http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...0?pagenumber=1
Printable View
Good read.
So true. Especially the last part.Quote:
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."
no it is time the president has balls and tells other countries the usa forgave debts
so they need to forgive our debts or else we will drop a nuke on them
then balance the budget
if you and I ran our budget like the gov
we will file for bankrapcy every year!
It's pretty telling that the one literal retard on the site is of course a hardcore, tea bagging, republican.
I am pretty sure, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that the by far largest holders of US debt continues to be the American people. Required forgivement essentially becomes a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY high new tax rate on a portion of the population. Plus, I don't think that America's inhabitants would be very appreciative of America dropping nukes on America.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
the usa quits giving money to other nations for national disasters and put that money on the debt would help
Or we just quit gathering thousands of people together to cry socialism over the threat of 3% tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.
At this point, how about both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Seems to me, linking the op-ed piece from Mr. Stockman would have been more productive and concise than having it filtered through the obvious bias of this marketwatch windbag.
How this qualifies as journalism is beyond me. He takes another man's op-ed piece and shoehorns into his intended outcome.
Stockman seems downright communist today. Go figure.
Did you mean to put up stockmans article or farrell?
what I got out of farrell's article is that the republicans used to be better than the dem's politicizing and spending.
So Parker, you think we shouldn't have gotten off the gold standard?
This is the Stockman oped:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...1stockman.html
I'm not one of the wealthiest, and I expect to see that increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Why are you lying?
I think he was quoting the Stockman op-ed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.
Considering the rate for the wealthiest among tax payers will change from 35% to 39.6%, that too, is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Well, now you're arguing with Stockman. Ultimately, the message he wants to pass has nothing to do with the percentage point figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not a big fan of op-eds, but I would recommend reading this one.
I'm not either. And I expect an increase too. I welcome it. And refute the notion that it equates to socialism. It equates to patriotism and common sense and taxation's historical standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The gold standard is bullshit. total farce. scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Dont you ever watch the videos I post about the Wizard of Oz?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ghlight=wizard
The gold standard is a joke... it's almost prehistoric at this point.
Ron Paul was right about the Iraq War when he stood up against it in 2003, but he's just a one hit wonder. One that even republicans ignore.
i still want to see the person convince people cutting taxes for all while still spending will benefit the budget.
:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Maybe Stockman, like Greenspan, actually sees what a fuckjob his govt service contributed to America's decline, and the deep, long-term pain to Americans.
They are both tools of the disastrous Movement Conservatism class war, where the sacred "free market" solves all problems, always give best possible outcomes, that deregulation is wonderful, that tax cuts pay for themselves, and the lie "government is the problem".
No mention of housing bubble in those articles?
Go figure.
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Darrin didn't read the article?
Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
My bad, I specifically searched for "housing bubble".
Do you think the GSEs, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, contributed to the housing bubble?
I think they played a part. How big of a part is debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That said, it's unrelated to what Stockman's main criticism is.
When you really think about it, we need another round of stimulus for American made automobiles & motorcycles purchases….In CA there is a 9.75% sales tax plus DMV fees for new car & motorcycle purchases….What is needed is more taxation from states like Texas & Florida to help off set the cost of new vehicles purchases for states like California…This will get the economy moving…
We also have a serious problem with state workers pensions…Our teachers, fireman, policeman, city counsel workers are entitle to a retirement pension after just 20 years service…Most of them immediately go to work in the same field & collect a second pension…The politicians are able to collect three pensions for lateral moves…Now California is broke…
We need to raise taxes in states like Texas who have been fiscally conservative to bail us Californians out…We are all in this together folks…There is no Democrat or Republican when it comes to financial shortfalls…
I tend to agree with Stockman but IMHO Democrats and Republicans share the blame equally and will share the pain equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportcamper
You can't be serious.
That would be the one criticism of Stockman's piece that is more than fair. It's not all on the republicans. The democrats have been willing accomplices to the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
These days you don't get printed unless you're taking one side or the other. "Our politicians destroyed the economy" doesn't get published... certainly doesn't inspire a lot of talk radio or blog discussion.
Also true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I will tell you how serious I am…I was recently in contact with my local Ford dealer regarding a new car purchase…The dealer did their part & offered me a fair trade in on my old car…Ford did their part & offered $3,500 in Ford dollars for taking delivery of a 2010 vehicle on dealer lot…My employer did their part & got me on the Ford x-plan pricing, which gave me an additional discount…Then I ran the numbers by my tax accountant who informed me that I would not be able to write off the $3,500 dollars in sales tax & DMV fees because that program expired in 2009…
This is B.S. & a deal breaker…I am entitled to write off the tax & DMV fees for the purchase of an American car…Until this stimulus program is re activated I will not purchase a new vehicle…States that don’t have these exorbitant fees should be required to subsidize states that do…It is only fair, we are all in this together…
Just like for the lies told and pushed hard for by Repugs/neo-c*nts in the run up to the Iraq war-for-oil, the Dems were at best passive, and finally accomplices in that crime (Magic Negro notably excepted).
If the Repugs hadn't pushed for the Iraq invasion (or if Gore had won), there wouldn't have been $3T and 1000s of lives wasted in Iraq.
Same with tax-cutting for the wealthy and deregulation/non-enforcment of just about everything. VRWC/Movement Conservatives/Repugs have been pushing their "govt-is-the -problem, strangle-it" strategy for 35 years. The Dems bought the Repub bullshit, but the Repugs created the bullshit. No Repugs, then no bullshit to buy.
If banks and non-bank lenders hadn't WILLFULLY (stick that CRA lie up your asses) written bad loans, then F&F/taxpayers wouldn't now be on the hook for having bought that toxic crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportcamper
mmmm...maybe states that have these "exorbitant" fees should drop em?
Croutons, It cracks me up how you constantly absolve F&F of any guilt.
THEY are the ones that wrote the lending guidelines. When you tell mortgage brokers you don't require proof of income to make loans then thats's the guidelines they follow.
Teysha, he's trolling you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I don't think he's removing blame from the Democrats. As a Republican who thinks his party is better, he's just calling out the contemporary version of it for being no different than Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...e/trek_hmm.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I thought Texas being 'fiscally conservative' was kind of a myth? I mean, I'm sure they do better than Cali (who doesn't?), but they received more federal aid than almost any other state during Bush Jr's presidency and I believe they still have a budget deficit?
As usual, the fact that you believe it doesn't make it true. Texas was in the bottom half.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Fiscal conservatism waxes and wanes here in Texas. In the end, we have a largely clueless legislature that often mimics the nonsense in DC.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
My Ford story is 100% true...I will not be buyig a new car this year due to the fact that I can't write off sales tax & DMV fees...
Buy in Oregon. 0 sales tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportcamper
If you look at it per capita. Looking at actual amount disbursed by the federal government, Texas ranked consistently 3rd behind California and New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Numbers don't lie: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fas.html
i just got through looking at the exact same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Your missing his point entirely. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
He's not saying Dems are not to blame.
He's saying the Republicans had the right philosophy with fiscal conservatism, and the application of true fiscal restraint...which only they would have done...was the prescription for our economy. And Repubs instead decided to join in the free for all with everyone else.
They sold out thier constituents and the country by reducing their principles to lip service and turning their backs on party principles.
His main point is: Repubs alone carried the antidote, and they refused to use it. And now its too late.
CC lies when he can't win an argument with the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Well, he's not lying. He's just using a different metric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Ummm...take a look at figure 5of 2008. Doesn't look like Texas even sniffs the top half.??Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What am I missing here?
Again, that's per-capita. Amount / population.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
If you look at Table 1 (actual amounts):
California: $53,818,106
New York: $44,453,782
Texas: $30,579,994
You are such a knee jerk fool. How is comparing California to Rhode Island even remotely relevant if you don't use PER CAPITA numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Here are the RELEVANT rankings.
http://www.nemw.org/images/fedspend2rank.pdf
Just admit your claim that Bush favored Texas was a MASSIVE fail and move on.
I think if you're going to measure something that is awarded to individual citizens, then the number of citizens becomes very germane to the total. Per Capita is the fairest way to measure this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Texas does rank #2 in population, after all.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...ks/rank01.html
And again, Parker proves he is an absolute fucking idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
But it isn't awarded to individual citizens. It's awarded to the state in order to distribute to citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Wrong again. Federal dollars are distributed in a multitude of ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I stand by the statement. I was speaking in general terms. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Exactly. If a state has 21 million citizens, it's likely to get more aid than a state with 2 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
If you are going to compare amounts of aid to states, you have to take into account the population of those states since they are, ultimately, the recipient of that aid in one form or another.
Bottom line, There was no favoritism to Texas by Bush as was falsely claimed.
On the other hand, Obama shutting down NASA in Houston was clearly to spite Texas.
But we're not talking about Federal dollars in general, are we? We're talking about State aid specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
lol
Do you think there might be some correlation to the number of citizens a state has and the amount awarded to the state?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I understand how aid is calculated. It doesn't take away that Texas is the 3rd most money getter from federal aid in the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Of course there is. Did I claim otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Uh, yes we are talking about Federal dollars. The census data you are using specifically states that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I didn't claim favoritism. Quote please.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I merely said that Texas was among the states that received the most aid during the Bush Jr presidency. That's factually correct.
I'm not absolving F&F.
I'm pointing out that the Repugs, inveterate liars and obfuscators, are shifting ALL the blame to F&F and the Dems, pushing F&F out front as the primary force behind the housing bubble.
"wrote the lending guidelines"
guidelines aren't laws and regulations.
As we are finding now, the govt can't force the banks to do anything, like write shitty mortgages to poor blacks in red-line areas, or re-write mortgages to save homes, or do whatever the fuck CRA wants them to do.
all the lenders were in a lending frenzy, with regulated banks even creating non-regulated subsidiaries to get their own sharks into the bloodied water.
F&F certainly tried to compete in that frenzy, and also bought a lot of toxic shit from lenders that criminally wrote the shitty, predatory, exploding mortgages and then dumped the mortgages on F&F. No shitty mortgages, then no shit for F&F to buy.
Sure we're talking about Federal dollars, but circumscribed to State aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Do you see the stimulus checks individuals received in that census data?
The money that came into Texas was never so easily tracked... the money that came into Texas during the Bush admin came through contracts with the govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
http://www.governmentcontractswon.co...s_counties.asp
Because it's the 2nd most populous state in the country!Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
BTW, you've got to look at those table headings closely. Those rankings are for classes of programs such as Defense, Agriculture, HUD...etc. There isn't a composite table of all aid with totals.
They are also the second largest in population. And this is relevant why?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Just admit you got caught using flaky logic/data trying to prove a point that clearly wasn't true and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You need to look at those tables closer if you don't see the total. I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
After running through that list of states I dont see anyone else touching Texas' earnings. Correct me if Im wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
No, the data is not that granular. But it doesn't matter in the end analysis. Every taxpayer was eligible for a stimulus check. Wouldn't the state with one of the largest populations recieve the most stimulus checks?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Don't you see that the correlation between population and aid is incredibly strong...hell it almost approaches unity.
I already posted the categorical breakdown asswipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
http://www.nemw.org/images/fedspend2rank.pdf
Yes it is. It's also factually correct that Texas is among the states receiving the most money during the Obama presidency. So now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Cite a table with the composite totals then. I don't see one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
It is relevant because the money goes to the state treasury, not individual citizen's pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Just admit that Texas was a top 3 federal money getter during the Bush Jr years and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Now we can say that your claim that Texas was in the bottom-half was actually inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Just admit that the reason Texas was a top 3 federal money getter was directly relative to it's ranking as the #2 pop. state in the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
EPIC FAIL
No, it was just as "Factually" correct as your statement. Texas was in the bottom-half, per capita, of received funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The link I posted was specific to defense indutry. Texas sits atop tha list in earnings, even though it didnt have as many contractors as some other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
He didn't say per-capita.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Isn't that what matters?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Christ, Texas is the second most populous state!
I don't thin one party ruined the economy. Any argument with that premise is almost certainly wrong.
I will say this, the GOP needs to acknowledge tax increases are necessary to get us out from underneath the debt we have. If they will not acknowledge that then they obviously are not serious about solving it as a problem.
You didn't say composite totals either. Both are implied. That's why you have to agree on a metric before you get into a pissing match.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You guys are almost admitting that every state is on the take nearly equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
That makes this measurement all but useless.
Page 1 for 2008. Very first column.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Agreed. If there was a single fiscal conservative among them, it would go much easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
You could say the same about Democrats and spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The list I posted was ALL Federal procurement contracts which is the relevant number to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Texas is 2nd in size, 2nd in population and 6th in Federal Procurement.
Why is this an issue with you?
Sure. But those checks didn't go to the state. They were issued by the IRS directly to individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Did I ever say that there was no correlation?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I agree with Manny on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I think there are Democrats who are willing to cut spending and raise tax rates but I'm not so sure any member of the GOP is willing to raise taxes at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
Now, that being said, I completely agree that Democrats will need to find ways to cut spending.