- Thread starter
- #81
The first four words in your post should be your motto.
Republicans: Fiscal Sanity
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
The first four words in your post should be your motto.
- Thread starter
- #82
Sally, in this thread, I've beaten you like a rented mule!
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
No you don't get it.
Everything that is around you must be paid for..everything this country does..must be paid for..
Oh..I am sure you were out on the streets protesting the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan..or maybe not. But that was two very ******* expensive adventures. Add in the daily expense of running local/city/state/federal government and you have something that is not cheap.
You guys live in this pixieland where "rugged" indivdualists somehow "carve" out an empire for themselves and they have no responsiblity to anyone or anything. The reality is much much different. All those captains of industry use a VAST amount of services and resources to accrue their wealth. Some may even be getting wealthy off the public teat. That tea-bagger Paladino amassed his fortune on the public dime. Same with many other of them. Having a little parity factored into this process keeps them with most of "their" wealth.
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
- Thread starter
- #85
Really proud of you! I don't remember you going to this much trouble...Rep on the way!
But the outline above does not go toward an understanding of the generation of the surpluses enacted by the '83 Commission, and the 'theft' of same by the feds...this is what supposedly happens to the money collected, i.e. bonds.
But the bonds are merely empty promises, since the bucks have already been spent.
See, you said that the rip off was going on before the Commission in '83, which was not true. The reason for a commission was that they didn't have said surpluses:
"In the early 1980s, however, the financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits (thus raising the possibility of benefit cuts)."
Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, before '83 there was no money in the fake bond IOU's, and since the commission the money was stolen from the 'trust' so there is no money in the fake bond IOU's.
Get it?....or as you so astutely phrased it, read my post "and learn."
- Thread starter
- #86
Watch 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. 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.Â’s.
d. Where is the calculation of the size of taxes that would be required to pay retirement benefits of current workers???
Get it: IOU's...
It's like the drunk who has to keep running faster and faster to keep from falling over.
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
It must be very comforting to you to have such an active fantasy life with which to console yourself after the ass whuppings you experience here on a near constant basis.
- Thread starter
- #88
Red-headed step child?
- Dec 5, 2010
- 114,119
- 46,578
- 2,330
I thought that Clinton did a fine job with fiscal planning. I think the problem is not the ideology as much as it is the strength of leadership.
I see the problem as a leadership one more than an ideological one with respect to fiscal issues.
I would say that the Capitalist engine runs the Democracy. The Democracy does not run the Capitalist engine.
And hand in hand with Health Care Inflation is the increasing ratio of Health Care funded by the Government.
The government distorting market mechanisms is not a justification for More Government Interference.
Why is that? It is because business is dropping coverage of their employees, everything is inflating except wages, and many people simply can't afford health insurance, nor the cost of actual medical expenses if they don't have insurance.
Why do the same drugs cost twice as much in the US as in Canada or Mexico? We allow our own providers to price gouge us.
boedicca said:
This is utter nonsense. Business only focuses on the cost, it is reasonable and I can afford it, or it is not affordable and I will not provide it. Whether govt. has distorted the market is some second order issue, it is not considered at all in the decision to provide or drop insurance. Either I can afford it, or not. That is it.
Whether govt. has distorted the market is debatable, but frankly I don't see it in the corporate and small business spaces. These are private companies buy insurance from other private companies, and that's the way its been since WWII, and the percent of companies offering health insurance has been steadily dropping. That's a private industry phenomena.
boedicca said:
This is also non-sense. I work for a multinational company, and where a product is produced has nothing to do with how much is charged in each company. I have one cost of production regardless of where it is, and one total pot of revenue.
Last edited:
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
You have no idea what you are talking about. Companies DO charge different prices for the same product in different countries.
Apparently you don't understand my post. I never said companies charge the same price everywhere. What I said is that price differences in various countries are NOT based on the local production cost, because in many cases, there is only ONE source of production (think Microsoft, they don't write Windows 7 100 times in 100 different countries). Pricing differences can be based on a lot of things, but they do not generally vary by 50%, like drug prices in Mexico vs. USA. A US auto does not sell for half off in S. Korea.
I saw the CEO of one of the major drug companies get cornered on why the drugs were much cheaper in Canada and Mexico, and he finally came clean. The Canadians and Mexican govt. imposed "price controls" on the drugs. The company figured out how much profit they wanted to make, and since the US insurance companies would reimburse them what they asked for branded drugs that had not gone generic, they just set the price in the US to make their nut for the year. That's it. Nothing about approval process, etc.
- Thread starter
- #93
Welcome to the board.
Let me see if I can turn you around on this one...
Are you familiar with the line-item veto, which would allow a President to cut out wasteful spending in a bill...well, there is no such veto currently.
1. A little history here: prior to 1974, Presidents had the ability to impound funds and refuse to spend the money that Congress authorized. Jefferson, in 1803, refused to spend $50,000 for gunboats because he observed a “peaceful turn of events.” Believe it or not, LBJ impounded $5.3 billion in 1966!
a. When Nixon began vetoing spending bills, the Democrat Congress voted to take away the impoundment authority, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
b. Another believe it or not: In May 2010, the Obama administration proposed the “Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010!” It would have allowed the President to propose a package of rescissions to any spending bill to be voted on by Congress. Not a nibble from the Democrat Congress.
I'm stickin' with the OP.
Now, as far as Clinton, don't believe the spin that his administration, with the aid and abetment of the media, tried to put out...he took the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund, and called it revenue...it is a liability...and claimed said surplus.
Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
So, he incresed the debt 41%.Still think he did " fine job with fiscal planning"?
Toro
Diamond Member
"Republican fiscal sanity?"
As much as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party, when we stop hearing Republicans mouthing this utterly discredited and moronic "Cutting taxes increases government revenues" religious mantra, then this might be the case.
When Republicans say they are going to cut taxes AND cut defense/social security/medicare, then we can believe them. But they have zero credibility now.
As much as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party, when we stop hearing Republicans mouthing this utterly discredited and moronic "Cutting taxes increases government revenues" religious mantra, then this might be the case.
When Republicans say they are going to cut taxes AND cut defense/social security/medicare, then we can believe them. But they have zero credibility now.
Toro
Diamond Member
Marketable debt declined under Clinton. Increases in total national debt at the time was due to increases in noncash accruals in the trusts. Debt outstanding held by the public fell.
EDIT - And the first Bush deserves some credit for this too, as does Newt. But surpluses were used to pay down debt.
Last edited:
- Dec 5, 2010
- 114,119
- 46,578
- 2,330
Thank you for this new information (to me). I will research and get back on this. With arithmetic, A negative plus another negative does not equal a positive, so I see your point.
Thanks for the welcome
- Thread starter
- #97
First of all...I hesitated to even engage with you since Forbes announced that my Rangers were second in value to.....Toronto.
And careful of your conclusions, i.e. "as I would like there to believe there is at least one fiscally responsible party,..."
I didn't say that...exactly.
My OP was to take a swipe at Democrats...who are the no-doubt fiscally worse of the two.
So, while there may or may not be a Santa Clause, the definitely is no "fiscally responsible party."
But cutting taxes is defintely a major component of a sound fiscal policy.
1. We need to relearn the lessons of the 1990s, when tax cuts helped ignite growth. Take the Giuliani administration’s elimination, in 2000, of the tax on clothing purchases under $110. The next year, employment at city stores that sold clothing jumped by 7,000 jobs—and collections from the sales tax actually increased by $52 million, as more New Yorkers stayed in the city to shop for taxable as well as nontaxable items.
The CityÂ’s Finances, Part 1: Life in Taxopolis by Steven Malanga, City Journal 10 July 2009
2. The tax cuts worked: for example, for six quarters prior to the May 2003, nonresidential investment declined every quarter, the S & P 500 fell 18%, 1 million jobs lost and the economy grew at an annual 1.7%. In the six quarters following, investment rose every quarter, the S & P 500 was up 32%, 2.3 million net jobs were created, and economic growth rate doubled to 4.1%. Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation and Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
3. It should be noted that the rich do not pay when taxes are raised. As reported by Andrem Mellon, 'In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.' 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
Some other ideas:
1. A balanced-budget amendment should include:
a. Spending cannot be higher than the previous years spending, plus the rate of inflation, and population growth.
b. If balance is not achieved, the overspending will automatically be cut from the following years budget by way of a predetermined formula.
c. An exception will be made either due to a war declared by Congress, or a national calamity, agreed to by 90% of Congress.
d. Federal expenses cannot be assigned to the states as unfunded mandates.
2. An essential cost-cutting strategy would be the line-item veto. Although the line-item veto was found to be unconstitutional, in 1998, Scalia, O’Connor, and Breyer wrote that, had the bill authorized the President to “decline to spend” any item in an act, it would have been constitutional. Breyer wrote: “does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle." How tough to re-write it with this phrase?
a. “Second, the contention that the cancellation authority is no greater than the President's traditional statutory authority to decline to spend appropriated funds or to implement specified tax measures fails because this Act, unlike the earlier laws, gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.” Pp. 23-29. FindLaw | Cases and Codes
b. As the President is the only elected official with term limits, the cost-cutting function is fitting as he is most likely to put the welfare of the nation above his career.
3. Old pols never die, they become lobbyists, and for a good reason. Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle recently reported earning $2.1 million over two years as an adviser at lobbying firm Alston & Bird. The current majority leader's pay: $193,400 a year. Between 1998 and 2004, 43% of former lawmakers became lobbyists, according to Public CitizenÂ….[N]othing prohibits former lawmakers from immediately starting to advise clients on how to navigate the congressional process, having contacts with administration officials, or working as a state lobbyist. Door still revolving between Capitol, lobbyists - USATODAY.com
a. “There are more than 11,000 active lobbyists working in Washington, D.C., all well-paid for their ability to influence officials… CBS News investigation has identified 19 federal lobbyists closely related to members of Congress, including dads, wives, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, in-laws and more.” Family Ties Bind Federal Lawmakers to Lobbyists - CBS Evening News - CBS News
4. How about a Lobbyist Bill which codifies the following:
a. Requires nationally elected pols to be four years removed from office before taking this career, as this would cool off their insider contacts.
b. Family members of current government members cannot be lobbyists.
5. Now, how about wars: they not only cost lives, but huge deficits. The Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to declare war,” but has not done so since WWII. Rather than cover with “emergency spending,” Congress should have to declare their commitment.
6. No unioinization of government workers.
IThese ideas are from "Broke," by Beck and Balfe
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
If the U.S. market didn't provide enough of a return to so that the R&D was a worthy investment, those other countries would not have the drugs upon which to place price controls in the first place.
Instead of lauding price controls as Good Policy, perhaps you should think about how other countries imposition of such just increases the cost to U.S. consumers?
First, Clinton did not change the accounting treatment of the social security surplus for reporting purposes. He did it the same way all presidents have since the 70's.
Second, if you take the deficit from 99 to 2000 and calculate the percent increase, it is 0%, statistically insignificant, and it qualifies as a balanced budget in anyone's book, and that is WITH the IOU in the SS Lock Box. The deficit was consistently decreasing under Clinton until it was balanced in 2000, whereas Bush turned over an exploding deficit to Obama.
Third, you don't cover the total nat. debt under Bush II, which rose to over 10 trillion by the end of 2000 under his administration. So, with a repub house, repub senate, and repub white house, they increased the debt 77% in 8 years, and where Bush II inherited a mild dot com recession in 2001, the repubs handed Obama a near fiscal meltdown and the worst economy since the great depression. Not exactly apples to apples.
And that was a horrifically bad performance under Bush II.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #100
All I can say is that Figures don't lie, but I have seen many liars able to come up with figures.
Truth is both sides are not functioning in a fiscal responsible way most of the time. The difference is that what the left usually errors on their overspending is in support of the average person, even though it might not be the best way to do things. Where as the right spends money we don't have doing things that they seem to think we have a religious or patriotic right to do, while of course spending billions supporting corp's that live off the fed govt, which in turn allows the people with money to flourish investing in such companies.
But it never ceases to amaze me how everything that's bad that get done under a republican is the democrats fault and everything good or bad, that does or doesn't get done under a democrat is the democrats fault if the republicans say so.
The truth is democrats overspend on things in an attempt to even the playing field of wealth, while the republicans overspend in attempt to make sure the status quo is taken care of.
OTHERWISE THEY BOTH ARE FAILURES AT HOLDING DOWN SPENDING AND MAKING SURE WHAT REALLY THE AMERICAN POPULATION NEEDS DONE, GETS DONE AT THE CHEAPEST PRICE, AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY.
THE TRUTH IS WHEN A PERSON IS ELECTED TO OFFICE, HE IS EITHER A CROOK OR SOON WILL BE ONE, IT'S JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS IN IT MORE FOR THEMSELVES? I VOTE THE REPUBLICANS ARE, AS THEY ARE MORE ABOUT WHATS GOOD FOR US (GOP) INSTEAD OF WHATS GOOD FOR ALL OF US (THE NATION).
The republicans have done nothing since Bush left office to help this country solve it's problems, that is a truth.
Truth is both sides are not functioning in a fiscal responsible way most of the time. The difference is that what the left usually errors on their overspending is in support of the average person, even though it might not be the best way to do things. Where as the right spends money we don't have doing things that they seem to think we have a religious or patriotic right to do, while of course spending billions supporting corp's that live off the fed govt, which in turn allows the people with money to flourish investing in such companies.
But it never ceases to amaze me how everything that's bad that get done under a republican is the democrats fault and everything good or bad, that does or doesn't get done under a democrat is the democrats fault if the republicans say so.
The truth is democrats overspend on things in an attempt to even the playing field of wealth, while the republicans overspend in attempt to make sure the status quo is taken care of.
OTHERWISE THEY BOTH ARE FAILURES AT HOLDING DOWN SPENDING AND MAKING SURE WHAT REALLY THE AMERICAN POPULATION NEEDS DONE, GETS DONE AT THE CHEAPEST PRICE, AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY.
THE TRUTH IS WHEN A PERSON IS ELECTED TO OFFICE, HE IS EITHER A CROOK OR SOON WILL BE ONE, IT'S JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS IN IT MORE FOR THEMSELVES? I VOTE THE REPUBLICANS ARE, AS THEY ARE MORE ABOUT WHATS GOOD FOR US (GOP) INSTEAD OF WHATS GOOD FOR ALL OF US (THE NATION).
The republicans have done nothing since Bush left office to help this country solve it's problems, that is a truth.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Joe Biden Tells Room Full of Black People He is Smarter Than Them- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Unprovoked San Francisco stabbing exposes woke policy that critics say ‘shields’ suspects- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
-
