Don't like socialist entitlements? Don't vote Republican.

[sd'sker]

Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

 

Are Entitlements Corrupting Us? Yes, American Character Is at Stake

It's a lot of fun to blame the president but it's pretty misleading.

 

Dems controlled the house every year from 1960 to 1995 (actually they controlled it all but two years from 1933 to 1995).

Dems controlled the senate all but six years from 1960 to 1995 and all but 10 years from 1993 to 1995.

 

If you'd like to blame the republicans for any changes to entitlement programs from 1995-2007, please let me know what they are. Otherwise, you're looking on the wrong side of the isle and and the wrong address in Washington.

i just posted the article. almost 40 years of data does seem telling, but placing blame seems to always be a moving target.

[huskerXman]

Our economy was built on a house of cards, we have already seen that. You don't have to believe, but it will happen. jmo

 

Let me add, yes from deficit spending. THe more we spend the more we print.. that will only devalue the dollar. That will be our undoing.

 

We are part of a global economy and countries all over the world are on the brink.. we are as well.

I guess . . . we'll take your word for it?

it will happen, but that is just his opinion.

 

Right, is that a problem? I think it will happen, in my opinion.. Did I say it wrong?

[huskerXman]

Our economy was built on a house of cards, we have already seen that. You don't have to believe, but it will happen. jmo

 

Let me add, yes from deficit spending. THe more we spend the more we print.. that will only devalue the dollar. That will be our undoing.

 

We are part of a global economy and countries all over the world are on the brink.. we are as well.

I guess . . . we'll take your word for it?

 

You don't have to take my word for it, nor do you have to believe me.. I said it would happen in my opinion. Nothing to crazy about that.

 

I could provide articles that show others agree, but for some it won't matter.

[sd'sker]

Our economy was built on a house of cards, we have already seen that. You don't have to believe, but it will happen. jmo

 

Let me add, yes from deficit spending. THe more we spend the more we print.. that will only devalue the dollar. That will be our undoing.

 

We are part of a global economy and countries all over the world are on the brink.. we are as well.

I guess . . . we'll take your word for it?

it will happen, but that is just his opinion.

 

Right, is that a problem? I think it will happen, in my opinion.. Did I say it wrong?

kind of. you say it will happen, but that is your opinion. you make a definitive statement, but it is only your opinion. so it might not happen?

 

edit: i will concede i am splitting hairs.

[krc1995]

Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

 

Are Entitlements Corrupting Us? Yes, American Character Is at Stake

It's a lot of fun to blame the president but it's pretty misleading.

 

Dems controlled the house every year from 1960 to 1995 (actually they controlled it all but two years from 1933 to 1995).

Dems controlled the senate all but six years from 1960 to 1995 and all but 10 years from 1993 to 1995.

 

If you'd like to blame the republicans for any changes to entitlement programs from 1995-2007, please let me know what they are. Otherwise, you're looking on the wrong side of the isle and and the wrong address in Washington.

i just posted the article. almost 40 years of data does seem telling, but placing blame seems to always be a moving target.

that's a good article although I don't understand why social security, medicare, and unemployment taxes are considered entitlement programs? Those are a direct tax taken out of employee paychecks so I would think they earn those benefits.

[carlfense]

that's a good article although I don't understand why social security, medicare, and unemployment taxes are considered entitlement programs? Those are a direct tax taken out of employee paychecks so I would think they earn those benefits.

"Entitlement" isn't a dirty word. The two most common definitions probably fit SS, Medicare, and unemployment more than the last definition . . . unfortunately the word has been appropriated by people who say it with a sneer.

 

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1

a

:

the state or condition of being

entitled

:

right

b

:

a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2

:

a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group;

also

:

funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3

:

belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

[sd'sker]

that's a good article although I don't understand why social security, medicare, and unemployment taxes are considered entitlement programs? Those are a direct tax taken out of employee paychecks so I would think they earn those benefits.

"Entitlement" isn't a dirty word. The two most common definitions probably fit SS, Medicare, and unemployment more than the last definition . . . unfortunately the word has been appropriated by people who say it with a sneer.

 

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

 

 

1

a

:

the state or condition of being

entitled

:

right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

 

 

 

2

:

a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group;

also

:

funds supporting or distributed by such a program

 

 

 

3

:

belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges.

http://www.merriam-w...ary/entitlement

 

some of the most entitled people are the opulent minority. see subsection 3.

[Malth]

 

 

Our economy was built on a house of cards, we have already seen that. You don't have to believe, but it will happen. jmo

 

Let me add, yes from deficit spending. THe more we spend the more we print.. that will only devalue the dollar. That will be our undoing.

 

We are part of a global economy and countries all over the world are on the brink.. we are as well.

 

 

Such a simplistic understanding of inflation will not do. You can't just say 'oh we can't spend money because inflation', because there are many factors at play, not just the amount of money in circulation.

 

You might have noticed some of the Euro countries doing poorly, this is because they're insisting on taking money out of the economy. Here in America, we're still putting money into the economy, even if it's not as much as is actually needed. Money is the lifeblood of the economy, and it's pretty obvious that large portions of the country don't have enough. Deficit spending has never caused a recession, but it's done a pretty good job of pulling the economy out of every recession within the past century.

[krc1995]

 

I didn't say that. You seem to be trying to equate the two. (Not to mention that Clinton policies weren't the sole cause of the housing bubble . . .)

 

Government spending was increasing (and the deficit with it) prior to the housing bubble collapse.

 

I notice that you seem to be leaving out one major contributor to the deficit. That leads me to believe that you probably vote primarily for one particular party. A certain type of partisan doesn't like to include that factor.

wow, i have never seen that chart before and it makes bush look really bad and obama look pretty good. that chart tells quite the story, not only about politics, but also economics.

 

Am I missing an insert sarcasm icon or are you color blind?

[sd'sker]

 

I didn't say that. You seem to be trying to equate the two. (Not to mention that Clinton policies weren't the sole cause of the housing bubble . . .)

 

Government spending was increasing (and the deficit with it) prior to the housing bubble collapse.

 

I notice that you seem to be leaving out one major contributor to the deficit. That leads me to believe that you probably vote primarily for one particular party. A certain type of partisan doesn't like to include that factor.

wow, i have never seen that chart before and it makes bush look really bad and obama look pretty good. that chart tells quite the story, not only about politics, but also economics.

 

Am I missing an insert sarcasm icon or are you color blind?

look at the trend.

[carlfense]

 

I didn't say that. You seem to be trying to equate the two. (Not to mention that Clinton policies weren't the sole cause of the housing bubble . . .)

 

Government spending was increasing (and the deficit with it) prior to the housing bubble collapse.

 

I notice that you seem to be leaving out one major contributor to the deficit. That leads me to believe that you probably vote primarily for one particular party. A certain type of partisan doesn't like to include that factor.

wow, i have never seen that chart before and it makes bush look really bad and obama look pretty good. that chart tells quite the story, not only about politics, but also economics.

 

Am I missing an insert sarcasm icon or are you color blind?

Also . . . you know the year of W's last budget . . . right?

[huskerXman]

 

 

Our economy was built on a house of cards, we have already seen that. You don't have to believe, but it will happen. jmo

 

Let me add, yes from deficit spending. THe more we spend the more we print.. that will only devalue the dollar. That will be our undoing.

 

We are part of a global economy and countries all over the world are on the brink.. we are as well.

 

 

Such a simplistic understanding of inflation will not do. You can't just say 'oh we can't spend money because inflation', because there are many factors at play, not just the amount of money in circulation.

 

You might have noticed some of the Euro countries doing poorly, this is because they're insisting on taking money out of the economy. Here in America, we're still putting money into the economy, even if it's not as much as is actually needed. Money is the lifeblood of the economy, and it's pretty obvious that large portions of the country don't have enough. Deficit spending has never caused a recession, but it's done a pretty good job of pulling the economy out of every recession within the past century.

 

haha, yeah ok. Sounds like you are saying you can't devalue money by printing more? Is that correct? and you think printing more is the ticket?

[Undone]

look at the trend.

 

Are you calling two years worth of data a "trend"? Not only is that a 16% jump in spending from 2008 to 2009 (which is the biggest proportional ratio in the graph), but the ratio of spending to revenue itself is staggering. Could it be the start of a trend? Possibly. But is a decrease in spending from that extremely high ratio jump from 2008 to 2009 really telling of anything significant? That's probably subjective.

 

 

Here in America, we're still putting money into the economy...

 

Translation: We're now in the business of printing money. Both sides of the partisan aisle are essentially in complete agreement that this is a good thing. History seems to have proven otherwise.

[carlfense]

look at the trend.

Are you calling two years worth of data a "trend"? Not only is that a 16% jump in spending from 2008 to 2009 (which is the biggest proportional ratio in the graph), but the ratio of spending to revenue itself is staggering. Could it be the start of a trend? Possibly. But is a decrease in spending from that extremely high ratio jump from 2008 to 2009 really telling of anything significant? That's probably subjective.

. . . you realize that the 2009 budget was still W's right?

 

I think the trend that sd'sker was referring to was the consistent spending increases and the fact that W continued to increase spending while reducing revenue . . . thereby turning a record surplus into a deficit within 3 years.

[Undone]

Agreed there. Bush was full of a particularly stupid brand of stupid sauce economically speaking all throughout his presidency, but especially at the tail end. The 2008 - 2009 jump was his. But it was such a ridiculous jump in the first place, that a 1.7% decrease in spending is hardly worth noting. That's the point.

 

Believe me...my comments aren't driven by a need to bash Obama. He does that all by himself. I truly hope there's a trend in decreased spending, regardless of which asshat is at the wheel in the presidency or regardless of which collective group of asshats controls a majority in congress.