tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post7232886998860165493..comments2024-01-03T05:18:54.650-05:00Comments on CDR Salamander: All fall down ...CDR Salamanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05981221786954902349noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-34235815552527128942010-06-22T08:13:41.000-04:002010-06-22T08:13:41.000-04:00Revenue "plunging" as a percentage of GD...Revenue "plunging" as a percentage of GDP is a red herring and a favorite of the far left to justify taxing the hell out of those who produce the majority of our economic growth. <br /><br />DB is exactly right. These marvelous surpluses of the Clinton Admin were gained at the expense of the US Military. Les Aspin and Levin et. al. proceeded to cut force strength well past the point of good judgment, yet those who stood and applauded the transfer of those dollars to entitlements were the first to scream that the military was "broken" because we no longer had 18 or 14 divisions to deploy, but only ten. And 2.25 instead of 3 Marine Divisions. What would sixeen brigades and three Marine regiments have meant to the deployment cycles? Gee, a hell of a lot. But they were cannibalized to increase social spending.<br /><br />$1.7 trillion? That could buy a lot? Interesting figure. Misleading, but interesting. It roughly coincides with ONE YEAR of budget deficit under B Hussein Obama.UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-84738072285345648752010-06-22T00:52:41.000-04:002010-06-22T00:52:41.000-04:00wasnt it Secretary Wolfowitz who made the 'oil...wasnt it Secretary Wolfowitz who made the 'oil revenues' statement?alan greenspannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-5557235682837299372010-06-22T00:20:12.000-04:002010-06-22T00:20:12.000-04:00Bush inherited a surplus that was gained largely a...Bush inherited a surplus that was gained largely at the expense of the military. The "peace dividend" and the cut in our intel budgets had a lot to do with the catch-up game we had to play after 9-11. When we went to war "with the military we had, not the military we wanted." <br /><br />As for Iraqi oil paying for the war... gee, we can't win, can we? That's a "whopper." But if we had taken their oil as repayment, then it would have been "blood for oil." DeltaBravonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-44546595016619207332010-06-22T00:15:41.000-04:002010-06-22T00:15:41.000-04:00Skippy, as I recall, there was a whole lotta shaki...Skippy, as I recall, there was a whole lotta shaking up going on in the economy after the dot-com bubble burst. All those no bricks and mortars businesses that made nothing, built nothing, but had huge IPOs fell like a house of cards in the late '90s and early aughts. That had a ripple effect as a lot of employees in the tech sector lost their jobs and their lofts and their beemers. Had a ripple effect on real estate in many tech-heavy areas. Oh... and very early in the Bush administration... a little event... 9-11. Had far-reaching impacts on the travel industry, the insurance industry and spawned uncertainty that was felt across the board in the economy. I find it hard to believe none of these well-publicized events aren't included in the economic picture you paint. <br /><br />As for $1.7 trillion... well, a lot of it does get plowed back into our economy in the form of salaries that are spent on everything from automobiles to toothpaste and housing, government contracts, and stuff made in America. As I recall reading, that "free healthcare" for America is going to cost us more than $1.7 trillion in the long run. And I bet my money it will be shoddy healthcare at that.DeltaBravonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-86532912749729198142010-06-21T23:55:57.000-04:002010-06-21T23:55:57.000-04:00So you missed the whole thing about unemployment d...So you missed the whole thing about unemployment didn't you? Laffer also never came up with a satisfactory explanation as to why revenue decreased during the early years of the Bush Presidency. What really happened was that revenue plunged, as a percent of GDP, in the early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery. And that recovery seems to have ran its course and then the market fell out totally. Now the Party orthodxy blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, that's just not true, which even Bloomberg pointed out, "most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.”<br /><br />Plus no matter how you slice-1.7 trillion could have bought a lot of things for ourselves, including new ships, public services, and things that would have benefited us in the long run.Skippy-sannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-50710108833888325702010-06-21T23:14:23.000-04:002010-06-21T23:14:23.000-04:00current budget all democrat but what about the acc...current budget all democrat but what about the accumulated debt? a lot of the already borne war costs buried in there, interest on that debt is in the current budget and ongoing war costs in the current budget. coming- bill to reset the miltary equipment and veterans benefits.<br /><br />we didnt need to have a surcharge on gas to fund the war because 'iraqs oil revenues will fund the costs of the war' -remember that whopper?<br /><br />is it not a fact that bush inherited a surplus and we were actually starting to pay down the long term debt of the u.s. during clinton's last years?gulf_walrusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-43988656518296820952010-06-21T21:00:26.000-04:002010-06-21T21:00:26.000-04:00You gotta be kidding me, Skippy. So I am now to b...You gotta be kidding me, Skippy. So I am now to believe a neo-pinko from UNH spewing his class warfare crap about the "rich finally paying their fair share"? Please. <br /><br />Laffer is right. And the smart money knows it. UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-11853372443616180272010-06-21T20:35:29.000-04:002010-06-21T20:35:29.000-04:00Skippy,
Look at the FY10 budget. That is all Demo...Skippy,<br />Look at the FY10 budget. That is all Democrat. Take out the war cost beyond the avg defense budget for the last 20 years. Come back after that.cdrsalamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-62696404478041322122010-06-21T20:04:39.000-04:002010-06-21T20:04:39.000-04:00Or move to Thailand-I'll take that option.Or move to Thailand-I'll take that option.Skippy-sannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-90447119895594233712010-06-21T20:00:53.000-04:002010-06-21T20:00:53.000-04:00"How much of that is due to Iraq and AFG? A ..."How much of that is due to Iraq and AFG? A very small portion."<br /><br />Actually a lot. The total cost of the wars since 2001 has cost 1.7 trillion dollars. By the time you add in the additional costs on the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.more. So all told the wars-assuming we get out before 2012 will have cost us 3 trillion dollars.<br /><br />Don't tell me the war did not have anything to do with out current debt. Furthermore-the wars could have been fully funded by a 1.00 a gallon surges on gasoline(this still makes the presumption that it was necessary-which Iraq was not) to make all Americans feel the pain of the war.Skippy-sannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-36212059251712955652010-06-21T19:33:54.000-04:002010-06-21T19:33:54.000-04:00Very little as it turns out.<a href="http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978294086" rel="nofollow">Very little as it turns out.</a>Skippy-sannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-44267435360549387272010-06-21T07:56:09.000-04:002010-06-21T07:56:09.000-04:00<span>schumpeter,
When is the Obama adm...<span>schumpeter, <br /> <br />When is the Obama administration going to take responsibility for ANYTHING it does? Next year? 2012? Never? <br /> <br />Entitlement spending is roughly 3.5 time that of defense spending. Obama forced through a "stimulus package" of nearly $800 billion, that didn't create employee one, but DID increase government intrusion into the private sector business world in a very damaging way. The Obama budget deficit is $1.75-1.9 TRILLION, depending on whose estimates you use, more in 17 months than the GW Bush administration had in EIGHT YEARS. <br /> <br />How much of that is due to Iraq and AFG? A very small portion. Eliminating the figure entirely would still leave the most massive budget deficit in history. How much of it is GW Bush's doing? ZERO. It is Obama's signature on that budget. Though he may claim Bush made him sign it. <br /> <br />So can the "Bush and his wars" crap. This guy is an economic train wreck because he is employing the same socialist-communist crap that turned Europe into the debt-ridden and impotent economies you see today.</span>UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-25999209097953703652010-06-21T07:33:16.000-04:002010-06-21T07:33:16.000-04:00Who said anything about Nazis? Who said anything about Nazis? CDR Salamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-62950559459917177242010-06-21T07:29:45.000-04:002010-06-21T07:29:45.000-04:00... nice, well informed people can also be wrong. ...... nice, well informed people can also be wrong. <br /><br />You also demonstrate a lack of understanding about what those bonds are and the nature of unfunded mandates. Additionally, I don't know how old you are - but it is the post Baby Boom that is going to be screwed if we don't change anything. The Boomers will not be the ones paying off the debt.<br /><br />The Economics is clear - and this isn't a Dem Rep battle either. It is trying to get an understanding among the public that just because a duck floats on water doesn't mean a witch does too.CDR Salamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-46378048740834990812010-06-21T02:09:50.000-04:002010-06-21T02:09:50.000-04:00<span>another view from crooks and liars<...<span>another view from crooks and liars</span><br /><br /><span>you'll see that Alex Lawson, Simpson's questioner, is well-informed, unfailingly polite, and a nice guy. Simpson, on the other hand, is raving like your drunken right-wing uncle at a Thanksgiving dinner gone wrong. What's he really saying here?</span><br /><span>SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It's 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.</span><br /><span>LAWSON: Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.</span><br /><span>SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I'll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month </span><br /><span>LAWSON: ---(I)t's my understanding from actually looking at the 1983 commission (which revamped Social Security), they actually started prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus. </span><br /><span>SIMPSON: They never knew there was a baby boom in '83.</span><br /><span>Really? They didn't there was a baby boom ... in 1983?? They didn't know how many babies had been born in the years 1948-1964? Here's the real reason Alan Simpson says outrageously false things like that:</span><br /><span>Here's the bottom line. Simpson doesn't want to force the government to pay those bonds back, because it will probably require new taxes to pay for them.</span><span>you get the idea. </span><br /><span>Alan Simpson isn't just a cranky old man ... he's a cranky old man gunning for the financial security of older Americans.</span>alan greenspannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-35869904011540502122010-06-21T01:43:34.000-04:002010-06-21T01:43:34.000-04:00so I'm confused, GW Bush did not turn a surplu...so I'm confused, GW Bush did not turn a surplus into a massive deficit?<br /><br />you say the deficit has nothing to do with war, so does it have anything to do with Bush running the economy into the ground? (maybe because of the massive sinkhole in Iraq)<br /><br />and the Germany analogy is just b.s. Whenever someone had to invoke the Germany/Nazi reference, they really have nothing to say.schumpeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-31324175264801162882010-06-21T01:29:58.001-04:002010-06-21T01:29:58.001-04:00Just makes you proud to be an American, huh? Inve...Just makes you proud to be an American, huh? Invest in ammunition, gas, and non-perishable food.Adamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-44144718094739675812010-06-21T01:29:58.000-04:002010-06-21T01:29:58.000-04:00Just makes you proud to be an American, huh? Inve...Just makes you proud to be an American, huh? Invest in ammunition, gas, and non-perishable food.Adamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-87500997622631295302010-06-20T13:36:45.539-04:002010-06-20T13:36:45.539-04:00But even Simpson buys into part of one of the many...But even Simpson buys into part of one of the many myths about SS when he agrees with the interviewer that it is a form of "Social insurance," From a technical/legal aspect SS is NEITHER an insurance NOR a retirement plan. It is neither fish nor fowl. It is a chimera--a giant ponzi scheme now rapidly unwinding despite the fact that unlike other ponzi-scheme authors, Congress can go back to the early original "investors" i.e., marks, and demand further contributions in the form of higher taxes.<br /><br />That it is not an insurance plan may be seen by the fact that a) no medical underwriting is done for the "ins" portion of the "premiums" b) the so-called "death benefit" is a taxable event on the survivors 1040, c) most people on SSI disability have never paid a penny into the system, and d) there is no contractual obligation enforceable by the courts for Congress to pay out a dime, and, e) individuals do not own contractual policy ownership.<br /><br />That it is not a true retirement system, but instead an income redistribution system may be seen by the fact of, a) no contractual rights/ownership by individuals, b) no contractual obligations by Congress, c) neither accrued nor even imputed "rate of return" on plan contributions as there are no plan assets and d) an internal transfer of monies from the highest wage earners who are only allowed to retire at 40% of pre-retirement income to the lowest wage earners who are allowed to retire at 70% of pre-retirement wages. ("from each according to his ability to each according to his need") <br /><br />SS was a socialist band-aid to stop the country from going Communist and/or prevent the election of Huey Long, who would have given FDR a run for his money in 1936 with his even more expansive "Every Man a King!" "share the wealth" program. Long, a tremendous stump speaker, smart as a whip, and with a program designed to appeal to a depression-weary America, might well have beaten FDR. SS was designed to counter that as a POLITICAL devise--NOT a sound financial one--as FDR himself is on record admitting.virgil xenophonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509453343705968903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-33799709505491698732010-06-20T12:56:25.000-04:002010-06-20T12:56:25.000-04:00Now *that* is the definition of voodoo economics, ...Now *that* is the definition of voodoo economics, aka perpetual motion, gummint style...Grumpy Old Hamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-68369252103663939372010-06-20T09:02:15.000-04:002010-06-20T09:02:15.000-04:00unless you fall victim to another Rossevelt gold g...unless you fall victim to another Rossevelt gold grabewok40knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-85337272936397136992010-06-19T22:51:38.000-04:002010-06-19T22:51:38.000-04:00Love the economic analyses. Had the opportunity to...Love the economic analyses. Had the opportunity to hear industry economists in the past few weeks, so here's one more piece to the puzzle, beyond the SSA strap on, declining demographics, and lack of a "lock box" plus elected votebuyers currently making things worse.<br /><br />This team was saying 2011 would likely get better in general, with stubborn unemployment inching down to hitsorical levels of 5-6-6.5 by maybe - repeat maybe - 2015. The concern was reasonable probability of housing defaults dragging us down into double dip land. The number is approx 11-15 million homes - and homeowners - in some level of distress, in all cities and towns, but of course concentrated in some states like FL. With crafty 0 down mortgages (require minimal payment), used by folks looking for an always up real estate swings, now a large percentage are coming due in 2010, here's the effect.... some of the current spending uptick may be attributed to homeowners 'strategically defaulting' meaning they're gonna walk away and leave keys and a mess. Eventually. In the meantime, their incremental spending is what would have been their mortgage payment of $1,000-$2000 monthly average. They'll still have to live somewhere, and costs will increase.<br /><br />Keep the truth coming, even if it includes gasbag Senators. History, economics, are all repeated and lost periodically. And it still remains, of course, "allGeorgeBush'sfault".DM05noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-71247072135909759332010-06-19T20:50:38.000-04:002010-06-19T20:50:38.000-04:00I loved the part where the guy tried to rebut his ...I loved the part where the guy tried to rebut his assertion that SSA was in the red by saying something about how it was still in the black *if you count interest earned on the Treasury notes*.<br /><br />Where does the money to pay for the interest on a Treasury note come from? Well, the same place that the money to pay for the principal comes from...Big Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-14753513742435824992010-06-19T19:11:20.000-04:002010-06-19T19:11:20.000-04:00I gotta hand it to those boyscouts at the gold pla...I gotta hand it to those boyscouts at the gold places. They are really sticking their necks out for our welfare. Imagine! They're willing to trade all our soon to be worthless green paper money for gold ingots and such so that when there's rioting in the streets, we'll be able to buy bread with bullion! What will they do with their warehouses full of that green worthless paper then!? (Burn it for fuel?) It brings a tear to my eye that they are willing to make that tremendous sacrifice for us. I see the commercials on tv and how they want us to send that increasingly worthless paper to them in exchange for something of real value... There are still good, noble people in the world! ;)DeltaBravonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-91513944445164134862010-06-19T18:48:37.000-04:002010-06-19T18:48:37.000-04:00I thought we were also supposed to see the cost of...I thought we were also supposed to see the cost of health care paid by an employer added to our W-2s as part of our "earned income" on which to be taxed....<br /><br />What would John Galt do?Johnnoreply@blogger.com