Bernie Sanders on Income Inequality, Disappearing Middle Class..

[icanthearyou 4,468]

How much does the Federal Government owe the Social Security Trust Fund?

I have doubts as to whether or not the accounting is honest and transparent. I believe that there should be much tighter guidelines for securing this money.

[japantiger 4,211]

The federal budget for 2015 is $3.8 trillion. $2.45 trillion of that is mandatory spending with another 0.29 trillion in interest payments. This mostly Medicare and Social Security. That leaves about $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending.

Here's the breakdown of that discretionary spending:

Military: $559 billion (53.71% of discretionary spending)

Government: $72.9 billion (6.54%)

Education: $69.98 billion (6.28%)

Medicare/Health: $66 billion (5.93%)

Veterans' Benefits: $65.3 billion (5.86%)

Housing/Community: $63.2 billion (5.68%)

No other category accounts for more than 3.67% of the discretionary spending (includes transportation, energy/environment, science, food/agriculture, international affairs)

So when you step back and look, three things eat up the total federal budget: Military spending, Social Security and Medicare. It's 76.5% of all spending.

Medicare is already one of the most efficient programs out there. It operates more efficiently than even private insurance companies. Social Security technically isn't regular tax dollars. It's meant to be paid back out to the folks that paid into it. That leave military spending. When is the last time you heard a conservative with even a modicum of power in government suggest serious cuts in defense spending? To the contrary, almost all of them want to spend more.

I don't claim that there isn't wasteful spending. But I don't see anyone talking seriously about cutting those Big Three budget items. So once you remove interest payments on debt and veterans' benefits (another area that no one is seriously saying is a waste and can be cut), you're talking about trying to squeeze huge savings out of only 13.2% of the federal budget. Bascially $500 billion divided among 8-10 categories like transportation, science, housing, agriculture, etc.

So it isn't really $3.2 Trillion we're truly working with here. It's about half a trillion.

This logic is how businesses go out of business. Everything has to be on the block. You can cut waste and cost out of everything. You just need people committed to making it happen. But you can't convince yourself anything is out of bounds...

[TitanTiger 21,682]

The federal budget for 2015 is $3.8 trillion. $2.45 trillion of that is mandatory spending with another 0.29 trillion in interest payments. This mostly Medicare and Social Security. That leaves about $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending.

Here's the breakdown of that discretionary spending:

Military: $559 billion (53.71% of discretionary spending)

Government: $72.9 billion (6.54%)

Education: $69.98 billion (6.28%)

Medicare/Health: $66 billion (5.93%)

Veterans' Benefits: $65.3 billion (5.86%)

Housing/Community: $63.2 billion (5.68%)

No other category accounts for more than 3.67% of the discretionary spending (includes transportation, energy/environment, science, food/agriculture, international affairs)

So when you step back and look, three things eat up the total federal budget: Military spending, Social Security and Medicare. It's 76.5% of all spending.

Medicare is already one of the most efficient programs out there. It operates more efficiently than even private insurance companies. Social Security technically isn't regular tax dollars. It's meant to be paid back out to the folks that paid into it. That leave military spending. When is the last time you heard a conservative with even a modicum of power in government suggest serious cuts in defense spending? To the contrary, almost all of them want to spend more.

I don't claim that there isn't wasteful spending. But I don't see anyone talking seriously about cutting those Big Three budget items. So once you remove interest payments on debt and veterans' benefits (another area that no one is seriously saying is a waste and can be cut), you're talking about trying to squeeze huge savings out of only 13.2% of the federal budget. Bascially $500 billion divided among 8-10 categories like transportation, science, housing, agriculture, etc.

So it isn't really $3.2 Trillion we're truly working with here. It's about half a trillion.

This logic is how businesses go out of business. Everything has to be on the block. You can cut waste and cost out of everything. You just need people committed to making it happen. But you can't convince yourself anything is out of bounds...

You saying that and it actually being true are two very different things. The second you start to cut military spending, you have people questioning your patriotism, calling you a chickenhawk or an isolationist, and decrying the loss of jobs at General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed and hundreds of other defense contractors (Eisenhower tried to warn us about this with his "military-industrial complex" remarks). Gotta build them tanks the Army doesn't want come hell or high water! American jobs depend on it!

[cooltigger21 0]

We have to reallocate resources across the board. Thus is what I keep coming back to. We look to government for everything. Doing all this is easier said than done because these people who are invested in the status quo aren't going to roll over and play dead. Military spending is just as open to corruption as anything else. Hard or not we still have to start somewhere sometime. Chip away a little here and there.

Its not just liberals that like government. Some so called conservatives do too. The priorities are different but the solution to whatever the perceived problem is invariably involves getting the federal government involved. This, more often than not, creates more problems than it solves and quite frequently makes the original problem worse.

[japantiger 4,211]

The federal budget for 2015 is $3.8 trillion. $2.45 trillion of that is mandatory spending with another 0.29 trillion in interest payments. This mostly Medicare and Social Security. That leaves about $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending.

Here's the breakdown of that discretionary spending:

Military: $559 billion (53.71% of discretionary spending)

Government: $72.9 billion (6.54%)

Education: $69.98 billion (6.28%)

Medicare/Health: $66 billion (5.93%)

Veterans' Benefits: $65.3 billion (5.86%)

Housing/Community: $63.2 billion (5.68%)

No other category accounts for more than 3.67% of the discretionary spending (includes transportation, energy/environment, science, food/agriculture, international affairs)

So when you step back and look, three things eat up the total federal budget: Military spending, Social Security and Medicare. It's 76.5% of all spending.

Medicare is already one of the most efficient programs out there. It operates more efficiently than even private insurance companies. Social Security technically isn't regular tax dollars. It's meant to be paid back out to the folks that paid into it. That leave military spending. When is the last time you heard a conservative with even a modicum of power in government suggest serious cuts in defense spending? To the contrary, almost all of them want to spend more.

I don't claim that there isn't wasteful spending. But I don't see anyone talking seriously about cutting those Big Three budget items. So once you remove interest payments on debt and veterans' benefits (another area that no one is seriously saying is a waste and can be cut), you're talking about trying to squeeze huge savings out of only 13.2% of the federal budget. Bascially $500 billion divided among 8-10 categories like transportation, science, housing, agriculture, etc.

So it isn't really $3.2 Trillion we're truly working with here. It's about half a trillion.

This logic is how businesses go out of business. Everything has to be on the block. You can cut waste and cost out of everything. You just need people committed to making it happen. But you can't convince yourself anything is out of bounds...

You saying that and it actually being true are two very different things. The second you start to cut military spending, you have people questioning your patriotism, calling you a chickenhawk or an isolationist, and decrying the loss of jobs at General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed and hundreds of other defense contractors (Eisenhower tried to warn us about this with his "military-industrial complex" remarks). Gotta build them tanks the Army doesn't want come hell or high water! American jobs depend on it!

No sacred cows. All it takes to do this is some leadership. I could care less if some scream. But less be clear here...military spending is not our issue. If we cut 100% of all defense spending, we would still run annual deficits. You have to go after the full $3.2T. One very simple way to balance this would be to just freeze spending where we are for a couple years. It's the automatic increases that are burying us in debt.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

The federal budget for 2015 is $3.8 trillion. $2.45 trillion of that is mandatory spending with another 0.29 trillion in interest payments. This mostly Medicare and Social Security. That leaves about $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending.

Here's the breakdown of that discretionary spending:

Military: $559 billion (53.71% of discretionary spending)

Government: $72.9 billion (6.54%)

Education: $69.98 billion (6.28%)

Medicare/Health: $66 billion (5.93%)

Veterans' Benefits: $65.3 billion (5.86%)

Housing/Community: $63.2 billion (5.68%)

No other category accounts for more than 3.67% of the discretionary spending (includes transportation, energy/environment, science, food/agriculture, international affairs)

So when you step back and look, three things eat up the total federal budget: Military spending, Social Security and Medicare. It's 76.5% of all spending.

Medicare is already one of the most efficient programs out there. It operates more efficiently than even private insurance companies. Social Security technically isn't regular tax dollars. It's meant to be paid back out to the folks that paid into it. That leave military spending. When is the last time you heard a conservative with even a modicum of power in government suggest serious cuts in defense spending? To the contrary, almost all of them want to spend more.

I don't claim that there isn't wasteful spending. But I don't see anyone talking seriously about cutting those Big Three budget items. So once you remove interest payments on debt and veterans' benefits (another area that no one is seriously saying is a waste and can be cut), you're talking about trying to squeeze huge savings out of only 13.2% of the federal budget. Bascially $500 billion divided among 8-10 categories like transportation, science, housing, agriculture, etc.

So it isn't really $3.2 Trillion we're truly working with here. It's about half a trillion.

This logic is how businesses go out of business. Everything has to be on the block. You can cut waste and cost out of everything. You just need people committed to making it happen. But you can't convince yourself anything is out of bounds...

You saying that and it actually being true are two very different things. The second you start to cut military spending, you have people questioning your patriotism, calling you a chickenhawk or an isolationist, and decrying the loss of jobs at General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed and hundreds of other defense contractors (Eisenhower tried to warn us about this with his "military-industrial complex" remarks). Gotta build them tanks the Army doesn't want come hell or high water! American jobs depend on it!

No sacred cows. All it takes to do this is some leadership. I could care less if some scream. But less be clear here...military spending is not our issue. If we cut 100% of all defense spending, we would still run annual deficits. You have to go after the full $3.2T. One very simple way to balance this would be to just freeze spending where we are for a couple years. It's the automatic increases that are burying us in debt.

False

2015 deficit - 468

2015 military - 650.5

[cooltigger21 0]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

[homersapien 12,387]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

[homersapien 12,387]

On debt:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8305940.html

Austerity 101: The Three Reasons Republican Deficit Hawks Are Wrong

....Republicans are already talking about holding Social Security and Medicare "hostage" during negotiations -- hell-bent on getting cuts in exchange for a debt limit hike.

Days ago, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew asked whether our nation would "muster the political will to avoid the self-inflicted wounds that come from a political stalemate."

It's a fair question. And there's only one economically sound answer: Congress must raise the debt ceiling, end the sequester, put more people to work, and increase our investment in education and infrastructure.

Here are the three reasons why Republican deficit hawks are wrong. (Please watch and share our attached video.)

FIRST: Deficit and debt numbers are meaningless on their own. They have to be viewed as a percent of the national economy.

That ratio is critical. As long as the yearly deficit continues to drop as a percent of the national economy, as it's been doing for several years now, we can more easily pay what we owe.

SECOND: America needs to run larger deficits when lots of people are unemployed or underemployed -- as they still are today, when millions remain too discouraged to look for jobs and millions more are in part-time jobs and need full-time work.

As we've known for years -- in every economic downturn and in every struggling recovery - more government spending helps create jobs -- teachers, fire fighters, police officers, social workers, people to rebuild roads and bridges and parks. And the people in these jobs create far more jobs when they spend their paychecks.

This kind of spending thereby grows the economy -- thereby increasing tax revenues and allowing the deficit to shrink in proportion.

Doing the opposite -- cutting back spending when a lot of people are still out of work -- as Congress has done with the sequester, as much of Europe has done -- causes economies to slow or even shrink, which makes the deficit larger in proportion.

This is why austerity economics is a recipe for disaster, as it's been in Greece. Creditors and institutions worried about Greece's debt forced it to cut spending, the spending cuts led to a huge economic recession, which reduced tax revenues, and made the debt crisis there worse.

THIRD AND FINALLY: Deficit spending on investments like education and infrastructure is different than other forms of spending, because this spending builds productivity and future economic growth....

[autigeremt 7,289]

Run it up! Who gives a !#@%

[Grumps 3,706]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

Good question. And,,,,,why do we seem to incentivize outsourcing?

[alexava 6,980]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

Good question. And,,,,,why do we seem to incentivize outsourcing?

both good questions.

[homersapien 12,387]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

Why not indeed.

[DKW 86 7,977]

On debt:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8305940.html

Austerity 101: The Three Reasons Republican Deficit Hawks Are Wrong

....Republicans are already talking about holding Social Security and Medicare "hostage" during negotiations -- hell-bent on getting cuts in exchange for a debt limit hike.

Days ago, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew asked whether our nation would "muster the political will to avoid the self-inflicted wounds that come from a political stalemate."

It's a fair question. And there's only one economically sound answer: Congress must raise the debt ceiling, end the sequester, put more people to work, and increase our investment in education and infrastructure.

Here are the three reasons why Republican deficit hawks are wrong. (Please watch and share our attached video.)

FIRST: Deficit and debt numbers are meaningless on their own. They have to be viewed as a percent of the national economy.

That ratio is critical. As long as the yearly deficit continues to drop as a percent of the national economy, as it's been doing for several years now, we can more easily pay what we owe.

SECOND: America needs to run larger deficits when lots of people are unemployed or underemployed -- as they still are today, when millions remain too discouraged to look for jobs and millions more are in part-time jobs and need full-time work.

As we've known for years -- in every economic downturn and in every struggling recovery - more government spending helps create jobs -- teachers, fire fighters, police officers, social workers, people to rebuild roads and bridges and parks. And the people in these jobs create far more jobs when they spend their paychecks.

This kind of spending thereby grows the economy -- thereby increasing tax revenues and allowing the deficit to shrink in proportion.

Doing the opposite -- cutting back spending when a lot of people are still out of work -- as Congress has done with the sequester, as much of Europe has done -- causes economies to slow or even shrink, which makes the deficit larger in proportion.

This is why austerity economics is a recipe for disaster, as it's been in Greece. Creditors and institutions worried about Greece's debt forced it to cut spending, the spending cuts led to a huge economic recession, which reduced tax revenues, and made the debt crisis there worse.

THIRD AND FINALLY: Deficit spending on investments like education and infrastructure is different than other forms of spending, because this spending builds productivity and future economic growth....

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/rationalization

Rationalization:

“We should not delude ourselves into thinking that our historical narratives, as commonly constructed, are anything more than retrofits.”

― Niall Ferguson, Civilization: The West and the Rest

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

tags: aristocracy, capitalism, corruption, government, history, oppression, power, rationalization, society

638 likes

Like

“Rationalization is a process of not perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one’s emotions.”

― Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?

tags: excuses, rationalization

184 likes

Like

“We first crush people to the earth, and then claim the right of trampling on them forever, because they are prostrate.”

― Lydia Maria Francis Child

tags: classism, imperialism, injustice, oppression, racism, rationalization, sexism

66 likes

Like

“Sometimes, we need little lies to save our pride. And sometimes we need big lies to save our souls.”

― Bettie Sharpe, Ember

“Your theology won't always work toward your obedience, because your use of theology is dictated by the condition of your heart. If your heart is not submitting to the plan of God, you will actually use your theology to justify things that should not be justified.”

― Paul Tripp

tags: pride, rationalization, theology

3 likes

Like

“The chaplain had sinned, and it was good. Common sense told him that telling lies and defecting from duty were sins. On the other hand, everyone knew that sin was evil and that no good could come from evil. But he did feel good; he felt positively marvelous. Consequently, it followed logically that telling lies and defecting from duty could not be sins. The chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization, and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous.”

“There's never been an act done since the beginning, from a kid stealing candy to a dictator committing genocide, that the person doing it didn't think he was fully justified. That's a mental trick called rationalizing, and it's done the human race more harm than anything else you can name.”

― Leigh Brackett, The Long Tomorrow

― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

[homersapien 12,387]

On debt:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8305940.html

Austerity 101: The Three Reasons Republican Deficit Hawks Are Wrong

https://www.goodread...rationalization

Rationalization:

OK, but your point eludes me.

[DKW 86 7,977]

On debt:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8305940.html

Austerity 101: The Three Reasons Republican Deficit Hawks Are Wrong

https://www.goodread...rationalization

Rationalization:

OK, but your point eludes me.

My point was that all that from the intensely addled mind of Krugman is nothing more than a rationalization for continuing to keep mindlessly spending money we do not have. Krugman, who used to openly mock Keynesianism, and used to at best advocate for its rare and repaid use during extreme downtimes, has now rationalized deficit spending forever because the DC Crowd is just too damn busy handing out $$$ favors for its friends & donors. It is not logical, it is not reasonable, and it is indeed totally anti-historical to just keep mindlessly blowing money we do not have. There will always come a day when we will get ourselves into too much debt and it will kick us in the teeth. This simpleton thinking that "oh, AS LONG AS we keep the repayment of the debt below X% of the GDP" is based on the assumption of... AS LONG AS. Problem is that that is the kind of thinking that fits New Orleans before Katrina or the Titanic before the Iceberg or DC & Wall Street before 2008. Before we have a financial castastrophe, grownups need to stop the borrowing of money.

Because AS LONG AS we dont have a major hurricane thinking failed. We needed to build the levees.

Because AS LONG AS we dont run into any Icebergs thinking failed. We needed to slow the damn Titanic down in Iceberg filled waters.

Because AS LONG AS we dont have a major financial downturn thinking failed. We needed to replace Glass-Stegall and reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before we had a derivatives crash that wiped out 30% of American middle class assets.

Look, we dont have to grind the economy to a halt. But we do need to tap the brakes and get sound, stable, financial decision making back in DC. Listening to Krugman is about the same level of intelligence that said TAR SANDS OIL WILL NEVER AFFECT THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL AND REDUCE THE PRICE OF AMERICAN GAS, ALL THAT OIL WILL ONLY GO TO CHINA..."Americans will never see $2/Gallon Gas again..that is just crazy..."

People in America need to start reading reality and quit listening to the crazy talking points coming from the Oligarchy in DC.

[homersapien 12,387]

The piece was by Robert Reich, not Paul Krugman.

[DKW 86 7,977]

The piece was by Robert Reich, not Paul Krugman.

If you have read Krugman over the last 6 years you heard exactly the same thing.

Doesnt Reich have some drawings to doodle?

[homersapien 12,387]

The piece was by Robert Reich, not Paul Krugman.

If you have read Krugman over the last 6 years you heard exactly the same thing.

Doesnt Reich have some drawings to doodle?

And they are right. Do you think an austerity approach would serve us better?

[DKW 86 7,977]

No. Being responsible doesn't mean crushing austerity. That is a straw man.

[homersapien 12,387]

No. Being responsible doesn't mean crushing austerity. That is a straw man.

It wasn't a straw man, it was a question. (And I didn't say "crushing".)

You seem to have a basic aversion to Keynesian policies, so what do you call your preferred strategy?

[Grumps 3,706]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

Good question. And,,,,,why do we seem to incentivize outsourcing?

both good questions.

My best guess as to the answers:

1. Our government does not incentivize domestic job production because it would be portrayed as giving more money to the rich.

2. Our government incentivizes outsourcing because that is what the big corporations who have bought our government want our government to do.

[alexava 6,980]

The trouble with Bernie, and he's not alone, is he is focused on how the economic pie is divided. His view is that if someone gets a dollar then someone else lost a dollar. Nothing of what he proposed will do anything to grow the economy and make the pie bigger. That is the key to everything. Make the pie bigger instead of fighting over what is there now.

No, he is focused on how the creation of wealth is disproportionate. One example is how corporate profits resulting from outsourcing jobs overseas increases the wealth of stockholders without benefiting workers who are often laid off.

This imagined model of taking money from one individual and giving it to another is a simplistic and irrelevant appeal to morality.

Question: So why not just have our government incentivize domestic job production?

Good question. And,,,,,why do we seem to incentivize outsourcing?

both good questions.

My best guess as to the answers:

1. Our government does not incentivize domestic job production because it would be portrayed as giving more money to the rich.

2. Our government incentivizes outsourcing because that is what the big corporations who have bought our government want our government to do.

I'll go with #2

[alexava 6,980]

The piece was by Robert Reich, not Paul Krugman.

If you have read Krugman over the last 6 years you heard exactly the same thing.

Doesnt Reich have some drawings to doodle?

And they are right. Do you think an austerity approach would serve us better?

he has written some silly shat more recently, but Paul Craig Roberts had some good stuff on these trade deals several years ago.