Backstage With the Band

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

You aren't understanding how it works.

No, I understand exactly how it works. The table I linked to is quite clear on what's happening.

Originally Posted by guido61

Bush ran up a lower deficit largely because revenues were higher.

False, under Obama revenue is quite similar to that under Bush (proof here).

Originally Posted by guido61

But the last year he was in office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. It hasn't changed much since then.

Why not? Interesting that you mention this but offer no reason... Bush's last year was TARP.

Without that out year of spending in the picture Obama is still spending trillions.

Originally Posted by guido61

The reason there's not been any war savings? Technically because the money has been shifted to the war in Afghanistan (they don't keep separate books on both war efforts.) More truthfully, because there's huge money being made off these wars. Suggestions to reduce defense spending are always met with cries that it will reduce jobs and hurt the economy. I'm sure it will. At least if you work for Lockheed Martin or some such, anyway.

2013 US Federal Budget (estimated): Healthcare: 22% SS: 22% Defense: 24%

As I said, "big medicine" rules defense in terms of spending - and it will only go up as more geezers retire.

And Obama has borrowed a trillion or two with short term notes at 1% - the refinancing will at a rational interest rate of even 4-5% will create an interest expense bigger than Defense or SS or health care.

Originally Posted by guido61

Look--you wanna go down the conspiracy route?

No. I am not mentioning conspiracy.

These figures and my comments are based on US Government Accounting results and documents - please check and read them for yourself.

Not conspiracy.

You seem to be the one making up your own facts here all the way across the board.

Seems to me the "conspiracy" is one of a practiced ignorance of facts, facts the government produces about its own spending.

[Piano Whore]

How about "age-ing out" political discussions? They never turn out well.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Obama didnt do anything but raise taxes.

Well, he cut taxes a bunch of times prior to last week.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

False, under Obama revenue is quite similar to that under Bush (proof here).

Not at all. Look at the numbers: 2008 receipts: 2.5 trillion. 2010 receipts: 2.1 trillion. That's hardly 'quite similar'. That's a decrease of nearly 20%. And after topping out in 2012, the estimates are for decreasing deficits. But that's still not relevant to the point I was making, which is that the outlays are largely things that were put into law years --sometimes decades-- before. To call it all "Obama Spending" is simply wrong.

2013 US Federal Budget (estimated): Healthcare: 22% SS: 22% Defense: 24%

As I said, "big medicine" rules defense in terms of spending - and it will only go up as more geezers retire.

No doubt. Which is why nobody is being honest in terms of spending. The right loves to go on about the need to cut spending but never offer anything specific. Why is that? Romney offered nothing but wanting to cut PBS. Ryan's budget didn't even pretend to reach balance until 2040.

At some point people are going to have to grow up and realize that if they want certain services, they'll need to pay for them. Whether that's health care or defense or roads or the FBI or Homeland Security or whatever. This idea that everything "I" want can be essentially free as long as we cut all the "waste" that everybody else in the country wants isn't going to work any longer.

[Potts]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Obama didnt do anything but raise taxes. He has not given any signals that he is going to slow down on spending.

No..He didn't do anything but reform health care, repeal DADT (but I'm assuming you don't support gay rights), passed Wall Street reform, saved the auto industry and about another 100 monumental things.

As far as spending? Maybe the Republicans should have taken the $3-$1 offer that was extended to them 18 months ago. You should take that up with your congressman.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

Not at all. Look at the numbers: 2008 receipts: 2.5 trillion. 2010 receipts: 2.1 trillion. That's hardly 'quite similar'. That's a decrease of nearly 20%. And after topping out in 2012, the estimates are for decreasing deficits. But that's still not relevant to the point I was making, which is that the outlays are largely things that were put into law years --sometimes decades-- before. To call it all "Obama Spending" is simply wrong.

Look at the percentage at the left in the link I provided. Deficits run about negative 2-3% of GDP until 2009 - the year of TARP - then jump to 10% of GDP.

Meanwhile SS and Medicare/caid only grow modestly or stay flat according to the CBO:



Yet Obama magically keeps spending (by signing appropriation bills) at TARP levels.

If its not entitlements, then what is it?

Originally Posted by guido61

No doubt. Which is why nobody is being honest in terms of spending. The right loves to go on about the need to cut spending but never offer anything specific. Why is that? Romney offered nothing but wanting to cut PBS. Ryan's budget didn't even pretend to reach balance until 2040.

At some point people are going to have to grow up and realize that if they want certain services, they'll need to pay for them. Whether that's health care or defense or roads or the FBI or Homeland Security or whatever. This idea that everything "I" want can be essentially free as long as we cut all the "waste" that everybody else in the country wants isn't going to work any longer.

I agree that those who want free services "are going to have to grow up" and that "they'll need to pay for them..."

Sadly those consuming "free services" outnumber those who pay for them. I see little opportunity for change in that regard, especially since those consuming can vote.

[chemikool]

Bored on Saturday...trolling HC...

So the guys in CA and NY (huge liberal places) are arguing with the TX guys (huge republican place) and they aren't seeing eye to eye? Say it isn't so!!!

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?
--My question for the "republican-leaning" people = At what point do we acknowledge that the US has one of, if not the LOWEST tax rates in the world?

And finally, my question for all === who THE EFF do I get to be mad at for the state of our great nation? My own mother doesn't have an answer. The boomer generation has screwed it up for everyone, and they aren't taking the blame for it. I didn't vote myself into this crap. I wasn't eligible to vote until 1990, but I'll have to clean up the mess, and deal with repercussions regardless of who caused it.

Who do I get to be mad at? Don't you DARE say Dem or Rep...

Final thought to Aging out: It appears most people "age out" of being an extreme D or R and move to the middle. What is the old saying? When you're young, if you're not a democrat you have no heart. When you're old, if you're not a republican you have no brain.

This seems to apply here:

[guido61]

Originally Posted by chemikool

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?

I think it probably already affects our future. It's just a question of how much and what can be done about it? I've lived long enough to understand that even being HUGELY politically involved and investing a TON of time to it makes about as much difference as the guy who knows nothing and doesn't even bother to vote. So the only thing you can really do is take care of yourself. Getting all pissed at Obama or Bush or whoever might make you feel better but it isn't really going to change anything. And, more likely, it's just going to make you angrier, less fun to be around and give you an early heart attack.

But as far as panicing about the debt goes? I dunno. Been hearing that all my life. I can remember being a very little kid and hearing stories about creating debt that "our grandchildren" will have to pay. Well, I'm now that grandchild all grown up and it's supposedly going to be the NEXT batch of grandkids that will have to pay it off. Or not....

Final thought to Aging out: It appears most people "age out" of being an extreme D or R and move to the middle.

I've always thought it the opposite. Most people start out rather apathetic about politics and then "pick a team" and become more extreme as they age and become (at least what they believe is) more knowledgable.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Yet Obama magically keeps spending (by signing appropriation bills) at TARP levels.

Why is the GOP House sending Obama TARP level appropriations bills? Since when did the House and Senate agree on ANY spending bills to send to his desk? Which bills is he signing, exactly?

I agree that those who want free services "are going to have to grow up" and that "they'll need to pay for them..."

Sadly those consuming "free services" outnumber those who pay for them. I see little opportunity for change in that regard, especially since those consuming can vote.

That's an old cannard that completely misunderstands how our economy and political system works. I tried to explain it to you in an earlier post, but apparently you didn't get it. The biggest recipients, and the biggest proponents of these "free services" aren't the people who use them, but those who provide them.

Read this report on who benefits from the SNAP program. You might find it enlightening:

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-c...MoneySimon.pdf

Recently there was a movement to prevent people from buying soft drinks with food stamps. Who do you think put an end to that? Those consuming "free services" who voted themselves some more free Pepsi?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us...food.html?_r=0

Is there REALLY a majority of voters who believe we couldn't still adequately protect our nation with much less defense spending? Who do you think it is preventing any cuts to defense?

According to this poll 76% of Americans think we should cut defense spending. When was the last time 76% of Americans agreed on ANYTHING? Yet no cuts happen or even get seriously proposed. Why is that? Because the people who want them are "voting" for them? Because those in office are afraid of being voted out over the issue?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...uts/56255016/1

Follow the money. And stop repeating nonsense about people "voting to get themselves some free stuff". That infamous 47% who doesn't pay income tax? Pretty much split down the middle between Pubs and Dems anyway.

Where Do the 47% Live?

The fact that Romney's party largely created the 47% isn't the only irony in his attacks. Perhaps more striking is the fact that an outsized percentage of the 47% live in "red states." Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of income tax nonpayers, only one -- New Mexico -- is leaning toward Obama right now. Meanwhile, of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of income tax nonpayers, only two -- North Dakota and Wyoming -- skew right.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...no-income-tax/

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

Why is the GOP House sending Obama TARP level appropriations bills? Since when did the House and Senate agree on ANY spending bills to send to his desk? Which bills is he signing, exactly?

Ones like this from 2011 (a cool $1 trillion for "omnibus spending"). No fan fare, no one even paying attention.

What's in it? Just "cash for regular spending..." - right.

Shutdowns are ugly and no one wants that - particularly Congress.

So its spend, spend, spend...

And remember, Obama has to sign the bills, Congress only creates the spending "bill" but it cannot cause the spending to happen. (Just like Obama would love executive control of the debt limit but cannot alone.)

Originally Posted by guido61

That's an old cannard that completely misunderstands how our economy and political system works. I tried to explain it to you in an earlier post, but apparently you didn't get it. The biggest recipients, and the biggest proponents of these "free services" aren't the people who use them, but those who provide them.

Obviously "Obama phones" benefit the carriers, etc. at what I am sure special "government" rates.

I was in defense once upon a time, so of course I under stand your point about "free services" (just buy our aircraft carrier and he second one will only cost %150 more!)

But that's not the original point, is it? Folks in the "free market" have been *benefiting* from "government spending" since day one. The "benefiting" by non-government types varies in direct proportion to how much the government spends.

You're changing the argument again.

TIMKEYS started with the argument Obama is spending disproportionally more (trillions) than in the past - irrespective of "automatic increases" tied to entitlements.

With flat entitlements he's still spending at 2009 crisis levels on exactly what?

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Obviously "Obama phones" benefit the carriers, etc. at what I am sure special "government" rates.

You know those "Obama phones" came from Ronald Reagan, don't you? (And then the program was expanded upon under the Clinton and GWBush administrations. Obama had nothing to do with it.)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

See, this is the stuff that simultaneously both irks me and cracks me up. People like you and Timkeys so desperately want to believe that Obama is responsible for everything you think is wrong with the government that all somebody has to do is send out an email talking about "Obamaphones" and you just simply HAVE to believe it. Such an easy target for the people selling this crap it's embarassing. You're like a teenage girl lapping up the latest Justin Bieber single and thinking it's the greatest song ever written.

You're changing the argument again.

I'm not changing any argument. I'm simply responding to the incorrect cannards you haphazardly toss out as part of your regular conversation.

TIMKEYS started with the argument Obama is spending disproportionally more (trillions) than in the past - irrespective of "automatic increases" tied to entitlements.

It's not just increases tied to "entitlements". The whole budget operates in that manner. Putting it all on Obama in the manner TIMKEYS does is just political nonsense. I was simply calling him out on it.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...

These charts are hilarious.

"Savings" relative to exactly what? Letting people die in more terrorist attacks?

Then there's the "Medicare drug benefit" - but wait, I don't see "ObamaCare" listed on the right side - oh, I forgot, that's doesn't kick in until "later."

And there's the cost of Obama's "Stimulus Plan" listed under "Bush"

Given this level of argument and understanding all I can do is leave you with this...

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

These charts are hilarious.

"Savings" relative to exactly what? Letting people die in more terrorist attacks?

Yes. Let's increase defense spending as much as possible. So we can save lives and all....

Seriously? You REALLY believe that there would be tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans dead due to terrorist attacks if not for trillions spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Then there's the "Medicare drug benefit" -

Yeah, that was a pretty big expenditure that wasn't paid for. And continues to rise every year. Still without being paid for. What's so hilarious about that?

but wait, I don't see "ObamaCare" listed on the right side - oh, I forgot, that's doesn't kick in until "later."

Oh, I see. Is that way you keep the books? You not only want to charge Obama with all the spending he didn't authorize that accumulated under his watch, but for all that in the future that doesn't accumulate under his watch (or at least hasn't yet) or may not even at all? No wonder your math is so messed up.

And there's the cost of Obama's "Stimulus Plan" listed under "Bush"

No, it's not. Obama's stimulus plan is listed under Obama. Bush's stimulus plans are listed under Bush. Different plans. The Economic Stimulus Plan of 2008 was passed in February 2008, a full year before Obama took office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...us_Act_of_2008

Given this level of argument and understanding

Again, turn off the radio and stop believing nonsense like "Obamaphones." Once more people can do that, maybe we can actually get something meaningful done in this country regarding the deficit and debt.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by chemikool

Bored on Saturday...trolling HC...

So the guys in CA and NY (huge liberal places) are arguing with the TX guys (huge republican place) and they aren't seeing eye to eye? Say it isn't so!!!

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?
--My question for the "republican-leaning" people = At what point do we acknowledge that the US has one of, if not the LOWEST tax rates in the world?

And finally, my question for all === who THE EFF do I get to be mad at for the state of our great nation? My own mother doesn't have an answer. The boomer generation has screwed it up for everyone, and they aren't taking the blame for it. I didn't vote myself into this crap. I wasn't eligible to vote until 1990, but I'll have to clean up the mess, and deal with repercussions regardless of who caused it.

Who do I get to be mad at? Don't you DARE say Dem or Rep...
...

You shouldn't be worried about getting "mad." Its your generation or the next that will have to do something about it.

To do that you will need to learn as much as you can about what's actually going on in the US and world- which has nothing per se to do with DEM or REP.

When I was young I was taught to think for myself and to do my own research. That was to a large degree lost on your generation which instead was given information in terms of "sound bites."

Learn what you can on your own - learn to use Google the right way, study, read books, question authority, and don't be afraid to get out there and talk to others (whether they agree or disagree with you). Join forums and post, don't be afraid to take a beating, learn from the results...

No one else will do it.

There's a story I read to my kids about a Grandpa and a kid walking in the woods. They see an old wagon sunk in the muck up to its axles in the middle of a swamp.

The kid says "Grandpa, how'd that wagon get stuck like that?"

Grandpa, shaking his head, says "well, son, it took a lot of work..."

The boomers have to a large degree frittered away and/or ruined your future.

You need to figure out how to take it back.

Don't be afraid to throw them and their ideas over the side in the process.

Follow my blog link at the bottom of my post for some bread crumbs...

[jimiv]

I've enjoyed reading this. Good back and forth with alot of interesting information and facts and resources without the usual ad hominem attacks.

Bravo boys.

[Kramerguy]

guido pwning the competition tho

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

Yes. Let's increase defense spending as much as possible. So we can save lives and all....

Seriously? You REALLY believe that there would be tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans dead due to terrorist attacks if not for trillions spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Last I checked US presidents "... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So what would you have done? Nothing?

Or perhaps assign a dollar value to attacks? Okay guys, sorry, its too expensive to watch these dams (or power lines, or airplanes, or whatever), your on your own...

The government needs to supply health care (ObamaCare), Social Security and food stamps but not protection?

Protection is what the president is required to do for his people, he swears an oath. Not the other stuff.

What you say always sounds wonderful until you think it through to its logical conclusion.

Then not so much.

[Kramerguy]

toddkuen,
I'd say there's a strong difference between protection and aggression.. much of what I've seen in my adult life falls under the latter. The irony is that we do very little to protect the physical country, with exception to abstract notions abroad.

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by Kramerguy

toddkuen,
I'd say there's a strong difference between protection and aggression.. much of what I've seen in my adult life falls under the latter. The irony is that we do very little to protect the physical country, with exception to abstract notions abroad.

Exactly, we go bomb the shit out of the rest of the world because we can not because we are under attack.

[nchangin]

Originally Posted by modulusman

Exactly, we go bomb the shit out of the rest of the world because we can not because we are under attack.

What about the U.S. retaliation to 9.11? Do you not consider that an attack?