The Politico/Economic Crisis in the U.S.

[dgs49]

The Democrat Team in Washington believes that the greatest single threat to America today is unemployment (and so-called “underemployment”). Like a cancer, it is constraining business and government revenues, and diminishing the quality of life for millions of households, directly and indirectly. And it will only get worse. In order to fight this cancer of unemployment, the Democrat Team believes that the Government MUST inject mountains of money into the economy by every means available: extend unemployment compensation indefinitely, embark on hundreds of new spending and regulatory programs* , borrow money and pass it out to state and local governments so they don’t have to lay anyone off. The Democrat Team believes that this “seed” money has a multiplicative effect on the economy, and will “shortly” bring about an economic healing, as the money given to the unemployed (for example) will be spent with the grocer, who will then spend it with the farmer, who will then spend it at the John Deere store, and so on.

But the Republican Team believes that the threat posed by the national debt is absolutely existential, and government spending must be constrained – even reduced(!). Borrowing these vast amounts of money puts the Republic itself at risk. As we add trillions of dollars to the debt every year, it not only increases the debt service directly, but it must inevitably reduce confidence in the dollar, which will raise the amount of interest we must pay on not only new borrowing, but also on the long-existing debt, as most of it is secured by relatively short term instruments. We will very shortly (much sooner than any politician will say out loud), reach a point where interest on the national debt, coupled with untouchable entitlement programs WILL EXCEED THE GOVERNMENT’S ENTIRE REVENUE STREAM. Can you spell, “banqueruppsie”?

But the Democrat Team believes that there are two vast, largely untapped sources of funds out there, namely Greedy Corporations (an expression which they believe is redundant) and The Rich. If only, they say, we could induce the Greedy Corporations and The Rich to pay “their fair share” to the Government, then there would be sufficient government revenues to cover all the projected outlays, and then some.

But the Republican Team believes that increasing marginal income tax rates (to get more from The Rich) is an exercise in futility because the people at the top of the heap, so to speak, are extremely tax-averse, and are mainly business owners who have the ability to manipulate their taxable incomes without significantly affecting their lavish lifestyles; indeed, history shows that at times when the top marginal tax rates have been much higher than today, the overall percentage of tax revenues paid by those at the top has been LESS than it is today. And as for corporations, the Republican Team notes that the U.S. is already on the high side for corporate tax rates, and imposing even higher taxes on corporations would restrain exactly the kind of economic activity that we need. It would figuratively be a case of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

But the Democrat Team believes that increasing government revenues is an imperative, because all of these new programs – every one – reflects Congress’ determination of an absolute NEED within the society that must be met, and it must be met by the United States Government since no state or local government, or private instrumentality has the ability or willingness to do so.

But the Republican Team sees dozens of programs that are either (1) blatantly unconstitutional and should therefore be eliminated immediately (e.g., the Department of Education), (2) profoundly unsuccessful at producing the goals on which they were originally “sold” (e.g., Operation Headstart, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies) and therefore have no rational reason to exist, or (3) are simply a matter of Government doing what is much better done at the state level or in the private sector (e.g., the Small Business Administration). Using these three criteria, the Federal government and its budget could be reduced dramatically.

But the Democrat Team knows that all of these government programs have the side “benefit” of making more and more people dependent on Government, and those worthy and unworthy beneficiaries, seeing which party is most likely to continue and even increase every wasteful program out there, are more inclined to vote Democrat.

And the Republicans agree that this is the case. Which why they feel compelled to do what the taxpayers (as opposed to the Government teat-suckers) elected them to do.

To be honest, the Republican Team does not have much of a plan to reduce unemployment, except that they expect the Movers and Shakers to start spending their money more freely (i.e., spur economic activity) if/when they have the impression the government isn’t going to go bankrupt or start confiscating all their money. In fact, without even looking into the details of Rep. Ryan’s 10-year budget plan, if implemented it will inevitably result in millions of government teat-suckers losing their jobs - not really helpful to the unemployment situation.

And the Democrat Team has no plan or real intention of bringing federal debt to a manageable level. They are just not geared for that. Most are still delirious about the 15 minutes when Mr. Newt balanced the budget so President B.J. could take credit for it.

Our only hope (and that’s all it is) is that today’s economic miseries are merely cyclical, and the economy will inevitably start to rally at some point for no particular reason, in spite of what the politicians are doing to manipulate it, and employment will rise on its own, and government revenues will magically rebound. Nobody is actually predicting that, but I suppose it could happen.

__________________________
* Democrats see increasing government regulation as promoting economic growth, as it requires the hiring of government employees to regulate and private sector employees (often retired government employees) to fight them.

[Grim Reaper]

But the Republican Team believes that the threat posed by the national debt is absolutely existential, and government spending must be constrained – even reduced(!).

Even though their answer for everything is tax cuts? And when tax cuts don't work? More tax cuts! Especially for the rich. Any cuts they make to spending are outweighed by their constant attempts at decreasing the money going into the government. This is especially telling when most of their spending cuts are aimed at social, medical, and education programs. Meanwhile defense spending is allowed to continue unchecked.

Republicans are not even remotely interested in fixing the national debt.

the overall percentage of tax revenues paid by those at the top has been LESS than it is today.

And this is because the income of those at the top has increased massively which of course leads to higher taxes. The point that you are deliberately leaving out is that their tax share, in comparison to their income, is less now than before.

And as for corporations, the Republican Team notes that the U.S. is already on the high side for corporate tax rates

And this is just a pretty little lie. What the tax rate is and what corporations end up paying due to various loopholes are two different things.

To be honest, the Republican Team does not have much of a plan to reduce unemployment

Which is interesting since "more jobs" was one of the things they pledged to focus on if they did get re-elected.

Most are still delirious about the 15 minutes when Mr. Newt balanced the budget so President B.J. could take credit for it.

Even if this were true, you conveniently ignored the last ten years where President George W. Bush (it's OK to use people's real names even if you don't like them) pissed away that balance and left us down a deep dark hole.

It's simply amazing that you can call Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility after a Republican President was responsible for costing us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives (and that's just counting Soldiers).

[rubato]

"....

But the Republican Team believes that the threat posed by the national debt is absolutely existential, and government spending must be constrained – even reduced(!). Borrowing these vast amounts of money puts the Republic itself at risk. As we add trillions of dollars to the debt every year, it not only increases the debt service directly, but it must inevitably reduce confidence in the dollar, which will raise the amount of interest we must pay on not only new borrowing, but also on the long-existing debt, as most of it is secured by relatively short term instruments. We will very shortly (much sooner than any politician will say out loud), reach a point where interest on the national debt, coupled with untouchable entitlement programs WILL EXCEED THE GOVERNMENT’S ENTIRE REVENUE STREAM. Can you spell, “banqueruppsie”?
... "

When the Republican Team controlled both houses and the Whitehouse they took a surplus and turned it into a huge deficit by borrowing $290 Billion per year to give more money to the richest 20%. They also expanded government to the largest degree in history and increased spending.

If they were really interested in the deficit they would support ending their tax breaks for the rich.

They are liars.

The democrats deserve a better party of opposition than this.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The "Republican Tea" fucked the country into the worst economic crisis in 80 years.

Since the last time they did it.

Only a pure fool would support them.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

When was the last tax cut? A decade ago? The Dems are so fixated on stoking envy that they use the expression "tax cut for the rich" even when the rates stay the same.

Who's delusional now? Barry & the Dems have accumulated more red ink in the short time since he was inaugurated than were accumulated in 8 years under Bush - even ignoring the fact that the President can't spend a fucking dime on his own (except to bomb Libya, I guess).

[Lord Jim]

That's an excellent analysis in the OP Dave. Very lucidly laid out.

[Grim Reaper]

When was the last tax cut? A decade ago? The Dems are so fixated on stoking envy that they use the expression "tax cut for the rich" even when the rates stay the same.

They have tax cuts laid out for their current budget proposal.

Again. Republicans don't care even a tiny bit about balancing the budget. For all your ranting and raving about Democrats being so horrible, the Republicans are a much worse option.

All of the spending cuts they do announce? Would primarily hurt poor people. Medicare gets slashed, social services get slashed, education gets slashed. Defense spending? Untouched. Tax breaks for the rich? Untouched. They don't care about 90% of the population in this country and they don't even attempt to hide it anymore.

Barry & the Dems have accumulated more red ink in the short time since he was inaugurated than were accumulated in 8 years under Bush

I'm going to need to see a citation on this one.

[quaddriver]

When was the last tax cut? A decade ago? The Dems are so fixated on stoking envy that they use the expression "tax cut for the rich" even when the rates stay the same.

They have tax cuts laid out for their current budget proposal.

Again. Republicans don't care even a tiny bit about balancing the budget. For all your ranting and raving about Democrats being so horrible, the Republicans are a much worse option.

All of the spending cuts they do announce? Would primarily hurt poor people. Medicare gets slashed, social services get slashed, education gets slashed. Defense spending? Untouched. Tax breaks for the rich? Untouched. They don't care about 90% of the population in this country and they don't even attempt to hide it anymore.

Barry & the Dems have accumulated more red ink in the short time since he was inaugurated than were accumulated in 8 years under Bush

I'm going to need to see a citation on this one.

that is an easy search to bear out without his help. the truth is, in 2 years Obama has overspent by RATES 8 years of bush could never hope to reach. (personally I think yall should be PISSED at the bailout of securities investors for the first time ever at your expense. If Bush tried that we would have had civil war 2)

anyways, I think it is more correct to state that the functions the GOP cuts at the federal level they also want to be pushed back down where they belong: at the state level.

If federal tax rates ease to an effective tax rate of 12% and state tax rates rise to an effective rate of 10%, the same overall effective tax rate exists and the states pay for educations and social services and state medicare programs.

Im not a republican but happen to agree that the states should be doing that.

It might help if the term 'entitlement' was not so engrained with people. We might see less liberal arts majors living off govt checks and perhaps more engineers and doctors and scientists and skilled tradesmen? Unrelated, but last week I saw a report how so many % of the nations bridges are in critical need of repair. Who might affect that better? A mech-E or an art history major? just sayin.

[quaddriver]

I'm going to need to see a citation on this one.

In case no one got back to you...

The highest individual yearly budget defecit Bush2 ever put his name to was just under 500B. Some want to blame the Obama extensions and spending plans of 2009* on Bush, But it clearly was Obamas signature on appx 1.7T deficit in one year. If we consider the 1.2T for '10 and the 900B on the table for '11 and further look at the OBM projections for an 8 year term (heady people eh?) of having no single year UNDER 550B, well DSG's point is sorta made. And mind you, 2.9T of our defecit was passed and signed while the democrats controlled all aspects of the process. Personally that factoid would make me hesitant to issue "xxxxxx's dont care about reducing the defecit" pontifications

* = Its kinda weird watching folks rail about supposed (and oft extended) cuts from 2002 for the wealthy while ignoring the great 2009 stimulus package cash payola that went to everyone BUT the people needing money....but such is the landscape.

[Grim Reaper]

(personally I think yall should be PISSED at the bailout of securities investors for the first time ever at your expense. If Bush tried that we would have had civil war 2)

People seem to have forgotten that it was President George W. Bush who signed off on TARP.

anyways, I think it is more correct to state that the functions the GOP cuts at the federal level they also want to be pushed back down where they belong: at the state level.

Except the GOP at the state level are cutting taxes there too.

Unrelated, but last week I saw a report how so many % of the nations bridges are in critical need of repair.

Overhauling the way roadwork is done would probably help more. Also, a liberal arts major wouldn't directly translate into an engineer.

* = Its kinda weird watching folks rail about supposed (and oft extended) cuts from 2002 for the wealthy while ignoring the great 2009 stimulus package cash payola that went to everyone BUT the people needing money....but such is the landscape.

I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. But the current alternative is much, much worse.

[quaddriver]

(personally I think yall should be PISSED at the bailout of securities investors for the first time ever at your expense. If Bush tried that we would have had civil war 2)

People seem to have forgotten that it was President George W. Bush who signed off on TARP.

I aint talking about TARP. Im talking about the other 3T of money transfers. I wish it was all Tarp. that actually has been paid back on a more than acceptable basis.

there is great education to be had to go back to those times (2008) and read what was in the media, savoring perhaps the choice cuts I posted on the old CSB. republican shmublicans. Almost all of our misery came from a few ranking democrats and their friends in control of the strings of major banks. And you are STILL paying the bill and will be for decades. In hindsight, Obama would have won ANYWAY. And it would not have required wrecking millions of lives and taking hundreds of thousands of homes and savings from the working class. Careful what you wish for?

I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. But the current alternative is much, much worse.

what exactly is this 'current alternative'. I for one, would not mind a face being put to the name?

[Grim Reaper]

I aint talking about TARP. Im talking about the other 3T of money transfers.

What other 3 trillion?

In hindsight, Obama would have won ANYWAY.

Are you honestly trying to say that Democrats crashed the economy for the purpose of getting a Democrat elected?

what exactly is this 'current alternative'. I for one, would not mind a face being put to the name?

Well, this may be news to some people, but there's a second major political party commonly known as the Republican Party.

[Lord Jim]

People seem to have forgotten that it was President George W. Bush who signed off on TARP.

Which has turned out to be quite a sound investment for the taxpayers, in addition to having prevented a complete financial meltdown and another Great Depression. Thus far the monies lent have been repaid on time, (in many cases ahead of time) and at a respectable profit.

I unlike many Republicans, I reluctantly supported the TARP in the fall of 2008 (though I would have preferred to have seen more restrictions and oversight of the dispersal of the money) as a necessary move to prevent the economy from grinding to a complete halt. I'm happy to see that it has turned out so well.

The TARP's success stands in sharp contrast to the MOAP (Mother Of All Pork) so called "stimulus" package which provided water pistol bang for Belugan caviar bucks...after Pelosi and her cronies got through trashing the original concept, (and completely freezing out any GOP input) the only thing that really got "stimulated" were the coffers of the public sector employee unions, that the bill was largely structured as a payoff to.


It was largely this ill conceived and atrociously designed monstrosity that has most contributed to the anemic pace of the the economic recovery, and thus the shellacking that the Dems suffered in the mid term elections. (There were far, far more economically stimulative ways to have spent the nearly 1 trillion dollars this turkey cost then the way it was done.)

I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. But the current alternative is much, much worse.

That's funny; because that's pretty much the mirror image of my view....

Though I might have said "far from perfect"....

[quaddriver]

I aint talking about TARP. Im talking about the other 3T of money transfers.

What other 3 trillion?

serious? by the time Bush was not signing anything other than memoirs we had only used tarp for the purchase of about half of what it was authorized to do. But at the sime time we opened the candy store (treasury) for banks to have undocumented, untaxed, unvigged, long term loans to cover their balance sheets. thank you Mr Dodd. (I think he used to be in gubmint somehow)

this has been covered in depth previously. since it not a payment, but rather a nebulous loan, it does not count towards our defecit because the money is sorta kinda in the federal reserve and not really an outlay.

the banks, as it were, only used TARP to sell off the real stinkers to *you* so they could cover the minimal margins on the commodities futures (read: oil) the rest of the money was used to bolster their credit standing so they could participate in more global transactions.

Is the money back in the treasury? dunno. and I work for them.

Are you honestly trying to say that Democrats crashed the economy for the purpose of getting a Democrat elected?

In a nutshell - yes. and it worked. or if you prefer to ignore what has happened over really the last 6 years, ask yourself this:

what EXACTLY was to be gained by having Mssrs johnson and Raines violate their GSE charters and knowingly extend loans to those that could not afford them long term, not only wiping out the meager savings of those least able to recover, but taking homes and livlihood? These misdeedsdid not go unnoticed but Ill be damned if I can find ANY evidence either one spent a single godddamn day in jail or paid a single goddamn cent of the $25M+ fines. Sure, one got to advise certain campaigns for pay to boot. Oddly, this is a live active connection hundreds of times stronger than Cheneys to Haliburton (which 99.9% of the public have no clue what they do) yet nothing was said. Oh to be sure there still exists a DOJ litigation hold on documents any and all relating to this but a certain reality comes to play: once you get elected, whatever you and your friends did gets a pass, no matter how badly the other side wants to chew on it. Every once in a while you have to offer up a sacrificial Libby, but thats it.

At the same time, while the GSEs were prohibited from doing this, nothing was preventing the major banks from doing this. AIG, UBS, MS, GS, Lehman - how many others went or nearly went tits up and have a hand in the cookie jar over this?
When you have a fund and advise clients to buy a few million mortgages that were about to reset to a higher interest rate (while never dislosing that the holders would NEVEr be able to pay it) are you not supposed to take the loss like a man when it bursts and say tough titty to the kitty? what is this 'lets sell em to the govt for 100 cents on the dollar AND get an interest free open term loan? what evil CT banker/senator thought that one up?

needless to say, by the time they were talking about scheduling debates, 28% of the american homeowners who might possibly have been democrat in the past, but dangerously close to being happy homeowners and hence potential republicans were instead facing bankruptcy and homelessness. If you like to believe in coincidences fine, but this one took 6 years in the making.

And let us not forget, the whole idea to run up gas prices from WITHIN the US, started with an ex vice president and his sham carbon trading company and its european counterpart. Like it or not, the worst thing you can do to the us ecomony is increase fuel prices. it is what it is. paying for it with funny money was a novel idea but like I said in another post, once *you* paid that one off, the same players are at it again and this time they have a new funding source: while no one was looking they passed 'regulatory reform' to take more money from credit card users and checking account holders - legally, from those who can least afford it. This is the kind of crap we have come to expect from republicans right? then explain the democrats? Id like to hear just *1* coherent argument justifying this once and for all.

Since none of this served any good purpose, what did it serve then? other than to guarantee an election that would have gone the same way regardless. And lets face it, no one in gubmint, nor trying to get in gubmint has any earthly idea how to fix it, which is a great segue to:

Well, this may be news to some people, but there's a second major political party commonly known as the Republican Party.

and we wonder how this shit is able to continue unabated year after year.

[Grim Reaper]

In a nutshell - yes. and it worked. or if you prefer to ignore what has happened over really the last 6 years, ask yourself this:

You're off your rocker.

There are still people clamoring for President Obama's long form birth certificate, yet something like this is just ignored? If there was an inkling of truth to this, the Tea Party would have a few hundred (misspelled) signs about it.

[quaddriver]

In a nutshell - yes. and it worked. or if you prefer to ignore what has happened over really the last 6 years, ask yourself this:

You're off your rocker.

There are still people clamoring for President Obama's long form birth certificate, yet something like this is just ignored? If there was an inkling of truth to this, the Tea Party would have a few hundred (misspelled) signs about it.

Im off my rocker yet you claim there is absolutely no clamor in the public/media over gas prices, fuel in general, bankruptcies, credit cards, bank fees, unemployment etc mispelled signes and all? The only thing they aint bitchin about is Obamas birth certificate......


(of course I could ask, that certain tuesday last november left you with NO lasting impression?)

[Grim Reaper]

Im off my rocker yet you claim there is absolutely no clamor in the public/media over gas prices, fuel in general, bankruptcies, credit cards, bank fees, unemployment etc mispelled signes and all? The only thing they aint bitchin about is Obamas birth certificate......

Point to where i said the absolute only thing they complained about was the birth certificate.

Go on.

I'll be waiting.

[quaddriver]

Im off my rocker yet you claim there is absolutely no clamor in the public/media over gas prices, fuel in general, bankruptcies, credit cards, bank fees, unemployment etc mispelled signes and all? The only thing they aint bitchin about is Obamas birth certificate......

Point to where i said the absolute only thing they complained about was the birth certificate.

Go on.

I'll be waiting.

ok, only if you point to ANYTHING I said that remotely would generate that response?

You CLEARLY claimed that nothing I had listed in a previous post is in the media, yet some still insist to see a birth certificate.

I CLEARLY claimed that ALL of the things I listed are DAILY in the media and the birth certificate claims are conspicuosly absent.

the problem therefore?

but if you want to ignore the items I brought up, then fine go ahead, but its really not contributing much to any discussion.

[Grim Reaper]

ok, only if you point to ANYTHING I said that remotely would generate that response?

Stop acting childish.

You CLEARLY claimed that nothing I had listed in a previous post is in the media, yet some still insist to see a birth certificate.

I clearly claimed nothing of the sort. I said some still requested to see the birth certificate. Nowhere in that statement did I say that everybody was making that claim, and that was the only claim they were making. I used it as an example of the things people would cling to, while your conspiracy theory was noticeably absent. You generated some strawman bullshit from that to pretend to have an argument.

I CLEARLY claimed that ALL of the things I listed are DAILY in the media and the birth certificate claims are conspicuosly absent.

All? Daily? Try rarely, if at all. Meanwhile we have Presidential hopefuls like Trump babbling about their birth certificates and people still trying to pass legislation to get presidential hopefuls to "prove" their birth certificates.

So if a minor issue like birth certificates is still being trumped up to this day, why is this theory of yours almost absent entirely?

[quaddriver]

ok, only if you point to ANYTHING I said that remotely would generate that response?

Stop acting childish.

You CLEARLY claimed that nothing I had listed in a previous post is in the media, yet some still insist to see a birth certificate.

I clearly claimed nothing of the sort. I said some still requested to see the birth certificate. Nowhere in that statement did I say that everybody was making that claim, and that was the only claim they were making. I used it as an example of the things people would cling to, while your conspiracy theory was noticeably absent. You generated some strawman bullshit from that to pretend to have an argument.

I CLEARLY claimed that ALL of the things I listed are DAILY in the media and the birth certificate claims are conspicuosly absent.

All? Daily? Try rarely, if at all. Meanwhile we have Presidential hopefuls like Trump babbling about their birth certificates and people still trying to pass legislation to get presidential hopefuls to "prove" their birth certificates.

So if a minor issue like birth certificates is still being trumped up to this day, why is this theory of yours almost absent entirely?

so let me get this straight, you offer up a birth certificate discussion in rebuttal to a financial meltdown discussion and **I** and being childish and offering strawmen? okaaayyyyyyyy

But, staying on course, nothing of what I said is in the media or on peoples minds? Again I ask, did you NOT pay attention a certain tuesday last november?

what do we know from that?

1) the american people know damn well what party was pulling the strings when it came to subprime mortgages. they took a shellacing if I recall

2) the american people know damn well what party has allowed banks to assess confiscatory fees on low balance acconts. they took a shellacing if I recall.

3) the american people know damn well who passed 'credit card reform' that guarantee only high rates, high fees and low balances for the lowest income earner. they took a shellacing if I recall

4) the american people know damn well who is behind the rampant commodities speculation. they took a shellacing if I recall and to followup, as soon as the replacements suggested we perhaps regulate, minimize or eliminate speculation for those not in danger of financial loss, bingo, we get a third war.

need I go on?

but I will ask - why is it, when the 'political wild cards' who make up the 'tea party' elect a Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Obama they are rational sane heroes of the electorate, but 2 years later when they call enuf BS, and switch allegiance, they are right wing radical nutjobs?

again: and we wonder why this shit al able to continue unabated time after time, year after year.

you may decide to keep your head in the sand, but for grins, go find me one of these subprime loan holders who is perhaps un/under-employed, paying $4 a gallon if they are pulling for Obama in round two.

We know that in round 1, Obama and Clinton combined for a little under $1B in campaign spending. the DNC has already announced they plan on spending about $1B just for the incumbent this cycle, someone the masses preferred right? a no brainer against all the right wing kooks who will spend about 1/4th that right?

uh huh. sure.

ask yourself, who would spend $1B on an elected spot that pays $250K if they didnt somehow plan to get it back for someone in spades....and in case you have not checked your bank account lately, that someone clearly aint you.