February 14, 2013
Felix & Howard Get Paid

"One happy King." So reads the St. Valentine's Day headline in a Seattle Times' sports page article on Felix Hernandez's new seven-year $175 million contract. Twenty-five million per year for pitching in maybe 40 games a season before a million plus fans, being the lynch pin of Mariner success and boosting Seattle's bragging rights. Not bad compensation in any occupation except perhaps CEO of a corporation. Compare the reaction to Felix's paycheck to that of Starbuck's CEO, Howard Schultz's $16 million per year (plus about $52 million of other at risk compensation, like stock options). Howard is on the job 24/7. He's responsible for managing worldwide over 18,000 stores and over 150,000 employees as well as increasing the value of Starbuck's stock held by millions of people personally or in retirement accounts and ensuring customer satisfaction and loyalty from more millions of coffee aficionados.

One is a greedy rich guy who "didn't do a damn thing" to earn his pay while the other "restored faith" and teared up at his good fortune.

Read the "comments" on one blog to get a sense of the reaction to Mr. Schultz's compensation: Click HERE

For Mr. Hernandez, read Seattle Times sports writer, Jerry Brewer:'s article: Click HERE

While I don't think the super rich need my sympathy, I do wonder if sports and other entertainment stars get a pass on criticism of their high incomes because they require constant media exposure to stay on top; Entertainment Weekly, MTV, People Magazine, Sports Illustrated to name a few. We know far more about their glamours lives than any boring corporate manager. Corporate CEOs mainly hit the news if they are being pilloried for bad decisions or the money they make. Is it jealously or failure to understand the market for talent? Would you rather have the market or some government agency set the compensation packages? Careful liberals how you answer this, Schultz is one of you.


Posted by warrenpeterson at February 14, 2013 09:52 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Howard is on the job 24/7.

Yes, making a living on the strength of one's body means a constant vigilance about every detail of one's diet, sleep, and exercise. It requires grueling physical training. Being in the public eye for every moment of every game creates a stressful environment in which few humans can survive, much less thrive.

Wait, what?

I do wonder if sports and other entertainment stars get a pass on criticism of their high incomes because they require constant media exposure to stay on top...

The business media openly loathed Jack Welch.

We know far more about their glamours lives than any boring corporate manager.

We eventually learned about how Jack Welch abandoned his longtime partner for a much younger woman, but only after the jilted wife's lawsuit exposed the high levels of compensation he was getting from GE's shareholders in his retirement.

Corporate CEOs mainly hit the news if they are being pilloried for bad decisions or the money they make.

Whereas sports stars never, ever have their performances scrutinized to the last detail on television, radio, blogs, and in conversations by strangers.

Is it jealously or failure to understand the market for talent?

Is it a useless comparison of apples to oranges, or is it demeaning to compare businessmen to adults who play a children's game?

Would you rather have the market or some government agency set the compensation packages?

Heh heh, stupid Amerikanskis no understand it really is Commissar of Beisbol! Revolution is underway!

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2013 12:26 AM
2. Priorities, priorities, priorities! Any one visiting 'training camp' for these baseball teams will see that the workouts they do are akin to a light dose of hot yoga. We, as a society choose to place a priority on sports stars and then we end up with someone who is likely a bad influence on our children. We must be masochistic. I'm not casting any aspersions on Felix as he seems like a good role model, but likely a diamond in the rough among these 'sports heros'. Our monetary rewards should be for those most positively affecting our youth...i.e. teachers of merit.
When we check out, will we likey say 'I wish I would have spent more time at sporting events' - I seriously doubt it.
Capitalism at work, but way out of proportion to actual 'worth'.

Posted by: Duffman on February 15, 2013 09:01 AM
3. Double left hypocrisy bonus pass for King Felix is that he has the preferred deeper skin tones. Howard is too light which also makes him an evil greedy rich guy with too much in common with the dead light toned guys who founded our country.

Even though Howard is worth every dollar he makes, this is why Howard talks so much about "sustainability" and green programs for Starbucks and charitable funds that Starbucks runs. He has to keep up his tithing and left credentials to avoid being called out by the PC police like other CEOs of the wrong political stripe.

Navigating all of the selective racism and class warfare of the left is exhausting huh!

Oh, and for baseball fans, King Felix isn't worth that much either. If you want to see real MLB pitching, look to Matt Cain. Ok and so Barry Zito also cost too much, in he end he delivered. I'll bet anyone that ain't gonna happen with Felix.

Posted by: Leftover on February 15, 2013 09:05 AM
4. this is why Howard talks so much about "sustainability" and green programs...

Or, he could be doing it because it's good for business.

Any one visiting 'training camp' for these baseball teams will see that the workouts they do are akin to a light dose of hot yoga...

Show us your 100mph fastball, and we might give you some credit on this point.

Capitalism at work...

Why do you hate the Free Market?

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2013 10:02 AM
5. It's only good for business because there are a significant number of low info voters like you tensor who think its good for business. There are plenty of wildly successful companies that focus on their actual business and their customers and not woozy feel-good bullshit.

Just think of all the good we could do and jobs we could create if instead of focusing on fake sustainability, businesses were doing the things to make great products and services at great prices and assure long term viability. How many failed wind, solar, battery and other "green" tax dollars have we all thrown away or paid as a premium in the price of a Starbucks coffee for nothing to show?

But you feel good listening to Howard's play on your ignorance don't you?

Posted by: Leftover on February 15, 2013 10:20 AM
6. Generous corporate welfare. It is indeed the free market. Felix Hernandez may well be a good role model, but that is beside the point. It is obscene for any human to be paid that much money.

Think of all the good that could be done for the community if the owners decided to dawn more of a philanthropic approach to giving back to large numbers rather than one individual. It is redistributive, from one individual's wealth and not from everyone else's tax money, as Obamunism champions (ugh). Yes, leftists - there is a big difference.

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 10:20 AM
7. "It is obscene for any human to be paid that much money."

Is that how you feel about CEO compensation packages? After all, plenty of them have made a lot more per year than Felix. Heck, even after a few "bad seasons" that bring their "team" to ruin, they usually make out like bandits.

Look at wingnut Carly Fiorina. After a few dismal seasons ending with HP in the cellar and her failing to put a single win on her won-loss record, she gets cut from the team and, get this, she gets a going away present worth more than Felix makes in two years!

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 15, 2013 11:39 AM
8. Remember...you never see a hearse pulling a U-Haul. :)

Posted by: Duffman on February 15, 2013 11:51 AM
9. ARod made more 12 years ago than Felix did, so that is also obscene. CEO's pay themselves way too much also, such as Schultz, Whitman, Ballmer et. al but one can't fault Bill Gates for contributing a vast majority to charity. Carly Fiorina was a mediocre CEO, but no more of a wingnut than is Howard Schultz.

The wingnut in chief proclaimed; Obama: 'I'm President Of The United States, Not The Emperor'.
He may say that, but he really wishes to be Emperor Nero on steroids - the only thing missing is his fiddle.

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 11:57 AM
10. KDS @9
Actually Steve Ballmer's pay probably isn't that bad, relatively speaking, given size of company and industry. Last estimate in 2011 was his compensation package was in the $1.3 to $1.4M range. He is worth alot, but that is different that actual pay.

Posted by: tc on February 15, 2013 12:12 PM
11. OK, Ballmer is an outlier in comparison with the others and that compensation seems to be in the reasonable range.

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 12:33 PM
12. "Is it jealously or failure to understand the market for talent?"

Market for talent? When it comes to in-bred corporate boards and CEO compensation, it's more like the ballplayers are determining their own salaries and benefits.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 15, 2013 02:32 PM
13. "It is obscene for any human to be paid that much money."

"Would you rather have the market or some government agency set the compensation packages?"

Good question. What's your answer?

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2013 04:11 PM
14. @13 - This is not a totalitarian state at this time and to your's and other Obamunists' dismay will not be and it is corporate welfare rewarding Felix. So, what's your point ?

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 04:39 PM
15. My point is, you described the outcome of free-market decisions as "obscene". The original post asked what we might do about it. If you answer, 'nothing', then what was the point of commenting at all?

Also, I'm unaware of President Obama, or any of us liberals who are targets of invective here, advocating any government action on this issue. Is it just an article of faith here that we must desire such action?

Finally, "corporate welfare" means government subsidy of private profit, not paying an employee what the free market says he is worth. I suggest you not throw around terms you don't understand.

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2013 05:33 PM
16. "Also, I'm unaware of President Obama, or any of us liberals who are targets of invective here, advocating any government action on this issue. Is it just an article of faith here that we must desire such action? "

Of course, its the free market system ! What can we do about the scenario outlined by Warren ? Diddly squat- duh ! Think about why you might feel like a target, then go back and consider other invective and whiny remarks you have made and the impression you have left.
I call it as I see it and if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to go somewhere else where your comments are more warmly received.

I also suggest you improve your reading comprehension as the content of your last paragraph is supercilious.

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 10:04 PM
17. How is Felix Hernandez's salary over the next ten years not some form of corporate welfare from the Mariner's ownership to Felix ? Welfare does not have to come from the government.

Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2013 10:31 PM
18. Dallas has the largest light rail system in the country and Texas politicians at the national level go aggressively after federal money for their state.

Since this post is not really about baseball, I thought that I'd throw in a few facts that are. Businessmen are interested in making money, and it takes infrastructure to do that. Felix and Howard, however big their personal fortunes, don't have enough money to do that job.

Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 16, 2013 05:26 AM
19. live better, work union

Posted by: Rank Stranger on February 16, 2013 06:31 AM
20. "How is Felix Hernandez's salary over the next ten years not some form of corporate welfare from the Mariner's ownership to Felix ?"

Because he earns it, you dolt. In your lingo, he's a "maker", not a "taker". If he didn't show up to work and "make" fastballs go over the plate at 100 MPH with pinpoint accurracy, striking out the best hitters on the planet, he'd be like you and wouldn't be worth a dime in the "market" for baseball pitchers. The business which employs him crunched the numbers and determined that $175M is fair market value. They look at you and you get nothing, no offer at all, because you can't do the "job". If the Mariners started giving you money for doing nothing, say to help you get back on your feet following your much needed lobotomy, then you'd be receiving your so-called "welfare".

Your indulgance in hatred obviously blinds and stupifies you. Come out of your One World Order wetdream, KDS, and maybe you'll realize that those aren't black UN helicopters circling your head, they're just common house flies.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 16, 2013 08:58 AM
21. One is a greedy rich guy who "didn't do a damn thing" to earn his pay while the other "restored faith" and teared up at his good fortune.

...

Corporate CEOs mainly hit the news if they are being pilloried for bad decisions or the money they make. Is it jealously or failure to understand the market for talent?

I honestly had to check the byline on this post... I thought that Jim had wrote it, given that the argument was just so poorly organized.

I don't necessary think that liberals give some sort of uniform pass for "sports and entertainment stars". I'd enjoy seeing some proof of that... I've heard just as many liberals as conservatives rail about bizarrely high salaries of folks in entertainment. However, Brewer was simply talking about whether Hernandez was a nice guy... and in fact, he was commending him for NOT taking the most money he could find, but actually having loyalty to fans by sticking around.

But sports and movie stars are not necessarily the people receiving the money from fans. If you actually had read that Starbucks post, you'd know that the workers' perspective is that the company is built on the labour of the workers, and that labor is not being treated fairly or receiving the same raises that the CEO is getting. CEOs like Schultz may be working hard, but so are plenty of their foot soldiers. And while CEOs are taking in more money in compensation, they have contributed less to the rest of the organization. Rank-and-file employees have received little to no benefits from increases in productivity and output. And that's not even counting low corporate tax rates and tax dodges that prevent services from reaching the middle- and lower-classes.

Big name stars have leverage in the market, but the guy that makes your espresso in the morning does not. Conservative angst about unions misses the point that they were very successful at giving regular employees some power in the labor market, and increasing the standard of living of people that don't quite need a corporate jet to get around.

Posted by: demokid on February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
22. given that the argument was just so poorly organized.

How can you say that, DK?

Here, let me summarize Warren's argument and I think the power of his logic will shine through:

1. Howard Schultz makes a lot of money. Some guy you never heard of wrote a comment on some blog you never heard of. He doesn't think Schultz deserves his income.

2. Felix Hernandez makes a lot of money. Some sports writer you may have heard of thinks Hernandez is a fine pitcher and a mensch to boot. He thinks Hernandez deserves his income.

3. Therefore: Stupid liberals!

You just can't argue with that kind of brilliance.

Posted by: scottd on February 16, 2013 11:30 AM
23. Of course, its the free market system !

"It's obscene, but we're not going to do anything about it," is not the most inspiring of moral rallying-cries. Just sayin'.

What can we do about the scenario outlined by Warren ? Diddly squat- duh !

We could return to the marginal tax rates this country had under the Eisenhower administration, which should suit you traditional-values guys just fine. Since Ike was the last Republican president to sign a balanced budget, I'm sure you self-described fiscal conservatives will get behind this idea as well. Plus, Warren will be happy we libs have solved his problem for him. It's a win all around!

Let me know how much help you need in writing to your Member of Congress about this. I'm sure you're eager to get working on it right away.

Posted by: tensor on February 16, 2013 02:51 PM
24. @23 - Give it up - you are wasting your time and chasing your tail. No one really cares as much as you appear to. Write to your own member of Congress if you'd like.

Time would be better spent for you to be in mourning for your brethren - Hugo Chavez; he is most likely on his last legs. No big loss for the rest of us and a gain for the rest of the free world !

Posted by: KDS on February 16, 2013 03:22 PM
25. "How is Felix Hernandez's salary over the next ten years not some form of corporate welfare from the Mariner's ownership to Felix ?"

Because he earns it, you dolt. In your lingo, he's a "maker", not a "taker".

And you are a taker, which is irrelevant to this topic. Obviously, Steve - you are a libtard clown and make zero sense and repulse many. As a result of higher salaries, the costs are passed on the the fans in higher prices for tickets. It is a free marketplace, but none of the owners have to pay the high salaries, but they get sucked into that and it becomes a bidding war. As a result, this type of welfare to the players is imposed on ticket and souvenir buyers by the owners to help pay the high salaries, which is synonymous to higher taxes to fuel bigger government.

"Your indulgance in hatred obviously blinds and stupifies you."

LMAO. Stevie, I keep telling you to get your nose out of Obama's posterior with your crazed community organizer wannabe hate-talk, but it seems to get sucked up there. If I were you, I would mourn for your brethren - Hugo Chavez; he is not long for this world - but it will be a better place when he leaves. Hatred begets hatred...

Posted by: KDS on February 16, 2013 04:02 PM
26. "And you are a taker, which is irrelevant to this topic."

Actually, I'm what in your lingo what would be called a job creator and a maker. However, I believe it's unnecessary to exhalt me like that, seeing as how I couldn't make a dime without my employees.

"none of the owners have to pay the high salaries, but they get sucked into that and it becomes a bidding war."

So far it sounds like your problem is with stupid owners who get sucked into something they don't want to do.

"As a result, this type of welfare to the players is imposed on ticket and souvenir buyers by the owners to help pay the high salaries"

And yet fans buy tickets and souvenirs.

"It is a free marketplace"

Yes, and it works. What you call a bidding war is the free market in action. One bids at auctions. Do you want to own stock? You place a bid for it, KDS. Bidding is fundamental to free markets. The team owner offers bids for the services of the best ballplayers and front office, coaching and training staff he can afford. He gets a share of the league TV and souvenirs that are obtained through a bidding process. He takes bids for food concession contracts. He somehow gets a city full of liberals to finance stadiums and arenas constructed through a bidding process for sports teams they hate. That's what America is all about, KDS. Bidding. And sometimes it's a war out there.

Out of curiousity, how many American workers do you think are overpaid and thus on corporate and small business welfare?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 16, 2013 05:39 PM
27. Tensor @ 23:

Do we get the deductions in place back then? The Federal Government received, in constant dollars, $3200 per capita. Less than half what it receives today. You willing to go there?

Also look at what the Federal Government did back then, compared to today. You willing to go there?

I'd GLADLY do it - cut my taxes by more than half (deductions, deductions, deductions), and slash Government spending by 65%. I'm all for it!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2013 09:11 PM
28. Oh, and Tensor @ 23:

Since Ike was the last Republican president to sign a balanced budget

Ike was, in fact, the last PRESIDENT to sign a balanced budget. Not a single President since then has signed a balanced budget. The Federal debt has increased EVERY YEAR since 1957.

Just so happens the last President to balance the budget was a Republican... ;)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2013 09:13 PM
29. '"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter." Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House. After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn't been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans' born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest - and most successful - political double-standards in recent memory."

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:D

Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 16, 2013 11:16 PM
30. Yes Yes Yes -- Me so worried about deficits and the axis of evil.Iran and Korea good reason to pauperize U.S. with great great great conservative patriots!! Is great opportunity for no compete gov't contracts because free market work best!!!

Right?

Posted by: Spammer Excuse for Ending Comments Because Wingnuts too Dumb on February 17, 2013 06:58 AM
31. Angelus,

"Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton"? What? You know that the last balanced budget was in 1957, don't you?

Additionally, back in those "evil Reagan/Bush" days, the national debt was considerably lower than our GDP. The situation's reversed now, and accelerating.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2013 08:33 AM
32. @22: You just can't argue with that kind of brilliance.

You're right... you can't argue with it. Just like you can't argue with someone that simply says "blah blah blah Hugo Chavez blah blah blah libtard clown blah blah blah supercilious" and thinks it's a rational, well-reasoned argument.

@31: Not a single President since then has signed a balanced budget. The Federal debt has increased EVERY YEAR since 1957.

Point being? Saint Reagan was the one that managed to start us on the road to significant deficits by increasing defense spending while reducing tax revenue.

Posted by: demokid on February 17, 2013 08:58 AM
33. "Saint Reagan was the one that managed to start us on the road to significant deficits by increasing defense spending while reducing tax revenue."

Only quite recenly Republicans have tried to convince America that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Of course, at the time they were racking up huge deficeits. As always.

Thirty years after the Sainted One put America on the credit card we have the collapse of failed Reaganomics resulting in a Great Recession, driving up umeployment, decreasing tax revenue, increasing benefits, driving up debt.

What do do? Take no responsibility whatsoever for the mess they've left. Propose the same failed economic policies that got us here. Blame everything that's gone wrong on Democrats and Obama. Turn it into an excuse to drown government in a bathtub. Whine incessantly about it to the point that they've lost all sense of reason and are talking secession and civil war.

When they take a break from whining about the debt they've caused, they pass laws restricting the rights of women to control their own bodies to the point that the word rape loses it's meaning. Or they might pass laws restricting access to the polls for our youth, the elderly, minorities and our troops. Or maybe experiment in a "state laboratory" as they did in Michigan, where Republicans stripped cities and towns of the right to local representation and then sold off their assets to cronies. And when you're not looking, they'll remove Thomas Jefferson from our school's textbooks and replace him Jefferson Davis.

Enough of their BS.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 17, 2013 09:43 AM
34. demokid @ 37 wrote:

Saint Reagan was the one that managed to start us on the road to significant deficits by increasing defense spending while reducing tax revenue.

False. Raw data here. The Reagan budget deficits went from $128 billion to $153 billion, an increase around $25 billion (19.5%).

Revenues went from $618 billion to $991 billion, an increase of $373 billion (60.4%).

Revenue growth more than tripled deficit growth under President Reagan - and that includes the effects of his tax reductions AND increased defense spending.

Simply put: you're either ignorant of the facts, or lying.

"Doctor" Steve @ 38:

Nice, partisan rant without a shred of reality. See the above data for the actual facts and reality.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2013 10:31 AM
35. "See the above data for the actual facts and reality."

Another wingnut dolt. So you deny that Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficeits don't matter? You haven't passed abortion/rape laws? You haven't passed laws restricting the vote? The deficeit hasn't soared under Republicans? The park in Benton Harbor, Michigan wasn't sold off to cronies? You're not screwing with textbooks in Texas?

Good grief! A wingnut lecturing anyone about facts and reality really is too much.

Sorry, Sad Sack Dan, but your pathetic arm wave dismissal is only the usual wingnut response that comes when you've just had your hyde nailed to the side of the barn. Now rebut my accusations with facts or STFU and bow down to Zod, wingnut.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 17, 2013 11:16 AM
36. Republicans are still at it, Sad Sack Dan, Hell bent on becoming a minority party.

In other words, show a Republican an ultrasound probe and they start getting some very strange ideas.

Wisconsin:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/15/1597701/wisconsin-forced-transvaginal-ultrasound/?mobile=nc

"This bill is a priority," Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said.

Michigan:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/06/1552881/michigan-transvaginal-ultrasound/

How's that for reality, Sad Sack Dan? Judging by their actions, vaginal probes, not jobs and not security, is the top Republican priority today.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 17, 2013 11:45 AM
37. Felix is glorified and Howard is vilified. They both make a lot of money for doing their jobs. They both make far more than the peons in their organizations.

Due to their expensive contracts, the consumers that willingly purchase their products end up paying more. Yet one is lionized and the other demonized.

One is part of the "good" one percent, and the other, a part of the "evil" one percent.

Me? I celebrate the success of both and do not envy their good fortune. Because of both, thousands of people have jobs and millions of people have very good products and services to enjoy, making life a bit better for all.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 17, 2013 12:57 PM
38. find miumiu,chloe,Following a few latest visits here, even so, is becoming more and more chic.

Posted by: ??? ?? on February 17, 2013 01:55 PM
39. "Doctor" Steve,

The data - from the White House's site - is right up above for you to refer to. If you want to deny reality, go ahead - perhaps reality doesn't agree with you.

But the facts are irrefutable: deficit growth under Ronald Reagan was about the pace of inflation, revenues exploded at 3 times that rate. And deficits have exploded under President Obama.

Anything other than ad hominems and vitriol to show otherwise?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2013 03:43 PM
40. Felix is glorified and Howard is vilified.

One comment on some blog somewhere, and he's "vilified"? Really? You guys must just bleed when a raindrop falls on you.

Dan -- we all know you were too busy, obsessively slobbering over every salacious detail of Bill and Monica's consensual affair, to notice that he did a much, much better job than did any Republican since Ike. No useless wars, no soldiers dead for false or incomprehensible reasons, peace and prosperity throughout. It must really, really burn you to have Bill outperform everyone for whom you ever voted, or else you wouldn't pile up your off-topic, contrafactual statements in the basement of this blog. (Your Pavlovian response to any mention of Clinton signing surplus budgets is as hilarious as it is predictable.)

Just think of all the good we could do and jobs we could create if instead of focusing on fake sustainability, businesses were doing the things to make great products and services at great prices and assure long term viability.

It's lonely at the top, isn't it? Now you're just sitting there all day, watching the billions roll into your balance sheets from your many successful worldwide enterprises; you couldn't possibly spend your income, not in a thousand lifetimes. So, being the good fellow that you are, you decided to give some free advice to a guy who runs only one successful worldwide business. And you don't bother with Davos, or the business roundtable, because you know that all of the world's movers and shakers rely on the comments section of this blog for up-to-the-minute guidance on all the vital issues of our time.

Because if this blog didn't constantly hand out unsolicited advice to people who don't even know this place exists -- and would know better than to follow such advice if they did -- it really would have no purpose at all, now would it?

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2013 04:28 PM
41. ??????prada????????????prada2013-japans.weebly.com?????????????

Posted by: prada on February 17, 2013 05:06 PM
42. tensor,

Nice ad-hominems. I expected better from you...

Don't care about Bill get a BJ. I do care that he was able to work with Congress and pass a budget (one that really cut the deficit down). Something the current Administration refuses to do - President Obama could learn from President Clinton in that regard.

PS: were my facts in error? The last President with an actual surplus was President Eisenhower; demokid's post was factually wrong.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2013 05:20 PM
43. miumiu2013-japan.weebly.com??????miumiu????????????

Posted by: miumiu on February 17, 2013 05:42 PM
44. @42 - The mistake you make is expecting better from tensor or steve or the other leftists that grace SP with their presence (/sarc off) - they follow the lead of Mike BS over on HA.org and lob ad hominems and false narratives all day long. While they are low information voters, make no mistake that their goal does not have anything to do with finding solutions/moreover they want war vs. conservatives even more than against radical Islam and to whine the loudest with their claptrap over here.

That is why they extol leaders like Chavez and this president who have more in common than most could imagine at first glance. Just as the low information voters have more in common with the radical islamists than meets the eye - when have you read any ad hominems from them toward radical islamists ? just sayin'

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 06:00 PM
45. miumiu?????????????!http://miumiu-2013japan.weebly.com???????????????

Posted by: ?????? on February 17, 2013 06:53 PM
46. PS: were my facts in error?

Of course they are, Dan. Very little of what you write is factually correct.

It's right there in the link you kindly provided @34. Surpluses in FY1999 and FY2000.

And I'll bet you have some way to explain how a surplus is really a deficit -- so have at it. I'm sure it will impress KDS.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 07:09 PM
47. "It's right there in the link you kindly provided @34. Surpluses in FY1999 and FY2000."

Yup, true story - done with a Republican Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton. So if what Bush did with spending was wrong and it was and Obama has continued the same pattern and in addition he has doubled the deficit, how is that OK ? (here come the excuses...)

There could be some common ground here merely by acknowledging the facts, but knowing scottd, et.al. that would be a stretch.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 08:01 PM
48. KDS: You seem to have missed the fact that it was Dan who was claiming there's been no budget surplus since the Eisenhower admin. Take it up with him.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 08:17 PM
49. scottd: No, I didn't miss that fact - making assumptions again. I also see that you avoided responding to my question.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 08:53 PM
50. Yup, true story - done with a Republican Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton.

Dan said the opposite: that Clinton never signed a balanced budget. Again, please take that matter up with him.

So if what Bush did with spending was wrong ...

See? Even you can learn! Bush started with Clinton's surpluses and peace, and staggered away with eight years of massive deficits and two failed wars.

... and Obama has continued the same pattern ...

No, Obama has ended one of Bush's failed wars, and is leading us back from the total disaster which was W's "administration."

(here come the excuses...)

You guys would have to admit you voted for W before you can start making your pathetic excuses for having done so.

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2013 09:06 PM
51. KDS: The purpose of my post was to correct Dan's factual error. Since you agreed with me, I didn't think we had much more to discuss.

Regarding your question, it's not my job to respond to every dingbat premise you come up with. If you have an issue with something I wrote, let me know what it is.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 09:15 PM
52. scottd and tensor,

You're being obtuse and lying. I've posted this many times: the national debt increased every year under President Clinton. The last time we had a real surplus was 1957.

The link to the White House was to prove that even President Obama acknowledges the facts about the Reagan Administration. The deficit increased at the rate of inflation, and revenues skyrocketed. Quite different from the typical Democrat talking points.

But you two are more interested in lies and attack politics, not real facts and solutions. So enjoy yourselves, roll around in the muck together!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2013 09:33 PM
53. @50 - you are late to the party - read @49.
@51 - Keep changing the topic - it shows your wussification. The fact is that you are too small to agree with a simple and unassailable fact.

Did my comment in @47 hurt your little egos ? The truth hurts leftwingnuts... It shows - LMAO !!

... and Obama has continued the same pattern ...

No, Obama has ended one of Bush's failed wars, and is leading us back from the total disaster which was W's "administration."

No one mentioned wars - its irrelevant here, only talking about spending and if you want to double down on obfuscation - one less war means even more irresponsible spending elsewhere by this president than by W. You are not as stupid as your lame response indicates, just too small to acknowledge the truth, but your nose is planted squarely up Obama's posterior.

speaking of excuses - I did not vote for W in 2004 - I'll be waiting for your dimwitted logic in voting for Obama in 2012 which come across as excuses to those of us not in denial by dimwitted low information voters.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 09:33 PM
54. @52 - your website is contrary to widely-held views (including mine) that FY 1999 & 2000 showed a budget surplus.

Consider my post @47 which is showing its validity in that the low information voters are getting their panties in a wad are on a little jihad of their own.

These are small people and not going to change their stripes anytime soon, unless someone knocks some sense into their pinheads and as long as we have Emperor Nero on steroids as president.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 09:43 PM
55. You're being obtuse and lying. I've posted this many times: the national debt increased every year under President Clinton. The last time we had a real surplus was 1957.

And you've been wrong many times. As scottd noted, the link you provided @34 shows otherwise. Your constant attempts to redefine "surplus" to "deficit" will, at best, impress KDS.

Speaking of whom...

No one mentioned wars - its irrelevant here, only talking about spending...

Wars don't drive government spending, apparently.

Again, we leave you two to fight this out amongst yourselves

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2013 09:48 PM
56. Dan: Even KDS can see that you don't know what you are talking about. @34 you posted a link which you said would show us the budget surplus or deficit for each year. Later, you said the last time we had a surplus was the Eisenhower admin. I can't help it if your own sources show you're wrong.

KDS: What topic have I changed? The only topic I've brought up is Dan's lack of reading comprehension. And I'm staying on that topic.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 09:48 PM
57. Your constant attempts to redefine "surplus" to "deficit" will, at best, impress KDS.

Apparently, it doesn't even impress KDS -- and that is a low bar indeed...

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 09:52 PM
58. scottd, tensor et.al. You people don't understand that a decrease in the rate of increased spending is not a spending cut. For example, if the spending increase is 10% and decreases to a 6% increase, it is still a spending increase, not a spending cut as the Democrat party and the media frame it.

That's why I don't care about the Sequester - it is really small spending cuts. let it happen !

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 10:13 PM
59. KDS: What topic have I changed?

No one mentioned wars - its irrelevant here, only talking about spending and if you want to double down on obfuscation - one less war means even more irresponsible spending elsewhere by this president than by W.

Looks like your reading comprehension-challenged.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 10:20 PM
60. "Wars don't drive government spending, apparently."

Not when you keep them off the books. They lied the nation into war and lied about what they would cost. So like Reagan, they pulled out the nation's credit card. They lied about a drug program that was a give-away to big pharma and kept it off the books. The wingnuts here can't even look at an Excel spreadsheet and talk about it without lying. They're even lying about our attitude towards Howard and Felix. It's like they can't talk or type without lying about something.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 17, 2013 10:32 PM
61. KDS: What topic have I changed?

No one mentioned wars

And neither have I.

Looks like your reading comprehension-challenged.

I don't think I'm the one with the problem -- see above.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2013 10:35 PM
62. ... and Obama has continued the same pattern ...

No, Obama has ended one of Bush's failed wars, and is leading us back from the total disaster which was W's "administration."

Actually, it was tensor that it was meant to be redirected to @50, which was inadvertently omitted from my thread @53.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2013 11:14 PM
63. @34: False. Raw data here. The Reagan budget deficits went from $128 billion to $153 billion, an increase around $25 billion (19.5%).

You're comparing his first and last budgets, and not previous Carter budgets. The deficit hit 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest since World War II, and represented a significant increase from historical levels. Of course, this isn't mentioned when conservatives look to pin the blame for the debt solely on Obama.

Revenue growth more than tripled deficit growth under President Reagan - and that includes the effects of his tax reductions AND increased defense spending.

Receipts in 1988 were 52% higher than in 1981 (Reagan's first budget), while 1988 expenditures were 56% of 1981 levels. Combined, that means that deficits in 1988 were 96% higher than in 1981.

You are right in that tax revenue grew over time. Of course, increases to defense and cuts to top bracket income taxe rates were offset by social service cuts and tax increases that managed to screw the middle and lower classes. Also, from 1983-1986, the government took in about 2 percentage points GDP less in receipts, which led to the most significant deficits of the period.

Simply put: you're either ignorant of the facts, or lying.

Simply put, you're either ignorant of how to read data or... well, you're just ignorant about how to read a table.

Posted by: demokid on February 17, 2013 11:18 PM
64. The online store online sale: ??? ??,???,????????????,miumiu ?? ,miumiu Website:www.miumiu-japanas.com www.prada-plaza.com , www.monclersyokohamaz.com

Posted by: ??? ??? on February 17, 2013 11:24 PM
65. ??????????miumiu??????.???miumiu100%????

Posted by: miumiu on February 18, 2013 02:13 AM
66. demokid/tensor,

OK, where do you find the surplus/deficit/debt data? Prove me wrong - where are your facts? Handwaving doesn't count for much.

demokid @ 63,

Oh so many errors... FY1981 was Carter's last budget - Reagan's first was FY1982, and his last was FY1989. Did you forget that the fiscal year starts the October of the previous calendar year?

At least you acknowledge receipts went up faster than deficits did. And while you try to cherry-pick a few years in the middle, the total data shows that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue by 60%.

Facts, gentlemen - try them sometimes, they actually work!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 18, 2013 07:41 AM
67. OK, where do you find the surplus/deficit/debt data?

Uh, Dan, ... the surplus/deficit data are in the link you provided @34.

You seem thicker than usual -- is everything OK with you?

Posted by: scottd on February 18, 2013 09:00 AM
68. Dan, why don't you just copy and paste the data from said table and put the topic to rest ?

It will be interesting if anyone has the cajones to admit they are wrong over such a petty issue, but the left specializes in making petty issues tantamount. That is why this country has become so screwed up !

Here's another reason;

"Wars don't drive government spending, apparently."

Not when you keep them off the books. They lied the nation into war and lied about what they would cost.

Misinformation from the ever-perverted dimwit, clown steve, who copied it from moveon.org and other leftwing websites. Blame Colin Powell in part for providing the misinformation as he narrated the case for going into Iraq (of course he is now angry about how he claims he was set up). Also, the Democrats who were some of the biggest critics voted in favor of Bush using Exec. powers to take troops into Iraq, so they are hypocrites and in some cases liars. To this day, it has not been proven in a US court of law that Bush lied. They gave a poor estimate on what they thought the war would cost, but what did the Democrats do at the time ? nothing much, not until the war in Iraq started to go sideways and then they adopted the false narrative of "Bush lied, people died" about what they had previously supported, because they are politicians who only care about getting re-elected. As for spending, it actually increased at a higher rate after 2006, when the Democrats controlled congress with the same wars in progress - domestic spending increased more.

I turned against the war in 2003/04 and believe it was a bad idea to go in there to remove Sadaam as we did. We are not better off for that venture.

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 09:22 AM
69. @66: OK, where do you find the surplus/deficit/debt data? Prove me wrong - where are your facts? Handwaving doesn't count for much.

Yeah, as scottd noted, you provided the source...

Oh so many errors... FY1981 was Carter's last budget - Reagan's first was FY1982

No, you're right with that, and I should have put that it was the first budget of the Reagan presidency, not that he himself wrote it.

But the point is that your relative comparisons are worthless. Shifting the goalposts one year back shows that receipts did not increase faster than expenditures did. Likewise, pointing out years where deficits were historically high is not "cherry-picking".

Face it... rank-and-file conservatives only bray loudly about the deficit when Democrats are in power. They're much more satisfied with watching Republicans rack up debt, especially when that debt goes to increasing military spending and cutting taxes for the rich.

Posted by: demokid on February 18, 2013 09:55 AM
70. Simple question for you, KDS: Was the federal budget in surplus or deficit in FY1999 and FY2000?

Let's see if you're smarter than Dan. You seem to be wavering.

Posted by: scottd on February 18, 2013 10:08 AM
71. @70 - What does it matter, whether it was slightly surplus or slightly deficit ? Is it so damn important that you are right and Dan is wrong - I am not playing your juvenile game because it is silly and petty. My take-away is that those were the last two budgets that were good ones as they approached a balanced budget, with nothing remotely close since then - sad !

I would have my confidence in government restored if the FY budget was balanced like those two years.

As I mentioned the left specializes in making petty issues tantamount. That is a big reason why this country has become so screwed up, but Emperor Obama (Nero on steroids) would want it no other way...

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 10:58 AM
72. @69 & @70 - With your obsessions about FY 1999 & 2000 being budget surpluses, you think you are astute at seeing the trees here, but apparently you think everything else is OK and I would assert that you are missing the forest big time and wildly hallucinating.

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 11:07 AM
73. KDS -- it matters because the truth is important, and we should base public policy on facts, not upon ideology, wishes, or invective. Clinton signed repeated surplus budgets, and those surpluses were not "slight", as the data shows. Clinton returned hundreds of billions of dollars to our Treasury, against alll GOP presidents of my lifetime signing only deficit budgets. If deficit-reduction was actually important to folks like Dan, he'd be asking what lessons we could learn from Clinton's success, not bitterly and churlishly denying the very data he himself cited.

Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2013 12:00 PM
74. @52 & @54
I think the confusion is between terms. Dan is referring to Debt. When FY 1999 and 200e are often discussed it is in terms of deficit. Those fiscal years did show a surplus in the general account (income verses expenses), which is where deficit and surplus are often referred. However, this was because of "borrowing" from the Social Security Fund.

If one goes to Dan's link @52, and plug in for example, Sept 30, 1998 to Sept 30, 1999 (FY 1999), one will see that the overall debt did grow and that the increase was due to the increase in intragovernment holdings. Public Debt did decrease due to the surplus for the year (i.e., income greater than expenses for the year).

I would go with Dan on this one.

Posted by: tc on February 18, 2013 12:58 PM
75. Yes, there is a distinction between off-budget items and on-budget items, because government is not run like a business. Carefully and intentionally Ignoring those distinctions is the main route guys like Dan use to deny Clinton signed surplus budgets.

I'm sure he'll be glad to see ideology trumping facts with you again; if he can't fool you, what hope has he?

Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2013 01:03 PM
76. "KDS -- it matters because the truth is important, and we should base public policy on facts, not upon ideology, wishes, or invective. Clinton signed repeated surplus budgets, and those surpluses were not "slight", as the data shows."

Yeah, right - you are being hypocritical and fabricate as have not demonstrated facts to back up that the budgets by Clinton were anything but slight surplus, if in fact they were surplus.

It also appears that you may well be wrong as tc just alluded to. As I said before, I refuse to engage in a silly and petty argument like this because it doesn't freakin' matter and is not remotely connected to today's fiscal calamity. If budgets were even close to those in FY 1999 & 2000, I would be happy. You don't even admit that the GOP congress passed these budgets before Pres. Clinton signed them.

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 01:19 PM
77. tensor @75: There is indeed a difference between on-budget and off-budget items, but that's not going to help Dan weasel out of this one. The SSTF surplus is reflected in the off-budget columns of Dan's cited source.

There are some years where the off-budget surplus (mostly SS) offsets an on-budget deficit, so the total is positive. FY1998 was an example of this.

However, in FY1999 and FY2000, both on-budget and off-budget items were in surplus (FY2001, too!). The simple fact is that the federal budget ran a surplus in those years -- period.

tc@74: You're right -- Dan is frequently confused about the difference between debt and deficit. That's not my problem -- he's the one spewing BS and unable to read his own sources.

BTW, the issuance of debt by the Treasury does not exactly track budget surpluses/deficits. The Treasury makes its own determination of the best time to hold bond auctions to assure the govt has sufficient funds. It also has to make certain it does not disrupt the bond market by failing to hold expected auctions. If Treasury thinks market conditions are favorable, it will sell excess bonds and build cash reserves. This has nothing to do with the amount the govt spends or collects during that period. Businesses do the same thing. If they think interest rates are favorable, they may sell bonds and bank the cash ahead of actual need.

The budget surplus/deficit is calculated by subtracting total expenditures from total tax and fee collections for a fiscal year. It's that simple. In FY1999 and FY2000 the federal govt spent less than it received -- it was in surplus.

Don't get sucked into Dan's obfuscation or KDS' fact denial. If you want to know whether the federal budget was in surplus or deficit for a given year, all you need to do is check with the budget office or treasury.

Posted by: scottd on February 18, 2013 04:10 PM
78. Don't get sucked into Dan's obfuscation or KDS' fact denial. If you want to know whether the federal budget was in surplus or deficit for a given year, all you need to do is check with the budget office or treasury.
Posted by scottd at February 18, 2013 04:10 PM

Why are you so paranoid about this trivial
issue ? Got numbers & facts ? If so, bring them for all of us to see and make your case. If you don't, you look like a snake in year of the snake. As I said before, I don't give a rat's a$$ whether it was deficit or surplus because it has nothing to do with the current state of our budget nor the subject of the post.

You are showing yourself to be as hyperpartisan and dimwitted as tensor and clown steve.

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 06:12 PM
79. ??????????????????http://prada2013-japan.weebly.com??????????????????????????

Posted by: ??? on February 18, 2013 06:28 PM
80. scottd -- thanks for that correction. I am used to seeing the off-budget / on-budget distinction (ab)used to fool people who think "government should be run like a business." As we know, Dan is nothing if not tenacious in his attempts to confuse this issue.

Why are you so paranoid about this trivial issue?

You can ask Dan about that -- as I mentioned earlier, he is extremely predictable on this point. In fact, I cannot recall an example here of my mentioning Clinton's signing of surplus budgets without Dan quickly snarling about how Clinton never did any such thing. Dan is very, very insistent on this point, often with the hilarious results we have just seen.

And I'll emphasize again -- telling the truth is never, not ever, a "trivial issue," especially not here, where both the front-page posters and their sympathetic commenters have never regarded themselves as bound by any facts.

Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2013 11:16 PM
81. tc,

A breath of fresh air in the oft-contentious partisanship that stalks this board!

scottd/tensor,

Show me when we had a real surplus - excess cash. Please. Go ahead. We're waiting!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 19, 2013 06:30 AM
82. Pudge,

Hey, I am trying to compose a letter but I can't find the language in the Bills SB 5737, 5475 & 6396 that mention "Inspection by the sheriff without a warrant". Could you email me the Sections that mention the langauge in those bills? Thanks in advance, Jimbo

1snohomish@hotmail.com

Posted by: JIMBO on February 19, 2013 11:08 AM
83. And I'll emphasize again -- telling the truth is never, not ever, a "trivial issue," especially not here, where both the front-page posters and their sympathetic commenters have never regarded themselves as bound by any facts.

Posted by tensor at February 18, 2013 11:16 PM

Blah, blah, blah. How sanctimonious of you. Keep bloviating in the wind. I have not seen your "facts" yet. At least Dan has shown his on the link that he has provided and its no one else's problem but your's if you are too apathetic not to read it. You can either rebut it with your documented numbers or keep whining...

Furthermore, you are a hypocrite because you have not expressed any issues with Obama's $1.6T debt now - correct us if that is not the case. No longer Bush's fault - the statute of limitations ran out on that in 2011.

Posted by: KDS on February 19, 2013 12:29 PM
84. Dan@81: If you don't understand that spending less than you take in means your budget is in surplus, there's not much I can do to help you -- and we're going to have to add basic accounting to the long list of topics you're not qualified to comment on.

Your own link shows that in FY1999 and FY2000, the US govt spent less than it received. By definition, that's a real surplus.

Posted by: scottd on February 19, 2013 08:15 PM
85. ???UGG???????????????www.fashionboots2013.com?

Posted by: ugg on February 19, 2013 08:19 PM
86. I have not seen your "facts" yet.

They are not "my" facts. They are public record, and have been for a dozen years. Your abject ignorance of them is not my problem.

At least Dan has shown his on the link that he has provided ...

That Clinton signed surplus budgets, yes. Did you look at the evidence there?

Show me when we had a real surplus - excess cash.

You do know that our government used the Clinton surpluses to retire debt, not to pile up cash -- which, for an entity which can legally print money, would be a really, really stupid thing to do -- right?

But thank you for validating my knowledge of you: you've spent the latter half of this thread obsessing over one true statement I made in passing. Having President Clinton out-perform everyone for whom you've ever voted really, really burns, doesn't it?

Posted by: tensor on February 19, 2013 08:47 PM
87. ??????????miumiu??????.???miumiu100%????

Posted by: ugg??????? on February 20, 2013 07:49 AM
88. scottd/tensor,

When was the last fiscal year when the debt went down? Really simple question... Go ahead, lay it out.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 20, 2013 10:42 AM
89. @88 Dan, all quibbling aside, the data clearly shows that Republicans have a very dismal record on debt and deficit which has spanned decades, over half a century, resulting in the Great Recession, now extended by Republican obstructionism for no apparent reason other than the president is black. You have a track record of repeated and now spectacular economy-crippling failures, absolutely no new ideas and have demonstrated a willingness to put party before country. This begs the question, why should anybody ever trust you with power again?

Really simple question... Go ahead, lay it out.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 20, 2013 12:31 PM
90. "Doctor" Steve,

What record is that? Can you point it out?

How much did the debt grow under GOP control and under Democrat control? And consider who created the budgets - not the President, but who controlled the purse-strings (the House).

When was the last time the debt was actually reduced?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 20, 2013 02:31 PM
91. "What record is that?"

The Republican record of failure, of course.

You obviously can't answer a simple question, Dan. Given your party's dismal record of failure, why should anybody ever trust Republicans with power again?

Seaking of failures, Jim Miller is a real hoot. He sez, "the "soft bigotry of low expectations", in the words of our last successful president."

W? Successful? At what? The administration was an abject failure at everything. They were asleep at the wheel when America was attacked, invaded the wrong country, outed American covert agents, racked up enormous debt and ruined the economy. Here's your chance, Dan. Cover for Miller here.

Little wonder that Miller won't open comments and Dan can't answer simple questions.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 20, 2013 03:25 PM
92. 90. "Doctor" Steve,

What record is that? Can you point it out?

@90 - Clown Steve can never point anything out.

"How much did the debt grow under GOP control and under Democrat control? And consider who created the budgets - not the President, but who controlled the purse-strings (the House)."

He won't answer that - he is afraid of the truth and a low information statist. Can't squeeze blood out the turnip.

"When was the last time the debt was actually reduced?"

I could answer that, here's clown steve's response:
"Seaking of failures, Jim Miller is a real hoot. He sez, "the "soft bigotry of low expectations", in the words of our last successful president."

W? Successful? At what? The administration was an abject failure at everything. They were asleep at the wheel when America was attacked, invaded the wrong country, outed American covert agents, racked up enormous debt and ruined the economy. Here's your chance, Dan. Cover for Miller here.

Little wonder that Miller won't open comments and Dan can't answer simple questions."

Notice how little clown steve keeps changing subjects and avoids Dan's questions. And they wonder why they are referred to as libtards. This cat is not only paranoid and pulling red herrings out of his orifice, but the only clown steve is chasing is his tail !

Posted by: KDS on February 20, 2013 04:09 PM
93. When was the last fiscal year when the debt went down?

Dan, you can look that up yourself (and I know you have) using sources you've already provided. Just like you you've already provided a link to data showing the last time the federal budget was in surplus (FY1999-2001). Why you keep deliberately confusing the two is beyond me, but it's a great example of why you shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously.

Posted by: scottd on February 21, 2013 06:27 AM
94. "Notice how little clown steve keeps changing subjects and avoids Dan's questions."

You're a hate-filled, feeble-minded simpleton, KDS. I asked Dan a single question which he has failed to even attempt to answer. His silly, irrelevant questions were an attempt to change the subject to avoid answering the question put to him.

Here's the question again, wingnuts. Given the decades-long Republican track record of failure, why should Americans ever trust them with power again?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 06:45 AM
95. @94 - You have answered no questions yourself. Besides being a leftwingnut and libtard, you are a poor excuse for a human being.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 08:33 AM
96. scottd/"Doctor" Steve,

The last time the federal debt went down was 1957. We've had "surpluses" in name only. EVERY YEAR since 1957 we've spent more than we took in, meaning deficit.

Dress it up with fancy words like "on budget" and it's still a deficit. Debt was added.

Sorry you two can't understand that very basic, simple thing... Facts are facts, and the fact is we haven't had a real surplus, a balanced budget, since 1957.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2013 09:22 AM
97. "the fact is we haven't had a real surplus, a balanced budget, since 1957"

We agree that Republicans have a dismal record of failure that now stretches back over half a century. And you trust them why?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 10:44 AM
98. It appears that America now agrees that Republicans offer nothing but failed policies. As Dan has shown, Republicans have a record of over half a century of failure. That's bound to catch up with you sooner or later and now it appears that it has.

Business Insider,

"Just In Time For The Sequester, Here Are Two Brutal New Polls For Republicans"

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-poll-republicans-bloomberg-2013-2#ixzz2LYsf3hNK

Bloomberg's latest poll has President Obama at a three year high, Congressional Republicans at a three year low. Apparently America isn't buying what you have to say anymore. Perhaps you need new ideas or something.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 11:14 AM
99. @97
Wrong. The record, as far as spending, is both Democrats and Republicans have had a dismal record, so to ask your question another way, why should we trust either party? They both have failed, when it comes to balancing the budget.

Maybe it is time for people to start looking into the third parties out there. For me, a lot of what the Modern Whig party stands for is a lot more solid ground than either the Democrats or Republicans.

Of course, when the choice is only between Republicans and Democrats, then citizens should look at the individual persons and not just vote party line. This last election, I split my vote. Some races the Republicans had better candidates (cough, cough, for Governor, and frankly WA St US Senator), and other races the Democrats had the better candidate (cough, cough, cough, Obama -- Romney was a terrible choice).

Posted by: tc on February 21, 2013 11:14 AM
100. Dan:

I didn't try to dress it up with "fancy" words like "on-budget".

From your own source, on-budget, off-budget, unified budget -- all of them were in surplus during FY 1999-2001. It's fun watching you twist yourself in knots trying to deny this.

Factcheck says you're an idiot. That makes at least two of us.

Posted by: scottd on February 21, 2013 11:18 AM
101. Not sure why the href tag got stripped from my earlier comment, but here's the URL:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

I don't expect Dan to admit his error, it's just not in him to do so. Here's the money quote from my link:

"Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."

Posted by: scottd on February 21, 2013 11:27 AM
102. "Wrong."

Patience. If there were ever an answer to the first question, there might actually be a follow-up question or two.

http://crooksandliars.com/willbunch/comcast-corbett-and-one-percent-party

"From Cohen's penthouse view, all that culture war stuff that blares from his Comcast-powered cable TV set -- even from MSNBC, now about to be a wholly owned property of Comcast -- must sound pretty silly. Because the reality is that Big Business doesn't really care how much we fight about guns or abortion, or how it all turns out. When it come to the stuff that matters in their world -- whether it's taxes (and loopholes), or consumer protection, or punishing white-collar criminals -- there are no Democrats or Republicans. There's nothing resembling a two-party system at all.

There's just the 1 Percent Party. And there's a 99 percent chance that you're not in it."

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 11:34 AM
103. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-poll-republicans-bloomberg-2013-2#ixzz2LYsf3hNK

"Bloomberg's latest poll has President Obama at a three year high, Congressional Republicans at a three year low. Apparently America isn't buying what you have to say anymore. Perhaps you need new ideas or something."

To set the record straight, that has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. That is only a stupid poll, an outlier also - check Real Clear Politics (everyone else) for the latest composite poll. The Republicans are anemic at messaging and need new leadership, but have some rising stars who are a threat to the current statist regime.

"As Dan has shown, Republicans have a record of over half a century of failure. That's bound to catch up with you sooner or later and now it appears that it has."

You are full of misinformation and dog squeeze as usual and smoking crack, clown steve. The Democrat Party is the party of fiscal failure - the $16T + in debt that is on Emperor Obama. Another example of liberalism failure - the State of Michigan may have to bail out Detroit, due mainly to liberal governance and welfare state policies over the last 50 years.

Revised statement: "Democrats/liberal progressives have a record of over half a century of fiscal failure. That is catching up with them, and if that isn't enough - look at California, Illinois (specifically Chicago) and all inner cites compared to 50 years ago - they are all in significantly worse condition now !!

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 01:27 PM
104. This,

"You are full of misinformation"

Followed by this misinformation,

"the $16T + in debt that is on Emperor Obama"

Care to back that up? You can't. Talk about misinformation. Or is it lying? Perhaps I should go with lying. Then again, KDS is dumber than a stump. Hmm, I'll just say that he's a really stupid liar and leave it at that.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 02:10 PM
105. Hey - pant's on fire - it's documented, so even a dipstick like you could find it. That is current amount of national debt. You're on your own, unless someone else unlike you who can be taken seriously asks for it - put your crack pipe down and google our current debt.

Now go crawl back in your hole.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 02:26 PM
106. Good grief! Republicans and their transvaginal probe fixation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/double-ultrasound-bill-indiana_n_2734658.html

Apparently Republicans want to keep on losing elections well into the foreseeable future. Hey, I'm good with that!

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 02:28 PM
107. "Doctor" Steve,

We agree that Republicans have a dismal record of failure that now stretches back over half a century. And you trust them why?

Who controlled the purse strings EXCLUSIVELY from 1957 to 1994?

scottd,

So sad to see you resorting to lies and obfuscation. Please see the annual debt of the US. It hasn't gone down since 1957. Provable fact. That means we BORROWED money - our liabilities went up faster than our assets.

I can call a net liability increase a surplus, but it doesn't change the fact that we owed more EVERY YEAR since 1957. Your attempt to deflect notwithstanding.

Real simple thing to do, and I'll admit I'm all wet and leave forever - show me a year-over-year debt reduction for ANY of the Clinton years. Just one. Go ahead.

If you can't, then it's pretty obvious we increased out debt every year - which is the result of a real, cash-flow based deficit. Not an on-paper budget surplus, but real deficit.

"Doctor" Steve @ 104,

It's quite provable that President Obama has been President for the last $5.93 trillion in debt. President Bush was President for the previous $4.8 trillion in debt.

Hard, unyielding facts that prove the point.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2013 02:30 PM
108. "That is current amount of national debt."

And @103 you blamed Obama for all of it,

"the $16T + in debt that is on Emperor Obama"

That's a lie. A really stupid lie. That means that you, KDS, are both stupid and a liar. Sucks being called out for both stupidity and lying, huh?

Oh, by the way, President Obama isn't an emperor, another stupid KDS lie.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 02:35 PM
109. Geez, Dan, you've submitted data proving that Republicans are an abject failure at managing the economy and have been for over half a century. And I agree! Now that we've found some common ground that we share I suggest we just leave it at that.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 02:41 PM
110. Dear Dan:

I've never denied that the amount of outstanding debt increased in 1999 and 2000. Why would I? It's a documented fact.

Here's another documented fact: The US govt budget had a surplus in 1999 and 2000. It's true -- you can look it up using the link you provided. For some reason, you keep denying this.

If you don't understand how both statements can be true, then you flunk Accounting 101. Knowing what I know about your previous history at business failure, this doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: scottd on February 21, 2013 03:13 PM
111. scottd,

A budget surplus that results in more debt is not a real surplus. It's a smoke-and-mirrors thing. It's like saying I balanced my budget by borrowing more money. Yes, my checking account didn't go into the red but my total debt most certainly did.

If you want to claim a budget surplus - whilst adding to the national debt - is a good thing, then go ahead. Play the politics. But understand, it's attitudes like that which lead to our spiraling debt issue.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2013 03:38 PM
112. "Doctor" Steve @ 109,

Can you show where my data says as much as you claim? Or do you just like lying about people?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2013 03:40 PM
113. "It's quite provable that President Obama has been President for the last $5.93 trillion in debt."

So what? Examine just how much of that and future debt is driven by past Republican policies and you'll finally be on to something.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

"Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration -- tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [8] By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half -- nearly $9 trillion -- of the $18 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[9]"

It goes back to the simple question you understandably refuse to answer. Why should America ever trust Republicans with power again? Look at the polls I posted. America no longer has confidence in Republicans and it's only getting worse. I've asked you a serious question. You should realize that failure by you and the Republicans to answer it means that you'll never win a national election again in your lifetime, if ever. You'll be reduced to governing a few backwater states of the nation where you can inflict your transvaginal probes on the women folk there.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 03:48 PM
114. "Can you show where my data says as much as you claim?"

If you could blow their horn, you would. My question is intended to give you that opportunity. That you've gone through this entire thread with data in hand without being able to do so is really quite the tell, don't you think?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 04:03 PM
115. @108
I would agree with you that Obama has not added +$16T in debt. I can't believe KDS believes that?

KDS: Did you really think Obama added $16T to the national debt? You can check the link Dan provided to see what the numbers were:

Jan 20,2009
Total Debt = $10,626,877,048,913.08

Dec 31, 2012 (last date available in the Debt down to penny link Dan provided)
Total Debt = $16,588,751,035,306.37

Difference = $5,961,873,986,393.39

So Obama is +$6T (aprox), not +$16T

One further note, however, to Dan and KDS, if you look at spending not impacted by the recession (i.e., Recession increased outlays for things like unemployment insurance, Medicare, etc. to address the people unemployed) and the loss of revenues due to the Recession, then you would see that the rest of spending is relatively flat in normalized dollars. A large chunk of the deficits over the last few years is due to loss revenues and spending related to the recession, such as stimulus, unemployment extensions, things like the SS 2% temporary tax cut, etc. Actions that if weren't done would have caused the economy to fall even farther. If you look at the economy output curve, you will see a lagged correlation to slowing and then bending the economic output curve directly in relationship with the slow recovery. I am waiting for the GOP pundits here to admit these facts. The GOP pundits see to cast all the blaim and forget about the major impact the Great Recession has had on the economy and how much worse it was headed. The GOP representatives that voted for the stimulus should be proud they acted in bipartisan fashion instead of running from their responsibility now. I am waiting for the GOP to wake up and stop this austerity approach and realize that it didn't work in Europe, and it isn't going to work here. What they need to do is instead focus on growing the economy and holding government spending even. They do need more revenue, but the best revenue source is more jobs providing income tax revenue. Those jobs need to come from limited additional government spending to "kickstart" the economy. Not much is needed. Maybe some additional infrastructure projects. I am not saying we need to go overboard, like the Democrats desire. But the GOP needs to recognize that austerity didn't work in Europe and in fact caused more problems.

Posted by: tc on February 21, 2013 04:12 PM
116. tc- I did not mean that. All I meant was that the there is currently $16T of debt and you confirmed that and your numbers look reliable. Also, it is true that revenues have been down over the last several years, but also look at how much spending increased for 2008-2012 - that tells the rest of the story.

My actual quote of "the $16T + in debt that is on Emperor Obama" could have been elaborated more (said mainly for effect to those believe it is Bush's fault). It really meant that main responsibility for the current high debt rests mainly on Obama now.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 04:40 PM
117. But the GOP needs to recognize that austerity didn't work in Europe and in fact caused more problems.

Austerity seldom works, but in the case of Europe, they were backed against the wall and waited too long to confront spending. There was really no other path to financial solvency other than austerity measures.

That's why the GOP is correct about cutting entitlements now, so they don't have to be cut more later in order to attain financial sustainability. However, the cuts must be incremental and it may take a short term toll on certain sectors of the economy, but much better than ignoring it for say 5 more years.

Read what David Walker, former US comptroller says about it. It's like that old commercial - "you can pay me now (when it costs less) or pay me later (when the costs will be significantly more). The best plan out there is Simpson-Bowles, just updated this week and if the GOP was smart, they would sign on to it and pass it in the House.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 04:47 PM
118. "It really meant that main responsibility for the current high debt rests mainly on Obama now."

But per the link I posted, a significant amount of the increase was due to decreased revenues and increased social services. As tc wrote, "increased outlays for things like unemployment insurance, Medicare, etc. to address the people unemployed". Without question a good portion of that is attributable to the immediate effects of a recession the president did not cause. He doesn't get a pass on that forever. Sadly for the right, that pass with the American people is longer than it would have been because of Republican obstructionism.

"That's why the GOP is correct about cutting entitlements now"

Before doing things like kicking millions of Grannies to the street clutching their vouchers and condemning poor little girls and boys to live in a Dickensian nightmare, perhaps we should look bloated military spending and needless corporate welfare first. I'm sure the Grannies and poor children of America would appreciate it.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 05:44 PM
119. It's like saying I balanced my budget by borrowing more money.

It's not like saying that at all. Borrowed money does not show up in the receipts column when calculating surplus/deficit. If it did, then the budget would never show a deficit.

In most years, the govt spends more than it receives in taxes and fees. Those are deficit years. But in 1999-2001 it spent less than it received. The govt may have sold bonds in those years, but those bonds were not needed to fund deficit spending because the budget was in surplus.

You just can't determine whether a budget is in deficit or surplus by looking at changes in overall debt levels -- just like you can't determine whether a corporation is profitable in a given year by looking to see whether they sold any bonds.

You're never going to admit that. I get that. But your intransigence makes you look foolish.

Posted by: scottd on February 21, 2013 06:00 PM
120. Before doing things like kicking millions of Grannies to the street clutching their vouchers and condemning poor little girls and boys to live in a Dickensian nightmare, perhaps we should look bloated military spending and needless corporate welfare first. I'm sure the Grannies and poor children of America would appreciate it.

Posted by Doctor Steve at February 21, 2013 05:44 PM

Obamacare has already beat everyone to it - the Democraps have blood on their hands. They are the ones who are really throwing grannies over the cliff with the deep reductions to Medicare to fund Obamacare. A big uptick in Health care rationing is not far behind. Obamacare is the biggest cluster-f**k ever devised in anyone's lifetime.

The sequestration needs to occur, regardless of Emperor BO is whining about what his own idea back in Nov. 2011, for show and political purposes only - he does not have or care about a plan. Military spending needs to be audited from here on out.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 07:47 PM
121. @120 Oh, I see. So you vote for kicking Grannie to the street. And for little poor children to beg on the sidewalks with tin cups in their wee little hands. Wow, throw in transvaginal probes and that's some kind of vision thing you've got going on there, KDS.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 08:47 PM
122. No, you are blind as a bat. I didn't vote for Emperor Obama & you did clown steve - therefore your actions indicate that you like his policies and want to eradicate Granny as he does. In case others like you didn't catch it the first time - the military spending must be decreased just like everything else including entitlements if this country is to survive with dignity and not be a welfare state.

Kindly take your transvaginal probes elsewhere, like over to Clownstein's blog.

Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2013 08:58 PM
123. Sorry, I didn't mean for you to become completely unhinged over this, KDS. I was just trying to figure out what you have against Granny and those poor little orphans.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on February 21, 2013 09:23 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?