Federal Obligations Exceed World's GDP

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Glad Obama and the Democraps are tacking on another $2 trillion to the tab.

Assholes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851


The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/deficittwo.jpg

[DarrinS]

Welcome to Western Europe.

[BradLohaus]

I realized that the government owes us and our foreign creditors the world a few weeks ago. One of the people I talked about this with is a friend of mind who doesn't think there's anything wrong with all of this.

You know what he said? "Yeah, but not all at once."

I guess that statement will now replace "Yeah, but we owe it mostly to ourselves."

[angrydude]

We don't have to worry about that for a couple of years so who cares? lol..................

[SouthernFried]

There used to be a time...not so very long ago, where Americans were known for their dedication to "making sure our children have a better life than we did."

It was the characteristic most cherished by the WWII and Depression era generations.

This generations most cherished characteristic (demonstrated by both the GOP and Democrats...championed as of late by the Obamaistas) is "give it to me...I want it now...and FUCK our children, children's children...children's children's children...

Note the 5 fold increase in debt when you add SS and Medicare. This is the legacy of FDR. Social "entitlement" spending has been the underlying cancer that will ultimately kill the golden egg .

Anybody celebrating this "stimulus" bill...is a disgrace not only to themselves, but the generations that follow who we are leaving this debt too.

We are fucking our children's and country's future...and celebrating it.

We should be hanging our heads in shame.


"Not me baby!!...it's party time!!"

SIG

[fyatuk]

I realized that the government owes us and our foreign creditors the world a few weeks ago.

Not that hard to realize with any sort of accounting or economics knowledge. That's one of the absolutely terrifying aspects of the baby boomer retirement. Since we're applying SS & Medicare tax to the general accounts to hide the true deficit (Clinton never provided a true surplus), when SS Payouts > Revenue, it's REALLY going to suck.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Not to worry! We will either monetize the debt by devaluing our currency 50%, or print so much money inflation rages and we pay off those debts with cheap worthless dollars!
Sucks for you if you are holding a bunch of long term US securities.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm so sick of motherfuckers like AHF. This isn't a political problem, its a society and lifestyle problem. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. We have enjoyed and unnatural share of the worlds wealth in this country for a long ass time and all of these problems are merely symptoms of that condition.

The US GDP is undergoing a contraction because at the root of things, we as a society have spent more than we have and thats coming back into balance. We've been racking up a balance and now after years of GOP led deficits due to trickle down economics (trickle down works - but it doens't work as some sort of bubble where the US is seperated from the rest of the world - did any motherfuckers stop to think that those in the US aren't at the bottom of the trickle down chain?) you have to audacity to lay this at the feet of the guy who just stepped into the shit hole?

Americans want to keep their standard of living and Obama is doing the nessecary to keep that. Its a high risk situation but the fact of the matter is that tax cuts aren't going to make it happen. Someone's got to make up the GDP shortfall and its not goign to come from anything other than government spending because they are the only ones with the will and ability to make it happen.

This is not to say major changes aren't needed. You need to find a way to revamp the way we spend money as a whole in this country and if you want America to maintain a high relative standard of living then you have to make sure we're able to compete with the rest of the countries in the world which means building up an exceptional workforce. The one truth that most politicians can't share with you at the moment is that american workers are terrible when compared to the rest of the world. We have very little advantadges and cost a hell of a lot more.

[MannyIsGod]

In other words, if you're going to bitch about the current situation and don't want to get into further debt in order to get out of it then you better be ready for some drastic changes in this country. And we all know that as much as people love to bitch about that, they're not about to undergo a societal transformation that substantialy lowers the standard of living in order to preserve the economic future of this country.

Its the equivilant of a college student living poorly in order to have a higher standard of living further in life and there is no way our country has any will to undertake that type of an effort. It NEVER has. As much as people lament the efforts of previous generations the fact is they were never trying to maintain they were simply growing and the reason things were always better for the subsequent generation was their continued ascendence.

Guess what, its a lot harder to stay on top when the rest of the world is trying to catch up.

[Winehole23]

In other words, if you're going to bitch about the current situation and don't want to get into further debt in order to get out of it then you better be ready for some drastic changes in this country. And we all know that as much as people love to bitch about that, they're not about to undergo a societal transformation that substantialy lowers the standard of living in order to preserve the economic future of this country. We are about to undergo a societal transformation that substantially lowers the standard of living. It's called a depression. The wealth of the last 30 years was fake. It was a debt bubble. Now it has burst, and things never will be the same as before.

Why not? Because the national debt and entitlements aren't going away, our productive base is decimated, and all the medicine in the cabinet is inflationary. We were fiscally fucked before this happened; the so-called cure will fuck us up even more.

Making do with less won't even be a choice. We're going to be poor.

[Winehole23]

Not to worry! We will either monetize the debt by devaluing our currency 50%, or print so much money inflation rages and we pay off those debts with cheap worthless dollars!
Sucks for you if you are holding a bunch of long term US securities.It's a bit simplistic to suggest there are no adverse consequences for inflating our way out of the mess. Leaving currency collapse completely aside, hyperinflation kills the purchasing power of the US consumer, and China has already asked for guarantees on its Treasurys. Inflate too much, and it's the functional equivalent of default for our creditors and penury for the American people. Don't think they'll all stand idly by and just let it happen.

There's a lot of mischief foreign and domestic that we'd face if we go down this road

[MannyIsGod]

We are about to undergo a societal transformation that substantially lowers the standard of living. It's called a depression. The wealth of the last 30 years was fake. It was a debt bubble. Now it has burst, and things never will be the same as before.

Why not? Because the national debt and entitlements aren't going away, our productive base is decimated, and all the medicine in the cabinet is inflationary. We were fiscally fucked before this happened; the so-called cure will fuck us up even more.

Making do with less won't even be a choice. We're going to be poor.

If you believe that then its fine, but do you honestly believe any politician is going to say or do anything to facilitate this line of thinking? Is anyone going to say to the people "we're fucked?"

I really fucking doubt it and I don't see anyone on the GOP stepping up to the plate with that line of thinking.

Obama is trying to avoid that. There's only one way to do that and thats through government spending in order to overcome the reduction in the GDP until we're able to produce at that level again. Tax cuts or anything the GOP has proposed simply make that impossible.

If you want to argue whether or not it will work that's fine but bitching about the only available course of action that has a chance in hell of achieving the goal you want like AHF is doing is moronic.

[LockBeard]

Americans want to keep their standard of living and Obama is doing the necessary to keep that.Really? I think you are mistaken.

There is a war on the "middle class". I don't even know who qualifies for this term anymore since the government lumps anyone not making 80k+. The words sound great, but the effects of the actions will not help people keep their standard of living. Last time I checked, health care is in for an ass kicking for the people that can already afford it.

The idiots who go into debt on frivolous depreciating assets deserve to get knocked back down the totem pole. Not the good hard working people who have walked the line. Unfortunately that is not how it works, and the government surely is not helping the later. Not anywhere close.

[LockBeard]

I really fucking doubt it and I don't see anyone on the GOP stepping up to the plate with that line of thinking.



Ron Paul.

The guy both Republicans and Democrats laughed off the stage. Only now, the rest of the country isn't laughing.

Obama is trying to avoid a collapse? Really. What has he done to try and avoid it? Push for even more strengthened unions? Spend even more trillions on pork that will not stimulate the economy?

[Wild Cobra]

Americans want to keep their standard of living and Obama is doing the necessary to keep that. Really? I think you are mistaken.

There is a war on the "middle class".
Isn't that the truth. Obama and the liberals in congress don't give a damn about the people who make this nation work. They just want to keep their constituents happy by providing all the federal services possible. Just look at this bailout. Most all of it is added social programs rather than things that will generate real jobs.

We are almost there people. Once we cross that line where more than 50% of the people are net users of the government, the heart of this nation is dead!

[MannyIsGod]

Its as though you guys can't read.

[Kermit]

Its as though you guys can't read.

:lmao

And this surprises you?

[mogrovejo]

You're basically stealing your grandsons in a desperate attempt to keep your standard of living for another couple of decades. We've been doing that over here for awhile. It doesn't work forever though. And it creates an additional problem: the impact of the government in the economy becomes so big that it starts having an huge effect on the process of creating wealth, slowing it down even more.

You're fucked up, you should be lowering the federal spending and the monetary mass now, not the opposite.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem isn't and never has been the stimulus package. Keynesian economics is what it is and it will work. The problem is the already existing national debt brought on by decades of deficit spending who's blame cannot be laid at the feet of Obama. And before you go laying that blame at the feet of the Dems, I point you to the balanced budgets of the 90s and how the GOP managed to fuck that up.

[Winehole23]

If you believe that then its fine, but do you honestly believe any politician is going to say or do anything to facilitate this line of thinking? Is anyone going to say to the people "we're fucked?" Absolutely not. And it's a goddam disservice if you ask me.


Obama is trying to avoid that. There's only one way to do that and thats through government spending in order to overcome the reduction in the GDP until we're able to produce at that level again. Tax cuts or anything the GOP has proposed simply make that impossible.I'm familiar with Keynesian theory. Hell, I was one of the ST posters who started the conversation about it.

I'm deeply conflicted about the stimulus. While I think it is justified from a purely humanitarian perspective, even boosters will admit that it poses fiscal and monetary dangers . In addition as currently constructed it may not work. Krugman in particular won't shut up about how the spending is way too small to do what you describe.

Also, there's something fundamentally misguided, it seems to me, about making the goal restoring the economic status quo ante. The former GDP had a debt/mortgage/derivatives/fuel bubble at its back. Our wealth was a mirage. Without reinflating the bubble, how can we restore the previous level of productivity?


If you want to argue whether or not it will work that's fine but bitching about the only available course of action that has a chance in hell of achieving the goal you want like AHF is doing is moronic.I do want to argue about whether it will work or not. You can't guarantee it will.

IMO the most important thing to do is to level with the banks and the American people about default. Good god, we've spent 2 trillion so far on the financial sector and we don't control any of it yet? Fucking nationalize already. Quit throwing money down the toilet.

I'm in favor of receivership for insolvent banks, 86'ing Fair Value Accounting and Basel II capital rules and hefty payroll tax abatement for starters. Saying that stimulus is the only option is simplistic. I understand that doing nothing isn't an option for politicians, so I can't really join you in applauding a forced move that may wreck our bottom line, our currency and may not even avert deflation.

If you grant this possibility, the door is open for consideration of the chance that deflation is not a greater disaster than the course we're currently on.

The US economy contracted from 1930-1934. My grandparents survived. What makes you think we wouldn't?

Deflation destroys bad debt and malinvestment, allows price discovery, consolidates productivity and strengthens the currency. I'm not saying it isn't very very painful, and not a little bit risky, but there's historical evidence it's survivable, and it does have a silver lining.

What goes up must come down. The idea that the government can prevent the business cycle from following its own due course is historically not well founded. In fact, it's a big part of how we got into this mess. If Greenspan hadn't lowered interest rates so dramatically in 2001 there might not have been such a destructive debt bubble.

[DarkReign]

If you believe that then its fine, but do you honestly believe any politician is going to say or do anything to facilitate this line of thinking? Is anyone going to say to the people "we're fucked?"

I really fucking doubt it and I don't see anyone on the GOP stepping up to the plate with that line of thinking.

Obama is trying to avoid that. There's only one way to do that and thats through government spending in order to overcome the reduction in the GDP until we're able to produce at that level again. Tax cuts or anything the GOP has proposed simply make that impossible.

Who gives a shit what politicians say or think? Is adding on to the already insurmountable debt a good idea?

No, it isnt. The stimulus bill will do nothing. It will help a very limited amount of people for a very short amount of time.

The worst part is, this is only the first one of a series. This isnt the answer, not even close. There is no answer. And if a politician is that self-absorbed to openly admit it, then fine. Do nothing and let nature takes its course. But worsening the situation is....unforgivable.


If you want to argue whether or not it will work that's fine but bitching about the only available course of action that has a chance in hell of achieving the goal you want like AHF is doing is moronic.

Its has no chance in hell, not a snowball's chance, to even make the slightest difference for any sustainable time. Because...

a) The total amount isnt near enough. Thus, this is the first of many stimulus packages, IMO (3 at least in his first term).

b) We dont have the money! We're going to play Jesus and create food out of thin air. Its going to be great.

c) Worse and most damning, no politician has the spine to admit the facts. Fact: We're Fucked. This isnt some engineering problem where even the greatest minds are stumped about what to do. Or a military problem like trying to fight a non-nationalist army hiding behind the civilian population. This is a problem thats been brewing for 2 generations that has accelerated in the past 8 years to point of no return.


So, is it better to "try something" knowing it wont work. or leaving well enough alone and preparing the people for rapid change?

Personally, I prefer the no bullshit approach. But I am sure there are millions of Americans with blinders on who dont want to hear the bad people talk about bad stuff, I mean, theyre already cranked on Zoloft for their depression.

But the fact that the realists of this country have to somehow have pity for the Idiot Nation and not criticize this stimulus bill for what it is, is absurd.

There is NOTHING anyone or any entity can do about our economic situation. Nothing. The sooner people realize, understand and plan for that inevitability, the better off this country will be and the sooner it will recover.

But because politicians dont want to be accused of "doing nothing", they're just going to worsen the situation and drag out an already looming depression to maybe the point of insolvency and collapse.

I would respect our political leadership a helluva lot more if they had any backbone whatsoever. Obama obviously, is just another politician seeking re-election first and economic recovery second.

Because if he truly cared about the economy, he'd do/suggest/educate the country about entitlement programs like SS and Medicare.

His Congress would be none to happy with him because, once again, theyre politicians. They do what is politically expedient and what gets them in a proper position to be re-elected before they ever consider whats best for the country.

Tacking more money onto our national debt is about the dumbest fucking thing we could do. Yet, we're doing it. Whatever. This place is going to burn...at least I'll be alive to see the fall of the country I love.

[MannyIsGod]

You're basically stealing your grandsons in a desperate attempt to keep your standard of living for another couple of decades. We've been doing that over here for awhile. It doesn't work forever though. And it creates an additional problem: the impact of the government in the economy becomes so big that it starts having an huge effect on the process of creating wealth, slowing it down even more.

You're fucked up, you should be lowering the federal spending and the monetary mass now, not the opposite.

Thats fine, but then the problem has nothing to do with the partisan politics of the OP. The GOPs solution increases the debt as well because when you cut the inflow of money to the government through tax cuts the deficit still grows. Thats what pisses me off the most about this process. When assholes bitch about the outcome as if the other side has a radically different plan.

[MannyIsGod]

Winehole, I generally believe you're one of the smarter and more educated posters in here but you have a strange gnack for missing nuance bud. My whole point was about how foolish AHF's stance is. I agree whole heartdly with the bank nationalization (see how Europe handled this) but you have to remember what happend on the Obama campaign trail and how much politics is playing into how this iss being worked out.

Do you remember all the calls of socialism? Have you seen the manner in which the GOP is reacting to what is already on going? Bank nationalization would be a big step in pulling the wind out of Obama's sails and would remove a lot of the power he currently weilds making him a weaker figure and much more impotent in finding a way to deal with this situation. Thats another reason the enablers like AHF really fucking piss me off. Their stupidity and ignorance of what is actually happening is what enables the GOP to continue to fuck us.

[Winehole23]

Thats fine, but then the problem has nothing to do with the partisan politics of the OP. The GOPs solution increases the debt as well because when you cut the inflow of money to the government through tax cuts the deficit still grows. Thats what pisses me off the most about this process. When assholes bitch about the outcome as if the other side has a radically different plan.Me and DarkReign have a different plan, or didn't you notice?

We tell the truth, face the music and take our lumps. We earned it.

How hard is that?

[mogrovejo]

I don't like to call this politics "Keynesian". They should be called neo-Keynesian or socialist. JMK wasn't crazy, when he proposed what people now call Keynesian remedies things were hugely different: the federal obligations were nowhere close to exceed the world GPD. What Keynes advocated the government to do in an extremely serious depression is more than the government does now during economic expansion periods.

Democratic politicians (meaning politicians who have to win democratic elections) will never ever put the interests of the unborns ahead of those of their electorate. The America republic is corrutped by the excess of democracy. That's the first thing, in the institucional realm, you should fix.

[NFGIII]

Cycle of Democracy


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.



"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.


"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:







"From bondage to spiritual faith;



from spiritual faith to great courage;


from courage to liberty;

from liberty to abundance;

from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."








Dr. Alexander Tytler, a Scot professor, wrote a scholarly tome, from which this concept comes, called "The Athenian Republic" which was published shortly before the thirteen American colonies gained independence from Britain.

Since we have touched on the issue of our country's perception and lifestyle I thought the above might be appropriate. My apologies if it has been posted before and discussed.

So where are we in this? Most likely either from selfishness to apathy or apathy to dependence. I believe that we are in the latter. Though I see many who are concerned and vocal about our present situation I really don't see the grass roots movements that would signal that the people are fed up. Many I talk to are resigned in their minds to the fact that they feel that they can't do anything about it and are too busy just making a living leaving little time to participate. I know that Perot and Nadar tried to do something but both failed. If anything Perot could be credited with siphoning off the Repubilican vote that helped Clinton take the White House, though there have been articles claiiming that he didn't have that effect.

[MannyIsGod]

DR, you can sit there and romanticize preparing the people for rapid change but the people don't want to hear that. I don't nessecarily share your doomsday pessimism either on that front, but if someone sits there and tries to tell the people to drastically change their lifestyles and financial way of thiking, they're NOT GOING TO BE IN POWER.

Politics is playing a huge role in this crisis and you can sit there and try to remove it and act like it shouldn't be a factor all you want but the fact of the matter is that its a hugely important factor. You can only do so much as the political will allows and trying to control that political will is the hardest part of running this contry at the moment.

[101A]

The US GDP is undergoing a contraction because at the root of things, we as a society have spent more than we have and thats coming back into balance. We've been racking up a balance and now after years of GOP led deficits

The GOP has controlled the govt. for exactly SIX of the past SIXTY years - and yet you lay this at their feet???

Sucker.

[MannyIsGod]

Me and DarkReign have a different plan, or didn't you notice?

We tell the truth, face the music and take our lumps. We earned it.

How hard is that?

Not going to happen. Its extremely hard. If it was that easy then why didn't Ron Paul have a chance in hell of being elected? Thats not the direction the people want to take.

[Winehole23]

Winehole, I generally believe you're one of the smarter and more educated posters in here but you have a strange gnack for missing nuance bud. My whole point was about how foolish AHF's stance is. I agree whole heartdly with the bank nationalization (see how Europe handled this) but you have to remember what happend on the Obama campaign trail and how much politics is playing into how this iss being worked out. You think nationalization (let's just call it receivership, ok?) plays into the hands of "the other side", but the tide may be turning. Lindsay Graham is willing to say he won't rule out bank nationalization on TV.


Thats another reason the enablers like AHF really fucking piss me off. Their stupidity and ignorance of what is actually happening is what enables the GOP to continue to fuck us.
Is the GOP in power, or are the Dems large and in charge? Didn't they just pass a record stimulus in record time? Once Franken is seated, the Dems only need one GOP Senator for anything they want. You act like the GOP still controls something. Their approval rating is about 20%. You should encourage them to keep doing what they're doing IMO.

[Winehole23]

Not going to happen. Its extremely hard. If it was that easy then why didn't Ron Paul have a chance in hell of being elected? Thats not the direction the people want to take.No, it isn't. It's the direction our economy is taking us, like it or not.

[MannyIsGod]

In the end your observation about the Dems being incontrol is correct. But not all Dems vote the same way. Blue Dogs aren't going to just up and vote the way Nancy Pelosi is going to vote. Simply saying the Dems control both houses is simplification beyond belief. Minorities in the Senate have power and they wield it.

Not to mention Obama campaigned on working in a bipartisan manner. I think they''ve gotten past that after the way the GOP acted during this first passage, but that doesn't mean they can simply do whatever and pay no political price. There is always a measure of political capital to be had or used.

[Winehole23]

We are almost there people. Once we cross that line where more than 50% of the people are net users of the government, the heart of this nation is dead!Fuck that. You seem to think that power eliminates culture. You're wrong.

[DarkReign]

DR, you can sit there and romanticize preparing the people for rapid change but the people don't want to hear that.

Too bad. Hear it now, place your objections or forever hold your peace.


I don't nessecarily share your doomsday pessimism either on that front, but if someone sits there and tries to tell the people to drastically change their lifestyles and financial way of thiking, they're NOT GOING TO BE IN POWER.

Which is exactly why we as a country will fail in this endeavor. Our leadership is more concerned with maintaining power (with some weird rationalization that in order to complete our recovery, we must maintain power over X amount of time) than actually wielding it effectively.


Politics is playing a huge role in this crisis and you can sit there and try to remove it and act like it shouldn't be a factor all you want but the fact of the matter is that its a hugely important factor. You can only do so much as the political will allows and trying to control that political will is the hardest part of running this contry at the moment.

Another indictment on our country being so well put. Obama/Democrats (really, it could be the Green party for all this matters) want to maintain political power and will do so first, then seek economic recovery second.

If you cant understand why I am pissed, then you never will. Politics should not be playing a part in any of this. This crisis is the difference between prosperity and poverty for an entire nation and I am more than a little surprised that you would accept so easily the reality of politics being more important than both and being slightly miffed that I dont share that sentiment.

If true, that political power/will is still the number one factor in this crisis, then this tells me Obama is no better than Bush (or any other politician more concerned with maintaining power than solving problems). A real leader...a great leader of all time would sacrifice himself for the welfare of his country. If Obama were different, than he would have no objections to political suicide if it benefitted the country longterm, history books would frown on him for a moment in time, but he'd be regarded with his idol Lincoln in less than 20 years.

Also, if what you say is truth, Manny, that political power/will is the single-most important aspect of running a government in crisis, then our well-being was lost a loooooong time ago. The fact that we are even discussing this aspect of a financial meltdown should be a fucking crime.

Political power and will have zero to do with the obvious solutions we have to the problem. Those two terms only benefit the powerful in their endeavors to maintain control of leadership in a crisis, not their respective constituencies. What does it say about our country, its health and well-being, when our elected leadership's biggest job in a financial meltdown is power consolidation?

Thats pathetic. Thru and thru. Maybe youre right, if so, we are all totally fucked anyway and Obama is no different than any of his predecessors of the past 30 years. If true, hes just another puppet, another stooge with a curious mind and no will of his own.

I hope I am wrong. But the maintenance of power having precendence over our financial breakdown is appalling. Disgusting and downright treasonous.

If our leadership was different in any way, shape or form, our entitlement programs would be swept clean off the books starting....now and government's role would be reduced drastically overnight. People would die, things would get bad before they got worse, but our country would stay solvent and we would have time to enact laws and regulations that would stave off this sort of crisis from ever happening again.

All I hear is "returning to status quo". Status Quo fucking sucked and is responsible for getting us all into this mess in the first place. Status Quo can kiss my ass and so can its supporters. There needs to be "real change", not this half-ass attempt at "status quo" with ineffective stimulus packages with many more to come.

A real leader, a true great leader of all time would say, in no uncertain terms "Our hegemony has caught up to us. It may not be your fault individually and you may have not even been a beneficiary of said hegemony, but it has you in its trap nonethless."

Then lay down the real fucking plan of economin attack that truly addresses the underlying issues of our financial instability. Namely, entitlement programs and military spending. But since entitlement programs are a mechanism to influence voters, and since, as you say, maintaining power is job numero uno in this climate, it will never happen.

Which makes Obama, his administration and this Congress no different than any other inept, ineffectual, banana republic government the world has seen come and go over time.

I realize my expectations are high and that my gloom and doom are more negative than most. I see that and to be honest, I could see past those differences in opinion if I seen some legislation with real teeth. At least then I could say "wow, he really cut the federal government's yearly payables by a bunch. Maybe he is on to something..."

Instead, all I see is more fucking payables. I realize government isnt a business, but its financial statement damn well should be run like one. Obama hasnt cut one damn thing, yet he is increasing exponentially.

Thats ludicrous. And I cant believe someone would disagree with that right now. This is difficult.

[Winehole23]

I don't like to call this politics "Keynesian". They should be called neo-Keynesian or socialist. JMK wasn't crazy, when he proposed what people now call Keynesian remedies things were hugely different: the federal obligations were nowhere close to exceed the world GPD. What Keynes advocated the government to do in an extremely serious depression is more than the government does now during economic expansion periods.This point is well taken, but rather than just calling it socialism I'd stress the convergence with Europe and call it social democracy.


Democratic politicians (meaning politicians who have to win democratic elections) will never ever put the interests of the unborns ahead of those of their electorate. The America republic is corrutped by the excess of democracy. That's the first thing, in the institucional realm, you should fix.Intriguing. Expedience is king, so long term planning loses out to the short end payoff.

Any suggestions?

[DarkReign]

Intriguing. Expedience is king, so long term planning loses out to the short end payoff.

Any suggestions?

You know, I am one of the first people to bust on others for the proverbial "Think of the CHILDREN!" types who need GPS on their kids and helmets when they ride bikes and such.

But this is the first time in my life I can honestly say it with a straight face. I dont even have any (nor do I want to bring them in this fucking blackhole of a world either), but what our government is and what it does is constantly at the expense of future generations.

They never once would allow the market to correct itself because that would mean loss in "standard of living", which means no votes come election time.

Theyre not leaders. Theyre politicians, lawyers with an agenda and a power trip.

What the fuck is so bad with the idea of educating Americans about necessary market corrections and conditions? Why is it so unbelievable for some to understand that we are adults and we can handle the truth.

I am not a fucking child and cannot stand it when spoken to like one, no matter who is doing the talking.

[MannyIsGod]

DR, political power/will is what it is. Trying to make it an externality in a democracy is impossible. I see a lot of bitching over the system of government in your post but I'm not aware of a democracy which doesn't function in this way. Don't take this the wrong way, but your line of thinking has tended to pave the road torwards other forms of government in the past including facism. You can't seprate politics from national leadership becaustion national leadership is a political function.

[MannyIsGod]

The first exercise in all governing is maintaining power DR. Sure, government officials can go against the grain in the name of leadership but when thats done overly so you end up with 8 years like we just had so I'm not sure if your overly romanticising of that is appropriate.

Run an election campaign and see how hard it is to get elected. Take note of how many different issues and point of views you have to balance and acknowledge. Take note of how difficult it is to affect the process from the outside. You either get into power and make compromises in order to change things from the inside or you remain an idealist on the outside and exert limited and expensive influence on the system.

[Winehole23]

Which is exactly why we as a country will fail in this endeavor. Our leadership is more concerned with maintaining power (with some weird rationalization that in order to complete our recovery, we must maintain power over X amount of time) than actually wielding it effectively. Expedience is king. I fucking hate it.


If you cant understand why I am pissed, then you never will. Politics should not be playing a part in any of this. This crisis is the difference between prosperity and poverty for an entire nation and I am more than a little surprised that you would accept so easily the reality of politics being more important than both and being slightly miffed that I dont share that sentiment.Just wait. When reality overtakes politics, we'll have more company. A lot more.


A real leader...a great leader of all time would sacrifice himself for the welfare of his country. If Obama were different, than he would have no objections to political suicide if it benefitted the country longterm...The man who puts his country before himself. But first he has to realize the fate of his country is at hazard. The forces of denial are strong.


Political power and will have zero to do with the obvious solutions we have to the problem.Agreed. And this is the closest you come to saying something hopeful in your post, if I've understood you right.

Focusing on political power diverts attention from the power we all have to change our own lives. In the end, this will be more decisive than anything our government does.


Those two terms only benefit the powerful in their endeavors to maintain control of leadership in a crisis, not their respective constituencies. What does it say about our country, its health and well-being, when our elected leadership's biggest job in a financial meltdown is power consolidation?That we are governed by moral midgets.


Then lay down the real fucking plan of economin attack that truly addresses the underlying issues of our financial instability. Namely, entitlement programs and military spending. That'd be a nice start, but the catalyzing event hasn't happened yet.


I realize my expectations are high and that my gloom and doom are more negative than most. Your perspective seems realistic enough to me, DR.


Thats ludicrous. And I cant believe someone would disagree with that right now. This is difficult.It's like people can't see what's happening in plain view. Maybe they're just not focused on it yet. Denial is strong. Stronger than reality, at least for a little while.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The great Jeff Porcaro made a great statement in one of his videos. It applied to music, but honestly it applies to everything in life. He said "You can't polish a turd". There's a lot of polishing going on. I thought Obama said he was going to be honest and upfront with us. Hell, he's already scared consumers with his Great Depression comparison. That's about as stupid as W's "go and shop" statement. Hmmph. I'm waiting for him to stop campaigning.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh - and I completely dispute the notion that any solutions to our current predicament are either obvious or easy.

[MannyIsGod]

The great Jeff Porcaro made a great statement in one of his videos. It applied to music, but honestly it applies to everything in life. He said "You can't polish a turd". There's a lot of polishing going on. I thought Obama said he was going to be honest and upfront with us. Hell, he's already scared consumers with his Great Depression comparison. That's about as stupid as W's "go and shop" statement. Hmmph. I'm waiting for him to stop campaigning.

Its like talking to a wall with some of you. The notion that Obama's statement has any measurable impact on this economic situation is pretty laughable but you provide an excellent example of the partisan bullshit being thrown around.

Thanks for that, I guess.

[Winehole23]

I thought Obama said he was going to be honest and upfront with us. Hell, he's already scared consumers with his Great Depression comparison. That's about as stupid as W's "go and shop" statement .Let's revisit this comment in one year and see how well it stood up.

[DarkReign]

DR, political power/will is what it is. Trying to make it an externality in a democracy is impossible. I see a lot of bitching over the system of government in your post but I'm not aware of a democracy which doesn't function in this way. Don't take this the wrong way, but your line of thinking has tended to pave the road torwards other forms of government in the past including facism. You can't seprate politics from national leadership becaustion national leadership is a political function.

No, I dont take it the wrong way. I never would. Youre not an asshole and you dont make it habit of name-calling, therefore, I always take your posts for what they say at face value.

But...

While I understand your point, it doesnt make it right. I can see where fascism starts and ends with my line of thinking...true.

But...

I have no tolerance for that. My point is/was, great leaders, no matter the time, place, or situation, would fall on their sword for their men in a heartbeat if it guaranteed glory and victory.

Translation: In a democracy, sometimes it it necessary for leadership to commit politicial suicide for the better of the country.

No one has done that in a looooong time because there havent been many opportunities to do so. This is an opportunity.

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclomation thereby sending this country to out and out civil war! Could you imagine what that decision felt like?! I cant. But this...this I guarantee.

Lincoln never once thought about re-election before or after it was signed. He thought about the welfare of the Union and that alone.

[RandomGuy]

It's a bit simplistic to suggest there are no adverse consequences for inflating our way out of the mess. Leaving currency collapse completely aside, hyperinflation kills the purchasing power of the US consumer, and China has already asked for guarantees on its Treasurys. Inflate too much, and it's the functional equivalent of default for our creditors and penury for the American people. Don't think they'll all stand idly by and just let it happen.

There's a lot of mischief foreign and domestic that we'd face if we go down this road

Yup. China has partly pegged its currency to ours, and this may finally make that too expensive for them to maintain. Not exactly a bad thing. IMO.

[DarkReign]

Oh - and I completely dispute the notion that any solutions to our current predicament are either obvious or easy.

I disagree. It is easy in the sense that the problems are obvious.

What makes it extremely difficult is the personal and professional sacrifice that is required by elected leadership in unison.

So it isnt so much the identity of our problem thats difficult, but the dearth of leadership in the face of said problem.

[RandomGuy]

The Hell, [Obama]'s already scared consumers with his Great Depression comparison. That's about as stupid as W's "go and shop" statement. Hmmph. I'm waiting for him to stop campaigning.

So you would rather the president be some sort of Polyanna?

If things really are that bad, wouldn't you rather have a president who talked to us like we were grow-ups?

Seems to me that you want a cheerleader who says things are great no matter how bad they really are.

We tried that, and things got bad anyways.

I personally would rather have someone who was at least willing to assume that I am intelligent enough to know that it isn't raining when someone is pissing on my shoes...

[DarkReign]

I personally would rather have someone who was at least willing to assume that I am intelligent enough to know that it isn't raining when someone is pissing on my shoes...

I have never heard that expression before....:lmao

Consider it stolen by me.

[Winehole23]

Lincoln never once thought about re-election before or after it was signed. He thought about the welfare of the Union and that alone.If I may, a historical quibble: if Lincoln hadn't won the election in 1864, McClellan would have made peace with the South. To be sure, McClellan was a pro-war candidate running on a peace platform, and reunion was a precondition of peace. Abolition however was not.

The Republicans slandered the Democrats as being Copperheads and traitors, patronage machines were cranked up in New York and Pennsylvania where the election turned out to be very close, and absentee returns from the Union army came in 70% for Lincoln.

While I agree in a broad way with your characterization of Lincoln's mettle and personal courage, what he did had an inextricable -- and indispensable -- political element. To wield power, you have to have it in the first place,

[DarkReign]

If I may, a historical quibble: if Lincoln hadn't won the election in 1864, McClellan would have made peace with the South. To be sure, McClellan was a pro-war candidate running on a peace platform, and reunion was a precondition of peace. Abolition however was not.

The Republicans slandered the Democrats as being Copperheads and traitors, patronage machines were cranked up in New York and Pennsylvania where the election turned out to be very close, and absentee returns from the Union army came in 70% for Lincoln.

While I agree in a broad way with your characterization of Lincoln's mettle and personal courage, what he did had an inextricable -- and indispensable -- political element. To wield power, you have to have it in the first place,

Very interesting. I appreciate the history behind my assertion.

But I dont think this particular parable pertains. You speak of pre-election fervor and tactics (dirty at that).

We sit post-election and Obama has alllllllll the political will and power he can handle right now...maybe just short of Bush Jr post 9/11.

Obama doesnt have anyone's ass to kiss right now (politician or public), theyre lips are firmly planted in his crack as we speak....for now at least. Point is, Obama has the power today, right now. What he chooses to do with it is of utmost importance.

[Winehole23]

Cycle of Democracy

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.



"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.


"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:





"From bondage to spiritual faith;



from spiritual faith to great courage;


from courage to liberty;

from liberty to abundance;

from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."


Dr. Alexander Tytler, a Scot professor, wrote a scholarly tome, from which this concept comes, called "The Athenian Republic" which was published shortly before the thirteen American colonies gained independence from Britain.
The quotation is disputed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tytler)

But it is very typical of 18th century philosophy of history after Vico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico).

The idea that history is a movement from antique heroism to modern decadence and irony was a humanistic reaction to Cartesian rationalism. The ancient element is the theory of world cycles; the modern innovation is the anti-progressive emphasis on necessary stages of development, which somewhat paradoxically, was subsequently taken up by historical materialism and other devotees of automatic progress.

The difference between mechanical decadence and mechanical progress is a matter of perspective, I guess.

Worse to get better, right?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Its like talking to a wall with some of you. The notion that Obama's statement has any measurable impact on this economic situation is pretty laughable but you provide an excellent example of the partisan bullshit being thrown around. man, people act like whatever obama says is coming from The Burning Bush, and you for one shouldn't be throwing "partisan bullshit" around. i'm surprised you aren't on his payroll. hell i compared obama's statement to bush's stupid statement. how in the hell is that partisanship?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So you would rather the president be some sort of Polyanna?

If things really are that bad, wouldn't you rather have a president who talked to us like we were grow-ups?

Seems to me that you want a cheerleader who says things are great no matter how bad they really are.

We tried that, and things got bad anyways.

I personally would rather have someone who was at least willing to assume that I am intelligent enough to know that it isn't raining when someone is pissing on my shoes...
what i want is a president that says things are going to be tough. really tough. that we're going to have to change our ways. from top to bottom. bottom to top. it's going to take some time. it's not going to be easy, but we must not let it get us down. not a president that says government is the only way out. i like dealing with black or white. no gray.

[MannyIsGod]

man, people act like whatever obama says is coming from The Burning Bush, and you for one shouldn't be throwing "partisan bullshit" around. i'm surprised you aren't on his payroll. hell i compared obama's statement to bush's stupid statement. how in the hell is that partisanship?

You're right. Partisan was the wrong choice. Retarded would have been a much better choice. Although the two words are obviously related they are not synonyms. Please accept my apology and correction.

[ChumpDumper]

what i want is a president that says things are going to be tough. really tough. that we're going to have to change our ways. from top to bottom. bottom to top. it's going to take some time. it's not going to be easy, but we must not let it get us down.That's exactly what Obama said.

He thanks you for your support.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[mogrovejo]

This point is well taken, but rather than just calling it socialism I'd stress the convergence with Europe and call it social democracy.

Intriguing. Expedience is king, so long term planning loses out to the short end payoff.

Any suggestions?

Yeah, I call it socialism here and I'm going to call it there as well, but social democracy can do.

Suggestions: The Federalist Papers have plenty of them - it's one of the best documents about this issue.

You can't have so many democratic input on the political decision making process. More delegation of power into non-elected organisms is probably the best way to go - replication institutions like the Supreme Court on other realms of the government.

Of course, things like electing the Senators and instituting primaries were bad ideas. Things like Proposition 13 terrible ones. Political parties, with all their flaws, are still a better option (or a lesser evil) than unmitigated populism and random politicians who are hostages to some pressure groups. I doubt there's anything that can still be done on that department though.

But yeah, some deepo institutional reforms are needed, I think. The Fed should have a single and clear mission: control the inflation. Monetary policy shouldn't be used as a way of "stimulating" the economy. The definition of the guide-lines of the fiscal policy should be delegated to a Fed-like institution. Guys who don't owe favours and don't need to please rent-seekers in order to be reelected should be handling these policies.

A reform that should be a priority: the appropriation process at the federal level. Federal legislators shouldn't be allowed to earmark. Earmarks are a powerful incentive to a bad legislature, it empowers those who are more worried about being re-elected and please their constituents than with fulfilling their constitutional obligations. Earmarks are generally disregarded as unimportant because it's peanuts and the money was going to be spend anyway, but the secondary effects are more powerful and dangerous than people assume. Then, make the legislature less open and reactive. Things are too easy to rent-seekers these days. Politicians are generally decent people, but they have to many incentives to misbehave.

Of course, convincing those politicians to give up political power they currently have is very probably a pipe-dream. Even more: it would require the people, the voters, to give up power they currently have.

Anyway, the cure for the ailments of democracy is less, not more, democracy.

[Winehole23]

You can't have so many democratic input on the political decision making process. More delegation of power into non-elected organisms is probably the best way to go - replication institutions like the Supreme Court on other realms of the government.More bureaucracy and technocrats. I don't think you could sell that to Americans, but maybe it could be crammed down our throats, given a bad enough emergency.


Of course, things like electing the Senators and instituting primaries were bad ideas. Things like Proposition 13 terrible ones. Political parties, with all their flaws, are still a better option (or a lesser evil) than unmitigated populism and random politicians who are hostages to some pressure groups.Appointing Senators had its own problems, and swapping open primaries for smoke filled rooms at party conventions (as you point out) is unlikely to be very appealing to most.

I assume you meant this Prop 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29). It sure does look like a mess.


But yeah, some deepo institutional reforms are needed, I think. The Fed should have a single and clear mission: control the inflation. Monetary policy shouldn't be used as a way of "stimulating" the economy.I don't think we should pay interest on our own currency, but if there must be a Federal Reserve, inflation fighting seems like the proper mission.


The definition of the guide-lines of the fiscal policy should be delegated to a Fed-like institution. Guys who don't owe favours and don't need to please rent-seekers in order to be reelected should be handling these policies.And how will we get rid of fiscal guys in bed with special interests? There's an inherent advantage to elected policymakers.

You're not a big fan of the American system, are you mogrovejo?


A reform that should be a priority: the appropriation process at the federal level. Federal legislators shouldn't be allowed to earmark. People will buy this.


Of course, convincing those politicians to give up political power they currently have is very probably a pipe-dream. Even more: it would require the people, the voters, to give up power they currently have. But this will never fly. Popular sovereignty is still pretty popular, and the self-regard of pols is legendary.


Anyway, the cure for the ailments of democracy is less, not more, democracy.Less democracy would be a cure for democracy, I guess. You'll have to package it a little differently if you want anyone else to go along with you.

It's refreshing if also a little weird to hear an anti-democratic perspective in here.

If I may ask, where do you originally hail from, mogrovejo?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm so sick of motherfuckers like AHF. This isn't a political problem, its a society and lifestyle problem. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. We have enjoyed and unnatural share of the worlds wealth in this country for a long ass time and all of these problems are merely symptoms of that condition.

The US GDP is undergoing a contraction because at the root of things, we as a society have spent more than we have and thats coming back into balance. We've been racking up a balance and now after years of GOP led deficits due to trickle down economics (trickle down works - but it doens't work as some sort of bubble where the US is seperated from the rest of the world - did any motherfuckers stop to think that those in the US aren't at the bottom of the trickle down chain?) you have to audacity to lay this at the feet of the guy who just stepped into the shit hole?

Americans want to keep their standard of living and Obama is doing the nessecary to keep that. Its a high risk situation but the fact of the matter is that tax cuts aren't going to make it happen. Someone's got to make up the GDP shortfall and its not goign to come from anything other than government spending because they are the only ones with the will and ability to make it happen.

This is not to say major changes aren't needed. You need to find a way to revamp the way we spend money as a whole in this country and if you want America to maintain a high relative standard of living then you have to make sure we're able to compete with the rest of the countries in the world which means building up an exceptional workforce. The one truth that most politicians can't share with you at the moment is that american workers are terrible when compared to the rest of the world. We have very little advantadges and cost a hell of a lot more.

LOL. Dude, you would have freaked if you had read this Wall Street Journal op-ed article that was something along hte lines of "Reaganomics vs Obamanomics".

It suggested that instead of Obama's plan, he should follow Reagan's foolproof 4-pronged plan of getting the nation out of a pickle:

1) cut taxes (el oh el)
2) deregulation (for the market's sake of course)
3) cut government spending
4) pursue an anti-inflation monetary policy

It's fucking gold....it doesn't even acknowledge the overall deficit Reagan ran up....here's a link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431484726570949.html

It's like designed for AHF's to jack off to.

BTW, the flaw in your line of thinking is that every American wishes to keep this superficial "we are the top" standard of living. I, for one, know for a fact that for my income, I live a modest lifestyle, and well within my means. Do I seriously give a fuck if less people can go to Carraba's at the end of the week? Could I give less of a shit if people can't get their video games at Best Buy? No.

I will always think the idea of solving our debt problems with more debt is a bad idea, and I firmly believe if we were not throwing this niblet into the mouths of the metaphorical wolf, the market would already be on it's way to fixing itself.

[ChumpDumper]

CBF actually brings it for a few posts in multiple threads.

:tu

[LnGrrrR]

There used to be a time...not so very long ago, where Americans were known for their dedication to "making sure our children have a better life than we did."

It was the characteristic most cherished by the WWII and Depression era generations.

This generations most cherished characteristic (demonstrated by both the GOP and Democrats...championed as of late by the Obamaistas) is "give it to me...I want it now...and FUCK our children, children's children...children's children's children...

Note the 5 fold increase in debt when you add SS and Medicare. This is the legacy of FDR. Social "entitlement" spending has been the underlying cancer that will ultimately kill the golden egg .

Anybody celebrating this "stimulus" bill...is a disgrace not only to themselves, but the generations that follow who we are leaving this debt too.

We are fucking our children's and country's future...and celebrating it.

We should be hanging our heads in shame.


"Not me baby!!...it's party time!!"

SIG

Define "THIS generation". If you're talking about the Boomers, than I agree.

[LnGrrrR]

Americans want to keep their standard of living and Obama is doing the nessecary to keep that. Its a high risk situation but the fact of the matter is that tax cuts aren't going to make it happen. Someone's got to make up the GDP shortfall and its not goign to come from anything other than government spending because they are the only ones with the will and ability to make it happen.

Man... it sucks being a Millenial.

[LnGrrrR]

You know, I am one of the first people to bust on others for the proverbial "Think of the CHILDREN!" types who need GPS on their kids and helmets when they ride bikes and such.

But this is the first time in my life I can honestly say it with a straight face. I dont even have any (nor do I want to bring them in this fucking blackhole of a world either), but what our government is and what it does is constantly at the expense of future generations.

They never once would allow the market to correct itself because that would mean loss in "standard of living", which means no votes come election time.

Theyre not leaders. Theyre politicians, lawyers with an agenda and a power trip.

What the fuck is so bad with the idea of educating Americans about necessary market corrections and conditions? Why is it so unbelievable for some to understand that we are adults and we can handle the truth.

I am not a fucking child and cannot stand it when spoken to like one, no matter who is doing the talking.

I just found out yesterday that I'm going to be a father. Thanks for reminding me what a fucked up world I'll be bringing him into... lol

[mogrovejo]

Sorry for taking so long to answer, only now I read your post.


More bureaucracy and technocrats. I don't think you could sell that to Americans, but maybe it could be crammed down our throats, given a bad enough emergency.

Non-democratic institutions are very popular among Americans: the Fed, the Supreme Court, the military... those institutions are lead by people nominated by the politicians but not directly elected by the people. Yet, people trust and like them much more than they do like, say, the Congress. There's a reason for that.



Appointing Senators had its own problems, and swapping open primaries for smoke filled rooms at party conventions (as you point out) is unlikely to be very appealing to most.
There are no perfect or optimal solutions. Imperfection is the most permanent and eternal mark of any political arrangement. The alternative is a system where politicians are hostages of interest groups and syndicates of votes. Political parties are very needed in a republic: they filter and mediate the relationship between the politicians and the voters; and protect the politicians from the venal interests of their constituencies. The Founding Fathers knew that. And the reason why the voters don't actually respect the officials they elected is precisely that one: they are forced to bend their ass too often. And how can one respect guys who always on their knees ready to lick one's feet?


I assume you meant this Prop 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29). It sure does look like a mess.

I don't think we should pay interest on our own currency, but if there must be a Federal Reserve, inflation fighting seems like the proper mission.
Agreed.



And how will we get rid of fiscal guys in bed with special interests? There's an inherent advantage to elected policymakers.
Again, there are not perfect solutions. However, those guys wouldn't be dependent on getting votes - and, most importantly, on finding financing to get votes. They'd need to have some independence from those who would nominate and, in extreme cases, fire them. A similar situation to the FED would work, I think. Then one would have to trust that those guys would have a conscience. But I think the situation would be better.


You're not a big fan of the American system, are you mogrovejo?Well, I think I am. I more or less believe that the American republic was once the most perfect political system ever created by the man. These days, not so much. I doubt I could find a better one though.



But this will never fly. Popular sovereignty is still pretty popular, and the self-regard of pols is legendary.There's nothing in what I said that affects or limits in any way, shape or form, popular sovereignty. Let's not confuse things: democracy is merely the way of selecting public servants by an electoral process. Nothing more, nothing less.


Less democracy would be a cure for democracy, I guess. You'll have to package it a little differently if you want anyone else to go along with you.I was sarcastically paraphrasing a famous quote from John Dewey : "The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy". Obviously, I think he was dramatically wrong. But that has been the route followed by the Americans since last century - more democracy, more democratic forms of democracy, like the referendums and other forms of direct democracy. Great intentions, no doubt about that, but the results haven't been pretty.



It's refreshing if also a little weird to hear an anti-democratic perspective in here. I'm not anti-democratic at all. Democracy has some great advantages. But democracy is only about picking "who" rules. In an utopian perfect political system like, say, Oakeshott "civic association", it wouldn't even matter who would rule - it's only important because presently governments do a lot more than ruling, they "manage". Anyway, democracy has lots of dangers. Limited democracy is another form of tyranny. Tyranny of the majority or, more accurately, of a vocal minority (this is even more dramatic in the case of direct democracies). So, one must find limits to democracy in order to preserve Liberty. Let's not forget that some of the most horrific totalitarisms were pretty democratic - in fact, unlimitedly democratic. Just like the Classic Greece - it was a democracy, for sure. Socrates death was decided in respect for the rules of the democracy. But would you like to live in such a world?


If I may ask, where do you originally hail from, mogrovejo?I'm from Portugal. I've been living in Spain and Italy for awhile.

[mogrovejo]

This isn't a political problem, its a society and lifestyle problem. (...)

That sentence and the following reasoning - building an exceptional workforce and stuff - is frightening - it's the basis of every totalitarian philosophy. It reminded me the texts of some sovietic and fascist officials and thinkers.

It's a political problem. People are what they are and you can't create the new man. People will always react to incentives. As long as the government is creating money out of nothing or borrowing him from future generations, people will spend it. Keep bailing out those who created fiduciary money without measuring the risks and nothing will change. That's what happened and that's what's happening again, they're trying to cure the disease with another dose of the same venom that caused it.

It's a political problem because what it's needed is a political solution: how to incentive the politicians not to behave like this, how to self-limit the tendency of the people to pressure for the adoption of policies with a short-term reward, how to help the politicians to resist to these presurres, etc.

This has nothing to do with lifestyle - it has been happening since the beginning of the civilization.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

That sentence and the following reasoning - building an exceptional workforce and stuff - is frightening - it's the basis of every totalitarian philosophy. It reminded me the texts of some sovietic and fascist officials and thinkers.

It's a political problem. People are what they are and you can't create the new man. People will always react to incentives. As long as the government is creating money out of nothing or borrowing him from future generations, people will spend it. Keep bailing out those who created fiduciary money without measuring the risks and nothing will change. That's what happened and that's what's happening again, they're trying to cure the disease with another dose of the same venom that caused it.

It's a political problem because what it's needed is a political solution: how to incentive the politicians not to behave like this, how to self-limit the tendency of the people to pressure for the adoption of policies with a short-term reward, how to help the politicians to resist to these presurres, etc.

This has nothing to do with lifestyle - it has been happening since the beginning of the civilization.


Good post. I forget where I read it, but they did a study asking people across different demographics and countries about their spending/saving/investing habits if all the money in the world were taken and split evenly among all the people in the world.

The study concluded that within a year's time all the money would be right back to where it is today.

That touches on the lifestyle side of the problem, but the bottom line is we are where we are because politicians have increasingly spent our money on programs, 'rebates', and handouts not for the greater good of our country but to keep themselves elected and getting their handouts from lobbyists and special interests.

We need D.C. to get away from spending our money to keep themselves in power and back to a strict constitutional spending program - nothing not enumerated directly in the Constitution is funded by taxpayer money.

[Marcus Bryant]

IMO the most important thing to do is to level with the banks and the American people about default. Good god, we've spent 2 trillion so far on the financial sector and we don't control any of it yet? Fucking nationalize already. Quit throwing money down the toilet.

That seems to be where we're at. A number of banks relied on commercial MBS to invest their capital and the meltdown in commercial property has lagged residential, but it's coming.



I'm in favor of receivership for insolvent banks, 86'ing Fair Value Accounting and Basel II capital rules and hefty payroll tax abatement for starters. Saying that stimulus is the only option is simplistic. I understand that doing nothing isn't an option for politicians, so I can't really join you in applauding a forced move that may wreck our bottom line, our currency and may not even avert deflation.

If you grant this possibility, the door is open for consideration of the chance that deflation is not a greater disaster than the course we're currently on.

Indeed. Otherwise we're just hoping the fire is put out and someone down the line has to deal with it.



The US economy contracted from 1930-1934. My grandparents survived. What makes you think we wouldn't?

Deflation destroys bad debt and malinvestment, allows price discovery, consolidates productivity and strengthens the currency. I'm not saying it isn't very very painful, and not a little bit risky, but there's historical evidence it's survivable, and it does have a silver lining.

Right, but that is not acceptable in a society in which having to cut back your latte consumption from 5 to 4 a week would be viewed as a 'sacrifice'. Americans today have had it too good for too long, and have gone in hock to maintain that, since the Chinese have been so willing to buy our debt to maintain the present trade pattern.



What goes up must come down. The idea that the government can prevent the business cycle from following its own due course is historically not well founded. In fact, it's a big part of how we got into this mess. If Greenspan hadn't lowered interest rates so dramatically in 2001 there might not have been such a destructive debt bubble.

True. This latest bubble (surprise, surprise) leads back to the Fed. The Fed seems to have two policy prescriptions: easy money and even easier money. The point of having a central bank is ultimately to provide stability, which, of course, means at some point not fueling a boom once it takes off (or removing the punch bowl from the room just as the party gets started - whatever that famous quote about the Fed's true role). Naturally the one part of the financial markets where the Federal government not just has a heavy influence, but it actually owns it - it screws up.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but this is a representative democratic republic and at some point, the people need to look themselves in a mirror and realize they are the ones to blame. Stop expecting the federal government to be Santa Claus. Stop buying beyond your means. Stop expecting something for nothing. Try deferred gratification once in a while. This attitude has poisoned our politics, business and our society at large.

Yes, our forebears lived through it and found a way.

Unfortunately the result of this crisis will be a set up for an even greater catastrophe to come our way. There's no way we aren't going to continue to hit the easy money button until we get out of this mess.

[LnGrrrR]

The GOP has controlled the govt. for exactly SIX of the past SIXTY years - and yet you lay this at their feet???

Sucker.

Uhmm care to define 'government' there? You know it's made up of more than one part, right? Just checking.

[LnGrrrR]

Fuck that. You seem to think that power eliminates culture. You're wrong.

Winehole23, haven't you noticed the defining aspect of conservatives nowadays? It's fear.

OMG! Mexicans are going to ruin our nation!

OMG! Terrorists are coming in the middle of the night to kill you!

OMG! Liberals are trying to take your money!

OMG! Heathens are trying to ban teaching creationism in our schools!

Etc etc.

Don't get me wrong... the left has a good amount of doomsayers along the global warming front as well. But it's not the overriding factor that it is for so many conservatives.

[Marcus Bryant]

eh, that cuts both ways. Both sides use fear. The scary ones are the ones who believe their side doesn't do it as much as the other.

[MannyIsGod]

MB, solid posts in this thread.

[Winehole23]

Sorry for taking so long to answer, only now I read your post. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, mogrovejo.


Non-democratic institutions are very popular among Americans: the Fed, the Supreme Court, the military... those institutions are lead by people nominated by the politicians but not directly elected by the people. Yet, people trust and like them much more than they do like, say, the Congress. There's a reason for that. This is a good point, but the reasons for the 17th Amendment included inefficiency and the public perception of venality and clubbiness.


Well, I think I am. I more or less believe that the American republic was once the most perfect political system ever created by the man. These days, not so much. I doubt I could find a better one though. Thanks for the clarification. My own political preference is fairly similar, I think.

You do realize we're dinosaurs, right? Pining for the restoration of the first 100 years of the US republic is a worthy philosophical position but it is an antique and a conversation piece more than a viable ideology. The liberalism of the 18th century is way too conservative even for most so-called conservatives, and there's no way to put the welfare state back in the box absent some kind of radical, precipitating event IMO. At least, not without a great deal of social pain.


There's nothing in what I said that affects or limits in any way, shape or form, popular sovereignty. Let's not confuse things: democracy is merely the way of selecting public servants by an electoral process. Nothing more, nothing less. And you have the hard-assed republican take on it. I respect that. I also resemble it slightly.


I was sarcastically paraphrasing a famous quote from John Dewey : "The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy". Obviously, I think he was dramatically wrong. But that has been the route followed by the Americans since last century - more democracy, more democratic forms of democracy, like the referendums and other forms of direct democracy. Great intentions, no doubt about that, but the results haven't been pretty.Agreed. By and large the referendum system allows special interests to capitalize on transient populist moods with horrible results for government, like Prop 13 in California.


I'm not anti-democratic at all. Democracy has some great advantages. But democracy is only about picking "who" rules. In an utopian perfect political system like, say, Oakeshott "civic association", it wouldn't even matter who would rule - it's only important because presently governments do a lot more than ruling, they "manage".The New Deal turned our erstwhile republic into a technocratic/theraputic manager of everyday life. It may have been socially warranted, but the political consequences were decisive for republicanism IMO.


Anyway, democracy has lots of dangers. Limited democracy is another form of tyranny. Tyranny of the majority or, more accurately, of a vocal minority (this is even more dramatic in the case of direct democracies). So, one must find limits to democracy in order to preserve Liberty.This topic is hard for Americans b/c "democracy" ever since Woodrow Wilson has been an icon of the civil worship. The distinctively American aversion to history further enables the idolatry, to the point that off the rack US constitutional republicanism looks spooky, radical and anti-democratic in the demagogical sense.

Our own putative form of government has been defamiliarized by 75 years of continuous technocratic management.


Let's not forget that some of the most horrific totalitarisms were pretty democratic - in fact, unlimitedly democratic. Just like the Classic Greece - it was a democracy, for sure. Socrates death was decided in respect for the rules of the democracy. But would you like to live in such a world?Probably not. But I don't revere democracy unlimitedly either.


I'm from Portugal. I've been living in Spain and Italy for awhile.Thanks for your candor and your in detail reply. Much appreciated

[DarrinS]

I'm so sick of motherfuckers like AHF. This isn't a political problem, its a society and lifestyle problem. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. We have enjoyed and unnatural share of the worlds wealth in this country for a long ass time and all of these problems are merely symptoms of that condition.



An unnatural share of the worlds weath?


Damn, Manny, how anti-American are you?

[DarrinS]

How much is our natural share?

[Winehole23]

An unnatural share of the worlds weath?


Damn, Manny, how anti-American are you?Unnatural may not have been the best word choice, but the staggering current account deficit must come back into balance for there to be any sustainable recovery. The statue quo ante led us to where we are now and IMO can't-- and shouldn't -- be restored.

The gripe that we've been living beyond our means is obvious and it has already had disastrous macroeconomic results. IMO your dispute with Manny is semantic and a bit captious. You're catching at words instead of acknowledging the underlying condition to which Manny was referring.

[DarrinS]

The gripe that we've been living beyond our means is obvious and it has already had disastrous macroeconomic results.


Yes, many of us do live beyond are means and it has had a negative impact on the economy.

But having a very high standard of living should be our goal and we shouldn't feel guilty about it.

[Winehole23]

But having a very high standard of living should be our goal and we shouldn't feel guilty about it.I agree with you, with the stipulation that that a return to the previous status quo would be unhealthy. The economic pattern of the last 17 tears isn't sustainable. In the short run, this necessarily means a regression in the US standard of living. In the medium to long term our debt load, monetary policy and entitlements will conduce to the same effect.

In relative terms our standard of living will still be very high, but the idea that pre-panic levels of affluence can be restored is panglossian IMO.

[Marcus Bryant]

You do realize we're dinosaurs, right? Pining for the restoration of the first 100 years of the US republic is a worthy philosophical position but it is an antique and a conversation piece more than a viable ideology. The liberalism of the 18th century is way too conservative even for most so-called conservatives, and there's no way to put the welfare state back in the box absent some kind of radical, precipitating event IMO. At least, not without a great deal of social pain.

Exactly. Conservatism and "Liberalism" these days are nothing more than two different flavors of one's views on the relation of the state and the tone of the state in regard to certain social matters (yes, the hot button ones such as abortion, homosexual marriage, etc). Do you want more of an urban secular or a rural/suburban religious feel to the federal government? Yes, there will be some policy differences, but by and large the role of the state in American life today has been established. That's why the allegedly arch-conservative Bush pushed through the largest expansion in an entitlement program since the 1960s.

Yes, classical liberalism was quite radical. Perhaps humans can never go along with such a framework because there is too great an interest in telling other people how to live. Of course not to mention the inability of politicians with less than superhuman morals to resist being bought off.

[Winehole23]

Winehole23, haven't you noticed the defining aspect of conservatives nowadays? It's fear.

Don't get me wrong... the left has a good amount of doomsayers along the global warming front as well. But it's not the overriding factor that it is for so many conservatives.True, with the proviso that demagoguery isn't proprietary. It accentuates and "sells" the real crisis that will provide the Obama administration with opportunities for dramatic changes in policy, so expect to see more fear from the Dems. For Obama, our economic fracaso is the functional equivalent of 9/11, though IMO the dangers it poses the country are far greater.

Fear, misinformation and fake outrage is about 90% of retail politics. I don't really see that changing. It works too well.