Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    OMD do you also claim that all figures from Republican administrations are worthless as well or is it just when the Democrats are in charge?
    All the government statistics are skewed. Makes no difference who is in charge.

    ?


    • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      All the government statistics are skewed. Makes no difference who is in charge.
      That is the truth of this matter oldman. Unemployment rates don't reflect actual unemployment rates, for they are constructed to provide the best possible view of jobless rates. Yet they don't reflect real jobless rates.

      What one really has to do is to forget most of these gov't generated stats, and just look at the big picture, of what is the state of reality. And that big picture is bleak, with no hopes of any real improvement. We are in such bad shape that MSM won't touch it, and so the picture given to us by MSM and politicians, is so far from the reality of the matter. For we cannot handle the truth, I guess. And that truth might cause even more social unrest than is current. As we continue to militarize our police forces, as seen in Ferguson Missouri, cops dressed like they are in Afghanistan in their camo suits, with 50 cals on top of armed military vehicles. With reporters being run off, and gassed, shot at with rubber bullets. Hell, we allow reporters to be embedded with our troops and in danger, but here in America the cops run them off?

      No sir, those stats that are used are useless and don't give us the big picture, and are a part of the propaganda machine, needed by the real rulers who are the oligarchs. Those stats won't stop the inevitable from happening, the implosion of this nation, caused by the loss of our republic and the rise of the oligarchy. And you can thank the republicans for this, for this is what their rule gave to America, when we turned over the reins to big business and wall street, and stopped representing Americans. And this is the traditional way of the republican party, yet you guys refuse to see you were duped, and still believe they have the answers, which is nothing more than the same that got us in this mess.

      ?


      • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

        Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
        The analysis and observation is complete garbage because the Republican party of those two eras are different parties. The civil rights era changed the Republicans and Democrats. Claiming those parties are the same before and after the changes in the parties is either ignorance or fraud.
        Fine. Substitute laissez-faire for Republican.

        And try addressing the other 5 points.

        And by employing the word "fraud," were you implying that I was lying?

        ?


        • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          First, most economic effects of a particular administration are the result of the previous four years.
          So exploding the deficit with massive tax cuts and massive spending increases wasn't really Reagan's fault? Hmmm.

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          You can't blame George Bush for Obama's first four years and then claim that Clinton was great because of his policies his first four years.
          If you even care, I don't blame Bush much for the Great Recession. It was the result of mindless deregulation, mindless greed, mindless incompetence, and determined malfeasance by Wall Street. But I do blame him for most of the debt he piled up with stupid tax cuts and a needless war in Iraq. As for Clinton, read on...

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          Second, the President has some influence on economic trends of his administration but the Congress is the real power behind changes. Who was controlling Congress when Clinton was President?
          The Democrats held the House and the Senate during Clinton's first two years, during which he set the tone for the economic boom to follow. After Bush's double-dip recession, the economy was primed to go into a boom time. Clinton had the luck to be in the White House at the time. He took advantage of that luck by employing classic Keynesian Economics, which says to spend during recessions, and tax and save during booms. Which is what the Democrats did in 2003-2004. Despite promises that the Democrat's "massive tax hikes" would "devastate" the economy and bring "crippling recession", all it really did was turn deficits into surpluses, which was well underway before the Republicans took the House beginning in 2005.
          Source: History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          Clinton rode Reagan's wave and it was helped by the Gingrich House.
          Clinton rode Reagan's wave? Jesus, you can't be serious. Between "Reagan's wave" and Clinton's presidency was an eight-month recession. I agree that Republican control of the House helped control spending, but so did the Democrat's decision not to spend lavishly when they had the chance in 2003-2004, as did the end of the Cold War and subsequent draw-down of the military.
          Last edited by jpn; 08-18-2014, 06:47 PM.

          ?


          • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

            Originally posted by jpn View Post
            Yeah. Look at the "disaster" of California, enjoying the benefits of a Democratic Governor and Legislature:


            Had a deficit, now it's a surplus! How about that!

            Meanwhile, there's the smoking ruin of Kansas, suffering under the idiotic policies of right-wing nutcase Governor Brownback. Following the largest income tax cut in the state's history, the deficits soared, Moody's downgraded their bond rating, and the Governor's popularity has tanked.
            Same right pocket-left pocket money games Clinton played.

            Last year, Californias Governor Jerry Brown proclaimed an end to the states worrisome and persistent deficit. How did he do it? In the 2012 election he had fed voters the notion that a proposed income tax increase would be spent on education. California voters treat education as a sacred cow, even though the state ranks near the bottom in test outcomes. They passed the ballot issue.

            On January 31 last year, the states General Fund had a deficit of $15.7 billion. The higher tax rates brought in new money. This, along with internal and external borrowing, made it look as if the deficit had gone with the wind, but it hadnt. Brown called it a surplus, amid much cheering by the spendthrift legislature.

            Fast forward to the end of January this year. The deficit had been whittled down to $12.6 billion. Some surplus!

            The states finances are heavily dependent on personal income tax revenue. When Silicon Valley and Hollywood do well, revenue goes up. When they burp, it goes down. State Controller John Chiang, upon releasing the January figures last month, said, While year-to-date revenues are $27.5 million ahead of estimates...the stock markets volatility reminds us that continued revenue outperformance should not be taken for granted. Spending discipline and paying down debt must continue to be our focus. The last part of his message fell on the deaf ears of the Democrats heavy majority in the legislature.

            Californias economy continues to head south. The highest state corporate tax rates, sales and gasoline taxes in the country, combined with a heavy regulatory burden, continue to drive business away. Charles Schwab, the San Francisco-based stock broker, announced recently that a significant number of its 2,700 locally based jobs would be moved out of state. Oil giant Chevron is moving 800 jobs to Texas. Campbell Soup is closing its Sacramento plant and moving its 700 jobs to other states. Boeing is closing its big jet assembly plant in Southern California and laying off 3,000 workers. Bayer, instead of making a new drug in its Berkeley plant, is going to do it in Germany, eliminating 500 new jobs on top of the 450 it shifted from Berkeley to Europe two years ago.
            http://spectator.org/articles/58547/...rplus%E2%80%99

            So, really, it's hard to get enthused about tax are hikes promised to education, but, money being fungible, spent on something else. Meanwhile, businesses are exiting expensive California and going to Texas, fueling it's boom economy.

            How long to you think that the Democrats can keep up the shell game of increased spending and increased taxes, and yet have a tax base left?

            ?


            • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

              Originally posted by jpn View Post
              Sort of a continuation of my post above, it's just a fact that the US economy does generally better under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents:

              Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
              Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
              Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
              Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
              Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
              The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
              JPN, your recurring tendency of cherry picking facts is as impeccable as ever.

              In fact, it looks like you've copy / pasted that from some progressive / liberal / Democratic talking points you've received, with the instructions to parrot.

              ?


              • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                JPN, your recurring tendency of cherry picking facts is as impeccable as ever.

                In fact, it looks like you've copy / pasted that from some progressive / liberal / Democratic talking points you've received, with the instructions to parrot.
                Feel free to provide data disproving them.

                ?


                • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  Same right pocket-left pocket money games Clinton played.
                  http://spectator.org/articles/58547/...rplus%E2%80%99
                  So, really, it's hard to get enthused about tax are hikes promised to education, but, money being fungible, spent on something else. Meanwhile, businesses are exiting expensive California and going to Texas, fueling it's boom economy.
                  How long to you think that the Democrats can keep up the shell game of increased spending and increased taxes, and yet have a tax base left?
                  Gee, can't be much longer, if you are right! Let's see, your article is from last March, right? Any updates since?

                  Well, well, looky here:

                  Optimistic on economy, California lawmakers OK $156.4-billion budget
                  Flush with optimism from California's resurgent economy, lawmakers approved a $156.4-billion state budget that expands preschool for children from poor families, increases welfare payments and provides critical funding for building the nation's first bullet train..
                  Hardly the smoking ruin your post suggested, eh?

                  ?


                  • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                    Originally posted by jpn View Post
                    Gee, can't be much longer, if you are right! Let's see, your article is from last March, right? Any updates since?

                    Well, well, looky here:



                    Hardly the smoking ruin your post suggested, eh?
                    transparent2.gif

                    State of California Debt Clock

                    ?


                    • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      [ATTACH]15386[/ATTACH]

                      State of California Debt Clock
                      Untitled.jpg

                      One would have to ask:
                      Is a Debt to GDP ration of more than 18% the sign of a 'healthy' economy?
                      Is $11K state debt per citizen a sign of a well run state?

                      Spending still seems to be significantly higher than revenues, $438 B vs. $411 B, is this a sign of a healthy state economy and a well run state?

                      Now I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Any experts that can chime in on the specific metrics with greater authority?

                      ?


                      • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                        Is a Debt to GDP ration of more than 18% the sign of a 'healthy' economy?
                        Is $11K state debt per citizen a sign of a well run state?
                        It's certainly an indication of problems in the past. Like when they had a Republican governor. Like before the Democrats took control the governorship and the legislature.

                        It's better now. (Unlike, say, Kansas).

                        ?


                        • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                          [ATTACH]15388[/ATTACH]

                          One would have to ask:
                          Is a Debt to GDP ration of more than 18% the sign of a 'healthy' economy?
                          Is $11K state debt per citizen a sign of a well run state?

                          Spending still seems to be significantly higher than revenues, $438 B vs. $411 B, is this a sign of a healthy state economy and a well run state?

                          Now I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Any experts that can chime in on the specific metrics with greater authority?
                          It is a little bit of apples and oranges comparison, but all things considered an 18% Debt to GDP ratio in California is far better than the 101.5% Debt to GDP level the Federal Government is running. At the same time $11K California debt per CA resident is far better than the well north of $55K Federal debt per US resident (and worse, usually Federal Debt calculations exclude intergovernmental debt from the equation.)

                          State to State comparisons make more sense. While California's 18% Debt to GDP sounds bad, it could be far worse. As in New York at 27% Debt to GDP (#1 for 2014) or Kentucky at 23% Debt to GDP (#2 for 2014.) California ends up #13 on the list of States in that comparison. Compare that to say Georgia at 11% Debt to GDP (#42 on the list) or Iowa at 12% Debt to GDP (#40 on the list) and you have something to compare against. It is still slightly unfair as the economic size of California dwarfs every other State I have listed but you still get an idea of the numbers.

                          The main issue with State spending beyond Tax Revenues is the condition of monetary controls, there is none as that is all handled at the Federal Level. So there are less ways to deal with debt additions no matter where we are in the economic cycle. Reliance on Bonds and future tax revenue projections becomes far more important for the States where the Federal Level can shift debt around, control interest rates, and even engage in QE and other manipulative efforts to handle Debt additions. That is the apples and oranges comparison I am going on about above.

                          For any State running debt it all comes down to expectation at future dates. If California (or any State) can retain business and investment they very well may weather debt they hold, but if they go the other route of encouraging business to vacate the State their problems will multiply with few options but to seriously cut spending or ask the Federal Level for help. That could be infusion of capital, loans, or even release of payment for whatever purpose. California has already considered all three and I *think* has already engaged in options #2 and #3 as recently as this year's State budget.

                          ?


                          • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                            Originally posted by jpn View Post
                            Liberals like me are Keynesians in that we support government spending in down times, like in 2009, and cutbacks along with tax hikes during boom times, like in 1993. That is quintessentially Keynesian.

                            Also, as far as the "in the long run we are all dead" quote goes, it is explained here:
                            EXCEPT you do not JUST support government spending in down times.

                            Keynes theories have limited application, but are primarily useful during economic downturns... So, on the surface, we might conclude all that bailout and economic propping up in 2008 was appropriate, except the money did not go to where it could produce jobs: It was squandered (by your darling of a president) on political back-slapping and favors, and doomed-to-fail pet projects (like Solyndra). Then, to compound his sins, he continues to spend money we don't have even past the point where he claims we're no longer in a recession.

                            Liberals like you support government spending, [period] ... in down times and in times of plenty. It's like a disease and, so far, there does not seem to be a cure.

                            ?


                            • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                              Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                              EXCEPT you do not JUST support government spending in down times.

                              Keynes theories have limited application, but are primarily useful during economic downturns... So, on the surface, we might conclude all that bailout and economic propping up in 2008 was appropriate, except the money did not go to where it could produce jobs: It was squandered (by your darling of a president) on political back-slapping and favors, and doomed-to-fail pet projects (like Solyndra). Then, to compound his sins, he continues to spend money we don't have even past the point where he claims we're no longer in a recession.

                              Liberals like you support government spending, [period] ... in down times and in times of plenty. It's like a disease and, so far, there does not seem to be a cure.
                              Oh yeah, and conservatives like you are SO careful with the budget. Like Reagan was. Like Dubya was. Deficit city!

                              The real difference between conservatives and liberals is really more what we want to spend our resources on. Liberals would like to spend money on giving those in need a helping hand (which happened to be a powerful economic stimulant by the way), on rebuilding infrastructure (stimulant), on research to keep our economy at the cutting edge (stimulant).
                              Conservatives want to give away resources to the already rich so they can hoard it (almost no stimulative effect), and spend more tax dollars on unnecessary wars and the military in general (stimulant, but a squandered opportunity for more long-lasting effects). Republicans prioritize tax cuts over deficit reduction every time.

                              Historically speaking, the liberal way is better economics and fewer deficits. The conservatives' way leads to red ink as far as the eye can see. At least that's been the nation's experience for the last 40 years or so.



                              Last edited by jpn; 08-29-2014, 06:52 PM.

                              ?


                              • Re: Conservatives' Inflation Obsession, and their Loathing of the Fed

                                Originally posted by jpn View Post
                                Oh yeah, and conservatives like you are SO careful with the budget. Like Reagan was. Like Dubya was. Deficit city!

                                The real difference between conservatives and liberals is really more what we want to spend our resources on. Liberals would like to spend money on giving those in need a helping hand (which happened to be a powerful economic stimulant by the way), on rebuilding infrastructure (stimulant), on research to keep our economy at the cutting edge (stimulant).
                                Conservatives want to give away resources to the already rich so they can hoard it (almost no stimulative effect), and spend more tax dollars on unnecessary wars and the military in general (stimulant, but a squandered opportunity for more long-lasting effects). Republicans prioritize tax cuts over deficit reduction every time.

                                Historically speaking, the liberal way is better economics and fewer deficits. The conservatives' way leads to red ink as far as the eye can see. At least that's been the nation's experience for the last 40 years or so.



                                The Democrats took the Congress in the 2006 election. See what happens to Deficits when the Democrats are in charge of spending? Republicans took the House in 2010, see the results?

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X