There's Always Money for War

[boedicca]

MtnBiker and boedicca,

The BLS admits their stats is based on a sample and not a total count. The screw you effect is not taken into account and trust me that is to technical to get into here.

The Dems seems to think statistical sampling is Au Fait when performed during exit polls to support accusations of voter fraud. Go figure.

Please explain what the Screw You Effect is. I never learned that during the statistics classes for my MBA.

 

[red states rule]

The Dems seems to think statistical sampling is Au Fait when performed during exit polls to support accusations of voter fraud. Go figure.

Please explain what the Screw You Effect is. I never learned that during the statistics classes for my MBA.

It is part of liberal economics 101. If a Republican is President, the economy is in a depression - if a Dem is President all is rosey

No matter what the current shape of the economy is

 

[red states rule]

From the money that has already been paid in. You forget that many of these homeowners have been making payments and and have been making payments for quite some time know; couple that with the new bankruptcy law.

The new bankruptcy law makes it harder for a person to get rid of the wolfs at the door. As long as you have a job even if you loose your home you may still be hit with having to pay some of your debt. You may become an indentured servant unable to get the debt off your back.

So now it is a bad thing to make people pay the money they borrowed?

My libs are so generous with other peoples money

 

[red states rule]

More bleeding heart libs whining about nothing:


CNN's Blitzer, Cafferty Regret Minimum Wage Hike Not Retroactive
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 20, 2007 - 00:10.
On Monday's The Situation Room, CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty expressed frustration that the Democratic Congress has not yet passed a minimum wage increase, even lamenting that the increase could not be made retroactive.

After Blitzer seemed to seriously ask if the minimum wage increase could be made retroactive to November, Cafferty rhetorically exclaimed that it should be "retroactive to ten years ago."

Blitzer: "I guess they can't make the increase in the minimum wage retroactive to back November, huh, Jack?"

Cafferty: "They ought to make it retroactive to ten years ago. That's the last time anybody addressed these folks."

Blitzer: "Don't hold your breath on that one." (Transcript follows)

Cafferty began his regular "Cafferty File" segment registering his disapproval that Democrats in Congress have still not completed their promise to pass a minimum wage increase. Cafferty: "Remember all the noise about how the Democrats were gonna raise the minimum wage, which has not been increased in more than ten years? Well, don't hold your breath." Complaining that each house had passed a different version of a minimum wage increase that will have to be reconciled later, Cafferty lamented that there's "no indication that's going to happen anytime soon."

Then, one week after he called Alberto Gonzales a "glorified waterboy" and a "weasel," Cafferty downplayed the importance of going after him and other administration officials if it stands in the way of a timely minimum wage increase, as he mockingly referred to the Democrats "having great fun flexing their newfound political muscle at the expense of folks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, White House aide Karl Rove and Harriet 'I could have been a Supreme' Miers."

After Cafferty asked viewers to email him with their answers to his question about which matter was more important for Democrats to focus on, Blitzer seemed to seriously wonder about the feasability of a minimum wage increase being made retroactive, which would logically require employers to provide back pay going back to November, as the CNN anchor asked: "I guess they can't make the increase in the minimum wage retroactive to back November, huh, Jack?" Cafferty: "They ought to make it retroactive to ten years ago. That's the last time anybody addressed these folks." Blitzer: "Don't hold your breath on that one."

Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Monday March 19 The Situation Room on CNN:

Wolf Blitzer: "Let's check in with Jack Cafferty. He's got the 'Cafferty File' for another week. Jack?"

Jack Cafferty: "Indeed I do. Good morning, Wolf, or good afternoon. It's the American way, isn't it? You promise the voters anything in order to get elected, and then, once you're in office, hey, forget about it, do whatever you want. Remember all the noise about how the Democrats were gonna raise the minimum wage, which has not been increased in more than ten years? Well, don't hold your breath. The House and Senate both voted to raise the minimum wage, but the versions of the bill that each passed is different. And before workers see any more take-home pay, a House-Senate conference committee has to reconcile the two versions of the bill. No indication that's going to happen anytime soon. Meanwhile, the Democrats are having great fun flexing their newfound political muscle at the expense of folks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, White House aide Karl Rove and Harriet 'I could have been a Supreme' Miers. Talk of subpoenas and hearings fill the air in Washington these days. But what about all that stuff you said you were gonna do about solving the nation's problems? Here's our question, then. What should be the top priority for the Democrats: investigating the Bush administration or solving domestic problems?"

After Cafferty gave viewers his email address, he returned the discussion to Blitzer.

Blitzer: "I guess they can't make the increase in the minimum wage retroactive to back November, huh, Jack?"

Cafferty: "They ought to make it retroactive to ten years ago. That's the last time anybody addressed these folks."

Blitzer: "Don't hold your breath on that one."

Cafferty: "No, no."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11523

 

[boedicca]

From the money that has already been paid in. You forget that many of these homeowners have been making payments and and have been making payments for quite some time know; couple that with the new bankruptcy law.

If they are paying subprime, below market rate interest payments, they are not making principal payments - they are paying rent for dwellings they are using. That is not Lost Money.

Anyone who signs up for a loan with a huge balloon payment or highly accelerated rates after a few years is asking for trouble - unless he is assured of increased income/high bonuses or commissions. IOW, read the small print.

 

[GeeWhiz]

The Dems seems to think statistical sampling is Au Fait when performed during exit polls to support accusations of voter fraud. Go figure.

Please explain what the Screw You Effect is. I never learned that during the statistics classes for my MBA.

I don't anything about Dems don't care much for Reps either.

Businessess around the country have under their employ illegal immigrants or people of questionable documentation. Because of this the figures will never because they will never reveal the reality to anyone.

In a household which I know for a fact and to give you and example a census came to my house sitting across from him was a woman he asked whom she was and she said she was a friend. The census ignored her and went over the drill with me. The census left. The reality this woman and I have lived together for over 25 years she was never counted. Do you know how many people in this country are not counted.

In both cases above of the businessess and the personal lives of America is called the screw you effect. The margin of error cannot acoount for what doesn't exist. In fact in the eyes of the stats they truly do not exist and you would be floored if you knew how many are walking around in this country that do not exist and I don't mean illegal aliens I mean acutal citizens.

One small thing that stats do not take into account are those whom change identity.

All in all the reality is. Millions lost their jobs under the Bush watch. He had a negative job growth at the start of his Presidency the only one to have done so in the last 100 years. Any job these people returned to paid less and offered less benefits leaving millions without insurance and in poverty. Americans did not benefit under his watch. Only the elite did.

Bush is not a People's President he is a special interest President. Interested only in the elite.

 

[GeeWhiz]

If they are paying subprime, below market rate interest payments, they are not making principal payments - they are paying rent for dwellings they are using. That is not Lost Money.

Anyone who signs up for a loan with a huge balloon payment or highly accelerated rates after a few years is asking for trouble - unless he is assured of increased income/high bonuses or commissions. IOW, read the small print.

People are going to loose money in the housing market. The houses were treated like investments not like homes. The market went bust.

 

[boedicca]

People are going to loose money in the housing market. The houses were treated like investments not like homes. The market went bust.

The market is not monolithic - it is local and regional. Some people took huge risks by overextending their debt load to buy houses they could not afford - and they will lose them. It's sad, but they did it to themselves. These foreclosures will turn into less expensive housing as the banks dump the inventory. People who made short term speculative plays in those local markets will get burned. People who bought their houses to live in for the long term will continue to pay their mortgages and ride out the dip/flatline pricing condition.

The market is far from bust.

 

[boedicca]

In a household which I know for a fact and to give you and example a census came to my house sitting across from him was a woman he asked whom she was and she said she was a friend. The census ignored her and went over the drill with me. The census left. The reality this woman and I have lived together for over 25 years she was never counted. Do you know how many people in this country are not counted.

This is not a Screw You Effect - it is a You Lied To The Census Taker Effect.

Just sayin'.

 

[GeeWhiz]

This is not a Screw You Effect - it is a You Lied To The Census Taker Effect.

Just sayin'.

If you want to split hairs that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that under Bush'es watch the middle class on down was hardest hit.

The only people that came out like bandits under the Bush watch are the wealthiest members of our society as if they needed more wealth than they already have.

If you have kept up with what has been going on in America in the last 6 years it should be obvious to you that Bush'es policy is aimed at only making sure the rich get richer.

The so called tax cut is really borrowed money. The Republican controlled Legislative Branch switched from a pay as you go government to a borrow and spend government.

Very few and if I'm not mistaken I don't think a single reputable economist ever jumped on Bush'es bandwagon. This is because everything he is doing has already been done in Chile about twenty years earlier and it turned out to be a flop and benefitted no one except for the wealthiest members of Chile's society.

Many Latin American countries will swing toward the left because the right running governments is a zero benefit to the people. Historically anytime the right runs the government the people are economically screwed.

 

[red states rule]

If you want to split hairs that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that under Bush'es watch the middle class on down was hardest hit.

The only people that came out like bandits under the Bush watch are the wealthiest members of our society as if they needed more wealth than they already have.

If you have kept up with what has been going on in America in the last 6 years it should be obvious to you that Bush'es policy is aimed at only making sure the rich get richer.

The so called tax cut is really borrowed money. The Republican controlled Legislative Branch switched from a pay as you go government to a borrow and spend government.

Very few and if I'm not mistaken I don't think a single reputable economist ever jumped on Bush'es bandwagon. This is because everything he is doing has already been done in Chile about twenty years earlier and it turned out to be a flop and benefitted no one except for the wealthiest members of Chile's society.

Many Latin American countries will swing toward the left because the right running governments is a zero benefit to the people. Historically anytime the right runs the government the people are economically screwed.

Since the top 50% pay nearly all the taxes, when tax cuts are passed they get the tax cut

Why are libs so obsessed with taking more and more money from people?

Other countries swing left because they are to lazy to earn their money and want the government "to take care of them" as someone else pays their bills

 

[boedicca]

The so called tax cut is really borrowed money. The Republican controlled Legislative Branch switched from a pay as you go government to a borrow and spend government.

This is so historically illiterate it is almost unbelievable.

Sadly, both parties and both Legislative houses conspired to put the country into deficit spending, borrowing binges, and phony accounting. The true state is that things are worse than is publicized because the government does not follow proper GAAP (accrual accounting) standards for recording future liabilities.

Forbes had a good commentary on this problem a few years ago: Uncle Sam's Audit Gap

If Uncle Sam were a public company, the feds would be all over it about accounting. Six years after Congress completed the most sweeping reform of federal financial management in 40 years, 83% of the federal agencies subject to it aren't in full compliance with the law.

The accounting is so bad that no one knows how much it's costing taxpayers in erroneous payments and inefficiency. Reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office indicate that $100 billion annually wouldn't be unreasonable. That's equal to an Enron (otc: ENRNQ - news - people )--or a tax cut--every year.

Before we look at those big money problems, something less problematic but less known and very awkward deserves attention.

The chief arbiter of auditing isn't audited. Action last week by the U.S. Senate and the Securities and Exchange Commission seems certain to bring federal oversight of the accounting profession with the assistance of the SEC. Yet the SEC, which administers securities-related fees that last year totaled $2 billion, doesn't produce audited financial statements of its own operations, as do 36 of the most significant federal agencies.

The SEC and 25 other independent agencies aren't subject to federal law requiring audited financials similar to those of public companies. Still, a dozen of those agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, have provided them.

The issue isn't possible accounting shenanigans, just good business practice. Maintaining audited financials is essential to efficient management.

The SEC also is the only agency that doesn't have a top-level management position equivalent to chief financial officer. As required of all agencies, it has an inspector general who can conduct audits. But responsibility for financial management and accounting is with the office of comptroller, which lies at the bottom of the SEC organization chart.

The SEC blames lack of budget authorization for its audit absence. Of course, keeping public-company accounting in line should be the priority. But it's just plain embarrassing that the SEC doesn't practice what it regulates.

Pending legislation would require audited financials from the SEC and all other agencies having budget authority greater than $25 million. The SEC recently told lawmakers that's a good idea. But it noted that in addition to funding problems, its regulatory power over accounting makes it difficult to contract with outside accountants to prepare for audits, as do other smaller agencies.

That's a ludicrous excuse. The SEC lives and breathes auditing. It might have to hike headcount. But it certainly has the institutional know-how. And funding presumably could be found in the huge 66% increase in the SEC's budget--to $766 million--proposed by accounting oversight legislation that the Senate passed last week.

Now, about that $100 billion of problems among the 24 major agencies currently audited by law.

Since 1997, the U.S. Treasury has reported federal accounts on a combined basis, with an overall accounting opinion issued by the General Accounting Office. 2001 was the fifth consecutive year that the GAO was unable to judge "whether the consolidated statements are fairly stated in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles." The GAO says that "the government did not maintain adequate systems or have sufficient, reliable information."

One result is erroneous payments, either via plain mistakes or vulnerability to fraudulent claims. Estimates just for Medicare, food stamps and earned income tax credit refunds alone totaled $21 billion in 2001. Estimates, much less exact amounts, for the entire government are unknown. $100 billion would be 19% of Uncle Sam's $515 billion net operating cost last year.

The fine print of the tidy-looking Financial Report of the United States Government reveals painfully basic accounting deficiencies. For example, to make the statements balance, there's a $17.3 billion decrease to net operating cost labeled "unreconciled transactions." That's up from $4.8 billion in 2000.

According to the GAO, a major reason is failure of agencies to accurately reconcile their records of disbursements to the Treasury's records of actual payments. That's as basic as reconciling a checkbook with bank statements.

The balance sheet is equally crude. The negative $6.5 trillion total net position isn't derived via balanced accounting entries. Instead, the $7.4 trillion of liabilities is simply subtracted from $926 billion of assets. And the GAO reported that substantial amounts of government-owned plant, equipment and inventories, on the books at $491 billion, couldn't be verified to exist or have their value substantiated.

Though 16 of the 24 major agencies required to provide audited financials received a "clean" opinion, the GAO found it often was achieved only by "extensive ad hoc procedures" and "billions of dollars in adjustments"--much like a taxpayer organizing a shoebox of financial documents on April 14.

Just preparing a tax return or audited financials isn't financial management. That requires accurately maintaining records on a current basis. The auditors of 20 of the 24 federal agencies deemed the financial management systems significantly deficient in meeting federal requirements enacted in 1996.

The Department of Defense, whose $764 billion cost for 2001 (including retiree health benefits) is by far the largest of any agency, is the major offender.* Intramural rivalry has created a rat's nest of 1,100 financial systems. A $200 million two-year plan announced in April aims to design an integrated architecture of just 100 systems. Implementation will take at least four more years.

Elsewhere, some meaningful progress has been made. The number of agencies able to attain clean audit opinions has tripled since 1996. And the GAO reports significant improvement in tracking loan programs at key agencies such as the Department of Agriculture.

A priority of President Bush's management agenda is more aggressive implementation of federal financial management laws enacted between 1990 and 1996. But the goal of having the government operate as if it's Uncle Sam Inc. is up against the politics of spending money, not saving it, and the ability to literally paper over the consequences of sloppy accounting.

It's much easier to raise the debt limit, dip into the Social Security trust fund and otherwise jigger appropriations. In fact, apart from the critical aspects of disclosure and nefarious intent, the techniques of politicos have much in common with the public-company accounting shenanigans they now seek to end.

 

[red states rule]

Libs consider all money the governments money

 

[bush lover]

China makes or will make everything we need to live well and cheaply. So there will never be inflation, because China is the great cost-cutter of the world. We pay them with dollars, and the Federal Reserve stopped counting how much money is out there. We just print money and give it to the Chinese. Simple. Therefore, our debt levels are irrelevant. In fact, we could finance more income tax cuts with debt, which we just sell to China for interest of 4.5% a year. They make money and we live nice and cheaply.

 

[red states rule]

China makes or will make everything we need to live well and cheaply. So there will never be inflation, because China is the great cost-cutter of the world. We pay them with dollars, and the Federal Reserve stopped counting how much money is out there. We just print money and give it to the Chinese. Simple. Therefore, our debt levels are irrelevant. In fact, we could finance more income tax cuts with debt, which we just sell to China for interest of 4.5% a year. They make money and we live nice and cheaply.

Have no fear - libs are coming to the rescue

In keeping with on the basic foundations of liberalism, Dems want to pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US. In the Dems new budget, they are proposing new taxes totaling near $400 billion over five years

Dems want to increase marginal rate, reduce child tax credits, increase the marriage penalty, the death tax and capital gains taxes. Yes Dem do not discriminate - they want to take more of everyones money.

 

[Vintij]

China makes or will make everything we need to live well and cheaply. So there will never be inflation, because China is the great cost-cutter of the world. We pay them with dollars, and the Federal Reserve stopped counting how much money is out there. We just print money and give it to the Chinese. Simple. Therefore, our debt levels are irrelevant. In fact, we could finance more income tax cuts with debt, which we just sell to China for interest of 4.5% a year. They make money and we live nice and cheaply.

Everything except oil. Our number one consumption.

 

[red states rule]

Everything except oil. Our number one consumption.

we are an economic superpower oil is the fuel for the engine

 

[Vintij]

we are an economic superpower oil is the fuel for the engine

I agree, but china alone would not provide this for us. They need it just as bad as we do. Therefore the middle east must be the provider of oil for superpowers like the US and china.

 

[red states rule]

I agree, but china alone would not provide this for us. They need it just as bad as we do. Therefore the middle east must be the provider of oil for superpowers like the US and china.

There are HGUGE oil reserves within the US. However, libs and enviro wackos block any attempt to drill for it

They also block any attempt to build/expand refineries.

If the US is serious about getting off foreign oil - let the oil companies do what they do best

Explore, find, drill, pump, refine, and deliver their products