Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its written by paul krugman. ive read my limit of crap he has written.
i dont think the protestors have a real position for anyone to really say is wrong. is it that they were against the wall street bailouts? thats nothing new and there is a long list of groups who opposed that (including the tea party).
eh. he's still a well-respected economist. of course, he leans left with his political views, but it's still a well written piece.
he might have been that at some point, but he isnt that anymore. posting an article written by him is like me posting something written by ann coulter. i wouldnt expect you to read that, and i wont read krugman. oh, and anybody who does read krugman should know that this guy is an extreme leftist.
While I am 100% behind what the occupy wall street protesters are doing, one picture in this weekends star ledger, on page 10, depicts all 3 causes that have lead to our spiraling downfall. While republicans, corporate greed, illegals, and businesses moving into other countries sure don't do anything to help the problem, combined, they don't do, or aren't doing as much damage to the U.S. as any one of the big 3 causes are doing individually. Mr. Obama, or anybody couldn't solve this crisis we are heading into even if the american jobs act were to bring in 450 quintillion dollars towards new jobs.
A question...does anybody even know what any of the 3 causes are?
I can trace just about any and every negative problem worldwide to at least one of the 3.
1) The anti-conceptual mentality.
2) Altruist-collectivist morality.
3) Dependence on mysticism/emotionalism to make decisions.
I don't really care what 3 you had in mind. These are the real three. And really all three of these boil down to bad or absent philosophy. People simply do not know how to think, because they are taught that feeling is superior to knowing.
These protesters are on the wrong street! Try 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! That's the root of the problem. Obama has done jack sh1t to promote jobs since he got in office. Your jobs and livelihood just are not on the top of his agenda. Mad at the banks and Wall Street?????? Again look to the Whitehouse for the answer to your problems. The Great White Liberal signed into law the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The worst piece of sh1t lame duck piece of legislation ever enacted in the history of the United Stated. It totally de-regulated both the banks and the stock market. Wonder why all of a sudden the banks are allowed to charge loan shark usury rates? Why there's no more state interest caps on your credit cards? While Clinton was soiling Monica's dress he was also soiling our economic futures! Don't believe it? Google it and read it! BTW, the evil one, George W. Bush, tried like eight times to repeal that turd but bigger turds like Barney the sissy Frank, Nancy Botox Pelosi and Harry Where am I Reed fought tooth and nail to block it from happening. Y'all got every right to be mad but be mad at the right people. (that would be the ones on the extreme far left of center)
Let's make 2012 an error correction election and send Barrack Obama back to the cesspool better known as Chicago Illinois!
Generally, lack of a specific agenda makes it very easy for someone who does have a specific agenda to come along and hijack the group. This is pretty much what happened with the tea party -- there were a bunch of angry people who weren't very well organized, so a bunch of imposters came along and tried to proclaim themselves as "leaders" of the movement. It wouldn't surprise me if we likewise see some big name democrats emerge as "leaders" of the occupy wall street "movement".
The Tea Party doesn’t lack an agenda, they want the Government to stop spending money it doesn’t have and to stop trampling on American’s right. They want limited Government. I think the Tea Party protesters are very well organized, they have a clear and coherent message , they clean up after themselves, they’re respectful to the police, and they go back to work on Mon. after a Sat. protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
you can say all you want about Al Gore. I personally don't give a crap what he says, and what he makes money off of. The best way of becoming independent as far as energy goes is moving towards renewables. Even if you wanted to focus on coal since we have plenty of it, you still are at the mercy of market demands for pricing. You can start drilling in every available place in the U.S., and that will barely make a dent in our demand, let alone the fact that it won't hit our supply for almost 10 years. But why debate with facts and science?
for the record, I have zero issues with drilling, i just recognize that it won't do much for us. I've wanted to see more renewable research for a while now, but even I was shocked when I read this:
Al Gore like so many others in the “alternative energy movement†are hypocrites, there’s no way around it, they want to do things that are proven to not be effective at a huge cost to Americans, and they want to do this to enrich themselves, and hey, in a Capitalist society I have no problem with that at all, but they do it under the guise of caring about the environment, but their actions speak louder than words. I have no doubt that others in the alternative energy movement are like Al Gore, they don’t want Americans to drive SUV’s yet they take private planes to their appearance, they want Americans to conserve yet they live in homes where electricity costs alone in 1 month is higher than some of us pay for a year. You want alternative energy? fine, I have no problem with that, just don’t shove it down my throat and force me to go along with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
unemployment has been extended in every country in the world in special circumstances, throughout history. i personally think that 99 weeks is too long as well, but it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most beneficial economic stimulus programs a government could use. in contrast to giving a tax break of $1,000 to a bunch of people who won't really change their spending drastically (say, the payroll tax cut that I enjoy right now, but put every cent of it into my savings account since it's just extra money), unemployment checks are pretty much spent in full.
We have the Euro near collapse, now how well are those social programs in Europe working?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
you don't get it. it's not a "handout" when it's something you've paid for.
if you get into a car accident, do you call your car insurance provider and say "i don't want people's rates in NJ to go up, don't worry about fixing my car, I'll fix it myself"? no, you use the insurance you have paid into. you pay unemployment insurance, so to collect if you become unemployed isn't accepting a handout.
I guess you plan on declining medicare and social security, and you don't use any roads paid for by government. those would all be handouts.
Like Social Security, if you take into account what people have paid into the system versus what they get back as a benefit? people get much more back than they’ve actually paid. It’s naïve IMO to think we can actually continue down this road, we don’t have the money, something has to be done to revise a system that’s no longer sustainable. When SS 1st came about life expectancy was nowhere near what it is now, at that time it took 3 workers to pay for 1 person’s SS, it’s not like that anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
do you ignore reality?
number 1, the president does not have as strong of a direct impact on employment numbers as either side wants their supporters to believe. what creates jobs? demand for products. not a politician, and not a company. so the government has some control over the climate that exists, but it's not a direct control. Bush took office at a time where the economy was benefiting from great growth, in large part due to the internet and e-commerce. Which, by the way, the internet exists in it's form because of DARPA. The commercial airline industry exists because of the department of defense. Virtually all private healthcare companies exist because of the NIH. should I keep going? anyways, back to Bush's unemployment numbers. He took office and had that going for him. He also enjoyed a real estate boom, which if you want to believe republicans, the bubble is all the fault of democrats right? So what Bush policies can you point to that kept unemployment at 5%? Since the internet was not his policy, and the real estate bubble is all the democrats' fault, what do you have left?
In contrast, at the end of Bush's presidency of 8 years, our economy is bleeding jobs. So unless he did nothing over 8 years, his policies have some play into us losing jobs, do they not? Let's say that the folks who blame Democrats for the real estate bubble are right. Well, where were the Republicans when they controls Congress and the Oval Office for 6 years? The national debt? Where were the republicans in Congress and the Oval Office when we were paying for 2 wars, and not including them in the Budget? Where was the fiscal responsibility? How about with Medicare Part D?
Please, point me to a Bush policy that aided in 5% unemployment.
Of course the President doesn’t directly impact unemployment, although his programs do have an effect. Congress controls the purse strings but funny how that didn’t effect Bush getting all the blame when unemployment numbers starting rising/ Same with gas prices, I don’t blame the President for that YET the left blamed Bush.
Yes the Republicans had control for 6 years, and I never let them off easy, I thought things like the Prescription Drug Program was a nightmare as far as costs go, but the Republicans did raise concerns of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and you can’t deny that after the Democrats got elected in 2006 after saying they were going to cut back on costs that they not only went back on that promise but they spent more that even I could’ve imagined. Obama has spent more in almost 3 years than every President before him combined, that needs to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
see, you still don't get it. it didn't "start off as a movement against Wall St.", it started off as a group of people who collectively got together as frustrated americans. they weren't all frustrated about the same issues, but were frustrated that the national debate is controlled by corporate money. that means that corporate money has helped shape nuclear policy, pollution, war, etc. maybe the arguments aren't all 100% solid, but the point is that they want less corruption from large corporations influencing policy.
Obama and the Democrats have been pushing this class warfare agenda for at least the past year, of course conveniently forgetting to mention how Wall Street went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, and Obama and Democrats being in bed with Wall Street. This demonstration or what I sometime call the “they have more than me and it’s not fair†tantrum began because of class envy, they weren’t frustrated, they were jealous, and they have political party elitists standing behind them fueling that jealousy, you can’t have a coherent message or thought when it’s based upon envy and jealousy. What they want is this, they want a free ride, they want to make a large salary without working their way up the ladder, they want a free college education because they say they’re stuck with debt, no 1 forced them to go to an expensive college, they could’ve gotten a job and gone to school part-time, but because we live in a society that allows them to get away with the “I want it now and I deserve it now†mentality, they think they’re owed something. No, you’re not owed a darn thing, and as we can see, the Governments who have allowed that mentality to continue are tearing at the seams ready to take the entire Country down with them. I don’t want that for the United States.
These protesters are on the wrong street! Try 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! That's the root of the problem. Obama has done jack sh1t to promote jobs since he got in office. Your jobs and livelihood just are not on the top of his agenda. Mad at the banks and Wall Street?????? Again look to the Whitehouse for the answer to your problems. The Great White Liberal signed into law the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The worst piece of sh1t lame duck piece of legislation ever enacted in the history of the United Stated. It totally de-regulated both the banks and the stock market. Wonder why all of a sudden the banks are allowed to charge loan shark usury rates? Why there's no more state interest caps on your credit cards? While Clinton was soiling Monica's dress he was also soiling our economic futures! Don't believe it? Google it and read it! BTW, the evil one, George W. Bush, tried like eight times to repeal that turd but bigger turds like Barney the sissy Frank, Nancy Botox Pelosi and Harry Where am I Reed fought tooth and nail to block it from happening. Y'all got every right to be mad but be mad at the right people. (that would be the ones on the extreme far left of center)
Let's make 2012 an error correction election and send Barrack Obama back to the cesspool better known as Chicago Illinois!
Which brings to mind something I read years ago and it's still interesting:
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
So why do they say he had a surplus?
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table (see link)
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.
Consider the following quotes (and accompanying links) that demonstrate how people have known this for years:
In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999 Video: CSPAN
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.
While I am 100% behind what the occupy wall street protesters are doing, one picture in this weekends star ledger, on page 10, depicts all 3 causes that have lead to our spiraling downfall. While republicans, corporate greed, illegals, and businesses moving into other countries sure don't do anything to help the problem, combined, they don't do, or aren't doing as much damage to the U.S. as any one of the big 3 causes are doing individually. Mr. Obama, or anybody couldn't solve this crisis we are heading into even if the american jobs act were to bring in 450 quintillion dollars towards new jobs.
A question...does anybody even know what any of the 3 causes are?
I can trace just about any and every negative problem worldwide to at least one of the 3.
So I'm guessing that you feel Dems have done nothing to cause the situation that we're in?
he might have been that at some point, but he isnt that anymore. posting an article written by him is like me posting something written by ann coulter. i wouldnt expect you to read that, and i wont read krugman. oh, and anybody who does read krugman should know that this guy is an extreme leftist.
i don't think that's a fair comparison. and i do think he's still a respected economist. just because you disagree with his economic philosophy doesn't mean he's not respected. and he's not the left version of ann coulter. i acknowledge though that he has become an opinion piece and he is liberal. but that doesn't mean everything he writes is garbage. everyone someone you disagree with writes isn't crap. i'll read ann coulter any time you think she's made a good point. i wish she'd take her own advice though and get her ass in the kitchen where she believes it belongs.
i don't think that's a fair comparison. and i do think he's still a respected economist. just because you disagree with his economic philosophy doesn't mean he's not respected. and he's not the left version of ann coulter. i acknowledge though that he has become an opinion piece and he is liberal. but that doesn't mean everything he writes is garbage. everyone someone you disagree with writes isn't crap. i'll read ann coulter any time you think she's made a good point. i wish she'd take her own advice though and get her ass in the kitchen where she believes it belongs.
he is only respected among leftists. people being non-partisan or right wingers wont pay much attention to him. its not like i have never read anything he has written, but he is one of those guys that is so offensively leftist that there is a limit to what you can read from him (the september 11 piece from him was pretty offensive).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
