L sends us this song, "It ain’t your money to spend!" from Kathleen Stewart- you can listen here
2009, Words by Steve Jones, Music by Kathleen Stewart
Don’t spend my grandson’s paycheck.
He’s only two years old.
With Obama in the White House,
His future’s bought and sold.
Stop this immoral spending spree.
Stop assaulting our liberty.
Let me help you comprehend:
It ain’t your money to spend.Born and bred for freedom.
Got me a lot of rights.
They’re all but disappearing
Before your fiscal appetites.
You’re taking the fruit of my labor
To give your next-door neighbor.
I’ll say it from beginning to end:
It ain’t your money to spend.It ain’t your money to spend.
You’re acting like a bunch of jerks.
I’m the one who earned it.
I’m the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn’t jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain’t your money to spend.You started a spending orgy and then,
You made me long for Georgie again.You gave some cash to ACORN.
Those folks are so corrupt.
All the pork and all payoffs,
It makes me want to erupt.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,
The scariest folks since Bela Lugosi.
Let me help you comprehend.
It ain’t your money to spend.It ain’t your money to spend.
You’re acting like a bunch of jerks.
I’m the one who earned it.
I’m the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn’t jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain’t your money to spend.
Mish's Global Economic Analysis
Northern Virginia Housing Bubble Fallout
UK House Bubble
Ohio Fraudclosure
Bubble Meter
Breaking News Relevant Articles© Copyright 2012 Housing Doom | Copyright© 2011, AuthentiCraft, Inc.
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world” –
Thomas Jefferson
And perhaps, even save Middle America.
You’re kidding, right? Do we have to go over the enormous deficit that was completely created on the Bush watch? You do recall that Clinton left a budget surplus, right? You do recall that when the current economic ‘crisis’ started in the fall of 2008, it was Republicans that pushed the first several hundred billion at the bank…. with almost NO strings attached? When did this blog start channeling Fox news?
And by the way, the greatest wealth re-distribution in the history of the United States happened over the past eight years or so. It distributed wealth UPward, not downward, or sideways.
Tell a friend.
Yossarian-
I would have posted the same song if it were dedicated to Bush six months ago. I didn’t like the overspending/wealth redistribution then, and I still don’t like it now. As you’ll recall, I was no fan of the Bush bailouts either.
Good stuff. And while we can all get involved with the Tea Party movement, we can also have our own personal tax revolts.
I am as much an independent as one can get, so I have no kind words for either side of the aisle.
That being said,the Clinton surplus myth needs to die. There was never an actual surplus, but instead, a projected paper surplus based on long term economic growth and high taxes. The records are clear that Clinton had a deficit every year he was in office.
Clinton’s annual budget also expanded every year that he was in office. He simply expanded taxes at a greater rate. Clinton raised taxes more than any president in peace time history.
Massive tax collection from the false dot-com boom and extremely high levels of social security collection, added to the facade of economic growth and a balanced budget.
When Clinton was leaving office, the dot-com bubble burst and America took a $2 TRILLION haircut! The markets collapsed, tax collection was dropping like a rock, unemployment was rising and then came 9-11.
What did Clinton say to a dumbed down electorate? “I have know idea what Bush did, it was alright when I left.”
What Bush did do was to create a housing bubble, much like Clinton’s tech bubble, and that is the subject of this well chronicled site.
mike…
“a projected paper surplus based on long term economic growth and high taxes.” sounds good to me….can i have that again? it would sure beat a complete collapse of an entirely false economy driven by ridiculous tax cuts, credits, and breaks for the past eight years; while still spending as if those “high taxes” were still in place, driving up the national debt.
mtnmike,
I take it then that you do not trust Federal Reserve Bank Statistics?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSD?cid=5
Or better still, this graph:
http://static.zooomr.com/images/7083764_ed04e2f682_o.png
… which clearly shows a Surplus between 1997 and 2001.
Some more stats for you, courtesy of “Historical Tables of the FY 2009 Budget”:
2001 Budget Outlay (M$): $1,863,190
2008 Budget Outlay (M$): $2,931,222
Increase in budget during Bush’s term of office ($M): $1,068,032.
Percent increase in Federal Spending during Bush’s term of office: 57.32%
——–
1993 Budget outlay ($M): $1,409,522
2000 Budget Outlay ($M): $1,789,216
Increase in Budget during Clinton’s term of office ($M): $379,694
Percent increase in Federal Spending during Clinton’s term of office: 26.94%
——–
1989 Budget Outlay ($M): $1,143,829
1992 Budget Outlay ($M): $1,381,649
Increase in Budget during GHW Bush’s term of office ($M): $237,820
Percent increase in Federal Spending during GHW Bush’s term of office: 20.79% (4 years)
——–
1981 Budget Outlay ($M): 678,241
1988 Budget Outlay ($M): 1,064,481
Increase in Budget during Reagan’s term of office ($M): $386,240
Percent increase in Federal Spending during Reagan’s term of office: 56.95%
——–
1977 Budget Outlay ($M): 409,218
1980 Budget Outlay ($M): 590,941
Increase in Budget during Carter’s term of office ($M): $181,723
Percent increase in Federal Spending during Carter’s term of office: 44.41% (4 years)
Additionally, Federal Government outlays in 1993 represented 21.4% of GDP. In 2000, this had dropped to 18.4%.
In short, Clinton oversaw a huge reduction in the size of Federal Government spending as a percentage of GDP. The 2000 figure of 18.4% was the best figure since 1966 (17.9% of GDP)
“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” -Gregg Easterbrook
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. -Aaron Levenstein
I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. -Mrs. Robert A. Taft
Definition of GAAP= Great Acts of Accounting Prestidigitation -anonymous
“We are on the right track to put these last two quarters behind us.” -Richard Fuld Jr.
ASALUKI,
Focusing on the eight years of poor governance under Bush is the not the answer to solving our problems. Nor is looking back at the Clinton years with rose colored glasses. These are microeconomic views of a macroeconomic problem.
You said that high taxes and paper surpluses looked good to you, “can I have it back?”
Please consider my statement, “When Clinton was leaving office, the dot-com bubble burst and America took a $2 TRILLION haircut! The markets collapsed, tax collection was dropping like a rock, unemployment was rising and then came 9-11.”
Consider that few administrations could raise taxes in the increments that Clinton accomplished prior to the tax rate reaching a 100%. Only under the disguise of a bubble and false profits could any administration raise taxes at those levels.
Focusing on the waring factions of our incompetent right and left political parties takes ones eyes off the actual issues of a failing economic basis. Exponential growth in a finite world is mathematically impossible.
Hutch,
Ignoring facts does no one any good, especially those who ignore them.
Hutch and Mtn Mike, you can’t win. These people practice. A lot. It’s gonna be a long 4 years. Solutions is not part of their agenda. Propaganda is.
One Salient Oversight,
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP equals a reduction in government? That is truly a “torture numbers” statement. However, for the sake of argument, it depends on how the GDP figure was elevated and whether it was sustainable. In Clinton’s case, sustainability became quite an issue. His good fortune was that he was going out when the $2 trillion crash was coming in.
During the Clinton years we saw massive growth in Fed M-3 and easy credit which produced an unsustainable “paper wealth.” At one point fully 1/3 of government revenue was from capital gains taxation!
Also, all government spending is considered in our gross GDP numbers. A better measure of true GDP would be “productive GDP.”
In FY1993, the National Debt was $4.411488 trillion. In FY2001 that number was $5.807463.
The average annual deficit for those years was $174.49 Billion with the lowest deficit of $17.91 billion occurring in FY2000 and rising in FY2001 to $133.29 Billion.
Clinton had no magic formula and lived in relatively peaceful and opportune times when taxes could be increased on the back of a tech bubble creating the false illusion of ongoing prosperity. He was constrained by the same math and physics that is bringing down the world economy today.
I was not a supporter of Bush, but viewing all of our problems as occurring in eight years and proposing that Clinton could have continued his agenda during the tech crash, 9-11, current world events, and the perpetual growth of Fed M-3, benefits no one.
all i’m sayin is i have no problem with clinton level tax rates. it worked alright for that period. nobody can see into the future, but at least his projected budgets were going in a good direction. and maybe he couldn’t have kept it up through the tech bubble or 9-11…..of course, it’s possible that we may not have gone into that war. i was once on track to pay off a credit card until i wrecked my car and that all changed……but i WAS ONCE on track to pay it off nonetheless.
Azaluki,
I’m not being argumentative here, just trying to clarify the difference between what is possible and what is not. The micro example of paying off your credit cards was quite possible. The macro example of Clinton continuing his mission of ever expanding growth and tax collection is not possible.
Actually, we can see into the future, and quite clearly in many instances. When Clinton signed both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization agreements into law, I saw quite clearly that Americans would lose jobs by the millions.
Therefore tax collection would go down and trade imbalances would go up, but Clinton would be long gone. Would Bush have signed both agreements? In a New York minute. And THAT is my point, taking political sides in two ring magic show has no winners.
The laughter just keeps coming.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html
Hutch -
Bush intimate and holdover FHouFA head Jim Lockhart is a master of comic timing
Mtnmike,
I don’t know here you’re getting your stats from, so look at the official stats.
Google a search for “Historical Tables of the FY 2009 budget” and turn to page 31 (page 35 of the pdf) and you’ll be able to compare corporate income taxes (capital gains taxes) to total tax receipts.
Here’s the data for Clinton’s years in office (all figures in Millions of $):
1993: $117,520 corporate income tax. Total receipts = 1,154,471. Ratio = 10.2%
1994: 140,385/1,258,721 = 11.2%
1995: 157,004/1,351,932 = 11.6%
1996: 171,824/1,453,177 = 11.8%
1997: 182,293/1,579,423 = 11.5%
1998: 188,677/1,721,955 = 11.0%
1999: 184,680/1,827,645 = 10.1%
2000: 207,289/2,025,457 = 10.2%
In short: Corporate incomes taxes (which include capital gains taxes) never exceed 11.8% of government revenue.
I laugh at politics for the most part; but this is a little scary.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/18/news/economy/house_aig/index.htm
These shining examples of fiscal responsibility helped create the problem.They authorized the bailout and exempted these bonuses from restriction. Now they are outraged. Can we believe they will NOT need more scapegoats for their public pillory.
One Salient Oversite,
I’ve spent many years in the study of American economics, written a book, done more than 100 lectures, and have written more than 800 articles on that subject.
I do not support the Democrats nor the Republicans as being a party with the answers. Both suggest that our current exponential growth based economic model remains a possibility. It isn’t.
The point that I’m trying to make is that your blind adherence to the Clinton era politics does not allow you to expand your knowledge of the greater controlling subject of macroeconomics.
Capital gains include individual stock market gains, real estate gains, etc. The sale of any capital asset that exceeds the original cost is subject to capital gains tax and is certainly not limited to corporations.