Welcome to PatsFans.com

Help Stop Runaway Spending

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    I just wrote my congressman asking that he not support any more corp bailouts or economic stimulus' moving forward. I think our entire federal government has lost their minds and refuses to look at the record deficit that is about to explode...

    White House sees record budget gap in 2009

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Monday projected the U.S. budget deficit will soar to a record of nearly half a trillion dollars in fiscal 2009 as a housing-led economic slowdown cuts into government revenues.

    The economic and fiscal deterioration will complicate efforts to bring the budget to balance and pose challenges for whoever takes over the White House in January, either Republican Sen. John McCain or Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

    "I believe whoever becomes the next president will have a very, very sobering first week in office," predicted Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat."


    Yet at the same time Washington is saying this, they're considering more bailouts and economic stimulus'.

    I encourage everyone to write their congressmen & women to urge them not to support more spending on corp bailouts and stimulus'. It's just making it worse and building a deficit that is beyond ridiculous. If we need a correction, trying to stop it is just plain foolish.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
  2. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Like I've said I think they have no intention of paying back any of that debt.
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    They just raised the statury debt limit (the max on our national credit card) to over 10 trillion dollars.

    We should all be capable of the math, especially with the US population at such a conveniently round number of about 300 million. That's a 33,333 dollar debt for every man, woman, child, and even census-counted resident alien.

    Of course that does not even count the amount we KNOW we will have to pay which has not yet hit us: demographic related obligations like social security and pensions, the lifetime medical care of the large contingent of soldiers injured for life in the ongoing war, doing SOMETHING about health care, etcetera.

    And don't tell me we can just privatize future obligations and let the magical market fix it all. To duplicate last century's performance, the Dow has to be in the millions by the end of this century. Think about that. The Dow Jones Industrial average, which once brushed 14,000 and now hovers between 11,000 and 12,000, has to be in the millions. In a "post-industrial" economy. Equities may indeed be attractive in the future, especially as compared with the present moment in time. I doubt, however, that they'll prosper as they did for the period we always quote for historical rate of return.

    Our problem is we've forgotten that when we invest in something we aren't investing in other people's psychology. We're investing in a company that can make something or do something. The proportion of that equation to the idea of raising cash to provide the service of raising cash for the purpose of raising cash has alienated the concept of investment from the concept of capitalization; hence, our current financial meltdown.

    And now the bailouts: state socialism at its worst. Profits when times are good, bailouts when times are bad, when entities are too big to fail.

    Let 'em fail, right? Not so fast. That's a far too rapid solution for my tastes, because they'll take a great deal of my imaginary wealth -- for which I invested actual money derived from actual labor. Trouble is, I'm an individual. My interests are served by picking the bailouts I like. For example, Fannie and Freddie. (Suuuuure it's just loan access and some interest rate breaks, right?) It is a bailout.

    The outrageous bailout of the mortgage giants themselves, on the other hand, could have not been written -- with the effect that mortgage lenders would understand that they are not immune to downside risks. That would unfortunately likely give us a few more years of pain in housing, over an above that which we are doomed to as it is. But that horse is out of the barn in either event.

    Similarly, the welfare for the rich which is the result of our historical low marginal tax rates must be addressed; it does not create wealth. Actual provision and valuation of goods and services creates wealth. When we all paid too much for dot coms, it did not create wealth. When we all paid too much for mortgages, it did not create wealth. When we pick the next bubble and play casino games, we do not create wealth.

    What we create is debt, as the collateral we leverage against our new "can't end" speculative bubble deflates, we have the payment staring us in the face, and we have taken out a HELOC for the new boat we've been told we can own because our house is suddenly so much more valuable than it was a year ago. Or worse, the debt is in the form of a mortgage out of whack with all fundamentals, because "all that has changed."

    And on top of this, we have the bandaids to think about as everybody starts bleeding at one time.

    What you call for is an end to the bandaids. I don't care: six of one half dozen of the other.

    What I would call for is an end to this myth that the private sector can do no wrong, and is only efficient when markets fueled by greed are free to run amok.

    What would you tell me in 2005 if I told you that mortgage lending/borrowing had to live up to strict government oversight?

    You'd call me a commie. After all, government is so useless and incompetent it can not possibly ever do any good in any capacity. Plus, if government does something, that means someone has a job doing it. Everybody and everything is best left to its/their own devices. Like predatory lending practices.

    Here's how it looks to me in retrospect: The fox does a very poor job of watching over the chicken coop. And as always, when the dust clears, what we will see is a huge transfer of ownership of real assets to the financial sector. Not to old-style capitalists, who are capitalizing productive ventures. Certainly not to workers. No, it is a transfer of wealth to those whose living derives from the business of finance. Not surprising, when you realize that we characterize the production of debt as a production of wealth.

    It strikes me that we want to find some mechanism to prevent or tampen speculative bubbles, period. At the very least, we should watch the wholesale greed transactions very, very carefully, rather than stand back because the "incompetent" government can not do anything good, especially in the face of the virtuous, God-given mechanism of the invisible hand.

    If you haven't noticed, said invisible hand tends to repeatedly raise its invisible middle finger to the majority of us.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2008
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Well you started out strong PFiVa, The spending driven by entitlement programs is out of control and the demographics of our society will make the system impossible to maintain. THen you bring up the mortgage problem as an example of why markets 'can't' solve these problems.

    I find this ironic since the sub prime lending was demanded by congress to help demographics that weren't in the housing market. If not for the government interference we may not have had a sub prime crisis.

    While the markets have bubbles, excesses and corrections, the markets are still better than centralized planning and control. This of course doesn't mean criminal fraud should be allowed.

    PR, I agree with you outrage against reckless government spending.

    I find it ironic however that both posters support a candidate who advocates more government planning of the economy and a full government takeover of our healthcare system which will create the largest government we have seen. As well as policies to restrict our access to affordable energy in favor of government subsidized energy which isn't cost competitive.



    PR, I think you make a very good point with this post.
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Oh I'm sorry. Everything's going to hell because of lazy people and Democrats who spend too much money (but only do so when Republicans are president; otherwise, the deficits are comparably miniscule, or they run surplusses.)

    Those terrible Democrats... they have the NERVE to pay for expenditures through taxation!

    Better?
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    Dems paying for their expenditures???????:eek:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :singing:

    Good one!!!

    the pubbies do their fair share of big gov crap.

    BUT how do you "pay" for national health care given our demographic situation???

    Do we cover illegal aliens???
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    Dems paying for their expenditures???????:eek:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :singing:

    Good one!!!

    the pubbies do their fair share of big gov crap.

    BUT how do you "pay" for national health care given our demographic situation???

    Do we cover illegal aliens???
  8. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Well for the last 50 years, every president not named Reagan and Bush has reduced the size of the debt as expressed as a percentage of the GDP (to remove inflation from the equation.) So counting the old kind of republican, such as Ford and Nixon, you could say its a neo-con trait to not pay your way (but to talk about how someone else is to blame.)

    http://911review.org/Media/National_Debt.html
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2008
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +31 / 2 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You're forgetting that there's always a National security crisis whenever a Neo Con is in office. "The world changed after X event" and that's way we can't pay down the debt:rolleyes:
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    With the current demographic situation how do you pay for national health care???

    The vast majority of spending is entitlement spending most of it on autopilot,Patters is very proud of SS, medicare and welfare all of which are dem projects. Bush 43 did the prescription program which was a disaster. You won't find me defending the spending of the Bush administrations.


    As to Reagan, he inherited an economy that was a disaster thanks to Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. He won the cold war and stopped the terrible inflation we suffered through in the 70's and created the groundwork for the growth of the 89 through the present (although we are p*ssing it away now). BTW revenues more than tripled under Reagan, the congress spent it all.
  11. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Will any one of the President's really change much? Will any government rep change much? The market and economy is taking care of itself. We are witnessing the first steps of this and it will go on for the next half century.

    Rome went through this when they weren't able to sustain their Empire. The beauty of our country is we are allowed free speech and we have various points of views, but it is also our downfall because it is constant bickering and each party has corruption as well as their own agenda.

    Will they ever unite for the good of the country? I hardly doubt it because of their egos and in the meantime the people go about their business and suffer and prosper.

    I think you can pretty much compare our government to this message board. There is constant bickering and debate. Look at Congress now on their 5 week recess.

    The problem with our country is two fold:

    1. Lack of true leadership free of greed and corporate influence.

    2. Lack of an oppressing cause to unify the country. The last time was probably WW2(depression, Japanese, Nazi's) and the Cold War(threat of nuclear was from Soviets)

    We've become too much of a self absorbed nation and that will be our downfall.
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    Thanks PF13...I think we're all engaging in productive discussion. I've read some pretty impressive posts from several people.

    I really don't think the condition of our economy is a partisan issue. As a matter of fact, I prefer as little government interference in economic trends as possible. We have a free market economy and by the very definition that means minimal interference.

    If you're referring to the largest governments based purely upon spending, isn't George W. the champion in the history of this nation?

    The "size" of the government is not how many programs a president intitiates, but how much the government spends on any program. So if president x spends more on the milatary than president Y does on social welfare, then president x is a worse offender of large government.

    So when some call for more money for "a strong national defense" and others call for more money on social welfare, BOTH are calling for larger federal government. That really can't be debated. If we look at history, republican presidents have not made government any smaller than democratic presidents. It's just a matter of where the money is being spent.

    Right now, which ever party seats the next president, I suport a huge focus & effort on a balanced budget and reduction of our national deficit.

    Ending the war in Iraq would be the easiest way to begin.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2008
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I was going to post on this thread, but you stole every one of my points....bastid!
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    I am not defending either Bush in their spending habits. I would also observe that the way to look at the size of the government is as a % of the overall economy, rather than the raw numbers. Why? well if I have a $1M economy and spend $600,000 on government I have a large government. OTOH I spend $2M on government but the economy is $20M, then although I am spending >3x as much I don't have a 'big' government relative to the economy.


    BTW My reading of the constitution I see that the national defense is spelled out as a job of the federal government not health care. Also not we currently spend far more on socail welfare and entitlement than we do on national defense.


    Demographically entitlements are going to bankrupt this country not national defense.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Take Johnson and Bush and compare them. I see their presidencies as very similar, with the exception of the Civil Rights movement and the unprecedented mistrust of the government that Johnson experienced (we now have a healthy skepticism of the government, but we are still too trusting of the new corporate media which is the new expression of the government, IMO). Both spent way too much and were handcuffed by a morally indefensible war in a far-off land. Both had huge egos clouding their judgement. Both were Texans. They were supposedly from different "parties", but you wouldn't know it.
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    You know Biggles...you make an fantastic point. We bicker along partisan lines every day here, but when push comes to shove and we look at historical facts, there's really little difference in the realities created by presidents of either party. In other words, no matter which party seats the next president, nothing is really going to change. How much really changed between Bush, Clinton & Bush over the last 16 years?

    The economy is going to go in cycles regardless of which party is president, so let's not even consider economics. I challenge anyone to name the last president who changed ANYTHING in this country on a large scale.

    So why do we argue so much?:rolleyes:
  17. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:



    I'd say FDR by bring us into World War II and lifting us out of the Great Depression and his fireside chats.

    I see the economy just like nature where we try to tame it with dams and levies but when nature builds too much momentum there is no controlling her and we need to take it's biggest blows until the waters and winds recede.

    Sure we can do quick fixes but we need to let nature(the system) take it's course.
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    George W. Bush ... the ultimate liberal democrat of them all ... :bricks:
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    I was going to mention FDR, but his presidency was unlike any other with the Great Depression and all. There was so much suffering and hopelessness, he had to start the Works Progress Administration and all the public works projects to get people back working. That was so different because the banking system failed and people just lost everything they had saved.

    No wonder people kept their money between their mattresses for so long after!

    To you point, there hasn't really been much hardship yet. Sure people have lost home, but they never should have been in them in the first place. Even in the 70's there was more hardship. Mortgage rates were 15%+, inflation was around 9% annually and unemployment was about 8-9% too. That lasted 3-4 years too.

    Remember, the Dow was at an all-time high just last October. So we can't even talk hardship at this point.
  20. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Until the credit cards are maxed out and people start selling their possessions I can't really call it hardship.
  21. Bostonian1962

    Bostonian1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    Good stuff PR. This is a major problem. Let's see what the candidates plan to do about it.
  22. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    UPDATE

    As of today, I still have not received a reply from my congressman Barney Frank. Maybe it will take a couple of weeks since he probably receives many letters.

Share This Page