Democrats And Crack Cocaine Addicts: Two Kinds Of The Same Vile Species

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Democrats And Crack Cocaine Addicts: Two Kinds Of The Same Vile Species”

  1. Thomas W. Loker Says:

    Our addictioin is long standing, and while progressive philosophies have had a disproportionate affect on the increase of fiscal issues they are by no means the only ones.

    It was easy to declare budget surpluses when all you did was inflate the currency. Clinton appears to be the one that took the most advantage, begun by Nixon when he took the US off the gold standard, to new heights. In 1972, we had about $500 Billion in total currency (according to the St. Louis Fed) Today, we have about $10 Trillion according to the same source. Others paint a much larger number some to over $16 trillion.

    While Nixon took us off the gold standard, the real increases started with Carter, the Fed continued back funding the banks (printing money and borrowing) under Reagan, but it was Clinton that really drove it up. They had to do something as the entitlements were draining the federal coffers and everyone who was in the loop new that this was unsustainable. Social Security was soon destitute, and the extension to social security, Medicaid and Medicare, had accelerated the drain even further. This was not a new idea. Wilber Mills, who in 1964 some considered the foremost expert on social security’s impact warned President Johnson that the great society program was going to break the economy. When the democrats swept the house and senate, Mills, a democrat, got the religion and supported Johnson’s initiative (listen to the Johnson tapes available on line for some fascinating “inside baseball”)

    The method to cover the inflation of the currency, that the Fed and Clinton chose was the elimination of the savings and loans (never let a good crisis go to waste – and if you don’t have one make one), long a thorn in the side of the Fed and the banks, using a change in asset valuation to the Mark to Market Rule, and then the elimination of Glass Steagle Act to facilitate more leverage over the base assets of the banks in the U.S. Then, the piece de resistance was the creation of Fanny and Freddie to stimulate (read as back end fund) low income home ownership, really bringing the science of currency inflation to a new level.

    In the world of unintended consequences, this was the ultimate doozy! Over time, the inflated currency bubbles all burst (stocks – dot com crash, other smaller scales, then the big critical one Housing) The chickens came home to roost. Everyone forgot about the “Mark to Market Rule”! While it had a crippling effect on the S&Ls, it didn’t affect the banks in the 70s because they could practice fractional reserve lending at a ten to one ratio. As the leverage, on the derivatives (over 1,000 to 1 in some cases) exploded, and as the calls on the hedges against the default of the derivatives came due, the insurers, like AIG, began to collapse. With the hedge collateral gone the banks were soon to follow. The US and some others had to start to flow more money to back the insurance protecting the banks hedges or it all collapsed. And right alongside they needed to shore up the banks’ balance sheets as all the phony collateral eroded. Now you understand why the government purchased AIG and still is back end funding the underwriting of the defaulted collateral.

    If the numbers are correct we should really have a $4 to 5 trillion economy today not a $10 to 16 trillion one. If we are that overvalued, along with most of the other western nations, then the problems are catastrophic. The increase of the debt limit is not the issue, the underlying valuation of our entire economic system is the problem.


  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Clinton gets all kinds of credit he doesn’t deserve from a media that is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party and the liberal agenda.

    I was looking for information and came across the following statements which I won’t take the time to source:

    By dramatically defunding the military and intelligence agencies the Clinton Administration was able to show on paper a projected 10 year federal budget surplus. The terrorists attacks of September 11th occured. The Bush Administration needed to dramatically refund the defunded military and intelligence agencies. This is how the the Bush Administration “squandered” the surplus. … It was a projected surplus, not an actual surplus. Anyone with even the slightest common sense who looked at that noted that it was full of a lot of number fudging, specifically, in baselineing cuts in the areas of defense. The surplus projected a continual cut each year in defense’s budget.

    If there was a surplus, how come the federal debt rose every year of the Clinton Administration?

    Click to access hist.pdf

    Every quarter Clinton was President the Federal government spent more than it took in so how on earth was there any “surplus”???

    The mythical Clinton budget surplus was built on three things: the dot com debacle, a tax increase that “projected” far more in revenues than it actually took in, and manipulating bond terms. Early in the Clinton term, the Treasury reshuffled the government’s bond portfolio from longer term to shorter term bonds. This accounting trick, invisible to the public, lowered the overall federal outlay and won the White House some propaganda points for “lowering” the deficit

    The dot-com bubble poured tremendous amounts of money into the national treasury, when that bubble burst, (upon which much of Clinton’s supposed future surpluses were based on) it collapsed.

    So Bush inherited a spending problem (gotta fix that Clinton defunding of our military and our intelligence) and a revenue problem (recession underway, 9/11).

    There’s another factor in with all the other number-fudging: the Roth IRA.

    When Clinton created the Roth IRA in 1998, it allowed him to essentially collect certain taxes now that otherwise would have been paid more gradually over the next 20-40 or more years. This automatically left the next few presidents short billions in taxes that would have been collected during their terms.

    (In a Roth IRA, contributions are taxed and withdrawals are not. With a regular IRA its the other way around.)

    It was a subtle bit of slight-of-hand, but it had a huge fiscal effect.

    Republicans’ culpability has largely been refusing to take a strong stand and reforming the massive boondoggles that Democrats created (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the massive programs that they created (e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act). Democrats would have called the Republicans “racist” and the Republicans were scared. So they did nothing.

  3. A Jew Says:

    Hey Michael, have you heard of this comet Elenin? I’d be interested to hear what you think about it. Very strange, and a lot of coincidences follow it.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    I think one of the biggest unknown factors that attributed to Clinton’s “surplus” was related to intragovernmental holdings, mainly social security. Intragovernmental holdings is when the government , in essence, borrows from itself. Clinton was able to show a surplus by offsetting the public debt with these intragovernment holdings. During Clinton’s years, especially the latter ones, social security was actually running a surplus, bringing in much more than it was paying out. Social Security is required by law to buy U.S. government securities with its surpluses, allowing the government to show a surplus for most of Clinton’s second term by paying down the public debt with these surpluses. If you substract the social security surpluses from the public debt in those years that they claimed surplus, you can understand why the national debt actually went up every year. Clinton was basically someone who was at the right place at the right time, as he benefitted greatly from the stock market bubble, massive cuts in military spending, and social security. Also, Clinton’s propensity for spending may have been tempered somewhat by the Republicans gaining control of both the Senate and the House in his second term, which probably helped to make him look more fiscally conservative than what he truly was.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    You are correct. Here’s a link explaining that sleight of hand:

    Here’s a quote from “Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income.”

    Here are the numbers:

    Fiscal Year Debt in trillions

    10/1992 – 9/1993 $4.411,488
    10/1993 – 9/1994 $4.692,749
    10/1994 – 9/1995 $4.973,982
    10/1995 – 9/1996 $5.224,810
    10/1996 – 9/1997 $5.413,146
    10/1997 – 9/1998 $5.526,193
    10/1998 – 9/1999 $5.656,270
    10/1999 – 9/2000 $5.674,178
    10/2000 – 9/2001 $5.807,463

    Each year the debt went up. There was NEVER a surplus. The “surplus” was largely a matter of projection that never actually happened. Somehow that “projected” figure that was partially based on Clinton’s tax increases generating more revenue than they did became “fact” in the mainstream media; and Clinton “balanced the budget.” Even though he NEVER balanced the budget.

    There was also never a “budget surplus” in any year that Bill Clinton was president. Each year we had a positive (i.e. had we had a surplus the figure would have been negative – and interestingly the LAST time we actually HAD a budget surplus was in the two fiscal years from 1955 to 1957 under Republican Eisenhower).

    Republicans fought Bill Clinton tooth and nail to cut his spending. The only spending Clinton wanted to cut was Pentagon and Intelligence (making us weak “paper tigers” and blind as bats to Osama bin Laden. From that, Clinton was determined to SPEND the “peace dividend” that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won on social programs. Clinton didn’t say “the era of big government is over” until after Republicans handed him his ass in elections when they seized control. And Clinton actually VETOED welfare reform TWICE before signing the same welfare reform bill he’d vetoed – and then had the chutzpah to take CREDIT for that (which a vile propaganda media duly repeated as “fact”). I document those facts and others here:

    Clinton refinanced the debt – taking advantage of interest rate reductions that were part of our victory in the Cold War won against Democrats’ efforts – and benefitted from some substantial savings. Early in the Clinton term, the Treasury reshuffled the government’s bond portfolio from longer term to shorter term bonds. It was actually somewhat risky because another crisis could have sent bond markets upward and been disasterous. And Clinton came out with the Roth IRA, which basically allowed him to collect certain taxes during his administration that otherwise would have been collected more gradually over the next 20-40 or more years. That automatically left the next few presidents short billions in taxes that would have been collected during their terms.

    You’ve got Democrats who lie and play smoke and mirros games; you’ve got the media that packages these big lies for public consumption; and you’ve got ignorant and frankly stupid people who believe the lies.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    A Jew,

    I HAVEN’T heard about comet Elenin. I googled it and found this link near the top:

    I skimmed it briefly, but didn’t read it in depth. Since you know more about it, I’d be interested in hearing your take and (even better) see a site you recommend to read.

    I definitely believe the world is in the last days as recorded by both Testaments of Scripture.

    The prophets and the apostles and the teachings of Jesus al record frightening and catastrophic climatic phenomena in the end times. And here we are more freaked out about the weather and about earthquakes and tsunamis than human beings have EVER been.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: