How's that taxation and socialism werkin' out fer ya?

[Sailor Steve]

I don't like Palin any more than I like Obama. Palin is goofy. The hard right wing is scary. The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

But the picture given is Federal not State.

[tater]

Yes, it's federal money sent vs received.

Attaching value to the state being 50.1% democrat vs 50.1% republican in the last presidential election, of course, is absurd.

Since 2/3 of all that money is spent on "programatic" social programs, the spending is automatic. Clearly it would be in the best interest of the populous, affluent, "blue states" (wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue---probably because "red" is too close tot he truth, but I digress) to have their elected representatives disassemble the welfare state, since it clearly hurts them the most.

Of course in terms of dollars sent to dollars received, you really need to remember to look at thew TOTAL dollars here.

NM only have 1.5 million people, and most pay virtually no taxes (being in that bottom 50% of "tax payers"). There are probably more people in NY that make a million bucks a year than there are taxpayers in NM who pay even 1 per capita share per family member. So while NM gets $2 per $1 sent, the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

That's the real pattern, small population states vs large population states.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue---probably because "red" is too close tot he truth, but I digress

OK you are drifting to the realms of the loony fringe there.
Keep it up and next thing is you will be posting about the secret concentration camps the evil government is setting up.

That's the real pattern, small population states vs large population states.

That doesn't work, you can take some states with small populations and they are at the top of the money to government pile not the money recieved one. Likewise you can take population density as a measure and you get some in each pile.

There are probably more people in NY that make a million bucks a year than there are taxpayers in NM who pay even 1 per capita share per family member

So that might work on a money made per capita basis as a measure...but one of the top earning states comes out near the top of money recieved from the government list....so nice try, but that don't work either

the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

Since the whole purpose of the graph is dollars sent in relation to dollars recieved the specific amount of dollars is of little relevance...unless of course you don't like what the graph shows

[tater]

I don't like what the graph shows. I'd cut spending massively if it was up to me.

BTW, stealth, so the US debt went up 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush, and 3 trillion in one fiscal year (and some change) of Obama. Gotcha.

As for the red/blue thing, why do YOU always go off the looney edge? Red and blue have preexisting meanings in the US. Reds are communists, and the democrats have always had a communist component. In the military, blue means the good guys.

I'd prefer to see the press alternate the use of red and blue.

If instead of colors they assigned "good guys" and "bad guys" I'd equally want the press to alternate. I suppose the current use might rehabilitate the color red, which is otherwise associated with mass murder, among other things (that being the principle business of the extreme left—like national socialist Germany and the CCCP).

I don't like what the graph shows.

Thought so.

I'd cut spending massively if it was up to me.

Firstly, how?
Secondly, how on earth would you get it passed?

[tater]

They should pass a balanced budget amendment that forces spending to be equal to some running average of tax receipts as a function of GDP (not just the previous year, maybe a 3-year running average).

The critical problem is entitlements. I'd keep SS for anyone above a certain age, then phase it out towards a privatized system as an option, and for those that opt in, keep it what it was supposed to be—insurance. Reset retirement age so that it actuarially matches what it was when first [passed. Meaning if the typical person only lived 2 years past 65 on SS, I'd make the retirement age 70 or something. Ditto medicare.

The goal should be that total government spending should not exceed around 20% of GDP under any circumstance save war.

War spending would be about the only thing I'd allow to go deficit, but with maybe a 3/4 vote of both houses.

The military could trim a bunch if they were allowed to close bases as they'd like. All the US bases are a function of having them porked into place. Everyone wants cuts, just not in their district.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by tater

so the US debt went up 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush

$4 trillion? You haven't been paying attention. That was in September 2008. In ONE MONTH, by October 7, 2008, it had reached past the $5 trillion mark. When he left office in January, the total was $10.627 trillion.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bush..._national_debt

Originally Posted by tater

and 3 trillion in one fiscal year (and some change) of Obama.

$10.627 trillion to $12.759 trillion. That's not $3 trillion, that's $2.132 trillion... which, even when rounding to the hundred millions, still doesn't come anywhere close to $3 trillion.

Originally Posted by tater

Gotcha.

Originally Posted by tater

Red and blue have preexisting meanings in the US.

Not really. At least, not as far as the sane ones amongst us are concerned.

Originally Posted by tater

Reds are communists,

If you live in the 1950s Cold War United States, which ended nearly 20 years ago. It's time to stop being so paranoid and insulted about being called a "Red". Republicans always have been represented by the color red, Democrats by blue... is this really news to you? If so, that's... disturbing to say the least.

Originally Posted by tater

and the democrats have always had a communist component.

I thought they were Socialists. Obama's supposed to be a Socialist anyway.

Originally Posted by tater

In the military, blue means the good guys.

Though we don't use blue military combat uniforms anymore... and we haven't since the final quarter of the 1800s...

Originally Posted by tater

I'd prefer to see the press alternate the use of red and blue.

That's too bad, because nobody is going to change it just because you or I want it to be changed. And, for the record, I don't. Because I don't really care. They're COLORS FFS. Are you really going to argue over something so petty as color representation? Seriously?

Originally Posted by tater

If instead of colors they assigned "good guys" and "bad guys" I'd equally want the press to alternate.

How about just "Democrat" and "Republican"?

Originally Posted by tater

I suppose the current use might rehabilitate the color red, which is otherwise associated with mass murder,

Huh. Might as well remove it from the flag then since it represents mass murder... not the blood of patriots... oh wait- that's right. That's EXACTLY what's it's always represented in American politics: the blood of patriots.

Originally Posted by tater

among other things (that being the principle business of the extreme left—like national socialist Germany and the CCCP).

Actually, National Socialist Germany was very right wing. Indeed, the entire concept of National Socialism is center-right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

The reason why Hitler attached the term "Socialism" to his ideology was because it appealed to the Germans of the time, because they were convinced it would change their country for the better and make them prosperous (that's what they were promised by the heads preaching it). They were in horrible conditions. It could easily cost 500,000 marks to buy a loaf of bread in the market. The wheelbarrows weren't big enough to carry the money in. People burned it for heat, threw it out in the streets, and even ate it. It was no different for the Russians after they rebelled against the Tsarist Absolutist Monarchy (why Lenin's version of Marxism appealed to the majority, I mean; the Whites were against it, but we're not talking about them right now). Didn't you study this in school?

When Hitler came into the scene of politics, he preached Socialism to attract followers. As I said, a lot of people really believed it could change Germany for the better. And many believed the same about Communism. Following his arrest and rise to power, he endorsed Nationalism officially into the party, pulling away from his Socialist roots. Some members believed that he had lost the way and had to be removed, particularly Ernst Rohm and the SA (Rohm headed them, by the way; he was also a homosexual). Hence, this is why Hitler had Rohm murdered and the entire SA disbanded (the homosexuality Hitler knew of before he appointed Rohm head of the brownshirts; it wasn't that which concerned him the most; I just threw that in there because it is relevant to the man).

You do know the Germans executed Socialists and Communists as political enemies during the Second World War, right? The Dolchstosslegende (Stab-In-The-Back Legend) taught that Imperial Germany had been sabotaged in World War I by the Jews, Socialists, and Bolsheviks, and people ate it up (especially Socialists, which were said to have sabotaged the previous government, Ebert's Weimar Republic). These groups were just scapegoats; they had done nothing of the sort. The Germans lost the war because of they decided to dig in for the winter of 1914, hence setting on a deadlock between the Entente, her allies, and the Central Powers. They had lost the tactical advantage and ability of rapid movement. A quick war was totally out of the question, hence why they resorted to naval and aerial tactics.

Now Russia under Lenin and Stalin, it was far left. But it was also Authoritarian, not Libertarian like we are. Socialism and Communism are supposed to be Libertarian. It's assclowns like Lenin and Stalin, however, that made it anti-Libertarian. Leninism and Stalinism are the most radical forms of Communism, not at all true to the original Marxist theory envisioned by Old Karl.

Originally Posted by August

I didn't say that at all.

Though you never bothered putting it in.

Originally Posted by August

Congress has many influences,

Thank you for finally stating it to be so.

Originally Posted by August

certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration,

Quite.

Originally Posted by August

but ultimately it is Congress who spends the money.

They spend it, but more often than not it's the Executive Branch that decides what they're going to be spending on. They're the ones who make the most proposals. Like devoting more resources to the wars in the Middle East, stimulus packages, military expenditures, etc. It's not like they're powerless when it comes to funds. Far from it.

Originally Posted by August

So if you're going to play the blame-game then it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress, not which party controls the White House.

But you just said that the administration in the White House has a big hand in controlling the finances of the country...

"certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration"

...and now "it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress"... shouldn't they both be to blame if they both have a lot of power in it? Which is it: Congress, the White House, or both?

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

But you just said that the administration in the White House has a big hand in controlling the finances of the country...

"certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration"

...and now "it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress"... shouldn't they both be to blame if they both have a lot of power in it? Which is it: Congress, the White House, or both?

Quit yanking my chain. You know that controlling is NOT at all the same thing as being an influence. A guy who posts all those long messages with the fancy charts and diagrams can not be that obtuse.

Congress controls the money. Congress votes in new laws. Congress is the one responsible for the nations debt. End of story.

[tater]

YOU said:

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The numbers from the Treasury Department in September 2008 showed the national debt then stood at more than $9.849 trillion.

I subtracted the two. You didn't provide other data.

Since you said "on bush's watch" I toook your ending number, above, and subtracted from the obama number YOU posted.

Right now, the debt stands at $12.759

12.759-9.849=2.91

Yeah, I rounded it up to 3.

Sorry, I didn't look the numbers up, just used what YOU posted.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008. As for Reagan, I don't know who's been saying that (I'd like to find out) nor do I know how they figured this up. While the debt did increase during the Regan-Bush era, and continued to do so throughout the Clinton era, the greatest increase came under George Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-..._b_132732.html

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The numbers from the Treasury Department in September 2008 showed the national debt then stood at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9% increase on Mr. Bush's watch.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bush..._national_debt

Right now, the debt stands at $12.759 trillion; not that much of an increase given all the s*** President Obama has had to sift through to try and sort this all out, let alone the national situation he faced when he took office.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/investheld.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

One of the biggest reasons why we can't recover from the current economic situation we find ourselves in is because we no longer are the industrial, self-sufficient nation that we were during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. The reason why we fully recovered from the Great Depression was because we had the manufacturing capabilities to do so and the motivation, following the outbreak of World War II. We had factories people could find jobs in, we manufactured almost all our own stuff (we didn't import things in as great of quantities as we do now), we had regulations on the markets that kept people from buying and taking our more than they could afford and pay back, and perhaps most importantly, there was no organized "global economy" crap going on in the world, with "service countries" and "manufacturing countries", etc.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/events/2009/0309_lessons/0309_lessons_romer.pdf

The stimulus package and the Recovery Act have been doing their jobs, that much is evident despite all the semantics that will try to convince you otherwise. The reason I have found in the years since this began that so many scrutinize these plans and indeed the government is because these plans didn't work and solve the problems they were addressing immediately. But simply put, you cannot have your country in this kind of shape and expect a quick, easy fix of any kind- let alone when you have hardly any industrial/manufacturing self-sufficiency anymore (as a service country in the global economy concept, it's not our job to worry about these things... it's left to countries like China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, etc.). Indeed, that's one of the most important lessons of the Great Depression. Twelve years on from Black Tuesday and we were still in the process of recovering; had we not have had the Second World War to finally get us out of it, who knows how long it would have taken. Perhaps another decade!




Based on data from: Dr. Louis D. Johnston and Prof. Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the US' GDP: A Historical Report", p.8, 24 April 2006

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

The largest economy of any state in the United States, and is the eighth largest economy in the world.

EDIT: And for the record, Thorvald, it's working out pretty good for me personally.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008.

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

Originally Posted by August

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

Well said, sir.

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Well said, sir.

Thanks but it goes both ways. Obama really can't be blamed for spending those trillions today either.