patrick.net

curious2 says

Government spending has unrivaled ability to waste huge amounts of money, literally thousands of times more than Webvan

while I agree with most of what you wrote, waste is a tricky word. I think the main problem here is that we don't really have an economy of scarcity.

We have a fake economy of scarcity -- productivity has doubled since 1960 IIRC, anyway:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cD1

is per-capita real GDP. This is double the wealth output of 1970. Thing is, we have a distribution problem, too much of this surplus is either going off to money heaven overseas or being siphoned off by rent-seekers here at home.

Housing is a massive rent-suck. Health care, $5000 per capita of economic rents, easily (Israel's socialistic system provides service for $6000 less than ours).

Prosperity is only limited by hard -- physical -- wealth consumption. Stuff we have to dig up and burn, or throw away and not recycle. We actually don't consume all that much hard wealth each day!

The problem is our structure, and how much attritive rents pull hundreds if not thousands of dollars out of everyone's pockets each month.

This is what the 99% movement was on about, but few of them could figure it out.

Btw, government waste is epic.

Must be some reason the division I work in lost 20% of its staff over the last 4 years, yet has increased output.

I know we're not supposed to call names here, but the situation warrants it.

If you truly beleive the local, state, and Fedeal governments in the US are not wasteful, you're an idiot.

dodgerfanjohn says

If you truly beleive the local, state, and Fedeal governments in the US are not wasteful, you're an idiot.

I only see waste where hard wealth, or existing capital, is lost.

People need jobs. Problem is the 1% have all the money now and are only willing to lend it back to the 99%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDODNS

"It's the money, stupid" : )

Bellingham Bill says

We did in fact throw ~$1T of wealth into a hole in the ground, 2003-2010.

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

Agree, that and much more as curious points out. Cuts need to be made everywhere, and that would include the the military sector and stop going into useless and unconstitutional wars. We may be able to learn from the nordic countries, but their population is far more homogenous, smaller, and some do have natural riches like norway has a boatload of oil - so it is very hard to compare them to the US.

mell says

and some do have natural riches like norway has a boatload of oil - so it is very hard to compare them to the US

their per-capita oil wealth is nice, 170 bbl/yr per capita while we're at 9.

170 bbl at $100/bbl is a $17,000/capita hard-wealth tailwind (gross) for their economy.

We do own the most productive part of a pretty big continent so we can close the gap in other production. We have $430B in gross farm income, that's $1400/capita.

We're doing good with natgas, with 24 tcf of production. At $5 per mcf, that's, hmm, $120B, only $400 per capita, not as much as I was expecting, LOL.

But we produce $1.7T of value via our manufacturing sector, that's another $5000 per capita. (We *do* need to expand this, LOL, it makes no sense to have millions of people sitting around doing nothing when our trade deficit with China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico is so high).

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html

Plus if we ever monetize our insolation:

we'll be doing a lot better, energy-wise, exporting (or further productizing) our fossil fuel wealth instead of just turning it into carbon.

The background point with all of the above is, though, we need to zero out our trade deficit. That's sucking $600B/yr of money out of our economy (and I think it's no accident that the Fed is adding just about that much via QE3).

I agree with the points about smaller, more homogenous and socially integrated nations. Never hurts. My point of analysis with all of this is that we can easily produce more wealth than we consume, and I think we are, but the problem is the wealth creators here are only seeing or keeping a fraction of their value-add, so much of our labor is being captured by the corporations that employ us ($1.6T after-tax profits) and/or extorted from us via multi-thousand dollar per-capita rents in real estate and health care.

>Cuts need to be made everywhere,

That's nice, now stop using the passive voice and make them.

I wouldn't mind cutting the DOD $400B, but I just probably made 10 million people unemployed doing that.

Bellingham Bill says

Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage?
No: (D): 26% -- (R): 71%

I don't care if 99% of the people think that slavery of the other 1% should be legal. It's a human rights issue. Same for same-sex marriage.

curious2 says

And I replied with a list. You still haven't named any.

------------------------------
Oooooh. 24 Reps. yes, I know I asked for Congressman. I should have asked for Senators. 24. I wonder how many have been run under the bus by the DNC by now. So you give me 24 Reps, and ask for a conservative GOP prez? I'd say Reagan, and you'll probably whine about massive military spending. Well, some presidents don't have to worry about trying to end a cold war w/ a super-power. He also happened to pass on one of the healthiest economies off to Clinton via tax cuts. SPeanking of tax cuts and fiscally conservative democrats. I would definitely vote for JFK if he ran today. But you know what? He'd never be nominated by the DNC. Too defense-minded, liked tax cuts, etc. Aaaand if he didn't have his family name? Fuggedaboutit....

curious2 says

Election results show President Obama got a majority of the popular vote again

Election results show that the GOP got a majority of the popular vote in the House of Reps again..... Ain't "Balance of Power" a bitch?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Rape needs to be taught in schools.
Otherwise America will have no meaning and make God angry.

Rape doesn't need to be taught. Any family w/ two working parents making over 100K, and trying to raise a family on either coast knows what rape is all about, especially around April 15th.....You want to talk about anger? You'll see plenty of anger if those EBT-lovin' folks stop 'getting their's when they have no money for their booze, lottery scratch tickets, lap dances, bail and nail salons. HAHAHAHA..

AverageBear says

I'd say Reagan, and you'll probably whine about massive military spending. Well, some presidents don't have to worry about trying to end a cold war w/ a super-power.

Ahaha haha ahaha hah. SU was totally falling apart then. The mid-80s oil glut had more to do with their final collapse than Reaganism.

Besides, Reagan's fault wasn't the DOD spending, it was the debt leverage:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cDg for non-financial debt,

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cCt

for everybody.

Plus defense spending wasn't that big a budget buster compared to everything else that was going on:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cDo

red is gov't debt (2005 dollars)
blue is real defense spending (also 2005 dollars)

shows that Reagan took the DOD up from Carter's ~$400/yr of FY81 to ~$520B/yr (+$120B/yr), while he allowed the Democratic Congress to *double* the national debt up from $1.5T to $3.0T. So only about one third of the debt run up on his watch was due to DOD expansion.

AverageBear says

curious2 says

Election results show President Obama got a majority of the popular vote again

Election results show that the GOP got a majority of the popular vote in the House of Reps again..... Ain't "Balance of Power" a bitch?

No sir. More Americans voted for Democrats:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1158861/-Democrats-Win-Popular-Vote-for-House-of-Representatives

The Republican majority is due to the extreme anti-democracy gerrymandering the GOP did in the wake of the 2010 elections when they took control of state governments. This country is going to pay an awful price for years to come for the tantrum we collectively threw in 2010.

AverageBear says

Election results show that the GOP got a majority of the popular vote in the House of Reps again.....

nevermind

Ain't "Balance of Power" a bitch?

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_1.html

Get crackin'. We need $1.5T/yr of new revenue to close the deficit, LOL

AverageBear says

So you give me 24 Reps, and ask for a conservative GOP prez? I'd say Reagan, and you'll probably whine about massive military spending. Well, some presidents don't have to worry about trying to end a cold war w/ a super-power. He also happened to pass on one of the healthiest economies off to Clinton via tax cuts. SPeanking of tax cuts and fiscally conservative democrats. I would definitely vote for JFK if he ran today.

Reagan never balanced a budget in his eight years as President; to the contrary, he broke records for chronic deficits. And, the economy fell into recession during the term of his successor, GHW Bush. JFK had much higher tax rates than Clinton or either Bush.

I don't know where you get your information, but you should really look for more objective sources.

dodgerfanjohn says

Bleach Curious2, your arguments are a tangled mess confusing things that can't realistically be done(amending the Constitution) and then citing stuff that has nothing to do with the point I made(that presidential candidates discussing social legislation is irrelevant).

Although I don't understand the bleach reference, the rest of your post has helped me, even though you sound critical and misinformed. You helped me to learn something I should have learned years ago, about the difficulty of communicating effectively.

I thought the Martin Niemöller quote would make the point, perhaps too heavy-handedly, but your reply caused me to look at this year's election from a different angle and I will try to explain using more recent references.

Decades ago, people used to refer to the President of the United States as "the leader of the free world." Leadership requires communication. With a truly unexpected sense of awe, I am beginning to see how President Obama won re-election: he was by far the best available candidate for leader of the free world. I will try to explain why.

Consider the two issues Bill provided statistics on above: abortion and same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans are pro-choice and support marriage equality. President Obama and his supporters brought that message into black churches, including heavily Evangelical churches that did not want to hear that message. I don't know what words he used, so I hope you will bear with me as I try to guess based on speeches at the convention. He made the case that America is one nation indivisible, even in churches accustomed to hearing the 1950's amended pledge (signed by Eisenhower) "one nation under God." He made JFK's case that a rising tide lifts all boats, and in a sense we are all in the same boat, and he tied together a coalition including even demonstrably unpopular policies such as Obamacare. He brought this message of inclusion and unity even into places that didn't want to hear it.

In contrast, Romnesia and Ryan campaigned on amending the constitution to require women to carry rape-induced pregnancies to term, and the Republican platform of some states (e.g. Oklahoma) promises incarceration of gay couples (at taxpayer expense!) for "sodomy". Republican candidates campaign on America being "a Christian country," "taking our country back," etc. Romney and Ryan did not challenge any of that, they never stood up to the worst in their party. They campaigned on a reductivist philosophy intended to serve only their chosen Americans, whether Christians, white male Christians, or ultimately white male Christians who are members of the 1%.

Now imagine you are an American citizen choosing a leader of the free world, and you are anyone other than a white male Christian. As you look at these two candidates, which seems more likely to work for you? If you think honestly and clearly about that, you can see how Obama won a majority of Americans. He won among women by 10%, among Latinos and Asians by 40%, and among African Americans by 80%. Contrary to Bill O'Reilly, these aren't all people who "want stuff" from government. Asians on average already have more stuff than white Americans anyway, yet they voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Consider Hawaii's new Senator: born in Japan, she is the first Buddhist elected to the United States Senate.

Am I drawing the picture clearly enough now? Republicans' theocratic crusade reflects a failure of leadership. A real leader among Republicans would have communicated with his base as Ron Paul tried to do, when he said, "We have to be honest with ourselves." Republicans booed, but a real leader would have insisted, would have reminded them that George Washington and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson all agreed that America is not a Christian country, no matter how many Christians live here. Barack Obama made the case that America does not impose any religion, even in the places where people didn't want to hear that.

Now imagine you were born somewhere else, maybe you look a little different, maybe not of the same religion as most people here, maybe you're gay, maybe you're a woman who worries about possibly getting raped someday, or maybe you simply care about someone who fits any of those descriptions. You hear one candidate pandering to fundamentalist nutjobs saying they're going to take their country back. You hear the other candidate talking about inclusion, about one nation indivisible, and he makes everyone know he will stand up for that principle even where it isn't popular. Who is your candidate to be the leader of the free world?

curious2 says

las Lincoln's true legacy seems long forgotten now, at least among the party he helped create.

As if Lincoln was the only Republican President. But its the only one Liberals can talk about. Heck, even by liberals standard, Kennedy would be considered a right wing nut extremist.

Good lord dude....not emotionally impulsive at all are you?

Again, I didn't argue anything except that presidential candidates positions on social issues are almost entirely lip service designed to get people like you to go vote for them.

Therefore those positions are COMPLETELY irrelevant.

curious2 says

Republican candidates campaign on America being "a Christian country," "taking our country back," etc. Romney and Ryan did not challenge any of that, they never stood up to the worst in their party. They campaigned on a reductivist philosophy intended to serve only their chosen Americans, whether Christians, white male Christians, or ultimately white male Christians who are members of the 1%.

Yes, we have a long history of the Western-Christian tradition, specifically Northwestern Europe. Our western tradition is unique as is Asian, African Southern/Eastern European and Pacific Islanders who also have theres. Their culture equally serves their needs. Fact is many aspects of the OUR western culture, including Christianity is appealing to many world wide and many adopt such values when they come here. They are welcomed here.

Of course there are some like you who cant compete with the Western-Christian tradition no matter how hard they try so they complain, bitch, and complain some more..

dodgerfanjohn says

Therefore those positions are COMPLETELY irrelevant.

I am sorry. As Ben Kenobi says to Anakin Skywalker at the end of Star Wars III, "I have failed you." Somehow, I have failed to explain the blindingly obvious relevance and significance, or maybe you just didn't want to hear it. That would only reinforce of course the point that successful leadership requires effective communication, which is inherently difficult. Anyway this thread has helped me understand the election result, I am sorry if it didn't help you understand anything at all.

Thomas.....

You cannot argue with Curious...at least not in a rational manner. You need to appeal to his emotional side to get a response from him. See post above^^^^^^^

He clearly is more than willing to vote for a president based on opinions the president holds, but cannot legislate or enact as policy.

And that is LOL

thomaswong.1986 says

Of course there are some like you who cant compete with the Western-Christian tradition no matter how hard they try so they complain, bitch, and complain some more..

Can you please explain that statement? I really don't understand it at all.

dodgerfanjohn says

You cannot argue with Curious...at least not in a rational manner... He clearly is more than willing to vote for a president based on opinions the president holds, but cannot legislate or enact as policy.

Can you please explain that statement too? It seems to me that you underestimate, vastly, the power of the Presidency. Might it be rational to consider, for example, who appoints federal judges? Or how much of a President's time is devoted to recruiting and campaigning for political allies for other offices?

curious2 says

would have reminded them that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all agreed that America is not a Christian country, no matter how many Christians live here.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

The quotes below are from George Washington.. by todays standard he would be called a lunatic right wing Christian fanatic...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die."

George Washington - Address to the Continental Army before the Battle of Long Island (27 August 1776).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

George Washinngton General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large; and, particularly, for their brethren who have served in the Geld; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacifick temper of the mind, which were the characteristicks of the divine Author of our blessed religion ; without an humble imitation of whose example, in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

- George Washington, "Circular to the States" (8 June 1783)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island (1790).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chanakya4773 says

Just highlighting the perception. the 47% comment, his background,money from 1%..etc enhanced that image.

yes.. it was indeed on perception.. but little on facts from Obama.

I would count more and few who here, in the pic, who also count as money from 1%
Had it been Romney in the pic, the media would be all over this like flies on shit.

thomaswong.1986 says

chanakya4773 says

Just highlighting the perception. the 47% comment, his background,money from 1%..etc enhanced that image.

yes.. it was indeed on perception.. but little on facts from Obama.

I would count more and few who here, in the pic, who also count as money from 1%

Had it been Romney in the pic, the media would be all over this like flies on shit.

Why? Politicians sitting down with rich people isn't something that is going to get the media into a frenzy. However, sitting down with rich people and talking about 47% of the US population...

Bigsby says

However, sitting down with rich people and talking about 47% of the US population...

when it politics.. its always about some % of demographics...

Here is the transcript... the fact is many agree with Romney's comment that its difficult for him to connect with that group. the 47% is a good comment that applies to California.. so many people in California gave up.. thats why they been leaving in larger and larger numbers... The rest of us 50% in CA are working for the other 50%. This is not sustainable..

"“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President Obama) be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

thomaswong.1986 says

Here is the transcript... the fact is many agree with Romney's comment that its difficult for him to connect with that group. the 47% is a good comment that applies to California.. so many people in California gave up.. thats why they been leaving in larger and larger numbers... The rest of us 50% in CA are working for the other 50%. This is not sustainable..

Have to agree with that. The more people are dependent on government, the less likely anybody advocating cuts and denying them more of the same is going to get elected. And yes, this is not sustainable.

thomaswong.1986 says

"“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President Obama) be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

Why exactly are you trying to defend the indefensible? Do you seriously think that was an appropriate thing for someone who was running for the highest office in your country to say?

mell says

thomaswong.1986 says

Here is the transcript... the fact is many agree with Romney's comment that its difficult for him to connect with that group. the 47% is a good comment that applies to California.. so many people in California gave up.. thats why they been leaving in larger and larger numbers... The rest of us 50% in CA are working for the other 50%. This is not sustainable..

Have to agree with that. The more people are dependent on government, the less likely anybody advocating cuts and denying them more of the same is going to get elected. And yes, this is not sustainable.

You agree with his statement that 50% of people in CA are working to support the other 50%? Really?

Bigsby says

Why exactly are you trying to defend the indefensible? Do you seriously think that was an appropriate thing for someone who was running for the highest office in your country to say?

Straight honest truth.. from a Mormon who doesnt drink or smoke.....

Who came to serve the public and resolve real issues

God almighty .. Must you even ask.. Tough Love Baby!

Bigsby says

You agree with his statement that 50% of people in CA are working to support the other 50%? Really?

well the distance from sunny Monterey to the Real World is indeed miles and miles away.

Bigsby says

mell says

thomaswong.1986 says

Here is the transcript... the fact is many agree with Romney's comment that its difficult for him to connect with that group. the 47% is a good comment that applies to California.. so many people in California gave up.. thats why they been leaving in larger and larger numbers... The rest of us 50% in CA are working for the other 50%. This is not sustainable..

Have to agree with that. The more people are dependent on government, the less likely anybody advocating cuts and denying them more of the same is going to get elected. And yes, this is not sustainable.

You agree with his statement that 50% of people in CA are working to support the other 50%? Really?

Sure, I cannot give you exact numbers, but if you take the percentage of people who are depending on government handouts/subsidies/foodstamps etc. and knowing that the government itself does not create any wealth, then the only conclusion is that that money has to come from those who don't depend/over-produce. Or you can pay for it for quite a while via deficit spending, but then future generations will pay for it and basically be born as debtors/dependents until the system collapses. That being said, I am not opposed to a mix of measures including raising taxes on the wealthy but that has to come with radical spending cuts and a clear path of getting those dependent off of government support, otherwise nothing is achieved and the system will eventually collapse.

thomaswong.1986 says

The quotes below are from George Washington....

Thanks for the quotes. Most sources consider him a Deist not a Christian, but he was raised Episcopalian and did sometimes pray in an Episcopal church. You should see also the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by his administration and John Adams's, and ultimately signed by Thomas Jefferson:

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

The founders were very careful about "splitting the atom" of authority between church and state, as reflected in the careful wording of the Constitution (Articles VI, VII, and Amendment I). Even in their early mottoes, they rejected "In God We Trust" and chose instead the more ambiguous "Annuit Coeptis." Alas fundamentalist crusaders lack such subtlety and wisdom, which is part of why the Republicans failed to win.

mell says

The more people are dependent on government, the less likely anybody advocating cuts and denying them more of the same is going to get elected. And yes, this is not sustainable.

a lot of stuff going on isn't sustainable.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

Much more socialist systems than ours are doing much better now -- Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Finland, Denmark, perhaps France and Netherlands.

What Romney was spouting was just the right-wing Bircher groupthink bullshit that has gained currency and was what his $50,000 a plate donors wanted to hear him say.

The reality of the situation is that the 47% he disparages have to work their asses off in this country just to make the 1% ever wealthier.

The 1%'s income share -- 1/6th of the national personal income -- doesn't come from machines harvesting the aether. It's from the sweat of labor -- global labor, and American labor.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

One of out 100 tax units are collecting out of six the wealth.

And one out of twenty tax units are collecting one out of three of the wealth.

Fix that imbalance, and we'll find this "sustainability" you talk about.

chanakya4773 says

What the heck are there republicans talking about. They keep drumming as if the half of the country is on welfare and the country is going to dogs ( socialism). No wonder, people saw through this B.S .

The % of federal budget spent on welfare in 2006 (under bush) =~ 10%

The % of federal budget spent on welfare in 2012 ( obama) =~ 12%

total % of federal budget on military, pensions, healthcare =~ 70%

source : http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

On top of this, the funny part is that most of the money comes from blue states because they have the max revenue.

You can certainly argue about how dire the situation is, but I wonder what your point is as given the numbers you presented they will eventually be right (this has nothing to do with being republican or not, it's about simple math). Where is the money coming from to balance any of those spending increases?

mell says

and knowing that the government itself does not create any wealth, then the only conclusion is that that money has to come from those who don't depend/over-produce.

Missing from your understanding here is that those like Romney that have money working for them are just very large parasites in the system.

We could throw nearly all of the 1% into plastic shredders and the wealth creation of this nation would not be affected one iota. We'd be better off, quite frankly.

Or you can pay for it for quite a while via deficit spending, but then future generations will pay for it

to the extent the debt is internal, that is totally wrong. Much of our internal debt is just owed to people who don't really need the money and can be stiffed (by the soft default of inflation).

The debts we owe to the ROW, however, that's more serious, yes.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

It's harder to soft-default on that debt, and hard defaults leave hard feelings. Then again, much of that debt is just the remaining evidence of past currency manipulation, so I say we fuck 'em too.

curious2 says

Alas fundamentalist crusaders lack such subtlety and wisdom, which is part of why the Republicans failed to win.

all your doing is insulting our first President and Founder of our Nation...

you are in a personal war with our founders and principles of our Nation.

Its seems that you have proven Ryan's point all to well.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"
to which Franklin replied, " A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it."

mell says

Where is the money coming from to balance any of those spending increases?

(things haven't gotten any better since then, LOL)

Bellingham Bill says

We could throw nearly all of the 1% into plastic shredders and the wealth creation of this nation would not be affected one iota. We'd be better off, quite frankly.

That may be true, but how can you realistically achieve any significant monetary benefit from targeting the 1% (aside from fairness issues as there are likely 1% who didn't scam the system)? Even if you could come up with a plan to tackle them effectively it would likely be a drop in the bucket. I think the best thing you can do is prosecute fraud and default to clear bad debt whenever possible and let those leeches (mostly banks) who feed off of interest on future production (bailouts and ZIRP) fail fast.

thomaswong.1986 says

all your doing is insulting our first President and Founder of our Nation...

you are in a personal war with our founders and principles of our Nation.

Its seems that you have proven Ryan's point all to well.

When did I insult the first President?!? Which founders and principles am I "in a personal war with?!? And who is Ryan, and what was his point? Honestly Thomas, sometimes I read comments that you have addressed to me and I wonder if you are writing to someone else who has nothing to do with me. I hope you will take a moment to answer these questions and clarify your comment because I really, sincerely, have no idea what you mean.

"Had it been Romney in the pic, the media would be all over this like flies on shit."

No, those were actual capital-c Capitalists, making real exportable wealth.

The motherfuckers paying for Romney to give them verbal blowjobs were rent-seeking parasites.

Not that the late Steve Jobs & Co. aren't past masters at rent-seeking, but at least creating new wealth -- the Personal Computer, Desktop Publishing, the www, touchphones & tablets -- is how they make their money.

That's capitalism. Make shit and sell it. Romney wouldn't know that kind of capitalism -- his career in vulture capitalism was largely as a wealth destroyer, not creator.