Cleo's Mom

On Tax Cuts and Stimulus Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 01:48:48 PM PDT As we continue to try to stimulate the economy, there is much discussion about continuing the Bush Tax Cuts. One position is they are simulative to the economy, while the other position is that they add to the debt. Guess what? Tax cuts for the rich depress the economy. Tax cuts for the poor, on the other hand, stimulate the economy. The real problem in discussing the effects of various stimuli is that, for many politicians, ideology trumps facts. Most recently, McConnell said that tax cuts for the rich paid for themselves, and this week John Boehner refused to say that they did or didn’t pay for themselves when asked by David Gregory. The idea behind a stimulus is to get money moving and passing through many hands, allowing a high multiplier effect. If the first person gets a dollar and spends 95 cents of it and each recipient of part of his 95 cents spends 95% of it (90 cents), we have $1.85 of economic activity taking place (so far). Next of course, lots of the 90 cents will be spent, with smaller amounts in each cycle (81 cents and $2.66 stimulus after round three) until the money is completely spent. When someone takes the money out of circulation and saves or invests it, the multiplier stops. The gold standard for facts in Washington is the Congressional Budget Office, so I will use their figures. CBO Dollar of stimulation per dollar spent $1.73 – Food stamps $1.64 – Extending Unemployment Insurance $1.59 – Infrastructure spending $1.36 – Aid to states $1.26 – Refundable tax credit $1.03 – Temporary tax cut $1.02 – Non-refundable tax rebate $.48 – Extend AMT patch $.37 – Make dividend and capital gains permanent $.30 – Corporate tax cut $.29 - Make Bush tax cuts permanent $.27 – Accelerated depreciation If we look at the CBO estimates, the payback on the Bush tax cuts is that the economy gets 29 cents of stimulus for every dollar spent. Is this a good investment? $.29 on the dollar? (The rich think so). In other words, the Bush Tax Cuts are de-stimulative – they act to slow down the economy!! On the other hand, food stamps get $1.73 of stimulus and unemployment insurance gets $1.64 of stimulus. Infrastructure gets $1.59, aid to the states gets $1.36. That is stimulation – we get more economic activity that we put in! I’m going to propose a hypothesis that is blindly simple and consistent with the facts: The richer the recipient of money is, the less likely they are to spend it. To stimulate the economy, raise taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor. To stimulate the rich, give them tax cuts. dailykos Also, a 2008 study by the Center for American Progress documents that investments and economic growth were STRONGER after 1993 tax increases than they were following tax cuts in 1981 and 2001.

Thank you. I have seen It's a Wonderful Life. It's a great movie. I think your Mom would be proud of all the nice things you said about her. As a Mom, I think that all we want is validation that we got most things right. Your Mom will be rewarded for all her good deeds. It sounds like someone is watching over your son. I know that boys especially play so rough and take risks sometimes that they need another pair of eyes looking out for them. My husband and I battled cancer together. I had breast cancer and then he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer 11 months later. You don't survive EC even when caught very early, like his was. It was a very rough time for us. So my kids and grandson are my life now which is why you can understand why I would be outraged that someone would post something about them and my parenting which is crossing the line. They are off limits and so is my parenting. As to the rednecks around here. Tell me about it. I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car and the rednecks and racists seem to think that gives them carte blanche to say things to me. Some yahoo asked me how the hopey changey thing was working out and I said great. And then I told him to eff off. I will not be intimidated. If I had been in that restaurant and heard you I would have told you I felt the same way. :cursing:

God the creator set into motion the conditions here on earth for things to evolve, and they did. Our science can show us how old the earth is, how old man is, how old dinosaurs are, etc.. That is not up for debate. Those are facts. Man is more than 10,000 years old and did not live with dinosaurs yet alone ride them. The theory of evolution explains how we evolved over the years. This theory is based on scientific discoveries, data and scientific techniques that allow us to piece the puzzle together. It is a theory that is dynamic, not static, and improved upon as we learn more and develop better techniques and make more discoveries that improve upon our previous knowledge. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent the following lies from being taught in the public schools: -man lived with dinosaurs -Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark, but they were babies -Adam named all the creatures on the earth -incorrect age of the earth and man If people want to teach this junk, let them do it in religious classes but it doesn't belong in serious science classes.

More recent and accurate data reflecting the recession, not old news from 2008. America's 10 Poorest Cities October 19, 2009 From the South to the West Coast, These Are the Places Where People Are the Poorest The Great Recession is rewriting the rules of American poverty. Data from the Census Bureau, released in September, show that during the first year of the recession, incomes fell farther and poverty leaped higher than during almost any other time in a generation. In 2008, U.S. median income fell to $50,303 from $52,163 in 2007. That 3.6% decline is the largest one-year drop since records begin. The poverty rate increased to 13.2% from 12.5%, meaning the recession has brought 2.6 million more Americans into poverty. The Economic Policy Institute projects that in the next two years, incomes could decline by another $3,000 and poverty could increase by 1.9 percentage points. From Forbes.com Just as the recession has changed the map of unemployment (see "Stars and Jobless Stripes"), it has redrawn the contours of poverty. In Depth: America's 10 Most Expensive Cities To find out who is being hit worst, we used new data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey. Although the Census Bureau defines poverty simply as people earning below a certain income level, (which varies based on family size) we also looked at per capita incomes for a region, the percentage of food stamp recipients, the percentage of people under age 65 receiving public health care and the unemployment rate. Poverty may once have been worst in the Deep South. And cities on the border with Mexico are plagued with poverty. But the recession--and the decline of American manufacturing--has left Rust Belt cities with comparable levels of poverty. The problem is concentrated in these three regions. All 10 cities on our list are southern cities, border cities or declining manufacturing centers. (not exactly democratic areas) Four southern cities make the list: Pine Bluff, Ark.; Albany and Macon, Ga.; and Rocky Mount, N.C. (all republican areas)In these cities, per capita incomes are between $18,000 and $23,000, but the bottom 20% are bringing in between $7,500 and $8,500. The most impoverished region is at the southern tip of Texas. (I'm not sure you could find a democrat in Texas)The metropolitan statistical areas for McAllen and Brownsville, Texas, have the lowest incomes and most food stamp recipients of any in America. "When looking at the entire [metro area] we have a lot of communities that do have large pockets of poverty," says Mike Perez, the city manager of McAllen, Texas. "A lot are recent immigrants--that's part of it. There's a language barrier. And because they're recent immigrants, they don't have the education. That's tied to having jobs that pay well. It's a bit of a vicious cycle."

Loserbob, here is an example of what the republicans want to cut: Rightwing Anti-Government Ideology killed 12 year-old boy by xxdr zombiexx Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 06:33:55 AM PDT US outrage over public service cutbacks across America has found a rallying point in the death of 12-year-old Frank Marasco If we are lucky - which I don't believe we are - this might be one of those so-called 'turning points' in this bulls**t battle between and those who attempt to get this country back on track after 30 years of systematic Republican sabotage.Maybe. The people who are cutting government budgets are the same ones who despise healthcare reforms so - if you were smart - you would probably want to consider these people more of your 'enemy' than somebody you are having a meaningless, superficial disagreement with. In US Cities Face Up to Massive Cuts a young autistic boy is reported to have died in a fire that was possibly started by a stray cigarette. It would have been a routine fire to extinguish in times gone by. But not now. Not when the government public services have been under assault by full-bore nutjobs and hate-filled republicans. They have simply laid siege to your government services and this is one of the consequences: The inferno should have been a routine job for Philadelphia's 1,900-strong fire brigade, the fifth biggest force in the US which handles four major incidents daily. But the nearest fire station to Frank's house, just two blocks away, was unavailable after a so-called "brown out". Firemen at the station, barely 90 seconds' walk from the site of the fire, were on a maintenance run after a 12-hour shutdown, part of a rota of rolling daily closures imposed by city authorities grappling with a wrenching deficit of $2.4bn (£1.5bn) over five years. "Everybody was running around trying to get the little boy out – he was stuck on the second floor," said a distraught neighbour, Virginia DeShields, whose house was damaged by smoke. She believes the boy might have been saved if the local firehouse had been open: "It's all right if you want to cut. But you shouldn't cut where lives are concerned. You can cut the prison system, cut the libraries, anywhere. But don't cut people who save lives." The firehouse was closed. They were trying to save money in the city because Republicans want to dismantle America. Note the second bolded bit about the lady agreeing with government cuts but not with cutting to essential services. This is a measure of how successful the GOP, the official party of the Cutters, are with their media campaign to make people think up is down and that black is white. The cutters want to cut ALL services (including Social Security) and we have heard THEM want to cut fire, police, and we all know how they feel about health care. The cutters have a nationwide network of radio shows and access to a corporate-controlled media that is friendly to their mission, so the average American - who doesn't look deeply into things claimed on the tv and other American media - tends to agree with all they have heard. Rightwing Propaganda is so pervasive and so successful average people believe its OK to gut your government services. Republican anti-government hysteria contributed to the death of that boy and is wreaking havoic across the country. The linked article provides some more examples, as if you really need more examples of the damage these Un-American, mouthbreathing, knuckledragging racist homophobic illiterate numbskulls want to make happen and does a fair job, but it does overlook the odd willingness of a lot of people to simply put up with this like it is a normal state of affairs. That is Mission Accomplished for Grover Norquist and Republican/Rightwing propaganda. dailykos The party of no is the party of cutters. They do want to dismantle the government, strip away protection for the poor and the least among us, wreck havoc with middle class wages, buying power and american dreams. We can't let this happen. We need to fight back.

I'm very sorry for the loss of your mother at age 57. My beloved husband of 32 years died 5 years ago of cancer at age 56 and didn't live to see his first granchild, my grandson, born this May. But my grandson has my husband's dimples so I think it's his way of saying part of him is with him. Your mother sounds like a wonderful woman - giving to others first, caring for people. I'm sure it was a great loss to your father and whole family. I still grieve everyday for my husband. I think your post was heartfelt and I'm glad you posted it.

Good for you. And sometimes the most responsible thing you can do to care for your parents is to make sure they have the proper 24/7 care they need in a nursing home. Putting a parent in a nursing home does not mean you're not doing your duty to care for your parents anymore than putting a sick child in a hospital does. Some people are just so narrow minded, judgemental and with a one-size-fits-all attitude to problem solving that their opinions are irrelevant.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 11, 2010 Obama Improves, More See Bush Responsible for Economy Raleigh, N.C. – After an unusually bad July in PPP’s national poll, President Barack Obama has seen a lot of improvement on several fronts. His national approval rating has rebounded, moving from 48-47 in June, to 45-52 last month, back to 47-48 now. For five of the last eight months, Obama has been one point above or below breaking even; in others, he was two points below and four points above. PPP has asked voters’ approval of Obama’s health care plan for 12 months now, and with 46% approving and 48% disapproving,(within the margin of error) that is the highest level of approval and the second best approval margin since the first month, September 2009, when it was 45-46. This marks a huge shift since July (40-53). (People are starting to see the lies about healthcare for what they are) In another improvement for Obama, 50% still say they prefer having Obama as president, compared to 43% who would rather have George W. Bush back. In April, Obama won only 48-46. While independents this year generally favor Republican candidates and disapprove of Obama, they prefer Obama against Bush, 53-36, versus April’s 49-37. When asked who they think is more responsible for the state of the economy, 49% picked Bush, to 40% choosing Obama. Independents say Bush, 52-38. Fewer Republicans, 75%, pick Obama than Democrats pick Bush, 81%. public policy polling People are starting to see through the lies about healthcare as well as realizing all the things this democratic congress has gotten accomplished: successful stimulus that created or saved jobs, healthcare reform, financial reform, equal pay act, state aid for teachers, police, firefighters and medicaid, etc..saving more jobs...etc...

If Republicans got their Way ... by jamess Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:57:11 AM PDT If Republicans got their Way ... there would be no more Medicare. If Republicans got their Way ... you couldn't Retire until 70. If Republicans got their Way ... they'd privatize Social Security. If Republicans got their Way ... there would be no more Corporate income tax. If Republicans got their Way ... they'd eliminate taxes on Capital gains. If Republicans got their Way ... they'd cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent. If Republicans got their Way ... the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich would never end. Factlets from The Republican's Roadmap for America's Future: The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities Center on Budget and Policy Priorities By Paul N. Van de Water -- July 7, 2010 If Republicans got their Way ... BP would be held harmless. If Republicans got their Way ... Fracting would be deemed simply public hysteria. If Republicans got their Way ... Unions would become an ancient relic. If Republicans got their Way ... Congress would spend its time on subpoenas. If Republicans got their Way ... they'd impeach the President. If Republicans got their Way ... they'd give Wall Street even more Derivative trading. If Republicans got their Way ... Congress would be reduced to Gridlock. If Republicans got their Way ... America would fail, whenever Dems were in charge. If Republicans got their Way ... They'd END all government programs, designed to help People. Why Do Republicans keep getting their way? Why are they allowed to hold hostage, the American Dream? If Republicans got their Way ... Dems would be no longer relevant. If Republicans got their Way ... the World would become their strip mine. If Republicans got their Way ... the Future of the Planet ... is headed ... for Pain. We must NOT let ... the Republicans keep GETTING their Way. (How do you think we got in this MESS, in the first place? ... maybe because Republicans HAD their Way ...) daily kos We cannot allow the republicans to destroy our country. They came pretty close under bush. The new breed is even worse.

Six million jobs were lost under the bush regime. Unemployment went from 4% to 8.1% Two costly wars (that weren't paid for and added to our deficit) were started costing the lives of thousands. The recession and bank bail out started under bush. And still, no complaints about Laura Bush's travels, the cost of the plane or security. Hmmm. That's because the conservative media gave her a free pass and the democrats were busy trying to get this country out of the messes bush made and didn't have to focus on the first lady like the party of no has to do now.

I want our children to get the best science education there is so as to be able to compete in the world economy. Right now we are 21st. Teaching creationism in which students are told that man is less than 10,000 years old and all the animals were created 5000 years ago, not to mention the Creation Museum where the dinosaurs have saddles, apparently so that Adam and Eve could ride them. This is not the kind of thing that should be taught in schools. This belongs in religious classes. Scientific evidence, of course, refutes these claims about the age of man and animals, so this version of creationism is not just "another theory" it's a lie.

The spirit of separation of church and state is clearly contained in the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And it is reaffirmed by the Sixth Amendment: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spend much of their political lives fighting for the strict separation of church and state, first as Virginia state legislators, later as presidents. And the bedrock principle of separation has been repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is one of the proud pillars on which this nation was built, and over the two centuries since, it has helped both our country and churches to flourish. As for our nations laws: I would prefer that they be based on the conscience of our society to be able to discern right from wrong so that "we the people" and not any brand of religion or book will decide our laws and how we govern.

I'm pretty sure Laura Bush's trips to Paris and Budapest were paid for with tax payer money as well as her month long trip to Africa with her two daughters. But of course the hypocritical republicans will justify those trips. They were for this or that, blah, blah, blah. I don't ever recall the cost of Laura Bush's trips being a point of contention, even as soldiers were dying because of an unnecessary war her husband had started costing billions we had to borrow from China and which contributed to our debt. No, there was no outcry then. But why now with Michelle Obama. Well, the republicans have nothing to offer the american people. Nothing but tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of corporations. So, they have to deflect from this by picking on Michelle Obama. Their criticism of her isn't creating one new job or helping us become energy independent or fixing our crumbling infrastructure. It is just a deflection from the fact that THEY HAVE NOTHING............

Modern marriage is defined by the state from which one must obtain a license to get married and as I posted earlier was started to oppose inter-racial marriage. That being said, the legal rights that the state (not church or religious institution) confers upon people depend on the couple getting a license. Who marries them - justice of the peace, magistrate, priest, rabbi, minister, is irrelvant. All of those licensed marriages are legitimate. And they are considered a marriage because of the license from the state and meeting the requirements for obtaining the license, not because God had anything to do with it. Two people - man/woman, man/man or woman/woman who are able to obtain a state marriage license are considered married. Those who get married by a religious person without a license are not considered married by the state and wouldn't be eligible for the legal benefits that marriage confers. So, it's not what you call it - it's whether the state will extend the legal benefits to same sex couples. So regardless of what God said about marriage, it's what the state says that the courts look at for deciding whether a marriage is legitimate and therefore eligible for all the benefits that marriage brings. And that's what same sex couples want - the benefits. What you call it is not as important as the state recognition.

RE: People who claim God wants them to run for office, invade Iraq, etc... Susan B. Anthony so eloquently put it: I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires

Great post. But you have to understand that these people start with an ultra conservative political position and then work backward to interpret the bible to support that position. They will cherry pick if need be or just simply interpret contradictory passages their way or just ignore them. The religious right of today was born out of a political movement. You can read about the history of the movement. How it started, who started it. Remember all those tv evangelists (some of whom went to jail, others just sinned?)? The bible has been around for a lot longer than them. But they started using it to support their political positions. And the movement took off.

Here's an interesting tidbit. You know that couple that escaped prison in Arizona that they are calling Bonnie & Clyde? Do you want to know how they escaped? 1) Went through an unlocked door that was supposed to be locked and alarmed 2) The getaway car was waiting on the other side of the fence and visible to the security cameras. No one noticed or cared if they did. 3) The person driving that car threw a pair of wire cutters over the fence. 4) The fence was cut and an alarm did go off but no one seemed to notice or care. 5) The bad guy got away in the getaway car. Now, Arizona has many prisons- most are government run, but five (5) of them are PRIVATE, for profit prisons. AND YOU GUESSED IT! IT WAS FROM ONE OF THESE PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT PRISONS THAT THEY ESCAPED. You know how the anti-governement people love to bash the government and love to promote private as being soooo much better than the government could do it? Well, here's your private, for-profit prison for you. Asleep at the switch. Literally.

:wink2::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

from pattygreen (with reference to my posts about violence from the teaparty and right wing):"This 'violence' you speak of is in your head as well as every other liberal out there who would just 'love' to see it be true. Since it isn't true, they feel the need to make it up." This violence is all in my, and all the other liberal's, head(s)? We would love to see it be true but it isn't so we make it up? I have made all it up? And it's all in my head? These words speak for themselves and you can try to explain them away. But too late. These are the words of someone in total denial. And out of touch. And delusional. And I proved that with the posts and pictures about violence in the tea party that wasn't made up. And when I did, you had nothing to say then. I would like others on these boards to see if they interpret your words any differently than I do.

DavidKretzmann.com Marriage is one of the most controversial and debated issues in the U.S. today. It seems to me that both sides of the argument are missing a key question: why is government even involved in marriage? The history of marriage licenses is not widely known. In the early history of our republic, marriage was a family, church, and community issue. Marriage was a private contract, outside of the jurisdiction and power of the government (although unfortunately there were laws preventing whites and blacks from marrying): No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts - Article 1, Section 10; United States Constitution Imagine it! You didn't need permission from the government to marry, the state didn't dictate the rules of marriage, the government was in its proper role of protecting private contracts. Then marriage licenses started popping up in various states, primarily in the later part of the 19th century. The legal definition of license is, "The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act." States started requiring licenses in only one case of marriage: interracial marriage. If two whites wanted to marry, it remained a private issue and the government respected the contract. By creating marriage licenses, the states were easily able to regulate and prohibit interracial marriages (such as a white marrying a black, Native American, Japanese, Chinese, etc.). Most states wanted to keep interracial marriage in their complete control through licenses. In 1923, Congress passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, and by 1929 every state had created marriage license laws and carried control over marriage. This is essentially the system we have had for more than 80 years, and today people seem to have forgotten that there is another way around either legalizing or prohibiting homosexual marriage: return to the concept of private contracts. So, you see? State's marriage laws were first written to prevent inter-racial marriages. God had nothing to do with it. Still doesn't.

What a coincidence. We posted the same article at the same time. Great minds think alike.

I love the sarcasm in this article. So true, too. Why can’t the government be run like business? By: Jim Mullen, NEA Columnists Sometimes, when I’m waiting in line at the grocery store for a price check on a box of Ramen noodles or waiting for the cashier to get a new roll of nickels or waiting for a manager to change the register tape, I can’t help but wonder, “Why can’t our government be run like this? Like a business?” But can you imagine how bad things would be if we ran businesses like the government? Imagine a government run airline! They’d overbook the flights, they’d bump passengers, they’d lose luggage, they’d make people sit on the tarmac for 10 hours and never tell them why – and they’d lose tons of money. (And we know the private airline industry would never do any of this) It would be a total disaster – nothing like the smooth model of efficiency that the airlines are now. Can you imagine the government running an investment company like Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers? They’d bankrupt those places in a week. Thousands of employees would be out on the street and millions of investors would lose their shirts. That’s because the government doesn’t know how to run things like a business.(Of course that could NEVER happen on responsible private wall street).:wink2: What if the government ran Ford and GM? They’d run them into the dirt in no time. What does the government know about making cars? They don’t have any experience running an automobile company. How long would it be before foreign car companies started eating our lunch? Thank goodness Ford and GM are run like businesses, run by some of the highest-paid executives in the world and not by know-nothing government bureaucrats. What if the government ran our healthcare system? The mind reels, it’d be wildly expensive – a simple ride in an ambulance might cost $2,000 dollars. Hospitals would send the government bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars for diseases patients caught at the hospital, for tests they didn’t need. Bad doctors would circulate in the system forever, skipping from one hospital to another like flesh-eating bacteria. Our health care would be run by some bumbling, incompetent, unfeeling government bureaucrat instead of some bumbling, incompetent, unfeeling insurance-company bureaucrat, the way it is now.(We all know how much senior citizens hate government run medicare). Unlike business, the government wastes money. Who hasn’t heard about the $600 toilet seats for the Air Force jets, which is completely different than the $6,000 shower curtain the CEO of Tyco International had installed in his home at the company’s expense. He needed that curtain for business, something the government knows nothing about. One shudders to think what would happen to the price of energy if the government were in charge of setting energy policy instead of the giant, international oil corporations who have years of experience in the business. Why the price of gas might go up as high as $4.50 a gallon. Or more! It could wreck our whole way of life. Besides, as we all know because we hear it a lot, the government never created a job. I don’t know what my dad was doing for the 33 years he spent in the Navy, but he sure as hell wasn’t working, because the government never created a job. And delivering the mail isn’t a job and making fighter jets isn’t a job; building and repairing highways isn’t a job, because only business can create jobs.(That's the incorrect conclusion of the uniformed) I know several people right now who make a living foreclosing houses. Just one example of the kind of jobs business created, not the government. So the next time you’re sleeping on the floor of an airport terminal waiting for a new piece of “equipment” to arrive; the next time your car breaks down seconds after the warranty expires; the next time you waste a day waiting for the cable guy; the next time you take a day off work waiting for a department-store delivery that never arrives; the next time a mechanic charges you $300 for fixing a 2 cent part; the next time your credit card company gets hacked; the next time your cell phone company over charges you a few thousand dollars, I hope you ask yourself, “Why can’t they run the government like this? Like a business?”

The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here’s Why Wednesday, 02/10/2010 - 12:49 pm by L. Randall Wray L. Randall Wray takes the fear and loathing out of understanding federal budget deficits. Whenever a demagogue wants to whip up hysteria about federal budget deficits, he or she invariably begins with an analogy to a household’s budget: “No household can continually spend more than its income, and neither can the federal government”. On the surface that, might appear sensible; dig deeper and it makes no sense at all. A sovereign government bears no obvious resemblance to a household. Let us enumerate some relevant differences. 1. The US federal government is 221 years old, if we date its birth to the adoption of the Constitution. Arguably, that is about as good a date as we can find, since the Constitution established a common market in the US, forbade states from interfering with interstate trade (for example, through taxation), gave to the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes, and reserved for the federal government the power to create money, to regulate its value, and to fix standards of weight and measurement-from whence our money of account, the dollar, comes. I don’t know any head of household with such an apparently indefinitely long lifespan. This might appear irrelevant, but it is not. When you die, your debts and assets need to be assumed and resolved. There is no “day of reckoning”, no final piper-paying date for the sovereign government. Nor do I know any household with the power to levy taxes, to give a name to — and issue — the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues. 2. With one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. In January 1835, for the first and only time in U.S. history, the public debt was retired, and a budget surplus was maintained for the next two years in order to accumulate what Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury called “a fund to meet future deficits.” In 1837 the economy collapsed into a deep depression that drove the budget into deficit, and the federal government has been in debt ever since. Since 1776 there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt. From 1817 to 1821 the national debt fell by 29 percent; from 1823 to 1836 it was eliminated (Jackson’s efforts); from 1852 to 1857 it fell by 59 percent, from 1867 to 1873 by 27 percent, from 1880 to 1893 by more than 50 percent, and from 1920 to 1930 by about a third. Of course, the last time we ran a budget surplus was during the Clinton years. I do not know any household that has been able to run budget deficits for approximately 190 out of the past 230-odd years, and to accumulate debt virtually nonstop since 1837. 3. The United States has also experienced six periods of depression. The depressions began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929. (Do you see any pattern? Take a look at the dates listed above.) With the exception of the Clinton surpluses, every significant reduction of the outstanding debt has been followed by a depression, and every depression has been preceded by significant debt reduction. The Clinton surplus was followed by the Bush recession, a speculative euphoria, and then the collapse in which we now find ourselves. The jury is still out on whether we might manage to work this up to yet another great depression. While we cannot rule out coincidences, seven surpluses followed by six and a half depressions (with some possibility for making it the perfect seven) should raise some eyebrows. And, by the way, our less serious downturns have almost always been preceded by reductions of federal budget deficits. I don’t know of any case of a national depression caused by a household budget surplus. 4. The federal government is the issuer of our currency. Its IOUs are always accepted in payment. Government actually spends by crediting bank deposits (and credits the reserves of those banks); if you don’t want a bank deposit, government will give you cash; if you don’t want cash it will give you a treasury bond. People will work, sell, panhandle, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to obtain the government’s dollars. I wish my IOUs were so desirable. I don’t know any household that is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency. OK, some counterfeiters try, but they go to jail. 5. Some claim that if the government continues to run deficits, some day the dollar’s value will fall due to inflation; or its value will depreciate relative to foreign currencies. But only a moron would refuse to accept dollars today on the belief that at some unknown date in the hypothetical and distant future their value might be less than today’s value. If you have dollars you don’t want, please send them to me. Note that even if we accept that budget deficits can lead to currency devaluation, that is another obvious distinguishing characteristic: my household’s spending in excess of income won’t reduce the purchasing power of the dollar by any measurable amount. If you put your mind to it, you will no doubt come up with other differences. I realize that distinguishing between a sovereign government and a household does not put to rest all deficit fears. But since this analogy is invoked so often, I hope that the next time you hear it used you will challenge the speaker to explain exactly why a government’s budget is like a household’s budget. If the speaker claims that government budget deficits are unsustainable, that government must eventually pay back all that debt, ask him or her why we have managed to avoid retiring debt since 1837-is 173 years long enough to establish a “sustainable” pattern? It would be useless to ask this of people who are so out of touch with reality and an understanding of how our government works - thus their simplistic comparisons.

Uh-oh! :thumbup: You used the H word. The hate police will be after you. Watch out!!

It's Who We Are by Alan Grayson Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:27:13 PM PDT Times are tough. Maybe you noticed. In certain parts of the world, 100 years ago, when times were tough - a drought, a famine - they ate each other. Literally. That's who they were. We're different. When times are tough, we don't think about ourselves alone. We think about those who need help. The sick. Senior citizens. The disabled. Children. When times are tough, they're the ones who need help the most. That's why I was so proud yesterday to vote for money for schools and for health care for the poor. that's why I was so proud yesterday to vote for money for schools and for health care for the poor. Why? Because if we voted it down, schools would close. And hospitals would close. But we won't let that happen. When times are tough, we rise to the occasion. We shelter the homeless, we feed the hungry, and we heal the sick. We teach the children. We help those in need. We're Americans. It's who we are. And I'm proud of it. The "we" to whom he refers were the democrats (and a few republicans). And it's who I am (proud to say). The rest of the republicans view these people as "special interest" and union bosses. That's how out of touch they are with middle america. But let's not forget that they are working hard to keep those tax cuts for the top 2%. With money we don't have and that will add to the deficit.