On a serious note, anyone know how to fix this?

[Chris]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich....

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[auditor0007]

did he have a time machine?

idiot

Are you drinking again?

The Bush tax cuts created a huge part of the deficit.

So to return things to the way they were when Clinton balanced the budget, they have to be repealed.

Ill make a deal with you. Cut spending to what it was during the Clinton administration and Ill consider a tax increase.

Impossible for the most part, and here is the reason; SS and Medicare costs have increased as a percentage of GDP, and we no longer have a yearly surplus from SS to borrow against. However, if we go by an approximate average of federal spending over the last 50 years, it's around 18.5% of GDP. Given the increases in Medicare and SS spending due to the increasing number of retirees, I'd be happy trying to get us down to 22% of GDP.

No matter what many of you think about cutting spending below 18.5%, it's just not going to happen, no matter who is in office. And the reason it won't happen is that it would be absolutely devastating to tens of millions of senior citizens. Now that being said, what we need to do is to be certain that spending does not continue to increase into the 30 percentile of GDP, and eventually even higher than that. That will likely mean making cuts to entitlement programs; the question is how those cuts will be made.

For the immediate and short term, military spending must be cut substantially, and everything other than SS and Medicare needs to see an across the board cut. We are currently spending about 26% of GDP on federal outlays. Dropping that to 22% would mean $600 billion in spending cuts. That's not $600 billion over ten years; it's $600 billion per year or $6 trillion over the next decade. Currently the super committee is trying to find a way to cut an extra $1.2 trillion. Looking at that, it goes to show just how big a cut it's going to take just to get us back to 22% of GDP. Now, based on revenue, cutting $600 billion per year will still leave us short by close to $1 trillion. That must come from revenue increases. If we could increase revenue strictly by getting the economy growing again, than great, but I don't see it happening. Most likely we need tax increases. That means substantial tax increases on the super wealthy, but also some tax increases on everyone. It should still be progressive, but everyone needs to be hit, not just the wealthy. But since the wealthy have received the greatest benefit from previous tax cuts, yes, they should feel a bit more of the pain.

These numbers are realistic, and even they will be extremely difficult to achieve. If the argument continues to be how we need to reduce taxes and cut spending to 15% of GDP, rest assured that we will never get a handle on this situation, because those numbers are not just unrealistic, they would truly destroy our economy and the lives of millions.

 

[Ropey]

Okay, I did miss your intent with your post. The dot.com bubble started building in the mid 1980's and the housing bubble has been building since the Carter administration. I honestly am not well read on the dot.com bubble, but I have read a LOT on the housing bubble and the blame for that is squarely with administrations and congresses who essentially forced irresponsible lending and bundling of debt practices on the financial institutions and especially the Congress that failed to heed President Bush's repeated and clear warnings from 2005 through 2008 until the crash.

But if we keep electing people who will only give lip service to real reform but essentially make sure the status quo is maintained, nothing is going to get fixed until we have become 100% Europeanized and lose the great nation that the Founders gave us.

The snowball is rather large but America can rebound from this as well. What it can not rebound from is a society of those who feel entitled.

This coming from a Canadian? Go figure eh?

I hope so Ropey. I hope so. We need a lot more pressure from the Tea Party and movements/organizations like them in order to get enough real reformers into Congress and the White House though. I just hope they all have the will to keep fighting.

And a lot less from the OWS and other entitlement movements imo.

I don't discount the will of Americans Foxfyre. The proof of a viable Democracy is not in the voting of elected officials although that most certainly is a factor. It is the power to vote the bums out in a bums rush and yet still gain an orderly transfer of power.

This will be an interesting American voting cycle I think.

 

[Chris]

Well yes, they did do financial wizardry which is why the Democrats still brag that Clinton left GWB with a surplus and the Republicans say the GOP reformers Congress gave GWB a surplus and the truth is there was no surplus because that debt clock kept right on running. They were just able to put a little money into the treasury for a change, but it was committed for other stuff.

But still they all promise great things and they are forgiven by their party when they don't deliver and are blamed by the opposing party when they don't deliver.

Here's a good example of promises to free us from dependence on foreign oil explained as only Jon Stewart can explain it :

An Energy-Independent Future - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/16/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

You mentioned Reagan and Nixon. I said that they did not perform the financial wizardry that Clinton did. You responded with Clinton and Bush doing it.

That's my point. Clinton started this debt repackaging scheme. The Republicans were loathe to let such a fine generator of funds drop and after the first gulf war it was a necessary embedded feature.

Until it wasn't.

Well, at least they've ended the restructuring of old debt paid via repackaging with new debt and resold with approval by Fanny and Freddy as long term debt. That took the US to its' knees though. So did the dot.com, savings and loan manipulations as well. To my eyes, clearly Capitalism needs a watchdog because of the manipulators of it and not in and of itself.

Capitalism is under attack and the owners are fighting each other.

Okay, I did miss your intent with your post. The dot.com bubble started building in the mid 1980's and the housing bubble has been building since the Carter administration. I honestly am not well read on the dot.com bubble, but I have read a LOT on the housing bubble and the blame for that is squarely with administrations and congresses who essentially forced irresponsible lending and bundling of debt practices on the financial institutions and especially the Congress that failed to heed President Bush's repeated and clear warnings from 2005 through 2008 until the crash.

But if we keep electing people who will only give lip service to real reform but essentially make sure the status quo is maintained, nothing is going to get fixed until we have become 100% Europeanized and lose the great nation that the Founders gave us.

The dot com bubble was building in the mid 1980's?

WTF?

And no one "forced irresponsible lending." That is total bullshit.

The $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that Wall Street ran is the bubble that destroyed the world economy.

 

[Chris]

The snowball is rather large but America can rebound from this as well. What it can not rebound from is a society of those who feel entitled.

This coming from a Canadian? Go figure eh?

I hope so Ropey. I hope so. We need a lot more pressure from the Tea Party and movements/organizations like them in order to get enough real reformers into Congress and the White House though. I just hope they all have the will to keep fighting.

And a lot less from the OWS and other entitlement movements imo.

I don't discount the will of Americans Foxfyre. The proof of a viable Democracy is not in the voting of elected officials although that most certainly is a factor. It is the power to vote the bums out in a bums rush and yet still gain an orderly transfer of power.

This will be an interesting American voting cycle I think.

OWS is dead on.

Wall Street destroyed the world economy.

 

[likeabird03]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Not possible, over 25% of the national debt has come to be since Obama took office.

 

[Ropey]

You mentioned Reagan and Nixon. I said that they did not perform the financial wizardry that Clinton did. You responded with Clinton and Bush doing it.

That's my point. Clinton started this debt repackaging scheme. The Republicans were loathe to let such a fine generator of funds drop and after the first gulf war it was a necessary embedded feature.

Until it wasn't.

Well, at least they've ended the restructuring of old debt paid via repackaging with new debt and resold with approval by Fanny and Freddy as long term debt. That took the US to its' knees though. So did the dot.com, savings and loan manipulations as well. To my eyes, clearly Capitalism needs a watchdog because of the manipulators of it and not in and of itself.

Capitalism is under attack and the owners are fighting each other.

Okay, I did miss your intent with your post. The dot.com bubble started building in the mid 1980's and the housing bubble has been building since the Carter administration. I honestly am not well read on the dot.com bubble, but I have read a LOT on the housing bubble and the blame for that is squarely with administrations and congresses who essentially forced irresponsible lending and bundling of debt practices on the financial institutions and especially the Congress that failed to heed President Bush's repeated and clear warnings from 2005 through 2008 until the crash.

But if we keep electing people who will only give lip service to real reform but essentially make sure the status quo is maintained, nothing is going to get fixed until we have become 100% Europeanized and lose the great nation that the Founders gave us.

The dot com bubble was building in the mid 1980's?

WTF?

And no one "forced irresponsible lending." That is total bullshit.

The $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that Wall Street ran is the bubble that destroyed the world economy.

The Dot.com, Savings and Loan and Credit Default Swapping were all three events of financial manipulations by open restriction free financing. I only attached them to show that the pattern of financial manipulation follows an unchecked Capitalistic momentum.

The repackaging of Government debt is a different manipulation in that it was performed by the Government. This is why the debt could not lower.

It's like really hard to lower the debt when you are repackaging the ones that would default into future debt and using those packages to pay for the oil and goods that you are selling today.

America sold a lot of oil on that repackaged debt. It imported a lot of commodity on that debt and because of this the debt was never lowered other than by pretending to a balancing of Government lies.

I do not attach the Credit Default Swapping and repackaging of American loans with the restructuring of debt payment to countries that America is purchasing and paying with future debt.

That's not on the backs of Wall Street imo. I never said Wall Street was clean.

 

[Chris]

Okay, I did miss your intent with your post. The dot.com bubble started building in the mid 1980's and the housing bubble has been building since the Carter administration. I honestly am not well read on the dot.com bubble, but I have read a LOT on the housing bubble and the blame for that is squarely with administrations and congresses who essentially forced irresponsible lending and bundling of debt practices on the financial institutions and especially the Congress that failed to heed President Bush's repeated and clear warnings from 2005 through 2008 until the crash.

But if we keep electing people who will only give lip service to real reform but essentially make sure the status quo is maintained, nothing is going to get fixed until we have become 100% Europeanized and lose the great nation that the Founders gave us.

The dot com bubble was building in the mid 1980's?

WTF?

And no one "forced irresponsible lending." That is total bullshit.

The $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that Wall Street ran is the bubble that destroyed the world economy.

The Dot.com, Savings and Loan and Credit Default Swapping were all three events of financial manipulations by open restriction free financing. I only attached them to show that the pattern of financial manipulation follows an unchecked Capitalistic momentum.

The repackaging of Government debt is a different manipulation in that it was performed by the Government. This is why the debt could not lower.

It's like really hard to lower the debt when you are repackaging the ones that would default into future debt and using those packages to pay for the oil and goods that you are selling today.

America sold a lot of oil on that repackaged debt. It imported a lot of commodity on that debt and because of this the debt was never lowered other than by pretending to a balancing of Government lies.

I do not attach the Credit Default Swapping and repackaging of American loans with the restructuring of debt payment to countries that America is purchasing and paying with future debt.

That's not on the backs of Wall Street imo. I never said Wall Street was clean.

You are wrong. It was entirely Wall Street.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

 

[Ropey]

The dot com bubble was building in the mid 1980's?

WTF?

And no one "forced irresponsible lending." That is total bullshit.

The $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that Wall Street ran is the bubble that destroyed the world economy.

The Dot.com, Savings and Loan and Credit Default Swapping were all three events of financial manipulations by open restriction free financing. I only attached them to show that the pattern of financial manipulation follows an unchecked Capitalistic momentum.

The repackaging of Government debt is a different manipulation in that it was performed by the Government. This is why the debt could not lower.

It's like really hard to lower the debt when you are repackaging the ones that would default into future debt and using those packages to pay for the oil and goods that you are selling today.

America sold a lot of oil on that repackaged debt. It imported a lot of commodity on that debt and because of this the debt was never lowered other than by pretending to a balancing of Government lies.

I do not attach the Credit Default Swapping and repackaging of American loans with the restructuring of debt payment to countries that America is purchasing and paying with future debt.

That's not on the backs of Wall Street imo. I never said Wall Street was clean.

You are wrong. It was entirely Wall Street.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

Where did I say that the restructuring of debt by the US Federal Government was the Derivative scheme?

I just detached them very clearly for you.

Or can you only see one thing at a time?

 

[Chris]

The Dot.com, Savings and Loan and Credit Default Swapping were all three events of financial manipulations by open restriction free financing. I only attached them to show that the pattern of financial manipulation follows an unchecked Capitalistic momentum.

The repackaging of Government debt is a different manipulation in that it was performed by the Government. This is why the debt could not lower.

It's like really hard to lower the debt when you are repackaging the ones that would default into future debt and using those packages to pay for the oil and goods that you are selling today.

America sold a lot of oil on that repackaged debt. It imported a lot of commodity on that debt and because of this the debt was never lowered other than by pretending to a balancing of Government lies.

I do not attach the Credit Default Swapping and repackaging of American loans with the restructuring of debt payment to countries that America is purchasing and paying with future debt.

That's not on the backs of Wall Street imo. I never said Wall Street was clean.

You are wrong. It was entirely Wall Street.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

Where did I say that the restructuring of debt by the US Federal Government was the Derivative scheme?

I just detached them very clearly for you.

Or can you only see one thing at a time?

The debt came from Reagan and the two Bushes lowering taxes for the rich.

 

[Ropey]

^ OK, so you can't see two things at one time.

Good night.

 

[JohnA]

Funny. When people have jobs. When the economy is growing. When infrastructure is being built. When people are being educated. The debt goes down. When Republicans are elected president, everything, and I mean everything, goes the other way. Odd that.

so you think everything is NOT going the other way under barrack hussien obama ??? like the economy was not growing in the 80 s

.the economy took a upward turn under reagan after the disaster that was carter

the nation endured a deep recession throughout 1982. Business bankruptcies rose 50 percent over the previous year. Farmers were especially hard hit, as agricultural exports declined, crop prices fell, and interest rates rose. But while the medicine of a sharp slowdown was hard to swallow, it did break the destructive cycle in which the economy had been caught. By 1983, inflation had eased, the economy had rebounded, and the United States began a sustained period of economic growth. The annual inflation rate remained under 5 percent throughout most of the 1980s and into the 1990s

The Political Impact of the Poor Economy in the 1970s
The economic upheaval of the 1970s had important political consequences. The American people expressed their *discontent with federal policies *by turning out Carter in 1980 and electing former Hollywood actor and California governor Ronald Reagan as president.

 

[BOBO]

...Ron Paul's 'trim government' approach???

It's not about the economy Jroc.

It's about winning elections. That's the major disconnect Jroc. That's the problem. By the time a President is elected he's already looking towards a second term. Remember what Obama said about a second term.

This is the reason (imo) why the Republicans continued the Clinton money grab. Greed. Republicans need to get back from the dance they did with the spenders. Not back to the center, but hard right of center because they've been drifting since Clinton

This is a new time Ropey we can't play these games anymore. I don't advocate center that’s for sure, a question was asked, I answered it. I think Ryan has good ideas and he is a solutions man. His plan would definitely be considered hard right of center

 

[BOBO]

...NEVER go along with your energy independent idea.

If you look at the debt to gdp per country page on that debt clock you will see that the countries who are actually utilizing their natural resources have low levels of debt, in fact their debt levels are DECREASING. We could do the same, no?

Oh yeah... the EPA.

 

[Ropey]

...Ron Paul's 'trim government' approach???

Ron Paul has had more than enough time to attempt to mold himself into something more acceptable than a protest vote. Sorry, I doubt if you like it but that's what I see from Ron.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Not possible, over 25% of the national debt has come to be since Obama took office.

There is a bit of symantics involved, considering the Obama Administration is a twin brother of a different mother to the Bush II administration. He kept many of the same bureaucrats and most of the money-hemmoraging policies, including the wars and the bullshit tax code, that made Bush so easy to piss on.

 

[Ropey]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Not possible, over 25% of the national debt has come to be since Obama took office.

There is a bit of symantics involved, considering the Obama Administration is a twin brother of a different mother to the Bush II administration. He kept many of the same bureaucrats and most of the money-hemmoraging policies, including the wars and the bullshit tax code, that made Bush so easy to piss on.

The highlighted portion needs to be assigned to Clinton though.

 

[paulitician]

Freeze then cut spending. And force a Balanced Budget on them. They'll go kicking & screaming on that but it has to be done. So who will the brave politicians be that stand up and really change things?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I did miss your intent with your post. The dot.com bubble started building in the mid 1980's and the housing bubble has been building since the Carter administration. I honestly am not well read on the dot.com bubble, but I have read a LOT on the housing bubble and the blame for that is squarely with administrations and congresses who essentially forced irresponsible lending and bundling of debt practices on the financial institutions and especially the Congress that failed to heed President Bush's repeated and clear warnings from 2005 through 2008 until the crash.

But if we keep electing people who will only give lip service to real reform but essentially make sure the status quo is maintained, nothing is going to get fixed until we have become 100% Europeanized and lose the great nation that the Founders gave us.

The dot com bubble was building in the mid 1980's?

WTF?

And no one "forced irresponsible lending." That is total bullshit.

The $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that Wall Street ran is the bubble that destroyed the world economy.

The Dot.com, Savings and Loan and Credit Default Swapping were all three events of financial manipulations by open restriction free financing. I only attached them to show that the pattern of financial manipulation follows an unchecked Capitalistic momentum.

The repackaging of Government debt is a different manipulation in that it was performed by the Government. This is why the debt could not lower.

It's like really hard to lower the debt when you are repackaging the ones that would default into future debt and using those packages to pay for the oil and goods that you are selling today.

America sold a lot of oil on that repackaged debt. It imported a lot of commodity on that debt and because of this the debt was never lowered other than by pretending to a balancing of Government lies.

I do not attach the Credit Default Swapping and repackaging of American loans with the restructuring of debt payment to countries that America is purchasing and paying with future debt.

That's not on the backs of Wall Street imo. I never said Wall Street was clean.

Nobody has said that politicians, bankers, brokers, lenders, etc. etc. etc. have not committed crimes for which they deserve to be hung. Many have.

What Ropey is illustrating here, in a somewhat complicated manner , is that it is okay to note incompetence, malfeasance, unethical or irresponsible behavior, etc. re anybody when the evidence is there. But if you're going to hang somebody, at least accuse the right culprit and hang him for a crime he committed.