or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › immovable object meets irresistible force
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

immovable object meets irresistible force

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
Interesting... Obama and the donks want to increase the statutory debt limit so that they can maintain the illusion that everything is just fine in the US. Congressional Rs say enough is enough; the debt limit exists for a reason and we have to live within our means.

The debt ceiling, enacted to limit Treasury's borrowing authority as well as to put to rest questions regarding the government's ability to borrow in the first place, has been raised many many times, but lowered only seldom (once after WWII, twice more during JFK's administration). That alone is a symptom of something wrong.

Both political parties have raised the debt ceiling. The donks have raised it more. A lot more.



The most recent debt limit increase was a stupefying $1,900 billion, shortly after passage of Obamacare. Passed by an unopposed Congress, it was more than double any previously mind-boggling increase. Yet even that mind-boggling amount wasn't enough... now they're looking for more.

-

If the debt ceiling is reached, options exist for continuing to run the government but none of them are good.

• Federal employee retirement funds can be raided:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11203.pdf

... but if that's done it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to envision similar legislation that would seek to raid private employee retirement funds as well.

• The Treasury can direct the Fed to "coin money" but that's been already been done with reckless abandon recently, diminishing the purchasing power of one's earnings (effectively, a stealth tax).

• Some argue the debt limit is unconstitutional and the President can simply ignore it, given the 14th Amendment's wording ("The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned") but little Timmy Geithner has unequivocally denied that interpretation. I feel better already

• Some think "Millionaires and Billionaires™" can make up the difference. Even those with a public school education can determine they can't.

That leaves Congress with two choices: benefit reductions or tax increases. There are problems with both.

Many benefit programs are just as statutory as the debt limit, and there are more of them now than ever. Thanks to federal takeover of the formerly private mortgage loan guarantors, those obligations must be paid. Obligations due to Federal assumption of obligations owed by formerly private banks (AIG et al) also must be paid. Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec, all those must be paid. Absent legislation modifying those programs, there's no way out of them.

As for tax obligations, there's simply no way to extract enough money from "the rest of us" that is, the middle class - who collectively earn the bulk of all aggregate income in the United States - to make a significant difference in the debt. The less-than middle class pays no taxes so forget that.

So what's going to happen? What should happen?

There's no question in my mind what's going to happen. The US will default. No, not next month, not next year, maybe not even in ten years, but thanks to out of control spending by Congress and woefully ill-advised takeovers of failed businesses and banks, default and collapse can no longer be avoided. It will happen... eventually.

As for the immediate future, the debt ceiling will be raised. There is no doubt. It will be increased enough to run the government past the 2012 elections, passing the problem on to the next Administration. In exchange the Ds will agree to meaningless spending cuts to take place well into that next Administration, saddling it with a discontented public wondering where its Social Security checks have gone and why they can't find any doctors who will accept Medicare any more. In the meantime, both sides will declare victory and go home for their August recess. Taxes will increase, though such increases will manifest themselves in "closing loopholes" such as the mortgage interest deduction, AMT, etc. Tax the rich, and guess what... you're rich!

What should happen? The House should require repeal of the largest tax increase in history - the one responsible for the nearly two trillion dollar increase the last time the debt was addressed. This requirement should be a condition of raising the debt ceiling. This will allow private enterprise to grow without the specter of certainly rising, yet unpredictable employment costs.

If there is anything good to come out of this, is that Obama is losing support on all fronts. He asked for it. If not for his signature plan - health care's "final solution" - things may have been different. Such are the consequences of failure.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #2 of 88
A very helpful chart. I wonder why they don't consider the evenly divided Senate from 2000-2002 to be a spit Congress?

What should happen is a small increase to transition to a spending plan (more likely once Obama is ousted) whereby taxes are transferred from investment and income to consumption. Additionally bail outs should be ended as should most subsidies for certain economic activity. Entitlements should be adjusted down to reality not what was promised.

The likelihood of that happening, especially when it would require the delusional boomers to slit their own throats, I'd say less than zero.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

A very helpful chart. I wonder why they don't consider the evenly divided Senate from 2000-2002 to be a spit Congress?

Veep holds the deciding vote in a 50/50 Senate.

Jim Jackass Jeffords became "independent" but like all the other squishes he caucused with the Dems.

Quote:
The likelihood of that happening, especially when it would require the delusional boomers to slit their own throats, I'd say less than zero.

Sadly, I agree. However, the day we dismiss necessary changes such as the ones you proposed is the day we admit our centuries-old experiment in a representative Republic has failed. I reject that.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #4 of 88
It seems to be getting time to leave. I know when the US crashes the reverberations will be felt throughout the world but, it seems, being a bit further away from the epicenter might be a good idea.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It seems to be getting time to leave. I know when the US crashes the reverberations will be felt throughout the world but, it seems, being a bit further away from the epicenter might be a good idea.


Any places in particular you're looking at?

I've mentioned Brazil, myself, because I lived there for 2 years, already know people there, and speak Portuguese. But I'm open to suggestions.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Any places in particular you're looking at?

I've mentioned Brazil, myself, because I lived there for 2 years, already know people there, and speak Portuguese. But I'm open to suggestions.

Looking at Chile. Have considered Hong Kong, New Zealand and Mauritius. But Chile is in our hemisphere and the more I read about it, the more I like it. Need to visit though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 88
Excellent post, john. We're back to agreeing on nearly all of this (we'll agree to stop beating the TARP dead horse, hmmm?). A few points:

Quote:
• Some argue the debt limit is unconstitutional and the President can simply ignore it, given the 14th Amendment's wording ("The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned") but little Timmy Geithner has unequivocally denied that interpretation. I feel better already.

I wouldn't put that past this Administration. Obama is already utterly ignoring law on an unprecedented scale.

Quote:
That leaves Congress with two choices: benefit reductions or tax increases. There are problems with both.

The answer is to cut spending and create more taxpayers by reducing, not raising taxes. This will require reform of both the Medicare and SS systems, the repeal of Obamacare, and cuts across the board: Defense, highway funds, social programs, etc. The reason I say reform instead of "benefit reductions" is that straight benefit cuts are not going to do it. They will only be a temporary solution, are politically untenable, and in my opinion--a virtual default on the obligations that have been made to seniors. What we need is a Ryan-like plan that fundamentally fixes the system. We also need a vastly simplified tax code. Replacing the income tax entirely is realistically going to happen. We should greatly reduce rates and deductions in both the personal income and corporate tax codes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
"There's obviously a risk of the U.S. defaulting and any risk is incompatible with a triple-A rating," said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott.

Quote:
Moody's said in a statement that the likelihood of a U.S. default on its interest payments was low, but no longer "de minimis."



Hope your passports are up to date guys.

As of ten minutes ago: Raters Put U.S. on Notice: Moody's, S&P Sound Alarms on Debt; President Obama Walks Out of Talks
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #9 of 88
I think Obama and Regan both have less responsibility for debt increases than that chart would indicate.

Regan had a near case of hyperinflation that got kicked right after he started, but left treasury rates very high afterwards - I'd like to see an analysis of how much of Regan's extra debt was due to interest payments on debt incurred before he took office.

Obama inherited a mess, the reason that we have huge debt increases during the last few years is not runaway spending, it is a drop in tax receipts. The only thing holding unemployment down to 9% is government spending - if they cut spending, then unemployment skyrockets, and tax receipts go down further.

I think that the chart is very misleading. Our number one debt item is medicare - $60 trillion npv liability, four times the national debt. Medicare costs are out of control, but private insurance costs are even more out of control - the only way out of our current situation is socialized medicine, severe bank regulations, raising the SS age, shutting down all foreign military bases, and ending the war on drugs (and other stuff we can't afford and don't need, like the dept of agriculture).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post



Hope your passports are up to date guys.

As of ten minutes ago: Raters Put U.S. on Notice: Moody's, S&P Sound Alarms on Debt; President Obama Walks Out of Talks

I don't think we're going to default. Politically though, I think the GOP is going about this the wrong way. What they should have done is held firm, portraying themselves as people that are willing to accept the political consequences of default. Tell the American people that enough is enough, and that if there is a default, it won't be for lack of trying on their part. They should have passed their own plan by now, letting Obama reject it. Then, at the last moment, they should offer a 1 month extension. Obama has already stated that he wouldn't agree to such a short-term deal. It puts Obama in an impossible situation. If there is a default at that point, he owns it. If not, the GOP can continue to hammer him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Looking at Chile. Have considered Hong Kong, New Zealand and Mauritius. But Chile is in our hemisphere and the more I read about it, the more I like it. Need to visit though.

How long could you live there for legally?

Remember too the US is the worlds only country where you have to pay taxes both in the host country and the US at the same time. Your taxed kn all income over $90,000 or so. I don't earn that much so I'm not currently effected, but it's worth considering nonetheless.

Have you ever lived abroad before?

I loved my time in the US (10 yrs) but it was a drag sometimes too. Plenty I missed, put it that way.

Coming back to the UK I still feel like it's a bit like living in heaven, really, it's that much more of a home to me.

Still, it's rewarding, challenging and interesting to live somewhere new.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #12 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The answer is to cut spending and create more taxpayers by reducing, not raising taxes.

Marco Rubio said those exact words a few days ago.

I think you meant to write "replacing the income tax entirely is realistically not going to happen" but as I wrote, summarily rejecting such very good ideas strikes me as un-American.

We passed the 16th Amendment, and we can rescind it. Amending the Constitution is the traditional way of changing the law, but that was before the President appointed himself dictator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

... We're back to agreeing on nearly all of this (we'll agree to stop beating the TARP dead horse, hmmm?).

Not TARP per se but AIG in particular SDW. Those problems haven't gone away, they've simply become lost in the fog of this particular war. All the guilty parties probably prefer it that way.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #13 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think we're going to default.

No, as I wrote - not now, but... when?

I don't have the answer, but default is not a viable option. Something has to change. No one in government has proposed anything like what you or anyone else has posted. That's what is so disturbing.

Until then, default remains a threat.

As servicing the debt approaches a significant percent of GDP, economic growth stagnates. Great society-like programs can no longer be financed.

Debt is considered to be "dangerous" when it approaches 90% GDP. We're at 100%.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #14 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How long could you live there for legally?

It's easy for Americans to assume they can just pick up and leave. That's understandable - anyone can come from anywhere and become an American. It's not as easy for an American to become a Brazilian, or a Scotsman. Overstay your visa in most countries, and you're booted out... or worse.

Quote:
... Your taxed kn all income over $90,000 or so. I don't earn that much so I'm not currently effected, but it's worth considering nonetheless.

Imagine how motivated you'd be to earn more, if you could just keep more of it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #15 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It's easy for Americans to assume they can just pick up and leave. That's understandable - anyone can come from anywhere and become an American. It's not as easy for an American to become a Brazilian, or a Scotsman. Overstay your visa in most countries, and you're booted out... or worse.

For poor people, leaving is difficult. If you have a couple million dollars, though, your options open up and citizenship is very easy most places. The biggest factor is culture shock and language, imho.

Leaving the country without renouncing your citizenship at some point has limited benefits - I think that the best plan is to go to Canada for a few years, switch out US citizenship for Canadian, and then go to your final destination. Canada does not tax expatriates and has a fast track for people with money.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #16 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It's easy for Americans to assume they can just pick up and leave. That's understandable - anyone can come from anywhere and become an American. It's not as easy for an American to become a Brazilian, or a Scotsman. Overstay your visa in most countries, and you're booted out... or worse.

I don't assume it's easy at all. And changing citizenship let along becoming part of the culture are definitely challenges. I think the first step though is starting to think more globally in general and to think a lot less US-centric both culturally, politically and in terms of what citizenship means. The US has drifted so far from what the "idea of America" was that it holds no attraction for me any longer other than it's where I've my life. I'm much more willing to explore and travel and be other places.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How long could you live there for legally?

Not sure of the details off the top of my head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Remember too the US is the worlds only country where you have to pay taxes both in the host country and the US at the same time. Your taxed kn all income over $90,000 or so. I don't earn that much so I'm not currently effected, but it's worth considering nonetheless.

I am fully aware of the US's uniquely thieving ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Have you ever lived abroad before?

Nope.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Still, it's rewarding, challenging and interesting to live somewhere new.

That's part of what I'm thinking of.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 88
What we need are men and women of conviction who are actually interested more in turning things around than what's in their best interest.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Marco Rubio said those exact words a few days ago.

Yes, he did.

Quote:

I think you meant to write "replacing the income tax entirely is realistically not going to happen" but as I wrote, summarily rejecting such very good ideas strikes me as un-American.

We passed the 16th Amendment, and we can rescind it. Amending the Constitution is the traditional way of changing the law, but that was before the President appointed himself dictator.

That is what I meant..thanks. I still doubt it will happen.

Quote:



Not TARP per se but AIG in particular SDW. Those problems haven't gone away, they've simply become lost in the fog of this particular war. All the guilty parties probably prefer it that way.

Perhaps. Looks like we have bigger problems at the moment.

Edit: As for default...I can't speak to whether it will ever happen, but I don't think it will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 88
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a nice graph- http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Revenue_v_Spending.png

You keep bringing this back to who was president. It's almost like you don't know who is actually responsible for the budget. Do you want to chart a similar graph by what party was in control of Congress as well?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You keep bringing this back to who was president. It's almost like you don't know who is actually responsible for the budget. Do you want to chart a similar graph by what party was in control of Congress as well?

I've posted in the past facts relating to each branch and they showed an even worse picture of repubs with figures from debt to inflation. It was a while ago and if I could, I'd post them again.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #23 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I've posted in the past facts relating to each branch and they showed an even worse picture of repubs with figures from debt to inflation.

Where?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It was a while ago and if I could, I'd post them again.

What's preventing you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Where?




What's preventing you?


OK found the thread-

"President Dem
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 3.45

President Dem
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 3.31

President Rep
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 1.28

President Rep
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 0.59

President Rep
Congress Mixed
Yearly Growth 1.64

~ http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/0...tively_16.html

BEA data~ http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...JavaBox=no#Mid


Thread- http://forums.appleinsider.com/archi.../t-105770.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK found the thread-

"President Dem
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 3.45

President Dem
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 3.31

President Rep
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 1.28

President Rep
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 0.59

President Rep
Congress Mixed
Yearly Growth 1.64

Not sure what these numbers are saying. But I'll keep waiting for a chart showing spending and deficits over time charted against what party controlled Congress (and the White House also if you want...the combination is often important.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

~ http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/0...tively_16.html

This link appears to be saying something about GDP growth. I thought you were talking about spending.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

BEA data~ http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...JavaBox=no#Mid

Link-slapping is rude.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thread- http://forums.appleinsider.com/archi.../t-105770.html

This post says the same thing you have always said...it points to the president, not Congress.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not sure what these numbers are saying. But I'll keep waiting for a chart showing spending and deficits over time charted against what party controlled Congress (and the White House also if you want...the combination is often important.)




This link appears to be saying something about GDP growth. I thought you were talking about spending.




Link-slapping is rude.




This post says the same thing you have always said...it points to the president, not Congress.


It means the yearly growth percentages are highest when the POTUS and congress are dems and they're much worse the further you get from that ideal.

What's "link slapping"?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It means the yearly growth percentages are highest when the POTUS and congress are dems and they're much worse the further you get from that ideal.

Yearly growth percentages of what?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What's "link slapping"?

Just posting a link with a bunch of shit on it that you expect the person you're replying to to wade through to get an answer only to find out that the link you posted doesn't even answer the question you were asked in the first place!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yearly growth percentages of what?



Just posting a link with a bunch of shit on it that you expect the person you're replying to to wade through to get an answer only to find out that the link you posted doesn't even answer the question you were asked in the first place!

GDP.

If you want a graph like the one I posted earlier of revenue/expenditure under potus/congress, I don't have that, though the info's sure to be out there. Clearly though with lower gdp under a republican congress there's sure to be worse debt figures than the dems, given the increased spending.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #29 of 88
Too late, Obama.

It looks like Obama is getting feedback on the campaign trail and he's finally realizing just how much he's alienated his base by compromising with the conservatives. He's in panic mode.

But I've got to ask... Where the fuck were his 'principles' when he agreed to extend the Bush Tax Cuts? Raising the debt ceiling is not the solution we, your estranged base, want. We want you to stop the fucking spending on the military and clearly failing supply-side bullshit (excuse me, not "spending", but slashing tax income, which results in the same).
post #30 of 88
Here's a chart showing all three branches with debt. If you compare it with the first graph I posted in this thread it paints a very sorry tale of Republican debt increases- http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/PartyControlDebt.png

And here's the debt in dollar amounts for the same time period- http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png


So what does all this really mean?

It means that when the Republicans have more power within the three branches of government growth dramatically slows and debt dramatically rises. The opposite is true for Democrats. Yes, Obama has substantially raised the debt, but he came into a diabolical mess left from G.W. Bush. At least Obama wants to change things by repealing the top 1.5% massive tax cut and healthcare reform that will save the US over a trillion dollars over the next 15 years or less etc.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a chart showing all three branches with debt. If you compare it with the first graph I posted in this thread it paints a very sorry tale of Republican debt increases- http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/PartyControlDebt.png

This is better. It shows a more complete picture. It would be helpful to see how much debt was increasing in those times (i.e., the size of the deficits.) This chart is still hiding information as much as it is revealing information.

But, to the point of your claims: It looks to me like the Democrats have controlled Congress for a substantial amount of that time and that the very few times where debt has actually been reduced it is much less clear. There have been 7 years where this occurred in this time range (1938-2006*):

1946: P - D, H - R, S - R
1947: P - D, H - R, S - R
1948: P - D, H - D, S - D
1951: P - D, H - D, S - D
1956: P - R, H - D, S - D
1957: P - R, H - D, S - D
1961: P - D, H - D, S - D

*We have enough data to extend this chart to 2010 (during which debt has gone up...a lot) now which should look like this:

2007: P - R, H - D, S - D
2008: P - R, H - D, S - D
2009: P - D, H - D, S - D
2010: P - D, H - D, S - D

The real story here is that both parties are complicit here.

Found a link that combines a lot of information. I don't think we see any really strong correlations here at all. In some cases it appears that a split party situation works best but even then it appears that D for president and R for Congress rather than the other way around.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The real story here is that both parties are complicit here.

Bingo.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #33 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This is better. It shows a more complete picture. It would be helpful to see how much debt was increasing in those times (i.e., the size of the deficits.) This chart is still hiding information as much as it is revealing information.

But, to the point of your claims: It looks to me like the Democrats have controlled Congress for a substantial amount of that time and that the very few times where debt has actually been reduced it is much less clear. There have been 7 years where this occurred in this time range (1938-2006*):

1946: P - D, H - R, S - R
1947: P - D, H - R, S - R
1948: P - D, H - D, S - D
1951: P - D, H - D, S - D
1956: P - R, H - D, S - D
1957: P - R, H - D, S - D
1961: P - D, H - D, S - D

*We have enough data to extend this chart to 2010 (during which debt has gone up...a lot) now which should look like this:

2007: P - R, H - D, S - D
2008: P - R, H - D, S - D
2009: P - D, H - D, S - D
2010: P - D, H - D, S - D

The real story here is that both parties are complicit here.

I added a link showing dollar amounts, which I agree was needed.

Yes, but who has been worse on growth and debt (and by no small margin)? The answers very clear, Republicans.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I added a link showing dollar amounts, which I agree was needed.

Yes, but who has been worse on growth and debt (and by no small margin)? The answers very clear, Republicans.

That answer is actually not clear at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That answer is actually not clear at all.

Agreed. He's also confusing correlation with causation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. He's also confusing correlation with causation.

Heck, I'd give him credit if there was even a clear correlation. There's not.

And this all gets even murkier when you take into account the differences in what it means to be a Republican or Democrat today vs. 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. These are not all the same people and the ideologies shift and change under the same "brand." It's almost as if people think that since Coke tastes the same as it did 50 years ago and Pepsi tastes the same as it did 50 years ago that a Republican or a Democrat from 50 years ago is the same as a Republican or Democrat today. These labels are too coarse-grained and all-encompassing to be useful for a whole lot of thoughtful analysis.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 88
So true, MJ1970.

Some people I've talked to who consider themselves to be "conservative" recoil in horror when I tell them I'm really getting into classical liberalism.

They hear the word "liberal" or "liberalism" and immediately everything they've come to associate with those words causes their brains to shut down.

If they let me explain what it is or look into it for themselves, they realize it doesn't mean what they thought it did.

These labels we've come to associate with everything have become a barrier to honest and rational debate and thought.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #38 of 88

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Heck, I'd give him credit if there was even a clear correlation. There's not.

And this all gets even murkier when you take into account the differences in what it means to be a Republican or Democrat today vs. 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. These are not all the same people and the ideologies shift and change under the same "brand." It's almost as if people think that since Coke tastes the same as it did 50 years ago and Pepsi tastes the same as it did 50 years ago that a Republican or a Democrat from 50 years ago is the same as a Republican or Democrat today. These labels are too coarse-grained and all-encompassing to be useful for a whole lot of thoughtful analysis.

Whilst times change you're blindingly wrong here.

Democrats have consistently over this time period supported things like the minimum wage, unions and a long list of programs to ease the stress of poverty. It's no wonder that over the cause of the last 50 years small businesses have flourished under the Democrats far far more than the Republicans. The facts speak for themselves.

The Democrats focus on empowering the average citizen instead of just the very richest is what's at the heart of Democratic economic success. I would say the Founding Fathers understood that whereas the Royalists may have but didn't give a flying fuc*.

Let's look at some real percentages here for just one moment, if you can stand to actually comprehend how important money in the pockets of average Americans instead of just the richest leads to business growth for small business which accounts for I believe somewhere around 90% of the jobs in the US-

"The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a familys income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent."
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...prod=permalink

The Democrats consistently focus on the average person and below. That's what separates them from Republicans. That's what makes me favour the Democrats and that's why I don't buy into all this complete rubbish from the right wing.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Whilst times change you're blindingly wrong here.

No, I'm not. Sorry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Democrats have consistently over this time period supported things like the minimum wage, unions and a long list of programs to ease the stress of poverty.

Shifting topics now? Yes, I agree that Democrats have consistently over time publicly supported government policies they think alleviate poverty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's no wonder that over the cause of the last 50 years small businesses have flourished under the Democrats far far more than the Republicans.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The facts speak for themselves.

They do, but they're not saying what you think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The Democrats focus on empowering the average citizen...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The Democrats consistently focus on the average person and below.

Now that's downright hilarious! What's worse is you actually appear to believe that!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › immovable object meets irresistible force