patrick.net

"Tomorrow, if the entire federal government was eliminated—including the US Military—we could still not afford to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. "

I stopped reading after this complete load of BS. If someone is dumb enough to write this in their editorial, then there's no use reading the remainder of what he has to say...

According to Pat McGeehan:

To “stimulate” the economy, the Federal Reserve utilizes its money printing tools to artificially lower interest rates. IOU checks are written by the Fed to the nation’s largest and most politically-connected banks, and with a few keystrokes of the computer, money is created out of thin air. These big banks gain more cash on hand, profiting by having the privilege of being the first lender. Remember though, all this newly granted cash is counterfeit.

I wouldn't know where to start, but this is almost entirely wrong. Technically the Treasury prints money, not the Fed. The bank reserves are increased, but they give up something else that they were earning interest on. Yes, they can lend out at as much as a 10 to one ratio, but that would be if they were not in a situation where they needed to improve their reserves. (we all know bank aren't lending much now, it's good to remember that along with that small interest rate they might earn is the risk of default).

What else,... It's not out of thin air, there is a corresponding increase in government debt.

It's really hard to understand the whole picture. If you're a conspiracy theorist, then it is complex by design,...

Though hidden through complex bureaucratic terminology

For people who want to start to have a clue:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/09/money_creation.html

For those who like a heavy dose of fiction mixed with a boiled down oversimplified and really scary version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-xTHLHsfM8&feature=player_embedded

And if you like that sort of wacky stuff, here is a very entertaining site. This guy says a few things that make sense. But then he also says that the Bush family are actually reptilian aliens:

http://www.davidicke.com

We don't have a debt problem we have a deaf problem, Washington isn't listening.
We don't have deficit, we have a Deaf Idiot.

Tatupu, for you to deny the reality of Americas situation, clearly spelled out for you, is beyond comprehension. Specifically what part of the article do you think is "a complete load of BS" ?

Honest Abe says

Tatupu, for you to deny the reality of Americas situation, clearly spelled out for you, is beyond comprehension. Specifically what part of the article do you think is “a complete load of BS” ?

Abe--I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly. Did you see what I quoted in my post? That is obviously a lie.

Adhom,

exactly what pun was intended?

Tatupu- According to the CBO,entitlement spending was 60% of the US Federal budget in 2005. The Complete Idiots guide to Economics put it at 65% in 2003. And Congressman Randy Forbes in 2008 stated "Entitlement spending is currently 62% of overall Federal spending".

According to relaible sources 2009 Federal Spending was reported to be $3,518 B. If we took an average of the three figures above and used 62%, that means $2,181 B would be needed to pay for entitlement spending. (62% of $3,518 B = $2,181 B)

The same sources reported 2009 Federal Income to be $2,105 B.

Therefor McGeehan's article is correct - and you sir, are wrong - again.

P.S. AdHo - GREAT POST, but I have learned the libs have mental impairments which do not allow them to accept reality. They deny facts, logic, common sense, cause and effect, trial and error. In their world, feelings trump facts. Emotion trumps reality. They live in fantasy-land. They want to "level the playing field". They want to dominate and control others. They want to play "Robin-hood". They want to rob from some and give to others,who THEY deem worthy. They like to push others around to make themselves feel important. A by-product is the loss of freedom, liberty, security, independence, personal responsibility, privacy, private proterty, individual rights and a whole lot more.

I look forward to "Trash Day" in Noverber. The day we throw the garbage out !!

Honest Abe says

I look forward to “Trash Day” in Noverber

Where is Noverber?
:)

During FY 2009, the federal government spent nearly $3.52 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up 18% versus FY2008 spend of $2.97 trillion. Primary expenditure categories (shown in the pie chart in the introduction above) include: Defense and Homeland Security ($782B or 23%), Social Security ($678B or 20%), and Medicare & Medicaid ($676B or 19%).

From Wikipedia, citing OMB. Quite a ways off there Abe. I guess entitlements might include veterans benefits, unemployment, food stamps, etc.

Don't be such a hater Abe. It's bad for your heart.

Honest Abe says

Tatupu- According to the CBO,entitlement spending was 60% of the US Federal budget in 2005. The Complete Idiots guide to Economics put it at 65% in 2003. And Congressman Randy Forbes in 2008 stated “Entitlement spending is currently 62% of overall Federal spending”.
According to relaible sources 2009 Federal Spending was reported to be $3,518 B. If we took an average of the three figures above and used 62%, that means $2,181 B would be needed to pay for entitlement spending. (62% of $3,518 B = $2,181 B)
The same sources reported 2009 Federal Income to be $2,105 B.
Therefor McGeehan’s article is correct - and you sir, are wrong - again.

No, it's not. McGeehan doesn't mention entitlement spending. He mentions Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

From Wiki:

Estimated Federal Receipts = $2.38 trillion

Social Security spending = $.695 trillion
Medicare = $.453 trillion
Medicaid = $.293 trillion

total spending on 3 programs = $1.441 trillion

So, as you can see, it's not even close...

Oops-I just saw that Marcus wrote the same thing. Maybe reading it twice will let it sink in.

elliemae says

Where is Noverber?

Typical leftist response to a serious subject. Note that the substance of the thread and post is completely ignored, while a typo is imagined to be important. Then leftists wonder why intelligent people don't take them seriously.

Worth repeating:

Honest Abe says

I have learned the libs have mental impairments which do not allow them to accept reality. They deny facts, logic, common sense, cause and effect, trial and error. In their world, feelings trump facts. Emotion trumps reality. They live in fantasy-land. They want to “level the playing field”. They want to dominate and control others. They want to play “Robin-hood”. They want to rob from some and give to others,who THEY deem worthy. They like to push others around to make themselves feel important. A by-product is the loss of freedom, liberty, security, independence, personal responsibility, privacy, private proterty, individual rights and a whole lot more.

A fine example of the arrogance of the left:

"The federal government can do just about anything ... "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Va5bm9Bn2g

RayAmerica says

Note that the substance of the thread and post is completely ignored, while a typo is imagined to be important. Then leftists wonder why intelligent people don’t take them seriously.

Note that Ray ignores the posters who point out an obvious lie in the article and instead focuses on the comment made in jest. He knows that he can't actually engage in a real discussion of the article so he has divert attention away from it.

tatupu70 says

Note that Ray ignores the posters who point out an obvious lie

Note that tatupu didn't even read the entire article:

tatupu70 says

“Tomorrow, if the entire federal government was eliminated—including the US Military—we could still not afford to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. ”
I stopped reading after this complete load of BS.

Why continue? The article is obviously crap.

tatupu70 says

Why continue? The article is obviously crap.

Don't you understand ? If the conclusions are what I want to hear, I don't care if there is absolutely zero logic or even if the "facts" are made up. That's why I love fox news and AM talk radio !

sincerely, Ray and Abe

marcus says

That’s why I love fox news and AM talk radio !

Do you guys really think that there was no Fox or AM radio, this Democrat Administration would have 60% approval rate or more?
Come on really? Really? Because I don't watch or listen to either.
And the news I get from CNN.com, NPR, Patrick.net, is enough for me to not approve.
Of course I'm not a hardcore Liberal take any Victory I can get as a win, no matter how crappy the outcome. I "WAS" a hardcore Independent capable of drawing my conclusion and have.

You could blow up the Fox broadcasting tower, along with the trinity broadcast tower, along with Clear Channel broadcast tower, and you still wouldn't silence getting the word out on this rotten crappy administration. The facts are speaking for them selves. People don't need an angry overweight Geezer to make their mind up for them.

All they have to is pay attention to the Liberal news. There's plenty of bad stuff there to keep you in stitches.

OK, the costs of Socialized Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid by themselves are about 65% of total government receipts. But when "other MANDITORY" is included, the total is in excess of total government income. The ugly truth reported in the original article is still there, regardless.

Honest Abe says

OK, the costs of Socialized Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid by themselves are about 65% of total government receipts. But when “other MANDITORY” is included, the total is in excess of total government income. The ugly truth reported in the original article is still there, regardless.

Nothing is mandatory. If your point is that our budget wasn't balanced this year, then I agree. But everything can be changed...

So if cutting taxes is "reckless", what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called? And why is it every city, county, and state that wants to stimulate business offer's tax breaks??? Could be because tax breaks actually INCREASE business activity, jobs and tax reciepts??

Boeing moving out of California because of an oppressive business environment. Another example of our business unfriendly government killing the golden goose.

Abebabe says

So if cutting taxes is “reckless”, what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called?

It's called Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The three presidents that have done the most deficit spending in our nation's history. Wanna try again?

Slashing taxes and spending more was the entire Republican game even as they gave lip service to "smaller government" or "starve the government." Bush II especially presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history. And what did he do to pay for it? He reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

That's not fiscal responsibility. That's spending like a drunken sailor. That's what Republicans always accused Democrats of doing, when in plain fact, it is the Republicans that have done most of the deficit spending since 1980.

What we need is a little honesty from all sides. You can't have a government without paying for it. In order to pay for government we have tax system. If you are going to increase services, you have to raise taxes, period.

It would be nice if any politician would level with the American people and lay it out in plain language.

Honest Abe says

what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called

Sometimes BUT NOT ALWAYS, it's called taxes that are too low on the rich and on corporations.

Here's a question for you Abe. Have you read many people here, as well as many of the articles that Patrick has posted talking about the gap between the rich and the poor being the biggest it's been since 1929. Just wondering, do you have any thoughts on that ? Do you have any concerns that since much of our economy is based on our own population's consumption, that as our middle class goes away, we are in serious economic trouble ?

Is throwing money at the rich while increasing the debt really going to help the middle class out ?

This is from Patrick today. Some of the graphs are pretty interesting, even if his writing could have used a good edit.

http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/07/04/america-is-234-years-old-today-is-it-finished/?source=patrick.net

I wish I could have put a bigger font on that "BUT NOT ALWAYS," just for you Abe. Us left of center types aren't nearly as one dimensional as you wish we were.

Marcus, I don't mean you, but rather Sim, and Duck, and Tatupu: "Liberals irrationality can only be understood as the product of psycopathology" ( Dr Lyle Rossiter). And there you have it.

PS - "You can not raise the poor by destroying the rich". In other words, in the real world there are work horses and there are race horses. "Legislation" cannot make them "equal". You get the analogy...right?

Marcus, thanks for calling my attention to that article. It's what I've been arguing with friends and relatives for years.

The illusion that we as Americans buy into that this system is "fair" reminds me of Socrates's (through Plato) "The Cave" metaphor. We're all sitting in a cave bound and shackled. We are shown images that are cast by shadows on a screen. We believe these shadows to be reality, when in fact, they are only shadows. To Socrates, the function of a philosopher was to leave the cave and enter the "real world" (the world of forms. I'm greatly simplifying this.). The philosopher exits the cave, rubs his eyes, breathes the fresh air, and discovers that the truth of things isn't what is seen in the "shadow plays" in the cave. It is the duty of the philosopher to go back into the cave and tell the others about "the real world" as they remain shackled to the cave wall watching shadows play on the screen believing the shadows to be reality.

I feel like Americans are shackled in a cave being shown "shadow plays" with "shadow puppets" and we no longer trust anything that we can't see for ourselves, only trusting in the shadows that we see. Therefore, we can't break free of those shackles to emerge into the light of day to see reality for what it is.

The reality is that this capitalist system has been perverted by the top 0.01% and the deck has been stacked against the rest of us. There is no winning this game for at least 90% of us when the rules have been as rigged as they have allowed to become rigged currently.

People who continue to side with the 0.01% believe that they can join them and beat the 0.01% at their own game. However, when you live in the cave with nothing but shadows, you have no concept of how the game has been stacked against you or how it's being used against you.

It's sad to think that this is a time where most Americans seem to have become so apathetic and so indoctrinated that they don't see that the game is rigged. Not only don't they see it, they don't want to see it. It would make them angry and then maybe they'd have to do something about it if they were to open their eyes, break the shackles, and emerge into the light of day.

I don't understand why people continue to believe pundits and politicians who insist that a marginal tax system is a "class war" and that to be pushing for a more level playing field is "socialist" and "class warfare." What people don't want to see is that we are being killed in a "class war" that continues to be waged by that 0.01%. We are losing because no one wants to wake up and take a stand. We're complacent, lazy, and frankly we don't really care.

Generations before us fought against the 0.01% through organizing in labor unions and getting marginal tax rates that protected them from this kind of predatory capitalism that is being practiced by the 0.01%. But we as a people are duped by the 0.01% who owns the media that labor unions are "bad" because, well, they said so, something about making labor too expensive and driving jobs oversees. But what people don't really want to see is that as the labor unions have died and protections have been destroyed in the marketplace, the 0.01% were busy shipping all of our manufacturing oversees and taking the union jobs that paid a living wage away to foreign lands so that they could take our wealth away and hoard it for themselves.

Now, how do we get out of this mess? Anyone?

Honest Abe says

You can not raise the poor by destroying the rich

Sometimes, under conditions such as now, you can. Let's not forget the government is run by the rich.

If we are in a situation where we need higher tax revenues, and they can't come from the middle class and poor without killing the economy, then you increase the taxes on the rich.

About spending: if most of congress and it's controllers are in the higher tax brackets, and they know that NOT getting spending under control means that their taxes go up, wouldn't that be an additional incentive to make the tough decisions?

But instead we have a supply side fantasy that says when taxes go to zero, government revenues go to infinity. How stupid an interpretation of the Laffer curve is that?

What is the difference between the system we have now and feudalism?

Both systems have a privileged class that is hereditary.

Both systems have a slim chance that you could join the privileged class through your connections.

Both systems worked to subjugate the majority of the population in relative poverty.

Both systems have different rules for those in the privileged class and those who aren't.

The only difference I can see is that there is an easier way out for those of us who aren't in the privileged class if we don't want to be subjugated entirely. We can elect people who would look out for our interests. But we don't.

I still don't get the pun in "bye."

marcus says

But instead we have a supply side fantasy that says when taxes go to zero, government revenues go to infinity. How stupid an interpretation of the Laffer curve is that?

This is getting monotonous. Here we have another example of the left, in order to make their liberal point, completely misstates (lies?) a conservative position, i.e. the "straw man." First, supply sider economists NEVER said that taxes should be lowered to "zero." They did, and continue to argue, that lower taxes does in fact spur business activity that in turn increases GDP which of course then increases tax revenues. This is exactly what happened towards the end of Reagan's 1st. term, which led to his landslide re-election against Walter MonDULL. After 4 years of "malaise" under Carter, the huge ship that is the U.S. economy began to turn, and the voters recognized that fact.

The one reality that supply siders did not count on: politicians continue to spend beyond tax revenues. What is really needed to turn this economy around, along with the out of control Federal Gov't (local & state governments included) is to CUT taxes across the board along with HUGE CUTS in government programs and spending.

The radical leftists continue to believe the "road to prosperity" is via enormous socialist spending programs that does little other than to create a an equally enormous dependent class. If this trend continues, government will continue to grow (along with its intrusive power) and the American people will continue to slide into the economic class all socialist governments eventually results in, i.e. peasants.

Ray - just remember this...you are debating people with brain damage. They may have very eloquent arguments yet they are clinically psychopathic. To them facts don't matter, its the effort that counts - not the results. Forget the unintended consequences. Help the few but screw everyone else. Thats all they know, they can't help themselves.

Abe .... thanks for reminding me about what we're dealing with. These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech. On a more positive note, the Missourians have shown there is still hope for this nation with their 3-1 vote AGAINST Obamacare. The people of Missouri stood up for America and voted against the illegal mandate of government forced Obamacare.

Very sophisticated argument from a very detached and objective mind.

I guess I'm glad that our legislators haven't devolved that far (yet).

I can just see it on CSPAN NOW:

1)legislator one: You're brain damaged, you're ideology is a mental illness

2)legislator two: Oh yeah ? Well I think you're a retarded doo doo head. So there !

RayAmerica says

These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech.

I only fainted once. OK Maybe twice. Defintely not every time though Ray.

I rest my case. NEXT!

tatupu70 says

I only fainted once. OK Maybe twice. Defintely not every time though Ray.

Thanks for admitting to being a "fainter." The fact that you didn't faint every time though shows there might be some small glitter of "Hope" that you might "Change."

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though...

tatupu70 says

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though…

Was it Obama Kool-Aid? I've been trying to find it at my local Walmart.

simchaland says

tatupu70 says

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though…

Was it Obama Kool-Aid? I’ve been trying to find it at my local Walmart.

Seriously Simcha and Tattupu! Must I tell you everything? They only sell Obama Kool-Aid in liberal stores. And fruit stands run by illegals! I drink mine out of elegant glasses I paid for with my welfare check - and FYI I bought the Kool-Aid with Obama certified food stamps. It went well with lobster.

'twas yummy, too.

RayAmerica says

After 4 years of “malaise” under Carter, the huge ship that is the U.S. economy began to turn, and the voters recognized that fact.

Perhaps you were unaware of this but a couple of things happened during the carter years besides "malaise", like quadrupling of energy prices or the bill for the Vietnam war coming due. Carter sucked but whoever was president would have taken a big hit.

thunderlips11 says

RayAmerica says

LOL !!! One of the “New Deal” policies that the radical socialist nutcase FDR attempted to enact was to tax all income over $25,000 at a 100% rate! Yep, that New Deal was a wonderful concept alright.

The top tax rate was 90% between WW2 and JFK. How was American prosperity in the 50s and early 60s? Pretty good, huh?

Top tax rate, like the much talked about current corporate tax rate is totally meaningless. The only number that means anything is effective top tax rate (ie the actual taxes paid) which in the 50's and 60's was closer to 40-50% for the top earners after deductions. These top rates were for very high earners. Reagan eliminated the top rates but lowered the brackets so a lot more people paid higher rates and a few people paid much lower rates.

It is worth noting that when the top rates for very high earners are high there is a lot less corporate fraud. There were no enrons, worldcoms, ltcm, michael milken, aig types of scandles in the 50's and 60's. Just a thought.