when is the US going to issue its own austerity plan?

[bamacre]

Clinton/Gore had laid the groundwork to fix the US's problems. Then something happened.

Yeah, the bubble created under his admin burst just before he left office.

 

[StageLeft]

Not good, but a result of the crisis, itself resulting from bad financial institution regulations, most of them canceled by Bush's administration.

On a different note, but from the same graph, one can see that except during WW II, Democrats have way better track record and that Obama's part of the curve is better than the end of Bush's, not to mention that he inherited of the situation. So people blaming him for everything is pretty much uneducated and/or FUD infused. The health care bill might or not make the situation worst, but so far Obama didn't do that bad. Also, comparing absolute numbers with Reagan is borderline silly, inflation and GDP ratio are what matters when comparing financial results with the past.

The history is true, republicans can't balance a checkbook any better than a lobotomized spider monkey, but Obama is doing a pretty piss poor job of giving a damn.

I disagree with the above about percentages. Absolute numbers are important but really percentages more so since only they grant true perspective. Whether you use absolute numbers or percentages, though, the US is going down a terrible path of spend and borrow.

 

[Shilohen]

Please elaborate.

I should find reference links before posting. Anyway, here's one I could easily find: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_1929

 

[Shilohen]

The history is true, republicans can't balance a checkbook any better than a lobotomized spider monkey, but Obama is doing a pretty piss poor job of giving a damn.

I disagree with the above about percentages. Absolute numbers are important but really percentages more so since only they grant true perspective. Whether you use absolute numbers or percentages, though, the US is going down a terrible path of spend and borrow.

Yes, but not past the point of no return yet. US is really far from the worst: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt and, should the worst come, has some tax headroom that other countries no longer have. The biggest challenge right now, imho, is unemployment and commercial deficit. If the unemployment rate can be reduced, the economy should get back in shape. There's nothing much to do about the commercial deficit as America has a strong consumerism culture and the low euro is going to hurt the US exporters, increasing the commercial deficit even more.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Surplus, Lockbox

A surplus created by high revenues during the tech bubble and a lockbox system that borrowed SS surplus to pay down debt....which is all well and good until SS liabilities exceed revenues. SS went 'underwater' this year (the first time in it's entire history) and they now want those IOU's paid back to sustain itself. This adds to the National Debt for Obama and all future generations. And this is the 'fix' you speak off?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I should find reference links before posting. Anyway, here's one I could easily find: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_1929

You said "bad financial institution regulations, most of them canceled by Bush's administration."

I asked you which regulations the Bush administration cancelled. Your link does nothing to support your assertion.

 

[sandorski]

A surplus created by high revenues during the tech bubble and a lockbox system that borrowed SS surplus to pay down debt....which is all well and good until SS liabilities exceed revenues. SS went 'underwater' this year (the first time in it's entire history) and they now want those IOU's paid back to sustain itself. This adds to the National Debt for Obama and all future generations. And this is the 'fix' you speak off?

It was a first step in the right direction. SS is now in the Red mainly due to this Economic period. Tax Cuts into Deficit, then 2 Wars with more Tax Cuts was a leap backwards.

 

[Shilohen]

You said "bad financial institution regulations, most of them canceled by Bush's administration."

I asked you which regulations the Bush administration cancelled. Your link does nothing to support your assertion.

Yes, that's true. I actually looked a bit more into it as I was not very satisfied with my own link and it would seem that it was in fact Clinton to blame in that case for a 1999 bill: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999?

Repeal was just a formality. The strictures of the act itself had already been bypassed with a series of moves over the preceding 20 years. It certainly wasn't progressive dems leading that charge, either.

Where were the people now calling for austerity when the Bush Admin exploited bloodlust and fearmongered the nation into the invasion of Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes, moving the expense off budget so it looked good on paper?

Cheering him on, of course...

Where were they when real estate and banking were reaching for a destructive speculative peak?

Cheering it on, raving about the ownership society...

Where were they when the flimflam of free market world economy trickledown economics allowed american capital to escape, gutting manufacturing in this country?

Cheering it on, engaged in shopping sprees at WalMart... on their credit cards, of course, which they paid off with a cashout refi on their homes...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was a first step in the right direction. SS is now in the Red mainly due to this Economic period. Tax Cuts into Deficit, then 2 Wars with more Tax Cuts was a leap backwards.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul (lockbox) is not my idea of a step in the right direction...when Madoff did this, they called it a Ponzi scheme and sent him off to jail.

But I do agree with you that the tax cuts and 2 wars didn't help matters. However I haven't seen any changes yet that I can believe in. Republicans failed...I got that. I'm just not seeing how the Dems are doing any better.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, that's true. I actually looked a bit more into it as I was not very satisfied with my own link and it would seem that it was in fact Clinton to blame in that case for a 1999 bill: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html.

Republicans drafted it and Clinton signed it...I think both parties are culpable here. It's total bullshit for one party to blame the other.

 

[sandorski]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul (lockbox) is not my idea of a step in the right direction...when Madoff did this, they called it a Ponzi scheme and sent him off to jail.

But I do agree with you that the tax cuts and 2 wars didn't help matters. However I haven't seen any changes yet that I can believe in. Republicans failed...I got that. I'm just not seeing how the Dems are doing any better.

The Dems hands are tied. They are trying to fix a bloody mess.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Repeal was just a formality. The strictures of the act itself had already been bypassed with a series of moves over the preceding 20 years. It certainly wasn't progressive dems leading that charge, either.

Where were the people now calling for austerity when the Bush Admin exploited bloodlust and fearmongered the nation into the invasion of Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes, moving the expense off budget so it looked good on paper?

Cheering him on, of course...

Where were they when real estate and banking were reaching for a destructive speculative peak?

Cheering it on, raving about the ownership society...

Where were they when the flimflam of free market world economy trickledown economics allowed american capital to escape, gutting manufacturing in this country?

Cheering it on, engaged in shopping sprees at WalMart... on their credit cards, of course, which they paid off with a cashout refi on their homes...

Yes...blame Bush and all his cheering hypocritical supporters. Sigh.

You're so wrapped up in hollow partisan ideology that you just don't get it...do you? Hooray for the Progressives!!! At last we are saved!!! /s

Pathetic.

 

[theeedude]

As long as there are people who think that sh!t and chocolate ice cream are the same, we are never going to stick with the policies that produce better results, like Clinton era deficit reductions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As long as there are people who think that sh!t and chocolate ice cream are the same, we are never going to stick with the policies that produce better results, like Clinton era deficit reductions.

Clinton was awesome! Err...I forgot...what policies were those again? Were they the tax increases, robbing SS to pay down the deficit and adding to the debt, and enhanced revenues as a result of the tech bubble? Damn...those Dem policies rock! Ah...those were the good 'ol days.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Dems hands are tied. They are trying to fix a bloody mess.

Then they need to get their hands untied pronto. The interest on our debt is a ticking time bomb that is going to kill this country and our children's futures. Current levels of government spending is unsustainable.

 

[sandorski]

Then they need to get their hands untied pronto. The interest on our debt is a ticking time bomb that is going to kill this country and our children's futures. Current levels of government spending is unsustainable.

Bush tied the knot rather tight.

 

[piasabird]

When it comes to retirement, I think workers should have to pay into their retirement plan at about 5-8% so they have some skin in the game. Typically retirement in the public sector works this way. The employee contributes and then the employer does some matching at some percentage. Also there is a mandatory 5-10 year wait before the matching is in effect.

Retirement pay usually depends on some formula like averaging the last 3-5 years of pay and then using a mulitplier to arrive at a rate. Or it could also depend on if an annuity is purchased with a lump sum and how many years the payout is. In a case like this the person only gets what is in his retirement account upon retirement or seperation. Also the employee could roll the funds into a third-party retirement account.

Early Retirement could actually save the company or government entity money if it pays out less. People should be able to retire early say at 55 if they think they have enough funds or want to access their retirement funds. Typically if you access your funds too early there are tax issues and penalties involved. However, in a case of an actual pension, retiring early could be beneficial for a company or government, because you coule be replaced with a lower waged individual.

Sometimes it can be beneficial to grandfather some benefits and change the policy from that time forward. For instance all future employees could be making less.

Sooner or later you have to come to the conclusion that things have to get leaner. Jobs may have to be cut and some benefits may have to be fased out.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bush tied the knot rather tight.

Bush didn't tie the knot single-handedly with his tax cut and 2 wars...SS, Medicare, Medicaid and an aging population have tied the knot. Add to that continued high levels of Government spending and 2 on-going wars that we need to exit. And lastly, the icing on the cake is the huge interest payments on our ever increasing national debt. But if you insist on blaming Bush for everything wrong with our economy and the world in general...go for it...you have lots of 'like-minded' company.

In 2035 when reality hits the fan...I'm sure it will all be Bush's fault along with every Republican that ever held office since Reagan. That's how 'true intellectuals' think...no?

 

[theeedude]

Clinton was awesome! Err...I forgot...what policies were those again? Were they the tax increases, robbing SS to pay down the deficit and adding to the debt, and enhanced revenues as a result of the tech bubble? Damn...those Dem policies rock! Ah...those were the good 'ol days.

Don't be bitter, it's not Clinton's fault Bush couldn't do anything but screw it up

 

[sandorski]

Bush didn't tie the knot single-handedly with his tax cut and 2 wars...SS, Medicare, Medicaid and an aging population have tied the knot. Add to that continued high levels of Government spending and 2 on-going wars that we need to exit. And lastly, the icing on the cake is the huge interest payments on our ever increasing national debt. But if you insist on blaming Bush for everything wrong with our economy and the world in general...go for it...you have lots of 'like-minded' company.

In 2035 when reality hits the fan...I'm sure it will all be Bush's fault along with every Republican that ever held office since Reagan. That's how 'true intellectuals' think...no?

Guess what. If Bush had held the line on Clinton's Economic Policy, not only would he not have added $Trillions to the Debt, but he could have easily Paid a $Trillion on that Debt. Thus decreasing Interest Payments and putting the US into a better Fiscal position.

I blame whom wherein lies the fault.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, that's true. I actually looked a bit more into it as I was not very satisfied with my own link and it would seem that it was in fact Clinton to blame in that case for a 1999 bill: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html.

Kudos for admitting when you're wrong, but it was a Republican Congress that wrote and passed the law. Both parties were culpable in this, Republicans (the group I currently dislike the least) even more enthusiastically than the Democrats.

Oops, Doc Savage Fan stole a march on me!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Guess what. If Bush had held the line on Clinton's Economic Policy, not only would he not have added $Trillions to the Debt, but he could have easily Paid a $Trillion on that Debt. Thus decreasing Interest Payments and putting the US into a better Fiscal position.

I blame whom wherein lies the fault.

So...who's more at fault here...Bush for his tax cuts and 2 wars...or Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations to exist and ultimately cause a US and global financial crisis?

 

[juiio]

Guess what. If Bush had held the line on Clinton's Economic Policy, not only would he not have added $Trillions to the Debt, but he could have easily Paid a $Trillion on that Debt. Thus decreasing Interest Payments and putting the US into a better Fiscal position.

Even if Clinton had been allowed to stay in office another 4/8/n years, the tech, housing, and credit bubbles still would have burst. The "surplus" was an illusion and not at all sustainable. Bush sped up the path to ruin, but we were already on that path.

 

[Jhhnn]

Guess what. If Bush had held the line on Clinton's Economic Policy, not only would he not have added $Trillions to the Debt, but he could have easily Paid a $Trillion on that Debt. Thus decreasing Interest Payments and putting the US into a better Fiscal position.

I blame whom wherein lies the fault.

Yep. But the usual Righties can't, won't, and adamantly refuse to hear you. They're ideologically opposed to understanding what you're saying.

Contrary to the ongoing assertions made here, Glass-Steagall suffering from the repub inspired death of a thousand cuts before repeal, which was merely the coup de grace. People who know a lot more about it than I do say the same thing-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/

While it's true that the door to our current economic malaise was opened during the Clinton era, it was the Bush Admin who knowingly held it open as the stampede took place. The assertion that the housing and derivative bubbles would have happened anyway fail to take into account the ideological bent of the Bush Admin, along with the actions and non-actions they employed because of it. They had innumerable opportunities and methods available to them to head off catastrophe, but did the opposite, because their ideology demanded it.

The usual "They're just as bad!" rhetoric from the Right fails to account for the fact that the Bush Admin was in the driver's seat at the time, and that alternate histories are mere speculation and excuse making.

Republicans (with a few notable exceptions) and their industry allies are fighting proposed financial reforms tooth and nail, despite the demonstrable misery and failure the application of their ideology has brought upon us.

Why? because it's where any real austerity program has to begin, with the people at the top, who'll be deprived of some of their tried and true means of looting the economy. It's part of their ideology, after all, that the wealthy are entitled to do so, because, well, because they're wealthy in the first place, and because there's no such thing as enough...