Quote:The difference is Bush started with a surplus left from Clinton and Obama started with a deficit higher than a trillion per year from Bush.
Clinton has been the best with the budget of any president since Carter, eek, but he didn't leave Bush with a surplus. His last year was like a 150 billion dollar deficit.
Quote:Clinton has been the best with the budget of any president since Carter, eek, but he didn't leave Bush with a surplus. His last year was like a 150 billion dollar deficit.
No, Clinton ran an actual revenue/outlay surplus.
See pg XIII
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...utlook.pdf
Quote:So, what, are you expecting that the economy doesn't grow at all over the next 30 years?
Certainly not 500 billion dollars per year worth in the next 5 years. And we're still assuming we abolish the entire military... and no disasters occur.
Quote:Certainly not 500 billion dollars per year worth in the next 5 years. And we're still assuming we abolish the entire military... and no disasters occur.
I didn't say abolish the military, I said if you think there's more cutting to be done there's a lot of pork in that piece of the pie.
Disasters are going to happen, they've been happening. The key is to stop the insanity of believing that income tax rates have to be historically low in order for the economy to function.
I've always found those advocating higher income taxes usually are not paying income tax. Funny how that works.
Quote:I didn't say abolish the military, I said if you think there's more cutting to be done there's a lot of pork in that piece of the pie.
Disasters are going to happen, they've been happening. The key is to stop the insanity of believing that income tax rates have to be historically low in order for the economy to function.
I was just going with abolition to give you the full 500 billion. If you don't abolish the military then you also have to come up with whatever you leave over... So... 750 billion total from between the couch cushions?
The economy is broken. At this point there isn't anything that will fix it within the next 50 years if things are done right. Lowering the tax rates and reducing regulations will stimulate the economy, but we won't see the economy correct itself within our lifetimes.
Of course we could just accelerate the crash of the dollar and bite the bullet now - which seems so be the plan with QE. The scary part is the possibility of coming out a socialist country on the other side. It took 1 step towards socialism to get us out of the Great Depression, and the 2nd step may be the collapse of the dollar.
Quote:http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Yes, I know about the SS/Medicare thing. The actual inlays were higher than the outlays, but some of the inlays were due to the SS fun being invested in government bonds. We can argue about the legitimacy of that and using the SS fund to buy bonds and whether that's actual governmental income.
I do agree with the sentiment that it's better to just raise taxes rather than counting on selling intergovernmental bonds.
Of course the major takeaway of Clinton's legacy is RAISE TAXES. It doesn't stop the economy from growing and it stops the national debt from infinitely growing.
Quote:I was just going with abolition to give you the full 500 billion. If you don't abolish the military then you also have to come up with whatever you leave over... So... 750 billion total from between the couch cushions?
The economy is broken. At this point there isn't anything that will fix it within the next 50 years if things are done right. Lowering the tax rates and reducing regulations will stimulate the economy, but we won't see the economy correct itself within our lifetimes.
Of course we could just accelerate the crash of the dollar and bite the bullet now - which seems so be the plan with QE. The scary part is the possibility of coming out a socialist country on the other side. It took 1 step towards socialism to get us out of the Great Depression, and the 2nd step may be the collapse of the dollar.
If you're so afraid of what comes from running the nation the way republicans want the country run then why don't you vote for the party of moderates, the democrats?
Quote:If you're so afraid of what comes from running the nation the way republicans want the country run then why don't you vote for the party of moderates, the democrats?
I'm afraid of what comes with the way the country is run by establishment GOP and DNC candidates. I used to be a Democrat until I saw how increasingly progressive the party was becoming. Currently there are 0 democrats that I would support and maybe 3 or 4 republicans, Rand Paul being the only mainstream one, that I would give at least consideration to voting for. That's why I voted neither last election. Two absolutely terrible candidates. Clinton was the last decent moderate president I somewhat liked, and there's a lot that I don't like about him. I would rather vote for Chancellor Palpatine than Hilary in 2016. How someone can get away with manslaughter, essentially twice, without jail time and be a presidential candidate, I will never know.
I figured this topic would bring about discussion. I have only browsed some of the comments briefly, and I think I have a good idea of where certain people stand and what they think.
First topic to address, "income inequality" and minimum wage.
In my opinion, in a free market, there should be NO minimum wage. Take the instance of a small business that needs labor to do a certain task. Suppose the task is simple enough that that someone with no prior experience could be trained to do the task in a small amount of time, say within 30 minutes. That particular job should pay a low amount, plain and simple. The company that hires the individual should not be forced to pay any more than the task is worth. Say the owner of the company determines that the individual would be compensated at $10 per hour. What kind of labor can the business owner expect? Would the person hired for the position be reliable? Dependable? Do the task to the best of their ability and make the company money? If the answer is "yes" then the employer has the option to give the person a raise and reward them. If the answer is "no" then the employer has the option to let the person go and find somebody that is up to the task.
If the company goes through the "no" scenario a number of times, then the owner would probably explore the option of raising the starting wage and scrutinize potential employees a bit more. Again, we are talking about a position that requires little skill and/or little education. It should be up to the company owner to determine how much the position is worth.
I see it daily in my line of work. Our company hires people with little education and/or skills and trains them to do certain tasks. I just watched one particular female that did the task and more so well that she got a promotion. I will not discuss actual compensation figures, but she got a significant increase in her hourly rate, plus she has the opportunity to work over-time if she wants, and gladly accepts it. This particular girl is going to go places with that kind of work ethic.
Contrast that with the people that we see on TV that state that they have been "working at X fast food restaurant for 10 years without a raise". I've worked in the fast food industry, and if you don't get some kind of raise within 3-6 months, then the problem is you.
The bottom line is, a company should NEVER be forced to pay a wage higher than the value of the position. The value of the position should be determined by the owner of the business, not the government. That's why they call it an "entry level" position. It's to get your foot in the door, or the "first rung on the ladder" to move up within the company.
This quite truthfully might be my favorite thread ever. Reading through this thread has been very much entertaining and I've learned a good deal along the way. Keep it up I'm enjoying this.
Quote:This quite truthfully might be my favorite thread ever. Reading through this thread has been very much entertaining and I've learned a good deal along the way. Keep it up I'm enjoying this.
Unfortunately I feel the total opposite.
In a few other threads people have mentioned the theory that politicians use certain subjects/issues as cover for their own incompetence, but this thread and the politics section in general just proves to me that they don't need to use little issues, they already have us exactly where they want us, falling hook line and sinker for this left vs right crap and fighting amongst ourselves like bald men fighting over a hair brush while they bend us over and do the nasty to us.
Far too many people identify themselves as one thing or another, then try and shout loudest and sling most mud to win arguments about the most irrelevant of things.
Quote:Unfortunately I feel the total opposite.
In a few other threads people have mentioned the theory that politicians use certain subjects/issues as cover for their own incompetence, but this thread and the politics section in general just proves to me that they don't need to use little issues, they already have us exactly where they want us, falling hook line and sinker for this left vs right crap and fighting amongst ourselves like bald men fighting over a hair brush while they bend us over and do the nasty to us.
Far too many people identify themselves as one thing or another, then try and shout loudest and sling most mud to win arguments about the most irrelevant of things.
Can you be specific? I've enjoyed this thread and talking with oklahomie we have different opions on what would stimulate the economy and how to approach the debt but I don't recall mud slinging?
Quote:I didn't say abolish the military, I said if you think there's more cutting to be done there's a lot of pork in that piece of the pie.
Disasters are going to happen, they've been happening. The key is to stop the insanity of believing that income tax rates have to be historically low in order for the economy to function.
Tax rates can be historically high and the economy succeed as long as the rest of the free world is in rubble. The 50s proved that. But when you have global competition and numerous first-world economies to compete against then it's a totally different story to attract and retain core industries. But Americans like their cheap [BLEEP] from Wal-Mart, to the point that no one here will make the money to afford anything else.
Quote:If you're so afraid of what comes from running the nation the way republicans want the country run then why don't you vote for the party of moderates, the democrats?
I wonder if you typed that with a straight face or if you're really just a masterful troll. Probably a bit of both.
Quote:Tax rates can be historically high and the economy succeed as long as the rest of the free world is in rubble. The 50s proved that. But when you have global competition and numerous first-world economies to compete against then it's a totally different story to attract and retain core industries.
Multiple European nations have proven you don't need to race to the bottom in order to "succeed".
The real keys to national wealth are high tax rates, high social welfare spending, especially at the collegiate level, and worker representation.
The last one is really key. A good example of this is Germany, where any corporation with 500 or more people must have 50% labor/union representation in its corporate board.
They are successful because executives don't just issue edict from up on high, they actually have to work with the people that compose their company, and that keeps the ship righted.
Quote:I wonder if you typed that with a straight face or if you're really just a masterful troll. Probably a bit of both.
There's been no trolling in this thread.
The democratic party currently occupies political spectrum similar to Ronnie Raygun of 30+ years ago.
If you want more and more right-wing push then keep voting republican, but if you want a return to moderate politics the only mainstream party choice right now is the democratic party.
All of the talk earlier about inflation got me thinking. Using a few real world measures I wanted to see what the actual rate was.
First I checked gasoline, but depending on when you take your measurements you can get some vastly different stats. For example, if we use early 2004 until current day (about 10 years) we get about 4.5% inflation on the cost of gas over that time, but if we choose early 2005, the rate comes out under 3%, as there was a massive gas price spike in late 2004. Going by only the last few years the price has actually deflated slightly since 2011, but if you choose mid 2009 as your baseline (massive price trough) then it looks like there has been massive inflation on the level of 10% or so.
Going with something more durable, the MSRP of a Honda civic from 2004 to 2014 inflation comes in at about 3.3%.
The inflation on a bushel of wheat is about 6% over the last 10 years, of course most of the inflation in that occurred during Bush's time in office and the price has been much more flat over the last few years of Obama's administration.
If you're curious about how to find these numbers yourself the formula is pretty simple, inflation = ln(current price/starting price)/time period, and you can look up the values of these items and commodities on the internet.
Quote:There's been no trolling in this thread.
The democratic party currently occupies political spectrum similar to Ronnie Raygun of 30+ years ago.
If you want more and more right-wing push then keep voting republican, but if you want a return to moderate politics the only mainstream party choice right now is the democratic party.
Wow, so the Democratic party is liberal, moderate, AND conservative! This sounds like the party for me! Tell me more!