O/T: Quote Of THe Day

On 9/4/2012 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>
> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
> these things.
>
> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
> or business man and they are stupid."
>
> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>
>
>



That made sense 58 years ago.

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 12:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as
>>>>>> Bush programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the
>>>>>> oath of office. I didn't start this ...
>>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than
>>>> Democratic ones who have increased the amount of overspending, but
>>>> in dollars? I'd go with the reverse.
>>>>
>>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>>> approach the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>>> overspending".
>> Well... not really so. It's that thing called "Executive Order" that
>> contributes. There are costs associated with those Executive
>> orders, and often (or maybe... most times...) thoses costs are long
>> term, since they create additional government, which is hard to pare
>> back.
> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
> beyond that allowed by Congress.

He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a cost.
Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it carrys the
weight of law.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:36:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06 Sep 2012 19:24:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>>>>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on
>>>>> the debt is an expense line item.
>>>>
>>>> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>>>>
>>>> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went
>>>> up in all of those years.
>>>>
>>>> Creative accounting?
>>>>
>>> Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
>>> difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
>>> Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the
>>> annual accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the
>>> trust funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes
>>> in the debt.
>>>
>>> It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
>>> indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.
>>
>>Despite all that, please read (as I just said elsewhere) this from
>>Vanguard:
>><https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012>
>>I am NOT an economist.
>>
>>But taken your view a bit further (back actually), spending more than we
>>take in has been a hobby of every administration, in particular some
>>recent ones, where taxes were cut, wars waged, medicare expanded, etc,
>>etc, and NONE of those EXTRA EXPENSES were compensated for by extra
>>revenues.
>>
>>It is my opinion, and you are free to disagree, that the financial
>>collapse of 2008 forced the administrations of Bush and Obama to spend
>>vast sums of money to "rescue the economy". Hopefully we'll eventually
>>dig out from under that particular mountain of debt (the one caused by
>>the collapse).
>
>What happened to all the money which came back IN from the TARP
>programs?

Spent it again. What else?

On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>
>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>
>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>
>>
>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>
>>
>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>
> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?

He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.

<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>



> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
> overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
> they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>
> I didn't start this ...
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 09/05/2012 06:52 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>>
>>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>>> these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>>> national defense almost 60%
>>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>>
>>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>>> national defense 22%
>>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>>
>>> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>>
>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since
>> Ike.
>>
>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>>> of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs,
>>> since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>>
>>> I didn't start this ...
>
> Doug, there is a difference, obscure to many, including me, between debt
> and budget deficit:
> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm>
> I wish I really understood.
>

It's really very simple:

When calculating annual budget deficits/surpluses, the gov counts all
excess "trust fund" contributions as revenue, but doesn't count the
treasury note placed into the trust funds in place of those funds as an
expense. When calculating debt, they do count the notes as expenses,
hence the difference. This amounts to several hundred billions annually.

One of the "problems" Obama has is his "payroll tax vacation" in which
the employee contributions aren't being made for SS and medicare. This
means that the employer portion isn't enough to cover current expenses,
hence there is no excess revenue from these funds to count. It also
means that those funds are being depleted at a much faster rate than
anticipated and the gov needing to borrow more, adding to the "real"
deficits and debt.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/5/2012 7:29 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>>
>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
> All these stats are simply interesting footnotes as to what came
> before and in no way have any bearing on what goes on now.
>
> The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
> complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
> then.
You say that like it should excuse the current deplorable state of
federal financial affairs. It most assuredly does not.

On 9/5/2012 7:52 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>>
>>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>>> these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>>
>>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>>> national defense almost 60%
>>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>>
>>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>>> national defense 22%
>>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since
>> Ike.
>>
>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>>> of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs,
>>> since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>>
>>> I didn't start this ...
> Doug, there is a difference, obscure to many, including me, between debt
> and budget deficit:
> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm>
> I wish I really understood.
>
It's simple. Debt is money that you already owe. A deficit is money
you spend that's more than you earn. A deficit increases debt - when you
spend money you don't have, that money has to come from somewhere. The
usual way is to borrow it.
.

Somebody wrote:

>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
---------------------------------------------------------
The above is so screwed up, it's ridiculous.

Lew

On 09/05/2012 04:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>
> If any surplus is less than that years interest on the debt, the debt
> will increase. There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but
> the debt went up in all of those years.
>
The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on the
debt is an expense line item.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/5/2012 1:37 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> It's simple. Debt is money that you already owe. A deficit is money
>> you spend that's more than you earn. A deficit increases debt - when
>> you spend money you don't have, that money has to come from
>> somewhere. The usual way is to borrow it.
> Unless you can print it.
>
>
That would cause inflation. Since inflation has been under 4% for over
a decade, the federal deficit has not recently been covered in any
significant amount with new printed money.

On 9/6/2012 12:15 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:55:56 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
>>> complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
>>> then.
>> You say that like it should excuse the current deplorable state of
>> federal financial affairs. It most assuredly does not.
> You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. But, what's happened with
> budgetary concerns back then are not very comparable with what goes on
> now. The solutions and methods back then would most likely have a
> disastrous effect if they were implemented these days ~ Much more than
> many people think it already is.
The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait, the
worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.

On 09/06/2012 05:10 AM, Han wrote:
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
>>> quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
>>> done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait,
>>> the worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.
>>
>> Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
>> I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly half
>> of US federal spending in 2004.
>>
>> A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
>> difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be consuming.
>> I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you are. The
>> number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd guess that
>> most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.
>>
>> How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of some
>> type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of these
>> same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty much
>> stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair assessment?
>
> OK, there are differences between Federal debt and budget deficit. SS
> is funded outside of the budget, and there is a surplus on the books. I
> don't quiote understand how the books finagle it, but I am told we need
> to look at it separately. Social Security is easily funded almost to
> perpetuity with adjustments to taxation, just like happened before.
> Perhaps, like before the retirement age for full benefits may need
> further adjustment, but politically that is not so easy.
>
> Medicare and MedicAid are different, and depend on cost control. It is
> nonsense that US medical costs are so much higher than that in other
> countries. I'd like a commission established to look into all the cost
> factors here, and I'll bet that unnecessary bureaucratic and clerical
> costs will be a big part. As may be the desire for the biggest,
> costliest, newest equipment in each doctor's office. Maybe there should
> be more control (it already exists) as to how many MRI machines there
> should be per 100,000 population.
>

All entitlement programs are part of the budget:

<http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=coc&sa=X&channel=fs&biw=1088&bih=530&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=NbiJiBC4iX4k9M:&imgrefurl=http://digitheadslabnotebook.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dbECP0yvozc/TC1z_7039zI/AAAAAAAAClc/wJxu16ynzrw/s1600/us_budget.png&w=1467&h=1094&ei=WpxIUKf2EISZyQGxsoDQCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=789&vpy=223&dur=3143&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=127&ty=123&sig=110968657678730226331&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:170>

But the US hasn't passed a budget in the last 3 years!


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/6/2012 2:16 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
>> quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
>> done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait, the
>> worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.
> Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
> I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly half
> of US federal spending in 2004.

True, but it's a financial burden that is simply unsustainable long-term.

> A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
> difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be consuming.
> I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you are. The
> number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd guess that
> most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.
>
> How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of some
> type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of these
> same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty much
> stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair assessment?

That may be true. If so, this country is royally screwed.

On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on the
>> debt is an expense line item.
>
> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>
> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up
> in all of those years.
>
> Creative accounting?
>
Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the annual
accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the trust
funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes in the debt.

It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs.
---------------------------------------
Which also must include the biggest entitlement program of them all,
the defense budget.

Probably won't happen with out a fight since representives use it as a
way to bring home the bacon to their districts.

Lew

On 09/06/2012 12:16 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/06/2012 05:10 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>>>>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
>>>>> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
>>>>> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs. The
>>>>> longer we wait, the worse the situation will be for our children
>>>>> and grandchildren.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
>>>> I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly
>>>> half of US federal spending in 2004.
>>>>
>>>> A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
>>>> difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be
>>>> consuming. I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you
>>>> are. The number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd
>>>> guess that most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.
>>>>
>>>> How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of
>>>> some type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of
>>>> these same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty
>>>> much stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair
>>>> assessment?
>>>
>>> OK, there are differences between Federal debt and budget deficit.
>>> SS is funded outside of the budget, and there is a surplus on the
>>> books. I don't quiote understand how the books finagle it, but I am
>>> told we need to look at it separately. Social Security is easily
>>> funded almost to perpetuity with adjustments to taxation, just like
>>> happened before. Perhaps, like before the retirement age for full
>>> benefits may need further adjustment, but politically that is not so
>>> easy.
>>>
>>> Medicare and MedicAid are different, and depend on cost control. It
>>> is nonsense that US medical costs are so much higher than that in
>>> other countries. I'd like a commission established to look into all
>>> the cost factors here, and I'll bet that unnecessary bureaucratic and
>>> clerical costs will be a big part. As may be the desire for the
>>> biggest, costliest, newest equipment in each doctor's office. Maybe
>>> there should be more control (it already exists) as to how many MRI
>>> machines there should be per 100,000 population.
>>>
>>
>> All entitlement programs are part of the budget:
>>
>> <http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=coc&sa=X&channel=f
>> s&biw=1088&bih=530&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=NbiJiBC4iX4k9M:&imgrefurl
>> =http://digitheadslabnotebook.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&imgu
>> rl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dbECP0yvozc/TC1z_7039zI/AAAAAAAAClc/wJxu16
>> ynzrw/s1600/us_budget.png&w=1467&h=1094&ei=WpxIUKf2EISZyQGxsoDQCA&zoom=
>> 1&iact=hc&vpx=789&vpy=223&dur=3143&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=127&ty=123&sig=
>> 110968657678730226331&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:4
>> 29,r:9,s:0,i:170>
>>
>> But the US hasn't passed a budget in the last 3 years!
>
> that (blogspot?) link doesn't work for me.
>
> AFAIK, Soc Sec is NOT part of the budget.

Then why does the federal gov take every dollar deposited annually in
the SS trust fund and include it in the budget as revenue?

>
> Vanguard is a respected financial institution with a non-partisan , but
> financially conservative, philosophy. I got an email with a link that
> may be interesting to the group:
> <https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012>
> I don't know why there is an https in there, I didn't have to supply
> credentials. I copied the writing on the page and made it into a pdf,
> which I could send if the link doesn't work.
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/6/2012 1:07 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
>> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
>> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs.
> ---------------------------------------
> Which also must include the biggest entitlement program of them all,
> the defense budget.
>
>
Under what definition to you include the constitutional requirement for
the federal government to provide for the national defense in the
category of entitlement programs?

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> Under what definition to you include the constitutional requirement
> for the federal government to provide for the national defense in
> the category of entitlement programs?
-----------------------------------------------------
Try reality.

Lew

On 09/06/2012 03:38 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 1:35 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>>>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on
>>>> the
>>>> debt is an expense line item.
>>>
>>> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>>>
>>> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up
>>> in all of those years.
>>>
>>> Creative accounting?
>>>
>> Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
>> difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
>> Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the annual
>> accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the trust
>> funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes in the
>> debt.
>>
>> It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
>> indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.
>>
>>
>
>
> Correction, "Our Government" has spent more than we have been able to
> afford since Ike.

Much better :-)


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 09/07/2012 03:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>
> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic ones
> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go with
> the reverse.
>
> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to approach
> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>
>

You quoted the wrong guy...


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/6/2012 3:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Under what definition to you include the constitutional requirement
>> for the federal government to provide for the national defense in
>> the category of entitlement programs?
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Try reality.
>
OK, here's reality.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program :
Entitlement program: The kind of government program that provides
individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special
government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but
usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal
right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet
eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that
authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are
normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations
such as business corporations, local governments, or even political
parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs.
The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level
in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and
military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and
agricultural price support programs.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-entitlement-program.htm :
An entitlement program can be defined as a governmental mechanism where
public funds are given to people because they meet some kind of
requirement. One commonly known American example of an entitlement
program would be the federal food stamp program, which allows people
without sufficient funds to buy food. Another well-known entitlement
program is Medicare, although only certain parts of that program
actually qualify as entitlements.

http://www.answers.com/topic/entitlement-program :
Government program that requires payment to anyone who meets specific
qualifications; those who qualify are thus “entitled” to the payments.
Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. are entitlement programs.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/a/Entitlement-Programs-And-Their-Role-In-The-Federal-Budget.htm
:
What is an entitlement program? It is a program that establishes certain
eligibility criteria and anyone fitting that criteria may receive its
benefits.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/List_of_government_entitlement_programs :
United States Government Entitlement Programs:
529 or Coverdell
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit
Student Loans
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit
Social Security--Retirement & Survivors
Pell Grants
Unemployment Insurance
Veterans Benefits
G.I. Bill
Medicare
Head Start
Social Security Disability
SSI--Supplemental Security Income
Medicaid
Welfare/Public Assistance
Government Subsidized Housing
Food Stamps


Providing for the national defense through a standing military is not an
entitlement program.

On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>> office. I didn't start this ...
> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic ones
> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go with
> the reverse.
>
> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to approach
> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>
>
Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of overspending".

On 9/6/2012 5:23 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:39:26 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Under what definition to you include the constitutional requirement for
>> the federal government to provide for the national defense in the
>> category of entitlement programs?
> Because we spend a lot more than is required for defense.

That's a matter of legitimate debate.
> A lot of it is pure pork barrel - local jobs get politicians re-elected even if the rest of the country is paying for
> something not needed.
>
That's not confined to defense spending. And pork barrel spending is
not "entitlement" spending.

On 9/7/2012 4:37 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
>> quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
>> done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait,
>> the worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.
> Er, no. The federal deficit can be reduced, or eliminated, by growing the
> economy. "A rising tide lifts all boats," including the US treasury.
>
> Of course politicians have to restrain themselves from spending only what
> comes in, not the "projected" revenues in the out-years.
>
>
Let's follow up on your train of thought. Suppose that no federal
entitlement programs are cut. Suppose that beginning today, the federal
government spends only what come in. Suppose that beginning today that
the economy began to grow by a robust 4% per year, and that is the means
relied on to cure all federal budget problems. How long would it take
before the federal deficit is reduced to zero? What would the federal
debt be at that time? How long would it take to reduce the federal debt
to its present $16 trillion? How long until interest on the federal
debt become less than 10% of total federal spending? How long until the
federal debt is reduced to below five trillion dollars?

On 9/7/2012 12:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than
>>> Democratic ones who have increased the amount of overspending, but
>>> in dollars? I'd go with the reverse.
>>>
>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>> approach the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>
>>>
>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>> overspending".
> Well... not really so. It's that thing called "Executive Order" that
> contributes. There are costs associated with those Executive orders, and
> often (or maybe... most times...) thoses costs are long term, since they
> create additional government, which is hard to pare back.
>
The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending beyond
that allowed by Congress.

"Just Wondering" wrote:
> OK, here's reality.
>
> http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program :
> Entitlement program: The kind of government program that provides
> individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special
> government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but
> usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal
> right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet
> eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that
> authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs
> are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes
> organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or
> even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under
> certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement
> programs at the federal level in the United States would include
> Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans'
> Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement
> plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural
> price support programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-entitlement-program.htm :
> An entitlement program can be defined as a governmental mechanism
> where public funds are given to people because they meet some kind
> of requirement. One commonly known American example of an
> entitlement program would be the federal food stamp program, which
> allows people without sufficient funds to buy food. Another
> well-known entitlement program is Medicare, although only certain
> parts of that program actually qualify as entitlements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.answers.com/topic/entitlement-program :
> Government program that requires payment to anyone who meets
> specific qualifications; those who qualify are thus “entitled” to
> the payments. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. are
> entitlement programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Rubbish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/List_of_government_entitlement_programs :
> United States Government Entitlement Programs:
> 529 or Coverdell
> Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
> Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit
> Student Loans
> Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
> Earned Income Tax Credit
> Social Security--Retirement & Survivors
> Pell Grants
> Unemployment Insurance
> Veterans Benefits
> G.I. Bill
> Medicare
> Head Start
> Social Security Disability
> SSI--Supplemental Security Income
> Medicaid
> Welfare/Public Assistance
> Government Subsidized Housing
> Food Stamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Rubbish.

You forgot the subsidities for the energy industries,
the agriculture subsidities including price supports for sugar, etc.

It would appear that your real bitch is you don't qualify
for some type of assistance.

Lew

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> I won't swear to this, but IIRC we spend more than the next 7(?)
> countries combined and twice as much as the next highest. Seems to
> me to
> be a bit more than required.
---------------------------------------
I heard it was 17, not 7; however, also not confirmed.

What is also overlooked is the basic research the military supports.

Internet, GPS, etc, etc.

Lew

On 9/7/2012 3:24 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 2:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic
>>> ones
>>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go
>>> with
>>> the reverse.
>>>
>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>> approach
>>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>
>>>
>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>> overspending".
> Exactly and the national debt has more than doubled since the social
> democrats took control of congress in 2006.
>
> In six years they have not faced the problem and passed a budget as
> required by the Constitution. Some say budgets are worthless BUT only
> with an overall budget will you know where your money is going, so
> real cuts can be made.

The Republican controlled House has passed budgets. The Gimmecrat
contrlled Senate is the group who rejected them, largely because there
was not enouge Gimme in them.

On 9/7/2012 1:35 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 4:37 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
>>>> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
>>>> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs. The
>>>> longer we wait, the worse the situation will be for our children
>>>> and grandchildren.
>>> Er, no. The federal deficit can be reduced, or eliminated, by
>>> growing the economy. "A rising tide lifts all boats," including the
>>> US treasury. Of course politicians have to restrain themselves from
>>> spending only
>>> what comes in, not the "projected" revenues in the out-years.
>>>
>>>
>> Let's follow up on your train of thought. Suppose that no federal
>> entitlement programs are cut. Suppose that beginning today, the
>> federal government spends only what come in. Suppose that beginning
>> today that the economy began to grow by a robust 4% per year, and
>> that is the means relied on to cure all federal budget problems. How
>> long would it take before the federal deficit is reduced to zero? What
>> would the federal debt be at that time? How long would it take
>> to reduce the federal debt to its present $16 trillion? How long
>> until interest on the federal debt become less than 10% of total
>> federal spending? How long until the federal debt is reduced to
>> below five trillion dollars?
> Four percent is not what I'd call "robust." For example, China's GDP has
> been increasing in the neighborhood of 8% for some time. So, assuming a 6%
> growth for the US

" Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate
averaged 3.25 Percent ..."
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

You are assuming a growth rate nearly twice the historical average. That
is not realistic.

> and a cutback of current expenditures to the pre-Obama
> level, just a quick back-of-the envelope calculation shows we could make a
> slightly less than $1 trillion reduction of the debt each year.
>
You couldn't be more wrong. I'll be generous. Assume a current U.S.
gross national product of $15 trillion (that's high), a current federal
debt of $16 trillion (from news reports, that's pretty much spot on), a
starting federal budget of $3 trillion (an unrealistic rollback to 2008
levels, but you assumed it so let's use it), a 2% annual increase in
federal spending (that''s low), a starting tax revenue of $2.3 trillion,
a 4% annual growth in GNP, and that the federal government collects
through taxes 15% of the increase in GNP. At the end of 10 years, the
federal budget would increase to about $3.66 trillion and federal
revenue would increase to about $3.38 trillion, reducing the annual
deficit from $700 billion to $280 billion, but also increasing the
federal debt by $5.6 trillion to over $21.6 trillion. If the U.S. pays
2% on the debt, the annual interest on the federal debt would have gone
from $320 billion to over 430 billion; $90 billion of the increased
revenue would go to service the increased interest on debt, taking a
huge chunk of the increased federal revenue from a growing economy.

On 9/7/2012 8:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
>> beyond that allowed by Congress.
> He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a cost.
> Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it carrys the
> weight of law.
>
Please quote the section of the Constitution that grants the President
authority to enact legislation by executive order.

On 9/9/2012 6:38 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 8:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
>>>> beyond that allowed by Congress.
>>> He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a
>>> cost. Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it
>>> carrys the weight of law.
>>>
>> Please quote the section of the Constitution that grants the President
>> authority to enact legislation by executive order.
> About as close as I can get:
>
> Article 2, Section 2
> "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the militia of the several States..."
>
> The President can, by virtue of an executive order, demand that his
> underlings NOT enforce some law or regulation under penalty of being fired.
>
I think it's understood the discussion is about what the Prez can
lawfully do. The Prez cannot LAWFULLY do what you just described.

On 9/5/2012 1:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>> national defense almost 60%
>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>
>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>> national defense 22%
>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The above is so screwed up, it's ridiculous.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

Do you think it is worse?

Just Wondering wrote:
> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
> quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
> done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait,
> the worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.

Er, no. The federal deficit can be reduced, or eliminated, by growing the
economy. "A rising tide lifts all boats," including the US treasury.

Of course politicians have to restrain themselves from spending only what
comes in, not the "projected" revenues in the out-years.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0700, CW wrote:
>
>> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
>> your abilities
>
> By definition, half of the people are of below average intelligence -
> how far will their "abilities" take them?

One can tell you are on the Democrat's side in this debate, simply because
math is involved.

If ten people take a test and 9 score 100 and one test-taker scores zero,
then 90% of the test takers are above average, not five as you claim
==========================================================================
You missed. Try again.

>
> They did pretty good in the days when we manufactured stuff here, but
> then Rommney and his ilk outsourced most unskilled labor jobs. With
> sufficient help from the Democrats as well. Regardless of party,
> politicians favor big contributors.
>
> Romney loves outsourcing. Obama makes noises against it, but in
> practice doesn't push it. That may be because he knows it won't get
> anywhere in Congress, but the end result is the same.

Again, you are sloppy with your definitions. EVERY company "outsources."
They outsource security, janitorial services, insurance, grounds
maintenance, air conditioning repair, and so on. Even governments
"outsource." For example, my town outsources residential garbage removal to
Browning-Ferris, a private concern.

I THINK you meant "offshoring," instead of "outsourcing," but it's hard to
tell.
===========================================================================
Rather dense, aren't you.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ChairMan wrote:
>
>> This demonstrates that you may be right
>>
>> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/radio-host-pranks-dnc-delegates-with-question-about-banning-corporate-profits-and-many-agree-with-him/
>
> Giving all due consideration to the fact that snips don't really represent
> things properly, and that some of those people seemed to be less in
> support than Peter attempted to show - his point is still well taken.
> This is America - since when did the term profit become a swear word?
> Since when is Capitalism an evil thing? You are right - this video at
> least shows an alarming philosophy or trend along an alarming line.
>

True that there was some editing, but the fact that many actually agreed to
the idea without hesitation is truly scary.
And your right, our glourious leader has made profit and success four letter
words.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:18:53 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> Because we spend a lot more than is required for defense.
>>
>> That's a matter of legitimate debate.
>
> I won't swear to this, but IIRC we spend more than the next 7(?)
> countries combined and twice as much as the next highest. Seems to
> me to be a bit more than required.

Whatever it is, it isn't enough.

There are troubles in the world that it's up to the U.S. For example, the
public transit fares just doubled in Singapore and, for some reason, farmers
in Sri Lanka are not growing enough potatoes. I even heard of a cat being
shaved in Egypt.

It's up to us to sort all this out.

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 4:37 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
>>> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
>>> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs. The
>>> longer we wait, the worse the situation will be for our children
>>> and grandchildren.
>> Er, no. The federal deficit can be reduced, or eliminated, by
>> growing the economy. "A rising tide lifts all boats," including the
>> US treasury. Of course politicians have to restrain themselves from
>> spending only
>> what comes in, not the "projected" revenues in the out-years.
>>
>>
> Let's follow up on your train of thought. Suppose that no federal
> entitlement programs are cut. Suppose that beginning today, the
> federal government spends only what come in. Suppose that beginning
> today that the economy began to grow by a robust 4% per year, and
> that is the means relied on to cure all federal budget problems. How
> long would it take before the federal deficit is reduced to zero? What
> would the federal debt be at that time? How long would it take
> to reduce the federal debt to its present $16 trillion? How long
> until interest on the federal debt become less than 10% of total
> federal spending? How long until the federal debt is reduced to
> below five trillion dollars?

Four percent is not what I'd call "robust." For example, China's GDP has
been increasing in the neighborhood of 8% for some time. So, assuming a 6%
growth for the US and a cutback of current expenditures to the pre-Obama
level, just a quick back-of-the envelope calculation shows we could make a
slightly less than $1 trillion reduction of the debt each year.

"Richard" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


I'd sure like to get the alcohol out of my gas tank.

And with a corn shortage?


Who's gift to Big-Ag was that anyway? Wasn't that just one of W's
gifts to corporate America?

Dave in Texas

On 9/7/2012 4:20 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>> This demonstrates that you may be right
>>>
>>> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/radio-host-pranks-dnc-delegates-with-question-about-banning-corporate-profits-and-many-agree-with-him/
>>
>> Giving all due consideration to the fact that snips don't really represent
>> things properly, and that some of those people seemed to be less in
>> support than Peter attempted to show - his point is still well taken.
>> This is America - since when did the term profit become a swear word?
>> Since when is Capitalism an evil thing? You are right - this video at
>> least shows an alarming philosophy or trend along an alarming line.
>>
>
> True that there was some editing, but the fact that many actually agreed to
> the idea without hesitation is truly scary.
> And your right, our glourious leader has made profit and success four letter
> words.
>
>

Who is john Galt?

On 9/7/2012 3:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>> OK, here's reality.
>>
>> http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program :
>> Entitlement program: The kind of government program that provides
>> individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special
>> government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but
>> usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal
>> right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet
>> eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that
>> authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs
>> are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes
>> organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or
>> even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under
>> certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement
>> programs at the federal level in the United States would include
>> Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans'
>> Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement
>> plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural
>> price support programs.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rubbish.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-entitlement-program.htm :
>> An entitlement program can be defined as a governmental mechanism
>> where public funds are given to people because they meet some kind
>> of requirement. One commonly known American example of an
>> entitlement program would be the federal food stamp program, which
>> allows people without sufficient funds to buy food. Another
>> well-known entitlement program is Medicare, although only certain
>> parts of that program actually qualify as entitlements.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More Rubbish.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/entitlement-program :
>> Government program that requires payment to anyone who meets
>> specific qualifications; those who qualify are thus “entitled” to
>> the payments. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. are
>> entitlement programs.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More Rubbish.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/List_of_government_entitlement_programs :
>> United States Government Entitlement Programs:
>> 529 or Coverdell
>> Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
>> Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit
>> Student Loans
>> Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
>> Earned Income Tax Credit
>> Social Security--Retirement& Survivors
>> Pell Grants
>> Unemployment Insurance
>> Veterans Benefits
>> G.I. Bill
>> Medicare
>> Head Start
>> Social Security Disability
>> SSI--Supplemental Security Income
>> Medicaid
>> Welfare/Public Assistance
>> Government Subsidized Housing
>> Food Stamps
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More Rubbish.
>
> You forgot the subsidities for the energy industries,
> the agriculture subsidities including price supports for sugar, etc.
>
> It would appear that your real bitch is you don't qualify
> for some type of assistance.
>
> Lew
>
>
>


I'd sure like to get the alcohol out of my gas tank.

And with a corn shortage?

On 9/7/2012 4:24 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 2:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic
>>> ones
>>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go
>>> with
>>> the reverse.
>>>
>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>> approach
>>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>
>>>
>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>> overspending".
> Exactly and the national debt has more than doubled since the social
> democrats took control of congress in 2006.
>
> In six years they have not faced the problem and passed a budget as
> required by the Constitution. Some say budgets are worthless BUT only
> with an overall budget will you know where your money is going, so real
> cuts can be made.


You mean a real budget?

like 2012 maybe?

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>
>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>
>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>> these things.
>>
>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>
>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>
>
> National debt 1954: 278 billion
> social spending 20% of budget
> national defense almost 60%
> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>
> National debt today: 16,000 billion
> social spending 61% of budget
> national defense 22%
> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>
>
> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.

He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.

I didn't start this ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>
>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>
>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>> these things.
>>>>
>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>
>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>
>>>
>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>> national defense almost 60%
>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>
>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>> national defense 22%
>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>
>>>
>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>
>> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>
> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since
> Ike.
>
> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>
>
>
>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>> of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs,
>> since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>
>> I didn't start this ...

Doug, there is a difference, obscure to many, including me, between debt
and budget deficit:
<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm>
I wish I really understood.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 05 Sep 2012 12:58:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>>@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>
>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>
>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>> these things.
>>>>
>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>
>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>
>>>
>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>> national defense almost 60%
>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>
>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>> national defense 22%
>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>
>>>
>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>
>>He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>>Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>>of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs,
>>since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>
>>I didn't start this ...
>
> Has the CBO or an outside agency ever actually -verified- any of these
> Democrat claims of surplus?

As I said, Larry, there is a difference between debt and budget
surplus/deficit:
<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm>
(if this is still the copy and paste I mean). I truly, truly wish I
understood fully.

Also, the listing Doug referred to was not clear whether it is in
constant dollars. The price of gold was $30/oz by definition when I had
my teeth done by the Utrecht Dental School around 1966. Now it is >
$1500/oz. I tried to sell one of the "inlays" that had come out recently
(whole!), but the gold store didn't want it ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>>The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
>>quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
>>done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait,
>>the worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.
>
> Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
> I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly half
> of US federal spending in 2004.
>
> A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
> difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be consuming.
> I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you are. The
> number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd guess that
> most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.
>
> How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of some
> type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of these
> same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty much
> stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair assessment?

OK, there are differences between Federal debt and budget deficit. SS
is funded outside of the budget, and there is a surplus on the books. I
don't quiote understand how the books finagle it, but I am told we need
to look at it separately. Social Security is easily funded almost to
perpetuity with adjustments to taxation, just like happened before.
Perhaps, like before the retirement age for full benefits may need
further adjustment, but politically that is not so easy.

Medicare and MedicAid are different, and depend on cost control. It is
nonsense that US medical costs are so much higher than that in other
countries. I'd like a commission established to look into all the cost
factors here, and I'll bet that unnecessary bureaucratic and clerical
costs will be a big part. As may be the desire for the biggest,
costliest, newest equipment in each doctor's office. Maybe there should
be more control (it already exists) as to how many MRI machines there
should be per 100,000 population.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:29:19 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>>>national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since
>>>Ike.
>>>
>>><http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>>
>>All these stats are simply interesting footnotes as to what came
>>before and in no way have any bearing on what goes on now.
>>
>>The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
>>complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
>>then.
>
> Complexities? No, nothing complex, we just let the government grow
> and grow. Used to be about 1 in 10 people was government employed, now
> closer to 1 in 4.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/03/16/whats-your-states-deadwe
> ight-ratio/4/

Right. I'm left of Ed, but the main reason I retired was being sick of
regulations that took my time from the research I was supposed to do.
But the problem is how to reduce the burdens, and I don't know how. Just
some of the problems in today's research fields is that of fraud and of
abuse of research subjects. The regulations designed to combat these are
stupendous, requiring testing & certification of researchers, approval
programs of proposed protocols, and documentation, documentation,
documentation. The HIPAA forms we are all familiar with are another
example. Something that should be just self-evident, that your doctor
shouldn't expose your records to just anyone, now requires multipage
forms of legalese with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.

So let us do away with the HIPAA forms and everything analogous, and just
punish anyone who violates our trust with sufficient force. Let's do
away with due process?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 09/05/2012 06:52 AM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm
>>>>>> programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political
>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can
>>>>>> do these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
>>>>>> politician or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>>>> national defense almost 60%
>>>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>>>
>>>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>>>> national defense 22%
>>>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>>>
>>>> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the
>>>> budget?
>>>
>>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since
>>> Ike.
>>>
>>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't start this ...
>>
>> Doug, there is a difference, obscure to many, including me, between
>> debt and budget deficit:
>> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.ht
>> m> I wish I really understood.
>>
>
> It's really very simple:
>
> When calculating annual budget deficits/surpluses, the gov counts all
> excess "trust fund" contributions as revenue, but doesn't count the
> treasury note placed into the trust funds in place of those funds as
> an expense. When calculating debt, they do count the notes as
> expenses, hence the difference. This amounts to several hundred
> billions annually.
>
> One of the "problems" Obama has is his "payroll tax vacation" in which
> the employee contributions aren't being made for SS and medicare.
> This means that the employer portion isn't enough to cover current
> expenses, hence there is no excess revenue from these funds to count.
> It also means that those funds are being depleted at a much faster
> rate than anticipated and the gov needing to borrow more, adding to
> the "real" deficits and debt.

I indeed didn't understand that "payroll tax vacation" other than it
being a simple infusion of stimulus to everyone. But, like some other
tax reductions, it is supposed to end, this one Dec 31 2012.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 09/06/2012 05:10 AM, Han wrote:
>> Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>>>> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in
>>>> some quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which
>>>> cannot be done without cutting into entitlement programs. The
>>>> longer we wait, the worse the situation will be for our children
>>>> and grandchildren.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
>>> I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly
>>> half of US federal spending in 2004.
>>>
>>> A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
>>> difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be
>>> consuming. I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you
>>> are. The number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd
>>> guess that most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.
>>>
>>> How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of
>>> some type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of
>>> these same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty
>>> much stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair
>>> assessment?
>>
>> OK, there are differences between Federal debt and budget deficit.
>> SS is funded outside of the budget, and there is a surplus on the
>> books. I don't quiote understand how the books finagle it, but I am
>> told we need to look at it separately. Social Security is easily
>> funded almost to perpetuity with adjustments to taxation, just like
>> happened before. Perhaps, like before the retirement age for full
>> benefits may need further adjustment, but politically that is not so
>> easy.
>>
>> Medicare and MedicAid are different, and depend on cost control. It
>> is nonsense that US medical costs are so much higher than that in
>> other countries. I'd like a commission established to look into all
>> the cost factors here, and I'll bet that unnecessary bureaucratic and
>> clerical costs will be a big part. As may be the desire for the
>> biggest, costliest, newest equipment in each doctor's office. Maybe
>> there should be more control (it already exists) as to how many MRI
>> machines there should be per 100,000 population.
>>
>
> All entitlement programs are part of the budget:
>
> <http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=coc&sa=X&channel=f
> s&biw=1088&bih=530&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsu&tbnid=NbiJiBC4iX4k9M:&imgrefurl
> =http://digitheadslabnotebook.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&imgu
> rl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dbECP0yvozc/TC1z_7039zI/AAAAAAAAClc/wJxu16
> ynzrw/s1600/us_budget.png&w=1467&h=1094&ei=WpxIUKf2EISZyQGxsoDQCA&zoom=
> 1&iact=hc&vpx=789&vpy=223&dur=3143&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=127&ty=123&sig=
> 110968657678730226331&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:4
> 29,r:9,s:0,i:170>
>
> But the US hasn't passed a budget in the last 3 years!

that (blogspot?) link doesn't work for me.

AFAIK, Soc Sec is NOT part of the budget.

Vanguard is a respected financial institution with a non-partisan , but
financially conservative, philosophy. I got an email with a link that
may be interesting to the group:
<https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012>
I don't know why there is an https in there, I didn't have to supply
credentials. I copied the writing on the page and made it into a pdf,
which I could send if the link doesn't work.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on
>>> the debt is an expense line item.
>>
>> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>>
>> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went
>> up in all of those years.
>>
>> Creative accounting?
>>
> Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
> difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
> Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the
> annual accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the
> trust funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes
> in the debt.
>
> It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
> indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.

Despite all that, please read (as I just said elsewhere) this from
Vanguard:
<https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012>
I am NOT an economist.

But taken your view a bit further (back actually), spending more than we
take in has been a hobby of every administration, in particular some
recent ones, where taxes were cut, wars waged, medicare expanded, etc,
etc, and NONE of those EXTRA EXPENSES were compensated for by extra
revenues.

It is my opinion, and you are free to disagree, that the financial
collapse of 2008 forced the administrations of Bush and Obama to spend
vast sums of money to "rescue the economy". Hopefully we'll eventually
dig out from under that particular mountain of debt (the one caused by
the collapse).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>> of overspending.
>
> Are you insane?
>
> The national debt has gone up six trillion dollars in 3-1/2 years of the
> current administration.

Why, Bubba? Could it be all the money spent on bailouts etc?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Chuck <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 9/8/2012 5:57 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/7/2012 8:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
>>>> beyond that allowed by Congress.
>>> He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a
>>> cost. Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it
>>> carrys the weight of law.
>>>
>> Please quote the section of the Constitution that grants the
>> President authority to enact legislation by executive order.
>
> The president hasn't followed the Constitution in 4 years. He won't
> start now. He was heard to say " I don't need the congress. I have the
> power of Executive order."

Doesn't Congress have the right or even duty to say no to the president
within some time fram, like 60 days? (Too lazy to google it now)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 06 Sep 2012 19:24:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>>>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on
>>>> the debt is an expense line item.
>>>
>>> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>>>
>>> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went
>>> up in all of those years.
>>>
>>> Creative accounting?
>>>
>> Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
>> difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
>> Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the
>> annual accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the
>> trust funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes
>> in the debt.
>>
>> It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
>> indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.
>
>Despite all that, please read (as I just said elsewhere) this from
>Vanguard:
><https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012>
>I am NOT an economist.
>
>But taken your view a bit further (back actually), spending more than we
>take in has been a hobby of every administration, in particular some
>recent ones, where taxes were cut, wars waged, medicare expanded, etc,
>etc, and NONE of those EXTRA EXPENSES were compensated for by extra
>revenues.
>
>It is my opinion, and you are free to disagree, that the financial
>collapse of 2008 forced the administrations of Bush and Obama to spend
>vast sums of money to "rescue the economy". Hopefully we'll eventually
>dig out from under that particular mountain of debt (the one caused by
>the collapse).

What happened to all the money which came back IN from the TARP
programs?

--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson

Larry Blanchard wrote:

>
> If you took SS off the budget, as it used to be, we'd show a surplus.
> And SS could be fixed with some minor adjustments and show a surplus
> as well. Of course at that point the politicians would put it back
> on budget to mask some other spending.

Oh Larry... you had to go and open that Pandora's box, didn't you? This is
one that is near and dear to my heart. My brother went on disability some
years ago (questionable....) and his two boys immediately began to receive
SS until they are 25 or 26 years old. That household does not need any help
from the government, from local churches, or from any other organizations
that hope to help people out. But... my nephews got this money. For what?
Because their dad went on disability? Two retirement incomes and somehow
they need this? Can you tell that this aspect of SS really pisses me off?


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than
>> Democratic ones who have increased the amount of overspending, but
>> in dollars? I'd go with the reverse.
>>
>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>> approach the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>
>>
> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
> overspending".

Well... not really so. It's that thing called "Executive Order" that
contributes. There are costs associated with those Executive orders, and
often (or maybe... most times...) thoses costs are long term, since they
create additional government, which is hard to pare back.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

ChairMan wrote:

> This demonstrates that you may be right
>
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/radio-host-pranks-dnc-delegates-with-question-about-banning-corporate-profits-and-many-agree-with-him/

Giving all due consideration to the fact that snips don't really represent
things properly, and that some of those people seemed to be less in support
than Peter attempted to show - his point is still well taken. This is
America - since when did the term profit become a swear word? Since when is
Capitalism an evil thing? You are right - this video at least shows an
alarming philosophy or trend along an alarming line.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering
>The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
>quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
>done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait, the
>worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.

Maybe, but that's a pretty easy statement to say. According to what
I've read, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security took up nearly half
of US federal spending in 2004.

A vast number of US citizens use those services. You'd have a pretty
difficult time implementing those cuts, the outcry would be consuming.
I'm a Canadian, so we're not too much different than you are. The
number one concern of Canadians is our health care. I'd guess that
most people down in the US feel pretty much the same way.

How exactly would you do that cost cutting without an uprising of some
type? As far as I see it, Obama got elected with the support of these
same people. As long as they have voting power, you're pretty much
stuck with the problems you have. Would that be a fair assessment?

On 9/5/2012 7:58 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>
>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>
>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>
>>
>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>
>>
>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>
> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
> overspending.

Only because Republicans have been on office more years since and
including Eisenhower. They all spend money. And let's not forget that
it was Jimmy Carter that broke the trillion dollar debt barrier.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:29:19 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>>national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>>
>><http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>
>All these stats are simply interesting footnotes as to what came
>before and in no way have any bearing on what goes on now.
>
>The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
>complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
>then.

Complexities? No, nothing complex, we just let the government grow
and grow. Used to be about 1 in 10 people was government employed, now
closer to 1 in 4.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/03/16/whats-your-states-deadweight-ratio/4/

Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>> office. I didn't start this ...

Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic ones
who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go with
the reverse.

It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to approach
the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:43:36 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>
>If any surplus is less than that years interest on the debt, the debt
>will increase. There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but
>the debt went up in all of those years.

Has -any- budget surplus ever been used to pay down the debt, not just
interest? Hell, the interest payments alone are far greater than I
can even wrap my little-figured mind around.

--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson

Keith Nuttle wrote:

> People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go as
> far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American
> dream is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will
> support your family with out the fear of loosing that job and putting
> you and your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best
> not something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.

But if you tell a lie long enough, people will accept it as the truth, and
many with itching ears will jump right on board with it from the git-go.
Keep telling the American public this and too many of them will begin to
believe it is true - they feel... "enlightened". Unfortunately though, I
have to disagree with your assessment of human nature. I submit that it is
human nature (at least among a significant segment of any society) to do as
little as possible for as much as possible - those that will free-load off
any opportunity. That's how Welfare became so popular as a way of life
among segments of our society.

>
> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
> your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for,
> or one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and
> the reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough
> for you.

Again - unfortunately, I believe we have cultured a large segment of our
society that will embrace the latter. Those are the ones that will vote for
the guy who offers more government to take care of you - never realizing the
heroin addiction that it is.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 05 Sep 2012 13:57:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 05 Sep 2012 12:58:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>>>@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>>
>>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>>> these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>>> national defense almost 60%
>>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>>
>>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>>> national defense 22%
>>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>>
>>>He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>>>Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
>>>of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs,
>>>since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>>
>>>I didn't start this ...
>>
>> Has the CBO or an outside agency ever actually -verified- any of these
>> Democrat claims of surplus?
>
>As I said, Larry, there is a difference between debt and budget
>surplus/deficit:
><http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm>
>(if this is still the copy and paste I mean). I truly, truly wish I
>understood fully.

Quick definition: A budget deficit is the amount the gov't spends
each year which exceeds the funds they have taken in. Debt is the
total owed at the end of the year. Annual v. overall. D.C. doesn't
seem to understand that, either. Spending less = NO DEFICIT, and it
can lead to actually paying off the debt.

Doug's post enlightened me even more to the stupid tricks they play
with money reports in D.C.

I was really pissed off the other day when I saw that the federal
gov't had given the city of Grants Pass a $600k grant for bus stop
shelters and then, more recently, had given some other city in Oregon
about that much to repair an old covered bridge. IMHO, neither is the
duty of the federal gov't and neither is a necessary expenditure. Both
are -glam-, fer chrissake. We, the people, have to rein this in,
damnit.


>Also, the listing Doug referred to was not clear whether it is in
>constant dollars. The price of gold was $30/oz by definition when I had
>my teeth done by the Utrecht Dental School around 1966. Now it is >
>$1500/oz. I tried to sell one of the "inlays" that had come out recently
>(whole!), but the gold store didn't want it ...

Keep them and sell them to the guys who DO buy dental gold. It
doesn't fetch $1500/oz, but it's worth a pretty penny.

--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
>national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>
><http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>

All these stats are simply interesting footnotes as to what came
before and in no way have any bearing on what goes on now.

The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
then.

On 05 Sep 2012 12:58:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>
>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>
>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>
>>
>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>
>>
>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>
>He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
>overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
>they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>
>I didn't start this ...

Has the CBO or an outside agency ever actually -verified- any of these
Democrat claims of surplus?

--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson

On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>
> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
> these things.
>
> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
> or business man and they are stupid."
>
> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>

National debt 1954: 278 billion
social spending 20% of budget
national defense almost 60%
gov't spent 2% less than it brought in

National debt today: 16,000 billion
social spending 61% of budget
national defense 22%
gov't spends almost twice what it brings in


Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/5/12 7:58 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>
>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>
>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>
>>
>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>
>>
>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>
> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
> overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
> they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>
> I didn't start this ...
>

Yes you did. The only president anyone mentioned was Ike.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/5/2012 9:20 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 05:58 AM, Han wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>>
>>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>>
>>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>>> these things.
>>>>
>>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>>
>>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>>
>>>
>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>> national defense almost 60%
>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>
>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>> national defense 22%
>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>>
>>>
>>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>>
>> He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>
> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.
>
> <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
>
>
>
>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
>> overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
>> they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>>
>> I didn't start this ...
>>

The national debt has more than doubled since the social democrats took
control of Congress in 2006 and increased by 6 trillion dollars from the
10 trillion it was when obama took office in 2008.

The obama increase make past Republican and Democrat presidents look
insignificant.

I do not believe in 6 years the social democrats have passed an annual
budget as dictated by the Constitution. Not even in the years when the
social democrats had control of both the Senate and the House.

On 9/5/12 1:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>>> social spending 20% of budget
>>> national defense almost 60%
>>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>>
>>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>>> social spending 61% of budget
>>> national defense 22%
>>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The above is so screwed up, it's ridiculous.
>
> Lew
>


Guess I'll take your word for it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Just Wondering wrote:

> It's simple. Debt is money that you already owe. A deficit is money
> you spend that's more than you earn. A deficit increases debt - when
> you spend money you don't have, that money has to come from
> somewhere. The usual way is to borrow it.


Unless you can print it.



--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20:13 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

> He was the last president who had a surplus - period! Check the
> national debt and you'll discover it has increased every year since Ike.

If any surplus is less than that years interest on the debt, the debt
will increase. There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but
the debt went up in all of those years.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/5/2012 1:37 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>> It's simple. Debt is money that you already owe. A deficit is
>>> money you spend that's more than you earn. A deficit increases debt
>>> - when you spend money you don't have, that money has to come from
>>> somewhere. The usual way is to borrow it.
>> Unless you can print it.
>>
>>
> That would cause inflation. Since inflation has been under 4% for
> over a decade, the federal deficit has not recently been covered in
> any significant amount with new printed money.

Wait.

There is no way the debt will ever be paid without starting up the printing
presses. And yes, it will cause inflation. Our dollar is now worth $0.10
relative to how I knew it; in the not too distant future it will be worth
$0.01. Or less.

And under 4% is *still* inflation. That rate will decrease the value of a
dollar to 50% in 18 years or less.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on the
> debt is an expense line item.

OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).

There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up
in all of those years.

Creative accounting?

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:21:38 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

> The ONLY permanent, long-term solution, unpopular as it may be in some
> quarters, is to substantially reduce federal spending, which cannot be
> done without cutting into entitlement programs. The longer we wait, the
> worse the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.

If you took SS off the budget, as it used to be, we'd show a surplus.
And SS could be fixed with some minor adjustments and show a surplus as
well. Of course at that point the politicians would put it back on
budget to mask some other spending.

And Medicare could be fixed by extending it to younger healthier people.
Getting rid of the MedAdvantage (advantage to the insuranace companies)
would help as well, as would allowing negotiations over drug prices (a
gift to the drug companies).

I can at least understand those who oppose SS & Medicare on philosophical
grounds, even though I disagree with them. But those who say we can't
afford them are saying the US is poorer than Canada, Japan, Germany,
England, etc., etc.. Oops I forgot - we are!

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>
>> If you took SS off the budget, as it used to be, we'd show a surplus.
>> And SS could be fixed with some minor adjustments and show a surplus
>> as well. Of course at that point the politicians would put it back
>> on budget to mask some other spending.
>
> Oh Larry... you had to go and open that Pandora's box, didn't you? This is
> one that is near and dear to my heart. My brother went on
> disability some years ago (questionable....) and his two boys
> immediately began to receive SS until they are 25 or 26 years old. That
> household does not need any help from the government, from local
> churches, or from any other organizations that hope to help people
> out. But... my nephews got this money. For what? Because their dad
> went on disability? Two retirement incomes and somehow they need
> this? Can you tell that this aspect of SS really pisses me off?

It's not just SS. My older brother got whacked by a grenade in the
Phillipines during WW2. Not real serious, sharpnel in his back and back of
legs, but they gave him a small % disability, maybe 10%. About five years
ago he got a notice that they were increasing it to 100%. Why? He didn't
ask for it. And 100% of what? Current pay for his rank or of what he got
in 1944?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:39:26 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

> Under what definition to you include the constitutional requirement for
> the federal government to provide for the national defense in the
> category of entitlement programs?

Because we spend a lot more than is required for defense. Even more than
the Pentagon wants. A lot of it is pure pork barrel - local jobs get
politicians re-elected even if the rest of the country is paying for
something not needed.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 9/7/2012 10:05 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 03:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>
>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic
>> ones
>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go
>> with
>> the reverse.
>>
>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>> approach
>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>
>>
>
> You quoted the wrong guy...
>
>

I believe in the coming election there is one big factor that has been
missed.

That factor can be summed up in Michelle's response when obama was
elected. She said that that was the first time in her life when she was
proud of America. (You can check this statement in the news archives)

The whole Republican convention was; we are proud of America, We know We
are capable of great things, and We can make it better. ( Notice there
was no mention of establishing more government for the purpose.)

It is my believe that people will respond more to a positive attitude
than the negative attitude expressed by the social democrats.

People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go as
far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American dream
is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will support
your family with out the fear of loosing that job and putting you and
your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best not
something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.

Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for, or
one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and the
reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough for you.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:18:53 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

>> Because we spend a lot more than is required for defense.
>
> That's a matter of legitimate debate.

I won't swear to this, but IIRC we spend more than the next 7(?)
countries combined and twice as much as the next highest. Seems to me to
be a bit more than required.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 9/7/2012 2:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic
>> ones
>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go
>> with
>> the reverse.
>>
>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>> approach
>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>
>>
> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
> overspending".
Exactly and the national debt has more than doubled since the social
democrats took control of congress in 2006.

In six years they have not faced the problem and passed a budget as
required by the Constitution. Some say budgets are worthless BUT only
with an overall budget will you know where your money is going, so real
cuts can be made.

On 9/7/2012 3:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 12:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2012 4:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than
>>>> Democratic ones who have increased the amount of overspending, but
>>>> in dollars? I'd go with the reverse.
>>>>
>>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>>> approach the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>>> overspending".
>> Well... not really so. It's that thing called "Executive Order" that
>> contributes. There are costs associated with those Executive orders, and
>> often (or maybe... most times...) thoses costs are long term, since they
>> create additional government, which is hard to pare back.
>>
> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending beyond
> that allowed by Congress.
>
obama just created another unauthorized group on terror. When congress
tried to control the number to Tzars, obama went ahead and spent more
money. Every two "week" he is hiring more people to work on a group to
review something. Under obama's administration government is becoming
the largest employer in the US. One statistic said half of the workers
are on government payrolls, half of the people in the US pay no taxes,
it is any wonder the Nation debt has more that doubled since the social
democrats started their spending frenzy in 2006.

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:28:06 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> There are troubles in the world that it's up to the U.S. For example,
> the public transit fares just doubled in Singapore and, for some reason,
> farmers in Sri Lanka are not growing enough potatoes. I even heard of a
> cat being shaved in Egypt.
>
> It's up to us to sort all this out.

Love it :-).

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0700, CW wrote:

> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
> your abilities

By definition, half of the people are of below average intelligence - how
far will their "abilities" take them?

They did pretty good in the days when we manufactured stuff here, but
then Rommney and his ilk outsourced most unskilled labor jobs. With
sufficient help from the Democrats as well. Regardless of party,
politicians favor big contributors.

Romney loves outsourcing. Obama makes noises against it, but in practice
doesn't push it. That may be because he knows it won't get anywhere in
Congress, but the end result is the same.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:29:03 -0500, Richard wrote:

> I'd sure like to get the alcohol out of my gas tank.
>
> And with a corn shortage?

Until recently, we only had alcohol in the gas in the winter. Riding a
motorcycle in the winter here is only for the foolhardy, so it didn't
bother me.

Now we have it year round. I went to put gas in the tank last year and
found big pieces of my tank liner floating!

I got the tank relined with something supposedly impervious to the
alcohol, but I've been buying un-alkied gas at a commercial station
whenever possible.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 9/8/2012 5:57 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 8:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
>>> beyond that allowed by Congress.
>> He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a cost.
>> Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it carrys the
>> weight of law.
>>
> Please quote the section of the Constitution that grants the President
> authority to enact legislation by executive order.

The president hasn't followed the Constitution in 4 years. He won't
start now. He was heard to say " I don't need the congress. I have the
power of Executive order."

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 07:11:22 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> One can tell you are on the Democrat's side in this debate, simply
> because math is involved.

Republicans can't do math? Thanks for confirming my suspicion :-).


> If ten people take a test and 9 score 100 and one test-taker scores
> zero, then 90% of the test takers are above average, not five as you
> claim.
>
You can get any result you want in a sample that size. But human
intelligence of a large group fits the normal bell-shaped curve. If you
don't know what that is, ask a Democrat :-).


>
> Again, you are sloppy with your definitions. EVERY company "outsources."
> They outsource security, janitorial services, insurance, grounds
> maintenance, air conditioning repair, and so on.

And you're sloppy in your assertions. You meant that "today" most
companies "outsource". And you're right. I know of some when I was
working that outsourced only insurance - but that's like claiming they
outsourced the gasoline they used in the company cars :-).

But as far as "offshoring", the definition of outsourcing has no
reference to locale - it serves for both domestic and foreign.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 9/7/2012 10:05 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 03:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>
>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic
>> ones
>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd go
>> with
>> the reverse.
>>
>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>> approach
>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>
>>
>
> You quoted the wrong guy...
>
>

I believe in the coming election there is one big factor that has been
missed.

That factor can be summed up in Michelle's response when obama was
elected. She said that that was the first time in her life when she was
proud of America. (You can check this statement in the news archives)

The whole Republican convention was; we are proud of America, We know We
are capable of great things, and We can make it better. ( Notice there
was no mention of establishing more government for the purpose.)

It is my believe that people will respond more to a positive attitude
than the negative attitude expressed by the social democrats.

People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go as
far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American dream
is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will support
your family with out the fear of loosing that job and putting you and
your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best not
something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.

Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for, or
one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and the
reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough for you.
==================================================================
There are a hell of a lot of people that want every thing but won't put the
effort into it. They vote for those that say they will give them something
for nothing rather than someone who says to work for it. The Democrats have
a heavy stake in keeping the poor poor and keeping racism alive. That way,
they have something to "save" people from. They are nothing without a
"victim".

On 9/5/2012 10:12 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

>
>> Also, the listing Doug referred to was not clear whether it is in
>> constant dollars. The price of gold was $30/oz by definition when I had
>> my teeth done by the Utrecht Dental School around 1966. Now it is >
>> $1500/oz. I tried to sell one of the "inlays" that had come out recently
>> (whole!), but the gold store didn't want it ...
>
> Keep them and sell them to the guys who DO buy dental gold. It
> doesn't fetch $1500/oz, but it's worth a pretty penny.

I am sure the dental gold comes nowhere near close to almost pure gold
as far as carat goes and that would mean a heck of a price difference.

Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Uh, it's Congress, not the President, who sets the "amount of
>>> overspending".
>> Well... not really so. It's that thing called "Executive Order" that
>> contributes. There are costs associated with those Executive
>> orders, and often (or maybe... most times...) thoses costs are long
>> term, since they create additional government, which is hard to pare
>> back.
> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
> beyond that allowed by Congress.

Mostly correct. He does have some limited powers to move funds around, IF
allowed by the legislation.

Where he is in charge is his power of the veto. It takes five minutes to put
the kabosh to over-spending by the Congress.

Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>> amount of overspending.
>>
>> Are you insane?
>>
>> The national debt has gone up six trillion dollars in 3-1/2 years of
>> the current administration.
>
> Why, Bubba? Could it be all the money spent on bailouts etc?

what amazes me is how politicos throw around the word trilllion as if
it nothing
take a look

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 10:05 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 09/07/2012 03:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the
>>>>> amount of overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush
>>>>> programs, since they were instituted before Obama took the oath of
>>>>> office. I didn't start this ...
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Maybe there have been more Republican presidents than
>>> Democratic ones
>>> who have increased the amount of overspending, but in dollars? I'd
>>> go with
>>> the reverse.
>>>
>>> It will take a set of deficits from Republican administrations to
>>> approach
>>> the $6 trillion debt from just the current president.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You quoted the wrong guy...
>>
>>
>
> I believe in the coming election there is one big factor that has been
> missed.
>
> That factor can be summed up in Michelle's response when obama was
> elected. She said that that was the first time in her life when she
> was proud of America. (You can check this statement in the news
> archives)
> The whole Republican convention was; we are proud of America, We know
> We are capable of great things, and We can make it better. ( Notice
> there was no mention of establishing more government for the purpose.)
>
> It is my believe that people will respond more to a positive attitude
> than the negative attitude expressed by the social democrats.
>
> People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go as
> far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American
> dream is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will
> support your family with out the fear of loosing that job and putting
> you and your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best
> not something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.
>
> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
> your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for,
> or one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and
> the reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough
> for you.

Slight correction: Romney (and the Republicans) said we WILL make it better.
It was the Democrats who said we CAN make it better. A subtle, but crucial,
difference.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> People will respond to a person who says that in America you can go
>> as far as your capabilities will carry you, and believe the American
>> dream is not, as obama said a few weeks ago, to get a job that will
>> support your family with out the fear of loosing that job and
>> putting
>> you and your family in poverty. It is human nature to want the best
>> not something that is adequate to keep you out of poverty.
>
> But if you tell a lie long enough, people will accept it as the
> truth, and many with itching ears will jump right on board with it
> from the git-go. Keep telling the American public this and too many
> of them will begin to believe it is true - they feel...
> "enlightened". Unfortunately though, I have to disagree with your
> assessment of human nature. I submit that it is human nature (at
> least among a significant segment of any society) to do as little as
> possible for as much as possible - those that will free-load off any
> opportunity. That's how Welfare became so popular as a way of life
> among segments of our society.
>>
>> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
>> your abilities and you can go as far as you are willing to work for,
>> or one that say there is nothing you can do about present state, and
>> the reason you are suffering is the government has not done enough
>> for you.
>
> Again - unfortunately, I believe we have cultured a large segment of
> our society that will embrace the latter. Those are the ones that
> will vote for the guy who offers more government to take care of you
> - never realizing the heroin addiction that it is.

This demonstrates that you may be right

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/radio-host-pranks-dnc-delegates-with-question-about-banning-corporate-profits-and-many-agree-with-him/

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 8:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> The President cannot by executive order increase federal spending
>>> beyond that allowed by Congress.
>> He sure can. He can create programs and departments that carry a
>> cost. Congress has 30 days to challenge that, and after that - it
>> carrys the weight of law.
>>
> Please quote the section of the Constitution that grants the President
> authority to enact legislation by executive order.

About as close as I can get:

Article 2, Section 2
"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several States..."

The President can, by virtue of an executive order, demand that his
underlings NOT enforce some law or regulation under penalty of being fired.

Yes, this does set up a conflict which may have to be resolved by a court.
But until the president is ordered to do something by a court, he's pretty
much free to do as he pleases. Even IF a court rules against him, one must
consider the wisdom of Andrew Jackson: "[Supreme Court Justice] John
Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> The President can, by virtue of an executive order, demand that his
>> underlings NOT enforce some law or regulation under penalty of being
>> fired.
> I think it's understood the discussion is about what the Prez can
> lawfully do. The Prez cannot LAWFULLY do what you just described.

I agree. But look at the recent Dream Act substitute implemented by
Executive Order. The president can get away with almost anything unless
someone objects to a court.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:55:56 -0600, Just Wondering
>> The changes that have happened since then and the increasing
>> complexities of current life are completely different now compared to
>> then.
>You say that like it should excuse the current deplorable state of
>federal financial affairs. It most assuredly does not.

You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. But, what's happened with
budgetary concerns back then are not very comparable with what goes on
now. The solutions and methods back then would most likely have a
disastrous effect if they were implemented these days ~ Much more than
many people think it already is.

Han wrote:
>> Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount
> of overspending.

Are you insane?

The national debt has gone up six trillion dollars in 3-1/2 years of the
current administration.

On 9/6/2012 1:35 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 09:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> The interest on the debt is already included in any deficit/surplus
>>> calculations and any increase/decrease of the debt. The interest on the
>>> debt is an expense line item.
>>
>> OK, then I'll repeat my previous statement in shortened form :-).
>>
>> There were surpluses in 1969, and 1998 through 2001 but the debt went up
>> in all of those years.
>>
>> Creative accounting?
>>
> Yes, creative accounting. I already explained it to Han. The
> difference is in how trust fund excess contributions are treated. The
> Feds claim all excess trust fund contributions as revenue in the annual
> accounting, but do not count the promisory notes placed in the trust
> funds as expenses. However, they do count the promisory notes in the debt.
>
> It all boils down to the fact that the increase in debt is the true
> indicator that we have spent more than we have taken in since Ike.
>
>


Correction, "Our Government" has spent more than we have been able to
afford since Ike.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0700, CW wrote:
>
>> Who would you vote for someone who said your success is dependent on
>> your abilities
>
> By definition, half of the people are of below average intelligence -
> how far will their "abilities" take them?

One can tell you are on the Democrat's side in this debate, simply because
math is involved.

If ten people take a test and 9 score 100 and one test-taker scores zero,
then 90% of the test takers are above average, not five as you claim.

>
> They did pretty good in the days when we manufactured stuff here, but
> then Rommney and his ilk outsourced most unskilled labor jobs. With
> sufficient help from the Democrats as well. Regardless of party,
> politicians favor big contributors.
>
> Romney loves outsourcing. Obama makes noises against it, but in
> practice doesn't push it. That may be because he knows it won't get
> anywhere in Congress, but the end result is the same.

Again, you are sloppy with your definitions. EVERY company "outsources."
They outsource security, janitorial services, insurance, grounds
maintenance, air conditioning repair, and so on. Even governments
"outsource." For example, my town outsources residential garbage removal to
Browning-Ferris, a private concern.

I THINK you meant "offshoring," instead of "outsourcing," but it's hard to
tell.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 05 Sep 2012 12:58:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:k26muh$gr5$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/4/12 11:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY
>>>
>>> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>>> unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
>>> you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
>>>
>>> There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> Among them are Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
>>> or business man and they are stupid."
>>>
>>> - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
>>>
>>
>> National debt 1954: 278 billion
>> social spending 20% of budget
>> national defense almost 60%
>> gov't spent 2% less than it brought in
>>
>> National debt today: 16,000 billion
>> social spending 61% of budget
>> national defense 22%
>> gov't spends almost twice what it brings in
>>
>>
>> Things have changed a lot since Eisenhower.
>
>He was the last Republican President who had a surplus in the budget?
>Since then Republican Presidents have outdone Democrats in the amount of
>overspending. I am taking the bailouts and TARP as Bush programs, since
>they were instituted before Obama took the oath of office.
>
>I didn't start this ...

Has the CBO or an outside agency ever actually -verified- any of these
Democrat claims of surplus?

Would you believe them [CBO numbers] if they did?

Dave in Texas