for making football so damn complicated, specifically the creation of the West Coast Offense. High school playbooks are complicated today.
Think about when you were in high school. What was your playing weight, and you were a 2-way player? Football back then was a basically a 4 month sport. Today, it's year around, and competitive. These kids aspire to D-1 scholarships. Offense and defensive lineman average about 260 lbs, with some kids hitting 300.
You can go to MaxPreps or LA Times online, and click on the preps section. See some great game clips and how talented and athletic kids are today.
They just keep digging themselves deeper in the hole. Not surprising we haven't heard much from Paul Ryan lately! 
As a Republican I am ashamed to admit this, but we all know the "new" right is not good with math. They'd rather just make up numbers. They never point out that cutting taxes and spending on two wars adds to a deficit. No, it was the American thing to do! They all talk about things "the way they were". Yeah, back in the '50s - when segregation was legal and women stayed in the kitchen. What an absolute joke. They also never talk about how back in the '50s the top tax rate was in the 70% range. So yeah, let's go back to the way things were - but not taxes. Just everything else. And they wonder why they're a dying breed
From Obama, to the IMF, and everyone in between is arguing now is not the time for austerity. One only has to look to Europe to see the consequences.
But as long as everyone understands that at the end of the day it's not social security or medicare recipients, or the military, kids on headstart, families on food stamps, but Bondholders who will dictate the terms and conditions, i.e. interest rates, to finance the debt.
At some point in time, servicing our debt will be an issue. It isn't today when you have the 10 year Treasury under 2%, but if goes to 4%, which is the historical norm, then those groups mentioned above and others will be impacted. Defaulting on GM bondholders is one thing, defaulting on the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis, and everyone in-between is a bit different.
It's nice for Huffypost to publish that article, but even 99% of their readers don't understand it. To put it more succinctly, I have a better chance as a volunteer d-back coach of freshman high school football, to get 14 year old prospective defensive backs to understand and react to "green right strong slot, spider Z, Y banana", than just about any adult reading that article.
-- Modified on 4/22/2013 4:10:46 PM
One has to start to differentiate from investment spending from expenditures. When you cut spending to schools, infastructure, snap (food stamps), medcare, social security (which is self funded by the employer and employee), headstart, and the like you are taking money out of the economy.
When you have an economy, such as the one we have right now cutting spending will cut off all growth. Consumers are not spending because they dont have the discretionary income to do so, therefore the only "consumer" is the government. This is basic economics 101.
The problem with the teabaggers is they dont have a fundamental understanding of what exactly is expenditures and investment expenditures which return money back to the economy. For example for every $1.00 spend with snap, $1.69 is returned back to the economy. Before you start spooling your teabagger talking points educate yourself on how austerity is good, decipher and understand what it will do to an economy that is just digging itself out of the disaster from oct of 2008.
and work on your comprehension. All I mentioned was a fact. That fact is the role of bondholders. They are the one's that finance debt. Today, you have the Federal Reserve through QE I, II & III financing a significant portion of that debt through various bond purchases. At some point in time the Federal Reserve will begin to unwind their positions. What do you think is going to happen?
By the way, I'm not part of the Tea Party, so that wouldn't make me a Teabagger. Though I assume your knowledge of teabagging is much more extensive.
P.S. No need to attach your TER ID to every post. We know what you do for a living.
-- Modified on 4/22/2013 4:51:28 PM
So every $1.00 spent on food stamps (actually we got rid of food stamps long ago – now we just give them credit cars with a certain amount of money on it ) returns $1.69 to the economy?
I don’t think so. The claim is that every $1.00 spent on Snaps generates $1.84 in economic activity, according to the Secretary of Agriculture who used Bush era figures to compute this ratio. That is not quite the same as “returning money to the economy."
But you are forgetting that the $1.00 comes from deficit spending. In other words, the government borrows money from lenders, promises to pay interest to the lender, and then pays that $1.00 to the Snap recipient after deducting its own expenses. But this means that there is less capital available to the private sector bc the lender has loaned to the government. The lender could take that same $1.00 and spend it himself or invest in something other than Treasury securities. Either way, that $1.00 still gets injected in the economy without the government having to pay for the loan.
So all the Snaps program does is stimulate one small area of the economy at the cost of a loss of stimulus in another area. There is no alchemy here – the $1.00 does not magically turn into $1.84 or $1.69 to use your number. When you factor in the 4% vig on the 80 billion or so we spend each year on Snaps, the transaction is kind of a waste of money.
If we are going to trickle anywhere, let’s trickle down – cut taxes and benefits to the wealthy and the resulting rising tide will lift all ships.
When you have an economy, such as the one we have right now cutting spending will cut off all growth. Consumers are not spending because they dont have the discretionary income to do so, therefore the only "consumer" is the government. This is basic economics 101.
The problem with the teabaggers is they dont have a fundamental understanding of what exactly is expenditures and investment expenditures which return money back to the economy. For example for every $1.00 spend with snap, $1.69 is returned back to the economy. Before you start spooling your teabagger talking points educate yourself on how austerity is good, decipher and understand what it will do to an economy that is just digging itself out of the disaster from oct of 2008.
I don’t think so. The claim is that every $1.00 spent on Snaps generates $1.84 in economic activity, according to the Secretary of Agriculture who used Bush era figures to compute this ratio. That is not quite the same as “returning money to the economy."
Then explain exactly what you define "economic activity"? That s the same as returning money to the economy. You give me $1.00, I spend it on food, that employees the woman that checks me out, that employees the assistant manager that employees the store manager. Since all these people are employed they go and buy other things with their paychecks such as shoes, clothes etc. This is what is called "returning money to the economy".
You really need to get educated on what is "investment expenditures" and "non return of expenditures". You have not taken into consideration that not all expenditures is "deficit spending". Only the budgetary items that go over budget are defict spending. Therefore once again you do not comprehend budgets, governmental accounting nor economics.
Now to address your trickled down. Bush sent us two checks because we had budget surpluses and told us he is returning our money yet we had a debt. Why didnt he pay down the debt with this "surplus"? Then he cut taxes on the rich which sunset in 10 years. We LOST jobs, we lost revenue to the government and he CRASHED the markets in 2008. Jobs and increased income have never been correlated to cutting taxes. You really need to study up on voodoo economics under reagan. Reagan taxed Social Security for the first time, it was never taxed till that point in time. So reagan cut taxes on the rich and it "trickled down" to the other groups of people that never had to pay before. Reagan also taxed unemployment insurance benefits for the first time. You really dont know your history of "tricle down economics" ie voodoo economics. It's been tried and failed miserably.
I've heard it all.... if this actually worked why not put every one on food stamps? By giving money away you can almost double it....
You do realize that money comes from taxpayers, much of what is spent on the food products actually ends up as profits for large corporations. Not going into paychecks for people working at the local store or buying shoes after, most it doesnt even benefit the farmer who raise the crops, milk the cows ect.
If you are operating at a deficit ANY spending could be considered as deficit spending, just divide the whole budget up proportionally. Our deficit spending is crazy right now and needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Then explain exactly what you define "economic activity"? That s the same as returning money to the economy. You give me $1.00, I spend it on food, that employees the woman that checks me out, that employees the assistant manager that employees the store manager. Since all these people are employed they go and buy other things with their paychecks such as shoes, clothes etc. This is what is called "returning money to the economy".
You really need to get educated on what is "investment expenditures" and "non return of expenditures". You have not taken into consideration that not all expenditures is "deficit spending". Only the budgetary items that go over budget are defict spending. Therefore once again you do not comprehend budgets, governmental accounting nor economics.
Now to address your trickled down. Bush sent us two checks because we had budget surpluses and told us he is returning our money yet we had a debt. Why didnt he pay down the debt with this "surplus"? Then he cut taxes on the rich which sunset in 10 years. We LOST jobs, we lost revenue to the government and he CRASHED the markets in 2008. Jobs and increased income have never been correlated to cutting taxes. You really need to study up on voodoo economics under reagan. Reagan taxed Social Security for the first time, it was never taxed till that point in time. So reagan cut taxes on the rich and it "trickled down" to the other groups of people that never had to pay before. Reagan also taxed unemployment insurance benefits for the first time. You really dont know your history of "tricle down economics" ie voodoo economics. It's been tried and failed miserably.
Then explain exactly what you define "economic activity"? That s the same as returning money to the economy. You give me $1.00, I spend it on food, that employees the woman that checks me out, that employees the assistant manager that employees the store manager. Since all these people are employed they go and buy other things with their paychecks such as shoes, clothes etc. This is what is called "returning money to the economy".
You really need to get educated on what is "investment expenditures" and "non return of expenditures". You have not taken into consideration that not all expenditures is "deficit spending". Only the budgetary items that go over budget are defict spending. Therefore once again you do not comprehend budgets, governmental accounting nor economics.
Now to address your trickled down. Bush sent us two checks because we had budget surpluses and told us he is returning our money yet we had a debt. Why didnt he pay down the debt with this "surplus"? Then he cut taxes on the rich which sunset in 10 years. We LOST jobs, we lost revenue to the government and he CRASHED the markets in 2008. Jobs and increased income have never been correlated to cutting taxes. You really need to study up on voodoo economics under reagan. Reagan taxed Social Security for the first time, it was never taxed till that point in time. So reagan cut taxes on the rich and it "trickled down" to the other groups of people that never had to pay before. Reagan also taxed unemployment insurance benefits for the first time. You really dont know your history of "tricle down economics" ie voodoo economics. It's been tried and failed miserably.
Did you read the rest of her post? She is almost as "out there" as Willy where it comes to economics. and she seems to be almost as good at just pulling shit out of her ass as either Willy or Birdbrain. or do you remember Bush saying he was "returning our money" because of a surplus?
My sole instructions were, don't let them run around you to the outside! Can't get any simpler than that. Unfortunately, on offense, I played quarterback; much more complicated than defensive end, even though 95% of our plays were run plays!
And, I agree with you about bond holders and servicing the debt. I found the attached article to be interesting also.
for making football so damn complicated, specifically the creation of the West Coast Offense. High school playbooks are complicated today.
Think about when you were in high school. What was your playing weight, and you were a 2-way player? Football back then was a basically a 4 month sport. Today, it's year around, and competitive. These kids aspire to D-1 scholarships. Offense and defensive lineman average about 260 lbs, with some kids hitting 300.
You can go to MaxPreps or LA Times online, and click on the preps section. See some great game clips and how talented and athletic kids are today.
A/K/A "Ground Chuck."
Bonding bills are one of the best and only ways for our local and state governments to build the infrastructure we do need to repair and advance. Once defaults become common place the risks to the stock market, public pensions and state balanced budgets will quickly outweigh the actual cost of servicing the bonds. Besides our politicians and the %1 er's dont want to see their dollars devalued through inflation or a world economic colapse. Make no mistake if the Euro falling apart is having a negative downturn to the world economy the Dollar will be worse.
Did any of you major in economics or accounting or finance?
So you want to go back to the stock market collapse of 1929? or how about the stock market crash under reagan? or how about the stock market crash under bush? .... hmmmmm there is a theme here no stock market crashes under trickle up theories only under the trickle down theories.
Government budgets do not equate to household or business budgets. When there is no spending by consumers the only way to grow the economy is for the govt to spend the money. Where does the money come from to pay for the bonds.. oh thats right the taxpayers.... gawd do you people understand how revues flow in and out of the governement or how an economy runs
I never said trickle down economics works.
Can you name one government that has spent its way out of an economic depression? If you use the USA in 1929-40 I;d argue that the programs for infrastructure developement were mainly labor intensive; nothing like todays road and bridge construction crews.
What happens when we fail to pay our debts as a nation? or print money to pay them? The Russian Ruble comes to mind. Were they able to spend themselves to profitability?
I'm not saying that the government can afford to cut all spending, but being more fiscally responsible is needed. Ethical spending is more than just writing checks for programs because people need money. One in 22 in america collects disability. And this is just one area where spending nees to be addressed.
•In Hale County Alabama 1 in 4 receive disability checks.
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/unwilling-to-work-1-in-4-in-hale-county.html#PXBrslDcazJ4YCbx.99
Once again you are lumping all spending into one lump sum and this is total flawed thinking and logic. If you have projects that generate revenue back into the government you dont cut those programs. If you cut what you call "writing checks for people who need money" is wasteful spending when that is less than .05% of the budget. You need to educated yourself on what the big expenditures are, military is one of the largest, social security disability is funded by employer and employee through deductions in your check. You have this idea that has been fed to you by this think tank group that thinks spending is the govt's problem. Spending is not the problem, revenue is the problem. When everyone lost their job and unemployment went from just under 4% under clinton to over 9% under bush that means people lost their jobs and they were not paying income taxes therefore less income was flowing into the govt at the same time bush was not budgeting nor paying for the war, prescription drug program, and the bush tax cuts. So when Obama's administration redid the budget they put all these expenses into the budget. This is what increased the debt to the levels that it is at. So what you call fiscally responsible spending is being done under Obama and he has cut more than all presidents prior to him. What is desperately needed is for this country to spend money for items that will generate income back into the govt
"Obama and he has cut more than all presidents prior to him "
Exactly how much $$$ has BO cut, and name all all of the programs where these cuts been made?
And no, Whitehouse.gov is hardly a neutral source.
Obama refuses to even cut the GROWTH of spending, much less cut a single penny of actual spending.
Lets start by naming some spending that creates positive revenue? Like the post office? Name some programs that are fully self funding and revenue creators?
I think you meant SNAP programs alone counted for 5% not .05% of the federal budget. If you factor in the fact we are currently operating at a 63% deficit that makes the number for SNAP closer to 9% of the federal budget or 235 billion dollars. Those numbers are from mother jones.
Social security that you claim is fully funded by payroll and employer taxes isnt. It is losi g money every yr and as life expectancies increase so do the projected shortfalls. 22% of the federal budget is SS, 773 billion.
Medicare is much the same 21% of the federal budget or 732 billion.
Snap and other welfare programs account for 411 billion.
With 2.2 trillion in revenue from taxes ect the shortfalls are not going to fix themselves.
I disagree with the blanket statement that more jobs are needed. What is needed is more living wage jobs, middle class jobs that pay enough for discretionary spending and them to pay actual federal income tax. The most prosperous period of orur history was a period when middle class jobs paid well and were in abdunance. Government programs today that do little to increase peoples job skills and ability to work and just hand money out need to be addressed. Paying disability to people who dont truly need it is only one issue.
Taxpayers money needs to be spent by the government like it was their personal money. Would you agree that 5-10% of government spending is waste? Or could be trimmed?
I said ethical spending is more than writing checks to people in need. Dont partially quote me.