Tettleton, I never said anything about since bernanke took office, i am talking about since the federal reserve came into place in 1913, since then the dollar has been hugely devalued. And social programs are not the main problem for the united states. Our foreign policy and millitary spending is bigger than the next 6 countries who spend the most combined.

You're so full of it, Invictus. Anybody who has a literacy level above age 2 knows I didn't "call you a Nazi for saying Eisenhower was a good President". But since you can't defend the claim that Eisenhower was a good President, and instead just want to engage in your usual two-line namecalling, that's what you're going to go with. Your dishonesty is breathtaking sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkRgj6j-Pg&feature=player_embedded

@ Mafialligator

"Obviously the debt problem would be larger...but paying off debt is easier in the long term if your economy is not in the toilet"

Our economy is still in the toilet. If 787 billion dollars wasn't enough to magically fix the economy, then what is the magic number?

"Other countries who spent larger stimulus packages relative to the size of their economies (for instance Canada) are in better shape than the US is now."

That's because America bore the brunt of the recession. It started in America, so we got the worst of it. Throwing money that we don't have at the problem is not a good solution.

"The only reason Obama is cutting spending isn't because he thinks that fucking over the poor, the elderly and all the marginalized and vulnerable is a good way to run a country."

Maybe Obama realized that it is better to "fuck over the poor, the elderly and all the marginalized and vulnerable" than to fuck over everyone in the country by running out of money.

Spending cuts hurt. A lot of people will get hurt by the cuts. There is no easy way to fix the deficit. We can't just wave a magic wand over everything and turn a surplus without hurting anyone. We have to make tough choices that will hurt people.

"And the US is already far to the right of the rest of the developed world."

So?

@ Mafialligator

Okay, fine. The stimulus worked as well as it could given the conditions. It still didn't do anything. I recall Obama telling the nation that it was magically going to fix the economy.

Who cares if it worked as well as it could? "As well as it could" was nothing!

Prussian, have you ever read "Econoclasts?" The author is an economic historian trained at Yale who teaches at Sam Houston State. He also writes a blog for Forbes. He has a chapter that covers exactly what you are talking about, the devaluation of American currency from the creation of the Fed in 1913 up to the present day.

I'm not being picky I simply want to point out that Andrew Jackson ended the Second Bank of the United States and not the Federal Reserve as you stated earlier by the way.
The Second BUS did not have the power the Fed has because it was not established by constitutional amendment. It still had extraordinary power, but a lot of its director's power was informal (Biddle was the 2nd BUS director who hated Jackson.) What Jackson did was fail to renew the charter of the 2nd BUS with one of the most famous vetoes in the history of the presidency.

I would argue that it is debt that got us into this trouble because the federal reserve has devalued the currency to fund debt run up by Congress and the Executive.
The Fed did not have to devalue after World War I by the way.
The Fed devalued dramatically to finance the New Deal.
The Fed did not devalue dramatically to finance WWII because rationing and bond sales did the bulk of the financing.
The Fed did dramatically devalue during the Vietnam War when LBJ's guns and butter tried to pay for Vietnam and his horrendous Great Society at the same time.
Reagan did not see a devaluation of the dollar.
Neither Bush or Clinton did either.
Inflation has not been a problem in this country since 1983 if you look at the historical record.
Individual commodities have inflated dramatically in that period, like oil, but they also deflated dramatically in that period 83-2011 as well.

I don't agree that ending the Federal reserve is a good thing. Paul Volcker used the Fed to end inflation from 1980-83.

I pasted and copied what you said earlier so you wouldn't have to scroll back to see it.

Don't connect Austrian economics with Fox News. What got us into this mess was not austrian economics but rather rampant spending in wars and a federal reserve system that causes huge inflation. Andrew Jackson had the sense to end the Federal Reserve. Republican today have the same viewpoint as Democrats on war and the Reserve system. Social Programs can work fine and were not the problem, just a contributing factor to the debt. If we ended both the wars and the reserve system we could have a more balanced budget and social programs could run more smoothly

It isnt exactly a bad thing so long as it is audited by congress and always has a watchful eye. But when billions of dollars go to countries around the world for vague projects i question the necessity.

"But when billions of dollars go to countries around the world for vague projects i question the necessity."

I agree with that. Let's get the hell out of Iraq (shift all of those military resources to Afghanistan), stop all foreign aid right now, and start chopping away at entitlement spending.

I believe all entitlement spending is wrong. No one is entitled to anything except basic human rights (and for us Americans, the rights given to us by the Constitution). In this world, you have to earn everything. Instead of giving people benefits for nothing, let's make them earn it or make it easier for them to earn it.

"That's because America bore the brunt of the recession. It started in America, so we got the worst of it. Throwing money that we don't have at the problem is not a good solution."

if throwing money that you don't have at the economy isn't a good idea, then why do you have a national debt at all?

Orathaic politicians by votes with money they borrow from future generations from Americans with no sense of personal responsibility not to accept something they didn't earn for themselves.

Gunfighter, plus 1,000,000,000,000,000 for this one

I believe all entitlement spending is wrong. No one is entitled to anything except basic human rights (and for us Americans, the rights given to us by the Constitution). In this world, you have to earn everything. Instead of giving people benefits for nothing, let's make them earn it or make it easier for them to earn it.

Go Gunfighter Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Prussian, I'm agree with you completely about the transparency issue.
I think the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FDIC, and the FED should have to publish all the regulatory disclosure information they get.

Why should I be forced to trust some regulatory watchdog group of Keystone Cops like the SEC who received a notorized letter from a broker warning them Barney Madoff was running a ponzi scheme with the title "The World's Most Successful Fund is a Ponzi Scheme."

These regulators get captured by the industries they regulate every day of the week.
Did European regulators do a better job than American regulators, no!

The blind faith that Big Government Statists have in regulatory agencies is baseless and dumbfounding.

Strip those agencies down to the bare bones and simply use them to collect and publish the information they accumulate in public records similar to the Congressional Record.

Pause in rant.

"if throwing money that you don't have at the economy isn't a good idea, then why do you have a national debt at all?"

We have a national debt because we spend money that we don't have.

but the government could simply print money if it wanted to.

Orathaic, yes the government could destroy the value of the American dollar and destroy the American economy by increasing MS1.
It certainly could.
You should pay more attention to Gunfighter's concise statements.
He is hitting the nail on the head with every swing.

@ orathaic

Hyperinflation might pay off our debt, but as TC pointed out, would ruin the value of the dollar.

Problem: making people "earn" everything like adequate schooling or basic health care tends to make it harder for people to earn these things, not easier. Growing inequality of outcome quickly translates into growing inequality of opportunity. The growing inequality of the past 30 years in America, which has corresponded neatly with the subversion of the Great Compression consensus that it was appropriate for a society to try and comfort the afflicted, even if that meant slightly afflicting the comfortable, has turned America into the 1st world state with the least social and economic class mobility. We're becoming more feudal as we keep cutting entitlements and handing out tax cuts as if they were candy to the superwealthy. This trend ends one of three ways: either we wise up as a society and reinstate a real social safety net, or we wind up as a third world plutocratic oligarchy where about 30 people reap the wealth of the entire society, or we have a violent revolution with hangings on Wall Street and the Hamptons.

@ Bob

"making people "earn" everything like adequate schooling or basic health care tends to make it harder for people to earn these things, not easier."

Of course. Earning something is always more difficult than being handed something. Also, I would not call our education system "adequate". That statement is laughable.

"has turned America into the 1st world state with the least social and economic class mobility"

That statement is also laughable. America has always had the most class mobility for anyone willing to work hard.

"We're becoming more feudal as we keep cutting entitlements and handing out tax cuts as if they were candy to the superwealthy."

Entitlements are always wrong. The thought that anyone deserves something for nothing is exactly why our national debt is so big. Half of Americans don't pay taxes. I thought the left is all about social justice. Is it fair that half of Americans are paying for themselves and the other half?

"either we wise up as a society and reinstate a real social safety net"

With what? We have no money.

Gunfighter, a few things

When corporations start paying living wages, then yes, I would say cut entitlement programs, but they're not. So many people who are unskilled laborers cannot adequately support themselves. Every society in history has had unskilled laborers, and these people have always been the backbone of said society. If they aren't given adequate living wages and conditions, then as a society and an economy we cannot grow. Its not a matter of working hard for most, because these people do work hard, often working two jobs and going to school online at night. Have some empathy.

Also, why are you advocating cutting our global aid, when that is the #1 goodwill thing and #1 publicity thing our country has. After the tsunami, it was our aid and our military that came to help, its our food that goes to refugee camps in africa and the middle east. When people see the American flags on those aid packages, they hate us less, which is a good thing! Plus, global aid is somewhere between .5% and 1% of our total budget. Cutting it would do little to nothing.

I agree that everyone should pay taxes, but shouldn't all corporations pay them too? I mean, GE has gone either a year or two years now without paying taxes.

A lot of these corporations have also been making enormous amounts of money as of late and they are STILL! cutting jobs.

What money we do have coming in annually through tax revenues is owned by the owners of $16 Trillion in US government debt.

We have no future running an annual deficit of $1 Trillion with an existing deficit of $16 Trillion.

Fortunately a majority of the American people understand this financial reality and voted in fiscal realists in 2010 and will continue to do so until the plague of fiscally unsustainable cradle-to-grave social programs enacted by lunatic big government statists are reformed or ended.

Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Spain are glaring examples of the fate that awaits all governments in the West that don't get their fiscal houses in order.

@ goldfinger

"When corporations start paying living wages, then yes, I would say cut entitlement programs, but they're not."

Are you kidding? UAW workers make 20 or 30 dollars an hour. If that's not a living wage, than what is?


"Also, why are you advocating cutting our global aid, when that is the #1 goodwill thing and #1 publicity thing our country has. After the tsunami, it was our aid and our military that came to help, its our food that goes to refugee camps in africa and the middle east. When people see the American flags on those aid packages, they hate us less, which is a good thing! Plus, global aid is somewhere between .5% and 1% of our total budget. Cutting it would do little to nothing."

You're probably right about foreign aid. But I'm sure we can cut out some bureaucracy and save some money. Same thing with a lot of programs. Everything should be on the table except defense and homeland security.

"I agree that everyone should pay taxes, but shouldn't all corporations pay them too?"

Absolutely. I advocate closing the loopholes with a flat tax system. The current tax system is so fucked up. The more legislation we pass, the more loopholes open up. It's time to throw out the whole system and start over with a flat tax system. I would not advocate a Fair Tax system until after the budget is balanced.

@ StevenC.

"A lot of these corporations have also been making enormous amounts of money as of late and they are STILL! cutting jobs."

I agree with the left on that one. We need to punish companies that ship jobs overseas. Keep jobs here.

@ TC
Correction:
"annual deficit of $1 Trillion with an existing *debt* of $16 Trillion"

"Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Spain are glaring examples of the fate that awaits all governments in the West that don't get their fiscal houses in order."

TC + 1. Good point, sir.

Gunfighter, I wouldn't consider UAW unskilled workers. Imo they are skilled or semi-skilled workers. I'm talking about the people who are earning $7.15 an hour working 25 hours a week at ShopRite, and then earning $9.00 an hour working another 35 at Target, with no benefits from either employer. That's what I'm talking about. A vast majority of jobs these days are from big-box stores that either hire too many part-time workers, don't pay them enough, or are chronically understaffed. I don't want you to be under the impression that I support unions. In fact, I think they're driving jobs away. I mean, the concrete workers in NYC are having a walkout because $37 an hour (I think) wasn't enough for them lol.

I agree completely on the cutting bureaucracy and the tax reform

What is a living wage?
What an American worker considers a living wage is a King's ransom to a factory worker in an undeveloped country.
What gives an American worker the right to the standard of living we enjoy in this country?
Is there some law written somewhere that a worker in a garment factory in American gets to enjoy a standard of living twenty to thirty times better than a worker in a garment factory in El Salvador?

American workers better realize quickly that free trade means that people who have dirt flows are competing for wages with American workers.

So the idea that American workers don't have to compete with foreign workers for wages in invalid given free trade agreements.
If you want to build a protectionist wall around the United States just see the disastrous results of the 1930 Hawley Smoot tariff.

So you either get skilled or you learn how to get by on a lower wage because the global marketplace is competitive and no one anywhere owes the American worker a damn thing, much less a fictional "living wage" that entitles an American garment worker a standard of living far in excess of a foreign garment worker who produces the same quality garment.

The out-of-touch-with-reality moralists can now start posting about how we need global government to enforce world wide standards of living.
Nothing like a good communist rant (just be sure to ignore the reality of the Soviet Union went you rant comrades)

Thank you for correcting my error Gunfighter. Mea Culpa.

Everything should be on the table, period. If you don't think there is massive waste in the defense and "homeland security" areas, you're living in a dreamworld.

Exactly, particularly Homeland Security. The useful parts of that department can be absorbed by other agencies, the others need to be abolished.

And even in defense we can cut without compromising our national security. America isn't going to be invading an occupying a country anytime soon. That means we can drastically pare down the army and other ground forces to 1990s levels and rely on the natural growth (I would argue a bit more, but am open to other arguments) of the navy and air force budgets. Or maybe something else could work too.

The fact is we need to cut, reform, and yes, also raise some taxes.

@ Jack_Klein

Sure, we could trim some bureaucracy in DoD and DHS, but we had damn well better make sure that all we're cutting is pencil-pushing REMFs.

@ Invictus

I agree with you on most things, but I have to disagree with you on this particular issue.

We need a strong defense in order to maintain our status as number one in the world. If you think about it, our military is all we have left as far as strength. China and India are about to pass us economically.

We live in a dangerous world. The best defense strategy is having more troops and better gear than everyone else, while maintaining a large nuclear arsenal as strategic deterrence. (Having more troops than China or even India is nearly impossible without some sort of draft, but we can make up for it by having way better gear and way better troops)

We need to secure the border, period. Anyone who disagrees doesn't really understand the gravity of the situation. What is the point of having the world's best military if your borders are wide open?