Home > Rob Arkley > FDIC to probe Arkley bank failure

FDIC to probe Arkley bank failure

The closure of Statewide Bank has triggered a federal investigation due to the massive cost to the fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The Covington, Louisiana bank owned by Eureka powerhouse Rob Arkley shut on March 12 and cost the fund $38.1 million.  Investigations are required into any bank failure costing more than $25 million.

A report will be issued by the FDIC Inspector General within six months.

From New Orleans City Business:

Sid Seymour, chief investigator with the state Office of Financial Institutions, said Statewide’s failure has caused state regulators to take note of other Louisiana banks with similar characteristics. Specifically, they are keeping an eye out for banks that experience rapid asset growth and those with significant concentrations in construction and development loans as well as commercial real estate, he said.

“If you look at the high risk assets that Statewide had … certainly we would have to look at other banks with similar portfolios,” Seymour said.

More.

  1. Anonymous
    March 29, 2010 at 5:24 am | #1

    Has the Times-Standard mentioned this story yet?

  2. Ponder z
    March 29, 2010 at 6:19 am | #2

    did this bank get bailout? maybe rob embezzeld this money.

  3. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 7:20 am | #3

    Krugman’s column today:

    Punks and Plutocrats

    Health reform is the law of the land. Next up: financial reform. But will it happen? The White House is optimistic, because it believes that Republicans won’t want to be cast as allies of Wall Street. I’m not so sure. The key question is how many senators believe that they can get away with claiming that war is peace, slavery is freedom, and regulating big banks is doing those big banks a favor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hp

  4. Anonymous
    March 29, 2010 at 8:32 am | #4

    You are an obsession, I cannot sleep
    I am a possession unopened at your feet
    There is no balance, no equality
    Be still I will not accept defeat

    I will have you, yes I will have you
    I will find a way and I will have you
    Like a butterfly, a wild butterfly
    I will collect you and capture you

    You are an obsession, you’re my obsession
    Who do you want me to be to make you sleep with me

    - Animotion

  5. Anonymous
    March 29, 2010 at 8:59 am | #5

    Rob Arkley did it….. oh wait, he probably did.

    Come on now, is mean old Mr. Potter still laughing?
    hifi, anyone?

  6. March 29, 2010 at 9:17 am | #6

    Now, is that a shame or what – 25 million is the starting point for an investigation into the theft of The Peoples Money. Yep, Fiat currency and greed allows for this kind of conduct to happen.

    Hey, is there any regulation controls for poor behaviors in a Federal Reserve General Plan Policy Update Process, lol.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  7. March 29, 2010 at 10:44 am | #7

    Abolish FRACTIONAL LENDING and stop mandatory use of a private currency for public use- one of the pillars of communism is a central bank.
    Why allow banker scum to print the money you are forced to use by their decree?
    Allow competing currencies that will cut the strings the banksters use to control their occupied lands.
    I dream of a world where government and bankers know true fear and wonder where they can hide to escape the anger of those they have been working to control and kill. When the apple cart gets overturned the only theme will be resistance to tyrants is service to God.

    This arkley mess is a drop in the bucket- too bad you communists don’t cry about the real issue, only the ones your blinders allow you to see.

  8. Anonymous
    March 29, 2010 at 10:45 am | #8

    Rob’s Resolution Trust buddies can’t help him now.

  9. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm | #9

    Another non story posted by Heraldo to make it look important.

    All bank failures over $25 mill are investigated, end of story.

    But the Obama is robbing our children’s generation of trillions of dollars in an orgy of insane spending in Washington DC. Why isn’t anyone investigating him ?
    Why isn’t Heraldo & Plain Jane screaming about that theft ?

  10. Cooper
    March 29, 2010 at 12:24 pm | #10

    High Finance,

    Why weren’t you screaming when George W. Bush was running up the $12 trillion debt that Obama inherited?

  11. anon
    March 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm | #11

    I have to argue about this being a non-story. Arkley pulls a lot of strings in this town and has his fingers in a lot of pies. I think his bank troubles there are very relevant to his profile here. But I don’t expect someone who thinks the current debt is all Obama’s doing wouldn’t get that anyway.

  12. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 1:22 pm | #12

    I’m not screaming because I’m still hoarse from screaming about Bush’s unfunded tax cuts, unnecessary wars and pointless defense spending, funding faith based charities, etc. When we’re out of this economic canyon that GOP reckless spending and deregulation put us in, with NOTHING to show for it but underwater homes, I’ll worry about paying off the debt.

  13. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 29, 2010 at 1:45 pm | #13

    Look under the rocks. That’s where the slimey things live.
    Oh yeah, and under Louisianna banks, too.

  14. Cheesedick
    March 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm | #14

    Dear Mister BLACK FLAG,
    Your site at freetalklive blows. Please start your own anti-gov blog like this one and I’ll be sure to visit everyday.

    With that said, I’m following your logic up to the point of “service to God” where you simply jump the shark.

  15. Bolithio
    March 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm | #15

    Why is everyone screaming>? Lets just talk.

  16. Truth Speaker
    March 29, 2010 at 3:03 pm | #16

    The tone of the article makes me think Heraldo and others are happy about Uncle Rob losing money. I look at is one of the only major employers in the county, and a person who puts a lot of tax dollars into the system, has taken a big hit. How will this affect the local economy? Will he have to sell off properties and liquidate assets? Maybe, he will no longer be able to afford the balloon tract his planned renovations and the CCC’s planned clean-up will now be even more economically unfeasible. What happens then?

  17. March 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm | #17

    Arkley was playing by the rules that were re defined by Senator Phil Gramm, Rep. Thomas J Bliley and Rep. Jim Leach, all republicans. In 1994, they repealed the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933. This allowed the banks to get into the kind of gambling that lead to the first republican depression. Bill Clinton gleefully signed the repeal into law. The republicans had enough votes at the time that they didn’t need Clinton’s signature but he signed it just the same.

    We need to change the rules that allow corporations to internalize profits and externalize losses leaving tax payers holding the bills.

  18. ThinkingOutLoud2
    March 29, 2010 at 3:45 pm | #18

    Cooper at 12:24. Thank you. I was going to have to respond to Hi Fi about the obvious trillions of un-budgeted war debt the previous admin left to us and our grandchildren. Hi Fi continues to post demonstrating his “Hi Que(vi)” Yup 6. Good job Einstein, make RA proud.

  19. ThinkingOutLoud2
    March 29, 2010 at 3:56 pm | #19

    Truth Speaker at 3:03, what happens then is that the Railroad has to clean up their mess, properly. If RA is paying so much in taxes locally, why did he move his “legal residence” to Louisiana? To not pay local (state) tax is why. You Arkley apologists have a strange way of overlooking the obvious and ignoring the facts. Go figure…

  20. Truth Speaker
    March 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm | #20

    thinking out loud, how many people does Arkley employ locally? do those people pay taxes? if they were fired and started growing weed which seems to me to be the major engine to our local economy, would they still be paying taxes? arkley and his businesses contribute greatly to our local tax base. if you don’t understand that, there’s little i can do to help you. i am pro-Eureka as a longtime resident and root for things to improve it. arkley having money and spending it on projects (the new coop and the boardwalk) makes things better. arkley being poor and laying people off, makes things worse. you arkley haters have a strange way of not looking at the obvious and reshaping the facts.

  21. Not A Native
    March 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm | #21

    This could be more serious that it seems, way more than just Truth Seeker losing his idol lord and master, bringer of all good things.

    Didn’t Arkley establish residency in Louisiana, probably in the parrish this bank operated in. After all, Wiki says: “St. Tammany Parish is….on Lake Ponchartrain. It is the most affluent parish in the metro area…. and is the most politically conservative parish in the New Orleans region.

    Will Arkley be tar and feathered(metaphorically), ridden out of town on a rail, and be looking to locate back to HumCo? Hope not. Last thing HumCo needs is another refugee running from a checkered past and tailed by the law.

    I hear housing is reasonable in Rich Ghilarducci’s Phoenix development where washed up businessmen go to die. Do the right thing, Rob.

  22. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 4:28 pm | #22

    Cooper & Thinkingoutloud are both wrong of course & again.

    The national debt was around $4 trillion when Bush took office & unfortunately he ran it up to $8 trillion.

    Now Obama has already run it up to $10 trillion & the CBO has projected he’ll run it up to $20 trillion by the sorry time he slinks out of Wash DC.

  23. Anony.Miss
    March 29, 2010 at 4:34 pm | #23

    I have to agree with Truthspeaker here. It only benefits us to have one of our best employers and largest community contributor be profitable. Many of us depend on that business one way or another. I have many friends and acquaintances who depend on the good pay and benefits they receive from his businesses.

  24. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm | #24

    I agree Tom. Did you read Krugman’s article today? The Republicans are pretending that regulating banks is for banks’ benefit because then we have to bail them out if they fail, ignoring the fact that we have to bail them out if they fail regardless of whether they are regulated and being unregulated they are more likely to fail due to their irresponsible risk taking with our guarantee if they lose. At the same time they are lining up for the huge contributions and / or job promises after they leave office. Do you know where Phil Gramm is now?

  25. Not A Native
    March 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm | #25

    News Flash:

    Hi Fi predicts that President Barack Obama will run and win office in 2012.

    In fact, by referring to CBO benchmarks, Hi Fi predicts Obama will serve three terms and be in office till 2020. Way to go Hi Fi!

    You can take that to the bank (but better not to Arkley’s bank).

  26. Truth Speaker
    March 29, 2010 at 4:52 pm | #26

    Jane- It is false to point out the republicans as the people who are bailing banks out. The banks were bailed out with a majority democrat senate, a majority democrat house, and a democrat president. We liberals need to hold our liberal representatives accountable and not pretend they are “good” because they carry the label democrat and the republicans are “bad” based on their party affliation. Instead of exhausting the infinitive supply of what makes the republicans bad, try to explain to me what the democrats have done since gaining power over a year ago? That scarier than what the republicans are doing and saying.

  27. Cooper
    March 29, 2010 at 4:56 pm | #27

    The national debt was around $4 trillion when Bush took office & unfortunately he ran it up to $8 trillion.

    Wrong High Finance. Where do you come up with these revisionist fairy tales? The boom times of the Clinton presidency erased the Reagan-Bush I deficit. George W. Bush squandered all of that and left Obama with a $12.5 trillion deficit when Barack took office in January 2009.

  28. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm | #28

    What is false is for you to say that I pointed at republicans as the people who are bailing banks out. I didn’t even imply that. I’ll try to use little words so you can understand.

    The Republicans are opposing new banking regulations, saying that if the govt. regulates the banks they will have to bail them out of they fail. What they are not saying is that without new banking regulations they are more likely to fail again and we will still have to bail them out. They are also asking the banks for big campaign contributions.

    Do you understand now?

  29. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 5:03 pm | #29

    To set the record straight, Cooper. There was still a lot of national debt when Bush took office. Clinton balanced the budget which meant the debt was no longer increasing and we would be able to start paying it down. Bush’s tax cuts (designed to starve the beast and further enrich his base “the have mores”) on top of wars on top of an economic crunch once again caused the debt to start growing and the budget deficit to balloon because “deficits don’t matter” to Republicans when Republicans are in control of the White House and Congress.

  30. Truth Speaker
    March 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm | #30

    Thank you Jane for saying that without being sarcastic or condescending. I feel terrible for not properly understanding what you wrote the first time. My point, that liberals also deserve blame for the bank bailouts, the regulatory system that governs them, and the regulations that likely won’t pass through the current democratic Congress, is completely null and void now. I foolishly thought that if the liberals, us, stuck together with the majority in Congress, the republicans couldn’t do jack shit to stop the new regulations. Thank you for conversing with me in the kindest of ways to disprove my foolish theories.

    Did you understand that I wasn’t being sincere?

  31. Scary Thought
    March 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm | #31

    Does anyone here think for a minute Obama is killing the USA?…on purpose?

  32. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm | #32

    Your foolish theories have nothing to do with your mistaken impression of what I wrote. You misread and then accused me of blaming Republicans for the bail outs (although it’s incomprehensible how you could have been so mistaken)which had to be corrected and then get all pissy about being corrected. Your lack of sincerity is noted.

  33. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm | #33

    No Scary, but I know people who claim they believe it.

  34. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm | #34

    Cooper, you are confusing the national debt with the annual deficit.

    Please get your facts straight before you criticise.

    The facts are, the national debt went from $4 trillion to $8 trillion in 8 years under Bush & that is not acceptable.

    But it pales in comparison to the travesty happening in Wash DC under Obama & the Democrats.

  35. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm | #35

    No Scary Thought, Obama isn’t destroying the fabric of our country on purpose.

    He is doing it through sheer incompetance.

  36. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm | #36

    Plain old Jane, 5.03pm. You are parroting the left wing line, but it isn’t true.

    The national debt was still increasing under Clinton, albeit more slowly. SS is off-budget & that allowed the Dems to lie with a straight face.

    Bush was faced with a recession even before 9/11. His tax cuts were to spur the economy. Occuring the same time as two wars it increased the deficit. It was sound theory & it did help end that recession.

    His only mistake was to continue the cuts after the economy recovered.

    Obama’s bills have no real intention of spuring the economy. They are payoffs to political supporters & politicians. It is almost pure pork. This latest bill is a prime example. Another $70-80 billion added to the deficit & the biggest thing it does is add another six months to the federal unemployment benefits.

    You can argue whether that is a good thing or not, but you cannot argue that it helps create jobs.

  37. Ignoranymous
    March 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm | #37

    Yes High Finance. I agree.

    Death and destruction creates profit.

  38. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 6:25 pm | #38

    Where would the deficit and debt be if not for the Bush tax cuts and wars? Now subtract the trillions for the bail outs and stimulus due to the economic crises caused by deregulation and job losses, add what was lost in tax revenue due to outsourcing jobs and add back in the socialized costs for millions who lost those jobs.

  39. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm | #39

    “The national debt was still increasing under Clinton, albeit more slowly. SS is off-budget & that allowed the Dems to lie with a straight face.”

    “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.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

  40. Cooper
    March 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm | #40

    Nonetheless High Finance,

    When Bush was president, did you complain once on the blogs about his rampant deficit spending? Heraldo has been around for four years. You only showed up after Obama was elected.

    You woke up one morning and realized that white people weren’t in charge anymore. You didn’t like that. Be honest.

  41. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm | #41

    You seem to be claiming that Bush and the GOP lied when they claimed they were giving tax cuts to return the surplus to the taxpayers, HiFi.

  42. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 6:37 pm | #42

    “You can argue whether that is a good thing or not, but you cannot argue that it helps create jobs.”

    Actually, I can argue it and dare you to refute it.

    People receiving unemployment benefits spend them. They pay their mortgage or rent, they buy groceries and other necessities. The money they spend creates jobs across the spectrum from fast food to financial. It provides the additional benefit of reducing the drain on every community’s social services.and allows local govt. to maintain more staff.

  43. FinancialMeltDown
    March 29, 2010 at 7:11 pm | #43

    Truth Speaker is an interesting moniker for an Arkely apologist. And then you call yourself a liberal but decry what the dems have accomplished. Kind of seem like you are having a bit of identity crisis or maybe you’re just full of shit.

  44. Cooper
    March 29, 2010 at 7:14 pm | #44

    …or maybe you’re just full of shit.

    This

  45. Anonymous
    March 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm | #45

    Bush was faced with a recession even before 9/11

    Was that before or after Bush failed to act as 4,081 people died from Katrina? Before or after he launched two wars he couldn’t win and that didn’t need to be fought? Or… Or… there’s a long list of his epic failures that have sunk this once great nation.

    Giving people healthcare, even a lame half-hearted attempt like what we got passed through Congress, is the least that could be done to begin turning our country around. Please call it Obamacare. That’s a fantastic name I hope will be used for decades to come. You’re so insulated you have no clue how many people are rejoicing over Obama. Thank you to the neocons for inexorably tying national healthcare to Obama. Reelection? Ca-Ching!

  46. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 8:48 pm | #46

    Oh brother Anon 8.33pm, you have been duped. You have fallen for every lie the Democrat party has spread.

    You really don’t know that the Democrat mayor of New Orleans did not force the evacuation of the poor? That several hundred empty school buses were left to be destroyed by the flood instead of being used to ferry people out? That the Democrat governor of Louisina would not allow FEMA into the state for days saying they could handle it? Those two exhibited a false front of machismo & incompetance.

    Are you saying the war in Afghanistan didn’t need to be fought? The same government of Afghanistan at the time aided & abetted the al-Qaeda ?

    Under Bush, the left were shocked & outraged at a deficit that ran $300 billion a year. Now we have a deficit that is $300 billion every two months & you aren’t angry?

  47. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm | #47

    And yes Cooper, I did speak out against the Bush deficits after the economy recovered. Unlike you, I am can criticise my party.

    And Jane, you have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Extending unemployment benefits has no more benefit to the economy. They are adding billions to the deficit. It will have to be paid back sooner or later in the form of far higher taxes & inflation. The payback gaurantees the damage to the economy will last for years. The long term damage to the economy will be immense. What ever little benefit will last six months, if even that.

  48. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 9:01 pm | #48

    Will it last longer than the war debt, HiFi? Will it last longer than the debt incurred for those Bush tax cuts? You didn’t refute anything but just stated your unsupported opinions. When the economy is a mess like this, the banks aren’t lending, homes are being foreclosed, and millions of people are losing their jobs, the government has to spend because no one else can. Yes, increasing the debt is bad. What is worse is doing nothing and letting it all collapse. Hopefully in 6 months there will be improvement in the economy but if more and more people lose their jobs and benefits, it will just spiral down.

    You didn’t even know that Clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus and you slight my knowledge of economics? HA!

  49. anon
    March 29, 2010 at 9:07 pm | #49

    The problems this country has now cannot be blamed solely on republicans or democrats, period. The people say that can go join the other idiots in congress, because it surely is full of bickering, arrogant asses from both parties. Democrats lie, Republicans lie, bloggers lie. Let the intelligent discourse begin.

  50. FinancialMeltDown
    March 29, 2010 at 9:08 pm | #50

    Krugman might dispute your economic theories HF, but he’s only a Nobel Laureate economist.

  51. March 29, 2010 at 9:35 pm | #51

    Economics and finances – a very worthy topic of discussion!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  52. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 9:55 pm | #52

    Paul Krugman, PhD, Economics professor at Princeton, AND Nobel Laureate in Economics can’t possibly know as much about economics as HiFi. After all, Limbaugh told him that Clinton never balanced the budget and used SS funds to hide his deficit. :P

  53. The Monitor
    March 29, 2010 at 10:14 pm | #53

    ROB has found himself working with a business model that doesn’t work anymore. When money was easy and times were good, it worked to leverage assets to buy distressed properties and build shopping malls. In January of 2008 his financial future took a major turn that is only showing up now. It took a while for it to reach this crisis point, the old domino effect. Stores closed, then the mall had no tenants, they defaulted on the bank loan and there you have it. Rob carried all the paper through his banks and in many cases owned the mall too, at least on paper. I think he is in great difficulty.

    If I was to make a guess, I would say the Marina Center will happen much further in the future, if at all. If he can’t barrow from his own banks, who would loan him the needed money, BofA?

  54. High Finance
    March 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm | #54

    Jane, Clinton did NOT balance the budget except on paper. It included borrowing money from the SS fund & they called it income.

    Adjusting for that quirk in governmental accounting, the federal government had a deficit dearie.

    Using that nonsense Plain Jane, you should report that refi you did on your house or the money you borrowed to buy that car as taxable income on your tax return.

    You & Meltdown are an example of the rampant financial illiteracy in this country. The problem is, you people vote & that ignorance threatens the future of this country.

  55. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 10:21 pm | #55

    I posted the fact check on it, HiFi. WITHOUT SS funds, there was a 1.9 billion surplus in 1999 and a 86.4 billion surplus in fiscal 2000. Just because you get your news from Fox and Rush doesn’t mean the rest of us believe that garbage. Surplus means money left over after the current bills are paid. That means money goes to pay DOWN the debt. Even Bush admitted it when he said he was returning the SURPLUS to the taxpayers with his tax cuts.

  56. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 10:23 pm | #56

    “Using that nonsense Plain Jane, you should report that refi you did on your house or the money you borrowed to buy that car as taxable income on your tax return.”

    Projecting again, HiFi? I have 0 debt and haven’t had any for almost 15 years. How’s that for fiscal responsibility?

  57. March 29, 2010 at 10:32 pm | #57

    Good job to anyone with zero debt AND who will not stoop to low, humiliating levels to borrow from fiat organizations for personal vices that line the pockets of those “higher-ups” running the pyramid scheme through corporate America known as the Central Banking System! Consumers just need to live and learn like previous generations did – don’t froth at having everything NOW!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  58. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 10:36 pm | #58

    Another source:

    CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget
    Posted: February 3rd, 2010 04:36 PM ET

    From CNN’s Jim Dexter

    (CNN) – President Obama declared on Wednesday that Democrats can be trusted on the budget because, “the last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president.”

    Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

    – The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
    – Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
    – There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
    – Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
    – Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate.

    Read the bottom line after the jump.

    Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/?fbid=YJbEILNmtxq

  59. Plain Jane
    March 29, 2010 at 10:42 pm | #59

    Bush: Bigger surplus makes tax cuts OK

    WASHINGTON (AP) – The economy’s relentless growth means federal surpluses will be far larger than estimated, leaving plenty of room for George W. Bush’s proposed tax cut, aides to the presidential contender said Tuesday.

    Bush’s new estimates came amid cries from supporters of his Democratic rival, Vice President Al Gore, that the Republican’s plan would be so big that it would force deep spending cuts and a return to budget deficits. Bush’s plan ”still doesn’t add up,” a Gore adviser asserted.

    Using new economic data, the Texas governor’s campaign now says that, excluding Social Security, there will be a federal surplus of $647 billion from 2002 through 2006. That is $61 billion more than they had previously projected.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1686.htm

  60. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 1:12 am | #60

    Seems like Jane and HiFi are talking past each other. I do remember that under Clinton (and a Republican Congress) that the annual budget deficit was eliminated and there was a sizeable annual surplus for several years.

    I don’t doubt that Clinton used the same accounting tricks as his predecessors used in relation to the Social Security “Trust Fund.” If I recall correctly, Bush Sr. did the same thing, and I’m guessing (but not sure) that Bush Jr. also did.

    The bottom line is that a strong economy, pressure from the Repub Congress to control spending, and the Clinton Administration’s willingness to raise revenues to pay for programs rather than just run big deficits all added up to Clinton having the best record on deficit reduction of any recent U.S. President. However, even this progress hardly scratched the surface in terms of dealing with past years’ accumulated deficits, aka the National Debt.

    Under Bush Jr., the gov’t spent lavishly, cut taxes, especially on the wealthy, and then left the bill for our grandchildren, including many hundreds of billions in “supplemental” spending on the wars. He also handed over a wrecked economy and a serious financial crisis.

    So Obama and the current Congress had to choose between a policy of austerity (massive cut-backs in gov’t spending in hopes of reducing the deficit) which carried a serious risk of leading to full-scale financial and economic meltdown, or else a policy of trying to stimulate the economy despite the fact that this meant large-scale deficit spending and adding substantially to an already crushing national debt. Whether it was because the best economic advice told him to go the stimulative route, or it was simply the path of least resistance politically, I don’t know. But this is the path they are taking, and it’s certainly understandable given the situation the Obama Administration inherited.

    The hope, of course, is that the stimulative spending helps ameliorate the economic downturn and hastens an economic recovery, which in turn generates more tax revenue. Time will tell whether and to what degree this strategy is working. What we never will know is what would have happened if they took the austerity approach. Personally I suspect that taking an austerity approach, just at the moment when the economy was already in free-fall, would have been disasterous for the country.

  61. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 6:45 am | #61

    Come on Reasonable, I posted different sources (2 different fact check articles) which stated clearly that there were budget surpluses SPECIFICALLY without using SS funds to do so. It’s pretty funny that you say we are talking past each other when you apparently didn’t read the articles either. I posted sources, he keeps repeating himself. Being reasonable doesn’t mean ignoring facts.

  62. Cooper
    March 30, 2010 at 8:17 am | #62

    And yes Cooper, I did speak out against the Bush deficits after the economy recovered. Unlike you, I am can criticise (sic) my party.

    High Finance,

    I challenge you to find one blog comment you made criticizing George W. Bush for his deficit spending. Heraldo’s blog was around for the last 2-1/2 years of Bush’s presidency. Other local blogs have been around longer.

    You only showed up after a black man was elected president. Like the tea-bagger movement. So you can see why most Americans think racism is the motivation, not concern about the national debt.

  63. March 30, 2010 at 8:28 am | #63

    Fact,

    the economy in free fall – the disaster would have been for the welthiest folks holding the worthless crap. Government ONLY bailed out themselves and the wealthiest special interests so that their scheming crap could be put back onto the market AFTER “write-downs, write-offs, etc…”.

    Yes, this is about the financial housing industry meltdown, corporations, consumers and big brother!!!

    This much is TRUE – the non-wealthy would have been much better off. This maneuver was “class-act protectionsim” for the wealthy and “class-act annihalation” for those downtrodden! Separate the benefactors and the abused, this is where knowledge is amplified.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  64. anon
    March 30, 2010 at 9:13 am | #64

    The only fitting part of HiFi’s blog moniker is the high part, as in high and mighty to think he is the only one who understands economics and the rest of us are just illiterates who shouldn’t vote. Plain Jane has the facts straight, they are available at several realiable fact check sources. Let’s see an intelligent response to that.

  65. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 9:25 am | #65

    I think he should change his ID to Low Finance. He probably works as a clerk at a payday loan sharking office.

  66. highblow
    March 30, 2010 at 9:52 am | #66

    So the new guy plays the race card. It is unreal who many characters have been invented here. When is the production meeting. PJ could only be dreamed up, no one person is so arrogant, uninformed, and drinks that much kool-aid.

    Moderated.

  67. FinancialMeltDown
    March 30, 2010 at 10:06 am | #67

    Interesting theory, but wrong Henchman. The wealthy are in a much better situation to weather a meltdown in the economy. When banks stop lending and the economy locks up, businesses are forced to lay off or fire their work force who live paycheck to mortgage payment to credit card payment. They then get foreclosed on and get to move in with mom and dad if they are lucky. The wealthy might have the inconvenience of having to wait an additional year to trade that two year old Lexus in for a new one. The further you go down the economic ladder the more devastating the effects of a meltdown.

  68. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 10:07 am | #68

    Lots of insults but nothing to back it up, Lowblow. Refute the sources posted if you can. So far …….

  69. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 10:09 am | #69

    Jane, Clinton did NOT balance the budget except on paper. It included borrowing money from the SS fund & they called it income.

    One thing tho, government spending levels in 1998-2001 were sustainable. The spending now is utterly unsustainable. Accounting tricks aside, you can’t fake blowing trillions on dumbass wars and bank bailouts.

  70. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 10:17 am | #70

    Should clarify… I blame Democrats and Republicans alike for letting this spending get out of hand. As a country, we need to tell our government to stop blowing money on financial bailouts like a crackhead on the 15th. Now their solution to make us happy is piss away even more money on some over regulated health care system instead of loosening up HMO regulations like we shoulda done 30 years ago. Democrats wanna raise taxes to pay for all this shit like raising taxes has ever shown to do anything besides decrease wealth. I asked y’all this before and I don’t remember any good studies… but can y’all come up with some stats that show raising taxes to directly increase the standard of living? Anywhere? I can show some examples where it fucks over people in poor communities who gotta pay higher tax rates for services because some fucked up condominiums for rich, liberal asshats set their own rate for their own services and their own public schools. The solution is simple: cut taxes and spending, loosen regulations, eliminate the Fed. Then maybe banks like Arkley’s won’t go broke due to bullshit interest rate spurred housing bubbles.

  71. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 10:18 am | #71

    They weren’t only sustainable, we had a SURPLUS. Read the fact check articles posted. It is crystal clear.

  72. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 10:19 am | #72

    You should try researching the Clinton years, Mr. Taxes were raised, spending was reduced and the economy boomed.

  73. Plain Jane
  74. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 10:54 am | #74

    “Taxes were raised, spending was reduced and the economy boomed.”

    True.

    Now apply that to today. Should Obama and the current Congress raise taxes and reduce spending? Because that is not really what they are doing at the moment.

    I’m not sure whether they SHOULD be raising taxes (except on the wealthiest sponges) or reducing spending (except on wasteful or counter-productive programs) very much right now. When I say I’m not sure I mean it — I’m really NOT sure.

    I do know that in the long run, raising taxes, especially on the wealthy and upper-middle-class, and reducing spending, especially on the military-industrial complex, is the only way we will get the deficit under control — and maybe even begin to pay down the national debt.

    An improving economy will increase tax revenues somewhat, but I doubt it will be anywhere near enough to erase these huge deficits, much less actually pay down the national debt. As far as deficit reduction goes, there’s just no substitute for raising taxes and reducing spending. Of course not too many of our elected reps will advocate for these things, for obvious reasons.

  75. March 30, 2010 at 10:58 am | #75

    Jane, I’m over being mad at you. As usual, your points are valid and well researched. However, just as usual is the fact that you seem extremely concerned with pointing your finger at the republicans. Would you argue that part of the country’s current problems (war, debt, etc) are due in part to the democrats? Are the republicans to blame for all these things? Our country is currently hemorrhaging money and we have a democratic president and a democratic congress. It would make my day and I would sleep well tonight if we could just agree that the problem is bigger than the republicans. It’s the democrats too. Taking into consideration how are country functions, it’s not reasonable to give Clinton all the credit for the economic successes during his administration. Any economics professor would tell you he benefitted from the circumstances he inherited and the good decisions he made, were in part made possible by the republican congress. The same can be said of GW whose catastrophic decisions were made possible, in part by, democrats in congress who went along with his bullshit. It’s both parties.

  76. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 11:10 am | #76

    “It’s both parties”

    Yes. But not to the same extent.

  77. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 11:13 am | #77

    For some reason the “false equivalency” fallacy seems to be especially popular for the past several weeks.

  78. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 11:22 am | #78

    Yes, Truth Speaker, it is both parties because the American people demand services they don’t want to pay for and politicians who tell the truth don’t get elected. It is also our “liberal” media which essentially treats every claim as equal without fact checking and reporting the truth, apparently in a disingenuous attempt to appear unbiased.

    Reasonable, the situation today is drastically different than it was during the Clinton administration. Reagan cut taxes and ran up the debt, but Bush 1 raised them and Clinton was able to raise them more as well as cut spending. Obama inherited not only unsustainable debt, but an economy in crisis which requires different medicine than the economic problems of Clinton required. The GOP has only one snake oil medicine for every ailment, cut taxes, despite the tax cuts being a major cause of the current recession. Without increasing the number of jobs available and keeping people in their homes until the economy improves, it won’t. The government is the spender of last resort and this IS the last resort. The working classes are the fuel of the economic engine. Whatever it takes to get them back up to speed at decent paying jobs is what has to be done. Tax cuts won’t do it.

    I would like to add that Clinton also shares some blame for this economic mess. The trade agreements and Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation he signed set the stage for the job losses and financial collapse.

  79. FinancialMeltDown
    March 30, 2010 at 11:27 am | #79

    The real problem in politics is the cost of campaigns and the way they are financed. When politicians, both dems and repubs take the lobbyists money to mount their campaigns they give a pay back for those donations and don’t do the business of the people. The dems are as beholding to special interest as the repubs as witnessed by the lack of single payer or a public option in the health plan just passed. The dems aren’t quit as overt in their dealings with the lobbyists as Boehner standing in front of the bankers and promising them to fight any regulation attempt for their contributions.

  80. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 11:35 am | #80

    These are all quaint arguments about surplus during the dot com boom and how that was cool and tryna give credit to Clinton or the Republican legislature or whatever. But uh… it was the dot com boom bull market emerging out of the previous recession, blatant fucking obvious shit here.

    Slap into reality: our government now owes trillions of dollars and has a annual budget that is close to a third of our GDP. We went to war, gifted banks trillions, and yet we are still doing the same old shit that got us in trouble. Lending is up for dumbshits to buy overpriced houses at fiscally irresponsible interest rates… I wonder wtf is going to happen? Another bust perhaps?

    Lower taxes, cut spending. It is simple. There isn’t a boom of shit, we can’t do any Clintonomics.

  81. Big Al
    March 30, 2010 at 11:42 am | #81

    mostly them Republicans causing problems in government now…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html

  82. March 30, 2010 at 11:52 am | #82

    Reasonable, the “false equivalency” that reference is eluding to people like myself who blame both parties equally. I like the republicans because they tell me exactly what their fucked up policies are. They hate gays, are hate mongers, and pro-war to grossly generalize. The democrats, our guys, oppose all those things publicly and do little to nothing to stop the republican agenda. Most the time, they enable it. I’m currently uninsured. I had great hope for the public option. This new health bill passed a overwhelmingly democratic Congress and democratic President, is in my opinion a farce. The war is still raging and trillions are being spent on it instead things like education which is my field where I believe we can actually affect true positive change. After returning home to Humboldt, I’m still hearing people like you tell me it is the republicans who screw everything up and I shouldn’t blame the democrats. I think you are completely wrong. The democrats are supposed to be my guys yet they do nothing substantial for me and the policies they supposedly endorse are never enacted despite their numbers in Congress. I’m advocating holding the democrats to higher standards instead of making excuses for them. I’m advocating replacing democrats who stand in the way the liberal agenda. You are telling me that I need to keep complaining about the same old, white racist republicans who, for the most part, do what they say. I’m blaming the snake in bushes democrats (the Liebermans and not the Pelosis). We need to elect real liberals and stop being satisfied with the lesser of two evils because that is not getting us anywhere I want to be.
    This is an extremely long winded way to say what finmeltdown said. The problem is the system. I just don’t want the fake liberals to have cover by people who always back whatever fucked up things the democrats do because it was a democrat who did it.

  83. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm | #83

    The few of these “hate monger” Republicans are not exactly “our guys” for the average Republican or Independent voter who votes for Republicans. I’d argue that these folks have more power in the shock jock news world than as actual elected officials.

  84. March 30, 2010 at 12:22 pm | #84

    Hey meltdown financial trickster,

    weathering is different than the outcome. Also, you separated the conjoined bobbleheads for which truly CAN’T be separated with respect to economics and public finances. Too bad that the wealthy can’t handle not being able to track cash transactions and bartering – so sad!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  85. March 30, 2010 at 12:35 pm | #85

    Quiz time,

    which economic theory is more sinister:

    (A) Georgian Theory

    or

    (B) Keynesian Theory

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  86. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 12:53 pm | #86

    That’s like asking do I prefer lacerations or amputations.

    It’s “Georgism” or “Georgist Theory” anyway. “Georgian” would refer to a theory relating to the country or state named Georgia.

    Nah pay no tax whether it is on owning land or through printing fiat currency. Both theories lead to more government fingers in citizen’s wealth pie.

  87. High Finance
    March 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm | #87

    Jane, you arrogant little pinhead (I always wanted to use that Dan Akyrod line!)

    Try this, and you’ll have to try & think before reacting.

    You cannot claim there is a surplus if the total national debt went up. Clinton did get close in FY2000 when the national debt went up only $17 billion, but his last year the debt went up $133.29 billion. Here is the national debt figures & the corresponding deficit figures at the end of each year of Bill’s term.

    FY1993 Debt 4.41 trillion.
    FY1994 Debt 4.69 trillion – increased by 281 billion
    Fy1995 Debt 4.97 trillion – increased by 281 billion
    FY1996 Debt 5.22 trillion – increased by 251 billion
    FY1997 Debt 5.41 trillion – increased by 188 billion
    FY1998 Debt 5.52 trillion – increased by 113 billion
    FY1999 Debt 5.66 trillion – increased by 130 billion
    FY2000 Debt 5.67 trillion – increased by 18 billion
    FY2001 Debt 5.81 trillion – increased by 133 billion

  88. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 12:59 pm | #88

    Truth speaker said: “Reasonable, the ‘false equivalency’ that reference is eluding to people like myself who blame both parties equally.”

    I think you mean “alluding.” But I think the false equivalency argument is “eluding” you also.

    “I like the republicans because they tell me exactly what their fucked up policies are. They hate gays, are hate mongers, and pro-war to grossly generalize.”

    I agree with the second sentence.

    “The democrats, our guys, oppose all those things publicly and do little to nothing to stop the republican agenda. Most the time, they enable it.”

    Sadly, I must agree.

    “I’m still hearing people like you tell me it is the republicans who screw everything up and I shouldn’t blame the democrats.”

    I never said that, and not remotely anything like that.

    “I’m advocating holding the democrats to higher standards instead of making excuses for them. I’m advocating replacing democrats who stand in the way the liberal agenda.”

    Me too.

    “I’m blaming the snake in bushes democrats (the Liebermans and not the Pelosis). We need to elect real liberals and stop being satisfied with the lesser of two evils because that is not getting us anywhere I want to be.”

    I agree, at least with regard to Lieberman and his ilk. I think lumping Pelosi together with Lieberman is a bit simplistic. I wouldn’t go that far.

    “The problem is the system.”

    Yes, I agree.

  89. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 1:02 pm | #89

    HF 12:57 – Source?

    I’m not asking because I think the figures are wrong — they look about right to me. But its always better to have a source.

  90. High Finance
    March 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm | #90

    So how did the Bill Clinton team claim there was a surplus & he paid down the national debt?

    The national debt is made up of two things, public debt & intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is composed of things like Treasury bill & US bonds. Intragovernmental debt is made up borrowing from itself like from the Social Security funds.

    From FY1997 thru FY2001 the PUBLIC debt did decrease from 3.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion. But the intragovernmental debt INCREASED from 1.6 trillion to 2.5 trillion.

    It is a fact that Bill Clinton never had a surplus and never paid down the national debt.

  91. March 30, 2010 at 1:06 pm | #91

    Mr. Nice,

    exactly what most Americans are forced with, especially when capitalism has been hijacked through the switch-a-roo-ski affect that is fascism actions that make it look like bad capitalisms – hence, the socialist bridge being formed by getting people all twisted in concepts like a pretzel, then reprogram their livlihoods.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  92. High Finance
    March 30, 2010 at 1:15 pm | #92

    I’ll get the source in a minute Reasonable.

    So, another point. How DID Clinton even get the deficit down to $18 billion at one point?

    There are two ways the federal government can do this. They can cut spending or they can increase revenue (taxes) collections.

    During Bill’s term he INCREASED spending by 29%, he never cut spending. But he INCREASED taxes by 86%

    FY1992 Total receipts $1.1 trillion, outlays 1.4t
    FY1993 Total receipts 1.2 trillion, outlays 1.4t
    FY1994 Total receipts 1.3 trillion, outlays 1.5t
    FY1995 Total receipts 1.4 trillion, outlays 1.5t
    FY1996 Total receipts 1.5 trillion, outlays 1.6t
    FY1997 Total receipts 1.6 trillion, outlays 1.6t
    FY1998 Total receipts 1.7 trillion, outlays 1.7t
    FY1999 Total receipts 1.8 trillion, outlays 1.7t
    FY2000 Total receipts 2.0 trillion, outlays 1.8t

    Space limitations here cause me to have to round to the nearest 100 billion, but the chart still illustrates the point that I am making.

    Bill Clinton NEVER cut spending.

  93. High Finance
    March 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm | #93

    To get the annual debt figures, try the following.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    And Plain Jane & others, I am not defending what Bush did later. You brought up the myth of Clinton and his “surplus”. I am puncturing that myth.

    But Clinton was restrained by a Republican congress. Bush was aided & abetted by one. But Bush & the Republicans were pikers compared to the travesty that Obama & the Democrats are doing in Wash DC today.

    You should all be afraid for our future.

  94. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 1:28 pm | #94

    exactly what most Americans are forced with, especially when capitalism has been hijacked through the switch-a-roo-ski affect that is fascism actions that make it look like bad capitalisms – hence, the socialist bridge being formed by getting people all twisted in concepts like a pretzel, then reprogram their livlihoods.

    Wish there was a choice between Keynesian and Georgist. As it is, I gotta pay property tax with fiat currency.

  95. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 1:41 pm | #95

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    ADDITIONALLY, HiFi’s OWN post proves him wrong

    FY1999 Total receipts 1.8 trillion, outlays 1.7t
    FY2000 Total receipts 2.0 trillion, outlays 1.8t

    If you receive 1.8 trillion and spend 1.7, you have a surplus. If you receive 2.0 trillion and spend 1.8 you have an even BIGGER surplus.

    As I proved with CNN Money Fact Check and factcheck.org, Clinton had a surplus and he paid down the national debt.

    Clinton reduced projected spending increases.

    I wouldn’t let HiFi balance my friggin check book.

  96. FinancialMeltDown
    March 30, 2010 at 2:20 pm | #96

    Apologies to Truth Speaker for the “your full of shit” post. We agree on a lot and disagree on other things. For some reason I was getting a stealth vibe from some of your postings like you were a liberal in name only kind of like Bass running for Bonny’s seat as a democrat.

  97. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 3:16 pm | #97

    I wouldn’t let Clinton, Bush Sr, Bush Jr or Obama balance my checkbook either!

  98. March 30, 2010 at 3:21 pm | #98

    3:16 pm,

    salutations and cheers to that; now pass the booz, glurp!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  99. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm | #99

    “The national debt is made up of two things, public debt & intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is composed of things like Treasury bill & US bonds. Intragovernmental debt is made up borrowing from itself like from the Social Security funds.”

    “From FY1997 thru FY2001 the PUBLIC debt did decrease from 3.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion. But the intragovernmental debt INCREASED from 1.6 trillion to 2.5 trillion.”

    Thanks for the clarification, HiFi. That’s more or less what I had remembered — that the deficit was officially eliminated, but the debt really didn’t get paid down. Now I remember how that accounting shuffle actually worked.

    And thanks also that under Clinton spending was not reduced in terms of raw numbers, it was only reduced as compared to projected growth. Tax increases did indeed play the main role in significantly reducing the deficit during those years.

    If or when the economy picks up again, tax increases will again have to be a large part of the solution in terms of dealing with the huge deficits and huge debts that we are now carrying. Cutting “wasteful” spending is something that all politicians promise, and all voters want…the problem is that no one agrees on which are the “wasteful” programs, and which are programs that save us money in the long run.

  100. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm | #100

    “I wouldn’t let Clinton, Bush Sr, Bush Jr or Obama balance my checkbook either!”

    Me either! They would be laughing too hard to do it accurately.

  101. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 3:40 pm | #101

    Come to think of it, I wouldn’t let any of our modern Presidents balance my checkbook. Maybe Truman or Eisenhower, certainly not any of those who followed.

  102. Truth Speaker
    March 30, 2010 at 3:43 pm | #102

    No problem finmeltdwn.

    Thanks for the clarification on “eluding” and “alluding.” Also, your witty example of your argument eluding me has left me puzzled. The “false equivalency” alluded to the fact that it is not correct to place an equivacal amount of blame on both democrats and republicans. That was the gist of what you were saying, correct? I than proceeded to explain how I disagreed with you and I alluded to the fact that some democrats (Lieberman being the most obvious)are even bigger pieces of shit than the republicans because they are essentially sheep in wolves clothing.
    How did I misinterpret your argument when I said that people like you do not give the democrats their fair share of the blame (“FALSE EQUIVACY” were your words)? I attempted to show equivacy and then you went through point by point and agreed with me. Please clarify the things you alluded to that have thus far eluded.
    Lastly, I was alluding to Pelosi being, in my opinion, a good, true liberal and that is why the juxtaposition with Lieberman. It appears that eluded you.

  103. just wondering
    March 30, 2010 at 3:54 pm | #103

    with all this data HF and PJ have put on the table….
    what exactly have the two of you accomplished?
    shit or shinola ? gotta know the difference.

  104. High Finance
    March 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm | #104

    Plain Jane 1.41pm, you idiot, I said I had to round off. You are using different tables to compare to each other. Read the freaking tables in whole.

    I now know you are nothing other than a closed minded partisan & not interested in any facts that counter your myths & prejudices.

    At least you are not slowed down in your flaming by having to think any.

  105. just wondering
    March 30, 2010 at 3:56 pm | #105

    or who wears the biggest hat size?

  106. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 3:58 pm | #106

    Oops, my bad on Pelosi. Somehow I missed the word “not,” or to put it another way, it eluded me!

    Re: As to the Equivalency Fallacy, I’m just opining that, on the whole, the Republicans do more damage than the Democrats, the level of harm is not equivalent. You are free to disagree, of course.

  107. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:00 pm | #107

    Maybe it would be fairer to stop calling politicians by their party label and start using their political views as a means to separate them since that is a more accurate measure. There are Democrats (called DINO’s by some) whose political views are more closely aligned with the GOP platform than the Democratic. I can’t think of any Republicans for which the opposite is true. McCain seems to be one of the more “liberal” on that side, or at least he used to be. Maverick’s are tricky like that. There are anti-war Republicans like Paul and war hawk Democrats as well, Lieberman because of his divided loyalties and Feinstein who profit directly from it, as well as others because of military contracts in their districts. It isn’t as simple as red / blue.

  108. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 4:02 pm | #108

    HiFi is right about our ghetto booty loving, cigar sniffing former president.

    Clinton jacked up taxes on that ponzi scheme called Medicare. Then, our government borrowed against this Medicare “surplus.”

    There was never a real surplus. It was all speculated. Clinton’s surplus was a surplus in the same way as Joe homeowner in the housing bubble projected he would have a surplus once his home value went up, so he borrowed against his house to pay for a flat screen TV anna Hummer in the meantime. Surplus my ass. If there was a surplus, why did the national debt go up $281 billion?

    I dunno why y’all want to defend every liberal. Should pick and choose. Clinton sucked. His bullshit brought y’all 8 years of no chance for a Democrat president. Really don’t understand how y’all still have dude’s back. He shot missiles at Al Qaeda bases… look how well that shit turned out. Monica Lewinski? I mean, sure, Hillary is pretty nasty and I wouldn’t tap that, but that is pretty scandalous to go on the d/l for some subordinate intern action. And for sure, the act itself can be forgiven, but the fact that he didn’t get thrown the fuck out of office for publicly lying about it still amazes me.

    Not defending Bush W. either, that dude’s budgeting was closer to basehead logic than beigng fiscally conservative.

  109. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm | #109

    Poor Hi Fi. I used the one table he posted and (rounded or not LOL) it shows a surplus. How dumb do you have to be to argue against your own evidence?

  110. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm | #110

    From Fact Check http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

    “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 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

  111. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm | #111

    I posted above, Mr., that Clinton shares the blame for the economic crisis due to signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the trade agreements that led to massive offshoring of jobs. Isn’t that criticism of a liberal?

  112. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm | #112

    Look, let’s say I take out a home equity loan but instead of calling it a liability or a debt, I call it my homeowner bonus account in the same way that Clinton relabeled our Social Security liability (to future retirees etc) as an intergovernmental account. Now instead of paying out the ass for mortgage every month, I have a fat ass surplus from my equity withdrawal on my homeowner bonus account. Imma go buy a new TV and shit with all this free money. Balanced budget and surplus!

    Do you get why some people don’t call this a surplus or a balanced budget?

  113. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 4:21 pm | #113

    None of this matters anyway as our government has added a trillion per year to the national debt in the last few years. No amount of accounting magic can fix that.

  114. highblow
    March 30, 2010 at 4:24 pm | #114

    I’ve have been watching this blog for a while. I believe that the same staff that helps Marky Lovelace get his work done is also being used by Plain Jane. The attitude and demeanor of the talking head is the same. The political angle is angry progressive and with a superior than thou abrasiveness. It also would fit with the objective of this blog politically.

  115. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:26 pm | #115

    I have a staff now? WOW! LOL

  116. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 4:28 pm | #116

    I’ll agree on the GLBA. It was a good idea if our financial system worked nicely, but since our financial system is all based on hocus pocus number manipulation, the act was a terribly stupid blunder.

  117. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 4:43 pm | #117

    As I have posted repeatedly, according to Fact Check, a reliable nonpartisan organization, not counting the excess SS collected, there was a budget surplus in 1999 and 2000. I didn’t make it up. CNN Money says the same thing. While I’m sure all you internet economists are brilliant, I’ll trust Fact Check and CNN as well as the government site that HiFi used that showed a surplus. I’m done with this now. I have to go see what my staff is up to. :P

  118. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm | #118

    Finally, a way to reduce wasteful spending:

    U.S. Government To Save Billions By Cutting Wasteful Senator Program 03.30.10

    WASHINGTON—In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year….

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-government-to-save-billions-by-cutting-wasteful,17171/

  119. The Monitor
    March 30, 2010 at 5:58 pm | #119

    I am going to sleep with all this econ 101. You guys have hijacked the tread. Boring!!

  120. the reasonable anonymous
    March 30, 2010 at 6:02 pm | #120

    Try theonion.com

    It’s the antidote to both boring blog comment threads and the daily news grind of death and mayhem.

  121. Plain Jane
    March 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm | #121

    Blog pirates???? It wasn’t me, it was my staff.

  122. Mr. Nice
    March 30, 2010 at 6:16 pm | #122

    Hijacked the thread?

    What more was there to say about Arkley’s bank failing? I shoulda seen that coming? At least Security National is doing great?

  123. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm | #123

    Rob says, “I didn’t do it. But if I did, I’d never admit it!”.

  124. Anonymous
    March 31, 2010 at 3:45 pm | #124

    “At least Security National is doing great?” I don’t think so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers