A fiscal black hole grows deeper

“USA Today reported last month that government workers earn 13 percent more than their private-sector counterparts in the same occupations. With benefits, public-sector compensation is an astounding 55 percent higher.”

Restating this figures, private-sector workers earn 12 percent less than their public-sector counterparts in the same occupations. With benefits, private-sector compensation is an astonishing 35 percent lower.

Beginning with Reagan, in the early 80’s, the private-sector has slashed both compensation and benefits — adjusted for inflation — with the end result being that a tiny percentage at the top hold more wealth than 95 percent of the households.

The USA Today figures are not reflection of public-sector inefficiencies. Rather, they’re a reflection of private-sector greed.

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess starting a bogus war that is and will cost trillions (and not including it or Afghanastan in the deficits), and taking a surplus and spending money like a drunken sailor on shore for 8 years makes you an expert on “fiscal responsibility”? It’s always the social spending,you know the helping your fellow man which your bible talks about when you are born again for the hour and a half of the week on Sunday morning, that bugs you elephants the most. Except when you or family members need it! Like unemployment, grandpa’s SSI, mom’s medicare. Anybody else should be able to take care of themselves. Need I say most elephants aren’t that bright and are tools???

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, we could always trim back on that 1+ trillion dollar annual military budget and put that money to better use. Of course, we could have also quit taking all the money paid into social security over the years and diverting it to pay for tax cuts. There are just so many things that could be done better. Keeping fiscally irresponsible Republicans out of office helps a lot.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Need I say most elephants aren’t that bright and are tools???”

I have yet to see a single conservative suggest that a bill should be passed and then “we’ll see what’s in it”. For that matter, I’ve not seen any conservatives that think an island will tip over if too many people get on it at the same time.

Back on topic…Not only do government employees make more than private sector employees, they are nowhere near as efficient…further deepening the money pit.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m always ready to cut BIG GUB’MENT anytime. Let’s see: Get rid of the Postal Service, Fannie and Freddie, HUD, DHS, Department of Education, about half of the IRS, about 32 czars, end all GUB’MENT pension plans, get rid of all Democrats in now in Congress and ObumerCare…

In the public sector social security is called an entitlement. In the private sector it is called a ponzi scheme. No matter what they’re called they always fail. Only difference is the thieves in the public sector get re-elected, while those in the private sector go to jail.

• Link
• Report this comment

I know the value of a trillion dollars. It’s what GWB’s false war in Iraq has cost us to date. 3 billion a week for 8 years. Funny, I don’t remember the Kyle Wingfield’s of the world doing too much griping about this over the past 8 years or so.

• Link
• Report this comment

Always amazing how the Dems and libtards defend The Imperial Federal Government, with all their wealth distribution schemes and money lost in black holes, waste and fraud. Yet, they have so much problem with individuals keeping their own money! War on Poverty? over 4 Trillion spent, and what happened? The Post Office? AMTRAK? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? The wonderful world of Government. If Corporations ran themselves like The Imperial Federal Government, they would be in jail, not the Government. You wanna talk about “tools”???? None bigger than believers in Government being the answer!

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle is correct. I did ignore his main point.

Why? Because anybody who votes Republican has zero credibility when complaining about deficits and unfunded liabilities. Let’s forget about Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, the Republican Congress, and the enormous financial burdens each left behind for a moment, and look at another example close to home.

Even today — as our state struggles financially, as college tuition rises dramatically, as school districts close schools, layoff or furlough teachers, and increase class sizes dramatically (while our education system remains among the worst in the nation), as our roads become more congested, as we struggle with water issues, as we struggle to fund care for children in foster homes, as we struggle to fund our justice system — today our Republican-led state legislature voted to phase in $387 million in tax cuts, including eliminating state income taxes for seniors. These tax cuts include no triggers in the event of financial catastrophe or provisions for rainy day funds or provisions to fund underfunded pensions. They’re just another present from the Republicans in the state house for the rest of us to grapple with in the years to come.

Of course, they legislate these future tax cuts intending that their cost will eventually be transferred to the poor and middle class in the form of increased state sales taxes and other regressive forms of taxation. But, if they have their way, one place that the $387 million that has just been cut will not go is to keep the promises made to teachers by fully funding their pension plans.

So directly to Kyle’s point, the model for public pensions for teachers and others are only obsolete to the extent that people who vote Republican make them so.

• Link
• Report this comment

The libs on this blog who whine about Republican debt and deficits are both right and wrong. Both parties ARE responsible for this catastrophic mess. But there is no comaparison between what Obama is doing and what Bush did. And for the record, there were lots of us who WERE complaining when Bush was spending too much money. All you can do is say “Bush did it too!” like a bunch of 4 year olds. Why don’t you just admit that America made a huge mistake on November 4th, 2008? Anyone who is not completely partisan can see that. If Republicans go back to overspending we’ll throw them out of office as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, Republicans under Bush spent too much. But Obama and the Democrats have made the Republicans look like rank amateurs. It is now a race against the calendar to get the Democrats under control before we can kick their corrupt butts to the curb in November. It now looks like before we can get rid of them, they will have run the national debt to an amazing $13.6 trillion. I cannot even get my brain around a trillion dollars.

When I was young people used to say “When I get old I do not want to be a burden on my children.” Now days we elect Democrats to steal from our children and our grandchildren. Our grandchildren will have every right to judge us harshly.

• Link
• Report this comment

Buzz G, if the Republicans who yell “Fiscal Responsibility” every chance they get and THEN do the exact opposite are allowed to do what they do…I call then the “don’t tax and spend more anyway” party…, why do you expect the Democrats who are open about their spending to spend less? Guess what! you moral hypocrite Republicans are providing a bad example. You idiots screaming about the Dems after what your party did is completely laughable. Wonder why no one takes the GOP seriously anymore? THAT is why.

• Link
• Report this comment

Vote out the incumbents and start over

• Link
• Report this comment

Nov. 15, 2002
Dick Cheney
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

One would have to be a total idiot to view republicans as fiscally responsible . Please name the Republican administration that sought out to reduce government spending . Power & promises is a bad combination . Both parties are irresponsible with our tax dollars according to history . Until this Tea party movement forms its own party or throws its weight behind the libertarian or constitution party I have no respect for it . Even Ron Paul , Americas new conservative darling , said the only reason he is in the Republican party is because it was the only way to be elected .

As far as the article , from what I understand Clinton is responsible for the short fall in social security , medicare , & probably pensions as well . His supposed balanced budget came from paying down public debt at the expense of these programs & government holdings .

• Link
• Report this comment

Jason T,

“Always amazing how the Dems and libtards defend The Imperial Federal Government, with all their wealth distribution schemes and money lost in black holes, waste and fraud.”

And if you think that’s bad, just wait till you get a republican wealth distribution scheme like Florida’s A+ plan.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yes, Republicans under Bush spent too much. But Obama and the Democrats have made the Republicans look like rank amateurs.”

Any Econ 101 textbook not written by Thomas Sowell would say that the feds should run surpluses in times of economic growth and temporary deficits in times of economic decline or instability to make up for the temporary hole in private sector spending. Otherwise, the economy continues to contract, revenues continue to fall, and yes, long-run deficits grow even bigger as a result.

Excluding the portion of the current and most recent deficit caused by lost revenue from the Bush recession (about $1 trillion, give or take) the Dems are running temporary deficits (aka: stimulus) deliberately to make up for the shortfall in the economy due to the loss of private sector spending. These deficits brought us back from the brink of depression, and we need to continue running deficits in the short term until the economy stabilizes and private sector spending picks up again.

In short, rather than complaining about the deficits under Obama, we should be thankful for them. If McCain were elected, he would have run us into the ground.

As I said, when those who vote for Republicans — who run deficits at times of economic growth or stability and complain about them in times of economic instability — speak about deficits and debt, they have zero credibility.

• Link
• Report this comment

I cosign with CJ.

• Link
• Report this comment

The more you give to government, the more they demand. The solution is to reduce property taxes in Georgia at least, cut teacher pay, reduce schools to teaching read, writing, and arithmetic, and nothing else. Raise class size to 50, and cut administration to one principal per school, no secretaries, no vice principles, just the principle and teachers. We may not be able to cut the already promised pensions, but we can surely reduce the number of teachers and hangers on, and reduce their top pay level. A 50% across the board pay cut will mean the teachers top 5 years of earnings will all be in the past. There will be no maxing out in the last five years of work. Remember the Social Security Trust fund theft that Kyle so helpfully deleted from yesterday’s blog? Well that fund gave 2 trillion dollars to the government to save toward paying for the baby boomer’s retirement on social security. Did the government save that 2 trillion dollars? No, they spent every penny on pork barrel projects, gifts to foreign nations (mostly israel), and wars, wars, wars. Proof positive that the government will spend every penny we give them, and they will demand more, more, more. I say cut, cut, cut government down to size, and punish the thieves who have already robbed us.

• Link
• Report this comment

cut teacher pay, reduce schools to teaching read, writing, and arithmetic, and nothing else? Are you serious? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now Kyle we all know our biggest trade partners , China as well as Saudi Arabia , are manipulating our currency . Does it get more protectionist than that ? If we could reduce our imports & help strengthen our manufacturing sector how could that be a bad thing ? We need to keep more of our money in this country . We have been running a trade deficit for decades. All Smoot Hawley really showed is that tariffs harm the supply side country which we have not been for awhile . China is MUCH more protectionist than us anyhow .

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re right Jess. Unemployment wasn’t held to 8%. The stimulus should have been bigger and more specifically focused on job creation.

• Link
• Report this comment

I hear ya Kyle . How about an economy in which we didn’t continue to lose billions every month in trade deficits . I never meant to suggest a closed economy . Just trying to level the playing field . Here is a staggering number for you .

http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

• Link
• Report this comment

The upshot of the article is that these comparisions are meaningless. So to use them to make a point…any point…serves no purpose.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That’s not quite right, CJ. Anyone who thought Bush or any president could have maintained surpluses at that time is a real Pollyanna…Obama’s job now is to make sure the deficits fall, and sharply.”

You’re rewriting history again Kyle. Review Alan Greenspan’s testimony to Congress in advance of the Bush tax cuts and what he had to say about the projected surpluses — projections which you now claim came from “a real Pollyanna.” Those long-term tax cuts passed in ‘01 and accelerated in ‘03 were justified, in large part, using Greenspan’s testimony. Here is an excerpt from CNNMoney written early in 200:

“…Greenspan played down the idea that tax cuts would provide an immediate boost to the economy, saying that tax reduction is appropriate as a long-term economic measure now because of estimates of a larger-than-expected federal surplus…The Fed chief had long been a proponent of using budget surpluses to pay down the national debt first, instead of using additional revenue to pay for tax reduction. But Greenspan said government estimates project more than enough surplus funds to pay off the debt and reduce taxes too.”

With regard to the economy, Obama’s job, first and foremost, is to stabilize the economy and instill job growth. Those two items are necessary prerequisite to making sure that deficits fall.

Again, Obama inherited a debt that had more than doubled under Republican rule, and even with balanced budgets, would continue to grow exponentially due to the compound interest on that debt. In addition, Obama inherited a rapidly declining economy that caused a $700 billion-plus revenue loss in his first year in office and additional revenue losses in out years.

So the suggestion from those who ran up the debt at a record pace and ran the economy into a near-miss depression (i.e., people who vote Republican), that Obama should drive the economy into a ditch to prioritize reversing the debt that he inherited is ludicrous at best and disingenuous at worst.

Contrary to the lies and misrepresentations, Democrats are sincerely interested in balancing the budget, returning to surpluses and paying down the debt — but only after the patient is stabilized. Republican voters, on the other hand, didn’t care about deficits until a Democrat entered the White House. In addition, the Republican elite’s “starve the beast” strategy hasn’t worked (so far), and as a result, they’re clearly frustrated.

• Link
• Report this comment

CJ

April 15th, 2010
11:43 am
You’re right Jess. Unemployment wasn’t held to 8%. The stimulus should have been bigger and more specifically focused on job creation.

Riiiight. Laughable! Just throw more money at it.

• Link
• Report this comment

WWII did not directly end the Great Depression in America, the destruction of the worlds industrial plant ended the Great Depression in America. If Japan, Germany, England and all the rest wanted to rebuild, they had to import steel, machines, food, and consumer products from the only source in the world, America. Remember also we were the largest oil producer in the world before and after the war. If our alleged leaders had half a brain, they would have slowly shut our domestic oil production, and imported vast amounts of cheap arab oil, with the threat of reopening our massive oil fields always hanging over the arab’s heads. The leaders were too stupid to see far into the future, so they pumped America dry, and now we are at the mercy of the oil exporters. They will not be kind to us, and we do not deserve kindness.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

I wonder when Obama and Pelosi defecits quadruple anything Bush every did in the next 2-3 years if the cray libs out there will have anything to say then…I keep hearing libs say how taxes haven’t gone up except for the rich…while, yes, technically that is true…what the tea partiers and other conversatives are worried about is the INEVITABLE TAX INCREASES for all of us that are coming because of Obama’s crazy spending.

Keep up the good work Kyle….it’s so painful reading Tucker and Bookman’s liberal garbarge everyday….(I know, I know, they are your colleagues so I’m not supposed to bash them)

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Linda

Large corporations also give an absurd amount of money to both parties to purchase democracy . Most of this money is given to hinder free enterprise , limit consumer protections, & get our tax dollars . Not questioning large corporations motives is ignorant .

• Link
• Report this comment

Man. Kyle be pwning CJ. Takin’ her to the woodshed. Arm-barred and tapped out.

Ron Paul is even with Obama now. Who’d a thunk it after Steele and that Fox commentator (”we should be taking our marching orders form Al Qaeda”) did their best to belittle him.

Viva La Revolution. Economic illiterates and liberty haters are goin’ down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Glenn@2:11, If you look at campaign contributors, there are only 4 corporations in the top 20 heavy hitters. There are also 4 associations & 11 unions who, of course, support Dems. If your goal is to question the motives of large donors, you are falling short by singling out corporations, who do not appear to be the real movers & shakers.

Demonizing, not questioning, is ignorant.

• Link
• Report this comment

The ‘Baggers should blame the republicans for supporting the insurance companies, banks, and Wall Street lobbyists over American families and small businesses.

The spending and tax policies of the last ten years caused the problems we have today. They turned record surpluses into record deficits, cut taxes for corporate CEO’s and the rich. The GOP is still protecting Wall Street and the big banks by opposing reforms that would protect consumers and prevent future bailouts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s an interesting budget idea (at least for U.S. states):

Given the economic disaster that is California, former republican gubernatorial candidate there, Tom Campbell (now U.S. Senate candidate), has a particularly interesting budget plan. According to columnist George Will a few months ago, Campbell “favors resetting the budget cycle so that the state would accumulate one year’s revenues to be spent the following year, when precise knowledge would replace wishful thinking about available revenues.”

Campbell is no economic novice. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was his faculty advisor. Campbell has served as a California State Senator, has been elected to the U.S. Congress five times, and has served as Director of Finance for the State of California.

According to Campbell’s Web site (while still running for governor), under current law, California’s legislature and governor set a budget based on what they expect revenue to be. Instead, Campbell notes, “they should set the budget on the lower of: 1) what they expect revenue to be, or 2) what the revenue actually was in the previous fiscal year. When revenue is growing, the extra amount will earn interest. When revenue is falling, the legislature will have one year’s lead time; they can spread the necessary cuts over two years. It will take some years to phase in this proposal. To be conservative, let’s give it 10 years. After 10 years, we will collect money in the current year, put it in an interest bearing account, and not spend it until the next year. What’s in that account is what we have to spend.”

Like many other states, Georgia’s constitution requires that it operate under a balanced budget. Also, like virtually every other state (according to my research), to determine the size of its budget, Georgia must make a revenue estimate. According to the Legislative Budget Office, “The Governor, who is the Budget Director, is responsible for making the official revenue estimate. He is assisted in this responsibility by a state economist under contract as a consultant with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, which manages the budget for the Governor. The basis for making revenue projections is a computerized econometrics model. From this model, a range of estimates is provided to the Governor by this economic consultant.”

Georgia was among many (if not most) states which had shortfalls in their 2010 budgets which had to be adjusted to. Trying to nail down accurate budget numbers is, to say the least, an inexact science. Why not remove the guesswork and let the previous year’s revenue fund the following year’s budget?

After all, isn’t this how it works with virtually every individual, family, business, church, etc. that operates with a budget? The previous month’s (or week’s) earnings pay for the next month’s expenses. Is it so far fetched to think that our government would budget as do most other institutions?

As U.S. Senate candidate, Rand Paul, (Congressman Ron Paul’s son) puts it, “People think that there is a different logic for an economy than there is for an individual.” In other words, what doesn’t make sense in a family or business budget should not make sense for the government.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle:
Putting aside all the hogwash about foreign wars and helping my fellow man, it would be interesting to know how much teachers have actually contributed to their retirement benefits and pensions in hard dollars. I will humbly posit that the number (if available) is a pittance compared to the projected payout. Makes you wonder whether all the private sector bashers understand the outsized return public sector workers get on their “investments.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Not matter the issue it comes down to political favors trumping the national interest through the actions lying deceitful politicians. If either Liberals or Conservatives were true to the beliefs they espose a sustainable economy could be generated. However, it is a fantasy to think politicians will ever do more than pay back favors over the good of the nation. Perhaps we should populate both halls of Congress every year the way we do a jury and leave these people with specific instructions on what there purpose is…..wonder how that would work, possible chaos, but would it be any worse?

• Link
• Report this comment

The only two jobs a good accountant has is to hide profit and not get caught.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Linda

If you would have said labor unions supply us with our homes, their contents, our food, clothing, transportation, health care, our way of life.

and followed it with

Capitalism is not greed, but envy is a sin. Demonizing labor unions is self-loathing.

(No, I have no ties to a labor union other than the average consumer/taxpayer.)

I would have made roughly the same comment but said unions instead of corporations . One need not look past the biggest donor AT&T & see the face of corporate evil though . I will demonize AT&T & not feel ignorant in the least . And a blanket statement about the virtues of all large corporations I can’t let slide . Sorry Linda but it is my contention that for the most part big business has gotten lazy & done so with the help of government .

And Linda the 90’s are over . So what do we do now to make sure Americans don’t have to borrow another 700 billion with interest so we can give it to the banks & borrow it back with more interest . Thats a huge improvement over socialism . Though I think that is a pretty lame argument seeing a 10 dollar an hour foreign minority fruit picker could have gotten a loan 5 years ago for over half a million dollars from several banks without any government involvement . What would you propose ? Also Linda the health insurance providers could make more . They just would have to drop more of the sick people they insure . Sure the American taxpayer would still have to pay for these people but insurance companies would be even more profitable . Good stuff .

• Link
• Report this comment

Just saying Linda the problems out there right now are far past just liberal or conservative & so are the things that caused them .

• Link
• Report this comment

Did the “old, out-dated model” also include government bail-outs of banks, auto industries, big business (those who want to proclaim the greatness of business models but fail to follow them)?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, any change will be designed by definition to cheat some of us who have paid into the ss system all our working lives, and helped build up this 2 trillion dollar trust fund. I know your plan, you seek to divide the Giant Generation, either along age lines, or along income lines. As long as the Giant Generation sticks together, we cannot be defeated. The minute Kyle and his ilk manage to split some of us off to victimize, we ALL lose. We will stick together, we will crush the liars and cheats beneath the weight of our wheelchairs! It is time to bring caning back into style.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank you, I went from the paper to hear so did not see the link. After looking over the article what my teacher says rings loud. Cooks for example. Are these military cooks with 15-20 years of service? This would result in the large salary. Not saying that is the reason but too many people take a number and shout from the rooftops. All I know is, I am a 12 year firefighter with a promotion and paramedic incentive pay. My wife has been at her job for almost 2 years and makes 10% less than me. While not an easy job and it has a lot of resonsibility, it does not require a degree or unique skills. And she can do it till she’s 65 years old. Do you want a 65 yearl old firefighter? Police Officer? Some jobs can not be done till a ripe old retirement age. It is easy to sit at a desk and type articles. My 2 cents folk, ya’ll have fun repeating yourselves

• Link
• Report this comment

Glenn@4:11, This blog highlights the underfunded teacher pensions. I mentioned that part of the problem was the stock market where they are invested.
Americans invest our life savings, our futures, on Wall St., either directly &/or indirectly as tax payers. Wall St. is primarily corporations that are WE, the American people: stock holders, employees, creditors, customers & clients, & when they fail, we fail. It does not make any sense to flog them & wish them failure.
You said that not questioning corporations that donate to campaigns was ignorant, which had nothing to do with my comment.
My last comment was to point out that the heavy donors are not primarily corporations, but include associations & are primarily unions. If you feel the need to question corporations BECAUSE they donate & “purchase democracy,” they you should feel the need to question ALL the heavy donors including the assns. & unions.
My initial comment about corporations had absolutely nothing to do with unions. It does not matter whether a corporation is unionized, partially unionized or non-unionized. Corporations are not our enemies. We ARE the corporations.
You have a problem with AT&T. Mine is with GE. If either of them fail, you & I pay. The problem is not with corporations. The problem is you & I, who we vote for. The problem is not the campaign donor & how they “purchase democracy” but the campaign receiver & how they “sell democracy.”
I have noticed that this adm. uses a strategy for every agenda that creates a crisis, an urgency, victims & demons. The demons are always corporations, the life-blood of our economy, the largest employers, whose success all our futures are based on. They are in the business to make money FOR US, we the people.
Now, to your second question…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Let me remind everyone of a few basic facts:
* The banks got into the mess they’re in as a direct result of the deregulation pushed by republicans.
* It was Bush who bailed out the banks and who took us into an unnecessary war in Iraq and gave tax cut after tax cut to the wealthy, all of which created our currect deficit.
* Obama is responsible for the largest tax cut in history, a tax cut that benefitted the middle class not the wealthy.
* When the economy is in a recession and is approaching a depression, that is not the time to worry about deficits since without the government using our taxes to stimulate the economy, we would very likely end up in a depression. If a depression occurred, then the government, along with business, would suffer severe shortfalls and if you think the deficit is big now, it would be dwarfed by would occur in that situation.

All the people who think we should get rid of social security and medicare need to propose exactly what should be done to support retirees who no longer have any income.

Why is it no one ever mentions our out of control military budget when they express concern about the growing deficit? How come its more important for this country to fund the military (the U.S. spends more on military expenditures than all other countries in the world COMBINED) than it is to provide healthcare and an education for its citizens?

No one said “health insurance is a right, not a privilege” — the quote is “healthCARE is a right, not a privilege.” We need to REMOVE the health insurance industry from the picture totally. They bring nothing of any value to the table, they cause the cost of healthcare to be much higher than it should be and they’re going to run our country into the ground. A single-payer healthcare system, which eliminates the need for health insurance, would solve our current deficit while providing everyone with healthcare. Even if we had to pay higher taxes for such a system, we (businesses and individuals) would save so much money not having to pay for health insurance that that would more than offset any tax increase. The healthcare bill that was passed that all the Tea Baggers label as socialist is nothing of the sort. If anything, its a boon to the insurance industry since they’re going to be getting a lot of new business.

Lastly, public education, medicare, postal service, roads, bridges, emergency services — these are all publicly-funded services (i.e., socialist). This is not a bad thing at all — without publicly funded services, there would be no middle class but only a huge lower class and a small, but powerful and entrenched upper class (sort of like what we seem to be moving towards now thanks to deregulation). When something is publicly funded, that doesn’t necessarily mean the government is actually performing the service, it means the government is paying for it and thereby controlling the cost for all of us. All the anti-government rhetoric is spawned by the business world, which would like nothing more than to have everything provided by the private sector so they could over-charge us for everything and if we couldn’t afford their price, we would simply have to do without. A perfect example of this is in countries where water service has been privatized, placing it in the hands of corporations. Once they take over the water service, the price always goes through the ceiling, leaving many people without water. Some things do not belong in the realm of the private, for-profit sector, such as water and other utilities and healthcare since these services are a matter of life and death. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anything that’s a matter of life or death placed in the hands of the greed mongers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Glenn@4:11, Now to your 2nd question: “What do we do now to make sure Americans don’t have to borrow another 700 billion with interest…” The TARP program was the Toxic Assets Relief Program that NEVER bought a single toxic asset. It rather bought 2 of our 3 domestic car companies & has been used as a piggy bank for bandaiding (is that a word?) our economic crisis as it’s being repaid piecemeal. Sit down. The toxic assets that are still out there amounts to over $4 trillion dollars!!!!! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Even though my degree is in economics, I gauge the economy on our dog’s bout with fetching our newspaper. As long as he struggles more with the edition that includes the legal section (foreclosures) than with the Sunday edition that includes the advertising supplements, we will have a problem.
Banks have never specialized in originating residential mortgages. S&Ls haven’t specialized in residential loans since the ’80s. Mortgage companies specialize in residential mortgages & they have NO money to lend, no depositors. They sell their loans on the secondary market. The largest buyer of mortgages is Fannie Mae. Almost every residential loan for decades has been underwritten according to Fannie Mae guidelines, whether Fannie Mae actually bought the loan or not, because Fannie had the strictest policies, based on the history of default.
In the ’90’s, the Dems mandated that Fannie & Freddie (then government-sponsored entities: GSEs) relax their guidelines in the name of Affordable Housing/Social Justice. You’ve heard of jet-setters. The GSEs were the pace-setters of underwriting guidelines. They started the tsunami of subprime lending. They not only underwrote subprime loans but also bought them, bundled them up with prime loans & sold them on Wall St. & all over the world.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government pensions (federal, state, county, city) are a bigger problem right now thna social security and medicare. The actions that occur regularly to bump up final payouts before retirement is nothing short of criminal fraud. Unlike the federal government. the states, counties and cities can’t print money so get used to the fact that YOU will pay more taxes for someone else’s lavish retirement.

• Link
• Report this comment

Marcos
April 15th, 2010
4:39 pm

Why do you conservatives HATE education and intelligence so much you have to bash it at every turn? I guess the more stupid you are the more gullible you are as well. Explains a lot.

Seeing as how the subject has turned to labeling “conservatives” stupid and gullible, it seems in order, after the usual ad hominem attacks to ask some rather simply straightforward questions directed at these allegations in response.

Why is it that liberals, socialists, rant nearly to the point of insanity about the evils of corporate greed in the private sector; while ignoring, if not down right denying, that any similar evils of greed exist in the government public sector?

Rather strange, would you say Kyle? I mean, greed is truly universal among everyone us.

Therefore, it would stand to reason, contrary to liberal-socialist think that greed actually can and in very point of fact, “does”, exist in government.

Which brings to bear the question, is it acceptable to think government greed, public sector greed, is good at all points where corporate or private sector greed is bad at every point of consideration?

How is it then, when a monopoly frowned upon by all reasonable minds which is rightly viewed as anti-competitive, counter productive and oppressive where it exist in the private sector can be so vehemently sanctimoniously defended as a virtuous good only when it is founded in the public sector under the purvey of government?

A government monopoly of any kind of any form is no better than a capitalist’s monopoly. In very point of fact, a government monopoly of any kind in any form, whether it is education or nearly anything else – excluding the obligatory duty governance – is a far worse evil, in that government has the exclusive powers to confiscate and incarcerate under its’ laws.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government worker—an oxymoron.

• Link
• Report this comment

Linda :

*This economic crises was caused by, and will continue to be adversely influenced by, the deregulated commodities market, a market that dwarfs all other markets, and is basically where people/companies/banks with lots of money can bet on the success or failure of things like subprime mortgages. The investment banks pressured the mortgage lenders to make more and more risky subprime loans because they had hedged their bets on said loans in the commodities market and were set to gain more money if the loans failed than if they succeeded (evidence that this was the case was reported this evening on ABC World News since the government has filed charges against Goldman Sachs for this very thing). Fannie Mae was simply doing what all the investment banks were doing, not that that makes them any less culpable, but it certainly doesn’t make them more culpable than any of the investment banks. The mortgages that were granted to low income people as a result of the legislation passed by the democrats that you mentioned have not had a high failure rate like the subprime mortgages that were pushed by the investment banks. For someone who has a degree in economics, I’m sure you probably know all this — if you don’t, it must be because sometimes degreed people tend to think they already know everything.

*Obama did not nationalize the banks. Timothy Geithner gave them an open-ended ability to borrow at 0% interest from the FDIC no questions asked (something I don’t agree with), but they were NOT nationalized.

*Only a few select democrats and republicans reviewed the intelligence Bush used as the reason for attacking Iraq, and they were not told that the intelligence had been reviewed and discredited by intelligence agencies in Europe as coming from an unreliable source. When the State Department sent someone to the Middle East to verify the intelligence, he discovered that it was bogus and, not only did he inform the White House of this, he also sent a letter to the NYTimes saying so. The White House’s response to this was to expose his undercover wife, who had been working undercover to fight terrorism for years (someone should have gone to jail for that offense). So, the democrats, and all of us, were lied to about the reasons for attacking Iraq and the real reasons for doing so have never been divulged. Also, wars are never by executive order — only Congress has the power to declare and fund wars.

*Bush’s tax cuts benefitted only those (businesses or individuals) who made in excess of $250,000 annually.

*Obama’s Economic Stimulus Bill was for $787 billion. The cost of the war in Iraq for JUST 2008 ALONE was approximately $400 billion and that’s not including supplemental funding granted that year. The cost of the war varies from year to year, but is approximately that same amount FOR EACH YEAR, plus supplemental funding. The federal military budget is 65% of total U.S. discretionary spending. (Did I hear you say you have a degree in economics??? If so, did they teach you to add?)

* As of October 30, 2009, Obama’s Economic Stimulus Bill has saved or created 640,329 jobs. It has also kept a lot of hard-working, middle-class Americans from becoming homeless since $224 billion was for extending unemployment benefits (along with improving education and health care. The U.S. does not currently have jobs for all these unemployed people (I know — I’m one of them), and without this extension of unemployment benefits they (we) would surely be on the streets if it weren’t for the Stimulus Bill. We’re talking about middle-class families who have always worked and who owned their own homes being subjected to homelessness. Actually, there are already a large number of homeless families living in tent cities around the U.S. and in national parks, but once a worker ceases to be eligible to receive unemployment compensation, they are no longer counted or reflected in the unemployment projections.

*Tens of thousands of Americans die each year due to not being able to afford healthcare. This dwarfs the number of people killed by terrorists. But we shouldn’t have to spend 65% of our tax dollars on military expenditures and still not stop terroristic acts or even catch Bin Laden. And, we’ve lost so many constitutional protections due to terrorism that we virtually are becoming like Russia used to be (but they were COMMUNIST, not SOCIALIST).

*Healthcare is a right only if the prerequisite for obtaining it is not having to have enormous amounts of money. Otherwise, it’s a privilege. The healthCARE debate began as just that — a debate about providing healthcare to all Americans. But, once the republicans and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries got their greedy paws into the debate, it became health INSURANCE reform. The only reform we need for health insurance is the elimination of that industry. Your statement that the healthcare bill will be a burden to the health insurance industry because “they will have to cover sick people,” is a screaming example of why we basically don’t even have a healthcare system since we wouldn’t want the insurance industry to be burdened with covering sick people! What part of healthcare for all Americans do you not understand? Any one of us could become uninsurable due to a preexisting condition at any time, and you’re trying to tell me that we should allow insurance companies to get away with not selling insurance to anyone with a preexisting condition? Apparently, you must work in the health insurance industry. There are so many reasons why healthcare does not belong in the realm of the “for-profit” private sector that I can’t even begin to list them here, but use your imagination (doctors aren’t willing to perform preventative medicine as much since it will cut into their profits; pharmaceutical companies are subject to reap huge rewards during flu epidemics, so much so that an incentive to start a man-made epidemic is not unfeasible).

*There may be one aspect of the healthcare bill that you and I agree upon — the mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance. Most of the people who currently don’t have health insurance don’t have it because they can’t afford it (I’m one of them). If people can’t afford health insurance now, they won’t be able to afford it when the law requires it unless the government plans to lower premiums and put a cap on them. That’s what the public option was supposed to be for — to cover the people who can’t afford private health insurance and to help control the cost of premiums by forcing private insurance to compete with the government’s much lower public option premiums.

*Corporations are NOT people, they are collectives of people and they have extraordinary power that individuals cannot compete with. And they are, apparently, inherently evil since they could care less about whether people live or die. So, please don’t compare them with individuals since they can’t feel pain or die like people can. We are in an unsustainable system because we are depleting our natural resources faster than mother nature can replace them. So, I wouldn’t put too much faith in our current capitalist system as it is eventually going to self-destruct if we don’t make some serious changes to it.

• Link
• Report this comment