America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by jpotts. 39 replies replies.
I thought Republicans were more fiscally conservative than Democrats.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Homebrew Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 1:24 AM EST
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
I always thought, that the national debt, exploded under Democrats, and the national debt, slowed under Republicans. Gonz

But it appears that both parties, love to add to the debt.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Just thought I would throw this out there. Take a look at these graphs, and discuss.


Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
P.S. Got off work a little early tonight, when dispatch realized that I had already driven 60 hours this week, and they need me tomorrow and Sunday. Looks like either one long day tomorrow, and Sunday off, or they remember, and 2 short days.Herfing
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 2:20 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Two wings one bird.......the last two have done wonders!

Does the grapgh show who controlled congress at the time as well?
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 7:40 AM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
ZRX1200 wrote:
Two wings one bird.......the last two have done wonders!

Does the graph show who controlled congress at the time as well?
Now don't try to obscure the point that Homebrew is trying to make! The Prez can make us or break us in a lot of cases but it's those scoundrels in Congress who set us up for the fleecing.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 8:13 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Now...who hasn't passed a budget during their administration?Think

Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall
surfish1961 Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 8:24 AM EST
Joined: 01-27-2008
Posts: 7,346
Unfortunately there's not much difference in the parties these days. The only way to tell a D from an R is to look at what special interests they pander to.
Mathen Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
^5. Pretty much dead on
Homebrew Offline
#7 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Yep,
there really is no difference, between the two parties, fiscally. They both care more about their special interests, than the average taxpayer. You can call me a fence sitter, but I am sick of both major parties. Yes I am a Libertarian, as I have stated before. I voted for Ron Paul, in the Republican primary, and will vote for the Libertarian candidate for president, once again, this election. The Republicans, on this forum, will say, that I am helping to elect Obama to a second term. This is quite probable, and I will not dispute the fact. I do not want 4 more years, of Obama, but I will not vote for the Romney/ Ryan ticket. Why, because nothing will happen differently. The Debt will continue to soar, only the benefactors, of the largess will change. No I do not like the fact that Welfare recipients can afford a better TV, or cell phone than I can. I do not like that I am forced to buy Health insurance, even though I already am happy with my current coverage. I hate that illegal aliens, and outsourcing, has destroyed the middle class. Yes, Ross Perot, was right about NAFTA, which is also true of all of the other free trade agreements. But I refuse to take sides, in this pissing match, that is destroying the country that I love.

Years ago my grandfather gave me some advice, that I took to heart. He told me, that if I had a choice between two evils, to choose none of the above. A vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.

Have a great day.
I gotta go to work. Hey somebody has to pay the taxes around here.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
CWFoster Offline
#8 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 10:09 AM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Actually..... you're ALL right! That's why the Tea Party has been working hard to primary the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only, for the uninformed) and get them out of there! Ask Dewhurst in Texas if the Tea Party is dead, as the MSM has been claiming for the past year or so. He was the Establishment GOP candidate for the Senate. His challenger (and now nominee) is ted Cruz, a proven conservative. Similar upsets have occurred in FL, and IN. The idea is to get the Lindsey Grahams out, and the Jim DeMints in. This is especially crucial with Mittens being our Presidential candidate! Some say (and not totally without some justification) that Newt Gingrich is a wingnut, BUT when he was the Speaker of the House, they wrote budgets that balanced! He was run out of Washington because his ATTORNEY made a statement that caused an area that had been invesitgated and found to have NO WRONGDOING to have to be reinvestigated. The House ethics committee was in disagreement over who should have to cover the cost of the redundant investigation, and since it was HIS attorney who opened that can of worms, Newt agreed to cover it out of pocket. The Democrats then used his paying the investigation cost (which, again found NOTHING) to sound like he was fined for wrongdoing. The GOP establishment jumped on the bandwagon, and Bob Dole laid the blame for his loss in 1996 at Newt's feet (Of COURSE it had nothing with Bob having all the appeal of wet toast, and being a 'moderate' RINO!). The GOP establishment withheld funds from Karen Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware because they "didn't want a bunch of Jim DeMints running around, and both of those ladies were Tea Party candidates who beat the establishment pick in the primary! So absolutely! The John Boehners, the Lindsey Grahams, and the rest of the senior GOP leadership IS every bit as cuplable as the fricken' Democrats in creating this mess! I PERSONALLY hold John Boehner and his "best deal we could get meme that resulted in the compromise (compromise?, what did OUR side get?) that resulted in the so called Super Committee that failed (what a freakin' SHOCK!) and caused the automatic $497 billion in defense cuts to kick in, which was why I got laid off in January!
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424
It's about time someone around here finally approached the topic of national debt in a rational, non-political manner. Economic numbers mean nothing without benchmarks to compare to. But, also I think the trends and variances have less to do with who was President or which party had control of the Legislature than people here want them to.
CWFoster Offline
#10 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 7:52 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
rfenst wrote:
It's about time someone around here finally approached the topic of national debt in a rational, non-political manner. Economic numbers mean nothing without benchmarks to compare to. But, also I think the trends and variances have less to do with who was President or which party had control of the Legislature than people here want them to.


You're right of course! Let's look at the programs that will destroy ANY budget the Congress comes up with within the next decade, and examine their origins.

Social Security, FDR-D, Democrat controlled Congress, constitutionality upheld by a supreme court he had packed himself in his first two terms.

Medicare/Medicaid, LBJ-D, Democrat controlled Congress

Obamacare, BHO-D, Under a Democrat controlled Congress (in his first two years, and only the Senate since)

I think the RINOs we've had in the House and Senate for the past dozen years are NOT much better, but when you examine the programs that will destroy our country under a mountain of unfunded obligation that will not leave a dime for any of the things the Government is SUPPOSED to do, like provide for the common defense, where are the Republican fingerprints? We HAVE benchmarks, spending and debt as a percentage of GDP! That's a depressing tale in and of itself! We are spending more money (BY orders of magnetude) now than we did in WWII fighting the Imperial Japanese AND the Nazis at the same time! And, to be completely fair with the blame, we can point at a Republican President for taking us off of the gold standard, and making it possible to monetize our debt (print fiat currency out of thin air) Richard M. Nixon!
Homebrew Offline
#11 Posted: Sat, Aug 25 2012, 11:49 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
CWFoster wrote:
You're right of course! Let's look at the programs that will destroy ANY budget the Congress comes up with within the next decade, and examine their origins.

Social Security, FDR-D, Democrat controlled Congress, constitutionality upheld by a supreme court he had packed himself in his first two terms.

Medicare/Medicaid, LBJ-D, Democrat controlled Congress

Obamacare, BHO-D, Under a Democrat controlled Congress (in his first two years, and only the Senate since)

I think the RINOs we've had in the House and Senate for the past dozen years are NOT much better, but when you examine the programs that will destroy our country under a mountain of unfunded obligation that will not leave a dime for any of the things the Government is SUPPOSED to do, like provide for the common defense, where are the Republican fingerprints? We HAVE benchmarks, spending and debt as a percentage of GDP! That's a depressing tale in and of itself! We are spending more money (BY orders of magnetude) now than we did in WWII fighting the Imperial Japanese AND the Nazis at the same time! And, to be completely fair with the blame, we can point at a Republican President for taking us off of the gold standard, and making it possible to monetize our debt (print fiat currency out of thin air) Richard M. Nixon!



OK, I will agree with you to a point. But SS and Medicare, would be solvent, for a lot longer, had both parties, not plundered the trust fund, to pay for their agendas, and not paid back a single penny. Prior to this current administration, GWB blew up the national debt, with the help of a Republican controlled Senate, and House of Representatives, for his first 6 years. I agree, that the Teaparty was a good thing, until the Koch brothers hijacked it for their own agenda.
I also believe that the governments primary job, is to protect us from those who would destroy our way of life, and to protect our Constitution. But tell me why it takes spending double, the defense budget, of the entire rest of the world, to do so? If you want to point fingers, both major parties are to blame.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
CWFoster Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 10:09 AM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Homebrew wrote:
OK, I will agree with you to a point. But SS and Medicare, would be solvent, for a lot longer, had both parties, not plundered the trust fund, to pay for their agendas, and not paid back a single penny. Prior to this current administration, GWB blew up the national debt, with the help of a Republican controlled Senate, and House of Representatives, for his first 6 years. I agree, that the Teaparty was a good thing, until the Koch brothers hijacked it for their own agenda.
I also believe that the governments primary job, is to protect us from those who would destroy our way of life, and to protect our Constitution. But tell me why it takes spending double, the defense budget, of the entire rest of the world, to do so? If you want to point fingers, both major parties are to blame.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)


Dave, go back and read my FIRST post! The establishment GOP has been thoroughly infiltrated by the "business as usual-big government-crony capitalist" political hacks! The Tea Party has been working to try to take it back! Think of it in these terms, the Tea Party is the disenfranchised conservative Republican BASE that is upset that they no longer HAVE a political party that represents their interests to vote for! So they're working on taking their old one back. Yes, the Republican controlled congress and GW Bush spent a TON of money they didn't have, BUT remember that AlGore in 2000 was lamenting it was already mostly gone, except for IOU's (T-bills), and THAT was with a GOP controlled Congress that A) was the first in most people's living memory had balanced the budget, and B) had only been in control for six years, and THAT with a Democrat President! Prior to 1994, The Democrats controlled Congress for FOUR DECADES STRAIGHT! It was AlGores Daddy and Tip O'Neill and Ted Kennedy who spent most of the SS Trust fund, there was little left to spend by the time the Republicans got a turn again. Would they have done any better? I'd like to think so, but since Richard Nixon signed into law the bill creating the EPA, and took us off the gold standard, I don't feel the least bit comfortable saying anything unequivocal. They did some landmark, watershed work in identifying and rehabilitating "Superfund" environmental sites, but the remainder could be overseen by the Dept. of the Interior, and the EPA has degenerated into a vehicle for regulating job killing policies of the liberal/socialist agenda into being where legislating would be political suicide for anyone who was answerable to the voters! Doubt me? Ask the coal miners in West Virginia, and Ohio about it! ask the roughnecks not all of whom are back to work yet in Louisiana and Mississippi, and the businesses that serve them, that cut back on employees because of decreased business. You say the Koch brothers "hijacked" the Tea party movement? It's NOT a political party, with a chairmanship, or ANY centralized leadership to speak of. That is both it's biggest strength and it's biggest weakness. NOBODY can truly "hijack" it, not to the extent that they hijacked the GOP ten-twelve years ago. It's composed of small groups and even individuals all over the country. It's made of people like me, who've never been to a single rally or meeting, tell me how did the Koch brothers hijack that? On the flip side, Look at the Center for American Progress, Media Matters For America, and a dozen OTHER liberal think tanks, and you will find George Soros is funding them all! as a Tea Partier, I hold no membership card, answer to no governing body, but only vote as my conscience and logic dictate. how has ANYBODY hijacked THAT! Does that mean I never compromise what i believe to try and minimize the damage until the battle for the GOP is complete? Of course not. As to spending more than the rest of the world on defense, cutting defense spending by $500 billion, and simultaneously requiring the Air force to use a proscribed amount of $36/gallon "green bio-jet-fuel" is ludicrous!
Homebrew Offline
#13 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 12:37 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
I do agree with the premise, of the teaparty, and in fact, went to a few rallies, early on. But when the Koch brothers, started sponsoring the rallies, and shaping the discourse, I backed out. I mean, no one can honestly think, that by cutting spending, only, our country can dig itself out of the debt, that both parties have run up. It will take more money coming in, IE taxes, as well as reining in spending. The math doesn't work any other way. The only way to cut enough spending to pay off the debt, would be across the board cuts, and elimination of many programs, which would lead to even higher unemployment, severe recession, if no depression, and even less tax money coming in, which would require even sharper spending cuts.
Yes, I believe that the teaparty movement, has been infiltrated, just like the Republican party. As a Libertarian, I can't get on board with the Social conservative direction it is going. I also do not believe that going to extremes to keep the rich from paying more in taxes, is going to help the job situation in the USA. I am tired of freeloaders, who are physically able to work, getting my tax dollars to live off of. But I also think that the companies, that don't pay a living wage, should be taxed at a higher rate, to pay for the government benefits, that their employees collect. That is the taxpayer subsidizing the corporate payroll. If a CEO makes a salary worth millions, while 80% of the employees qualify for government programs, then there is something majorly wrong with that. When the CEO of Walmart makes more in 1 hour, than the average Walmart employee makes in a year, then his taxes should be sky high, to pay for the food stamps, rental assistance, and other government programs that those employees qualify for. But for the most part we agree. There are just some things that we don't agree on, and this is just one of them. If you really expect me to vote for the Republican ticket, don't hold your breath. If you honestly think that the teaparty movement stands a chance at changing the Republican party enough to make them actually be fiscally responsible, I wish them well, but there are too many corporate dollars shaping the movement now, for the original premise of the teaparty to survive. Yes, the teaparty started out as a grassroots movement, that I supported, but they have strayed.
Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree.
I hope you have a great weekend.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
CWFoster Offline
#14 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Thed Democrats are even more steadfast in their adamant refusal to cut spending, than the Republicans are in opposing tax increases. Two facts to consider:
1) Obama's proposed 2013 budget that didn't get a single vote from EITHER side of the aisle, assumed the Bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire, but not a PENNY went to reducing the deficit, on the contrary, ALL of the increased revenue was spoken for with new spending!
2) The proposed tax increases the Democrats want would generate an extra $43 Billion dollars in revenue. IF you carried that to the OWS wet dream, and taxed Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and every millionaire at 100%, and confiscated all their assets, you would raise ten times that! That would still leave a $1 TRILLION deficit just for THIS YEAR!

Ever hear of Hauser's Law? It's an observation made YEARS ago, that since WWII, government revenue has tracked 19.5% of GDP on average. A tax hike will raise revenue briefly, but revenue settles after economic activity slows. This is what's behind the truth of the Laffer Curve decreasing taxes spurs economic activity, increasing the taxable income, resulting in a net INCREASE in revenue. The truth is, what would have had a more profound effect on the economy, and actually cost LESS than the stimulus, would have been to declare a one year tax holiday, but that would fly against the wealth redistribution policies of the current administration. When faced with historical evidence that raising taxes doesn't work, Obama always falls back on "everybody giving their fair share". Right now 10% of the population is paying 80% of the cost of government, and they are being told that's not enough? What about the 47% that file, but get all, or more money back than they paid in? What's THEIR fair share? I think everybody should pay taxes, even if it's two bucks, just to get some skin in the game.

They talk about how little warren Buffet pays in taxes. He's invested in stocks mostly, and doesn't have a 'paycheck' to be taxed. His taxes are at the capital gains rate when he sells his stock. So, why not raise that nasty capital gains tax? Who would get the most impact from that? How many Warren Buffets are there, and how many homeowners? When ma and Pa Kettle retire, and decide to sell the old homestead and move to a condo in Florida, they pay captial gains tax on the proceeds from their house! Now, they can't afford to pay cash for that condo, and they can't get financing or make payments on Social Security and Pa's pension. Warren Buffet pays his taxes, which he makes up easily from investing in trucking companies and rail lines carrying Canadian Oils sands crude to refineries on the gulf coast, because Obamster killed Keystone XL II for him, and Ma and Pa Kettle have to change their retirement plans! Is that your definition of 'fair'?

In truth. cutting spending is the ONLY way to get the deficit down, and begin paying off the debt.
rfenst Offline
#15 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424
Homebrew wrote:
When the CEO of Walmart makes more in 1 hour, than the average Walmart employee makes in a year, then his taxes should be sky high, to pay for the food stamps, rental assistance, and other government programs that those employees qualify for.
.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)


I don't think many around here will accept your perspective on this.
CWFoster Offline
#16 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
I suppose what the CEO of WalMart makes is between him, and the Board of Directors. they can fire him and hire someone at minimum wage if they so choose. What skin is it off of MY nose? If the employees are on public assistance, then encourage competition and get the cost of services down. Want to get the cost of health insurance down? Here's an idea for a federal regulation, every state be required to recognize every OTHER states insurance licencing requirements! Then there wouldn't be states like Nebraska where two insurance companies are all you get to choose from! With unfettered competition, will come price decreases, and affordability. How about we limit damages in medical malpractice suits to actual damages plus 500% for punitive damages? That'll get the ambulance chasers like John Edwards out of there in a hurry! It will also decrease the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, and that will further decrease costs and insurance rates. Stop spending more money than we make, and stop printing more out of thin air, and watch inflation come down, and they'll be able to afford their groceries without help. Start drilling for oil in America and stop exporting vast sums of money overseas, and watch gas prices come down, and they can drive easier.
Homebrew Offline
#17 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 3:38 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
CWFoster wrote:
I suppose what the CEO of WalMart makes is between him, and the Board of Directors. they can fire him and hire someone at minimum wage if they so choose. .

I totally agree with you, on this matter. It is up to the board, what they pay their CEO. But my tax dollars should not have to subsidize the Walmart payroll, by providing food stamps, rental assistance, etc, to their employees. The low pay, and still having to be on government assistance, probably is part of the reason, some would rather just collect more money from the state, instead of working at Walmart, and still needing help to survive. I don't blame them. If all I was qualified to do was work at Walmart, and collect government cheese, I could easily see how someone would be tempted to blow off the job, and just collect the government cheese. At the same time, I don't want to subsidize, with my tax dollars, that lifestyle either.
I agree with you on your approach to getting health care costs down. Limiting malpractice awards, and allowing greater competition between companies, across state lines, would help a lot. Believe me, we are not that far apart in a lot of areas. I hate a bunch of the Obamacare law, but there are parts I agree with. I mean, setting a percentage of the premiums that a health insurance company must use in actual healthcare costs, or the customer gets a refund of some of the premium, is a good part.
I also agree, that drilling for oil, in the USA, would be good. In fact, there has been a 14% increase in the domestic production of oil, in the last 3 years. There has also been a 10% increase in the domestic production of natural gas, in the same time frame. As long as the drilling is done in a responsible way, I am all for it. But you can not deregulate oil and gas companies too far. I grew up in the south Arkansas oil fields. I saw what unregulated oil companies will do to the land. The devastation from the oil boom of the early 20th century was still evident in the 1970s when I was growing up. There are still salt water marshes, whose bottoms are made up of toxic sludge. Though much of the area has recovered now, I could still show you some dead areas.

I agree that we need to quit spending more than we take in, and that that is a large part of the equation when talking about reducing our national debt, but we will also have to increase funds, or the debt will never be paid off. Unfortunately, that will require raising some taxes. No doubt about it. That is not political, it is just a fiscal fact.

Believe me, I am no fan of the Democrats, but I am more angry at the Republican party, for professing to be something they are not. I used to vote party line Republican, but they no longer get my vote. I might vote Republican again, once their walk matches their talk. But until then I will continue to support 3rd party candidates. I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.

Just the way I believe, and I am not going to change.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 3:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424
CWFoster wrote:
I suppose what the CEO of WalMart makes is between him, and the Board of Directors. they can fire him and hire someone at minimum wage if they so choose. What skin is it off of MY nose? If the employees are on public assistance, then encourage competition and get the cost of services down. Want to get the cost of health insurance down? Here's an idea for a federal regulation, every state be required to recognize every OTHER states insurance licencing requirements! Then there wouldn't be states like Nebraska where two insurance companies are all you get to choose from! With unfettered competition, will come price decreases, and affordability. How about we limit damages in medical malpractice suits to actual damages plus 500% for punitive damages? That'll get the ambulance chasers like John Edwards out of there in a hurry! It will also decrease the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, and that will further decrease costs and insurance rates. Stop spending more money than we make, and stop printing more out of thin air, and watch inflation come down, and they'll be able to afford their groceries without help. Start drilling for oil in America and stop exporting vast sums of money overseas, and watch gas prices come down, and they can drive easier.


Actually, it's between the CEO and the shareholders, who elect the directors. So, unless you earn stock in Walmart it really isn't your business.

First of all, the federal government provides a lot of regulation for insurers. Guess who is favored.... But, I don't want my state dropping its guard on the insurers licensed to do business in my state. And, states don't generally limit the number of insurers who are willing to do business in a state. Thy encourage and sometimes even require insurers to do business within a state to try to keep rates in check. The insurers are responsible to their stockholders and make decisions whether doing so within required guidelines could be profitable enough to give it a try. Insurer oversight and minimum standards are very important. Unregulated insurers would ultimately result in disaster for consumers. I doubt there are only two insurers doing business in Nebraska. If there is and the cost is prohibitive, then perhaps you should consider the cost of moving to another state- if the premiums would even be lower...

Want to limit punitive damages to 5x actual damages? Then, you don't understand when, why and how punitive work.They are extremely limited to situations where extraordinary or intentional misconduct has caused expected damages, which were simply and obviously avoidable. Surprising to most, they are rarely sought, let alone awarded. A court has to approve the mere asking for punitive damages and the judges and the law regulate when punitive damages can be asked for. When they are to be awarded, the jury is supposed to award enough money to punish the wrong-doer to the extent that an important lesson is learned and as a hopeful deterrent to similar future misconduct. Thus, the amount necessary to teach such a lesson varies in each situation. An arbitrary cap is as ludicrous as a run-away award.. Besides, you are too generous suggesting 5x actual damages. 3x is the general rule of thumb attorneys start out considering before considering its financial impact such an award would create Punitive damages not covered by insurance and are paid directly, if at all, by the wrongdoer. The reasoning is to "teach a lesson". And, before anyone misunderstands me about this, a bulk of the punitive damage money actually collected goes to most states, not the victim. It isn't the "lottery: most people think it is.

Why limit damages in medical malpractice suits? Let a jury of 6-12 people use common sense and reasoning to decide what is fair- if they even find the doctor was negligent. Most malpractice suits that go to trial end up with defense verdicts. Several states have already limited medical malpractice damages and their attorney fees in return for the promise that doctors' insurance rates would drop significantly- but the dirty little secret is that they haven't. And, when they have, it hasn't impacted the cost of medical care for consumers. So, who bears the burden? The innocent victim who goes uncompensated for the wrong. That's just not right.

The monetary inflation you write about is not a real issue right now. We have been and are still in a historically low period of interest rates. The prime rate is astoundingly low and banks are lending money again, albeit more stringently. The problem facing his country right now is not the cost of money, goods or services, but the number of unemployed/ underemployed people who cannot afford to buy at any price. I am all for drilling for oil to tap into U.S.'s natural resources.

Now, let's get back to economic anakysis of the extent and impact of the national debt and gbp/gdp...
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#19 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
rfenst wrote:
Actually, it's between the CEO and the shareholders, who elect the directors. So, unless you earn stock in Walmart it really isn't your business.




Here's the answer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nb-kjiJBw

Unless a person owns many thousands of shares of a stock in a particular company, their vote in all matters is worthless. The CEOs and other corporate officers(as large scale shareholders) as well as big investors such as mutual fund managers control who gets elected to any board of directors of any company that's worth anything.

If you start digging into who the board members are of any particular corporation and then start looking at the boards of other big corporations you start to see a lot of the same names. Everything in Corporate America today is justified by "shareholder value", all integrity and ethics have left the equation, meanwhile many of those CEOs who are collecting massive annual compensation and bonuses as well as building nice golden parachutes are mismanaging the companies for long term growth and viability, just as Mayo Shattuck did with Constellation Energy(formerly Baltimore Gas & Electric). Under his leadership a Fortune 500 company became insolvent overnight due to a failed commodities futures scheme the company was involved in, requiring Warren Buffet to infuse enough cash at about 100% interest to keep the company afloat until new business partners and owners could be procurred. Now Constellation is part of Excelon and Mayo is in some cushy figurehead position collecting millions of dollars annually. BTW, Constellation stock, which at one time traded for over $100/share ended up being worth about $13/share. How is that for shareholder value?
Abrignac Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 8:50 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
surfish1961 wrote:
Unfortunately there's not much difference in the parties these days. The only way to tell a D from an R is to look at what special interests they pander to.


BINGO was his NAMEO.
CWFoster Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Aug 26 2012, 10:09 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
rfenst wrote:
Actually, it's between the CEO and the shareholders, who elect the directors. So, unless you earn stock in Walmart it really isn't your business. Good point, I was stating it in a simplified manner, but the point holds

First of all, the federal government provides a lot of regulation for insurers. Guess who is favored.... But, I don't want my state dropping its guard on the insurers licensed to do business in my state. And, states don't generally limit the number of insurers who are willing to do business in a state. Thy encourage and sometimes even require insurers to do business within a state to try to keep rates in check. The insurers are responsible to their stockholders and make decisions whether doing so within required guidelines could be profitable enough to give it a try. Insurer oversight and minimum standards are very important. Unregulated insurers would ultimately result in disaster for consumers. I doubt there are only two insurers doing business in Nebraska. If there is and the cost is prohibitive, then perhaps you should consider the cost of moving to another state- if the premiums would even be lower... I named Nebraska for a reason, study the "Cornhusker Kickback" during the healthcare 'debate'. Nebraska is NOT the only state that limits competition and limits it at the behest of big insurance donors

Want to limit punitive damages to 5x actual damages? Then, you don't understand when, why and how punitive work.They are extremely limited to situations where extraordinary or intentional misconduct has caused expected damages, which were simply and obviously avoidable. Surprising to most, they are rarely sought, let alone awarded. A court has to approve the mere asking for punitive damages and the judges and the law regulate when punitive damages can be asked for. When they are to be awarded, the jury is supposed to award enough money to punish the wrong-doer to the extent that an important lesson is learned and as a hopeful deterrent to similar future misconduct. Thus, the amount necessary to teach such a lesson varies in each situation. An arbitrary cap is as ludicrous as a run-away award.. Besides, you are too generous suggesting 5x actual damages. 3x is the general rule of thumb attorneys start out considering before considering its financial impact such an award would create Punitive damages not covered by insurance and are paid directly, if at all, by the wrongdoer. The reasoning is to "teach a lesson". And, before anyone misunderstands me about this, a bulk of the punitive damage money actually collected goes to most states, not the victim. It isn't the "lottery: most people think it is. It is enough of a lottery for a loser like John Edwards and numerous other attorneys to get filthy rich off of it!

Why limit damages in medical malpractice suits? Let a jury of 6-12 people use common sense and reasoning to decide what is fair- if they even find the doctor was negligent. Most malpractice suits that go to trial end up with defense verdicts. Several states have already limited medical malpractice damages and their attorney fees in return for the promise that doctors' insurance rates would drop significantly- but the dirty little secret is that they haven't. And, when they have, it hasn't impacted the cost of medical care for consumers. So, who bears the burden? The innocent victim who goes uncompensated for the wrong. That's just not right. "Let a jury of 6-12 people use common sense and reasoning to decide what is fair-" uh, can you say McDonalds... Hot coffee? You can't assume you'll get 6-12 people with "common sense and reasoning"

The monetary inflation you write about is not a real issue right now. We have been and are still in a historically low period of interest rates. The prime rate is astoundingly low and banks are lending money again, albeit more stringently. The problem facing his country right now is not the cost of money, goods or services, but the number of unemployed/ underemployed people who cannot afford to buy at any price. I am all for drilling for oil to tap into U.S.'s natural resources. Milk is going up, gas is going up, of course the price of fuel going up drives up the prices of everything that has to be taken to market (that is to say, everything) The cost of goods and services IS and issue to me, because I'm one of those unemployed people you talk so glibly about. Further one reason the money is still tighter, is because the interest rates are SO low that no one will keep their money in a savings account, where the interest paid is even lower than the inflation rate. if inflation is at .9%, and the interest on a passbook savings account is .04% you will gradually lose money! If there are no long term depositors, and the banks are (by regulation) only allowed to loan out a certain percentage of their deposits on hand (calculated by daily average, because the number is constantly changing, AND due to tightening of banking regs a couple of years ago, the percentage allowed to be loaned went down) then they can, and have to be much more stringent about their lending standards. High interest rates can slow economic growth, but there has to be enough interest available to incentivize those with the money.

Now, let's get back to economic anakysis of the extent and impact of the national debt and gbp/gdp...

I think I did, albeit possibly in another thread, suffice it to say, Hauser's Law, and the Laffer Curve have been proven valid time and again



You made some good points, and I thought it best to address them point by point within your post.
rfenst Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 2:22 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424
CWFoster wrote:
"Let a jury of 6-12 people use common sense and reasoning to decide what is fair-" uh, can you say McDonalds... Hot coffee? You can't assume you'll get 6-12 people with "common sense and reasoning"


Watch the movie HOT COFFEE before condemning an entire portion of the justice system based of the rumors about one legal case you have only heard or read about in the news, and from the perspective of irresponsible insurers, entities and people. Better yet, even if whatever you believe happened is actually true, why penalize everyone else by preventing them redress because of this one, supposedly "bad apple", case?

I am real sure that most people would be totally disgusted with McDonald's if they knew the true facts and McDonald's KNOWN history of voluntarily paying hundred and hundreds, if not 1,000 or more coffee scalding claims- some for over $500k. Or, that before hiring a lawyer, Stella offered to settle her case for a mere $20k. Could go in to this much further if you want, but this isn't the right thread.

Scream about tort reform, medical malpractice claims, punitive damages claims and the cost of health insurance all you want, but they simply are not the cause of the economic problems we are facing right now.
snowwolf777 Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 5:39 AM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
"I thought Republicans were more fiscally conservative than Democrats."

No.

You're welcome.
jojoc Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 1:01 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2007
Posts: 6,272
there is a major trade-off of requiring all states to honor out-of-state insurance products. I don't know if you have ever had a problem with an insurance company, but about the only leverage there is against these huge companies is the threat of the state insurance commissioner revoking their state license and prohibiting the sale of their product within the state. I have on more than one occasion helped clients quickly resolve disputes with insurance companies by filing a complaint with the insurance commissioner. You take that power away from the state and force national rights to sell insurance products, the consumer will be the one left out to dry when an insurance company refuses to pay. Your only recourse would be to spend tens of thousands of dollars to sue the insurance company. and if the policy requires arbitration through the AAA, the consumer is toast!



As to budget control, I agree, both parties have messed things up. And although i generally believe in the concept of reduced taxes, I agree with the post above that there is no way our debt can be paid off from spending cuts alone. But before I will ever support the concept of increased taxes, the gov't will have to show that they can not only balance a budget, but accomplish actual spending reduction in current spending and not figurative reductions in future year budgets that a different congress will have to approve.
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 1:08 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
Nobody likes the idea of adding taxes so the government can increase spending.

So what we do is increase spending anyway and add debt. Then once everyone is fat, drunk, and stupid. we have to have massive tax increases to pay for our overspending once the credit lines are cut off or too high an interest rate.

This is called austerity and is coming soon. It tastes awful....just ask Europe.
jojoc Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 1:16 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2007
Posts: 6,272
rfenst wrote:
Watch the movie HOT COFFEE before condemning an entire portion of the justice system based of the rumors about one legal case you have only heard or read about in the news, and from the perspective of irresponsible insurers, entities and people. Better yet, even if whatever you believe happened is actually true, why penalize everyone else by preventing them redress because of this one, supposedly "bad apple", case?

I am real sure that most people would be totally disgusted with McDonald's if they knew the true facts and McDonald's KNOWN history of voluntarily paying hundred and hundreds, if not 1,000 or more coffee scalding claims- some for over $500k. Or, that before hiring a lawyer, Stella offered to settle her case for a mere $20k. Could go in to this much further if you want, but this isn't the right thread.

Scream about tort reform, medical malpractice claims, punitive damages claims and the cost of health insurance all you want, but they simply are not the cause of the economic problems we are facing right now.



the problem that I see in the area of tort litigation/medical malpractice is more of a function of expectations and costs -- Most doctors see too many people a day, and as a result do not have the time to do proper investigation and/or are too tired and make a mistake. Often this over-works state is a direct result of the high cost of education and the expectation of a nice lifestyle. Right or wrong, its there. Add the expectation that doctors are not supposed to make mistakes, and/or are somehow supposed to be able to fix everything perfectly, and that there really is no such thing as a accident -- someone must be to blame! So, the public, whenever anything does not turn out right, the solution is to blame someone and sue.

I'm not saying that Doctors should not be held accountable, but at the same time, do we hold ourselves up to the same standard of perfection that we hold doctors to?

In my opinion, the direction that "tort reform" should take is judges not only tossing out bad cases, but heavily sanctioning both the party and the attorney that filed the bad case. But people also need to take a reality pill -- bad stuff happens to good people sometimes -- that does not mean they are entitled to millions of dollars.
Papachristou Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Aug 27 2012, 2:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
i agree with the point that neither party is fiscally conservative. Both just spend boatloads of printed money on their respective interests which seem to coincide a lot more as of late. The debt is a serious issue and will require painful measures to reduce. neither party seems willing to go before their constituents and tell them the truth.... we are broke and will all have to endure sacrifice.
jpotts Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 11:37 AM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Homebrew wrote:
I always thought, that the national debt, exploded under Democrats, and the national debt, slowed under Republicans. Gonz

But it appears that both parties, love to add to the debt.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Just thought I would throw this out there. Take a look at these graphs, and discuss.


Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
P.S. Got off work a little early tonight, when dispatch realized that I had already driven 60 hours this week, and they need me tomorrow and Sunday. Looks like either one long day tomorrow, and Sunday off, or they remember, and 2 short days.Herfing


Dave, Dave, Dave...

You can harp about Republicans all you want, the fact is that this nation is up to its gills in Keynesian types, that it doesn't matter what party you go to, you're going to get more of the same. So lets say we banish the Republican party tomorrow. You think deficit spending is going to go away? Really? You think the Fed will disappear? Are you really that daft?

Yeah, you can vote Libertarian – the same group that ran Bob Barr (Republican) for president – you’ll eventually get the same thing. When was the last time we seen one of their number get elected? Oh wait: next to never…that’s when.

Of course, beating up on Republicans is easy, because they generally don’t fight back, call you racist, or send any of their mindless droogies to protest in front of your house, or smash up your storefront (ala OWS). No, they just sit there and apologize profusely for being Republican, or thump their chest at "reaching across the isle" so that the look like they can get along with anybody...including Lucifer's select minions (otherwise known as the leadership of the Democrat party).

Compare this to Democrats, who not only will send the IRS out to destroy you, but will send one of their brain-dead drones to go shoot up your business, or send a union thug to break your legs.

But yeah, Republicans are the epitome of evil. I’m so glad you’re out there letting us know this. Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for Ron Paul to get elected…

Maybe, just maybe, if you unleased such vitriol in the direction of the Democrat party - you know, the new branch of the Supreme Soviet in exile - you might just get a rightward pull of the Republican party along with it.

You sound to me like one of those atheist idiots who are always crapping all over Christians. There's a reason why they do this: because they're cowards. They try that with Muslims, and they might just get beheaded. Christians, on the other hand, don't fight back. So that's why atheists go after them: they're easy targets.

You want to make a bold statement, Dave? Try going after the true focus of evil in this world. Nibbling around the edges doesn't make you look profound or bold.
jpotts Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 11:46 AM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
As a follow-up: take a look at the major Keynesian-supprting idiots out there, and see whom they support. Guys like Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman are HUGE Democrat boot-lickers.

Mind you, these are the same morons that claimed that Europe was going to be the next economic powerhouse (mainly because Europe was sto steeped in this Keynesian nonsense, something that these Nobel Prize winners espouse). Now Europe is coming apart at the seams, and Germany if leveraging something like 80% of its GDP floating all of these socialized democracies that are going belly-up financially.

At least there are SOME Republicans trying to steer us away from that insanity (one of them being Ron Paul, I might add).

The days of Democats being the party of the "little guy" died with Johnson. They are now true-blue Marxists to their core. The Obamacare vote illustrated just how utter Socialist these people have gone. The "conservative" blue dogs caved at the behest of Queen Nancy and Idi Amin Jr.

But yeah - Republicans are the problem.

(Rolls eyes...)
DrMaddVibe Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
jpotts wrote:
The "conservative" blue dogs caved at the behest of Queen Nancy and Idi Amin Jr.




JP...I love ya like a brother from another mother...BUT there NEVER were any Blue Dogs...it was all a myth. A nicety. A difference that was never there...some space between uber-liberal douchebags, socialists and thieves...They wouldn't vote for a damn thing if there wasn't P-O-R-K attached to it. Now these mythical "Blue Dogs" as you call them are GONE. Pelosi and Reid squeezed them out of the tube so they could sally up to the trough one more time instead of THEM! C'mon...please show me 20 of these wannabees...I bet the voting record doesn't bear scrutiny!

They cannot pass a budget like the Constitution demands!

PLEASE!
jpotts Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
rfenst wrote:

Scream about tort reform, medical malpractice claims, punitive damages claims and the cost of health insurance all you want, but they simply are not the cause of the economic problems we are facing right now.


On this, Robert, we agree.

What IS the problem is that a large chunk of the population has gotten very used to the idea that they can reach into some else's pocket as a means to fund their livelyhood.

And, most importantly, there is a seperate chunk of the population who may not have the kajonies to reach into someone else's pocket to maintain their lifestyle, but will excuse those who pick the pocket of others out of a perverse notion of "charity" or "compassion."

And then there are those who see others getting free stuff at the expense of people who are both productive, and have more than a single shred of decency, and decide "well, if I don't join the others, I might miss out on all the free stuff too."

Somehow, the people who gave that idiot a**bag money for spilling coffee in her lap somehow fit into one of the three categories I've described.

And before you tell me that "I don't know the issues," I might inform you that one of my customers in the past was a coffee distributor. Yes, I KNOW how coffee is made, I KNOW how coffee is served, I KNOW how those coffee machines work.

Any wather over 165 degrees has the potential to scald skin, depending on the age of the scalding victim, and how long that hot liquid is held against the skin. That makes something like 95% of the coffee out there "scalding."

The fact is that when that idiot a**bag grew up drinking coffee, it was boiled- BOILED - in a pot (that's 200+ degrees, if you recall), and often served boiling hot. Obviously, that part of her brain stopped functioning somewhere in the 1980s.

it isn't McDonald's fault that this brain-damaged a**bag put coffee in her lap...wearing pants that were basically made out of the same fabric her towels in her bathroom were made out of. You know, the absorbant kind THAT ATTRACTS AND HOLDS MOISTURE.

You want to defend a**bags like that lady? Then pick one of the three categories I've described above, and embrace your identity.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
jpotts wrote:
On this, Robert, we agree.

What IS the problem is that a large chunk of the population has gotten very used to the idea that they can reach into some else's pocket as a means to fund their livelyhood.

And, most importantly, there is a seperate chunk of the population who may not have the kajonies to reach into someone else's pocket to maintain their lifestyle, but will excuse those who pick the pocket of others out of a perverse notion of "charity" or "compassion."

And then there are those who see others getting free stuff at the expense of people who are both productive, and have more than a single shred of decency, and decide "well, if I don't join the others, I might miss out on all the free stuff too."

Somehow, the people who gave that idiot a**bag money for spilling coffee in her lap somehow fit into one of the three categories I've described.

And before you tell me that "I don't know the issues," I might inform you that one of my customers in the past was a coffee distributor. Yes, I KNOW how coffee is made, I KNOW how coffee is served, I KNOW how those coffee machines work.

Any wather over 165 degrees has the potential to scald skin, depending on the age of the scalding victim, and how long that hot liquid is held against the skin. That makes something like 95% of the coffee out there "scalding."

The fact is that when that idiot a**bag grew up drinking coffee, it was boiled- BOILED - in a pot (that's 200+ degrees, if you recall), and often served boiling hot. Obviously, that part of her brain stopped functioning somewhere in the 1980s.

it isn't McDonald's fault that this brain-damaged a**bag put coffee in her lap...wearing pants that were basically made out of the same fabric her towels in her bathroom were made out of. You know, the absorbant kind THAT ATTRACTS AND HOLDS MOISTURE.

You want to defend a**bags like that lady? Then pick one of the three categories I've described above, and embrace your identity.



A judge cudda dismissed this...just sayin'...when we get back to some common sense...MAYBE we can fix something!
jpotts Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:05 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
DrMaddVibe wrote:
JP...I love ya like a brother from another mother...BUT there NEVER were any Blue Dogs...it was all a myth. A nicety. A difference that was never there...some space between uber-liberal douchebags, socialists and thieves...They wouldn't vote for a damn thing if there wasn't P-O-R-K attached to it. Now these mythical "Blue Dogs" as you call them are GONE. Pelosi and Reid squeezed them out of the tube so they could sally up to the trough one more time instead of THEM! C'mon...please show me 20 of these wannabees...I bet the voting record doesn't bear scrutiny!

They cannot pass a budget like the Constitution demands!

PLEASE!


I respectfully disagree.

You have to remember, people don't turn into scumbags over night. These things take time.

The Blue Dogs were the transition group that showed that fence-sitters with the tattered remnants of a conscience could indeed be made full-fledged members of a demonic mob.

You know, Ann Coulter's book Demonic is a work of genius is so many ways...
teedubbya Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
You do realize Ann Coulter doesn't even take Ann Coulter seriously.

On a more serious note I can get you tickets to the Akin event this week and weekend .... I hear Kevin Yoder will be popping out of the cake.
jpotts Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
teedubbya wrote:
You do realize Ann Coulter doesn't even take Ann Coulter seriously.

On a more serious note I can get you tickets to the Akin event this week and weekend .... I hear Kevin Yoder will be popping out of the cake.


Trust me, Kevin Yoder is far better looking in a bikini that Clair McWhatshername ever could.

Especially for someone of your...ahem...specific tastes.
teedubbya Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
jpotts wrote:
Trust me, Kevin Yoder is far better looking in a bikini that Clair McWhatshername ever could.

Especially for someone of your...ahem...specific tastes.



Too bad ashcroft wasn't there to cover him up.


we have some nice politicians on both sides here.... but then again so do you
jpotts Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
teedubbya wrote:
Too bad ashcroft wasn't there to cover him up.


we have some nice politicians on both sides here.... but then again so do you


Yeah, but you have to remember that virtuallty every politician here is steeped in the stink of union entitlement by virtue of living in the state for more than a year at a time.

So, the more attractive one is the one that smells like someone crapped-out rose pedals.
teedubbya Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
jpotts wrote:
Yeah, but you have to remember that virtuallty every politician here is steeped in the stink of union entitlement by virtue of living in the state for more than a year at a time.

So, the more attractive one is the one that smells like someone crapped-out rose pedals.


I'm right on the MO/KS border.... Akin, yoder, ashcroft, mcaskel, carnahan, brownback etc are what we have to work with....
jpotts Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Aug 28 2012, 12:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
teedubbya wrote:
I'm right on the MO/KS border.... Akin, yoder, ashcroft, mcaskel, carnahan, brownback etc are what we have to work with....


We have the "one tough nerd," the Levin dynasty (Marxist to their core), and Debbie Stabenaw (who would define herself as a Marxist is she knew what it was...but the term sounded pretty to her).

The upside is that the "One Tough Nerd" pretty much keeps to himself, and doesn't do the cheap "I care so much about you" theatrics that Granholm used to do. It was really sickening to watch.

Then she'd do the "people are hurting" routine with just buckets of fake concern dripping off of her. In some ways it reminds me of how Lady Harvard Pocahontis out on Mass. approaches voters. frankly, I'm glad that's finally gone.

The rest, notsomuch.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top