OT: Interesting Debt Comparisons

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

What brings up talk of a stimulus? Kurt said that nobody has discusses anything that would address this issue, that issue being a laborious system of protecting turf, with licenses, etc that make it hard to start new businesses. Same thing is going on here, to a lesser extent. And dealing with that has always been a core conservative position.

On the other hand, you're here complaining on the one hand that the Greek govt wound up driving salaries and benefits to unsustainable levels both in govt and the private sector, yet at the same time you're bitching that those salaries have now been cut 20%?

As for any govt stimulus in Greece, the problem is they can't borrow any more money. Soon the USA will be in that position too. Yet you insist that we keep stimulating with more govt programs, more govt spending. In the case of Greece, trying to fix their economy by doing that, isn't going to work. It's like giving an alcoholic another drink instead of real treatment.

Tourists generally don't prefer countries with riots in the streets, hippies burning down buildings and cars, etc.

Reply to
trader4
Loading thread data ...

Then the way you get there is simple. Just demand that the spending be significantly reduced with real cuts. Start with a recent year where spending, though still higher than it should be, was not out of control. Where we had a deficit of just $160bil. That would be 2007. Then look at spending now relative to then. It's gone up a whopping 40%. Tax revenue on the other hand is now slightly HIGHER than it was in 2007. If instead of addressing that FIRST and foremost, you fall for the liberal mantra of it's a tax problem or both need to be addressed, you will never fix the real problem. You'll instead get tax increases that are real and immediate in exchange for promises of cuts from inflated numbers 5 to 10 years in the future. That is exactly the game the liberals have been playing.

Just look at Obama's budget claims. He claims he's reducing the deficit by $4tril over ten years. Even that would leave it at horrific levels and add another $6tril to the existing $15tril total debt. Of that $4tril, $1tril is totally fake because he's counting $1tril in future cuts that already have been made pursuant to the debt ceiling increase from last summer. He's trying to count it twice. Then he claims $850tril in savings from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One war is over, the other ending, so that is money that would never have been spent anyway. This is classic behavior from the left. Take a budget and add all kinds of crap to it, as much as you can. Then when the Republicans want to cut it by even 1%, scream bloody murder and fight to the death. If it winds up getting cut by anything. it's a cut from an inflated starting point, NOT a cut from present spending or even realistic future spending.

In Obama's budget you're left with cuts to future programs that will never occur and will be long forgotten in a couple of years. The net result is that despite all the drama and pretending you have few real cuts that amount to anything and a budget for next year that is higher than this years budget.

Reply to
trader4

I think you're a little confused here. Those states do not have mandatory birth control insurance. AFAIK, what they have are laws that say if an employer CHOOSES to offer PRESECRIPTION coverage, then they have to include birth control coverage. So, AFAIK, any employer is free to have a health insurance plan without prescription coverage. Or they could have no insurance.

I also don't believe it would be hard to find Catholic institutions in those states that are not offering prescription coverage, probably as a result of the law.

Another example of where all this big govt meddling gets you is this. Perhaps you can explain to us why it is OK that Obama declares war on the Catholic church, but at the same time has freely handed out wavers from Obamacare to nearly 2000 others? You know, businesses like the expensive steak house in San Francisco, unions, etc. Under Obamacare they can just do whatever they please. Which is exactly the kind of tyranny you get when you demand more govt.

Reply to
trader4

too REALLY cut spending entitlements like social security and medicare MUST BE CUT.

Thats the 3rd rail of the government, cut it and die...

As long as congress is bought and paid for by PACs and re election stuff there is no hope.

Special interests buy congress and give the reps money to get re elected. only the super wealthy have the bucks, which is why the middle class is being wiped out

Reply to
bob haller

innews:HcidnQU91KVeGt7SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

The difference is that we can fire up the printing presses and loan money to ourselves, which is exactly what Obama's been doing for three years already. Of course that can't be done forever, either, but Obama doesn't know that.

Exactly like the US government and tax increases.

Businesses don't either but try telling that to an "occupier".

Reply to
krw

You certainly are because you believe that tax increases are some sort of "solution".

Reply to
krw

That's a lie. Not *that* much has changed since 2007, except government spending.

Reply to
krw

Because it didn't. I was talking about addressing the barriers to new business formation. You know getting government out of the way. PURE conservativism (grin).

You might be right. I haven't seen any reports that they are doing much, but I might have missed it.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Well, than I'm in between . I do believe that if the country (but perhaps it is only Congress and the greedy people that feed congress-critters) decides that we need to spend money on xyz, then that money should come from somewhere. Ideally by cutting it out from somewhere that doesn't need the money anymore, but if that can't be done, for whatever reason, then it should come from taxes. All this deficit will need to be paid from future taxes (or painful cuts).

Reply to
Han

No, you believe in that increased spending.

No, it'll be far worse. Remember stagflation? You're asking for it.

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm not asking for it, hadthat when we bought our first home. 12.5% mortgage, rates were going up. Clause in contract said that if the rate of the approved mortgage was higher than 12.5%, buyer would prepay the interest over the life of the mortgage that exceeded 12.5%. Buyer signed.

Reply to
Han

things like air quality and environmental defense useless.

It is 150%, and that was a typo as you can see from my other posts and the context.

Reply to
trader4

The policies you favor *are* asking for it. You'll probably get it, too. The cake is already baked. When it dropped to 10.5% I thought we were in fat city. We're looking for a new home now, and it's 3.5% or maybe a little less less (doesn't matter much because we won't have the mortgage that long).

My first mortgage was 14.5% (down from 18% when we were house hunting). You, must have liked it, though, because you want it back.

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm glad for you that you are OK now. Currently my only mortgage is a HELOC at 2.24%, and if it goes up too much, I'll pay it off with some reserve funds. I didn't like the high interest rates any more than you did (I assume), although the interest on junk bonds was really good at the time. For the future, I think such high interest rates won't happen again, not with the current Fed philosophies. But that is voicing what I think, not what I know, which as you know is bumpkes.

Reply to
Han

" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news:c8438174- snipped-for-privacy@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

Isn't that what you'd expect inthe first month? Is that really an indication for the long term?

Reply to
Han

When (not if) inflation takes off, because of your boy's policies, interest rates will *have* to skyrocket. They're not going to loan money at 2% when inflation is 14%. Well, I'd like to get that deal, but it's not going to happen.

Reply to
krw

What *I* would expect. I *know* what the Laffer Curve is. OTOH, it's clearly not what the government expected.

The reality is that the long term will be even worse.

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I would have thought that would have happened (to some extent at least) by now, but it hasn't. With Europe in worse shape than I thought as well, inflation and the obviously linked interest rates are now likely to remain tameunder the current administration. Given the "performance" to date of any potential challengers to Obama, that isn't likely to change. A pity, because a real discussion of policies and strategies for the economy would be something to welcome. That is another way of saying that I am sorry that the GOP can't come up with someone credible as a challenger, at least so far.

Reply to
Han

Sure. And in the second month, the 24th month, too. People figure out how you're screwing them and then figure a way around it.

Here's what happened in CT:

Pop Goes The Surplus January 25, 2012 By Terry Cowgill To all who insist that raising taxes necessarily results in higher revenues, we have this.

Connecticut=92s surplus, announced with great fanfare only a few weeks ago, has disappeared practically overnight. $83 million has suddenly become a paltry $1.4 million =97 and even that is likely to vanish and vault us into the red. This after the largest tax increase in state history that, we were assured, would balance the books and make us stronger. Things have gotten so bad that today Gov. Malloy used his rescissionary authority to cut $79 million more out of the budget just to keep us in the black.

Or Oregon:

A 6-cent gas tax increase taking effect Jan. 1 was supposed to be one of the driving forces in a nearly $1 billion transportation package enacted by the 2009 Legislature -- something then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski touted as a "landmark achievement."

Coupled with a major hike in Oregon's vehicle registration fees, historically among the lowest in the nation, it was supposed to produce an additional $300 million per calendar year. And that was supposed to fund a statewide roadbuilding program with the first phase of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass serving as its $257 million centerpiece.

But the recession led people to buy and register fewer costly new cars, do everything in their power to wring better mileage out of existing and replacement rigs and reduce their road miles whenever possible.

As a result, the state will probably net less than $170 million extra in 2011, not much more than half what it was hoping. And that could put projects in jeopardy.

Reply to
trader4

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It hasn't happened because even with all the liquidity that money hasn't been put to use nearly as much as it would have been in the past. Everyone is so loaded up on debt that there is no eagerness to borrow more and spend more. Excepting Obama and the liberals of course. It's like the FED is pushing on a string. Now, there is finally some evidence that the economy is recovering, so watch out.

=A0>With Europe in worse shape than I thought as

I agree, provided you mean until January 2013 when hopefully this administration will end.

=A0>Given the "performance" to

Have you watched any of the debates? Looked at the candidates economic proposals? All the candidates have offered economic policies with a wide variety of ideas. Unfortunately none of those would be considered "credible" to you. But meanwhile continuing a path of reckless spending, running deficits of $1.3tril a year is apparently perfectly credible with you. On the other hand, those plans must be credible to a lot of Americans, because right now in national polls two of the Republican candidates are in a statistical dead heat with Obama.

Reply to
trader4

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.