’ $395 for ten years…but it is now estimated to be $952 billion for the next ten years, or an unfunded $7.2 trillion over seventy-five years.


These are some of the reasons that folks can obfuscate with 'when did earmarks become an issue,' or 'earmarks are only 1%' of spending....

They do not want you to know what is being spent, and once you figure out the above, they will institute new names and categories...

Look at the national debt: see if you can figure out why it never goes down.


Now, if you want to say "But not all of that is earmarks"...then this post is not for you.

 

[Truthmatters]

The tea party hasnt said one fucking word about the Debt the republicans want to see this country approve.

They were phoney bullshit right from the start.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Madeline,

I didn't want McCain as the nominee in 08, but voted for him because it was a vote against the empty suit.

The biggest difference would have been that McCain would have worked on the economy straight up from the beginning instead of wasting 18 months on Health care. We would be way ahead of the game by now.

It is undoubtedly true that McCain would not have attempted any wide-ranging reform of health care. I'll even concede that Obamacare is not a significant step in the right direction.

So McCain would have had more time and political will to use in attending to other matters. I suspect he'd have deepened the war effort, Ollie, mebbe gone after Pakistan or North Korea. I have no reason to think there's any silver bullet for our economy, nor that McCain has one and has been selfishly hoarding it.

If the GOP has so many answers to what ails us, why aren't we hearing them?

Even if McCain had eked out a win, he would not have had a GOP legislature. What McCain and a Democratic Congress would have done over the last 2 years would not have made the right an iota happier than they have been with Obama.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be an 'I can't', right?

Clinton raised the national debt by almost 30%.

The question was about McCain, not Clinton you daft cow.

And Reagan raised the debt 190% according to the numbers you insist on using.

So you are retacting your comment as to how successful Clinton was in the use of PAYGO?

See, you are capable of learning!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The tea party hasnt said one fucking word about the Debt the republicans want to see this country approve.

They were phoney bullshit right from the start.

Well, you do have Tea Party leader Jim DeMint still complaining that the UE extension isn't paid for.

lol

As I pointed out several days ago and is now catching on is that the grim irony here is that the GOP is railroading the president into supporting a massive budget busting deficit increasing tax bill,

and then, in 2012, they'll be running against the OBAMA deficit.

 

[Truthmatters]

The right in this country have no real moral code.

They made big fusses about deficit spending under Obama and what the fuck do they do right after the election?

They choose to deficit spend in the worst economically stimulative way "tax cuts for the wealthiest".


Good thing there is Fox news or NO ONE would be stupid enough to follow their failed ideas.

Fox news keeps the brick brains lined wth fresh bricks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In '08 I didn't know this MB or the echo chamber existed, hence, I owe no one an apology.
That said, I too am disappointed in Obama's performance, he is the one who needs to step up and press the agenda, even if the agenda is limited to preventing the reactionary forces of the right from moving us into the 19th century.
As a progressive I have no need to apologize. The New Right is anathema to nearly everything I believe in terms of law, labor and liberty as well as economic policy and the role of government in foreign and domestic policy.

That's a fair post.

The reason I like it is that it means that the battles here on the USMB can go on ad infinitum,

and I believe that the 'market place of ideas' will ultimately provide the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clinton raised the national debt by almost 30%.

The question was about McCain, not Clinton you daft cow.

And Reagan raised the debt 190% according to the numbers you insist on using.

So you are retacting your comment as to how successful Clinton was in the use of PAYGO?

See, you are capable of learning!

No, ditz, going from a presidency that increases the debt 190% (Reagan) to a presidency that only increases the debt 30% (Clinton) would, apparently everywhere except Conservatopia,

be considered a major improvement.

Oh, and let's not neglect George Bush Sr. I don't think his numbers were particularly attractive either.

 

[Trajan]

and the tax cut put 40 dollars a month in our pockets the rest were a mish mash that lacked any real economic oomph. obama apparently realizes that now, maybe.

the other 400 billion ( and dude we both know they passed other 'mini' stimulus along the way) supposedly created 3 million jobs? uhm no the cbo says between 1.4 and 3.3...wow can we get a bigger fudge factor than that? So lets say 3 million, so at what cost per job did that buy us?


10 days ago the unemployment rate went to 9.8%.......

And yet you're supporting doing essentially the same thing over again.

How about we stop believing the only way this country can survive is to go deeper and deeper and deeper in debt to the Chinese? Is that what we've come to?

Is this nation so dysfunctional, so inefficient, so misguided, so systemically flawed that all we can think of to keep our economy alive is to borrow more money? It's the inevitable answer now, almost reflexive,

every time the country hits a bad patch the answer to our problems takes some form of going deeper in debt.

you appear to be missing one half of this equation. transfer payments and and other spending......take a look at the size of bushs last budget he signed, then take a look at 2009 and of course you have to go add up all of the ongoing resolutions ( which added more and more and more to the fed spending by dept's) to keep the gov. running because the dems abrogated their responsibility and did NOT do a budget for 2011......

and I have always said bush spent like a drunken sailor, he gets no pass form me...but you are the one who keeps wanting to do what he did as well...spend spend spend .....what happened to the deficit commission obama hung his hat on for a year as he kept telling us as he ratcheted up spending aside from tarp etc. that we would get a handle on things? you want to scream over tax you will not collect but don't give a hoot as to the money going out...sorry no dice.

I'll tell you what, cut spending back to at least 2008 levels and then I'd get on board with a rise in taxes, its like the border, every promise has been broken, but you want the amnesty first, nope, cqasue the border will never ever be closed. put or.......

.......I asked you last week what about that 4.5 billion for the fight the fat school food prgm.? really? we need to spend that now, on top of the 12 billion we spend already? When we are drowning? the ongoing resolution just passed has 5 Billion for Pell grnats....an increase btw, what about cutting that to say 3 billion? See?

I don't trust the gov. to do what they say we will do- CUT. cut first tax later.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only a lefty would think that increasing taxes wouldn't have a damaging effect on the economy in 2011, when in reality the tax increase would result in lower tax receipts than under the current rate structure.

I'm going to send you a rep in a moment, but let me add one thing..."Only a lefty would think that increasing taxes wouldn't have a damaging effect on the economy"...

the real outrage by the left is due to the Obama Administration itself validating the truth that we on the right have been saying all along:

tax cuts grow the economy!

They have essentially admitted same!

It's the reason Obama wants the deal: to improve the economy and better his chances for election...

and they're going nuts!

 

[rdean]

Madeline,

I didn't want McCain as the nominee in 08, but voted for him because it was a vote against the empty suit.

The biggest difference would have been that McCain would have worked on the economy straight up from the beginning instead of wasting 18 months on Health care. We would be way ahead of the game by now.

The Democrats passed a 300 billion dollar tax cut and 450 billion in spending to stimulate the economy in FEBRUARY OF 2009.

Now you can tell us what McCain would have done SOONER and DIFFERENTLY.

lol

Bombed Iran. Cut military benefits. Made "Viagra" free. All part of his campaign strategies.

 

[Trajan]

did you watch this? as posted last page?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po7J0f5TMrQ&feature=player_embedded[/ame]