kerryrose:

I’m not sure why you think I think people who get “funds from social services” or “welfare” for us politically incorrect folks, are undeserving. My belief is that people are on welfare BECAUSE OF, not despite liberal policies.

And I’m not sure why the references to food stamps, unless you’re talking about Newt’s latest outburts. The government sets standards for eligibility for food stamps. If you’re eligible, sign up. Ok. Newt’s point (not that I agree with him) is that food stamp participation has grown under Obama, NOT because he has expanded the program, but because the economy is in the toilet, and more people have become eligible thereby.

SteveL:

How much intellectual wattage did you burn on that witticism?

DavidByron

right-wing nut cases <<<<<Definitely redundant!

rico

What I mean to ask in an infered sort of way, is

‘If people who get funds from social services are underserving, what can we say about those who put in full time work; such as pilots?  Are they underserved of food stamps?  Should we as a society take a vote, or trust that whomever we elected will find the pilots deserving?

I hope ofersince is OK, he used to get so worked up.

hello again. i realise the majority of you
sophisticates writing for the reformer machine do not
live amongst the serfs. i have been to government
services buildings. inside are modern furnishings
totaling in excess of $200,000 for their interiors;
with expensive tile flooring, $10,000 paintings on
the walls, and unoccupied conference rooms, with a
couple dozen highback leather chairs around huge
conference tables, and a total staff of six or eight
government employees, occupying thirty rooms- and
these government employees regularly travel to
conferences, and are unavailable for assistance. the
true myth about our taxes is, that if this were all
the waste we had to feel uncomfortable about, it
would be negligible, compared with the truth. less
than 20% of our taxes are spent on Americans. our
Federal operating budget, could easily function with
a flat tax at 6%. arguing about an increase in the
percentage of a rotten system, throwing away a
trillion American dollars in one year, is the
gibberish of scholarly government employees, whom are
mooching off working Americans. hashing out the same
bogus infrastructure lies used for every money grab,
and scaring Social Security recipients (earned, not
free money) is very childish. the myth about spending
is- it could not be reversed, we could not be saving,
and have all the idiotic programs for moochers
intact: with only 20% of our current taxes. the truth
is it could. where is the full disclosure of tax
accountability, or auditing of the Federal Reserve?
can you name the bag men (and Secretary of State) of
the present revolving administration? do you
understand why leaders from other countries come to
the United States? do you not see the artificial
‘gold’ inflating bubble? voting all incumbents out
may preclude taking all monies out of banks. we will
shut this abomination to our grandchildren down.

SoTexGuy,

You got it! But of course thats too much common sense. So 1900’s.

Fractional reserve banking makes all the voodoo possible, until of course the
jig is up, everything crashes, regular folks lose real property and money, and
banks get bailed out so they can repeat.  Just have you hope you get yours
while the getting is good, and get out before the crash!  Good luck against all
those Wall St insiders! Seriously thats the model. Pump and dump.  Great
business in transactions if you happen to be a banker or broker.

Work to actually create something of value, and keep it, and give it to your kids?
Ha! Good one!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849#

He’s been Over Since 1972!

The question is; does borrowing and spending by the government create jobs? Jobs for who? When exactly does the benefit for the larger economy (you and me) kick in?

Existing businesses and government programs aren’t producing profit or growth? Does business exist only on credit? Why is that? Wouldn’t one definition of a sustainable business be that it grows from it’s own efforts and revenues? If a business is profitable where does that money go if it is not available for expansion and hiring and so on? If it is not profitable, why should it endure? Should we throw good money after bad?

How exactly does taking my taxes and those of my kids and grand kids to employ others and prop up business and government programs in any way translate to growth? Growth for whom exactly? What kind of growth?

Meanwhile Wall Street bonuses are predicted to make a new record!?

Krugman says we need more ‘expansion’ in government spending? Where is that money to come from? Printing presses? What does that mean for the Americans who save money and don’t spend more than they earn? Death by inflation?

Government spending is everywhere! .. new departments, new vehicles, personnel and facilities.. and it trickles down to all the economy.. oil-change shops.. tire shops.. building maintenance services.. uniforms, landscaping.. it is pervasive.. BUT IT IS MY MONEY AND YOUR MONEY AND EVERY TAX PAYER’S MONEY TAKEN AND USED BY THE CORPORATE LOBBYISTS RUNNING CONGRESS.

Where does it end?

OK.. it was more than one question!

Adios!

THE VIRTUOUS CIRCLE

DinCT: Then why not go out on a limb and explain why Krugman’s Keynsian philosophy of debt-spending to achieve “appropriate demand levels”, as opposed to letting the market decide where demand should be is sound?

You would be wise to take a course in EC101 before making such a statement. In the Supply and Demand equation, Supply is the dependent variable and Demand the independent variable.

When market demand decreases, so does the supply of goods/services. Companies then inevitably make workers redundant. Without work, Disposable Income shrinks drastically, consumers spend less, so Market Demand sinks further. This is called the Vicious Circle. It feeds upon itself.

In order to break the repetition of the cycle Keynesian Stimulation by the government increases Demand. At the very least, this enhanced Demand will break the spiral downwards. Static Equilibrium (of Supply and Demand) is reached at a lower level of Demand, but also of employment.

So the trick is to keep spending until the cycle becomes a Virtuous Circle, that is, companies start hiring to meet the increased Demand that the present workforce cannot keep up with. So companies broaden their workforce. Thus, consumer Disposable Income increases as well and consumer spending is boosted. Which sparks further Demand and thus further employment. The Virtuous Circle is restored.

Many economists today insist that the initial Stimulus Spending, coming to an end in December, is insufficient to spark Demand up to an acceptable level so as to sustain a Virtuous Circle. More is needed.

However, the Reps are perniciously dedicated to reclaiming Congress, so they stonewall spending bills with blather about the wicked evils of Deficit Spending. They dearly want the unemployment numbers to stay high—it’s their mid-term election Game Plan.

Yes, further Stimulus Spending will worsen the deficit. But once the Virtuous Cycle is restored and unemployment diminishes, but sales and income tax revenues will be much higher and the debt could even be lowered (by redeeming Treasury Notes).

None of this is Rocket Science. It’s plain-wrapped EC101.

kerryrose:

LOL.
Yeah, where is that bad boy?

Did I mention I’m a registered Democrat?

“You are simply regurgitating right-wing claptrap.”

Then why not go out on a limb and explain why Krugman’s Keynsian philosophy
of debt-spending to achieve “appropriate demand levels”, as opposed to letting
the market decide where demand should be is sound? Didn’t malinvestment in
the market by unnaturally low interest rates by the Fed feed the whole bubble
who’s bursting we are now suffering from?  So let’s do it again?

Why is it so hard to take things one step further in understanding the
mechanisms of our trouble? The facts are there for anyone who wants to see.
The problem is Democrats and Republicans are so mentally entrenched with
their moronic parties that they can’t or don’t look beyond party and media
dogma.  Claptrap indeed!

The Fed feeds the bubble. Starts it. Why?  Who profits when the bubble inflates?
Who profits when the bubble pops? What 2 parties have become so cozy with
their campaign contributors, and with Keynsian dogma that they are happy to
both remove a rational legal framework from Wall St/Banking activities, and
debt-spend us into oblivion. (Repubs get the rich vote for that, Dems get the
throw us a bone from the rich vote).

And who is against the unaccountable Fed? Who is against devaluing the dollar
and the ever present inflation tax? Who is against the war machine? Who is
against the Spending Machine?

No, not your precious Democrats of Republicans.

It Libertarians, and Austrian-influenced economists, Ron Paul.  They saw the
whole thing coming, they warned, they were laughed at, and yes, the Tea Party
started listening, as they were the people with their heads least up their asses,
towing the 2 party line, so they were looking for other voices, other avenues. 
Scorn them, generalize about them, call out their nuts, but they are just the first
to finally consider the very big, and fundamental picture of what stinks so bad
around here.

I think some progressives who can’t stand the Dems anymore either may be
coming around as well.

http://mises.org/daily/4730
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/10/5-key-principles-that-unite-
populist.html

“How come there’s so much prattle and noise from right-wing nut cases on
these boards?”

How about defining what you are talking about, and then rebutting the points
people are making in a clear, rational manner?

Your dogmatic attitude of always being right because you are behind the “right”
party is exactly what fuels the Tea Party types and makes others with an open
mind sympathize with them.

I am convinced 90% of the so-called “Left”  or “Center” can’t even really define
what exactly it stands for, specifically and practically, and conversely they
cannot really deconstruct other peoples arguments with any specific economic
philosophy, other than, It would be nice if we could all have everything we
wanted, and government could just print money out of thin air to make it so”.

Hence the empty one-liners about nuts.

rico

From what I understand airline pilots salaries are so low, that many are on food stamps.

Where the heck is ofersince?

Eric:

“Paul, love your cushy job at the NYT.”

This is the kind of comment that shows you for who you are.  Not only is it ad hominem (of sorts), but it is blatantly ignorant.  Krugman makes very little for his columns at the NYT.  In fact, NYT columnists (indeed, ANY columnist) does not pay their rent, food, clothing, etc. expenses on what they earn from those jobs.  Rather, they write (books, other paid articles, etc.), they do public speaking - they do whatever they can to supplement the relatively MEAGER amount they are paid for their columns.

You are simply regurgitating right-wing claptrap.

How come there’s so much prattle and noise from right-wing nut cases on these boards?

So…hiding costs and not putting them in the budget is good, even though we have to pay for them

But moving those hidden costs to the real budget is bad, even though we STILL have to pay for them.

That’s modern Republican thinking.

Mike789:

“the market does not give a damn about infrastructure.”

How many miles of railroad track have been laid by the government? How many miles of powerlines have been hung? Who built all those canals around the Great Lakes 150 years ago? Who put up all the telegraph and telephone lines? Who is installing fiber optic cable? Who owns all those gas and fuel pipelines? How many airports does the government own and operate? As long as a farmer needs to get his crops to the city, or a steel maker needs to get his steel out of the mill, “the market” will give a huge damn about infrastructure.

Until the federal government took over interstate (not Interstate) highways, there were a lot of private turnpikes. The highway trust fund pays for the US highway system and is itself funded by fuel taxes.

“I reckon you’d approve of privitized turnpikes and tolls for “every” bridge renovated.” You’d reckon wrong. To the extent we pay fuel taxes to build and maintain those roads and bridges, I guess you could say we are already paying “tolls” to the government. I would be against private toll roads for the simple reason that I’d be paying two tolls, one to the feds and one to the road owner.

THE BUDGET GAME

ELP: Bush was bad, but Obama has him easily beat, hands down.

Golly gee whilikers, ELP, Obama got beat? I didn’t even know there was a Budget Game! You just invent it?

It is necessary to go far further back in history to get a handle on what has been happening with national debt. Have a look at this infographic here. What do we see happening in 1980 … you see it, that spike upwards in the government debt?

Wasn’t the the guy elected PotUS in 1980 the one who wanted the government to “get off our backs”?

And what about the period between 1990 and year 2000 when the budget tapers off—who was PotUS then? And, wow!, just look at 2000 in the infographic, what happens then when Lead-head took office?

What PotUS lowered taxes in the early 2000s all the while blithely spending 1 trillion dollars over in the sandbox? Did Lead-head win that game too?

And we are going to give Congress back to these fulsome idiots next month?  Fine, then we deserve the consequences.

They are clueless … utterly and terminally clueless. They refuse to understand that a government should manage economic policy in the best interests of all citizens. Instead, they only believe in reducing tax revenues in order to “starve the beast” - particularly at the upper levels of total compensation.

Devoid of any other political philosophy, preternaturally, they genuflect at the altar of the God of Mammon.

“President Obama’s detractors apparently like to push the idea that he is
responsible for jacking up government spending to new heights”

These detractors forget that Obama put the cost of wars on the “books”.  Bush was
allowed to start and fight them “off the books”

The same detractors never realize how much money ending all the un-necessary
wars and foreign involvement could save.

Paul Krugman is delusional, and now spouting hysterical opinions.

FACTS!
Federal Budget Deficits under Obama:

2009: $-1.42 trillion dollars; 10% of GDP
2010: $-1.30 trillion dollars;  9% of GDP

Bush was bad, but Obama has him easily beat, hands down.

Professor Krugman of Princeton, seems to be a stealth neocon, trying to get more government money for his financial elites so they and he can remain in power, just a little longer.
Paul, love your cushy job a the NYT.

Rico: Bush never allowed his war debts to be counted as part of the deficit in the first place. Obama put them in to where they should have been showing since 2003 and actually before that when Bush started his jihad with Iraq. By actually showing the true debt does in no way make Obama the person responsible for this debt. It belongs mostly to the Bush reign of terror on America. Bush walked into office with a surplus which he managed to eliminate in short time. He put America into the biggest debt since Ronald Reagan.And you have a right to feel uncomfortable supporting those you consider undeserving, I just wonder what you use to measure those who are undeserving of getting free money as you call it and who would you consider a deserving person of getting free money? Does someone who worked all of their working years until they became disabled or old and retired, who paid into the system be undeserving of the free money they paid for while working as a safety blanket in your eyes. What would qualify a person “worthy” and no bankers are not poor, they helped to create a many of the poor and with their millions if not billions of dollars, should not be allowed the corp. welfare they currently enjoy at the expense of the middle and low income people.

Jeffery: Sharp increases in food stamps????? under Obama is a republican lie. Social Security-something I worked and paid into all my working life has not been increased going on 3 years now including the years Obama will have been in office, as 2011 gets no COLA we are still getting the last Bush rate from Jan.2008 and if food stamps go up it will be for no more than $1.00 a month, not enough to cover the food price increases just for the cheapest of staples. Medicaid spending has actually cut payments and what is covered. I know as I now live on disability. Everything else has gone up but my income due to inflation, which has lost a lot of buying power in the last few years. Bush’s TARP 2-implemented under Obama didn’t help those who needed it most. Only ones it has helped are the Wall Street mess, bankers and the war machine AKA MIC and they have done very well for themselves. You don’t know what you are talking about.

All obfuscations aside, Krugman’s numbers ring true.  Obama inherited obscenely obese deficits and two wars.

But it doesn’t matter. In politics, the fact that Krugman is right is irrelevant and will have no effect on the election.  Tea partiers are not going to read PK, and those that do will react as we’ve seen in posts below, with the RNC blast email position or the Teaparty fantasies.

And people will vote as if what they believe is true.  And, when it fails, PR machines kick in. 

Who remembers that Ronald Reagan’s first big tax cut was a dismal failure and after 2 years RR was resigned to the fact that he had to implement a tax increase?  No one seems to remember this, but it happened and I, who I guess am no one, remember it vividly.

Wake up America!  -  Join the Revolution
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Democrats and Republicans can’t help us.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
We don’t have to live like this anymore…

citing rico suave ~ PRECISELY!!

[The ONE BIG THING that separates you and me is identifying just who that “one [who] feels gives the best benefit to the country.”

You think the “one” is government bureaucracy. I think the “one” is the free market. Pure and simple.]

I’d go along with your perspective in principle, however, in reality, as is made plainly evident, the market does not give a damn about infrastructure.

I reckon you’d approve of privitized turnpikes and tolls for “every” bridge renovated.

Business interests have the greatest inpact on roads and bridges. A semi-truck’s tonnage is what damages our highways and bridges. Are they paying adequate impact fees? I doubt it.

And oh yeah, what free market are you refering to? Is it the international market? Guess not. Is it the domestic market with dark trades, nano trading, no uptick rule, pump and dump, and the preponderant lobbying of Congress by corporate interest to stifles innovation in favor the status quo? It’s more like a grab-ass game of “free for all” the mege-wealthy.

Gmonst:

Sorry, no, I didn’t mean that Wall Street should decide how tax dollars are spent.

And where did you get the idea I am against ALL taxes, and ALL government?

“I do truly believe the general welfare is best enhanced…”, etc. I totally agree. But we differ in our tolerance of the scope of government’s involvement in the “general welfare”. It may sound like a bumper sticker, but I believe that if the government won’t allow us to fail, it eventually won’t allow us to succeed either.

LA-LA-LAND ON THE POTOMAC

Take a look at this here from the New York Times, based upon official documents.

Does this recorded spending look like a “myth”?

I like Paul Krugman. His heart, on the Left, is in the right place. Like Reich’s. But, his punditry is getting a bit long in the tooth. (Take a break, Paul. Less means more.)

Can more be done. Yes. Damn the deficit hawks to hell and full speed ahead with deficit spending to goose the economy. It needs it.

We’ll need to pay for it with increased taxes, but so what? Uncle Sam’s middle-to-upper class Yanks can afford to go on an income diet.

But, heed this: When the Reps get back into power in Congress, it all stops ... no increased takes, no stimulatory spending (to speak of).

Nothing more in terms of needed infrastructural spending will happen. Nada, niente, rien, zip, nixt.

And the Dems will try to do to the Reps what the Reps have done in Congress to the Dems. It will be the good ole days of gridlock in LaLaLand on the Potomac.

Two steps forward, ten steps back.

So you don’t think we should pay any taxes?  Are you for no government at all?  Or you just think all taxes should be given to business?  I don’t get what you mean by markets deciding how taxes are best spent.

SECTION 8:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

I do truly believe the general welfare is best enhanced by spending tax revenue on a robust infrastructure, a top education system, a good health care program, and social programs that provide a safety net for the lowest rungs of society to help provide the chance for upward mobility for all members of society and to stop people from falling into abject poverty and the desperation that brings.

I think this kind of spending makes the country a better place to live, provides a better feeling of welfare and harmony among the populace, and generally makes a stronger society where all will prosper more.

I also feel that these services are best delivered by government bureaucracy because the goals of providing for the general welfare are not compatible with the profit driven market model, especially in the cases of education, health-care, and social programs.

Gmonst:

We could have a great conversation. Thanks for the post.

Let me distill our fundamental differences with a quote from you:

“All taxes and government spending is a matter of redistributing money to where is considered best used. It is just a matter of what one feels gives the best benefit to the country.”

PRECISELY!!

The ONE BIG THING that separates you and me is identifying just who that “one [who] feels gives the best benefit to the country.”

You think the “one” is government bureaucracy. I think the “one” is the free market. Pure and simple.

The best use of tax money is that which is spelled out in the Constitution. I know, I know. You think that’s a cheap, cop-out answer. But read the words. 90% of government spending (pick your own percentage) is generated by people who think they know how to allocate your money better than you do.

I don’t know how you can give up that kind of freedom.

Why shouldn’t I feel uncomfortable about undeserving people getting free money? Do you feel uncomfortable about Wall street bankers getting free money? I thought so.

We had WAR WAR WAR spending under Bush and he never came close to Obama’s deficits.

You have a link to back that up Rico?  I will admit I don’t know the numbers but I seem to remember Bush doing some pretty big deficit spending.  Also the bail-outs being paid back probably wouldn’t have been part of the budget either at the end of Bush’s term or the first year of Obama’s so the years we have numbers for are not likely to include that payback as part of the budget.  Another point, if I am not mistaken, is that Obama put the wars onto the books thereby making them part of the budget, when Bush funded them outside of the yearly budget.  Seems like that could play into an increased deficit on paper but not in practical reality.

I would argue that while its not all WAR WAR WAR spending, but you know just as well its huge piece of the pie.

I didn’t understand rollzone’s post to be honest, but leave it to you Rico to turn it into a scary declaration of how progressives want to take everyone’s money from them and give it to da da ta dum, THE POOR.  EEEK!

All taxes and government spending is a matter of redistributing money to where is considered best used.  It is just a matter of what one feels gives the best benefit to the country.  Those like myself, progressives I suppose although I don’t fit your cookie cutter, would like to see a higher percentage of tax revenue used to help average citizens through government programs rather than its current use for corporate welfare, war, and empire building.  I suppose there are others who truly believe the empire spending and helping out mega-corps is really the best way to benefit the American people.  However, I personally feel far too often its about greed, not genuine concern for The United States or its citizens. 

What do you feel is the best use of tax money Rico?

Is it ok to build and repair some roads and bridges, create a newer better infrastructure or might too many undeserving people benefit for you to feel comfortable about it?

The choice is finally becoming clear.

Federal Reserve/Democrat/Republican/Kenysian/War Machine Plutocracy

vs.

Austrian-influenced Libertarian Anti-War New Direction

http://mises.org/daily/4730
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553#
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/09/07/matt-gonzalez-tony-hall-and-ron-
paul

rollzone:

“you can not spend money you do not own. what you do is siphon off a percentage of other peoples’ monies. you just redistribute it to where you know best.”

“where you know best”...

Wow. Truer words were never spoken to describe modern progressivism. Nor scarier.

hello. he is absolutely right. there is no grand
expansion of government spending. you can not spend
money you do not own. what you do is siphon off a
percentage of other peoples’ monies. you just
redistribute it to where you know best. you are not
actually spending. borrowing, appropriating,
misdirecting, funneling, funding, stashing: no, not
spending. exactly where IS the budget?

Well then why are we running trillion dollar deficits? It’s not all WAR WAR WAR spending. We had WAR WAR WAR spending under Bush and he never came close to Obama’s deficits. We have the same tax rates as under Bush, so that’s not it. GM and AIG, etc, are paying the treasury back, with interest, so that’s not it.

Any ideas?