NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-07-budget_N.htm

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit will rise to a record $1.2 trillion this year, and a package of new spending increases and tax cuts planned by President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats will push that figure higher, the Congressional Budget Office reported today.
In the first official reckoning of the damage caused by the severe recession, the report paints a bleak picture for 2009: a 2.2% drop in the size of the nation's economy, a jump in the jobless rate to 9.2% in early 2010, a 14% drop in home prices and a 1% decline in consumption.

The year-old recession, brought on by the slump in housing and its impact on financial institutions, "will probably be the longest and the deepest since World War II," the CBO said.

The budget deficit also will be the largest since World War II, and deficits will continue to haunt the federal government for the next decade, totaling $3.1 trillion. That's without any action by Obama and Congress to fix the economy, which will cause deficits to rise, the CBO said.


Awesome. So, while we may be "tax and spend libruhls", Id imagine thats preferable to a "spend" conservative.

The article says Obama will make the budget deficit higher, but that will at least be with the goal of fixing the economy and not with the goal of making the rich richer and blowing up two non-Christian countries (one because God told you to).

How much you want to bet that in 2012, the Republican battle cry will be "OMG DEFICIT!!!", and the American Idiot Public will buy it, completelly forgeting who put us in the situation were such action was necissary (and who brought it up to he trillion mark)?

Are we (i.e. the rest of the world) going to have to pay for more bailouts?

What a waste of council tax.

Awesome. So, while we may be "tax and spend libruhls", Id imagine thats preferable to a "spend" conservative.

read your own article.

It says spending increases and tax cuts.

So he's not "tax and spend", he's just "spend", like your "preferable to a spend conservative".

The sooner the federal government defaults the better. Obama is doing fine work in this respect.

Though I'll be interested to see if he can actually raise this money.

read your own article.

Oh, the irony.


It says spending increases and tax cuts.

So he's not "tax and spend", he's just "spend", like your "preferable to a spend conservative".

Both of which are being done to fix this mess, and not to blow up countries.

Try. Please?

Oh, the irony.

Both of which are being done to fix this mess, and not to blow up countries.

Try. Please?

It's obvious that you didn't read it, and then pointed out that "tax and spend liberal" is better than "spend conservative".

Looks like Obama is a "spend conservative", not a "tax and spend liberal".

Oh, the irony...

It's obvious that you didn't read it, and then pointed out that "tax and spend liberal" is better than "spend conservative".

Looks like Obama is a "spend conservative", not a "tax and spend liberal".

Oh, the irony...

Youre picking up on the cheap shot in my post, and claiming some sort of victory?


Do you have anything to contribute, or are you just going to follow me around and troll me? I get it, youre pissy that I destroy your "arguements". Im sorry. Kiss and make up:fluffle:

Youre picking up on the cheap shot in my post, and claiming some sort of victory?

I'm picking up on the inaccurate conclusion you've drawn.

How does this fix the economy again? Looks like it's just the same sort of pork dumpling that DC produces every year, except bigger.

I'm picking up on the inaccurate conclusion you've drawn.

In case you dont know, conclusions are at the end, not the begining.

How does this fix the economy again? Looks like it's just the same sort of pork dumpling that DC produces every year, except bigger.

Im willing to wait and see what his actual economic plan is and how it actually works.

How does this fix the economy again? Looks like it's just the same sort of pork dumpling that DC produces every year, except bigger.

I've wondered the same thing.

We've already thrown, what, 7 or 8 TRILLION at the problem, with no effect.

Now we're supposed to believe that 700 BILLION (a much smaller amount) will somehow make it all happen.

That somehow, building some roads and bridges will make the economy zip right along...

I seem to recall someone else in history who said that if only we spent a lot of government money on roads, the economy would turn around... some guy with a moustache. He was also big on developing an armed adjunct to the military (because he couldn't trust it), and "forcing" youth to volunteer... hmmmm....

Im willing to wait and see what his actual economic plan is and how it actually works.

It won't work. There I've saved you the wait.

Economies fix themselves. Borrowing a trillion dollars just means that you'll get a weaker recovery because that debt has to be serviced.

Let the bad debt default, that's the quickest way to fix things.

Obama knows this already I presume. The whole thing is just another looting operation.

It won't work. There I've saved you the wait.

Economies fix themselves. Borrowing a trillion dollars just means that you'll get a weaker recovery because that debt has to be serviced.

Let the bad debt default, that's the quickest way to fix things.

Obama knows this already I presume. The whole thing is just another looting operation.

Shh, you're ruining the coronation ceremony...

It won't work. There I've saved you the wait.

Economies fix themselves. Borrowing a trillion dollars just means that you'll get a weaker recovery because that debt has to be serviced.

Let the bad debt default, that's the quickest way to fix things.

Obama knows this already I presume. The whole thing is just another looting operation.

Well most of America wanted change. Thats about all we will have in our pockets after this is over. Just a few pennies to rub together.

i've wondered the same thing.

We've already thrown, what, 7 or 8 trillion at the problem, with no effect.

Now we're supposed to believe that 700 billion (a much smaller amount) will somehow make it all happen.

That somehow, building some roads and bridges will make the economy zip right along...

I seem to recall someone else in history who said that if only we spent a lot of government money on roads, the economy would turn around... Some guy with a moustache. He was also big on developing an armed adjunct to the military (because he couldn't trust it), and "forcing" youth to volunteer... Hmmmm....

What the fuck Jolt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

fdr?

No, it was WW II that got the US out of the Depression.

And FDR didn't have a moustache, and he didn't create an armed adjunct to the military.

Hitler did.

Hitler did.

Oh for fuck's sake.

No, it was WW II that got the US out of the Depression.

And FDR didn't have a moustache, and he didn't create an armed adjunct to the military.

Hitler did.

It's like you intentionally missed my point.

I seem to recall someone else in history who said that if only we spent a lot of government money on roads, the economy would turn around...

Seems to me that FDR had just such an idea. Your Godwin attempt falls on its face.

I seem to recall someone else in history who said that if only we spent a lot of government money on roads, the economy would turn around... some guy with a moustache. He was also big on developing an armed adjunct to the military (because he couldn't trust it), and "forcing" youth to volunteer... hmmmm....

lol, Godwin.

YES YOU'RE RIGHT. OBAMA IS HITLER AND THIS PROVES IT. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So we have a new version of the "Obama's a good speaker, so was Hitler, Obama IS HITLER!" argument?

Yeah, you know who ELSE has a moustach? Do ya? This guy:

http://bumfonline.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/tom-tucker-4.gif

Think about that for a moment

So we have a new version of the "Obama's a good speaker, so was Hitler, Obama IS HITLER!" argument?

If he gets a pair of high stepping boots then we need to worry.

Yeah, you know who ELSE has a moustach? Do ya? This guy:

So did this guy:

http://www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/mustache-2.gif

It won't work. There I've saved you the wait.

Economies fix themselves.

See, I, and the rest of the country, are not willing to wait for the economy to further tank to humor free market purists.



Hitler did.

Tell me, how was the Germany Economy under Hitler?


Thats right...it got a lot better!

Tell me, how was the Germany Economy under Hitler?

Thats right...it got a lot better!


http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg

See, I, and the rest of the country, are not willing to wait for the economy to further tank to humor free market purists.


You don't have to wait for it to tank. It's tanking right now.

Nothing in this package will change anything, the country is struggling because there is too much debt already, adding more debt will just make things worse. Whatever it is spent on. (More bonuses for bankers most likely).

You might say it is Keynesian, but Keynes would laugh at the suggestion.

You don't have to wait for it to tank. It's tanking right now.

Nothing in this package will change anything, the country is struggling because there is too much debt already, adding more debt will just make things worse. Whatever it is spent on. (More bonuses for bankers most likely).

You might say it is Keynesian, but Keynes would laugh at the suggestion.

Some here on this forum may not understand that it's foolish to pump money into failing banks and failing businesses - they were failing because they were managed badly, and pumping money into bad management only results in more bad management.

http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg

If you think there is anything fascist in the democratic platform, I dont think you really understand what "fascist" means.

http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg

Wow you can copy and paste TOO? You're SO versatile. I bet you also possess the ability to ignore it every time your arguments are torn to shreds, and then to repeat them later when you think everyone's forgotten!

If you think there is anything fascist in the democratic platform, I dont think you really understand what "fascist" means.

The armed adjunct to the military, for one. Rahm Emanuel says that Obama is going through with it for sure.

http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg

I seem to recall you calling the Democrats Communists in a old thread?

I seem to recall you calling the Democrats Communists in a old thread?

Theyre commie-nazis.

I seem to recall you calling the Democrats Communists in a old thread?


He'll call them whatever it takes to make sure he gets negative attention.

Theyre commie-nazis.

Not just that. They're Liberal Gay Islamo-Athiest commie-nazis.

He'll call them whatever it takes to make sure he gets negative attention.

earlier in the thread, KOL says that Hitler's plan was good for the German economy...

earlier in the thread, KOL says that Hitler's plan was good for the German economy...

That's actually a well-known bit of history. German economy was great until the allies started bombing all the infrastructure.

earlier in the thread, KOL says that Hitler's plan was good for the German economy...

I said that under Hitler, the Germany economy was not as bad as it was pre-Hitler. Are you denying this?

I wasnt waving the flag for Hitler. I was just punching a hole in your already flimsy arguement that was essentially "LOLS THE LAST GUY TO DO WHAT OBAMA IS DOING ECONOMICALLY WAS HITLER!!!!"

Not just that. They're Liberal Gay Islamo-Athiest commie-nazis.

You forgot, they're hippies too!

You forgot, they're hippies too!

All liberals are hippies, so that would be redundant.

That's actually a well-known bit of history. German economy was great until the allies started bombing all the infrastructure.

That was really because of the Dawes plan more than a decade earlier tho'.

Hitler was actually very bad for the average german. Great for rich industrialist bankers though.

earlier in the thread, KOL says that Hitler's plan was good for the German economy...

So what? That was after you posted your retarded LOL OBAMA IS HITLER nonsense.

I said that under Hitler, the Germany economy was not as bad as it was pre-Hitler. Are you denying this?

I wasnt waving the flag for Hitler. I was just punching a hole in your already flimsy arguement that was essentially "LOLS THE LAST GUY TO DO WHAT OBAMA IS DOING ECONOMICALLY WAS HITLER!!!!"

I am denying it. While some select industrialist friends of Hitler got rich, and the standard of living for the lower wage or unemployed Germans improved slightly, it came at a terrible cost.

So what? That was after you posted your retarded LOL OBAMA IS HITLER nonsense.

There are salient features of Obama's plans that parallel Hitler's quite closely.

It's not nonsense.

Or have you forgotten, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Sounds like the SS to me. It's almost what Hitler said about not trusting the Wehrmacht to achieve his objectives.

I am denying it. While some select industrialist friends of Hitler got rich, and the standard of living for the lower wage or unemployed Germans improved slightly, it came at a terrible cost.

Ignoring the Holocaust and WWII (which it seems Obama has no intention of starting either) what is the terrible cost?

Ignoring the Holocaust and WWII (which it seems Obama has no intention of starting either) what is the terrible cost?

Go back and read your history books. Obviously, you think that 1934 Germany was some sort of paradise.

See, I, and the rest of the country, are not willing to wait for the economy to further tank to humor free market purists.
I highly doubt that the entire of the US population is jubulant about abandoning free market ideals.

Go back and read your history books. Obviously, you think that 1934 Germany was some sort of paradise.

No, but it was economically stronger than 1932 Germany.

Again, ignoring everything unrelated to economics (because it doesnt seem like Obama is planning on doing anything like what you seem to be refering, and youre implication that a well funded Nation Guard will be like the SS is laughable, by the way), what is so bad?

I highly doubt that the entire of the US population is jubulant about abandoning free market ideals.

Its hard to say. Theyre anti-bail out, and then the bailout fails, and they flip out.


I dont think the US knows what it wants.

There are salient features of Obama's plans that parallel Hitler's quite closely.

It's not nonsense.

Or have you forgotten, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Sounds like the SS to me. It's almost what Hitler said about not trusting the Wehrmacht to achieve his objectives.

Sorry but the SS was not a "civilian national security force" it was an integral element of the wehrmacht. Just to complete the lunacy of the comparison (and assuming there was a slip of the finger with S being next to A), the SA we also not a "civilian national security force" but a uniformed, private, paramiliatary organisation.

No, but it was economically stronger than 1932 Germany.

Again, ignoring everything unrelated to economics (because it doesnt seem like Obama is planning on doing anything like what you seem to be refering, and youre implication that a well funded Nation Guard will be like the SS is laughable, by the way), what is so bad?

He's not saying the National Guard.

Rahm Emanuel clarified explicitly after the election that this will be a new armed force.

He's not saying the National Guard.

Rahm Emanuel clarified explicitly after the election that this will be a new armed force.

But it is essentially doing the work of the national guard, according to the descritpions Ive heard. And not like the SS, at all.

But you know what? Youre right DK. Obama is planning to start the First Reich of the US. Hes writing up plans for his Final Solution now. When thats done, he'll start rounding up whites and making us wear yellow stars. Then we'll Blitzkrieg Mexico.

But it is essentially doing the work of the national guard, according to the descritpions Ive heard. And not like the SS, at all.

No, it's not doing the work of the National Guard.

Sounds like the SS to me.

Little surprise it sounds like that to you.

There are salient features of Obama's plans that parallel Hitler's quite closely.

Please.

It's not nonsense.

Not only is it nonsense, it's off-topic, but then it's ALL ABOUT YOU right?

Or have you forgotten, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That so desperately reminds me of Adolf Hitler that it sends shivers down my Jewish spine. Please.

Sounds like the SS to me.

An excellent reason for not taking you seriously.

It's almost what Hitler said about not trusting the Wehrmacht to achieve his objectives.

'Almost like' it? Starting to hedge your bets early I see. Later you can say "I never compared Obama to Hitler, stop misrepresentin' mah argument!"

No, it's not doing the work of the National Guard.

Right. He refers to them as a "civillian national security force". So, thats either something like the National Guard, or a militia.

But...maybe Rush is right. Maybe Obama is out to end Conservative talk radio. Maybe they will be charged with rooting out Conservative talk radio hosts and "removing" them.

There are salient features of Obama's plans that parallel Hitler's quite closely.

It's not nonsense.

Or have you forgotten, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Sounds like the SS to me. It's almost what Hitler said about not trusting the Wehrmacht to achieve his objectives.

So Obama isn't a commie anymore, or just until you see a chance to compare him to Stalin?

So, what will happen if we decide to default on our debt?

So, what will happen if we decide to default on our debt?
Japan fucks you up.

And the world might drop the dollar standard.

See, I, and the rest of the country, are not willing to wait for the economy to further tank to humor free market purists.


Goodness I hate this argument.

It always happens. Government intervenes in the Free Market, the economy goes down (Not necessarily because of the intervention, mind you) And then they blame it on the 'Free Market'. The Free Market is the Liberal Bogeyman.

Japan fucks you up.

And the world might drop the dollar standard.

I'm surprised they haven't already.

The Free Market is the Liberal Bogeyman.

no, the free market is a fundamentally flawed economic system. We're just the ones who have figured it out, despite conservative near idolitry of it

Goodness I hate this argument.

It always happens. Government intervenes in the Free Market, the economy goes down (Not necessarily because of the intervention, mind you) And then they blame it on the 'Free Market'. The Free Market is the Liberal Bogeyman.

It's amusing because everyone on both sides acts as if 'conservatives' actually believe or support or have policies reflecting free market economics. We're just supposed to buy into the notion that Republicans are some sort of free market champions just because, well, they say they are (some of them). I don't know why people take this at face value when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Republicans are no more free market than Democrats.

Reading this thread has provided me with epic lolz, especially the part about rounding up whities.


One could only hope. ;)

It's amusing because everyone on both sides acts as if 'conservatives' actually believe or support or have policies reflecting free market economics. We're just supposed to buy into the notion that Republicans are some sort of free market champions just because, well, they say they are (some of them). I don't know why people take this at face value when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Republicans are no more free market than Democrats.
If I had enough space, I'd sig this.

It's amusing because everyone on both sides acts as if 'conservatives' actually believe or support or have policies reflecting free market economics. We're just supposed to buy into the notion that Republicans are some sort of free market champions just because, well, they say they are (some of them). I don't know why people take this at face value when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Republicans are no more free market than Democrats.

the difference is, liberals recognize it's bullshit and don't try to pretend.

It's amusing because everyone on both sides acts as if 'conservatives' actually believe or support or have policies reflecting free market economics. We're just supposed to buy into the notion that Republicans are some sort of free market champions just because, well, they say they are (some of them). I don't know why people take this at face value when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Republicans are no more free market than Democrats.
Here is your problem. You are equating fiscal conservatism with the Republican party. That's not even close. Where you stated that Republicans and Democrats have the same fiscal views is a far more accurate comparison.

Here is your problem. You are equating fiscal conservatism with the Republican party. That's not even close. Saying that Republicans and Democrats have the same fiscal views is a far more accurate comparison.

ahh yes, the "true conservative" song and dance. "We're not republicans! We just...vote for them....always. All the time"

the difference is, liberals recognize it's bullshit and don't try to pretend.

They seem happy to pretend right along with them as long as its an excuse to talk about the supposed failures of the supposed free market.

Sorry but the SS was not a "civilian national security force" it was an integral element of the wehrmacht. Just to complete the lunacy of the comparison (and assuming there was a slip of the finger with S being next to A), the SA we also not a "civilian national security force" but a uniformed, private, paramiliatary organisation.

The SS was originally Hitler's Personal bodyguard like the Secret Service (S.S.)

Oh Shi...

no, the free market is a fundamentally flawed economic system. We're just the ones who have figured it out, despite conservative near idolitry of it

This.

ahh yes, the "true conservative" song and dance. "We're not republicans! We just...vote for them....always. All the time"
Just how many fiscal conservatives do you suppose there are? I don't think there's enough to make a difference. I don't vote R or D and I suspect anyone else with any conscience won't either.

I don't think there's enough to make a difference. I don't vote R or D and I suspect anyone else with any conscience won't either.

Cute.


I personally vote D because I have a conscience. Damn thing makes me care about poor people and oppressed minorities.

So which country do we declare war on after this infrastructure bill is passed?

So which country do we declare war on after this infrastructure bill is passed?

The UK! Those damn Brits have been our ally for TOO LONG!:p

So which country do we declare war on after this infrastructure bill is passed?

The Uzbekistan ambassador to the UN has been looking at us funny lately...

Just how many fiscal conservatives do you suppose there are? I don't think there's enough to make a difference. I don't vote R or D and I suspect anyone else with any conscience won't either.

I voted Democrat for social and political reasons, not economic. I'm aware that neither party represents my economic ideology, it's just that given the issues (Iraq, etc) there are far more important considerations.

Cute.


I personally vote D because I have a conscience. Damn thing makes me care about poor people and oppressed minorities.
You can care about people without being a Democrat. I find that charity is a wonderful way to express one's caring without supporting the kind of government that our two party system has become.

Oh that's right, Democrats don't trust charities.

You can care about people without being a Democrat. I find that charity is a wonderful way to express one's caring without supporting the kind of government that our two party system has become.

True, but the third party candidates are also usually authoritarian loons, even the libertarians are authoritarians masked in libertarianism.

I care about equal rights, so I vote D.


Oh that's right, Democrats don't trust charities.

That would depend on the charity.

EDIT: As opposed to conservatives, who only trust religious, church based charities, right? See, I can make idiotic blanket statements with no basis in fact too!

Just how many fiscal conservatives do you suppose there are?

Depends on the definition of "fiscal conservative". There are a number of politicians heavily into right-wing economics. They tend to be at least somewhat affiliated with the Libertarian party. Of course, they unfortunately also tend to be rather authoritarian on social issues.

I don't think there's enough to make a difference. I don't vote R or D and I suspect anyone else with any conscience won't either.

I don't vote R or D. I vote for whichever candidates seem best for the job (from those available, anyways). Because I place great emphasis on things like human and civil rights, this means that I tend to vote a larger percentage of D than other parties.

True, but the third party candidates are also usually authoritarian loons, even the libertarians are authoritarians masked in libertarianism.

I care about equal rights, so I vote D.



That would depend on the charity.

EDIT: As opposed to conservatives, who only trust religious, church based charities, right? See, I can make idiotic blanket statements with no basis in fact too!
One prominent Democrat has shown that he has no interest in any charity... Joe Biden managed to donate something like $1000 last year, while earning over $2 million. That's a heck of an example for the next to head guy in the Democratic party. I would bet BO didn't donate much either.

One prominent Democrat has shown that he has no interest in any charity... Joe Biden managed to donate something like $1000 last year, while earning over $2 million.

Two million? Try a tenth of that:

Joint income between Biden and his wife Jill rose from $215,000 to $249,000 between 1998 and 2006. These numbers reflect the total of Joe Biden's Senate salary, his Widener University School of Law teaching salary, and Jill Biden's teaching salary.

250k, not "two million". And that's between the two of them, across three jobs.

On which they maintain two households.

Awesome. So, while we may be "tax and spend libruhls", Id imagine thats preferable to a "spend" conservative.
This isn't tax and spend. That would suggest a lower deficit than the last years of Bush. This is just spend like fuck and hope that nobody remembers about inflation in their desire to welcome in a messianic figure whose actions will put the US into more debt, and who will affect the recovery of the markets not one jot.

We need a drastic reduction in government, moving it from the nanny state to watchman. Its purpose should be laying down the regulations for a functional and transparent economy, and should individual companies fail they should not be bailed out. Decades of socializing risk and attempting to keep the economy afloat at all times has produced an unstable, overly liquid situation that will only deteriorate further and which will contribute to an endless cycle of inflation, speculative bubbles, and financial crises.

While rebuilding infrastructure is a necessary task, this stimulus program will likely lead to nothing more than more corruption and waste than ever before. It is too big and too sudden, for one, and too easy to load down with pork because nobody will want to be on the side that votes against it even if they know it's complete junk. There will be such a rush to pass it that rational thought will be thrown to the wayside, inviting the kind of "bridge to nowhere" insanity on an even bigger scale than ever before.

Most importantly going in to the next administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to be completely privatized or nationalized, with the best alternative being full privatization. They are the single biggest reason for this housing and credit crisis because it was those two corporations that created the environment of socialized risk, private profit and guaranteed bailouts that artificially depressed the real risk of these companies' actions, causing them to make investments that would be completely unjustified in a freer market or which would result in their collapse long before they became "too big to fail". Our obsession with encouraging homeownership has not created homeowners, it has created a large number of unsustainable debtors whose "ownership" of their home only lasts as long as they continue to pay their mortgages.

This isn't the kind of property ownership that encourages entrepreneurship or the development of a strong middle class among minorities, it's the road to serfdom and little more.

Damn, 1.2 trillion?

C'mon USA, we can do better!

Lets have a deficit of 2 trillion?

Can we do it?

YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-07-budget_N.htm



Awesome.

Sickening.

So, while we may be "tax and spend libruhls", Id imagine thats preferable to a "spend" conservative.

Taxes will not cover what is coming. Bill Clinton was an excellent liberal President; Obama is evidently a moron, despite the fact that he has a heart.

The article says Obama will make the budget deficit higher, but that will at least be with the goal of fixing the economy and not with the goal of making the rich richer and blowing up two non-Christian countries (one because God told you to).

:tongue: Iraq and Afghanistan will still be there, and Obama is talking about sending the marines into Africa (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773216).

How much you want to bet that in 2012, the Republican battle cry will be "OMG DEFICIT!!!",

I sure as hell will, just as I did with Bush. Regan, Bush, and now Obama--idiots!

and the American Idiot Public will buy it, completelly forgeting who put us in the situation were such action was necissary (and who brought it up to he trillion mark)?

Sure, just like Jimmy Carter forced Regan to spend.

What the fuck Jolt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Who did not rely on bailouts!

Damn, 1.2 trillion?

C'mon USA, we can do better!

Lets have a deficit of 2 trillion?

Can we do it?

YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!

"Change!" my ass.

I'm surprised they haven't already.
Some would say (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo) there are reasons for this.


I personally vote D because I have a conscience. Damn thing makes me care about poor people and oppressed minorities.
So what are you saying? That those who don't vote Dem hav no conscience? that only those who vote Rep don't?

Must you demonise?


ahh yes, the "true conservative" song and dance. "We're not republicans! We just...vote for them....always. All the time"
He's right though; 'Republican' does not necessarily equate with 'fiscal conservative'.


The UK! Those damn Brits have been our ally for TOO LONG!:p
*quietly sips tea, scheming*

How much you want to bet that in 2012, the Republican battle cry will be "OMG DEFICIT!!!", and the American Idiot Public will buy it, completelly forgeting who put us in the situation were such action was necissary (and who brought it up to he trillion mark)?

Im willing to bet your probably right about the Republicans...

However, I think itll be much more difficult to peddle that crap in 2012 than it was in 2000...In the age of Jolt Forums and Wikipedia...dumb arguments have a problem taking hold...

Look at the multitude of bogus 'Obama was Muslim' and 'Climate change is teh sux' threads, and the epic failure that was involved...


Its hard to outright bullshit people and get away with it these days...at least imo...Sure, some'll buy it, but not enough so they wont be categorized as 'redneck idiots'...

Although, on the topic, WWIII oughta pull us out , just like WWII did, Putin's about to be fucked up, lol :p

So what are you saying? That those who don't vote Dem hav no conscience? that only those who vote Rep don't?

Must you demonise?

No. I was responding to an idiotic blanket statement with one of my own.
Obama is evidently a moron, despite the fact that he has a heart.


You have a reason for saying this...? The man has taken no official action yet.

I'm picking up on the inaccurate conclusion you've drawn.What'd you say about irony?
Well, in this case, i'll just read the rest of your exchange. Should be fruitful. :)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-07-budget_N.htm



Awesome. So, while we may be "tax and spend libruhls", Id imagine thats preferable to a "spend" conservative.

The article says Obama will make the budget deficit higher, but that will at least be with the goal of fixing the economy and not with the goal of making the rich richer and blowing up two non-Christian countries (one because God told you to).

How much you want to bet that in 2012, the Republican battle cry will be "OMG DEFICIT!!!", and the American Idiot Public will buy it, completelly forgeting who put us in the situation were such action was necissary (and who brought it up to he trillion mark)?


first off compare the deficit to our GDP. its not so bad.

second. compare the rate on bonds to inflation. inflation is higher then the interest on our bonds. this means the money we pay to our creditors is worth less then the money we borrowed.

so my conclusion is your over reacting.

Depends on the definition of "fiscal conservative". There are a number of politicians heavily into right-wing economics. They tend to be at least somewhat affiliated with the Libertarian party. Of course, they unfortunately also tend to be rather authoritarian on social issues.

I'm not quite sure how you consider the Libertarian Party, whose platform includes the legalization of all drugs, to be authoritarian on social issues.
You ought to browse the platform before making inaccurate statements.
http://www.lp.org/platform

Damn, 1.2 trillion?

C'mon USA, we can do better!

Lets have a deficit of 2 trillion?

Can we do it?

YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
That's not change, but I can believe in it.

Two million? Try a tenth of that:



250k, not "two million". And that's between the two of them, across three jobs.

On which they maintain two households.
So you don't think $1000 is a little light in the charity department? I do. And I was wrong about that, too. His average donation over 10 years is more like $360. Way too little.

So you don't think $1000 is a little light in the charity department? I do. And I was wrong about that, too. His average donation over 10 years is more like $360. Way too little.

Frankly I couldn't say. I make less than half that, but I'm only one person, have only one home, and still don't have much left over for charity.

Either way, I"m not discussing how much or how little he gives, merely pointing out that the "two million" figure was grossly off. In fact, Biden's overall income is one of the lowest in the senate.

One prominent Democrat has shown that he has no interest in any charity... Joe Biden managed to donate something like $1000 last year, while earning over $2 million. That's a heck of an example for the next to head guy in the Democratic party. I would bet BO didn't donate much either.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-reports-charitable-contributions.html

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, made $4.2 million last year as widespread interest in the presidential candidate pushed the sales of his two books.

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Earned $4.2 million. $2.8 million after taxes. Gave $240,370 to charity, or 8.58% of their net earnings. Honestly, it took me two seconds on Google to find this. You could have done this instead of saying something stupid like "I would bet BO didn't donate much either" and then looking like a fool when someone came along and did the actual legwork.

So you don't think $1000 is a little light in the charity department? I do. And I was wrong about that, too. His average donation over 10 years is more like $360. Way too little.

At least he's being honest on his taxes tho'. :p

You have a reason for saying this...? The man has taken no official action yet.

He has spoken of what actions he will take; so he is either a moron or a liar--and since there is no political advantage in deceit at this point, I certainly question Obama's know-how (not to say I would rather have McCain, mind you, but I am still disappointed in Obama).

I'm not quite sure how you consider the Libertarian Party, whose platform includes the legalization of all drugs, to be authoritarian on social issues.
You ought to browse the platform before making inaccurate statements.
http://www.lp.org/platform

To bad the candidates it puts up are authoritarian idiots.

So you don't think $1000 is a little light in the charity department? I do. And I was wrong about that, too. His average donation over 10 years is more like $360. Way too little.

Since you were shown that you were basically talking out your ass here:

Two million? Try a tenth of that:



250k, not "two million". And that's between the two of them, across three jobs.

On which they maintain two households.

And here:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-reports-charitable-contributions.html



Earned $4.2 million. $2.8 million after taxes. Gave $240,370 to charity, or 8.58% of their net earnings. Honestly, it took me two seconds on Google to find this. You could have done this instead of saying something stupid like "I would bet BO didn't donate much either" and then looking like a fool when someone came along and did the actual legwork.

I think this time maybe you should actually provide a source. But, since its you, I doubt you have one.

So you don't think $1000 is a little light in the charity department? I do. And I was wrong about that, too. His average donation over 10 years is more like $360. Way too little.

I'm sorry. When was the Charity Police started? If you want to force people to give to charity, thats what a Government is for. I believe the term is Social Security.

I'm sorry. When was the Charity Police started? If you want to force people to give to charity, thats what a Government is for. I believe the term is Social Security.
Charity begins at home. If one expects to use the power of government to coerce transfer wealth, then he should also be willing to donate his own money to the same causes.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a Ponzi scheme in which the US government makes Mr. Madoff look like an amateur.

I don't think it really counts as 'charity' if it's forced, I mean from that perspective the guys who Robin Hood robbed were "charitable."

Social Security, on the other hand, is a Ponzi scheme in which the US government makes Mr. Madoff look like an amateur.

I'm amazed at how few people understand that.

Soon, however, they will.

I'm not quite sure how you consider the Libertarian Party, whose platform includes the legalization of all drugs, to be authoritarian on social issues.
You ought to browse the platform before making inaccurate statements.
http://www.lp.org/platform

Platforms change on the whim of the majority of the desired constituents.

Every Libert I have personally met (of course that is limited) has been authoritarian on social issues.

I think(mind you my memory is scraggly) even you have had a few such stances regarding the poor and welfare.

I think the liberts have a image problem or you are ignoring the general attitude. Even a coworker who claims to be libertarian he says he is socially liberal and he said that makes him unusual.

I'm amazed at how few people understand that.

Soon, however, they will.

Sure they will. Everybody retirement would have been in great shape in the stock market right?

Social Security, on the other hand, is a Ponzi scheme in which the US government makes Mr. Madoff look like an amateur.

What was that about not being socially authoritarian?

Sure they will. Everybody retirement would have been in great shape in the stock market right?

At least when the money's not there in your stock portfolio, you know it.

Social security is a massive lie - it's just not going to be available.

At least when the money's not there in your stock portfolio, you know it.

Social security is a massive lie - it's just not going to be available.

Surrrrrrrrre.

Repubs have been preaching that for over 50 years.

But you are right. Why let the government steal your money when you can let republican supporters steal it?

Surrrrrrrrre.

Repubs have been preaching that for over 50 years.

But you are right. Why let the government steal your money when you can let republican supporters steal it?

It's a fact that Social Security won't be there very soon.

What was that about not being socially authoritarian?
I guess you need to explain that one to me.

Sure they will. Everybody retirement would have been in great shape in the stock market right?
They would have the ability to do what they wanted. But this is really avoiding the issue of SSI and Medicare bankruptcy. It has to happen. All Ponzi schemes collapse eventually.

They would have the ability to do what they wanted. But this is really avoiding the issue of SSI and Medicare bankruptcy. It has to happen. All Ponzi schemes collapse eventually.

:D So did you pick up that "ponzi" label from Rush?


-edit-

So you did!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_123108/content/Template__One_Column_Template_The_World_s_Largest_Ponzi_Scheme_.html.guest.html

Keep in mind that nearly the entire trust fund has been borrowed against during the current and previous administrations.

While the Social Security trust fund will have resources until 2041, the more critical date in terms of government revenues will occur in 2017. In that year, Social Security, which has been providing billions of dollars in surpluses to the government for over two decades, will start having to pay out more in benefits than it will receive that year in payroll taxes.

At that point, the government will have to start replacing the money it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. It can do that only by increasing borrowing from the public, raising taxes or cutting other government programs. The elimination of the Social Security surplus is a key reason that experts are projecting sizable budget deficits in future years.

This is in addition to the 7 or 8 trillion already blown to try to stop the economic slide, the billions spent in Iraq, and the additional trillion that Obama wants for a stimulus.

Unless they plan on just printing money, it's not going to be there.

:D So did you pick up that "ponzi" label from Rush?

No, it really is a Ponzi scheme. Now, were Social Security to increase its return on investment to match the projected need for contributions, it would be a self-sustaining system because the proceeds paid in would generate sufficient funds to cover the costs indefinitely. Right now, the Social Security trust fund is so routinely looted that the money couldn't be reinvested even if we wanted to do so. Historically speaking, though, Social Security returns have been so poor as to basically make the system a Ponzi scheme where the returns paid out predominantly consist of new money coming in rather than any real earnings on invested funds.

Personally, I'd like to be able to opt out of Social Security in exchange for a higher capital gains tax. Social Security is a waste of time for me and many people, especially the young, since even with a higher CGT to cover the costs of the program they would still be able to massively outperform the fund over time saving them money while keeping the program afloat for those remaining people that want to use it.

No, it really is a Ponzi scheme. Now, were Social Security to increase its return on investment to match the projected need for contributions, it would be a self-sustaining system because the proceeds paid in would generate sufficient funds to cover the costs indefinitely. Right now, the Social Security trust fund is so routinely looted that the money couldn't be reinvested even if we wanted to do so. Historically speaking, though, Social Security returns have been so poor as to basically make the system a Ponzi scheme where the returns paid out predominantly consist of new money coming in rather than any real earnings on invested funds.

Personally, I'd like to be able to opt out of Social Security in exchange for a higher capital gains tax. Social Security is a waste of time for me and many people, especially the young, since even with a higher CGT to cover the costs of the program they would still be able to massively outperform the fund over time saving them money while keeping the program afloat for those remaining people that want to use it.

So the fact they are looting it makes it a "ponzi" scheme? Was that the implied intent? SS would be fine if the looting was blocked.

So how much money have you lost recently? That is if you invest?

So the fact they are looting it makes it a "ponzi" scheme? Was that the implied intent? SS would be fine if the looting was blocked.

So how much money have you lost recently? That is if you invest?

It wouldn't be fine if the looting was blocked. The looting has already taken place - the money is essentially gone, and it's not going to be paid back.

Everything I've paid into Social Security since 1978 is lost.

I didn't lose very much during the recent stock market slide. I lost about 11% of my 401K. It's a fact that I've put less into my 401K than into Social Security over the years.

And since the loss for Social Security will be 100%... you tell me which one did better.

It wouldn't be fine if the looting was blocked. The looting has already taken place - the money is essentially gone, and it's not going to be paid back.

Everything I've paid into Social Security since 1978 is lost.

I didn't lose very much during the recent stock market slide. I lost about 11% of my 401K. It's a fact that I've put less into my 401K than into Social Security over the years.

And since the loss for Social Security will be 100%... you tell me which one did better.

Match the contributions to your 401 K and the losses will increase.

It's still a guess that SS will fail. It might if the repubs have their way; they have hated it since it's creation. After all the free market will solve everything!

Match the contributions to your 401 K and the losses will increase.

It's still a guess that SS will fail. It might if the repubs have their way; they have hated it since it's creation. After all the free market will solve everything!

It's not a guess that it will fail.

Over time, I've consistently made money on my 401K. Much more money will be available to me in the end than through Social Security, which will not exist after 2017.

It's a fact that Social Security won't be there very soon.

Assuming the economy continues to decline, yes. I'm not sure about very soon though.

It's not a guess that it will fail.

Over time, I've consistently made money on my 401K. Much more money will be available to me in the end than through Social Security, which will not exist after 2017.


We shall see.

It probably will. But it will not be because the idea was wrong. It will be because people worked to kill it.

401K's are not the golden solution. I have a read a couple blurgs that argue Pension programs outperform them all the time. Guess who hates those as well.....

So the fact they are looting it makes it a "ponzi" scheme? Was that the implied intent? SS would be fine if the looting was blocked.

It's a Ponzi scheme because even if the trust fund wasn't looted, it's unlikely that the system would be able to anywhere near meet its obligations because the return on invested funds is so low. They need new people paying in constantly to keep it afloat.

So how much money have you lost recently? That is if you invest?

About 40%. But also remember that I'm investing on a 50+ year timeframe so I've got a long time to recoup my losses. Short-term fluctuations don't really mean anything when you consider the average return over the past century was 10-12%, give or take.

It's still a guess that SS will fail. It might if the repubs have their way; they have hated it since it's creation. After all the free market will solve everything!

Raiding the Social Security fund has been a bipartisan effort. Disabuse yourself of the mistaken assumption that only Republican politicians have bled it dry; funding for every Tom, Dick, and Larry, D-your state here social welfare program has drained it.

We shall see.

It probably will. But it will not be because the idea was wrong. It will be because people worked to kill it.

401K's are not the golden solution. I have a read a couple blurgs that argue Pension programs outperform them all the time. Guess who hates those as well.....

Let's see, even if it wasn't borrowed against to the hilt, it takes in less money than it gives out over time... gee, that means it runs out of money eventually, since there's no interest accumulated over time.

The money that goes in is already paid right out.

During a time when there were far more workers than people receiving benefits, it actually saved up some money (but still accumulated zero interest). This money was "borrowed", and that was a Democrat idea that Republicans went along with.

There will soon be fewer workers, and even more beneficiaries.

Did Republicans ever manage to reduce our individual contributions to SS? No.

Did Republicans ever manage to privatize SS? No.

So I don't see them as having killed it. It was designed stupidly from the start, and if you can't see how a Ponzi scheme is a scam, then maybe you had some money invested with Madoff.

It's a Ponzi scheme because even if the trust fund wasn't looted, it's unlikely that the system would be able to anywhere near meet its obligations because the return on invested funds is so low. They need new people paying in constantly to keep it afloat.


And that makes it still a guess on the failure as the desire for amount of children changes generation to generation. I am hearing more people are wanting multiples were in the past I heard laments about people wanting one or none.


About 40%. But also remember that I'm investing on a 50+ year timeframe so I've got a long time to recoup my losses. Short-term fluctuations don't really mean anything when you consider the average return over the past century was 10-12%, give or take.

Ahh but lets make you 40-50 years older right now? That would be a rather ugly loss will no chance of renumeration for the skulduggery that has gone on.

You think there will be no more madofs of balance sheet type fraud in the future?

What is a 401 K? I've heard of them, but don't know what one is.

Let's see, even if it wasn't borrowed against to the hilt, it takes in less money than it gives out over time... gee, that means it runs out of money eventually, since there's no interest accumulated over time.

The money that goes in is already paid right out.

During a time when there were far more workers than people receiving benefits, it actually saved up some money (but still accumulated zero interest). This money was "borrowed", and that was a Democrat idea that Republicans went along with.

There will soon be fewer workers, and even more beneficiaries.

Did Republicans ever manage to reduce our individual contributions to SS? No.

Did Republicans ever manage to privatize SS? No.

So I don't see them as having killed it. It was designed stupidly from the start, and if you can't see how a Ponzi scheme is a scam, then maybe you had some money invested with Madoff.

DK I must tell you; you are always good for a laugh. :D

DK I must tell you; you are always good for a laugh. :D

You're apparently the only one in the thread who believes that Republicans destroyed Social Security - and the only one who believes that there's anything left in Social Security.

Sad, really. Maybe I'll see you homeless on a street corner somewhere.

What is a 401 K? I've heard of them, but don't know what one is.

It's a retirement plan. Basically you get to set aside money be it tax defered or tax taken right away. It sits till you retire.

Companies would match to a certain amount but that seems to be slowly getting dropped as the economy collapses.

Here is a wiki explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

You're apparently the only one in the thread who believes that Republicans destroyed Social Security - and the only one who believes that there's anything left in Social Security.

Sad, really. Maybe I'll see you homeless on a street corner somewhere.

As I said. A good laugh. Thank you! :D

As I said. A good laugh. Thank you! :D

The only thing laughable here is the belief that the Republican Party is solely responsible for the impending demise of Social Security.

The only thing laughable here is the belief that the Republican Party is solely responsible for the impending demise of Social Security.

Oh I never meant to imply they are the only ones taking money.

I still say they want it gone more....

You're apparently the only one in the thread who believes that Republicans destroyed Social Security - and the only one who believes that there's anything left in Social Security.

That's how NSG works. Some posters believe that the Republicans destroy everything, and anyone who supports them is a bastard who wrecks economies single-handedly.

That's how NSG works. Some posters believe that the Republicans destroy everything, and anyone who supports them is a bastard who wrecks economies single-handedly.

Well, I happen to believe it was the underwear gnomes.

And that makes it still a guess on the failure as the desire for amount of children changes generation to generation. I am hearing more people are wanting multiples were in the past I heard laments about people wanting one or none.

We would need another baby boom for that, and it's unlikely that will happen. Even if it does, it still means a 20-25 year gap for the revenues from those new workers to begin affecting the fund materially. Now, if we were to switch Social Security funding from income to consumption tax, the problem would be massively reduced because the country's sizable illegal immigrant population (not to mention the wealthy people hiding taxes from the government) would begin to contribute to the fund as well, helping to offset the drain caused by demographic imbalances.

However, all of this would be moot if we were to adjust Social Security to a national retirement account program, allowing people to own and invest their contributions as they want, with capital gains taxes on the program going to fund a general trust that would continue to be financed with treasury bonds. The general trust would be used to provide retirement aid to low-income retirees, enabling them to receive comparable benefits from Social Security while people of better means can invest their money as they wish, generating more revenue while lessening the burden on the system itself.

I believe the current system screws over everybody by acting in the least optimal manner.

Ahh but lets make you 40-50 years older right now? That would be a rather ugly loss will no chance of renumeration for the skulduggery that has gone on.

You think there will be no more madofs of balance sheet type fraud in the future?

I have no idea. I hope not, but it's also true that Social Security may end up being "reformed" only in the sense of significantly higher taxes, creating a drain on my income regardless of how the market performs. Its insolvency would require massive financial resources probably exceeding even the biggest stimulus packages today.

401K's are not the golden solution. I have a read a couple blurgs that argue Pension programs outperform them all the time. Guess who hates those as well.....

That may be true; in fact, the return for pensions increases massively as the employee approaches retirement. The problem with pensions is that they're very expensive, and as a result the company often defers actually funding the pension until it's actually needed. They expense it, and accrue the liability, but don't actually pay it out until collection. Of course, what that means in turn is that when you go to collect your pension, there's a very good chance that the money won't be there. If you're lucky, the PBGC will be able to cover it, but that's hardly guaranteed, especially when the government is head-over-heels when it comes to saving the Big Three and might be willing to look the other way as your retirement funds are eviscerated.

Now, in a perfect world, the company would fund its pensions adequately, and the money invested would generate returns used to meet future needs (often exceeding them considerably). Recall that in the late 1990's, the pension funds of GM and Ford were swimming in paper gains thanks to the dot-com bubble and the overall stock market boom, but as the markets caved in 2000-2002 they suddenly found that they no longer possessed those unrealized gains and were, well, broke.

The primary advantage of 401(k) and IRA accounts is that you own the money in them and the employee matching is paid at the time. If you've got a 401(k) that is invested in company stock by default, well, it's time to find another company to work for but otherwise they tend to generate pretty good returns with comparatively low risk. There's none of the paper promises that characterize pensions, and given their significantly lower cost to the company 401(k) matching programs are more likely to be retained if the company runs in to trouble.

The primary advantage of 401(k) and IRA accounts is that you own the money in them and the employee matching is paid at the time. If you've got a 401(k) that is invested in company stock by default, well, it's time to find another company to work for but otherwise they tend to generate pretty good returns with comparatively low risk. There's none of the paper promises that characterize pensions, and given their significantly lower cost to the company 401(k) matching programs are more likely to be retained if the company runs in to trouble.
There's another huge advantage to private retirement plans, such as 401K, 403B, IRA, etc... When you die, you can will them to an heir. Not so with government plans.

We would need another baby boom for that, and it's unlikely that will happen. Even if it does, it still means a 20-25 year gap for the revenues from those new workers to begin affecting the fund materially. Now, if we were to switch Social Security funding from income to consumption tax, the problem would be massively reduced because the country's sizable illegal immigrant population (not to mention the wealthy people hiding taxes from the government) would begin to contribute to the fund as well, helping to offset the drain caused by demographic imbalances.

However, all of this would be moot if we were to adjust Social Security to a national retirement account program, allowing people to own and invest their contributions as they want, with capital gains taxes on the program going to fund a general trust that would continue to be financed with treasury bonds. The general trust would be used to provide retirement aid to low-income retirees, enabling them to receive comparable benefits from Social Security while people of better means can invest their money as they wish, generating more revenue while lessening the burden on the system itself.

I believe the current system screws over everybody by acting in the least optimal manner.

I have no idea. I hope not, but it's also true that Social Security may end up being "reformed" only in the sense of significantly higher taxes, creating a drain on my income regardless of how the market performs. Its insolvency would require massive financial resources probably exceeding even the biggest stimulus packages today.

:) Unlike others you offer more then "I hate it" or Rush regurgitations.

The problem with private investment is that is places a great deal on people having the knowledge to do things right. I don't go for the "hey they f'd up so they have to suffer" mentality that seems to be espoused by others.

It would see that we have an effort of wanting to return to the era before the depression.

I like the idea of the elderly having a retirement. I like the idea of it being protected. Problem is the "free market" will not make that so.

For example, my mom and parent-in-laws took a rather nasty hit. They are rather conservative investors and try to avoid stocks, etc. Problem is they indirectly got Madoffed but the way the money got invested on their behalf. Their people are not scum as they tend to work with retirements. They just invested in some stuff that sounded nice but was linked to Madoff.

If SS is to go it should be in a slow phaseout. Grandfather protect people while they live and migrate people out. Retirements that are hit by fraud, should be harshly punished. As typical with this country; Madoff will get a lite at most moderate punishment and will probably give lectures on business ethics.

So I guess I am also for a national system with some control like you laid out. :)

Well, I happen to believe it was the underwear gnomes.

Those fiends.

To bad the candidates it puts up are authoritarian idiots.



Since you were shown that you were basically talking out your ass here:



And here:



I think this time maybe you should actually provide a source. But, since its you, I doubt you have one.



And Mymri ignored this post. Not suprised, I kinda knew he was talking out his ass.

And Mymri ignored this post. Not suprised, I kinda knew he was talking out his ass.
Coming from someone who says that a $1.2 trillion Democrat deficit is better than a $0.6ish trillion Republican because it involves 'tax and spend' despite giving a massive tax break out, claims of anyone talking out of their arse are a bit hard to stomach.

Ahh but lets make you 40-50 years older right now? That would be a rather ugly loss will no chance of renumeration for the skulduggery that has gone on.


No 60 year old should have a substantial allocation in stocks. If they do they deserve poverty for being stupid.

Coming from someone who says that a $1.2 trillion Democrat deficit is better than a $0.6ish trillion Republican because it involves 'tax and spend' despite giving a massive tax break out, claims of anyone talking out of their arse are a bit hard to stomach.

I love how everyone's latched onto my "tax and spend" comment. It wa a dig, not meant to be taken literally. Sometimes you people make me kind of sad.

And, considering where the money is going compared to where Bush spent the money, Id much rather have Obama's.

Meh, its not like we intend to pay it back...We dont keep that massive Military for nothin, lol...

Meh, its not like we intend to pay it back...We dont keep that massive Military for nothin, lol...

Hell lets really run the tab up. Then say oops we are going insolvent. Our paper is worthless. Anyone complains (the Chinese) say come and get some!

Hell lets really run the tab up. Then say oops we are going insolvent. Our paper is worthless. Anyone complains (the Chinese) say come and get some!

Meh. Its like what Caeser did. Borrow enough money from your potential enemies, and they cant affor to see you fail.

Meh. Its like what Caeser did. Borrow enough money from your potential enemies, and they cant affor to see you fail.

Exactly, really who is in the drivers seat here? The person whom borrowed the money or the person waiting for said person to pay it back.

Exactly, really who is in the drivers seat here? The person whom borrowed the money or the person waiting for said person to pay it back.

You are assuming there is a 'we' in this. The fact is the lenders own the US. They own the US because they can cut the government off, and if the government gets cut off the politicians lose. Since the politicians don't want to lose, because then they wouldn't be able to distribute undeserved bounties to their friends and those who control them, they will go to any length to keep the lenders sweet while continuing to borrow in order to keep the gravy train going. They will do this, no matter what it takes out of the hide of the ordinary American.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding wherein people assume that the people in Washington DC are somehow on 'their' side. I put it to you that nothing could be further from the truth.