[username]

(08-31-2011 07:23 PM)blurb Wrote:  

I'm not fooled. For a supposedly traditional "conservative" politician like Sarah Palin, she seems to have strong feminist tendencies. I smell a feminist underneath...

Don't know about Bachmann yet...

All of these women in politics are feminist because when they are given the chance to give women even more privileges and rights at the detriment to men and boys they will jump at that opportunity instantly. They will be celebrated by women and the media meanwhile the victims remain silent and take it.

[speakeasy]

Meant to get back to you on this a few days ago but got sidetracked...

(08-31-2011 08:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Clinton had a Republic congress when the budget surpluses came in.

Bush had a Republican congress when the budget deficits became huge.

Obama had a Democrat congress when the budget deficits went exponential.

I'm not sure what quick and simplistic conclusion I'm supposed to draw from this because there is none.

Quote:

There's no relationship between those in charge and whether or not government spending goes up. The trend is very simple: Up, up, and away.

That is not true. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has not always gone up. From the early 80s till the early millennium, spending actually went down. However we still ran deficits most of those years due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Also if you look at the chart below, you'll clearly see that government spending(once again as a % of GDP) was about the same in the early 50s as it was when Obama took over.



The deficit is now wider than it has been in any time since WWII. Now you can choose to see that as a spending problem or as a revenue problem, or perhaps some combination of both. I've already pointed out figures that clearly show that Obama's actual discretionary spending is not responsible for the bulk of this deficit. Nor does our government spend wildly as a percentage of GDP when compared to most industrial nations(and if it weren't for our role as the world's policeman we'd be way below what we are now). The majority of the deficit is due to circumstances that Obama inherited. You don't want to believe the figures I posted because you said the CBO's projections were off on certain items. But I'm not talking about projections here, I'm talking about actual dollars raised and spent in the past.. Future economic projections always involve a lot of guesswork. Looking back at the balance sheets involves none.

Quote:

Don't worry, people are gonna be disappointed in 10-15 years when all of their "benefits" aren't worth shit, because they are being paid in worthless US dollars. The same thing happened to USSR pensioners after it went bankrupt.

I'm no fan of the loose monetary policy of Greenspan and Bernanke. Though it's not surprising that they are inflating our way out of debt since tax hikes and spending cuts are both massively unpopular. I guess that's a more insidious way of "paying off" the debt. If it were up to me, I'd return to a more strict monetary policy to stave off inflation. I'd roll back the Bush tax cuts and get slash the budget of the Pentagon which is the next biggest expense after SS and Medicare. I'd look for the quickest exit out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stay away from any costly foreign skirmishes unless absolutely necessary. Another big issue is the cost of health care. Medicare is going to explode the deficit due to the astronomical costs of healthcare. As travelers, I'm sure we've heard the stories about how much it would cost to get medical treatment in the USA versus in most countries. I don't want to digress too much but when you look at the power the pharmaceutical companies have to influence legislation, it's frightening. They are more powerful than Big Oil. They lobby to keep prices high in the U.S. while selling the drugs for much cheaper to other countries who don't allow their citizens to be exploited by exorbitantly high drug costs. Then they lobby to block importation of cheaper drugs into the USA. It's really fucking crazy the extent they go to ensure their profits. But if we had more cost controls over healthcare like most industrial nations do, spending could be slashed. Obama-care was a pretty weak proposal, but at least he put the cost of health care on the national table for discussion. Nonetheless, he was punished for it.

Quote:

Focus on the real issue: massive government spending. Take away this spending and the threat of hyperinflation is removed.

It's not government spending that causes inflation. It's too much money in circulation that causes it, either caused by loose monetary policy or wage growth putting pressure upward on prices.

Quote:

1. That's from 2008. Government spending after 2008 jumped over 10%.

2. One of the commenters on that blog post pointed out the obvious:

Total government spending in the United States is just less than 39% (see BEA GDP calculations). Your 19% number misses all the state and local spending that goes on in the US.

Completely dishonest blog. Doesn't include state and local spending into government figures.

Well, it might not for other countries as well, and if we're comparing apples to apples then it doesn't matter. I read those comments even before posting the blog link and saw what you referenced here. The reason I still posted it is because even at 39% it STILL puts us well below the average of industrial nations. My point isn't to say we should spend as much a percentage of GDP as Europe or Japan. My point is to question the veracity of the claim that the U.S. government is relatively large. It's hard to get any perspective on that without comparing us to other similarly advanced nations.

Quote:

1. The top richest pay the most taxes because government programs, laws, and regulations have made them rich. Do you think Bank of America and Goldman Sachs would be profitable without their bailouts? Do you think Exxon would be so profitable without the regulations surrounding the oil industry?

Do you?

I'm not clear what point you're making here. If you are saying that less government would mean more equitable growth in our economy, I'd say quite the opposite is more likely.

Quote:

2. Their tax contribution is going down because they keep their capital stashed overseas, so the government cannot tax it. They are using other countries to exploit this country.

Fix the rigged game that supports big corporations who make up the Top 400, and they will be unable to maintain their positions of power. Raising taxes is laughable when there are so many other ways the government supports them.

I'm aware that there are very highly paid accountants and corporate lawyers whose job it is to find every loophole they can for their clients and lower their tax contribution. These loopholes will probably always exist. But that alone doesn't explain everything. Somehow Clinton was able to raise taxes and bring in enough revenue to close the deficit. I see no reason that can't be done again. At this point I'm convinced our deficit problems are mostly due to lack of revenue and the lop-sided growth of the economy where the wealthy have accrued a shitload of money over the past 20 years while the common person has seen their income in real terms going backward. Unless there is strong long-term wage growth for the lower and middle classes and some of that wealth of the rich(remember that link I posted about the top 400 households having more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population) gets used to pay down the debt and fund social programs, we will become another Brazil where you have a two-tier economy of wealthy people behind barricades, an anemic middle class and everyone else living in favelas.