I hope that's true, but somehow I doubt it, what say you Languishites, will fiscal sanity reign at last on Capital Hill?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aTKrn1jUJwdE
QuoteCalifornia's Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics:
Commentary by Kevin Hasset
July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Last week, we discovered that the state of California will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
With California mired in a budget crisis, largely the result of a political impasse that makes spending cuts and tax increases impossible, Controller John Chiang said the state planned to issue $3.3 billion in IOU's in July alone. Instead of cash, those who do business with California will get slips of paper.
The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama's health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California's. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.
It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Bleak Picture
The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn't add up.
Character Deficit
Back in the 1980s, Reagan's own economist, Martin Feldstein, spoke up when he felt that the Reagan administration was pushing the deficit too far. Where are the economists with such character today? Apparently, the job description for economists has transformed from recommending policies that are defensible to defending whatever policies that the political hacks in the West Wing dream up.
As bad as the California legislature has been over the years, it has never entered a fiscal crisis like the one that we face today and then doubled down with a massive spending increase. In the end, when times got tough, patriotic and sensible Californians of both parties stood up and began acting like adults.
Maybe the same thing is starting to happen in our nation's capital. The key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.
Off a Cliff
With the price tag of Obama-care likely to exceed $1 trillion, moderate Democrats face a simple choice. They can jump off the cliff with the president, or they can stay true to the principles that they have espoused throughout their careers.
There are reassuring signs that principle is winning. One of the most expensive components of the Obama plan is the so- called public-insurance option, which opponents fear would result in massive government subsidies. Senator Mary Landrieu said that she is "not open" to a public option that will compete with private insurance.
Many other Democratic Senators, including Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper, also oppose the public option. As the cost estimates increase and support wanes, the Senate Finance Committee is even going as far as to pursue its own health-care plan, meaning that the health-care end game is now in sight.
Tax Bite
Moderates might support Obama's health-care objectives if the bill also included tax increases to cover the spending increases. But those tax increases would likely be unpopular, making it almost impossible to pass a bill.
Given the increasing public concern about deficits that heightened significantly last week because of the California crisis, there are only two possibilities left. Either the Obama plan will come crashing down or Senate Democrats will concoct some bill that has health in the title but costs almost nothing and does even less. With Al Franken arriving in the Senate and providing Democrats with a crucial 60th vote, the latter seems most likely.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
QuoteRonald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn't add up.
Over the top much? Yeah, I'm sure Obama and the Democrats are just spending for kicks.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 10:48:48 AM
QuoteRonald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn't add up.
Over the top much. Yeah, I'm sure Obama and the Democrats are just spending for kicks.
He's not saying they're spending money for kicks, he's just saying that they have no plan to pay for it.
The problem with California is that they have straightjacketed themselves into a situation from which it's almost impossible to emerge. The problem is political, not financial.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
The problem with California is that they have straightjacketed themselves into a situation from which it's almost impossible to emerge. The problem is political, not financial.
What is the political solution then?
Quote from: Phillip V on July 06, 2009, 11:54:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
The problem with California is that they have straightjacketed themselves into a situation from which it's almost impossible to emerge. The problem is political, not financial.
What is the political solution then?
There is none. The problem is that the political problem was designed in such a way that it virtually precludes a political solution.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 06, 2009, 11:54:04 AM
What is the political solution then?
Convince the California voters to repeal the straightjacketing initiatives?
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:02:21 PM
Convince the California voters to repeal the straightjacketing initiatives?
Who's going to pay for such initiatives (your proposed ones to repeal straightjacketing initiatives )?
QuoteThe key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.
I am sort of pinning my hopes on the Blue Dogs. They are far from perfect but at least they seem to have the spot where they can avoid the crazy fiscal ideas of the Democrats and the nutty social ideas of the Republicans....
We will see.
I had some hopes that the crisis would create a political re-alignment but the hijacking of the Tea Party thing pretty much shows me that any protest against government policy eventually just becomes a tool for the party out of power to use and thus rather pointless.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
Who's going to pay for such initiatives (your proposed ones to repeal straightjacketing initiatives )?
Wow you cannot even afford to repeal the initiatives that are bankrupting you? How ironic.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:06:24 PM
Wow you cannot even afford to repeal the initiatives that are bankrupting you? How ironic.
Well someone is going to have to get the word out there to encourage voters to vote to repeal initiatives. I'd assume that would cost money.
I haven't really read up on Obama's health care plan, but unless it includes breaking the insurance companies, the trial lawyers and the medical profession, it probably won't do much good.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:02:21 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 06, 2009, 11:54:04 AM
What is the political solution then?
Convince the California voters to repeal the straightjacketing initiatives?
Impossible. The voters will continue to loot California until a military solution becomes availible.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 11:56:41 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 06, 2009, 11:54:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
The problem with California is that they have straightjacketed themselves into a situation from which it's almost impossible to emerge. The problem is political, not financial.
What is the political solution then?
There is none. The problem is that the political problem was designed in such a way that it virtually precludes a political solution.
Maybe Federal troops need to invade and occupy California, and do some home grown nation/state building. :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:05:45 PM
QuoteThe key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.
I had some hopes that the crisis would create a political re-alignment but the hijacking of the Tea Party thing pretty much shows me that any protest against government policy eventually just becomes a tool for the party out of power to use and thus rather pointless.
Some of the recent tea parties made a point to not have, or not invite, and to discourage, politicians from attending. Especially ones in Texas where the Repubs have been joining in, the governor especially. Good move I say. My take is that neither party has much room to talk about being better at fiscal responsibility.
Who is Kevin A. Hassett: He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign and as Senator McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2000 presidential primaries. He also served as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 06, 2009, 12:48:07 PM
Who is Kevin A. Hassett: He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign and as Senator McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2000 presidential primaries. He also served as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.
:face:
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 06, 2009, 12:48:07 PM
Who is Kevin A. Hassett: He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign and as Senator McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2000 presidential primaries. He also served as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.
Whew I was afraid he was biased.
Quote from: KRonn on July 06, 2009, 12:44:55 PM
My take is that neither party has much room to talk about being better at fiscal responsibility.
Both parties love to talk about it though...when they are out of power.
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:06:24 PM
Wow you cannot even afford to repeal the initiatives that are bankrupting you? How ironic.
Well someone is going to have to get the word out there to encourage voters to vote to repeal initiatives. I'd assume that would cost money.
Can't this be done through facebook and twitter? :P
Quote from: Syt on July 06, 2009, 01:02:34 PM
Can't this be done through facebook and twitter? :P
I don't think so, Obama.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
:lmfao: So delusional. Romney/Palin 2012?
Quote from: Jaron on July 06, 2009, 01:06:34 PM
:lmfao: So delusional. Romney/Palin 2012?
Why would Romeny want Palin?
Pretty face to balance out the ticket?
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
Please tell me you people can find somebody else.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
Everything except reality.
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 06, 2009, 01:13:47 PM
Pretty face to balance out the ticket?
Romney is pretty face enough, especially despite his age.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2009, 12:50:00 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 06, 2009, 12:48:07 PM
Who is Kevin A. Hassett: He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign and as Senator McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2000 presidential primaries. He also served as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.
:face:
It's right at the end of the article I posted. :mellow:
It's not like it was a secret. Nor does he speak positively of Bush's fiscal acumen.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
Won't Obama just seize Romney's assets?
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
Almost me too. But I don't have much respect for the ass after becoming an absentee governor. If he had such little liking for the job he should have resigned.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
First it's ridiculous at this early stage to say that anyone "doesn't have a chance". It's too early. Hell Dan Quayle could conceivably make a comeback and be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Second, there's no guarantee that Huck would run on the same platform of economic populism as he did before. I even said it would depend on his platform and who he surrounds himself with.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 04:58:43 PMFirst it's ridiculous at this early stage to say that anyone "doesn't have a chance". It's too early. Hell Dan Quayle could conceivably make a comeback and be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Second, there's no guarantee that Huck would run on the same platform of economic populism as he did before. I even said it would depend on his platform and who he surrounds himself with.
Good. Then Sarah can win. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv128%2Fnhstud1216%2Fsmilie%2Flove.gif&hash=685687c84670f45f0ca32a6ace04c6f89663ccd4)
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
What happens if the economy picks up?
Quote from: Phillip V on July 06, 2009, 05:11:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 04:58:43 PMFirst it's ridiculous at this early stage to say that anyone "doesn't have a chance". It's too early. Hell Dan Quayle could conceivably make a comeback and be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Second, there's no guarantee that Huck would run on the same platform of economic populism as he did before. I even said it would depend on his platform and who he surrounds himself with.
Good. Then Sarah can win. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv128%2Fnhstud1216%2Fsmilie%2Flove.gif&hash=685687c84670f45f0ca32a6ace04c6f89663ccd4)
Not a chance. Palin is clown shoes.
California is a classic example why diverse societies with extensive direct democracy measures are bound to fail.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 05:13:19 PM
What happens if the economy picks up?
Then Obama wins.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2009, 05:23:49 PM
California is a classic example why diverse societies with extensive direct democracy measures are bound to fail.
And yet California somehow managed to survive with them for almost 100 years.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 05:32:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2009, 05:23:49 PM
California is a classic example why diverse societies with extensive direct democracy measures are bound to fail.
And yet California somehow managed to survive with them for almost 100 years.
Indeed. It would seem that some combination of modern technology and allowing non-whites to wield political power is what tipped California over the edge into complete failure.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 05:32:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2009, 05:23:49 PM
California is a classic example why diverse societies with extensive direct democracy measures are bound to fail.
And yet California somehow managed to survive with them for almost 100 years.
Mexicans and blacks couldn't vote for the majority of those 100 years. California has only gone downhill since the mid 60s.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
You're not familiar with American culture, but Huckabee currently is a horrible TV talk show (http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html) host and regular hack on Fox News. That good ole Arkansas boy has cashed in. He's done with elected politics.
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 05:59:45 PM
Mexicans and blacks couldn't vote for the majority of those 100 years. California has only gone downhill since the mid 60s.
It might have something to do with TV. Raise some money, run some political ads, pass a ballot initiative.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
What happens if the economy picks up?
With the anti-growth currently being pursued there is little chance of that happening (unless Obama fails at getting anything more of his jobs destroying programs passed). But if the economy did pick up the gargantuan fiscal deficits, combined with the Fed Reserve having printed money like crazy would mean that either the interest rates would have to rise sharply, causing a double-dip recession, or inflation would spin out of control. the odds of the economy returning to healthy growth prior to 2013 are virtually nil. A year prior to the election I had already said that it'll be better if the dems win the WH in '08 because the economy is going to suck and a GOP President would've zero chance of pushing thru a pro-growth agenda with this Congress. The Dems might as well take all the blame for the next few years of mismanagement.
Although, to be fair, neither party has really been very good with the economy during the last 35 years or so.
I believe Hansy is right about the economy not picking up before 2014 at least.
Just write off our debt.
God.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi105.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm239%2Flemonsherry%2Fbitchplz.gif&hash=abb3d0d57980f7892504ec8633c211f7e39ba15a)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 06, 2009, 07:11:42 PM
I believe Hansy is right about the economy not picking up before 2014 at least.
It's a housing crunch, those recoveries are never easy or quick. Add to that the global nature of the crisis, plus the incredibly stupid and counterproductive policies of the Obama administration (Bush was just as bad), as well as several other major countries in the world (e.g. Britain) and you have a disaster that will take years to recover from.
My only hope is that Keynesiansm will finally be completely discredited (somewhat ironic, since Obama's plan even fails the Keynesian test).
If not Keynesianism, then what?
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 04:58:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
No, Huckabee doesn't have a chance. Six months into Obamanomics it is already clear what a disaster it is. by 2012 the economy will still be rather shitty, deficits will be massive, and the dirigiste economy championed by obama will be wholly discredited. The country will look for someone who can exhibited economic competence, and as much as i dislike Romney, nobody fits the bill more than him. Huckabee's economic populism will not work. Romey will be able to raise massive amounts of money from every businessman and financier who doesn't depend on gov't handouts and steamroll the competition. Plus, he can inject plenty of his own money if necessary.
First it's ridiculous at this early stage to say that anyone "doesn't have a chance". It's too early. Hell Dan Quayle could conceivably make a comeback and be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Second, there's no guarantee that Huck would run on the same platform of economic populism as he did before. I even said it would depend on his platform and who he surrounds himself with.
Huckabee ran on a platform of abolishing the income tax. Even if he doesn't run on that next time, that will be something that is hard to live down in a general election.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 07:33:03 PM
If not Keynesianism, then what?
Good, classical economics. Keynesianism was an excuse to broaden the powers of both politicians and economists, which is why it was so readily embraced by both when it made its first appearance. But at its core it is complete nonsense.
The recession is a result of bad policies of Congress, the WH, the Fed Reserve and the financial markets over at least the last decade. You can't fight it, to do so is only to waste money, as well as creating more bad gov't policies all around. Virtually every measure taken by gov't to date in order to solve the crisis has only made matters worse.
Focus on the macro, let the economy expunge the bad, while setting an environment where the economy can rebound by creating new growth. So the gov't should remove inhibitors to growth, alas, the gov't has done the exact opposite.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 07:05:24 PM
With the anti-growth currently being pursued there is little chance of that happening (unless Obama fails at getting anything more of his jobs destroying programs passed). But if the economy did pick up the gargantuan fiscal deficits, combined with the Fed Reserve having printed money like crazy would mean that either the interest rates would have to rise sharply, causing a double-dip recession, or inflation would spin out of control. the odds of the economy returning to healthy growth prior to 2013 are virtually nil. A year prior to the election I had already said that it'll be better if the dems win the WH in '08 because the economy is going to suck and a GOP President would've zero chance of pushing thru a pro-growth agenda with this Congress. The Dems might as well take all the blame for the next few years of mismanagement.
Lets say we do see recovory before 2012 with out the inflation or interest rates going nuts. What then? What will you do then?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2009, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 07:05:24 PM
With the anti-growth currently being pursued there is little chance of that happening (unless Obama fails at getting anything more of his jobs destroying programs passed). But if the economy did pick up the gargantuan fiscal deficits, combined with the Fed Reserve having printed money like crazy would mean that either the interest rates would have to rise sharply, causing a double-dip recession, or inflation would spin out of control. the odds of the economy returning to healthy growth prior to 2013 are virtually nil. A year prior to the election I had already said that it'll be better if the dems win the WH in '08 because the economy is going to suck and a GOP President would've zero chance of pushing thru a pro-growth agenda with this Congress. The Dems might as well take all the blame for the next few years of mismanagement.
Lets say we do see recovory before 2012 with out the inflation or interest rates going nuts. What then? What will you do then?
Blame the socialists for making it take that long.
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2009, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2009, 01:26:12 PM
As someone who formerly despised Romney, I wouldn't mind him.
He's far from inspiring, but they could do far worse.
I still think HUck has a great shot at it - depending on how he positions himself and who he surrounds himself with.
You're not familiar with American culture, but Huckabee currently is a horrible TV talk show (http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html) host and regular hack on Fox News. That good ole Arkansas boy has cashed in. He's done with elected politics.
I'm familiar with his show. It seems to me its a great base to start a run in 2012. He doesn't do "issue of the day" stuff, but rather larger themes. In short - no sound bites that can harm him 3 years from now.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2009, 07:46:23 PM
Huckabee ran on a platform of abolishing the income tax. Even if he doesn't run on that next time, that will be something that is hard to live down in a general election.
Pfft. Where have you been? Losing politicians disavow their old platforms all the time.
Just off the top of my head - 'In 2008 I supported abolishing the income tax. While I think that idea still had some merit at that time, after 4 disasterous years of Obamanomics that is no longer an option. I am here to fight the campaign of today, not the campaign of yesterday".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 02:31:57 PM
It's right at the end of the article I posted. :mellow:
Sorry, missed that. Didn't read the whole article.
But what is the use of articles from people who clearly have some agenda. Couldn't you pick some article from someone less biased? It suggest that those articles are worth reading.
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2009, 01:55:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2009, 07:46:23 PM
Huckabee ran on a platform of abolishing the income tax. Even if he doesn't run on that next time, that will be something that is hard to live down in a general election.
Pfft. Where have you been? Losing politicians disavow their old platforms all the time.
Just off the top of my head - 'In 2008 I supported abolishing the income tax. While I think that idea still had some merit at that time, after 4 disasterous years of Obamanomics that is no longer an option. I am here to fight the campaign of today, not the campaign of yesterday".
Beeb for Prez!
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 03:21:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 02:31:57 PM
It's right at the end of the article I posted. :mellow:
Sorry, missed that. Didn't read the whole article.
But what is the use of articles from people who clearly have some agenda. Couldn't you pick some article from someone less biased? It suggest that those articles are worth reading.
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.
QuoteThe California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess.
I think we can all stop reading your analysis after this sentence, since you are clearly both biased and rather simple.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.
QuoteThe California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.
What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 01:11:10 PM
I think we can all stop reading your analysis after this sentence, since you are clearly both biased and rather simple.
:yes: :D
At the very least the language is loaded. More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact. It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case. When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 01:15:22 PM
At the very least the language is loaded. More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact. It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case. When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 01:19:18 PM
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.
When it comes to editorials, they are.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 01:15:22 PM
At the very least the language is loaded. More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact. It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case. When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.
What about the Fox News show hosted by the Wall Street Journal editorial board?
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 01:15:22 PM
At the very least the language is loaded. More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact. It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case. When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.
Which partisan statements are presented as fact?
The core of the article (that blue dogs won't vote for health reform that's not funded and Obama won't raise taxes to pay for it) doesn't seem at all partisan to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Which partisan statements are presented as fact?
Let's start and finish with this one:
QuoteThe federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.
QuoteThe California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.
What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.
Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.
It depends on the banking sector in that country. Most countries with big banking sectors (US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, etc) have done more or less the same as Obama did. The writer calls that "nobody"?? You could also read the opinion of Krugman, a economist, Nobelprice winner. Also a "nobody"? Obama handles a bail-out AND a stimulation program. You can disagree with it, but writing that he has no story is foolish. He may not have a Republican story, but his policies are quite common in Europe. Disagreeing is ok, imo. Making it sound foolish is foolish. Partisan rhetoric.
The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Which partisan statements are presented as fact?
Let's start and finish with this one:
QuoteThe federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.
I *think* the relative size of Obama's deficit is objectively the largest ever. "Most fiscally irresponsible" is a value judgement, one would have to be a clod to mistake that for a statement of fact.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Which partisan statements are presented as fact?
Let's start and finish with this one:
QuoteThe federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.
That isn't a fact, it is opinion.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems.
Yeah, it was the Republicans that insisted that Fannie and Freddie loan billions to poor people who cannot pay it back.
You just make yourself look more and more hysterically partisan with very post.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 01:19:18 PM
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.
in the internet age, every argument is equal, except for the ones you disagree with, which are all biased. ;)
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.
I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.
QuoteThe California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.
What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.
Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.
The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.
Why?
The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.
It depends on the banking sector in that country. Most countries with big banking sectors (US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, etc) have done more or less the same as Obama did. The writer calls that "nobody"?? You could also read the opinion of Krugman, a economist, Nobelprice winner. Also a "nobody"? Obama handles a bail-out AND a stimulation program. You can disagree with it, but writing that he has no story is foolish. He may not have a Republican story, but his policies are quite common in Europe. Disagreeing is ok, imo. Making it sound foolish is foolish. Partisan rhetoric.
The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.
This "Republicans should shut up" line I keep hearing makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. The potential negative consequences of an overly large deficit are not subject to a popularity contest, they don't go away if sufficiently large numbers of people are in favor of them. They don't go away if the people issuing the warnings have low approval ratings or lost elections or cheated on their spouses or are opposed to gay marriage or are ugly.
And if you didn't notice this story is not about TARP or the (first) stimulus bill, it's about the likelihood of passing health reform. Will it cost money? Of course. Will Obama raise taxes to pay for it or will he pack it into the deficit? The author is making the prediction that he won't raise taxes; if he's wrong he's wrong but a prediction is not partisan spin.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 02:35:29 PM
Why?
The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.
Clinton's folly was giving in to the Republican deregulation ideology that dominated ever since Reagan took office. He deserves some of the blame, most certainly, but he wasn't advancing the Democratic agenda when he made his most disastrous deregulatory decisions.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2009, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2009, 02:35:29 PM
Why?
The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.
Clinton's folly was giving in to the Republican deregulation ideology that dominated ever since Reagan took office. He deserves some of the blame, most certainly, but he wasn't advancing the Democratic agenda when he made his most disastrous deregulatory decisions.
Wow, that is a really excellent use of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done!
It's almost like a perfect storm. The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.
I do so love a bipartisan effort.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2009, 03:00:49 PM
It's almost like a perfect storm. The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.
I do so love a bipartisan effort.
Only good things can happen when such visionaries as Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich put their heads together!
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2009, 03:00:49 PM
It's almost like a perfect storm. The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.
I do so love a bipartisan effort.
That seems to be an emerging consensus, but I wonder to what extent either is based in reality. In both cases they seem to echo points that would play well in focus groups and assign blame to the other party, and they may have some truth to them. But the riskiest loans were done privately and the Bush administration was internationally criticized for overregulation prior to the recession, so they just don't ring very true to me. Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2009, 03:08:33 PM
Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.
Come on, you cannot possibly hysterically rant and rave about the Evil Republicans if you think like that!
It is all Reagans fault, except for the parts that are all Bushs fault!
I blame America.
:P
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 03:18:41 PM
It is all Reagans fault, except for the parts that are all Bushs fault!
I am pretty sure the whole thing was put in motion by John C. Frémont in the 1856 Presidential election. The vile Republican plan has finally come to fruition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:39:26 PM
The author is making the prediction that he won't raise taxes; if he's wrong he's wrong but a prediction is not partisan spin.
It can be.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2009, 03:08:33 PM
Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.
Unfortunately for Washington, it's been fairly well established that government actions can exacerbate or mitigate any natural booms or busts, so Washington will always be on the hook for the economic performance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 07, 2009, 03:29:57 PM
It can be.
Sure. But if you have, like we do here, a predicted outcome (Obama won't raise taxes to fund health care) that *precedes* a decision by principals (blue dogs voting (then it pretty much defeats the purpose of spinning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:39:26 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 07, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.
It depends on the banking sector in that country. Most countries with big banking sectors (US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, etc) have done more or less the same as Obama did. The writer calls that "nobody"?? You could also read the opinion of Krugman, a economist, Nobelprice winner. Also a "nobody"? Obama handles a bail-out AND a stimulation program. You can disagree with it, but writing that he has no story is foolish. He may not have a Republican story, but his policies are quite common in Europe. Disagreeing is ok, imo. Making it sound foolish is foolish. Partisan rhetoric.
The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.
This "Republicans should shut up" line I keep hearing makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. The potential negative consequences of an overly large deficit are not subject to a popularity contest, they don't go away if sufficiently large numbers of people are in favor of them. They don't go away if the people issuing the warnings have low approval ratings or lost elections or cheated on their spouses or are opposed to gay marriage or are ugly.
And if you didn't notice this story is not about TARP or the (first) stimulus bill, it's about the likelihood of passing health reform. Will it cost money? Of course. Will Obama raise taxes to pay for it or will he pack it into the deficit? The author is making the prediction that he won't raise taxes; if he's wrong he's wrong but a prediction is not partisan spin.
The republicans should shut up, when pretending a large budget deficit is a Democratic problem. A party who had the presidency for the last 8 years, always has a large responsebility for the economical and financial situation a country is in. And because there are only 2 parties in the USA, they bear the main responsebility.
The story is about the budget deficit. This is not only health care reform, but all of it together. He wrote "Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S". That's partisan spin.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 08, 2009, 04:03:21 AM
The republicans should shut up, when pretending a large budget deficit is a Democratic problem. A party who had the presidency for the last 8 years, always has a large responsebility for the economical and financial situation a country is in. And because there are only 2 parties in the USA, they bear the main responsebility.
The story is about the budget deficit. This is not only health care reform, but all of it together. He wrote "Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S". That's partisan spin.
I agree that Republicans should shut up when pretending large budget deficits is a Democratic problem. Thankfully that's not happening, either in this article or in the world at large. This article is not a pitch to vote in Republicans because of their fiscal superiority, it's an analysis of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party and the effects of that dynamic on the likely outcome for health care reform. Note that no where in the article does the author come out in favor or opposed to health care reform itself.
The argument that Republicans ran large deficits for 8 years and caused the economic crisis so Obama can deficit spend as much as he wants to is a bankrupt one. The demand for Treasury bonds is not a moral argument, investors are not going to say yeah let's keep interest rates low because it was all Bush's fault anyway. If the Tory's had been in power for 8 years would the UK not be facing a credit rating downgrade? Money doesn't care about moral authority or political mandates.
I never said that the Republican caused the economic crisis. But when the writer says that "Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S", you can be sure that I will look back and judge the way his party handled the economy and financial situation of the US.
It is typical Republican partisan rhetoric to write that the Democrats cannot handle governments finances. That they are spending to much. That's what they did and do for the last 40 years. There are enough articles on internet that investigate that claim and show it isn't true. The article is purely propaganda and you will see and hear a lot more of those stories in the coming 3 years. Google "Republican Democrats fiscal responsible" and you will see what I mean.
Of course republicans say dems are fiscally irresponsible - after all, they are. And of course Republicans haven't shown much responsibility either.
But Obama has in fact taken things to anew and previously unimagined extreme. So the claim that he is the most fiscally irresponsible, while obviously rhetoric, is hardly indefensible.
What is indefensible, is claims like most of yours in this thread.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 08, 2009, 07:59:56 AM
I never said that the Republican caused the economic crisis. But when the writer says that "Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S", you can be sure that I will look back and judge the way his party handled the economy and financial situation of the US.
It is typical Republican partisan rhetoric to write that the Democrats cannot handle governments finances. That they are spending to much. That's what they did and do for the last 40 years. There are enough articles on internet that investigate that claim and show it isn't true. The article is purely propaganda and you will see and hear a lot more of those stories in the coming 3 years. Google "Republican Democrats fiscal responsible" and you will see what I mean.
Actually the mantra of the last 40 or so years has been "tax and spend Democrats," but leaving that aside are you claiming that partisan rhetoric is always wrong? Or that only Republican partisan rhetoric is wrong?
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 02:32:15 PM
Yeah, it was the Republicans that insisted that Fannie and Freddie loan billions to poor people who cannot pay it back.
You just make yourself look more and more hysterically partisan with very post.
15% of all subprime loans were insured that way. Not enough to create the problems we had.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 08:15:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 02:32:15 PM
Yeah, it was the Republicans that insisted that Fannie and Freddie loan billions to poor people who cannot pay it back.
You just make yourself look more and more hysterically partisan with very post.
15% of all subprime loans were insured that way. Not enough to create the problems we had.
Which is fine, since I am not the one claiming there is a singular source of our problems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 08:11:07 AM
Actually the mantra of the last 40 or so years has been "tax and spend Democrats," but leaving that aside are you claiming that partisan rhetoric is always wrong? Or that only Republican partisan rhetoric is wrong?
No, often both (Democrats and Republicans) are wrong. But they aren't worth reading and believing after so many times.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 08:11:07 AM
"tax and spend Democrats,"
It is funny but today spending AND taxing sounds downright old fashioned and conservative. It seems today the government just does that spending thing and doesn't bother with that whole taxing business.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:44:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 08:11:07 AM
"tax and spend Democrats,"
It is funny but today spending AND taxing sounds downright old fashioned and conservative. It seems today the government just does that spending thing and doesn't bother with that whole taxing business.
Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 08:46:29 AM
Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.
But not anywhere near enough to cover expenses.
Thank you for the $8,000.00 check btw. I was a first time homebuyer last month.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:49:10 AM
Thank you for the $8,000.00 check btw. I was a first time homebuyer last month.
:bleeding:
Just goes to show how little we learn.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:49:10 AMThank you for the $8,000.00 check btw. I was a first time homebuyer last month.
Back when I first heard about this program I assumed people were going to figure out ways to exploit the fuck out of it. Not that I'm accusing you of doing it, but it just came to mind since you brought the subject up.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 08:58:04 AM
Back when I first heard about this program I assumed people were going to figure out ways to exploit the fuck out of it. Not that I'm accusing you of doing it, but it just came to mind since you brought the subject up.
I am a bit embarrased to get the money frankly. I was going to buy a house this year anyway it was just that time in my life to take the plunge. It just so happened I bought it when the Democrats were in power.
But yes I am sure there are a bunch of way you could make it look like you are a first time homebuyer when you are really not, like some financial lender using the check as a downpayment in exchange for legally structuring the purchase in a way to pull that off.
I don't think you should be embarassed to get it. :)
After all, government seems to almost intentionally screw the middle class at every turn, so why not take advantage of one of the few bones thrown your way? :cool:
I am sure the Dems have made sure that you cannot possibly scam the system. They are huge fans of careful regulation, you know!
Oh wait...this isn't regulation of Big Evil Business, is it? Never mind then.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
After all, government seems to almost intentionally screw the middle class at every turn, so why not take advantage of one of the few bones thrown your way? :cool:
Negro, please.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 09:09:08 AM
I am sure the Dems have made sure that you cannot possibly scam the system. They are huge fans of careful regulation, you know!
Oh wait...this isn't regulation of Big Evil Business, is it? Never mind then.
:cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:16:27 AM
Negro, please.
What?
Our government is a plutocracy, so clearly the interests of the wealthy are looked out for. In addition, a big portion of the wealthy are made up of bleeding-hearts who assuage their guilt by trying to help the poor, so their interests are looked out for as well.
Who is missing from the above paragraph? :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:21:07 AM
What?
Our government is a plutocracy, so clearly the interests of the wealthy are looked out for. In addition, a big portion of the wealthy are made up of bleeding-hearts who assuage their guilt by trying to help the poor, so their interests are looked out for as well.
Who is missing from the above paragraph? :contract:
What is missing is even the vaguest reference to any actual policies. Like home mortgage interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like student loan interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like child care tax credit. Etc. etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:25:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:21:07 AM
What?
Our government is a plutocracy, so clearly the interests of the wealthy are looked out for. In addition, a big portion of the wealthy are made up of bleeding-hearts who assuage their guilt by trying to help the poor, so their interests are looked out for as well.
Who is missing from the above paragraph? :contract:
What is missing is even the vaguest reference to any actual policies. Like home mortgage interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like student loan interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like child care tax credit. Etc. etc.
Ok, first of all, I don't do "reference(s) to any actual policies." ^_^
My role is to represent the angry white male. In your head, imagine that I look like Michael Douglas with horn-rimmed glasses, a short-sleeved dress shirt and tie, and a crewcut.
Second of all, home mortgage interest deductibility used to be a good counterpoint until they started giving mortgages to all the poors. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:25:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:21:07 AM
What?
Our government is a plutocracy, so clearly the interests of the wealthy are looked out for. In addition, a big portion of the wealthy are made up of bleeding-hearts who assuage their guilt by trying to help the poor, so their interests are looked out for as well.
Who is missing from the above paragraph? :contract:
What is missing is even the vaguest reference to any actual policies. Like home mortgage interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like student loan interest deductability, a middle class benefit. Like child care tax credit. Etc. etc.
Ok, first of all, I don't do "reference(s) to any actual policies." ^_^
My role is to represent the angry white male. In your head, imagine that I look like Michael Douglas with horn-rimmed glasses, a short-sleeved dress shirt and tie, and a crewcut.
Second of all, home mortgage interest deductibility used to be a good counterpoint until they started giving mortgages to all the poors. :(
I just had this scary image of Cal pulling out an assault rifle when the cashier tells him the biscuits and gravy stand is empty. :ph34r:
It never empties. They have: learned to fear my wrath. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I don't think you should be embarassed to get it. :)
After all, government seems to almost intentionally screw the middle class at every turn, so why not take advantage of one of the few bones thrown your way? :cool:
CORRECT!
Grab everything that isn't nailed down is my philosophy.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:42:48 AM
It never empties. They have: learned to fear my wrath. :mad:
Raistlin's endless Biscuits and Gravy
Level 20 artifact
Is evil, as it calls people to it and gives them heart disease
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 08:46:29 AM
Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.
But not anywhere near enough to cover expenses.
Thank you for the $8,000.00 check btw. I was a first time homebuyer last month.
Government is now also giving $3,500 to 4,500 in the cash for clunkers program. Trade in a gas guzzling "clunker" for something more economical, and get cash off the price of the car, paid by the govt. Car has to be crushed, destroyed though, not resold by the dealer.
http://www.cars.gov/
Quote44500
:blink: :bleeding:
Please tell me you meant to type '4,500'
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:54:27 AM
Quote44500
:blink: :bleeding:
Please tell me you meant to type '4,500'
:lmfao:
Corrected!
Meanwhile California is proving once again that it is the land of fruits and nuts:
QuoteSeven days after the new fiscal year began, the state of California still appears to be far from a budget solution.
Disabled protesters, angry over cuts to vital services, were arrested outside the Capitol on Tuesday; inside, lawmakers bickered about fruits and juices.
A war of words developed between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers over the fruit-related focus of three new bills.
"The governor is not against condiments. The governor's not against fruits of any kind," said spokesman Aaron McLear. "But he believes we ought to be focused on solving our budget crisis first and foremost."
Assembly bill 606 creates a commission to serve the marketing interests of the blueberry industry. Another bill defines "honey" to mean the natural food product resulting from the harvest of nectar by honey bees, and a third bill adopts regulations establishing definitions and standards for 100-percent pomegranate juice.
"Look, we're pro-condiment, we're pro-fruit, but the focus needs to be on the budget crisis," McLear said.
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Fresno) called Governor Schwarzenegger's criticism "childish" and said he is fed up.
"The governor's turned from an action hero into just another politician," Senator Florez said. "He should really, really take a course on fundamental government on how the legislature works."
"The fact that he doesn't understand these things worries me," he added.
McLear shrugged off the criticism. "If others in the building want to level personal attacks, that's certainly their prerogative."
While the rhetoric escalated inside, at least a dozen protesters in wheelchairs were arrested for physically blocking the entrance to Governor Schwarzenegger's officer to protest his proposed cuts to healthcare.
The protesters were cited and released at the scene.
Governor Schwarzenegger said he plans to invite Assembly Speaker Karen Bass back to the bargaining table, but the Speaker's office said no call had come by Tuesday night.
Bass boycotted the meeting of the "big 5" lawmakers because she says the governor is demanding reforms instead of focusing on the budget deficit.
Well if Arnold came up with some pithy one liners things would probably improve.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 08, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Meanwhile California is proving once again that it is the land of fruits and nuts:
What a circus.
"Look, we're pro-condiment, we're pro-fruit, but the focus needs to be on the budget crisis," McLear said. "
Yes, pro-condiments, with our without fruit! Prevent unwanted pregnancies!! Who could be against that? :P
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 08:46:29 AM
Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.
Oh you poor little thing.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 08:46:29 AM
Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.
Indeed. What they don't do enough is cut spending.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 08, 2009, 09:47:45 AM
CORRECT!
Grab everything that isn't nailed down is my philosophy.
That kind of attitude is what killed California. :(
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:07:55 AM
Indeed. What they don't do enough is cut spending.
I would be fine with either.
The problem is when you start increasing spending while not taxing, nobody feels the sacrifice for your policies. The American people need to pay for the expensive policies they keep demanding the people they elect make or the system will fail.
Tax and spend or don't spend and don't tax but spending while not taxing is the path to disaster.
I wouldn't be fine with either. The government already takes enough out of my paychecks as it is and I'm not even in a high income bracket.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 11:04:44 AM
Oh you poor little thing.
We wouldn't expect you to be able to relate. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:16:25 AM
We wouldn't expect you to be able to relate. -_-
Perhaps we should tax the chronically unemployed on theoretically wages (as they only pose a drain on the system) and then when they can't pay, force them to volunteer for public works. That way, Michelle Obama can be said to have inspired a lot of people to volunteer. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:15:20 AM
I wouldn't be fine with either. The government already takes enough out of my paychecks as it is and I'm not even in a high income bracket.
I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 11:23:44 AM
I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.
Sorry, but I'd rather not foot the bill for your social experiment.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 11:23:44 AM
I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.
Sorry, but I'd rather not foot the bill for your social experiment.
I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:19:56 AM
Perhaps we should tax the chronically unemployed on theoretically wages (as they only pose a drain on the system) and then when they can't pay, force them to volunteer for public works. That way, Michelle Obama can be said to have inspired a lot of people to volunteer. :)
The problem with this theory is that alot of chronically unemployed people (and I'm not saying Raz necessarily fits in this category) either flat-out refuse to work or are grossly incapable of doing nearly any sort of work. In earlier times these sort of people might be expected to at least do unskilled labor but nowadays many of them are absurdly overweight, and plus we have machines to do alot of that shit now.
Anyway the reason why that wouldn't work is the same reason why slavery didn't work all that well: if people have no will whatsoever to work and drag their feet at every opportunity, they're more of a liability to an employer than an asset.
The most efficient solution would be mass executions. :)
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:28:16 AM
I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
So you think it likely that people are going to vote to have congress members who tax the hell out of them? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:28:16 AM
I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
So you think it likely that people are going to vote to have congress members who tax the hell out of them? :lol:
Apparently the answer to that question is "yes" if one happens to live in a district populated by Raz clones. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:29:46 AM
The problem with this theory is that alot of chronically unemployed people (and I'm not saying Raz necessarily fits in this category) either flat-out refuse to work or are grossly incapable of doing nearly any sort of work. In earlier times these sort of people might be expected to at least do unskilled labor but nowadays many of them are absurdly overweight, and plus we have machines to do alot of that shit now.
Anyway the reason why that wouldn't work is the same reason why slavery didn't work all that well: if people have no will whatsoever to work and drag their feet at every opportunity, they're more of a liability to an employer than an asset.
The most efficient solution would be mass executions. :)
I know, as soon as I posted it, I realized the fatal flaw. Rather than mass executions, let's just expose them to the elements. Ship 'em out to wilderness areas and let them fend for themselves (perhaps various parts of Canada).
Also, I think that slavery worked rather well for millennia. It just is a morally repugnant process.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:31:24 AM
I know, as soon as I posted it, I realized the fatal flaw. Rather than mass executions, let's just expose them to the elements. Ship 'em out to wilderness areas and let them fend for themselves (perhaps various parts of Canada).
Welcome to the libertarian team, young Padawan. :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:29:46 AM
The most efficient solution would be mass executions. :)
Another advantage is that we'd need to hire more executioners, which would further stimulate our economy.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:31:18 AM
Apparently the answer to that question is "yes" if one happens to live in a district populated by Raz clones. :smarty:
I live in California. We spend but don't tax. :goodboy:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:31:18 AM
Apparently the answer to that question is "yes" if one happens to live in a district populated by Raz clones. :smarty:
I live in California. We spend but don't tax. :goodboy:
How's that working out for you?
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:26:17 AM
Sorry, but I'd rather not foot the bill for your social experiment.
Um...dude you are going to foot the bill eventually anyway. Nothing is free.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:32:55 AM
Another advantage is that we'd need to hire more executioners, which would further stimulate our economy.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
Welcome to the libertarian team, young Padawan. :menace:
Sorry, but I don't like fruitcake.
That said, I do think exposing people to the elements is one good technique we can re-adopt from the ancients. And why, we'd be merciful. If one of the sloths managed to make it back to society, we wouldn't ship him out again. :)
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 11:33:57 AM
Um...dude you are going to foot the bill eventually anyway. Nothing is free.
I don't think I'll live long enough. :)
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:33:54 AM
How's that working out for you?
Personally? Rather fine. :)
:lol: garbo I just noticed you changed my slavery comment in your quote.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
:lol: garbo I just noticed you changed my slavery comment in your quote.
:o
That was entirely a mistake. When editing my post, I accidentally put my sentence in your quote. :blush:
That said, it was better, Cal, when it read that you though slavery was repugnant so mass executions were better. :P
Mass executions are a passable solution for many problems. :yes:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
Mass executions are a passable solution for many problems. :yes:
That's how the Romans balanced their budget in between invasion and plunder sessions. California needs a good round of proscription. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:36:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 11:33:57 AM
Um...dude you are going to foot the bill eventually anyway. Nothing is free.
I don't think I'll live long enough. :)
AIDS = justice.
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 11:58:32 AM
AIDS = justice.
Oh I doubt that is what will do me in. After all, we've people in SF who have lived decades with it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:16:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 11:04:44 AM
Oh you poor little thing.
We wouldn't expect you to be able to relate. -_-
Tax whiners are a pathetic breed. I wouldn't want to relate.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:31:24 AM
I know, as soon as I posted it, I realized the fatal flaw. Rather than mass executions, let's just expose them to the elements. Ship 'em out to wilderness areas and let them fend for themselves (perhaps various parts of Canada).
Welcome to the libertarian team, young Padawan. :menace:
Say hi to Ron Paul for me. He knows me from the mental hospital.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 12:01:23 PM
Tax whiners are a pathetic breed. I wouldn't want to relate.
Most people whine about taxes at some point. :mellow:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2009, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
Mass executions are a passable solution for many problems. :yes:
That's how the Romans balanced their budget in between invasion and plunder sessions. California needs a good round of proscription. :lol:
GAIVS IVLIVS SCHWARZENEGGERIVS: Ein budget has nicht been passed? PREPARE TO BE DECIMATED! :menace:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 12:10:52 PM
Most people whine about taxes at some point. :mellow:
...aside from those who never find themselves in a position to pay them. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 12:01:23 PM
Tax whiners are a pathetic breed. I wouldn't want to relate.
Most people whine about taxes at some point. :mellow:
Not people who will never pay taxes though. They only whine that the people who are paying should pay more.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 12:30:23 PM
Not people who will never pay taxes though. They only whine that the people who are paying should pay more.
I like your sig, just noticed it. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2009, 12:30:23 PM
Not people who will never pay taxes though. They only whine that the people who are paying should pay more.
Well, many people still have to pay taxes. Sales tax is often hard to avoid...although I suppose a bum in New Hampshire would be alright.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 12:01:23 PM
Tax whiners are a pathetic breed. I wouldn't want to relate.
Most people whine about taxes at some point. :mellow:
Most people are stupid.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 01:30:41 PM
Most people are stupid.
I think it is a bad idea to not want to relate to most people.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 12:06:54 PM
Say hi to Ron Paul for me. He knows me from the mental hospital.
:lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2009, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
Mass executions are a passable solution for many problems. :yes:
That's how the Romans balanced their budget in between invasion and plunder sessions. California needs a good round of proscription. :lol:
So in RTW fashion we should give California to another country then re-conquer it and select 'Exterminate Populace'. :menace:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2009, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 11:58:32 AM
AIDS = justice.
Oh I doubt that is what will do me in. After all, we've people in SF who have lived decades with it.
I'm hoping that Obama's health reforms blow up the phara industry, sinking the flow of drugs that homosexuals need to live.
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 02:49:19 PM
I'm hoping that Obama's health reforms blow up the phara industry, sinking the flow of drugs that homosexuals need to live.
Well then I will be dead as I won't have a job. :(
I've been avoiding drug stocks like the plague since last fall, sadly. It's not that I don't think they'll survive health care reform, but that I think they'll take a big hit in the initial phase. Same with insurance.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 08, 2009, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 12:06:54 PM
Say hi to Ron Paul for me. He knows me from the mental hospital.
:lol:
I am happy to please you my Lord.