Right and Left Share Deficit Blame

[Stinger]

AMTRAK is not a privately owned or profitable company it is a mostly government owned and subsidized corporation and is actaully allowed to make rules (law?).

It is partially funded by the government but a for profit company.

"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak /ˈæmtræk/, is a passenger railroad service that provides medium- and long-distance intercity service in the contiguous United States. Founded in 1971 to take over most of the remaining U.S. passenger rail services, it is partially government funded yet operated and managed as a for-profit corporation.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
[/QUOTE]

It should not be, it should be a private company providing a private service. I don't expect government trucks to deliver my Amazon orders. I don't expect a government taxi or a government over the highway bus to take me to another city.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It is partially funded by the government but a for profit company.

"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak /ˈæmtræk/, is a passenger railroad service that provides medium- and long-distance intercity service in the contiguous United States. Founded in 1971 to take over most of the remaining U.S. passenger rail services, it is partially government funded yet operated and managed as a for-profit corporation.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

Did you read that since its inception AMTRAK has never made a profit and gets (because it needs) a subsidy every year? This is a boondoggle that is common to most (if not all) public transit systems - if they charged "user fees" sufficient to cover only operating expenses (with only capital costs subsidized) then virtually nobody would ride them (as ridership drops then fees must increase - rinse and repeat...) so, to "encourage" their use, the general public pays to keep them losing money while they continue to operate at a loss forever.

No private company would touch most of those AMTRAK routes so to "save" AMTRAK (which the government created) the government took over.

 

[Stinger]

GSE's didn't cause the housing or financial crisis.

Oh they certainly facilitated it

So what are these exact Republican policies you claim caused the housing bubble?

There was nothing in the cards for a normal downturn.

We had just had 52 months of very solid growth and full employment with and average labor participation rates, rising incomes and HUGE increases in tax revenues, so slowdown at the least to a mild recession. What did the Democrats do, take control in 2007 and start with their lets raise taxes, and doing so, lets's tax the growth and investment more, let's have HUGE increases in spending, let's make the government bigger, let's increase regulations, let's make it MORE expensive to hire people. You think THAT is the way to keep an economy going?

Let me tell you how you do it. You do it like Gingrich and Kasich did it. Remember Clinton came into office on a very strong upward moving recovery and growth. He immediately pass tax rate increases and slowed that down slowing down tax revenues. He gave his infamous speech where he said

"It’s worth noting that, for his part, President Clinton claimed that he raised taxes on the wealthy “too much.” According to a 1995 New York Times report, Clinton told attendees at a Houston fund raiser, “Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.” He was campaigning for re-election at the time."

Read more at: | National Review

And it cost him the Congress at the midterms and when he came up for re election Dick Morris his political adviser told him that unless he got on board with the Republican policies he would lose reelection. Tax rate cuts, welfare reform, restrained growth of government spending. So he did even though as he did throughout his term he kept requesting higher spending which the Republicans would not give him.

"However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.

The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.

In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%. [He had raised cap gains rates]

The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.

Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.

The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year. [give them credit for that]

The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.

Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.

As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.

Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.

Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...t-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/#73bfc5ca6e8a

So give me a rational reason why we should not pursue those policies again?

 

[Stinger]

Did you read that since its inception AMTRAK has never made a profit and gets (because it needs) a subsidy every year? This is a boondoggle that is common to most (if not all) public transit systems - if they charged "user fees" sufficient to cover only operating expenses (with only capital costs subsidized) then virtually nobody would ride them (as ridership drops then fees must increase - rinse and repeat...) so, to "encourage" their use, the general public pays to keep them losing money while they continue to operate at a loss forever.

No private company would touch most of those AMTRAK routes so to "save" AMTRAK (which the government created) the government took over.

Perhaps the interstate but the metropolitan routes let a private company run them or as the mass transit system.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Did you read that since its inception AMTRAK has never made a profit and gets (because it needs) a subsidy every year? This is a boondoggle that is common to most (if not all) public transit systems - if they charged "user fees" sufficient to cover only operating expenses (with only capital costs subsidized) then virtually nobody would ride them (as ridership drops then fees must increase - rinse and repeat...) so, to "encourage" their use, the general public pays to keep them losing money while they continue to operate at a loss forever.



Perhaps the interstate but the metropolitan routes let a private company run them or as the mass transit system.

You are just not getting it are you? Public transit systems lose money which is why they are not private. Who, exactly, is going to let themselves lose money?

Alison Burke over at Brookings points us to the chart below, via the Hamilton Project, showing how much money major U.S. public transit systems lose per ride. The immediate if unsurprising takeaway is that every single metro rail system loses money.

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...nsit-systems-lose-per-trip-in-1-chart/395189/

 

[Stinger]

You are just not getting it are you? Public transit systems lose money which is why they are not private. Who, exactly, is going to let themselves lose money?

Yes I know, I have ridden public transit in some of our largest cities and see the tens of thousands who ride on them everyday if not hundreds of thousands in New York and they STILL lose money. That's government for you. And get rid of the long runs and roll these into that system so at least we only lose it one place and cut our loses or as I said a private company take total control and make them not lose money.

You support them I don't.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes I know, I have ridden public transit in some of our largest cities and see the tens of thousands who ride on them everyday if not hundreds of thousands in New York and they STILL lose money. That's government for you. And get rid of the long runs and roll these into that system so at least we only lose it one place and cut our loses or as I said a private company take total control and make them not lose money.

You support them I don't.

I don't support them but here is the rub - we designed our cities to need public transit systems. The problem with privatizing them is that there is no alternative (millions more can't drive or park in the city).

Using NYC is a good example because they are closest to profitable right now. They lose less than a dollar per ride now so it seems that if a businessman added $3 per ride then he could make a little bit of money but nope - we forgot those added costs when things go private: taxes (property and income) is a big one so lets make it $6 more per ride to cover that and other expenses (like insurance).

We just added $12/day ($60/week or $3K/year) to every NYC transit system commuter's cost by "privatizing" the NYC transit system and making it (at least marginally) profitable. Cabs are out as an alternative because they cost even more (and couldn't handle thousands of more rides per day anyway). How many will say **** that and blame their elected officials for not giving them $3K off of their city taxes to make up for giving away the public transit system to some, now rich, corporation? Meanwhile, many may attempt to drive instead but you know that NYC can't handle many thousands, much less millions, of more commuters driving on its already congested roads and there is nowhere to park even you did manage to drive to work, school or a shopping area downtown.

 

[JasperL]

Yes I know, I have ridden public transit in some of our largest cities and see the tens of thousands who ride on them everyday if not hundreds of thousands in New York and they STILL lose money. That's government for you. And get rid of the long runs and roll these into that system so at least we only lose it one place and cut our loses or as I said a private company take total control and make them not lose money.

You support them I don't.

But, again, why should public transit turn a profit when the roads which are the alternative, and which you probably use nearly every day, never have and never will turn a profit? And it IS a legitimate role of government to use taxes to provide critical infrastructure like roads YOU enjoy every day, and in cities, subways, buses, etc.

 

[JasperL]

I don't support them but here is the rub - we designed our cities to need public transit systems. The problem with privatizing them is that there is no alternative (millions more can't drive or park in the city).

I agree, and we designed our suburbs to need roads, lots of them, and we've subsidized those roads from day 1 through today. We've used taxes to run electricity and utilities out to a single farm house a mile away from the next closest house, run a road right up to the back door of a bunch of houses out in the country the costs of which will never be recovered by user fees on gasoline.

It kills me sometimes how often people are willfully blind to the massive government subsidies they benefit from while whining about subsidies some other folks are getting. Fact is, of all the roles of government, surely we can agree critical infrastructure is right at the top of the list of legitimate roles, something that we should all support, both in our backyard and downtown in the cities.

 

[JasperL]

It wasn't Republican policies or Congressman who totally defended Fannie and Freddie and encoureaged more of their reckless polices and it wasn't the Republicans who turned what should have been anormal cyclical recession in a Great one and prevent a full recovery. The Democrats took control of the government ELEVEN MONTHS before the recession. And yes the Republicans demonstrated they know how to get out of a bubble economy busting, a huge stock market loss, a recession and even a 911 hitting just as we were coming out of the recession and how to get into a full recovery.

LOL, right, the GOP was in charge of Congress and the WH and the regulators during the 2000s, but it's the Democrats' fault that Fannie and Freddie weren't prevented from their reckless policies! Because as we know, it's ALWAYS the fault of Democrats, even when the GOP is in charge because the Democrats have special powers! Or something......

And, look, you can say a lot of things, but the aftermath of the biggest debt bubble in 80 years was never, ever going to be a "normal cyclical recession." Just look around the world.

Finally, if you want to blame Democrats for the Great Recession, because they "took control" in January 2007, then surely you can point to some law or other act of Congress (as you know, Bush was still POTUS and in charge of regulators, with a veto pen for legislation he didn't like) that caused the recession. So help me out - what act by Democrats after "taking control" caused the recession? Thanks in advance!

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree, and we designed our suburbs to need roads, lots of them, and we've subsidized those roads from day 1 through today. We've used taxes to run electricity and utilities out to a single farm house a mile away from the next closest house, run a road right up to the back door of a bunch of houses out in the country the costs of which will never be recovered by user fees on gasoline.

It kills me sometimes how often people are willfully blind to the massive government subsidies they benefit from while whining about subsidies some other folks are getting. Fact is, of all the roles of government, surely we can agree critical infrastructure is right at the top of the list of legitimate roles, something that we should all support, both in our backyard and downtown in the cities.

We are (sort of) on the same page here. Roads (unless they are toll funded), by definition, are somehow seen as "free" when obviously they have a cost. Roadways occupy land, must be built, must be regularly maintained and must have laws that require enforcement expenses.

The way we raise much (most?) of the money for roads is with a "user fee" in the form of an excise tax on each gallon of motor fuel. That means that if you buy motor fuel to drive anywhere then you are paying for roads everywhere (discounting the fact that federal and state taxes are involved) and you are also paying for public transit system subsidies everywhere.

The public transit system user, on the other hand, is paying no "user fee" to help everyone (or anyone) else - they only pay for a portion of their own usage costs and thus use more than they pay with every trip. This difference is very important - the road user pays for more than the roads that they use simply so that public transit users can pay less for their rides and pay no user fees to support either roadways or public transit systems.

 

[Kushinator]

Oh they certainly facilitated it

Making claims on the basis of partisanship isn't a valid argument. Another fail.

So what are these exact Republican policies you claim caused the housing bubble?

Republicans do share some blame, most notably with the deregulation or voluntary regulation that was eventually abandoned in late September of 2008. The Consolidated Supervised Entities program was a massive failure which aided Wall Street into channeling the proceeds of the Bush tax cuts with various low-risk/high-return investment vehicles.

We had just had 52 months of very solid growth and full employment with and average labor participation rates, rising incomes and HUGE increases in tax revenues, so slowdown at the least to a mild recession.

Not when the overwhelming majority of wealth creation was based on an illusion. You've yet to address my post.

What did the Democrats do, take control in 2007 and start with their lets raise taxes, and doing so, lets's tax the growth and investment more, let's have HUGE increases in spending, let's make the government bigger, let's increase regulations, let's make it MORE expensive to hire people. You think THAT is the way to keep an economy going?

Please list the tax increases and huge spending increases enacted by Democrats in 2007. I'll wait, but i believe it'll just be another regurgitation of a poorly reasoned partisan trap piece.

 

[Stinger]

Making claims on the basis of partisanship isn't a valid argument. Another fail.



Republicans do share some blame, most notably with the deregulation or voluntary regulation that was eventually abandoned in late September of 2008. The Consolidated Supervised Entities program was a massive failure which aided Wall Street into channeling the proceeds of the Bush tax cuts with various low-risk/high-return investment vehicles.



Not when the overwhelming majority of wealth creation was based on an illusion. You've yet to address my post.



Please list the tax increases and huge spending increases enacted by Democrats in 2007. I'll wait, but i believe it'll just be another regurgitation of a poorly reasoned partisan trap piece.

Are yiu contending this was NOT the Democrat agenda starting in 2007

What did the Democrats do, take control in 2007 and start with their lets raise taxes, and doing so, lets's tax the growth and investment more, let's have HUGE increases in spending, let's make the government bigger, let's increase regulations, let's make it MORE expensive to hire people. You think THAT is the way to keep an economy going?

 

[Jack Hays]

I agree, and we designed our suburbs to need roads, lots of them, and we've subsidized those roads from day 1 through today. We've used taxes to run electricity and utilities out to a single farm house a mile away from the next closest house, run a road right up to the back door of a bunch of houses out in the country the costs of which will never be recovered by user fees on gasoline.

It kills me sometimes how often people are willfully blind to the massive government subsidies they benefit from while whining about subsidies some other folks are getting. Fact is, of all the roles of government, surely we can agree critical infrastructure is right at the top of the list of legitimate roles, something that we should all support, both in our backyard and downtown in the cities.

[FONT=&quot]Don’t tax you,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don’t tax me,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tax that fellow behind the tree.

--Senator Russell B. Long[/FONT]

 

[MrWonka]

On our persistent deficits there's enough blame for everyone.

First, you are assuming that deficits are inherently bad. This is false right out of the get-go. In fact, a small deficit(particularly when you're in an economic downturn which we were trying to recover from the entire time President Obama was in office) is actually necessary and a net positive. Blaming Democrats for spending when the only time they've had power enough to potentially cut spending would have been irresponsible to do so is silly.

Furthermore spending on these programs should not be altered just to save money. It should reflect the need. If there is a viable need or demand for this spending we should be willing to spend it. You do not cut off people in need just to save a penny, when are already the wealthiest country in the world, and one of the lowest taxed countries in the entire world.

 

[Jack Hays]

First, you are assuming that deficits are inherently bad. This is false right out of the get-go. In fact, a small deficit(particularly when you're in an economic downturn which we were trying to recover from the entire time President Obama was in office) is actually necessary and a net positive. Blaming Democrats for spending when the only time they've had power enough to potentially cut spending would have been irresponsible to do so is silly.

Furthermore spending on these programs should not be altered just to save money. It should reflect the need. If there is a viable need or demand for this spending we should be willing to spend it. You do not cut off people in need just to save a penny, when are already the wealthiest country in the world, and one of the lowest taxed countries in the entire world.

I do not assume deficits are inherently bad in all circumstances, and nothing I have written supports that. Your statement can only derive from your own prejudice. All our wars have been financed by debt, and deficit financing is appropriate for large public investments and countercyclical expansionary policy, to cite a couple of examples. Nevertheless, continuing deficits to finance normal government operations suggest our spending and tax policies are in need of revision. Whether we need to spend less or tax more, or both, is a reasonable discussion to have.

 

[JasperL]

Are yiu contending this was NOT the Democrat [sic] agenda starting in 2007

What did the Democrats do, take control in 2007 and start with their lets raise taxes, and doing so, lets's tax the growth and investment more, let's have HUGE increases in spending, let's make the government bigger, let's increase regulations, let's make it MORE expensive to hire people. You think THAT is the way to keep an economy going?

Be specific. I'm assuming your argument is NOT that just by being in office, we had a worldwide Great Recession, worst in 80 years, and the biggest burst of a bubble in 80 years. So what did they DO, actual stuff that caused the financial markets to tank and the housing market to tank?

 

[Kushinator]

Are yiu contending this was NOT the Democrat agenda starting in 2007

That should be apparant. Why haven't you put forth anything of substance? A poorly researched national review article doesn't make your case.

What did the Democrats do, take control in 2007 and start with their lets raise taxes, and doing so, lets's tax the growth and investment more, let's have HUGE increases in spending, let's make the government bigger, let's increase regulations, let's make it MORE expensive to hire people. You think THAT is the way to keep an economy going?

I will tell you this: running deficits during periods of heavy economic expansion is a recipe for disaster. They didn't enact ANY of those policies you've mentioned. As stated prior... you don't know what you're talking about. Nor have you addressed my statements.

 

[Kushinator]

First, you are assuming that deficits are inherently bad.

If you're unaware by now, i'll clue you in. Deficits are only bad when they occur during Democrat administrations or when Dems have a majority in Congress.

 

[Stinger]

That should be apparant. Why haven't you put forth anything of substance? A poorly researched national review article doesn't make your case.



I will tell you this: running deficits during periods of heavy economic expansion is a recipe for disaster. They didn't enact ANY of those policies you've mentioned. As stated prior... you don't know what you're talking about. Nor have you addressed my statements.

I have given you the data and the research you have offered nothing and go tell the Democrats not me. When you can discuss the facts let me know.

 

[Stinger]

Be specific. I'm assuming your argument is NOT that just by being in office, we had a worldwide Great Recession, worst in 80 years, and the biggest burst of a bubble in 80 years. So what did they DO, actual stuff that caused the financial markets to tank and the housing market to tank?

I have been specific and await you to respond to it.

 

[Kushinator]

I have given you the data and the research you have offered nothing and go tell the Democrats not me. When you can discuss the facts let me know.

You've provided nothing but garbage. As stated, regurgitating a poorly researched National Review article isn't a valid response.

The fail is strong with you.

 

[Kushinator]

I have been specific and await you to respond to it.

You've pushed partisan talking points, lacking any substance.

 

[Stinger]

The Smart PRIORITIZE Debt ...

If your house if falling apart around you, where would you prioritize your asset?

Buy more Guns to put in the House?

If there was a mob coming down the street armed to the teeth threatening me harm, guns.

How about you?

 

[Stinger]

There's the little problem of the Great Recession, the largest we've seen since the Great Depression. And if we're going to cherry pick years, why not go back to, say, 2000 - 2003?

We had a problem with Democrat spending and I have post numbers back that far to which there was no response. Republicans held that recession deficit to $400B for one year and three years later had it back to $161B even with the dot.com bust and 9/11. Prior to that they passed tax cuts got the economy back on course after the Clinton tax increase and hit double digit revenue increases and had surpluses.

What cherry picking?