Wanna See How They've Been Trickin' Ya?

When it's his and my money that is paying off someone else's idiocy? Or are you a supporter of socializing losses and privatizing profits, if so count me out.l
I'm a supporter of keep your damn hands out of my wallet.
My apologies sir. I've seen a lot of stories about the repossessions stemming from subsidized student loans and UEI payments.

Let me be clear food stamps/WIC, medicaid and disability payments are riddled with fraud but if my taxes pay for two to eat and only one of them really needs it I find that irritating but it doesn't make me mad.

What does make me mad are student loans for people who won't enlist even in the Air Force during time of war to pay for their own education. Worse yet the clowns who take one look at the unemployment lines and sign up for more subsidized education after graduating.

99 weeks of UEI? Isn't about time to move back in with mommy?
No, my apologies. I misunderstood. I agree with you completely. :clap2:
 
A look at the tricks which turn out to be BAU.

'Have we learned the lessons from the last financial crisis or are we planting the seeds of the next one?' from Amazon Q&A

"He was known as “Dr. Doom” — a perennial pessimist in the often sunny world that is the dismal science of economics. And in 2008 his predictions of disaster — delivered two years earlier — came stunningly, frighteningly true, as the entire global financial system teetered on the brink of the abyss. Cassandra had belatedly become a much-celebrated prophet...."

"Taking the reader on a fast guided tour of several centuries of capitalism, Mr. Roubini points out how the patterns of boom and bust are predictable, from the rise of asset bubbles to the spread of collapse to other countries that share similar types of excess. "Lack of transparency," he writes, "underestimation of risk, and cluelessness about how new financial products might behave when subjected to significant stress are recurrent problems in many crises, past and present."

As Mr. Roubini observes, the calamities of 2008 were not caused by a bunch of bad subprime mortgages or by a simple housing bubble but by deeper, more tectonic pressures that had been building for years. Not only had the government failed to keep tabs on exotic new financial products like derivatives, but the sweeping away of banking regulations established in the wake of the Great Depression (along with Wall Street’s ability to evade remaining rules) had resulted in the development of “a vast shadow banking system” outside regulatory oversight. Meanwhile the bonus system adopted by many financial firms spurred the pursuit of short-term profits and excessive risk taking, even as the low interest, easy money policies of the Fed under Alan Greenspan encouraged the growth of leverage and debt...." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/books/07book.html


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance (9781594202506): Nouriel Roubini, Stephen Mihm: Books[/ame]



Somethings never change, written at end of Reagan/Bush. "These high interest rates did not, however, restrain extreme speculative activity in commercial and luxury residential building, and when the collapse in that area came, it left the banking system with heavy losses. The solvency of numerous banks was threatened, a good number failed, and lending was curtailed by it all. Some large insurance companies were also similarly affected, those that were heavily encumbered with junk bonds and diversely bad loans. Meanwhile the savings and loan larceny and collapse dried up a further source of funds for real estate purchase and development and left a heavy overhang of questionable properties to find a market. The ultimate effect was a deep depression in the construction industry, producing therein nearly total unemployment in some areas. Unemployment in other occupations showed a marked increase as both consumer and investor confidence diminished." John Kenneth Galbraith "The Culture of Contentment"
 
I was surprised to see how many on the board were talking about economics...so you might like to check this out:

1. PAYGO: how to look responsible…The idea was to track all new entitlement spending and tax legislation, and, if these are not deficit-neutral by years end, automatic spending cuts would kick in. “Congress passed the Budgetary Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990, which specified two new deficit reduction mechanisms: pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules and statutory discretionary spending caps.” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf

a. Nancy Pelosi: “When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Speeches

b. “I Believe In PAYGO. If I Start A New Program I Will Pay For It.” (Sen. Obama, Remarks, New York City, NY, 3/27/08)

c. First, politicians exempted major categories of mandatory spending, including Social Security. Cuts in Medicare were limited to 4%
Mercatus, Op. Cit.

d. “It was never enforced. Over those 12 years, Congress enacted $700 billion in non-offset entitlement expansions and tax cuts, and then cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced the law. Congress typically waited until the final spending bill of the year, and then simply added a paragraph mandating that PAYGO not be enforced against any past bills.”
PAYGO is an Unworkable Gimmick | The Heritage Foundation

2.Congress can avoid PAYGO simply by declaring that legislation is too important to worry about the deficit, then they issue a waiver. During the 110th Congress, they dodged PAYGO to the tune of over $400 billion, including the Auto Bailout, Unemployment Extension, two Alternative Minimum Tax patches, Farm Bill, S-CHIP, several Stimulus Bills, and a dozen other.

3. 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 two-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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

6. This one is based on psychology rather than accounting: when the pols can’t justify the spending, they warn the populace of dire events if they don’t pass the bill!

a. When the government threatened cuts to the budget of the National Parks Service, they trumpeted that they would have to close the most popular tourist attraction, the Washington Monument. Gordon Tullock, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon L. Brady, “Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice,” p. 60.

b. “DHS Director Marianne Udow said the state must make a difficult decision: cut money for food banks and homeless shelters for the living or cut money for burials for the dead. The same state that two weeks ago was planning to spend $38 million on iPods for schoolchildren now says it can't afford to bury the dead.” The Tax Foundation - In a New Low for Government Service, Michigan Threatens to Let the People Rot

c. How do you get the folks to vote against a bill to cap state spending? “The campaign pressing for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights is attacking Public Safety Commissioner Anne Jordan for an e-mail in which she says the proposal would eliminate a $50,000 payment to families of law enforcement officers, firefighters and EMTs who die in the line of duty.” Dispatches | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

d. NY Governor David Paterson spoke on the radio, warning that if he didn’t get Republican support, “you have no money to pay your police…your corrections officers…your firefighters…your emergency health care workers…you could have anarchy…” Albany, NY - Gov. Paterson In Stern Warning: Shutdown Over Budget Would Cause 'unimaginable chaos,' Crime in New York -- VosIzNeias.com

This is why everything is such a crisis. To avoid PAYGO.

If they didn't have a crisis...they'd invent one.
 
Tricking you maybe, I think many know what's going on. The problem is how to make it better when all the forces who benefit from the system have the money and coin to oppose change? And they do it well through think tanks, so called grass root whining, and corporate owned and controlled media. Compromise today has become giving power more power and pretending you accomplished something.

"The United States is no longer a free-enterprise society, Galbraith argues, but a structured state controlled by the largest companies. Advertising is the means by which these companies manage demand and create consumer "need" where none previously existed. Multinational corporations are the continuation of this power system on an international level. The goal of these companies is not the betterment of society, but immortality through an uninterrupted stream of earnings." Amazon.com: The New Industrial State (The James Madison Library in American Politics) (9780691131412): John Kenneth Galbraith, Sean Wilentz, James K. Galbraith: Books

That's just one perspective, and I might add that it's rooted in Lust for other peoples money and Jealousy, rather than working within your means. The foundation of your equation is wrong. Balanced budgets are based on math, not popular will. This is clearly irresponsible and destructive thinking, whose only end is failure.
 
How many generations must we endure Policies and Philosophies that are bent on stealing from our Neighbor's if not by force of arms, by force of will? Stealing through mandate? Where is the virtue in that? Where is the work ethic? If what our Neighbor's possess is so bad, why are we so obsessed with attaining it? The Russian Revolution did not eliminate the Middle Class, it just displaced it with Government and Union Workers, by force.

If Conservative Think Tanks are evil, by their existence, because they oppose you, there is no free speech. You demonize that which questions and opposes your will to what end? Totalitarianism? If they are Evil, what is the angry lynch mob that you create and manipulate to serve your end? Where are the ethics in that? What Principle is served? Do the Puppet Masters live by the same standards they impose on the rest of us, or are they exempt, Privileged??? Who are we kidding here???
 
I don't think many people are fooled really. The latest big "needs" that we are told we have are ones that will keep us from taking the time to think what a joke our economy is. Why does anyone need a financial advisor ? Nations like people make X amount of money. If they cannot afford to buy Y with that amount of money and still take care of their most basic needs, they should not buy it. Borrowing money only makes sense if you pay no interest on it.
 
I don't think many people are fooled really. The latest big "needs" that we are told we have are ones that will keep us from taking the time to think what a joke our economy is. Why does anyone need a financial advisor ? Nations like people make X amount of money. If they cannot afford to buy Y with that amount of money and still take care of their most basic needs, they should not buy it. Borrowing money only makes sense if you pay no interest on it.

“You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.” Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address.
 
Just wait till the deficit bubble bursts! But wait, it isn't a bubble it is a balloon!!!
 
There may be a day when that $50 US dollar bill you have is worth the same as those confederate bills you have stashed away. But in Renminbi. Instead of $1= 6.72 Yuan RMB it will be 1 Yaun RMB= one thousand dollar!

csa-p70-2.jpg
 
why don't we just turn everything we have over to the top 10% and allow them to tell us what we need. It will be quicker, the demise of the 90% that does all the real labor to make the country run will then be done all at once instead of this slow drowning.

When the top 10% keeps gaining on their share of this country's wealth while the bottom 90% keep shrinking, the first thing we need to do is pass the tax cuts for the wealthy while voting down those cuts for people who we are trying to remove their wealth from.

Health care, unemployment, work projects, SS, and other programs that don't show a way that we are improving the asset movement of what is owned in this country towards the rich should be stooped. Everyone should know right now that the rich knows a lot better about how to run things, look what they have accomplished. In the last 20 years they have gone from owning 49% and now have close to ownership of 70% of everything that is owned in this country.

Some people call these people the base, as republicans we call these people the have :clap2:More's.
 
why don't we just turn everything we have over to the top 10% and allow them to tell us what we need. It will be quicker, the demise of the 90% that does all the real labor to make the country run will then be done all at once instead of this slow drowning.

When the top 10% keeps gaining on their share of this country's wealth while the bottom 90% keep shrinking, the first thing we need to do is pass the tax cuts for the wealthy while voting down those cuts for people who we are trying to remove their wealth from.

Health care, unemployment, work projects, SS, and other programs that don't show a way that we are improving the asset movement of what is owned in this country towards the rich should be stooped. Everyone should know right now that the rich knows a lot better about how to run things, look what they have accomplished. In the last 20 years they have gone from owning 49% and now have close to ownership of 70% of everything that is owned in this country.

Some people call these people the base, as republicans we call these people the have :clap2:More's.

People get rich because lots of other people give them money for some reason. Think about it.
 
Would YOU trust Congress with your money? Your credit card?

What is the choice???

I try to pick a different Congress every election day....

so far, no luck.

Agreed. I keep saying we need a no confidence box on the ballot.
If it gets more votes than nay candiate it means we do not want any of them and we do it again with new candidates.
I hope that means you will support my Cynic's Term Limit Amendment I posted a while ago!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1173424-post39.html

You could vote "NO" which would show potential candidates that there is a VOTING public that is dissatisfied with both Parties. Not voting a protest vote shows ONLY laziness or apathy.

Perot got 20% of the vote and many people who were dissatisfied with both corporate candidates were afraid to vote for Perot, yet people still took notice. If there was a candidate "NO" which would have required both Parties to put up new candidates, "NO" would have won.

I have an idea for a "Term Limits Amendment" where we create a universal third party candidate called "NO" for every office in every election including primaries, and any candidate that fails to beat candidate "NO" can no longer run for that particular office ever again.

At the very least it will force the two parties to provide a candidate truly backed by the public. Dissatisfied voters from both parties would now have an alternative vote, effectively forcing candidates to run against the COMBINED unrepresented and disgruntled voters on both sides.
 
What is the choice???

I try to pick a different Congress every election day....

so far, no luck.

Agreed. I keep saying we need a no confidence box on the ballot.
If it gets more votes than nay candiate it means we do not want any of them and we do it again with new candidates.
I hope that means you will support my Cynic's Term Limit Amendment I posted a while ago!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1173424-post39.html

You could vote "NO" which would show potential candidates that there is a VOTING public that is dissatisfied with both Parties. Not voting a protest vote shows ONLY laziness or apathy.

Perot got 20% of the vote and many people who were dissatisfied with both corporate candidates were afraid to vote for Perot, yet people still took notice. If there was a candidate "NO" which would have required both Parties to put up new candidates, "NO" would have won.

I have an idea for a "Term Limits Amendment" where we create a universal third party candidate called "NO" for every office in every election including primaries, and any candidate that fails to beat candidate "NO" can no longer run for that particular office ever again.

At the very least it will force the two parties to provide a candidate truly backed by the public. Dissatisfied voters from both parties would now have an alternative vote, effectively forcing candidates to run against the COMBINED unrepresented and disgruntled voters on both sides.

Now get both parties to pass that into legislation ! :lmao:
 
Agreed. I keep saying we need a no confidence box on the ballot.
If it gets more votes than nay candiate it means we do not want any of them and we do it again with new candidates.
I hope that means you will support my Cynic's Term Limit Amendment I posted a while ago!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1173424-post39.html

You could vote "NO" which would show potential candidates that there is a VOTING public that is dissatisfied with both Parties. Not voting a protest vote shows ONLY laziness or apathy.

Perot got 20% of the vote and many people who were dissatisfied with both corporate candidates were afraid to vote for Perot, yet people still took notice. If there was a candidate "NO" which would have required both Parties to put up new candidates, "NO" would have won.

I have an idea for a "Term Limits Amendment" where we create a universal third party candidate called "NO" for every office in every election including primaries, and any candidate that fails to beat candidate "NO" can no longer run for that particular office ever again.

At the very least it will force the two parties to provide a candidate truly backed by the public. Dissatisfied voters from both parties would now have an alternative vote, effectively forcing candidates to run against the COMBINED unrepresented and disgruntled voters on both sides.

Now get both parties to pass that into legislation ! :lmao:
Ballot initiative!
 
Make people pay for the government they get, when they get it, and the fascination for big government will fade very quickly.

Start by letting the tax cuts expire. Ouch!!! see?? Nobody wants to do that!!

See how quickly the reason and logic and truth of the initial statement lost its charm when the mere suggestion of implementing it was put on the table?
 

Forum List

Back
Top