Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
December 13, 2014
Oct 24, 2014. When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets. [Email the Fact Card]
The National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street
Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.
World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.
US-national-debt-GDP
The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008 — download. (spreadsheet) (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
(more)
Who are the Job Creators
Nov 2, 2014. For the last 85 years, since 1929, every time the Democrats took over the presidency, jobs were created faster. And every time the Republicans took over, jobs were created slower. Nine times in a row is no accident. And the difference is huge. Why is that? Let a conservative economist explain. [EMail the Fact Card]
The pattern started with a huge increase in job creation under Franklin Roosevelt after then losses under Herbert Hoover. Then as the graph shows, the Republicans continued to lose the jobs race with every transition. That’s nine times in a row. That chance that you and I will take turns flipping a coin ten times, and I always get tails and you always get heads is 1 in 1,000. But it could happen. The Republicans could have had bad luck for 85 years running. But would you bet on a horse with that track record?
Jobs-Rep-Dem-percent
But there’s an even better reason to believe in this graph. We know why the Republicans should lose this race. Three types of policies are required to fight a recession and Republicans oppose the first two while the Democrats favor them. (Neither party does much about the third policy.) According to conservative economist Peter Morici (video, July 2009), these three policies are:
1.“We absolutely had to have a stimulus package.”
2.“turning the banks around”
3.“dealing with the trade deficit.”
(more)
[font size="3"] Here is the home page of this site http://zfacts.com/ [/font]
The menu of topics shows: Fact Cards; The Debt; Economy; Social; Carbon; Politics; War. at each menu choice there are several articles. I have not read them all but what I have read are concise and to the point (a much loved quality by DUers).
A very good site on Public Debt and Job Creation by president 4 use against RW Bullshit
here are a couple of excellent treatments of the Public Debt, by President, and Job Creation, by President. These articles are concise and to the point. They can be used to beat RWers over the head with. There are even links to Excel Spreadsheets (also concise not too elaborate) which show data and calculations. These can be downloaded and saved for any additional calculations or notes you would like to add.
As I said: good stuff for beating Rwers over the head with!!
National Debt Graph by President
Oct 24, 2014. When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets. [Email the Fact Card]
The National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street
Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.
World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.
US-national-debt-GDP
The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008 — download. (spreadsheet) (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
(more)
Who are the Job Creators
Nov 2, 2014. For the last 85 years, since 1929, every time the Democrats took over the presidency, jobs were created faster. And every time the Republicans took over, jobs were created slower. Nine times in a row is no accident. And the difference is huge. Why is that? Let a conservative economist explain. [EMail the Fact Card]
The pattern started with a huge increase in job creation under Franklin Roosevelt after then losses under Herbert Hoover. Then as the graph shows, the Republicans continued to lose the jobs race with every transition. That’s nine times in a row. That chance that you and I will take turns flipping a coin ten times, and I always get tails and you always get heads is 1 in 1,000. But it could happen. The Republicans could have had bad luck for 85 years running. But would you bet on a horse with that track record?
Jobs-Rep-Dem-percent
But there’s an even better reason to believe in this graph. We know why the Republicans should lose this race. Three types of policies are required to fight a recession and Republicans oppose the first two while the Democrats favor them. (Neither party does much about the third policy.) According to conservative economist Peter Morici (video, July 2009), these three policies are:
1.“We absolutely had to have a stimulus package.”
2.“turning the banks around”
3.“dealing with the trade deficit.”
(more)
[font size="3"] Here is the home page of this site http://zfacts.com/ [/font]
The menu of topics shows: Fact Cards; The Debt; Economy; Social; Carbon; Politics; War. at each menu choice there are several articles. I have not read them all but what I have read are concise and to the point (a much loved quality by DUers).
December 12, 2014
In a rare break from President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blasted the White House on Thursday for putting its weight behind the $1.1 trillion government funding package.
In a speech decrying the “cromnibus” on the House floor, Pelosi, the minority leader, noted that Republican defections have given the Democrats significant leverage in the debate and wondered why the White House wouldn't use that power to fight the conservative policy riders that have sparked the Democrats' outcry.
“I'm enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this,” Pelosi said. “And that would be the only reason they would sign such a bill that would weaken ‘a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.’ Those are the words in the administration's statement.”
Liberal Democrats are up in arms over two GOP amendments to the sweeping year-end spending bill. The first would undo parts of the Democrats' 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law; the second would allow wealthy donors to give a great deal more money to political parties.
...... Democrats in Senate should add a provision for free vacation trips for all Republicans to Western Iraq .
Pelosi 'enormously disappointed' in Obama
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226857-pelosi-enormously-disappointed-in-obamaIn a rare break from President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blasted the White House on Thursday for putting its weight behind the $1.1 trillion government funding package.
In a speech decrying the “cromnibus” on the House floor, Pelosi, the minority leader, noted that Republican defections have given the Democrats significant leverage in the debate and wondered why the White House wouldn't use that power to fight the conservative policy riders that have sparked the Democrats' outcry.
“I'm enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this,” Pelosi said. “And that would be the only reason they would sign such a bill that would weaken ‘a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.’ Those are the words in the administration's statement.”
Liberal Democrats are up in arms over two GOP amendments to the sweeping year-end spending bill. The first would undo parts of the Democrats' 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law; the second would allow wealthy donors to give a great deal more money to political parties.
...... Democrats in Senate should add a provision for free vacation trips for all Republicans to Western Iraq .
December 11, 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016108766
Repugnants slip repeal of Dodd - Frank provision into Funding bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016108766
December 10, 2014
After four years of twisting arms in Congress, Wall Street may have finally found the opportune moment to reshape financial regulation.
A flurry of legislative deal-making surrounding the federal budget has opened a window of opportunity for bank lobbyists to challenge the Dodd-Frank Act, the sweeping regulatory overhaul passed in response to the financial crisis. With the clock ticking on a budget bill — lawmakers have vowed not to shut down the government, but need to act by Thursday night — banks are seeking to tuck their proposals into the giant federal spending package.
Whether they succeed remains an open question. As of Tuesday afternoon, some Democrats and consumer groups retained hope that they could fend off the Wall Street effort.
The fight has centered on elements of Dodd-Frank that address the culprits of the financial crisis, including the sort of derivatives trading that helped push the insurance giant American International Group to the brink of collapse in 2008. One bill would amend the so-called Volcker Rule, a centerpiece of Dodd-Frank. Another bill that lawmakers plan to include in the government funding plan was essentially written by lobbyists for Citigroup.
(more)
[font size="4"] This really requires everybody call email your Congressman (well, if they're Democrats) to try to get this stopped. [/font]
Elizabeth Warren urges Democrats to not vote for Funding bill with provisions to repeal part of Dodd-Frank
The last-minute inclusion, hammered out by party negotiators, is outraging several Democrats who have spent years fighting back against GOP efforts to reduce the impact of the 2010 law.
The titular sponsor of the law, retired Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), is calling on his former colleagues to defeat the funding bill because of the “stealth attack” on his namesake legislative achievement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Democrats are “deeply troubled” by several provisions included in the roughly 1,600-page bill posted Tuesday evening and highlighted language stepping back tougher rules on financial derivatives.
“This provision, allowing big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.], opens the door to another taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks — forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes,” she said in a statement.
(more)
Repugnants slip repeal of Dodd Frank provision into funding bill....
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/?_r=0After four years of twisting arms in Congress, Wall Street may have finally found the opportune moment to reshape financial regulation.
A flurry of legislative deal-making surrounding the federal budget has opened a window of opportunity for bank lobbyists to challenge the Dodd-Frank Act, the sweeping regulatory overhaul passed in response to the financial crisis. With the clock ticking on a budget bill — lawmakers have vowed not to shut down the government, but need to act by Thursday night — banks are seeking to tuck their proposals into the giant federal spending package.
Whether they succeed remains an open question. As of Tuesday afternoon, some Democrats and consumer groups retained hope that they could fend off the Wall Street effort.
The fight has centered on elements of Dodd-Frank that address the culprits of the financial crisis, including the sort of derivatives trading that helped push the insurance giant American International Group to the brink of collapse in 2008. One bill would amend the so-called Volcker Rule, a centerpiece of Dodd-Frank. Another bill that lawmakers plan to include in the government funding plan was essentially written by lobbyists for Citigroup.
(more)
[font size="4"] This really requires everybody call email your Congressman (well, if they're Democrats) to try to get this stopped. [/font]
Elizabeth Warren urges Democrats to not vote for Funding bill with provisions to repeal part of Dodd-Frank
The last-minute inclusion, hammered out by party negotiators, is outraging several Democrats who have spent years fighting back against GOP efforts to reduce the impact of the 2010 law.
The titular sponsor of the law, retired Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), is calling on his former colleagues to defeat the funding bill because of the “stealth attack” on his namesake legislative achievement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Democrats are “deeply troubled” by several provisions included in the roughly 1,600-page bill posted Tuesday evening and highlighted language stepping back tougher rules on financial derivatives.
“This provision, allowing big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.], opens the door to another taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks — forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes,” she said in a statement.
(more)
December 10, 2014
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:right;"]
When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals, according to a new Pew Research Center study.
The project – part of a year-long effort to shed light on political polarization in America – looks at the ways people get information about government and politics in three different settings: the news media, social media and the way people talk about politics with friends and family. In all three areas, the study finds that those with the most consistent ideological views on the left and right have information streams that are distinct from those of individuals with more mixed political views – and very distinct from each other.
These cleavages can be overstated. The study also suggests that in America today, it is virtually impossible to live in an ideological bubble. Most Americans rely on an array of outlets – with varying audience profiles – for political news. And many consistent conservatives and liberals hear dissenting political views in their everyday lives.
Yet as our major report on political polarization found, those at both the left and right ends of the spectrum, who together comprise about 20% of the public overall, have a greater impact on the political process than do those with more mixed ideological views. They are the most likely to vote, donate to campaigns and participate directly in politics. The five ideological groups in this analysis (consistent liberals, mostly liberals, mixed, mostly conservatives and consistent conservatives) are based on responses to 10 questions about a range of political values. That those who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions have different ways of informing themselves about politics and government is not surprising. But the depth of these divisions – and the differences between those who have strong ideological views and those who do not – are striking.
(more)
Political Polarization & Media Habits - PEW Research
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:right;"]
When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals, according to a new Pew Research Center study.
The project – part of a year-long effort to shed light on political polarization in America – looks at the ways people get information about government and politics in three different settings: the news media, social media and the way people talk about politics with friends and family. In all three areas, the study finds that those with the most consistent ideological views on the left and right have information streams that are distinct from those of individuals with more mixed political views – and very distinct from each other.
These cleavages can be overstated. The study also suggests that in America today, it is virtually impossible to live in an ideological bubble. Most Americans rely on an array of outlets – with varying audience profiles – for political news. And many consistent conservatives and liberals hear dissenting political views in their everyday lives.
Yet as our major report on political polarization found, those at both the left and right ends of the spectrum, who together comprise about 20% of the public overall, have a greater impact on the political process than do those with more mixed ideological views. They are the most likely to vote, donate to campaigns and participate directly in politics. The five ideological groups in this analysis (consistent liberals, mostly liberals, mixed, mostly conservatives and consistent conservatives) are based on responses to 10 questions about a range of political values. That those who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions have different ways of informing themselves about politics and government is not surprising. But the depth of these divisions – and the differences between those who have strong ideological views and those who do not – are striking.
(more)
December 9, 2014
Something similar has been the case in the rough-and-tumble competition known as legislating. Whenever Congress takes up a bill, the Congressional Budget Office "scores" it — that is, it provides an independent assessment of how much money the legislation will cost or raise.
The CBO has long enjoyed a reputation for objectivity, but now some conservatives are clamoring for changes that would undermine the CBO's independence and lead to bigger, hidden federal deficits.
The critics are pushing to dump the current director, Doug Elmendorf. Elmendorf, first appointed in 2009 when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and reappointed in 2011 when control was split, has a well-earned reputation for facing down political pressure from both parties.
Even more ominously, there is also a push to order the CBO director — be it Elmendorf or someone new — to adopt something called "dynamic scoring."
(more)
THe GOP's objective to get imaginary math to be used by the CBO and find some stooge who'd be happy to do the GOP's bidding is a serious threat to logic based policy making and honest Government. Please email and phone your Congressmen to oppose this GOP move to force 'Beyond the Looking Glass' estimating on the CBO. It is antithetical to democracy to start using GOP propaganda as the official government estimate of the costs of specific pieces of legislation.
"How much is 2 + 2? How much do you want it to be?" GOP wants to force CBO to use freaky math
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/cbo-budget-doug-elmendorf-paul-ryan-editorials-debates/20114973/Something similar has been the case in the rough-and-tumble competition known as legislating. Whenever Congress takes up a bill, the Congressional Budget Office "scores" it — that is, it provides an independent assessment of how much money the legislation will cost or raise.
The CBO has long enjoyed a reputation for objectivity, but now some conservatives are clamoring for changes that would undermine the CBO's independence and lead to bigger, hidden federal deficits.
The critics are pushing to dump the current director, Doug Elmendorf. Elmendorf, first appointed in 2009 when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and reappointed in 2011 when control was split, has a well-earned reputation for facing down political pressure from both parties.
Even more ominously, there is also a push to order the CBO director — be it Elmendorf or someone new — to adopt something called "dynamic scoring."
(more)
THe GOP's objective to get imaginary math to be used by the CBO and find some stooge who'd be happy to do the GOP's bidding is a serious threat to logic based policy making and honest Government. Please email and phone your Congressmen to oppose this GOP move to force 'Beyond the Looking Glass' estimating on the CBO. It is antithetical to democracy to start using GOP propaganda as the official government estimate of the costs of specific pieces of legislation.
December 9, 2014
Additionally, Brooks makes a truly astounding assertion that Bush had no responsibility for the Trickle Down Disaster!!!!! It was just this 'grand recession'. the business cycle catching the Bushter up!! David doesn't think the numbers for job creation for administrations is a "germane" number.
Well, interestingly enough that's not how Moody's Analytics, or the Congressional Budget Office sees Obama's efforts to restart the economy after the Trickle Down Deregulation disaster (a product of Republican policies of concentration of capital and deregulation). Both organizations credit Obama's policies for creating millions of jobs that would have taken many years to produce if we had waited on David's Business Cycle to do the job.
David Brooks on PBS announces Presidents' policies don't affect the economy!
On PBS Newhour, David Brooks elegantly pulled off the Conservative trick of claiming, with complete composure, that reality just isn't really there - when Mark Shields pointed out that over the last - "70 years since World War II, 36 years with a Republican president, 34 years with a Democratic president, in those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created by Republican presidents, while Republicans were office...
...In 34 years, there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That’s 29 million more"
David Brooks responded, without blinking an eye, that a President's policies don't have much effect on the economy, that it's just the 'business cycle'.
Well, how about that!? All these decades we've been hearing the Right chanting that Republicans can make the economy work and that they know how to create jobs while that Democrats kill the economy and now Brooks tells us that any President doesn't have that much affect on the economy.
Now, when confronted with a study by economist Steve Stoft, and attorney/economic researcher Nathan Salminen that shows that over the past 74 years Democratic administrations produced job creation rates (3%) about triple that of those produced by Republicans (1%) Brooks with complete equanimity, disavows any such notion that Presidential policies have much affect at all on job creation. ... As one of the later 'little Rascals' would say: "REMARKABLE!".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-gets-credit-jobs-growth-protests-race-justice/
Mark Shields: "...70 years since World War II, 36 years with a Republican president, 34 years with a Democratic president, in those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created by Republican — under Republican presidents, while Republicans were office, OK, a little over half the time.
In 34 years, there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That’s 29 million more. Perhaps it’s an accident once or twice or what. But, I mean, at some point, the Democrats ought to be trumpeting the fact that they have been better on the economy and job creation than have been their opposition."
Brooks: "..if the president could turn up a dial and create jobs, that would be great. But presidents can’t do that. The correlation between policies and actual job creation, there’s a huge amount of lag and they just don’t have that ability. A lot of it is just the function of the cyclical labor market.
Mark mentioned President Bush’s lamentable job performance. But he created a bunch of jobs, and then they all got wiped out in the last year during his recession, because we had this grand recession. And so business cycles come and go. And what the government can do is create a landscape which can create long-term job growth, but it’s rare that an administration has the ability to turn it on and off in that kind of short-term way. So, I just don’t think it’s that germane a number.
Additionally, Brooks makes a truly astounding assertion that Bush had no responsibility for the Trickle Down Disaster!!!!! It was just this 'grand recession'. the business cycle catching the Bushter up!! David doesn't think the numbers for job creation for administrations is a "germane" number.
Well, interestingly enough that's not how Moody's Analytics, or the Congressional Budget Office sees Obama's efforts to restart the economy after the Trickle Down Deregulation disaster (a product of Republican policies of concentration of capital and deregulation). Both organizations credit Obama's policies for creating millions of jobs that would have taken many years to produce if we had waited on David's Business Cycle to do the job.
December 3, 2014
how many visits does DU get per day, on average?
December 3, 2014
any grownups: how many total visits to DU per day on avg? Alexa wants you to pay to see these data.
December 3, 2014
There is no death for even the most long-debunked climate myths, especially on the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. And the only certainty about carbon taxes — or indeed any serious climate action — is that the Journal will try to undercut their moral urgency by giving life to dead myths.
In the case of the Journal’s Saturday piece, “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” we get the umpteenth error-riddled rehash of denier talking points — to the effect that the remaining uncertainties in climate science undermine the case for strong action.
The piece is by former BP chief scientist and former Department of Energy official, Steven Koonin, but this dangerously error-riddled piece is much more BP than DOE — and its bizarre and unjustified conclusions have already been debunked by leading climate scientists.
In fact, it has long been known that the reverse is true: Uncertainty is a major reason climate action is so urgent. Three years ago, a major climate-assessment study of just the rainfall impacts to this country conducted by Sandia National Laboratory concluded:
(more)
The Wall Street Journal Publishes Long-Debunked Myths (by Steven Koonin) To Promote Climate Inaction
The Wall Street Journal Publishes Long-Debunked Myths (by Steven Koonin) To Promote Climate InactionThere is no death for even the most long-debunked climate myths, especially on the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. And the only certainty about carbon taxes — or indeed any serious climate action — is that the Journal will try to undercut their moral urgency by giving life to dead myths.
In the case of the Journal’s Saturday piece, “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” we get the umpteenth error-riddled rehash of denier talking points — to the effect that the remaining uncertainties in climate science undermine the case for strong action.
The piece is by former BP chief scientist and former Department of Energy official, Steven Koonin, but this dangerously error-riddled piece is much more BP than DOE — and its bizarre and unjustified conclusions have already been debunked by leading climate scientists.
In fact, it has long been known that the reverse is true: Uncertainty is a major reason climate action is so urgent. Three years ago, a major climate-assessment study of just the rainfall impacts to this country conducted by Sandia National Laboratory concluded:
“We want to reemphasize that the methods of this study reveal how compelling risk derives from uncertainty, not certainty. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the risk. It is the uncertainty associated with climate change that validates the need to act protectively and proactively.”
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
