Bernie Sanders

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Amskeptic, Sluggo

Jivermo
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Jivermo » Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:34 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Amen.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by hippiewannabe » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:59 pm

Amskeptic wrote:...Cue the morons who natter about Marxists...
Hey! :evil:

:badgrin:

As has often been pointed out, most famously by Margaret Thatcher, socialists inevitably run out of other people's money.

In cases where there exists almost unimaginable natural resource wealth, like Venezuela or the USSR, it may take longer, but eventually it will happen.

Poor Bernie. If he makes it to the White House, he will be bummed to find out the money is already gone.

Amskeptic wrote:I think Bernie Sanders is a more important phenomenom than just pushing the Same Ol Same Ol a little further left.
A little further left is all that is available. You can probably squeeze a little more wealth out of the rich, and give a bit more to the rest, but push too hard and you will kill the goose laying the golden eggs. Wealth doesn't just happen, somebody has to create it.
When thousands of people believe a made-up story for a month, we call it fake news. When a billion people believe a made-up story for a thousand years, we call it a religion.

User avatar
asiab3
IAC Addict!
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by asiab3 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:58 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:Wealth doesn't just happen, somebody has to create it.
We are tired of this. We want "everybody" to create the wealth." We are tired of a select few creating (and subsequently keeping) all the wealth. Who says the 8 richest people are the only ones allowed to create and hoard the wealth?
You can probably squeeze a little more wealth out of the rich, and give a bit more to the rest, but push too hard and you will kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
This concept is played out, because nobody is laying golden eggs!! The people who are capable are giving us nothing but wrappers of stale chocolate egg-shaped turds that have been left out in the sun too long. Show me ONE example of a golden-egg-laying capitalist "goose" who is giving their golden eggs. They're not. They're sitting on them and that's all they'll ever do with them unless there is a radical change in humans of this country vocalizing how they actually feel.
1969 bus, "Buddy."
100k miles with me.
279k miles on Earth.

User avatar
dingo
IAC Addict!
Location: oregon - calif
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by dingo » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:32 am

...so long as people feel that theres a remote chance the 'system' can be tweaked or changed...they fear losing the the precious little they have and the pitchforks stay in the barn
'71 Kombi, 1600 dp

';78 Tranzporter 2L

" Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches."

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Amskeptic » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:53 am

hippiewannabe wrote:
Amskeptic wrote:...Cue the morons who natter about Marxists...
Hey! :evil:
Hey Mor . . . MISTER Moron, :badgrin:
hippiewannabe wrote: As has often been pointed out, most famously by Margaret Thatcher, socialists inevitably run out of other people's money.
That is just a sound bite. We have run up deficits not because we paid too much money to our workers, but because we fattened up contractors and energy companies and bankers, the bubbles.
hippiewannabe wrote: In cases where there exists almost unimaginable natural resource wealth, like Venezuela or the USSR, it may take longer, but eventually it will happen.
In each case, it was not socialism that caused those financial problems, but greed, avarice, fraud, and corruption, and outside forces like capitalists trying to break them. We do not have an example yet of a socialist economy collapsing due to structural issues.
hippiewannabe wrote: Poor Bernie. If he makes it to the White House, he will be bummed to find out the money is already gone.
Funny you say that. Once again, it took a Democratic President to wrestle down the deficit. Interesting that the Republicans do not celebrate Obama's remarkable results with halving the federal deficit. Interesting too, that the republicans do not mention that this administration has far fewer scandals than any of the previous administrations, and that corporate wealth is at an all time high.
hippiewannabe wrote:
Amskeptic wrote:I think Bernie Sanders is a more important phenomenom than just pushing the Same Ol Same Ol a little further left.


A little further left is all that is available. You can probably squeeze a little more wealth out of the rich, and give a bit more to the rest, but push too hard and you will kill the goose laying the golden eggs. Wealth doesn't just happen, somebody has to create it.
[/quote]

Naaaah. Go read what has happened with Gravity Systems, Rush Limbaugh's and republicans worst nightmare, right next to ObamaCare Actually Works . . . :cyclopsani:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12757#p217001
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .111,130 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,787 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . . 94,615 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,510 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 72,990 miles

72Hardtop
Old School!
Location: Seattle, WA./HB. Ca./Shizuoka, Japan
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by 72Hardtop » Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:14 pm

Fed’s US Debt Bomb

By: Adam Hamilton










-- Posted Friday, 30 October 2015 | Share this article | Disqus



With the Federal Reserve’s first rate-hike cycle in nearly a decade looming, traders are working overtime trying to divine its timing and impact on the markets. They are closely monitoring the same employment and inflation data the Fed will use to start tightening. But there’s another little-discussed concern for the Fed, the solvency of the US government. The Fed’s zero-interest-rate policy has spawned a grave US debt bomb.



Back in late 2008, the US stock markets suffered their first true stock panic since 1907. This once-in-a-century fear superstorm proved catastrophic. In a single month leading into October 2008, the flagship S&P 500 stock index plummeted 30.0%. Over 6/7ths of these losses happened in 2 weeks, a massive 25.9% cratering! That exceeded the threshold for a stock panic, which is a 20%+ plunge in a couple weeks.



Such extreme selling catapulted fear so high that the S&P 500 had fallen another 11.4% less than a month later! The American central bankers certainly weren’t immune to this epic fear, so they joined the traders in panicking. The Fed feared that the stock panic’s wealth effect, the tendency for weaker stocks to retard consumer spending, would cast the entire US economy over a cliff right into a new great depression.



So the central bankers acted quickly to try and restore confidence through shoring up the devastated stock markets. The Fed slashed its key federal-funds rate two separate times in October 2008 for 50 basis points each. This certainly didn’t stop the extreme stock selling, so the Fed desperately made an enormous 100bp cut in December! That blasted the federal-funds rate to zero, beginning the ZIRP era.



Running a zero-interest-rate policy is an extreme measure that central banks rarely use. It is reserved for dire economic emergencies, and then promptly reversed soon after. Indeed upon panicking into ZIRP, Fed officials promised that highly-distorting condition would be temporary. Yet here we are, 6.9 years later, and ZIRP is still in place! The Fed has lacked the courage to normalize its extreme stock-panic policies.



ZIRP is super-problematic on all kinds of fronts. It greatly distorts financial markets, unleashing a torrent of easy money that bids up prices. The Fed’s ZIRP and quantitative-easing money-printing campaigns fueled recent years’ extraordinary stock-market levitation. American corporations borrowed way over a trillion dollars at the Fed’s record-low rates, using cheap money to manipulate their stock prices higher via buybacks.



Companies certainly weren’t the only large borrowers taking advantage of the ZIRP extremes. The stock panic and its aftermath also had an enormous impact on the United States federal government. 2008’s critical presidential elections were held in early November just a week after the US stock markets had lost nearly a third of their value in a single month. Scared Americans desperately wanted something to change.



Provocatively, stock-market performance leading into US presidential elections happens to be one of the best predictors of their outcomes. Since 1900, the fate of the US stock markets in the Septembers and Octobers before early-November elections has predicted the winner 26 out of 29 times. This is a 90% success rate! In 10 of the 12 times the stock markets fell in those final 2 months, the incumbent party lost.



And with the S&P 500 plummeting 24.5% in September and October 2008, the incumbent Republicans didn’t have a prayer of winning that election. The Democrats’ Barack Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote, and then assumed office in January 2009. He represents the American political party that has always been known for its fanatical devotion to excessive government spending. ZIRP greatly facilitated that.



The Fed’s extreme artificially-low interest rates were implemented right between Obama’s election win and his inauguration. The Democrats also won decisive majorities in the US Senate and House of Representatives in that stock-panic election. So the party that fervently believes bigger government is the solution to all problems controlled all the levers of power, and it rushed to expand government spending.



But not surprisingly the already-heavily-indebted US government wasn’t running a surplus, so the only way it could spend more was by first borrowing that money in the markets. Normally interest rates act as a critical constraint on that government borrowing. Excessive bond issuance (demand for money) leads to higher interest rates, which make the debt-servicing costs more expensive to naturally limit debt growth.



But first with ZIRP and later with quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve systematically removed all the free-market restraints on government spending. ZIRP forced short-term interest rates down near zero, and the federal government eagerly rushed to borrow for next to nothing. Then later the Fed started to actively conjure up new money out of thin air to buy US government bonds, classic debt monetization.



This gross Fed manipulation naturally led to extreme record government spending and deficits, both absolutely and as a percentage of the US economy. This first chart looks at the latter over the past 65 years or so. Note that the US government runs fiscal years that end on September 30th, so 2015 is already in the books. The damage the Fed and Democrats wreaked on US finances is just staggering.







For a half-century ending in 2007 before that extreme stock-panic year in 2008, US federal government spending averaged 20.3% of US gross domestic product. The Obama years saw this soar to a record 25.2% in 2010, and an average of 23.6%. This is about 1/6th higher than the long-term norm, trillions of dollars of new government spending beyond precedent. The Democrats didn’t scrimp on government largesse!



They financed their record spending with record borrowing, as evidenced by the massive red federal-deficit bars. For 50 years prior to that once-in-a-century stock panic, federal deficits averaged 2.0% of GDP. And in all fairness to the Democrats, the big-spending Ronald Reagan years in the 1980s saw some of the worst deficits before the panic. But Obama and his Democratic Congress shattered those records.



Deficits under Obama skyrocketed to a crazy record 9.8% of GDP in 2009 per the latest data from the US Treasury and Federal Reserve! Their average level during the Obama years was 6.1% of GDP, which is more than triple the half-century precedent! The government spending since the stock panic under the Democrats has been vast beyond belief. This couldn’t have happened without the Fed’s zero-rate manipulation.



Thankfully those extreme deficits have normalized in recent years, which Obama loves to point out in his political speeches. The record government spending retreated to merely super-high levels, and taxes as a percentage of GDP surged with the Fed-levitated US stock markets. But higher federal receipts are fleeting, as stock bear markets hammer them as was evident in the early-2000s and late-2000s cyclical bears.



But a far-larger problem than unsustainable levels of federal-government tax receipts are those record deficits’ contribution to the federal government’s debt. While deficits are how much spending exceeds income in any year, debt is the cumulative total of all years’ excessive spending. Just slowing the rate of overspending doesn’t even start to address the debt already accumulated. And that is the Fed’s debt bomb.



Imagine if you had a $100k income but also $100k in credit-card debt after many years of spending more than you earned. Even when you stop living beyond your means and borrowing, that massive debt load remains. And if the interest rates charged on those credit cards rise high enough, merely servicing that existing debt could easily threaten to bankrupt you. The US government now faces this dire situation.



This next chart looks at the total federal debt over the past 35 years or so. Superimposed on top of that are some average annual interest rates. They include yields on 1-year and 10-year US Treasuries that represent short and long rates. And the blue line is the effective US interest rate, the actual money the US government pays in interest each year divided by the federal debt. This keeps Fed officials awake at night.







Between 1983 and 2007, the quarter-century span before the stock panic, the US federal debt grew at an average of 8.7% annually. Washington was spending almost 9% more than it took in through taxes. And the Obama years since 2009 surprisingly didn’t greatly exceed this precedent, with average debt growth of 9.5% per year. That’s only about 1/11th higher. But the raw-dollar size of that borrowing was incredible.



In the Obama years, the federal debt skyrocketed $8.7t or 87% higher! That was as much absolute debt growth in 7 years as had previously taken 25 years. The acceleration of raw debt since the stock panic is readily evident in this chart. It mirrors a parabolic ascent, which is very dangerous when we’re talking about federal-debt levels now exceeding the size of the entire US economy! The Fed’s ZIRP enabled all this.



For the quarter-century prior to the stock panic, 1-year US Treasuries and 10-year US Treasuries had average yields of 5.6% and 6.9%. These fair-market interest rates were what it cost the US government to borrow money in the bond markets. They worked to constrain debt growth, because it was expensive to pay the interest on existing debt. Those 25 years saw an average effective US government interest rate of 6.4%.



But the Fed’s gross manipulations following the stock panic radically changed prevailing interest rates on both ends of the yield curve. The Fed’s supposedly-temporary zero-interest-rate-policy crisis measure aggressively dragged down all short-term rates. And the US government rushed to take advantage of this cheap money by rolling over maturing Treasuries into new Treasuries with shorter average maturities.



And soon after ZIRP, the Fed formally launched quantitative easing in early 2009. QE is just a fancy euphemism for monetizing debt, creating new money out of thin air to buy bonds. QE1 was expanded to include direct Fed buying of US Treasuries, which QE2 and QE3 continued at ever-higher levels. The Fed was very transparent in brazenly admitting it was buying Treasuries to manipulate long interest rates lower.



When the Fed creates money to buy bonds, this additional demand bids up bond prices. And the higher the price of any bond, the lower its yield. QE enabled the Obama Administration to borrow vastly more money at far lower rates than it ever could’ve hoped to in normal market conditions. But the interest the US government was paying to service this debt was artificially low, like a temporary teaser rate on credit cards.



As the national debt was skyrocketing higher since the stock panic thanks to the Democrats’ extreme overspending facilitated by the Fed, the interest paid on each dollar borrowed was plunging. The preliminary data for fiscal 2015 just ended suggests an effective interest rate of less than 2.2% on the US government’s incredible $18.7t in debt! That is a ticking time bomb for the Fed, a critical rate-hike consideration.



As the Fed hikes rates, the entire interest-rate complex including the yields on US Treasuries will rise to reflect this. And that’s a colossal problem for a US government up to its eyeballs in debt. In fiscal 2015 the US government had to pay $402b in interest expenses on its enormous debt, less than 2.2%. That’s only about a third of the quarter-century average effective interest rate before the Fed’s ZIRP and QE arrived.



If the Fed fully normalizes interest rates, which the global bond markets will probably eventually force whether the Fed wants to or not, the very solvency of the US government comes into question. At the pre-ZIRP average effective interest rate of 6.4%, the interest expenses on $18.7t in government debt would rocket to $1200b per year! That would likely prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for the US government.



There are two kinds of spending the US government does, mandatory and discretionary. The former accounts for over 60% of all spending and happens automatically. It includes giant welfare programs on autopilot like Medicare and Social Security. These transfer payments can’t be lowered without a huge backlash from the voters who rely on them, and the Democrats wouldn’t cut government payments for anything.



The minority remainder of overall spending is discretionary, and includes everything else done by the federal government including the military. In 2015, this discretionary spending totaled about $1.1t out of $3.4t or so. If Fed rate hikes return interest rates to normal levels, it would cost the US government another $800b just to service its existing debt. That would devour nearly 3/4ths of all discretionary government spending!



This is a nightmare scenario for the US government, which includes the Federal Reserve. Such a giant jump in interest expenses would force catastrophic cuts in government services including the military (54% of discretionary). The only other alternative would be to “finance” these soaring interest payments by issuing more debt. But that’s like borrowing on a credit card to pay interest, it accelerates the debt spiral.



Even if the Fed’s coming rate-hike cycle is exceedingly gradual and prolonged, if the global markets refrain from forcing the Fed’s hand, the consequences for the US government are still dire. If the new effective interest rate the US is forced to pay is merely halfway between current extreme levels and the quarter-century pre-ZIRP average, or 4.3%, it would still double the government’s annual interest payments!



A $400b jump in debt-servicing costs would be almost as catastrophic against a $1100b discretionary budget as an $800b jump. There would either have to be draconian cuts in government spending on salaries and services or else a massive jump in deficits. And running bigger deficits is super-risky since that greatly increases the odds the world markets will force interest rates higher far faster than the Fed wants.



Today’s Fed-conjured fantasyland of record-low interest rates combined with record-high federal debt levels is exceedingly dangerous. It is literally a ticking time bomb that truly threatens to bankrupt the US government! I strongly suspect this dire situation is far more pressing on the minds of Fed officials when it comes to rate-hike decisions than the usual considerations of employment, inflation, and market impact.



Thanks to the astoundingly-reckless excessive government spending under Obama enabled by the Fed’s ZIRP and QE, there’s a good chance the Fed can’t even attempt another meaningful rate-hike cycle. It may try to manipulate rates lower forever or risk its very existence. And politics will really come into play leading into next year’s critical presidential election as well. Remember Janet Yellen is a hardcore Democrat.



Fed rate-hike cycles are very damaging to stock markets. The end of easy money hammers stocks from multiple fronts. Higher rates slow overall national spending which weighs on corporate sales and profits, leading to higher valuations. Interest expenses rise too, further eroding earnings. On top of all that, rising bond yields make stocks relatively less attractive. So stock markets don’t fare well in rate-hike cycles.



And with the fate of the stock markets late next year having a 90% chance of predicting the outcome of the next presidential election, it’s hard to imagine Yellen taking the risk of all but guaranteeing a loss for her party. And since rate hikes will initially lead to rapid federal-deficit growth since spending cuts will be aggressively resisted, the Yellen Fed will be unlikely to hike rates materially in a presidential-election year.



So with the grave implications for the Fed’s government master if interest rates even start to normalize, it is hard to imagine a big new rate-hike cycle. The Democratic-run hyper-dovish Fed is exceedingly unlikely to risk tanking the Democratic-run epically-profligate US government. Through its wildly-irresponsible ZIRP and QE policies, the Fed has created a US debt bomb that appears impossibly intractable to defuse.



And if the Fed can’t materially hike rates any more due to the catastrophic impact that will have on the US government, the primary beneficiary will be gold. Along with the Fed’s ZIRP-and-QE-spawned stock-market levitation, the main reason gold has been so weak in recent years is futures speculators’ fear that Fed rate hikes will crush this zero-yielding asset. That’s ironic because history proves just the opposite!



But if traders come to realize the Fed has painted itself so deep into a corner that any meaningful normalization of rates is impossible without bankrupting the US government, investors are going to flock back to gold. It thrives in low-real-rate environments, the natural consequence of central-bank interest-rate manipulation. And as gold enjoys an investment renaissance, the dirt-cheap gold stocks are going to soar.



We’ve long specialized in this high-potential contrarian realm at Zeal. Gold stocks were the 2000s’ best-performing sector, enjoying an astounding 18x gain in that decade! We’ve long published acclaimed weekly and monthly newsletters explaining what’s going on in the markets, why, and how to trade them with specific stock trades. Since 2001, all 700 stock trades recommended in our newsletters have averaged annualized realized gains of +21.3%! Subscribe today, gain an essential contrarian perspective that should prove exceedingly profitable, and enjoy our popular 20%-off sale!



The bottom line is the Fed’s radically-unprecedented easy-money policies since the stock panic have created a dangerous US government debt bomb. ZIRP and QE artificially forced interest rates down to record lows, enabling epic overspending by the Democratic government under Obama. The resulting debt load has grown so massive that merely normal interest rates will literally bankrupt the US government.



This Democratic-led Fed isn’t going to embark on a meaningful rate-hike cycle if it forces its government master into serious jeopardy. The dire realty of this situation likely means lower rates for longer. While the Fed may make isolated token rate hikes here and there, a full normalization isn’t going to happen with the US government in mortal peril. The asset most likely to thrive in a lower-rates-forever scenario is gold.



Adam Hamilton, CPA



October 30, 2015
1972 Westy
2056cc T-4 - 7.8:1 CR
Weber 40mm Duals - 47.5idles, 125mains, F11 tubes, 200 Air corr., 28mm Vents
96mm AA Biral P/C's w/Hastings rings
42x36mm Heads (AMC- Headflow Masters) w/Porsche swivel adjusters
71mm Stroke
Web Cam 73 w/matched Web lifters
S&S 4-1 exhaust w/Walker 17862 quiet-pack
Bosch SVDA w/Pertronix module & flamethrower 40K coil (7* initial 28* total @3200+)
NGK B5ES @ .028
002 Trans
Hankook 185R14's

72Hardtop
Old School!
Location: Seattle, WA./HB. Ca./Shizuoka, Japan
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by 72Hardtop » Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:48 pm

Or...

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/mike ... s-to-rise/

Or....


Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office

By Katie Sanders on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 10:57 p.m.


When President Barack Obama reflects on 2014, he brings up a litany of highlights that include drawing down the Afghanistan war and Americans signing up for health insurance thanks to his health care law.

Oh, and slicing up the deficit. Obama is super-pumped about that. He made a point to brag about the deficit's drop in his 2015 State of the Union address.

"At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits," Obama said. "Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years."

Is he right about the deficit dropping by two-thirds?

What the White House says

As a reminder, don’t get the deficit twisted with the debt. They are only related, not the same.

The country’s annual deficit is the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The national debt, which exceeds $18 trillion, is the net of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses.

To back up his claim, Obama is comparing his first budget year in office -- 2009 -- to 2014.

The White House is breaking down the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, and not actual dollars. Economists told us this is a valid way of analyzing the deficit, because it factors in the economy’s change over time. The White House sent us this chart, which relies on data from the White House Office of Management and Budget.



In fiscal year 2009, which started almost four months before Obama's presidency began and ended eight months into it, the deficit was 9.8 percent of GDP. The 2014 shortfall is 2.8 percent of GDP -- a decrease of 71 percent. So that's where the claim comes from.

The situation largely tracks if you use real dollars. Using the same comparison with Congressional Budget Office figures, the deficit fell from $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year to $486 billion in the 2014 fiscal year -- a drop of about 66 percent.

Why the drop might not be so exciting

Experts told us that while Obama's math may be correct, it's missing some important caveats.

First, it's important to note that the deficit swelled in 2009 (hence the steady drop). In 2008, the deficit was $458 billion, or 3.1 percent of GDP. Those deficits are smaller than the ones the country is facing today. The 2009 fiscal year represented a huge jump in the deficit, partly because of the massive stimulus program to jumpstart the cratering economy.

"This is not to say that that large deficit was his fault, but if one used the 2008 deficit as a frame of reference, the comparison would be quite different," said Alan Auerbach, University of California Berkeley professor of economics and law.

Also, some economists we consulted pointed out that the 2009 fiscal year was Obama’s first year in office, and so not necessarily a good starting point since he had little control over the spending in that year.

And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform.

The long-term forecast for the deficit illustrates this point.

Absent substantial reform, the Congressional Budget Office expects a few more years of short-term deficit decreases followed by bigger shortfalls in 10 and 20 years. Federal spending is projected to increase through 2039, so much so that by then the federal debt held by the public will reach a point only seen after World War II.

The deficit would be equal to 3.7 percent of GDP in 2029 and 6.5 percent of GDP by 2039, a higher deficit than any year between 1947 and 2008.

This chart from the Congressional Budget Office shows how the deficit is not expected to continue its downward trend in recent years.



A final word on Obama’s point from the experts.

The deficit has come down in recent years because of the strengthening economy, which drives tax revenues up, and the draw-down of various economic stimulus programs that were implemented to weather the financial crisis. Additionally, the expiration of 2 percent payroll tax cuts and increases in tax rates for high-income earners played a role, albeit a smaller one.

"It’s not clear one would want to view the evolution as relating to fiscal responsibility rather than an improving economy," Auerbach said.

Our ruling

Obama said since taking office the country has seen "our deficits cut by two-thirds."

His claim is accurate if you use 2009, his first year in office with an historically high deficit, as a starting point.

The claim ignores a stark reality about the deficits, however. The country’s spending is not expected to continue its downward route, according to federal forecasters, for factors that include increased interest payments on the debt and the lack of substantial policy changes for the country’s biggest programs, like Social Security and Medicare.

The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

Or....

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/mike ... t-expands/

Or...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /74013294/

Quote, "But those annual budget deficits continue to compound, with the total national debt now $18.1 trillion, $7.5 trillion more than when Obama took office. And that number has been held down artificially by the "extraordinary measures" the Treasury has taken to stay under the congressionally mandated debt limit. If Congress increases the debt limit — as the Obama administration says it must do by Nov. 3 to avoid default and a resulting economic catastrophe — it will jump even higher." end quote
1972 Westy
2056cc T-4 - 7.8:1 CR
Weber 40mm Duals - 47.5idles, 125mains, F11 tubes, 200 Air corr., 28mm Vents
96mm AA Biral P/C's w/Hastings rings
42x36mm Heads (AMC- Headflow Masters) w/Porsche swivel adjusters
71mm Stroke
Web Cam 73 w/matched Web lifters
S&S 4-1 exhaust w/Walker 17862 quiet-pack
Bosch SVDA w/Pertronix module & flamethrower 40K coil (7* initial 28* total @3200+)
NGK B5ES @ .028
002 Trans
Hankook 185R14's

User avatar
Happyfolk
Getting Hooked!
Location: Verona, WI
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Happyfolk » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:08 pm

Image
79 CA FI Westy
Mexico Beige
"Sandy"

72Hardtop
Old School!
Location: Seattle, WA./HB. Ca./Shizuoka, Japan
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by 72Hardtop » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:25 pm

Happyfolk wrote:Image
That pretty much sums up the idea of security in the US these days. Let's put a camera up that will deter crime...Fail.
1972 Westy
2056cc T-4 - 7.8:1 CR
Weber 40mm Duals - 47.5idles, 125mains, F11 tubes, 200 Air corr., 28mm Vents
96mm AA Biral P/C's w/Hastings rings
42x36mm Heads (AMC- Headflow Masters) w/Porsche swivel adjusters
71mm Stroke
Web Cam 73 w/matched Web lifters
S&S 4-1 exhaust w/Walker 17862 quiet-pack
Bosch SVDA w/Pertronix module & flamethrower 40K coil (7* initial 28* total @3200+)
NGK B5ES @ .028
002 Trans
Hankook 185R14's

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:23 pm

The country’s spending is not expected to continue its downward route, according to federal forecasters, for factors that include increased interest payments on the debt and the lack of substantial policy changes for the country’s biggest programs, like Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security is a standalone program that has NOTHING to do with the damn national debt. When are our stupid writers of annoying articles ever going to get this straight? Are they so in lock-step with tizzy sky-is-falling devious republicans who always circle the safety net like buzzards, that they cannot comprehend that we have been paying for our own retirements through social security taxes, and the damn congress has been raiding it? ALL WE HAVE TO DO is raise the cap, tell our legislators to stay out of it, and the thing is good into posterity.
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .111,130 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,787 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . . 94,615 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,510 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 72,990 miles

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Bleyseng » Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:33 pm

72Hardtop wrote:Or...



And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform.

How about reforming the Military which is 60% of the WHOLE government budget!


The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

Now who should take credit for the improving economy? The Tea Party? Hahahahaha
If we are reduce the Federal Debt we need to raise taxes on the Rich and Corporations to levels seen in the 1960's.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

72Hardtop
Old School!
Location: Seattle, WA./HB. Ca./Shizuoka, Japan
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by 72Hardtop » Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:40 pm

Bleyseng wrote:
72Hardtop wrote:Or...



And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform.

How about reforming the Military which is 60% of the WHOLE government budget!


The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

Now who should take credit for the improving economy? The Tea Party? Hahahahaha
If we are reduce the Federal Debt we need to raise taxes on the Rich and Corporations to levels seen in the 1960's.
Given what the corporations were making back in the 60's compared to their profit margins today I'd say it needs to be much higher. Today's profits are considerably higher.
1972 Westy
2056cc T-4 - 7.8:1 CR
Weber 40mm Duals - 47.5idles, 125mains, F11 tubes, 200 Air corr., 28mm Vents
96mm AA Biral P/C's w/Hastings rings
42x36mm Heads (AMC- Headflow Masters) w/Porsche swivel adjusters
71mm Stroke
Web Cam 73 w/matched Web lifters
S&S 4-1 exhaust w/Walker 17862 quiet-pack
Bosch SVDA w/Pertronix module & flamethrower 40K coil (7* initial 28* total @3200+)
NGK B5ES @ .028
002 Trans
Hankook 185R14's

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Bleyseng » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:50 am

and tax all this offshore profits corporations are making. Other countries tax like this and if you aren't US based then other taxes do kick in.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Amskeptic » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:44 am

Bleyseng wrote:and tax all this offshore profits corporations are making. Other countries tax like this and if you aren't US based then other taxes do kick in.
The Republican Misinformation Machine is getting ever bolder. If you look at their dire predictions of the Fall of the Empire since Obama has been President, not a damn thing has gone the way they threatened it would. And yet, no one, particularly the "liberal media", calls them out!
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .111,130 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,787 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . . 94,615 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,510 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 72,990 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by hippiewannabe » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:30 pm

Bleyseng wrote:
72Hardtop wrote:Or...



And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform.

How about reforming the Military which is 60% of the WHOLE government budget!


The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

Now who should take credit for the improving economy? The Tea Party? Hahahahaha
If we are reduce the Federal Debt we need to raise taxes on the Rich and Corporations to levels seen in the 1960's.
I suppose it would be impractical to enforce a certification process, but one should understand the basics of accounting, or at least the basics of arithmetic, before opining on budget matters.

The "whole budget" includes the whole budget, not just the part that has been arbitrarily designated as "discretionary".

Image
When thousands of people believe a made-up story for a month, we call it fake news. When a billion people believe a made-up story for a thousand years, we call it a religion.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Status: Offline

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by hippiewannabe » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:41 pm

Amskeptic wrote:In each case, it was not socialism that caused those financial problems, but greed, avarice, fraud, and corruption, and outside forces like capitalists trying to break them. We do not have an example yet of a socialist economy collapsing due to structural issues.
The empirical evidence supports the theory perfectly; every significant socialist economy has collapsed. China is a good example: it was completely sealed off from any potential outside forces like mean old capitalists, and imploded, at a cost of tens of millions of deaths, and hundreds of millions doomed to misery and penury. It just doesn't work. You can't allocate resources by bureaucratic fiat, only the market can do it efficiently.
When thousands of people believe a made-up story for a month, we call it fake news. When a billion people believe a made-up story for a thousand years, we call it a religion.

Post Reply