|
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume Problem was the Democrat controlled Congress. After the agreed tax cuts, the economy soared. Unfortunately Congress increased spending even more than a soaring economy could support. Sort of like Clinton's time. Soaring revenue, and Congress trying to spend it all. When Clinton left office, and the dot.com meltdown was already in process, the spending was committed to the future. Look at California at what might happen to Federal Government. They did the same spending and increases and are now bankrupt. |
Consideration required
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls |
Consideration required
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:30:11 -0800, CalifBill wrote:
The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Only part of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms |
Consideration required
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume Problem was the Democrat controlled Congress. After the agreed tax cuts, the economy soared. Unfortunately Congress increased spending even more than a soaring economy could support. Sort of like Clinton's time. Soaring revenue, and Congress trying to spend it all. When Clinton left office, and the dot.com meltdown was already in process, the spending was committed to the future. Look at California at what might happen to Federal Government. They did the same spending and increases and are now bankrupt. The Senate was controlled by Republicans during most of his two terms... all of the first and 1/2 of the second. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"thunder" wrote in message t... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:30:11 -0800, CalifBill wrote: The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Only part of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms Yes your link is only part of the story. The debt includes all that borrowed SS money. |
Consideration required
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! -- Nom=de=Plume Where did it grow? Any part not shifted from the future, via tax credits? |
Consideration required
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! -- Nom=de=Plume Where did it grow? Any part not shifted from the future, via tax credits? Do your own reading... http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news.../gdp/index.htm -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Here's the bad news: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Formul...41311.html?x=0 Eisboch |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Here's the bad news: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Formul...41311.html?x=0 Eisboch It's never going to be all good news or all bad news. Exports and the falling dollar are a good example. Jobs are created, but a continually falling dollar wouldn't be good. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:04:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. Make up your mind, are you talking about deficit spending or deregulation, again two different things. BTW Reagan's 8 year debt increase of around $2T (about the same as Clinton's 8 year number) will be beat by Obama in far less than two. Before you say it, GW hit it out of the park too. Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes. Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. Pffff, that's why few here bother with the woman. She is about as serious about honest debate as WF3H or WAFA..! Ha... Scotty Pffff.. that's why you're a lonely guy... "the woman"? We're not that rare. Get a life. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is statistically huge. |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes. Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure. I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime. If you look at where the deregulation of the financial system got started you will see it was during the Clinton and Bush II administrations. The deficit or the debt? I think the deficit will improve, but probably never be gone completely. That's not a terrible thing. The debt will likely always be around, but can be slowed. Deregulation certainly continued with Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! -- Nom=de=Plume Where did it grow? Any part not shifted from the future, via tax credits? Do your own reading... http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news.../gdp/index.htm -- Nom=de=Plume Explain how the GDP did real growth. |
Consideration required
"CalifBill" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! -- Nom=de=Plume Where did it grow? Any part not shifted from the future, via tax credits? Do your own reading... http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news.../gdp/index.htm -- Nom=de=Plume Explain how the GDP did real growth. So, basically, you're an idiot. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:11:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes. Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure. I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime. If you look at where the deregulation of the financial system got started you will see it was during the Clinton and Bush II administrations. The deficit or the debt? I think the deficit will improve, but probably never be gone completely. That's not a terrible thing. The debt will likely always be around, but can be slowed. The deficit is just what we are adding to the debt. They are not the same thing but they are definitely related. The real problem is we don't really have any way to attack the deficit because of entitlements. Even when the economy was booming, Social Security was going to be upside down in 2017, now it will be more like 2016 or even 2015 because more people are taking it at 62 and not making as much money before they do retire. The whole idea of "cashing in the bonds" is ludicrous. That is just more government borrowing that will show up on the deficit. The actual money they collected is long gone. Add to that Medicare that is already declining and will be upside down in a year or two and you see how much trouble we are in.. Deregulation certainly continued with Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics There was really no major deregulation of the financial industry there. The 1986 tax changes actually limited a lot of the silly things the financial guys were doing because it closed a lot of the tax loop holes. I know I have a real; estate partnership that was giving me about $5,000 a year in write offs and still giving me a couple thousand a year. The 86 tax bill made all of those write offs go away. I still have it but it is not that sweet a deal. They offered to buy me out awhile ago for some paltrily sum and I declined. Now I am in business with Carl Ichan. I own a tiny piece of Trump's casinos now. ;-) They send be several hundred every quarter as a dividend. The deficit _might_ be part of the debt, but not necessarily. Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Look again... lots of deregulation took place under Reagan. He promoted it, pushed it. Ugg... Trump. :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
On Feb 2, 1:41*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:11:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes. Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure. I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime. If you look at where the deregulation of the financial system got started you will see it was during the Clinton and Bush II administrations. The deficit or the debt? I think the deficit will improve, but probably never be gone completely. That's not a terrible thing. The debt will likely always be around, but can be slowed. The deficit is just what we are adding to the debt. They are not the same thing but they are definitely related. The real problem is we don't really have any way to attack the deficit because of entitlements. Even when the economy was booming, Social Security *was going to be upside down in 2017, now it will be more like *2016 or even 2015 because more people are taking it at 62 and not making as much money before they do retire. The whole idea of "cashing in the bonds" is ludicrous. That is just more government borrowing that will show up on the deficit. The actual money they collected is long gone. Add to that Medicare that is already declining and will be upside down in a year or two and you see how much trouble we are in.. Deregulation certainly continued with Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics There was really no major deregulation of the financial industry there. The 1986 tax changes actually limited a lot of the silly things the financial guys were doing because it closed a lot of the tax loop holes. I know I have a real; estate partnership that was giving me about $5,000 a year in write offs and still giving me a couple thousand a year. The 86 tax bill made all of those write offs go away. I still have it but it is not that sweet a deal. They offered to buy me out awhile ago for some paltrily sum and I declined. Now I am in business with Carl Ichan. I own a tiny piece of Trump's casinos now. ;-) They send be several hundred every quarter as a dividend. The deficit _might_ be part of the debt, but not necessarily. Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Look again... lots of deregulation took place under Reagan. He promoted it, pushed it. Ugg... Trump. :) -- Nom=de=Plume "So, basically, you're an idiot." -- "Nom=de=Plume" |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people will be coming for money that doesn't exist. All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time to fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
Harry wrote:
On 2/2/10 9:27 AM, wrote: On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people will be coming for money that doesn't exist. Easy enough to fix...just raise the withholding on those with incomes over a certain amount. Dan Krueger here boats about making $27,000 a month...hell, raise his medicare and SS withholding to $5000 a month. He can afford to pay more. :) Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send him to an early retirement. |
Consideration required
On 2/2/10 8:34 PM, Bruce wrote:
Harry wrote: On 2/2/10 9:27 AM, wrote: On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:41:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people will be coming for money that doesn't exist. Easy enough to fix...just raise the withholding on those with incomes over a certain amount. Dan Krueger here boats about making $27,000 a month...hell, raise his medicare and SS withholding to $5000 a month. He can afford to pay more. :) Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send him to an early retirement. Krueger's pimping isn't hard work. |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:44:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people will be coming for money that doesn't exist. All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time to fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed. If you consider 5 years a long time I suppose you are right about Social Security but medicare is broke now. They are printing money to fund it. Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but SS is positive until something like 2040, then it will be taking in less than it spends. Medicare is less well off. I believe they're predicting 2020 when it run out of money if not refunded. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:09:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:44:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Your numbers for Medicare are way off. Medicare is already upside down, scooping up "reserve" money the government has already borrowed and spent. (AKA printing money) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html These are Ponzi schemes that really only have the money that is coming in each month to redistribute back to the "investors". Just like Bernie Madoff,. they spent the rest. The only real "investment" is the full faith and credit of future tax payers. Without exponential growth of the tax base, these have to fail. That worked when the boomers were all working but the boom is over soon and these people will be coming for money that doesn't exist. All true, but it won't go bust for a long time. There's plenty of time to fix it, but yes, it has to be fixed. If you consider 5 years a long time I suppose you are right about Social Security but medicare is broke now. They are printing money to fund it. Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but SS is positive until something like 2040, then it will be taking in less than it spends. Medicare is less well off. I believe they're predicting 2020 when it run out of money if not refunded. I am getting my numbers from SSA.GOV, the trustees report. I posted a link in this thread. From that link "Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets" The 2016-2017 number is when it is giving out more than it takes in. In the 2011-2012 timeframe the surplus peak and will start declining. When it gives out more than it takes in they say they will be redeeming the bonds but we all know that is simply printing money (adding to the deficit) because there is no real money there. We have been spending every cent of the surplus since 1940 and putting an IOU in the box.. That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar. If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:20:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar. If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers? The fantasy is that US bonds are actually worth anything in 2037 if we actually started cashing this many of them in 2016. It is like Bill Gates' net worth. Most of it is in Microsoft stock but if he really sold much of it, the stock would crash before he sold a third of it. Ok, but in any case, we have time to fix Medicare. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:30:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:20:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That 2037 (or some other fantasy number) is when the theoretical time the bonds would have run out. For the same reason we can't really redeem China's bonds, we can't redeem the SS bonds. There just is not that much money out there unless we increase the money supply by printing it. That will be a de facto devaluation of the dollar. If it's a fantasy for 2037, how can you rely on the other numbers? The fantasy is that US bonds are actually worth anything in 2037 if we actually started cashing this many of them in 2016. It is like Bill Gates' net worth. Most of it is in Microsoft stock but if he really sold much of it, the stock would crash before he sold a third of it. Ok, but in any case, we have time to fix Medicare. But we are borrowing money until we do. They are already upside down. That is why Obama wants to find a way to get a half billion out of their budget. AARP is livid, They were all in favor of medical reform (since they are basically an insurance company) but the "ox" that pays their bills is getting gored. At this point in the financial recovery, it would be suicide to tighten belts. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:12:54 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription. You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result. -- Nom=de=Plume Problem was the Democrat controlled Congress. After the agreed tax cuts, the economy soared. Unfortunately Congress increased spending even more than a soaring economy could support. Sort of like Clinton's time. you mean the last time we had a balanced budget? that why you hate clinton:? |
Consideration required
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:43:45 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message et... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:30:11 -0800, CalifBill wrote: The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Only part of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms Yes your link is only part of the story. The debt includes all that borrowed SS money. actually reagan proposed budgets that differed little in spending compared to the democrats. he just wanted to spend it on the military |
Consideration required
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, Bruce wrote:
The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is statistically huge. even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew. which is more than we can say about bush |
Consideration required
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:19:25 -0500, wrote:
Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow from Social Security and call it income although it was still increasing the debt. uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:00:54 -0500, wrote:
There was really no major deregulation of the financial industry there. one of the major issues in the current meltdown was when GOP senator phil gramm personally stopped passage of the commodities future marketing act until the regulatory powers of the SEC were stripped from the bill |
Consideration required
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:34:39 -0500, Bruce wrote:
Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send him to an early retirement. i love it. the rich think the middle class is 'lazy'... |
Consideration required
On 2/7/10 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, wrote: The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is statistically huge. even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew. which is more than we can say about bush Bruce is one of those Republithugs who doesn't want any sort of economic turnaround. Improvement in the economy will make it more difficult for the Republithugs. Bruce hates America. |
Consideration required
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:56:04 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes. Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure. I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime. as nobel prize winner paul krugman pointed out, obama's deficits aren't the problem the hysterical right says they are. service on the national debt after obama's money is spent will be about 3.4% of GDP...about the same as it was under bush the first If you won a Nobel, you'd be a loser. You forgot that. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow from Social Security and call it income although it was still increasing the debt. uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus. Ike did it by actually cutting spending. Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:37:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow from Social Security and call it income although it was still increasing the debt. uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus. Ike did it by actually cutting spending. Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html Which year did the debt actually go down? I didn't think so. Taking one piece of the debt (the money you borrow from SS) and applying it to lowering your deficit is basically paying your Visa card bill with your Mastercard. Ike actually had a year when the debt went down. So, you're unwilling to believe a non-partisan group... whatever. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com