On the other hand, if the 2006 election was a fluke generated by GOP-base frustration coupled with general public dismay over the course of the war...

Mark, the Dems have blown the reasons for the results of the 2006 mid-term waaaaaay out of proportion. The simple fact is that historical Congressional losses for the party in control of the White House in the midterm election in the 2nd term of all 2-term Presidents going back to Eisenhower is as follows: House of Representatives - 26, Senate - 6. In 2006 the GOP lost 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats. I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusion about the 2006 election other than it matched the historical average.

With growing fear abroad that the liberal anti-war crap the left has been spewing might actually become policy if a Democrat is elected, the Democratic candidates have been trying to redefine what they mean about withdrawing the troops. Basically, withdrawing is being redefined as not withdrawing.

Lefty posters. This is because you have always been wrong. Your leaders knew this and know this. And they've been pandering to you to increase their power. Their actual agenda is socialism and more government intrusion into personal rights.

Tax hikes to reduce the largest defecits ?? What an idea !!
You have a war, you pay for the war with taxes.

Their actual agenda is socialism and more government intrusion into personal rights.

Lefties generally tend to not be bothered by this. Standing up for individual rights is selfish, and therefore in the eyes of the Left it is wrong.

More bad news for Conscriptor, Extramedium and the rest of our Lefty kooks:

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) — The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Of course, the good news (for the Left) is that there are some Donk candidates that have promised to bail on Iraq:

Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.

"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.

Right RS. The only thing for certain is they will try to raise taxes.

Right RS. The only thing for certain is they will try to raise taxes.

Well, Kahn, to steal a line from Tigger in Winnie the Pooh, "that is what Democrats do best".

Standing up for individual rights is selfish, and therefore in the eyes of the Left it is wrong.

Except for the rights of terrorists and cop-killers, Leslie. The Donks don't seem to have a problem standing up for them.

We have no one to blame but the Republicans for allowing the Democrats to out maneuver them on issue after issue. How long have we discussed the global warming issue... knowing that Liberals were working it like chicken little... beating their drums and broadcasting their end-of-the-world message non stop... knowing the Democrats would propose their usual tax increases and restrictions!

Republicans could have countered with programs to develop cheap, plentiful, and renewable energy -- while at the same time educating American voters on the issues. Instead, Republicans have sat quietly by, comfortable in their cushy offices, and done little -- just as they have with other opportunities they were handed and ignored.

As I've said before, I would like to see a good house cleaning in the Republican party... as well as an aggressive, vocal, and active Independent Conservative Party. I'm certainly not going to vote for a bunch of Liberal Democrats, but I would switch to, support, and vote for some good, aggressive, articulate, and media savvy Conservatives!

AAR

This is what struck me..

"Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills"

How does raising taxes and spending as stated..help climate change...

Looks more to me like a way to raise taxes that sounds and sells good...

Hehe, once the Dem canditates admitted they won't pull the troops out by 2012, all the libs posting here seem to have disapeared...strange...

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable...

Translation: All us average, everyday working types...bend over, grab ankles.

jbiccum,

They're in a state of "shock and aw", or for some, "shock and denial"!

Unfortunately, they'll be back.

AAR

The Canadians have left here temporarily in shame. Smoking is not allowed in public in Vancouver. EXCEPT for Muslims. Except for CO, he is proud of the fact that Canada is sensitive to the misunderstood Muslim community.

Retired Spook,

RE: "...there are some Donk candidates that have promised to bail on Iraq..."

Those are the biggest liars, unwilling even to couch their answer in deceptive political vagary -- knowing they have absolutely no chance of winning the nomination and having to potentially answer for their deception in the face of facts and reality!

AAR

Richardson and Dodd? They're second-tier wastes of time, just like Kookcinich and Gravel. And Ron Paul...

SEW,

I was hoping you were joking, but you aren't!

NEWS Radio 1130, September 21, 2007...

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - It will soon be tougher to light up a cigarette in Vancouver. A strict, new anti-smoking bylaw has been approved by city council.

The law bans smoking in taxis, bus shelters, on restaurant patios, and within 6 metres of any door, window or air intake on a public building.

Anyone who breaks the rules faces a fine ranging from $100-$2,000. It's not clear when the rules will take effect but hookah lounges are exempt.

Council agreed with arguments that they provide an important cultural space for members of Vancouver's Muslim community, who can't go to bars because their religion prohibits them from drinking alcohol.

Too bad most Americans are no longer willing to stand up for and demand their rights, customs, and traditions (in general)!

AAR

well someone in Canada has figured out that if they take their hookah's and smokes away, there would be riots in the streets. and probably worse....they are afraid to do it..simple as that..imho....

John,

Largest deficits? Have you been watching the fiscal news over the past two years?

Largest deficits? Have you been watching the fiscal news over the past two years?

No--John gets his fiscal news from The Nation, David Corn, 3MoreYears, and Paul Krugman...

"Largest deficits? Have you been watching the fiscal news over the past two years?" - Mark Noonan

The deficit is like a pro forma number. The debt has increased from about 8.4t to almost 9t in the last year. The deficit doesn't count intergovernmental debt, we've been monetizing alot of debt(aka "printing money"). This is the same as Clinton's on paper surplus, except Clinton mostly raided the SS trust rather than Bush's mostly monetizing debt, though he continues to raid trust funds as well.

Also 75 year unfunded liabilites(debt + liabilities we don't pay interest on) are up to almost 70 trillion!!

But if pro forma numbers worked for enron, why can't the federal government use them.

If you want to know the real amount of debt increase(not pro forma deficit) use this link.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

"The deficit doesn't count intergovernmental debt"
Yes, it does.

“Pro Forma” simply means “as if.” And I explained on another thread that the Budget office presents the numbers as if conditions at the time the interest is due will be the conditions as they’ve predicted. As the deficit is reduced the cost of the service is less and the Pro Forma is pessimistic. What other scenario would you recommend? Assuming you know another method.

The Basic Money supply (M1; M2 & M3) have expanded with the economy. In simple terms, the money supply is debt conscience but mostly held as a store of value. Again, what would you have them do? Keep the money supply at 1955 levels and restrict the value of the economy? Not very far-sighted of you.

Enron used redundant assets and investments as assets and understated the liabilities of the investments; this isn’t even remotely similar to the Debt calculations.

“ Also 75 year unfunded liabilities (debt + liabilities we don't pay interest on) are up to almost 70 trillion!!”

Okay, NOW THAT’S DISENGENIOUS; what robert is referring to is the future liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Plan B assuming current conditions and based on 2004 numbers. Talk about pro forma! What happens, robert if we privatize Social Security, change the requirements for collection, means test, or index the nStock Market? Will your numbers hold, or are you using the same tricks as enron (sic)?

I fully expect you all to lobby Congress to privatize Social Security NOW to prevent these liabilities from drowning the tax revenues.

Dasein: Okay, NOW THAT’S DISENGENIOUS; what robert is referring to is the future liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Plan B assuming current conditions and based on 2004 numbers. Talk about pro forma! What happens, robert if we privatize Social Security, change the requirements for collection, means test, or index the nStock Market? Will your numbers hold, or are you using the same tricks as enron (sic)?

Pro formosity and disgenuosity seem to be running rampant.

Are those words? Lol! Seriously though Dasein, you seem to be making as many unlikely assumptions as robert. In fact, yours appear to be based on the assumption that gov't both gets a brain graft and a backbone somewhere along the line (AND manages to keep them without finding loopholes along the way) whereas robert's are based on nothing more than the perpetuation of the status quo.

Rico,
Please clarify.
I don’t believe I made any assumptions. I stated the methodology used in the calculations.

Dasein: Please clarify. I don’t believe I made any assumptions. I stated the methodology used in the calculations.

In a way you did. But you implied the methodology was wrong because the assumptions might be wrong, without explaining why you think they likely to be wrong, which would require your own set of assumptions. As I see it, those assumptions are these (and try to bear with me -- I don't know the technical terms, just try to understand the concepts as if you were a ninny like me):

1. The Basic Money supply (M1; M2 & M3) have expanded with the economy. In simple terms, the money supply is debt conscience but mostly held as a store of value.

That assumes the economy expands at least proportionate to the expansion of debt, which hasn't been the case for a while except in recent MONTHS -- not years -- and is unlikely to be sustained into at least the near future. As I understand it, the stored value also depends on the relative exchange rate among our dominant trading partners, which is tied to the relative money supply, which has recently been loosened in the US, causing a run on other currencies. I mean my goodness, the freakin' Looney is now worth more than our dollar!

2. Enron used redundant assets and investments as assets and understated the liabilities of the investments; this isn’t even remotely similar to the Debt calculations.

It isn't. But it IS faintly reminiscent of the deficit calculations. For the last 50 years or so deficit calculations have increasingly grown into an exercise of smoke and mirrors. I mean heck, Rs and Ds alike have pork-fattened even supposed EMERGENCY spending bills, which are completely off the books!

Debt as a function of GDP is considerably less susceptible to smoke and mirrors -- at least of the same sort. But that also requires certain assumptions about how the principle investors in our economy assess their liabilities. Given the dominance of our economy, there is certainly considerable stability structured into that relationship. But it is not absolute. And I suspect we are likely to see things slowly shift if something isn't done about correcting the fundamentals.

You suggest privatizing social security NOW. I suggest that it has to be done slowly. More importantly, however it is done it must be done in a way as to shield, completely and securely, the SS trust fund from the boys and girls in Washington. That, to me is, and has been, the real problem since the Johnson administration. They've been putting lipstick on that pig since I was a kid. And I have absolutely no faith things are likely to change much.

That's my pithy answer anyway, lol!

That assumes the economy expands at least proportionate to the expansion of debt, which hasn't been the case for a while except in recent MONTHS -- not years -- and is unlikely to be sustained into at least the near future. As I understand it, the stored value also depends on the relative exchange rate among our dominant trading partners, which is tied to the relative money supply, which has recently been loosened in the US, causing a run on other currencies. I mean my goodness, the freakin' Looney is now worth more than our dollar!

Where to start, let’s see … here; the economy relationship to the debt is ancillary to the money supply, unless robert’s assessment is accurate, which it isn’t. Money supply didn’t expand during the recession, but began to when the economy began its post 2003 growth.

• M1 In September 1999, the M1 money supply was about $1,100 billion, today it’s $1,367 billion; it has been reduced in the last 12 months by 0.4% (going down, not up, so much for that Bush is printing money to reduce the deficit pap)

• M3 (M2 + large CD’s) In September 1999, the M2 money supply was about $6,600 billion, today it’s $7,333.6 billion; less than the rise in total GDP for that period.

The drop in the exchange rate for the USD requires that more be held in reserve, I’ve already explained that the exchange rate is favorable to American trade, and precludes recession. Let the Looney rise, it just means we can sell more goods overseas.

It isn't. But it IS faintly reminiscent of the deficit calculations. For the last 50 years or so deficit calculations have increasingly grown into an exercise of smoke and mirrors. I mean heck, Rs and Ds alike have pork-fattened even supposed EMERGENCY spending bills, which are completely off the books!

As one who studied the antics of Arthur Anderson, I can assure you that the scheme they pulled is nothing at all like the creative accounting the government pulls, with one exception; Enron invested in subsidiary entities then listed the investments as assets, simultaneously they listed the same investment as loan to the subsidiary. This allowed them to have two assets for every liability. If that sounds like what Clinton did with the Social Security “surplus” it is.

The “emergency funding” is a method to keep items out of the Budget, but all of these expenses are included in the deficit. Congress doesn’t declare emergency funding to keep it out of the deficit; they do it to circumvent the Budget process. It would be like throwing your stash in the air when the police walk through the door: sure it hides it for a little while, but not for long enough for the effort.

You suggest privatizing social security NOW. I suggest that it has to be done slowly.

But, don’t you see, the longer we delay the larger that unfunded liability grows? I think what you’re saying is that the current participants “investment” must be protected, while insuring a ROI for the new participants. That doesn’t require going slowly, it requires going smartly. First, don’t demagogue the subject; grandma isn’t going to eat dog food because she lost her shorts in the stock market. Next, move to capitalize the Trust Fund; this means ugh! Borrowing enough to keep it in play for the next twenty years, and no more S-Chips for wealthy kids that already have insurance. Finally, index the returns to the market; this gives a guarantee to Uncle Clem that he won’t be too far behind Aunt Griselda if she went market and he went government guarantee. But, Auntie will make more in return than uncle because that’s the way the market works, and if she doesn’t, the index prevents her form losing the principle.

Pithy? How's this ...

"POLITICIANS & DIAPERS BOTH NEED
TO BE CHANGED OFTEN, AND FOR
THE SAME REASON."

In a way you did. But you implied the methodology was wrong because the assumptions might be wrong, without explaining why you think they likely to be wrong, which would require your own set of assumptions.

Finally, let’s address this. The deficit, as I’ve discussed in previous classes, is predicated on fiscal assumptions on the service of the debt. The Budget Office “assumes” a debt amount at a point in the future, “assumes” an interest rate at the amount, then calculates the payments based on the amount available at that time. If the deficit shrinks in the interim because revenues rises, the amount to be borrowed to fill the gap is less, therefore the interest cost is less, and the payment, while the same as before, goes more to the principle and less to interest.

Each time the assumption is in error, or the delta is favorable, the service interest is lower. But, the Budget Office can’t make this assumption until the actual payment is due or the money is borrowed, then they recalculate the future deficit predicated on the new numbers and the whole dance starts over. (Clintoon had the OMB use a long term debt ratio with short term lending terms and still projected a growing deficit.)

The current deficit looks at the cost over the next four months as static, even though the Budget Office has projected increased revenue in the forth quarter, hence and ergo, the assumption will be pessimistic.

It's not likely to be wrong, it will be wrong.

Oh darn, you've already responded -- again! Don't you have anything to do? Lol! Anyway, this is my response to your penultimate comment...

Dasein: If that sounds like what Clinton did with the Social Security “surplus” it is.

What, if anything, has changed? If it has, explain it to me. Because I don't see it.

The “emergency funding” is a method to keep items out of the Budget, but all of these expenses are included in the deficit.

Really? That's news to me. But if you're right it begs the question... why has the debt increased so much quicker than the deficit? I'd be satisfied if you could explain it for just the last year.

I think what you’re saying is that the current participants “investment” must be protected, while insuring a ROI for the new participants. That doesn’t require going slowly, it requires going smartly.

I stand corrected... "smartly" is a better word.

First, don’t demagogue the subject; grandma isn’t going to eat dog food because she lost her shorts in the stock market.

What if grandma is eating dog food because she got burned by a "privately funded" pension fund? I guess that's the kind of precedent that makes me very skeptical about "private funding", which in the best of cases must always be bracketed in parentheses.

Next, move to capitalize the Trust Fund; this means ugh! Borrowing enough to keep it in play for the next twenty years,

If you can figure out how to do that "smartly" I'm all ears. I'd say this goes to the heart of the matter.

and no more S-Chips for wealthy kids that already have insurance.

Or something. I guess that goes again to the "smartly" issue.

Finally, index the returns to the market; this gives a guarantee to Uncle Clem that he won’t be too far behind Aunt Griselda if she went market and he went government guarantee. But, Auntie will make more in return than uncle because that’s the way the market works, and if she doesn’t, the index prevents her form losing the principle.

My Uncle Clem is a complete idiot. My Aunt Griselda is smart as a whip, and because she is she isn't counting on social security. That being said, how do you feel about some sort of national mutual fund or funds? And how should they be formulated if you think it's a good idea? I think this folds into the question of how to "smartly" capitalize the trust fund -- while simultaneously keeping it out of the hands of the DC kids.

Pithy? How's this ... "POLITICIANS & DIAPERS BOTH NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN, AND FOR
THE SAME REASON."

Pretty good. The flip side is: "DON'T SEND A BOY TO DO A MAN'S JOB."

There's something to be said for each, don't you think? The trouble is, under the current formulation, the more experience a politician has the more susceptible they generally are to corruption. Given that government must continue to function no matter what, populating it with novices isn't likely to eliminate corruption -- it's just likely to displace it to someone else. I fear that establishing term limits will increase the power of policy wonks and lobbyists -- which is what former candidates turn into anyway, in many cases. Why accelerate the process?

Monetized debt is just what we borrow from the fed, which has increased, Bush isn't actually all that bad about about "printing money" though. It just happens to tend to massively increase M1 when dropped into fractional reserve banking.

My point is deficit isn't equal to what the debt increases by, and debt isn't even equal to liabilities. The increase in debt never slowed down, and Clinton never had a surplus.

Bragging about the deficit being cut means very little, especially if debt is rising fast and liabilites are rising too.

75 year unfunded liabilities rose by like 8.2 trillion with medicare part D, the other 12 trillion or so it rose under Bush was not dealing with social security/medicade A and B. Who said the debt was a problem, these guys make 9 tillion look small.

Anyways that's a rate deficit(how much they would need to take from everyones check) of only about 3%, which isn't huge. But 3% of everything you make for the next 75 years has been promised out, with nothing to fund it.

"I fully expect you all to lobby Congress to privatize Social Security NOW to prevent these liabilities from drowning the tax revenues." - Dasein

Quit talking about the real problem, I'm trying to make Bush look bad.

“What, if anything, has changed? If it has, explain it to me. Because I don't see it.”
The gap between income and outlays has closed significantly; less money is available in the “Trust Fund.” The income was used to defray interest payments, and with the narrowing gap less can be borrowed to at zero interest. Clinton assumed years more of surplus in SS and cooked the books to match that assumption; that’s why the Congressional numbers didn’t match Clinton’s.

“why has the debt increased so much quicker than the deficit?”

The deficit is dynamic; it is the shortfall between the revenue and expense, the borrowing to fill the gap adds to the Debt. A $250.0B deficit will add $250.0B at the end of the term, but the interest on the loans to cover that $250.0B go right to the Debt. Sort of compounding the Debt. But, like the deficit, the Debt is based on static numbers and is reassessed when the loans are actually due. It doesn’t make it better, just different.

Note: I just saw robert's explaination, it's good, hopefully this will augument his.

People talk about “off-budget” as if it doesn’t require repayment, it does, and those payments are included in the deficit calculations. The deficit is called a budget deficit because calling it a peacock deficit might confuse everyone. Factually, the Budget is the underlying theory by which the costs and revenues are calculated, but the expenses, liabilities, equities and revenues are all real, tangible and quantifiable. We know how much the Treasury received thus far this fiscal year, we know how much the government paid out, the running difference is the deficit. The cost of the deficit, and the deficit itself is added to the Debt. Better?

“she got burned by a "privately funded" pension fund?”

Caveat Emptor, the operative word here is “private” not “public.” SS is independent of private retirement funds, always has been. What I advocate is a mutual fund administered by a private group, underwritten by the government in the form of contributions made in the name of the participant, and indexed to the market so if the Mutual Tanks, the investor still is paid off at market value.

This takes care of smart Griselda and thick Clem.

As to Capitalizing the SS fund. I don’t have all the answers, if I did I’d work for Forbes instead of the University of California; suffice to say that the investment capital the federal Reserve has can be used to partially fund short term investment to shore up the SS Fund. BUT, that does require that Congress stop trying to buy votes with government give-aways. On this robert and I are in full agreement.

Robert,
Your 75 year target of unfunded mandates is worrisome and needs to be addressed, I agree, absolutely!

But, (as much as I hate using that word, because it means everything I said up to this point is a lie) bear in mind that predictions that far out are about as useful as Algore’s 100’ seal level rise predictions.

Remember, economists qualify every statement with “all things being equal” and we know they’re NOT!

Um ... sea level rise. I don't think even algore predicted we'd be up to our rooftops in seals. But, that is an amusing image.

“ I fear that establishing term limits will increase the power of policy wonks and lobbyists”

AB-so-lutly!
I oppose term limits because they’re unconstitutional IMO; the Constitution sets the requirements to run for and hold office. Term limits adds a restriction to running for office that is not in the Constitution. How can a State refuse to allow a candidate a place on the ballot when, according to law that person is qualified to hold that office?

It would require a Constitutional Amendment, and you know how I feel about those.

State office is different, those qualifications are determined by the respective States.

Ricorun, I'll give you the long explanation of what the deficit inludes, this took me a while to figure out(I have no formal finiance training at all).

The deficit only counts money borrowed from the public, this also includes foreign debt.

When the government borrows from itself, in a way this doesn't really create new debt, even though it pays interest to itself. It really just unfunds liabilities. So like we have a social security trust fund, but the only thing it contains is some IOUs to other government departments. This isn't counted in the deficit. But we do add it to the debt.

When we say social security is solvent until some date, we really mean we'll be able to pay it without changing taxes or spending, not that we actually have the money.

The government can also borrow from the federal reserve, this is also intergovernmental debt and not counted in the deficit. When the government borrows from the fed, the process is a little tricky, but ends up being like the fed creating brand new money and loaning it to us. When we pay it back the fed basically destroys it. This also isn't counted in the deficit, but it is in the debt. This tends to cause tons of inflation when this new money is dropped into fractional reserve banking. We don't do this very much since the 70's where they tried to hide Vietnamn spending and wrecked the economy with inflation.

Also debt is just the stuff we pay interest on. The more important number is unfunded liabilities. That is all the money that we've promised to people, this includes the debt. We may have some ability to change this number, though it seems politicly impossible to me at this time.