Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT - "Occupiers" no better than hippies
12 views
Skip to first unread message
The Daily Liberal
Oct 19, 2011, 11:33:31 AM10/19/11
to
FRAMINGHAM — It comes as no surprise at all that the News'
editorial staff continues to tout what it sees as the wonderful,
uplifting nature of these Occupy dimwits ("Listening to the 99
percenters," Oct. 16). Your far,far left editorial composers are
in the same category as the Occupy know-nothings, and the former
completely fails to miss the insane demands that the Occupiers
are unsuccessfully espousing. Said demands, all ridiculous to
the nth degree, include a minimum wage of $20 per hour, open
borders, $1 trillion dollars in infrastructure, outlawing of all
credit reporting agencies, forgiveness of all loans such as
college debts, credit cards, and mortgages, a free college
education, and the destruction of our wildly successful
capitalist system.
These know-nothing dopes, mostly all under the age of 25, have
absolutely no clue whatsoever as to how the world works, what it
takes to get ahead, how to balance success and failure while
overcoming the latter through hard work, business smart, and
determination.
The Occupiers are an absolute laughable joke and are a total net
negative to America, as they resemble the hippie protesters of
the late 1960's who made a lot of noise and accomplished
absolutely nothing until they decided to rejoin society once the
free food, protests, and drugs dried up. The same will occur
with most of the Occupiers once they see how they are making
absolute, total, and complete fools of themselves. They fail to
understand that if you want to be successful in life, then you
have to earn it, end of discussion. Take it from someone who was
flat broke at age 26, but who never gave up and worked hard to
make a success of himself.
And let us also listen to the participants of the Startup
Weekend Boston at Boston University which will be attended by
budding entrepreneurs, some of who will succeed wildly, some of
whom will fail at their startup initiatives, but all of whom
will be successful to varying degrees in their careers as they
think, innovate, go to market, and learn what the world is about
while being shining examples of ingenuity, brainpower, drive,
and determination. Comparing these smart people to the Occupiers
is akin to comparing a 4G I-Phone to a rotary dial phone from
the 1920's.
TONY SICILIANO,
Framingham
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor
/x1876835328/Siciliano-Occupiers-no-better-than-hippies
editorial staff continues to tout what it sees as the wonderful,
uplifting nature of these Occupy dimwits ("Listening to the 99
percenters," Oct. 16). Your far,far left editorial composers are
in the same category as the Occupy know-nothings, and the former
completely fails to miss the insane demands that the Occupiers
are unsuccessfully espousing. Said demands, all ridiculous to
the nth degree, include a minimum wage of $20 per hour, open
borders, $1 trillion dollars in infrastructure, outlawing of all
credit reporting agencies, forgiveness of all loans such as
college debts, credit cards, and mortgages, a free college
education, and the destruction of our wildly successful
capitalist system.
These know-nothing dopes, mostly all under the age of 25, have
absolutely no clue whatsoever as to how the world works, what it
takes to get ahead, how to balance success and failure while
overcoming the latter through hard work, business smart, and
determination.
The Occupiers are an absolute laughable joke and are a total net
negative to America, as they resemble the hippie protesters of
the late 1960's who made a lot of noise and accomplished
absolutely nothing until they decided to rejoin society once the
free food, protests, and drugs dried up. The same will occur
with most of the Occupiers once they see how they are making
absolute, total, and complete fools of themselves. They fail to
understand that if you want to be successful in life, then you
have to earn it, end of discussion. Take it from someone who was
flat broke at age 26, but who never gave up and worked hard to
make a success of himself.
And let us also listen to the participants of the Startup
Weekend Boston at Boston University which will be attended by
budding entrepreneurs, some of who will succeed wildly, some of
whom will fail at their startup initiatives, but all of whom
will be successful to varying degrees in their careers as they
think, innovate, go to market, and learn what the world is about
while being shining examples of ingenuity, brainpower, drive,
and determination. Comparing these smart people to the Occupiers
is akin to comparing a 4G I-Phone to a rotary dial phone from
the 1920's.
TONY SICILIANO,
Framingham
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor
/x1876835328/Siciliano-Occupiers-no-better-than-hippies
jim
Oct 19, 2011, 12:28:57 PM10/19/11
to
The Daily Liberal wrote:
and the destruction of our wildly successful
> capitalist system.
>
Your "wildly successful capitalist system" is dead broke.
It has been broke for a dozen years or more.
In the US the private sector borrowed $44 trillion to make
itself appear wildly successful.
Except now the borrowing binge is over and
it can't repay the debts.
The US economy is currently on life support propped up by
$1.5 trillion per year of federal government over-spending
When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
capitalist system" is going to implode.
RM V2.0
Oct 19, 2011, 1:59:34 PM10/19/11
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:BfudnbZnk7JUZwPT...@bright.net...
laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
emoneyjoe
Oct 19, 2011, 2:49:58 PM10/19/11
to
only as a result of government spending, he thinks
$3 Trillion in federal spending generates $15 Trillion GDP.
jim
Oct 19, 2011, 3:01:25 PM10/19/11
to
"RM V2.0" wrote:
> >
> > When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
> > capitalist system" is going to implode.
> Because it is not a true capitalist system. Subsidies, regulations, wage
> laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
Congress attempts to balance the budget.
jim
Oct 19, 2011, 3:02:42 PM10/19/11
to
de...@dudu.org
Oct 19, 2011, 3:06:46 PM10/19/11
to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:01:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
What is amazing about the rightards in Congress is they don't seem to
realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
started under Bush.
wrote:
realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
started under Bush.
emoneyjoe
Oct 19, 2011, 3:57:53 PM10/19/11
to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:02:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
If you are right, better tell all those wanting to cut
spending.
I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
all the investment in the world is not going to get
people to buy what they already have three of.
wrote:
spending.
I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
all the investment in the world is not going to get
people to buy what they already have three of.
jim
Oct 19, 2011, 4:48:14 PM10/19/11
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> If you are right, better tell all those wanting to cut
> spending.
Cutting spending won't cause a problem as long as
>
> If you are right, better tell all those wanting to cut
> spending.
you cut taxes by even more.
The issue is that the private sector is spending
less than their income because a chunk of income is going to
saving and repaying debt.
The only reason this reduction in spending not causing a
depression is because the govt is spending $1.5 trillion more
than it is taking from people in taxes.
>
> I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
> the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
> all the investment in the world is not going to get
> people to buy what they already have three of.
into an IRS office and hand it to them and they will be happy to
dump it into the shredder and get rid of it for you.
You may be completely out of ideas, but most other people
have plenty of ideas on how they could spend their income
if the govt let them keep more of it.
How many people are going to refuse to accept the additional
money if they are taxed less?
OTOH
Increasing taxes on anybody will cause more workers
to lose their jobs, because in the end it will reduce
the money available to purchase the goods and services
that workers produce.
emoneyjoe
Oct 19, 2011, 5:49:32 PM10/19/11
to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:48:14 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>> If you are right, better tell all those wanting to cut
>> spending.
>
>Cutting spending won't cause a problem as long as
>you cut taxes by even more.
The two are not related presently, at least not
for those earning over $100,000 because they will
not do anything to increase job numbers.
>The issue is that the private sector is spending
>less than their income because a chunk of income is going to
>saving and repaying debt.
Which isn't going to change much regardless.
>The only reason this reduction in spending not causing a
>depression is because the govt is spending $1.5 trillion more
>than it is taking from people in taxes.
Nonsense, the social programs make up almost
that whole 1.5 Trillion if the interest on the debt is
included. And people on SSI or social security are
not going to spend less, they need to spend it all to
live.
>> I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
>> the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
>> all the investment in the world is not going to get
>> people to buy what they already have three of.
>
>
>If you can't find anything to spend your money on then you can walk
>into an IRS office and hand it to them and they will be happy to
>dump it into the shredder and get rid of it for you.
I don't have any money left over after I pay bills
and eat.
>You may be completely out of ideas, but most other people
>have plenty of ideas on how they could spend their income
> if the govt let them keep more of it.
Chances are even if that were true it would not
result in more jobs.
>How many people are going to refuse to accept the additional
>money if they are taxed less?
The bottom 40% pay no taxes now, half of them
even get the FICA refunded.
>OTOH
> Increasing taxes on anybody will cause more workers
>to lose their jobs, because in the end it will reduce
>the money available to purchase the goods and services
>that workers produce.
Then the government will have more to spend, right?
All the theories about taxes and federal spending are
made moot by the simple fact that too many people have
already filled their house with junk, and will not buy more
because they don't even have room to put it.
But it all boils down to not hardly any new products
on the market. Maybe there are some that people
don't know about because marketing and distribution
are a problem.
I have bought things in the last ten years that I
had to search for on the internet, they were not in
stock locally.
I don't have any real nice furniture, but have no
need for any, and I have a lot of worthless junk to
sell or throw away. And I suspect the average
working person has more than I have, and not
enough space to put it in.
Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
jobs created, and the reason I promote government
creating emoney to fund the social programs.
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>> If you are right, better tell all those wanting to cut
>> spending.
>
>Cutting spending won't cause a problem as long as
>you cut taxes by even more.
for those earning over $100,000 because they will
not do anything to increase job numbers.
>The issue is that the private sector is spending
>less than their income because a chunk of income is going to
>saving and repaying debt.
>The only reason this reduction in spending not causing a
>depression is because the govt is spending $1.5 trillion more
>than it is taking from people in taxes.
that whole 1.5 Trillion if the interest on the debt is
included. And people on SSI or social security are
not going to spend less, they need to spend it all to
live.
>> I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
>> the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
>> all the investment in the world is not going to get
>> people to buy what they already have three of.
>
>
>If you can't find anything to spend your money on then you can walk
>into an IRS office and hand it to them and they will be happy to
>dump it into the shredder and get rid of it for you.
and eat.
>You may be completely out of ideas, but most other people
>have plenty of ideas on how they could spend their income
> if the govt let them keep more of it.
result in more jobs.
>How many people are going to refuse to accept the additional
>money if they are taxed less?
even get the FICA refunded.
>OTOH
> Increasing taxes on anybody will cause more workers
>to lose their jobs, because in the end it will reduce
>the money available to purchase the goods and services
>that workers produce.
All the theories about taxes and federal spending are
made moot by the simple fact that too many people have
already filled their house with junk, and will not buy more
because they don't even have room to put it.
But it all boils down to not hardly any new products
on the market. Maybe there are some that people
don't know about because marketing and distribution
are a problem.
I have bought things in the last ten years that I
had to search for on the internet, they were not in
stock locally.
I don't have any real nice furniture, but have no
need for any, and I have a lot of worthless junk to
sell or throw away. And I suspect the average
working person has more than I have, and not
enough space to put it in.
Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
jobs created, and the reason I promote government
creating emoney to fund the social programs.
Gray Guest
Oct 19, 2011, 6:29:01 PM10/19/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ks7u97l4nm36n4i3d...@4ax.com:
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-Idiot-
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
de...@dudu.org
Oct 19, 2011, 7:15:17 PM10/19/11
to
jobs or that the present job situation started under Bush. Because I
can prove both. Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
Steve B
Oct 19, 2011, 7:20:32 PM10/19/11
to
I wrote a whole damn post about this. At least, ya know, like, man, a
hippie could at least state what they were protesting for. Or against. All
they wanted the government to do was provide free marijuana, and they'd
figure out the rest.
Steve
hippie could at least state what they were protesting for. Or against. All
they wanted the government to do was provide free marijuana, and they'd
figure out the rest.
Steve
Gray Guest
Oct 19, 2011, 8:54:19 PM10/19/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:aemu9791u5eacvq5j...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:29:01 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ks7u97l4nm36n4i3d...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:01:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RM V2.0" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
>>>>> > capitalist system" is going to implode.
>>>>> Because it is not a true capitalist system. Subsidies, regulations,
>>wage
>>>>> laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, it is what it is and it will collapse when
>>>> Congress attempts to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> What is amazing about the rightards in Congress is they don't seem to
>>> realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
>>> cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
>>> started under Bush.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-
Idiot-
>>Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
> are you disputing that cutting government spending is going to cut
> jobs or that the present job situation started under Bush.
Yes.
> Because I
> can prove both.
No, you can't. As has been proven many times.
Besides you are such a documented liar I wouldn't accept anytbing you say.
Why don't you got ell your neighbor the illegal gun dealer that you won't
report to the feds becuase YOU ARE A PUSSY.
> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and until
you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any respect for
people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards that know about
it and refuse to do the right thing.
Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in. You?
You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:29:01 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ks7u97l4nm36n4i3d...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:01:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RM V2.0" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
>>>>> > capitalist system" is going to implode.
>>>>> Because it is not a true capitalist system. Subsidies, regulations,
>>wage
>>>>> laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, it is what it is and it will collapse when
>>>> Congress attempts to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> What is amazing about the rightards in Congress is they don't seem to
>>> realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
>>> cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
>>> started under Bush.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-
Idiot-
>>Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
> are you disputing that cutting government spending is going to cut
> jobs or that the present job situation started under Bush.
> Because I
> can prove both.
Besides you are such a documented liar I wouldn't accept anytbing you say.
Why don't you got ell your neighbor the illegal gun dealer that you won't
report to the feds becuase YOU ARE A PUSSY.
> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any respect for
people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards that know about
it and refuse to do the right thing.
Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in. You?
You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
Gray Guest
Oct 19, 2011, 8:54:32 PM10/19/11
to
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:29:01 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ks7u97l4nm36n4i3d...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:01:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RM V2.0" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
>>>>> > capitalist system" is going to implode.
>>>>> Because it is not a true capitalist system. Subsidies, regulations,
>>wage
>>>>> laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, it is what it is and it will collapse when
>>>> Congress attempts to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> What is amazing about the rightards in Congress is they don't seem to
>>> realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
>>> cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
>>> started under Bush.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-
Idiot-
>>Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
> are you disputing that cutting government spending is going to cut
> jobs or that the present job situation started under Bush.
Yes.
><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ks7u97l4nm36n4i3d...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:01:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RM V2.0" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > When the life support is removed the "wildly successful
>>>>> > capitalist system" is going to implode.
>>>>> Because it is not a true capitalist system. Subsidies, regulations,
>>wage
>>>>> laws, unions, etc are all working inadvertently to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, it is what it is and it will collapse when
>>>> Congress attempts to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> What is amazing about the rightards in Congress is they don't seem to
>>> realize that cutting goverment spending means nothing more than
>>> cutting jobs. Then they will blame Obama for the jobs situation that
>>> started under Bush.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-
Idiot-
>>Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
> are you disputing that cutting government spending is going to cut
> jobs or that the present job situation started under Bush.
> Because I
> can prove both.
No, you can't. As has been proven many times.
Besides you are such a documented liar I wouldn't accept anytbing you say.
Why don't you got ell your neighbor the illegal gun dealer that you won't
report to the feds becuase YOU ARE A PUSSY.
Besides you are such a documented liar I wouldn't accept anytbing you say.
Why don't you got ell your neighbor the illegal gun dealer that you won't
report to the feds becuase YOU ARE A PUSSY.
> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and until
you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any respect for
people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards that know about
it and refuse to do the right thing.
Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in. You?
You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any respect for
people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards that know about
it and refuse to do the right thing.
Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in. You?
You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
de...@dudu.org
Oct 19, 2011, 9:30:26 PM10/19/11
to
care nothing about facts and can only spew ridiculous hatred.
Gray Guest
Oct 19, 2011, 10:23:00 PM10/19/11
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:3cuu9798l50v08dc3...@4ax.com:
The words of a coward who sees crime and is afraid to report it while
lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-Idiot-
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-Idiot-
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
Steve B
Oct 20, 2011, 11:05:03 AM10/20/11
to
"Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote
> Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say
jim
Oct 20, 2011, 11:45:11 AM10/20/11
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
> jobs created, and the reason I promote government
> creating emoney to fund the social programs.
it also meant reducing taxes and letting people spend more of
their personal income.
The money you spend is the income of somebody else.
The only thing that is causing so many to be out of work
is the lower amount people spending today.
Balancing the budget means either cutting your SS pay check
or cutting the income of earners by taxing more.
Ether way it means people will spend less and more will become
out of work.
The only other option to balance the budget is
for the govt to just create money.
The difference between the federal govt spending by
creating money and spending by borrowing money is that
creating money is inflationary.
If the govt doesn't borrow the SSI money it deposits into
your account then you get to spend the money in your account and
the money that would have bought Tsy secs also gets spent by someone.
That means twice as much money chasing the same amount of production.
The cost of inflation to you would be a real penalty to you.
Not at all like your imagined cost of interest on the federal debt.
The interest on the federal debt doesn't cost you a penny
emoneyjoe
Oct 20, 2011, 4:30:02 PM10/20/11
to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:45:11 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>> Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
>> jobs created, and the reason I promote government
>> creating emoney to fund the social programs.
>
>If the government created money that would produce jobs if
>it also meant reducing taxes and letting people spend more of
>their personal income.
Depends on what government spends the money
on, if it just created emoney to fund the social programs
it might just balance the budget and might not create
any jobs.
That in itself would be a good thing.
Those well off would not be able to buy as much
treasury paper, but would likely not invest in startups.
>The money you spend is the income of somebody else.
>The only thing that is causing so many to be out of work
>is the lower amount people spending today.
Private spending is for either need or pleasure,
nothing needed, and with high gas prices, don't look
for things to change.
Personal spending is not going to change much,
>Balancing the budget means either cutting your SS pay check
>or cutting the income of earners by taxing more.
Or creating emoney to fund the social programs.
>Ether way it means people will spend less and more will become
>out of work.
Odd that only you know this, why doesn't congress
know?
>The only other option to balance the budget is
>for the govt to just create money.
I feel that is necessary at the present time,
because private spending will stay flat.
Discount department stores may do even
better, but small business will continue hurting.
>The difference between the federal govt spending by
>creating money and spending by borrowing money is that
>creating money is inflationary.
So is the passage of time and labor strikes.
>If the govt doesn't borrow the SSI money it deposits into
>your account then you get to spend the money in your account and
>the money that would have bought Tsy secs also gets spent by someone.
>That means twice as much money chasing the same amount of production.
I don't get SSI. I get SS.
No it doesn't, I don't know how you can claim
such stupid nonsense, as if 99 cent TV dinners
were in short supply.
>The cost of inflation to you would be a real penalty to you.
>Not at all like your imagined cost of interest on the federal debt.
>The interest on the federal debt doesn't cost you a penny
So there was 3.5 percent inflation that will result
in a 3.5 percent increase in SS in January, that was
not because government created emoney was it?
You are about 80 years behind times, there
has not been shortages of much of anything
enough to cause the type inflation you are
talking about, that theory should have died
with mass production and the time of plenty.
Walmart is loaded with inventory, the food
store shelves are loaded, do you think it might
matter where the SS money comes from?
There would have to be some kind of
shortage for your old theory to work.
Suppose China wants the money they
have invested and the treasury sends them
a check, would that cause inflation?
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>> Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
>> jobs created, and the reason I promote government
>> creating emoney to fund the social programs.
>
>If the government created money that would produce jobs if
>it also meant reducing taxes and letting people spend more of
>their personal income.
on, if it just created emoney to fund the social programs
it might just balance the budget and might not create
any jobs.
That in itself would be a good thing.
Those well off would not be able to buy as much
treasury paper, but would likely not invest in startups.
>The money you spend is the income of somebody else.
>The only thing that is causing so many to be out of work
>is the lower amount people spending today.
nothing needed, and with high gas prices, don't look
for things to change.
Personal spending is not going to change much,
>Balancing the budget means either cutting your SS pay check
>or cutting the income of earners by taxing more.
>Ether way it means people will spend less and more will become
>out of work.
know?
>The only other option to balance the budget is
>for the govt to just create money.
because private spending will stay flat.
Discount department stores may do even
better, but small business will continue hurting.
>The difference between the federal govt spending by
>creating money and spending by borrowing money is that
>creating money is inflationary.
>If the govt doesn't borrow the SSI money it deposits into
>your account then you get to spend the money in your account and
>the money that would have bought Tsy secs also gets spent by someone.
>That means twice as much money chasing the same amount of production.
No it doesn't, I don't know how you can claim
such stupid nonsense, as if 99 cent TV dinners
were in short supply.
>The cost of inflation to you would be a real penalty to you.
>Not at all like your imagined cost of interest on the federal debt.
>The interest on the federal debt doesn't cost you a penny
in a 3.5 percent increase in SS in January, that was
not because government created emoney was it?
You are about 80 years behind times, there
has not been shortages of much of anything
enough to cause the type inflation you are
talking about, that theory should have died
with mass production and the time of plenty.
Walmart is loaded with inventory, the food
store shelves are loaded, do you think it might
matter where the SS money comes from?
There would have to be some kind of
shortage for your old theory to work.
Suppose China wants the money they
have invested and the treasury sends them
a check, would that cause inflation?
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 4:48:53 PM10/20/11
to
On Oct 19, 10:33 am, "The Daily Liberal" <nutb...@attackwatch.com>
wrote:
only wall street workers, corrupt politicians, and random idiots
still believe in trickle down, supply side, free market chicanery:)))
wrote:
only wall street workers, corrupt politicians, and random idiots
still believe in trickle down, supply side, free market chicanery:)))
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 4:50:40 PM10/20/11
to
imploded. the housing bubble was the last gasp of a system, built on
exploitation and debt, completely unsustainable.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 4:56:43 PM10/20/11
to
of the economy, that part goes into a wild bubble and implodes.
adam smith, the father of modern capitalism.
adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
members are poor and miserable." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad
effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the
sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing
concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with
regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain
only of those of other people." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment
and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith,
Wealth Of Nations
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." -- Adam
Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is
the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
condition that they going backwards fast." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of
Nations
"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support
of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which
they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As
Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving
the poor and burdening the rich.'" -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in
favor of the masters." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects
different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The
proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm
this order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long
and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with
the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and
oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be
one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence,
or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of
the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division
of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no
means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the
contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who
spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys
a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the
Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again,
enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other
hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater
share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artizans,
who, under their direction, labour much more severely and
assiduously. The artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover,
protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted
by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater
share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to
struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying
the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears,
as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society,
seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of
the building." -- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations
[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is,
unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of
those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the
subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but
constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor
above their actual price." -- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
"But Smith treated large, powerful companies very differently. He
said
big business was led by "an order of men...that generally have an
interest to deceive and even to oppress the public", and he referred
to powerful corporations (then known as joint stock companies) as
"unaccountable sovereigns" that were as dangerous to free markets as
tyrannical governments. Unrestrained, they had the power to shape
society and governments for their own purposes, and consumers would
pay for "all the extraordinary profits" while suffering from "all the
extraordinary waste", the inherent fraud and abuse, that accompanies
such immense economic power.
Smith stated emphatically that a strong government, acting through
democratic and legal institutions, was the only entity capable of
challenging such corporate power. Smith supported necessary
government
regulations, labor and human rights, public education, and
progressive
taxation to ease the economic and social inequities he knew would
occur in a capitalist system. Without these "liberal" measures,
social
and political unrest would threaten a nation's stability and his free
market economy could not survive."
only wall street workers, corrupt politicians, and random idiots
"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 4:58:09 PM10/20/11
to
afloat at the moment, you are correct.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 5:00:56 PM10/20/11
to
claim one success story from austerity. it made a recession, into the
great depression. the same idiots are at work right now, trying their
hardest to do the same today.
austerity makes your debts bigger, and harder to pay off. if the
idiots keep it up, as they are in europe, a deflationary spiral will
ensue, which is very hard to reverse, see japan.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 5:09:01 PM10/20/11
to
On Oct 19, 2:57 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:02:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:02:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >emoneyjoe wrote:
>
got really impressive growth rates. also a tax cut does no good, if
you have no customers. raise taxes on the upper percent, invest it
into america as fdr, truman, and ike did.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 5:11:38 PM10/20/11
to
fdr, truman, and ike all raised taxes on the upper percent, and we
grew the most powerful, equitable, middle class the world has ever
seen.
today not only are bushs two tax cuts in effect, so are reagans.
still we are drowning in debt, and no jobs.
Tom S.
Oct 20, 2011, 5:39:31 PM10/20/11
to
"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:i001a71bam8sjfjqe...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:45:11 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
> Depends on what government spends the money
> on, if it just created emoney to fund the social programs
> it might just balance the budget and might not create
> any jobs.
> That in itself would be a good thing.
>
> Those well off would not be able to buy as much
> treasury paper, but would likely not invest in startups.
>
>
>>The money you spend is the income of somebody else.
>>The only thing that is causing so many to be out of work
>>is the lower amount people spending today.
So we can spend our way to prosperity?
> wrote:
>
> Depends on what government spends the money
> on, if it just created emoney to fund the social programs
> it might just balance the budget and might not create
> any jobs.
> That in itself would be a good thing.
>
> Those well off would not be able to buy as much
> treasury paper, but would likely not invest in startups.
>
>
>>The money you spend is the income of somebody else.
>>The only thing that is causing so many to be out of work
>>is the lower amount people spending today.
No wonder the US is so fucked!
Nickname unavailable
Oct 20, 2011, 4:57:15 PM10/20/11
to
emoneyjoe
Oct 20, 2011, 7:21:35 PM10/20/11
to
doesn't have any money and is almost $15 Trillion
in the hole, but has permission per the Constitution
to create money.
The rich could all buy 2 or 3 extra cars, that might
help some, but no a lot.
If the federal government just created enough
emoney to fund the social programs, then a little
cutting spending and a little extra taxes would
almost balance the budget.
But it is going to get boring if we have to wait
until a conservative wanting to balance the budget
gets elected and congress tries to please him, and
then after 3 or 4 years they might see that this dip
in the economy is the result of everybody already
having too much.
jim
Oct 20, 2011, 9:59:47 PM10/20/11
to
"Tom S." wrote:
> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>
You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>
Balancing the budget now will make the
1930's look like the good times.
Scout
Oct 20, 2011, 10:17:45 PM10/20/11
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
Jim's solution to the economy in a nutshell - If you're not living at the
standard you want, run up the credit cards, mortgage the house, use the car
as collateral for another loan, and so on, if things don't improve at least
you will have one hell of a time before you lose it all. The best part,
absolutely no one will know how dire your financial status is right up until
you're evicted.
jim
Oct 20, 2011, 10:56:03 PM10/20/11
to
Scout wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
> > "Tom S." wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
> >>
> >
> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
> > Balancing the budget now will make the
> > 1930's look like the good times.
>
> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
180 years and there is no reason to believe that
will ever change
>
> Jim's solution to the economy in a nutshell - If you're not living at the
> standard you want, run up the credit cards, mortgage the house, use the car
> as collateral for another loan, and so on,
that the US private sector was engaged in before 2008.
That excessive borrowing is exactly what caused this problem.
$24 trillion in private sector borrowing from 1998-2008
This is chart showing what US borrowing looked like before 2009
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
Today the US is no longer running up debt.
Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
it has been in decades.
But it needs to detox.
The debt hangover that is weighing down the private sector
will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
the great depression
SaPeIsMa
Oct 20, 2011, 12:46:50 PM10/20/11
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>
>
> emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>>
>> Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
>> jobs created, and the reason I promote government
>> creating emoney to fund the social programs.
>
> If the government created money that would produce jobs if
> it also meant reducing taxes and letting people spend more of
> their personal income.
>
Your problem is that you have the cart before the horse
>
> emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>>
>> Which is the reason I don't expect to see many
>> jobs created, and the reason I promote government
>> creating emoney to fund the social programs.
>
> If the government created money that would produce jobs if
> it also meant reducing taxes and letting people spend more of
> their personal income.
>
Money does NOT create an economy
Money is just a common tool for exchanging value in said economy, and
eliminates barter.
The government does NOT "create money"
It just prints up a item that is a symbol of VALUE. It is the free market
that defines the TRUE value of that symbol
If you create more of the symbols WITHOUT and increase in it's value, you
effectively REDUCE it's value
You need to educate yourself about what "money" really is, instead of
spouting your ignorant cant.
emoneyjoe
Oct 21, 2011, 12:42:05 AM10/21/11
to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:56:03 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
>> > "Tom S." wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
>> > Balancing the budget now will make the
>> > 1930's look like the good times.
>>
>> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
>> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
>
>Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
>The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
>180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> will ever change
>
>> Jim's solution to the economy in a nutshell - If you're not living at the
>> standard you want, run up the credit cards, mortgage the house, use the car
>> as collateral for another loan, and so on,
>
>That is not my solution. That describes the debt binge
>that the US private sector was engaged in before 2008.
Here you say "private sector".
>That excessive borrowing is exactly what caused this problem.
> $24 trillion in private sector borrowing from 1998-2008
Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?
>This is chart showing what US borrowing looked like before 2009
>
>http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
Now, here the chart seems to include all debt,
inclusive, state and local, federal (what gives???)
financial company, non-financial company, ?????
and household borrowing.
It seems to be a continuance of the trend seen
before except for the years 98 and 99, what was
that from?
>Today the US is no longer running up debt.
The federal debt is not rising?
>Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
$1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
the president wants more.
>Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
>it has been in decades.
>But it needs to detox.
But is in worse political shape, with so many
different factions with so many different wild and
weird ideas, it is a bucket of worms.
>The debt hangover that is weighing down the private sector
You said in better fiscal shape??
>will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
They might try to reduce the deficit, but will
fall way short of balancing the budget, that is
simply not possible without drastic changes
in both taxes and spending.
>Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
>the great depression
That would hardly seem possible with all the
pension funds and social programs.
How can there be so much difference between
conservative economists who seem to think the
ideal would be _no_ government at all, and what
your assessment seems to be, that the federal
government is, what, supporting the economy
with spending?
And your reference site has this, unemployment down?
http://static6.businessinsider.com/chart_viewer#moneygame101711.jpg
wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
>> > "Tom S." wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
>> > Balancing the budget now will make the
>> > 1930's look like the good times.
>>
>> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
>> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
>
>Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
>The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
>180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> will ever change
>
>> Jim's solution to the economy in a nutshell - If you're not living at the
>> standard you want, run up the credit cards, mortgage the house, use the car
>> as collateral for another loan, and so on,
>
>That is not my solution. That describes the debt binge
>that the US private sector was engaged in before 2008.
>That excessive borrowing is exactly what caused this problem.
> $24 trillion in private sector borrowing from 1998-2008
>This is chart showing what US borrowing looked like before 2009
>
>http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
inclusive, state and local, federal (what gives???)
financial company, non-financial company, ?????
and household borrowing.
It seems to be a continuance of the trend seen
before except for the years 98 and 99, what was
that from?
>Today the US is no longer running up debt.
>Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
the president wants more.
>Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
>it has been in decades.
>But it needs to detox.
different factions with so many different wild and
weird ideas, it is a bucket of worms.
>The debt hangover that is weighing down the private sector
>will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
fall way short of balancing the budget, that is
simply not possible without drastic changes
in both taxes and spending.
>Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
>the great depression
pension funds and social programs.
How can there be so much difference between
conservative economists who seem to think the
ideal would be _no_ government at all, and what
your assessment seems to be, that the federal
government is, what, supporting the economy
with spending?
And your reference site has this, unemployment down?
http://static6.businessinsider.com/chart_viewer#moneygame101711.jpg
jim
Oct 21, 2011, 7:39:42 AM10/21/11
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
> >http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
>
> Now, here the chart seems to include all debt,
> inclusive, state and local, federal (what gives???)
>
> financial company, non-financial company, ?????
> and household borrowing.
>
> It seems to be a continuance of the trend seen
> before except for the years 98 and 99, what was
> that from?
>
> >Today the US is no longer running up debt.
>
> The federal debt is not rising?
Total US Debt is not rising for the first time since WW2.
As the chart shows total debt decreased in 2009.
2009 was a little taste of what the US economy
looks like with shrinking debt.
Here is the same Total US $$borrowed/year chart for 1971-2011:
http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
>
> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
>
> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
> the president wants more.
It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
Debt is where money comes from
If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
If we balance the budget we will have shrinking debt and
a depression much worse than the 1930's
>
> >Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
> >it has been in decades.
> >But it needs to detox.
>
> But is in worse political shape,
It means the politicians and the bankers that back them
are in a box where they belong.
>with so many
> different factions with so many different wild and
> weird ideas, it is a bucket of worms.
>
> >The debt hangover that is weighing down the private sector
>
> You said in better fiscal shape??
longer growing at an unsustainable rate
This is the Total accumulated debt in in trillion $$
1997 21.23
1998 23.32
1999 25.38
2000 27.13
2001 29.31
2002 31.83
2003 34.64
2004 37.81
2005 41.28
2006 45.35
2007 50.04
2008 52.43 56.0*
2009 52.34 63.0*
2010 52.49 71.0*
2011 NA 79.0*
*What the total US debt would have looked like, if it had
continued with the same 11%/year increase as
before the financial meltdown
>
> >will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
>
> They might try to reduce the deficit, but will
> fall way short of balancing the budget, that is
> simply not possible without drastic changes
> in both taxes and spending.
"balancing the budget" means Congress changes the law to
increase taxes and reduce spending (by a lot).
For you - It means your SS goes down or ends completely.
>
> >Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
> >the great depression
>
> That would hardly seem possible with all the
> pension funds and social programs.
>
> How can there be so much difference between
> conservative economists who seem to think the
> ideal would be _no_ government at all, and what
> your assessment seems to be, that the federal
> government is, what, supporting the economy
> with spending?
It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
However, the govt is supporting you, and millions like you.
>
> And your reference site has this, unemployment down?
>
> http://static6.businessinsider.com/chart_viewer#moneygame101711.jpg
Seasonally adjusted unemployment has been staying steady.
emoneyjoe
Oct 21, 2011, 10:00:21 AM10/21/11
to
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:39:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> >http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
>>
>> Now, here the chart seems to include all debt,
>> inclusive, state and local, federal (what gives???)
>>
>> financial company, non-financial company, ?????
>> and household borrowing.
>>
>> It seems to be a continuance of the trend seen
>> before except for the years 98 and 99, what was
>> that from?
>
>Did you ever hear of the Dot/Com bubble?
Yeah, there was nothing there to start with,
maybe investors got burned.
>> >Today the US is no longer running up debt.
>>
>> The federal debt is not rising?
>
>Try to pay attention.
>Total US Debt is not rising for the first time since WW2.
>As the chart shows total debt decreased in 2009.
>2009 was a little taste of what the US economy
>looks like with shrinking debt.
>
>Here is the same Total US $$borrowed/year chart for 1971-2011:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
That says "change from a year ago".
>> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
>>
>> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
>> the president wants more.
>
>$1.5 trillion is just barely enough to keep debt from shrinking.
>It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
>
>Debt is where money comes from
Then debt free money needs to be created.
>If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
>a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
>debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
>
>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
An intelligent congress would assure the money
supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
nothing for the general population in this event.
>The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
>If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
>we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
>was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
People were earning money during WWII at
better rate than for a long time and were buying
savings bonds.
But the amount in treasuries did not drop
much even though a lot of people redeemed
to buy homes and cars.
I think you give government too much credit.
>If we balance the budget we will have shrinking debt and
>a depression much worse than the 1930's
No chance of that with the president wanting
to spend more and the senate has locked themselves
in the closet.
>> >Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
>> >it has been in decades.
>> >But it needs to detox.
>>
>> But is in worse political shape,
>
>worse political shape is good thing.
>It means the politicians and the bankers that back them
> are in a box where they belong.
Don't side with the socialists now, there is
too much rumor and gossip already.
And that included federal debt? And mortgage debt?
if they keep building homes, mortgage debt could continue
to go up because they are building bigger homes, no more
of the 26 x 28 like in 1950.
>> >will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
>>
>> They might try to reduce the deficit, but will
>> fall way short of balancing the budget, that is
>> simply not possible without drastic changes
>> in both taxes and spending.
>
>That is correct.
>
>"balancing the budget" means Congress changes the law to
>increase taxes and reduce spending (by a lot).
>For you - It means your SS goes down or ends completely.
They better not (boo-hoo), I have had it for 18 years.
>> >Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
>> >the great depression
>>
>> That would hardly seem possible with all the
>> pension funds and social programs.
>
>The pension funds and social programs will be gone.
Did you forget emoney, it will become the
backup.
>> How can there be so much difference between
>> conservative economists who seem to think the
>> ideal would be _no_ government at all, and what
>> your assessment seems to be, that the federal
>> government is, what, supporting the economy
>> with spending?
>
>The government isn't supporting the economy.
>It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
>catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
But the private debt must be shrinking if the
total debt is staying the same and the government
is borrowing $1.5 Trillion a year.
>However, the govt is supporting you, and millions like you.
Well, yes, and we appreciate that they kept the
program in force.
>> And your reference site has this, unemployment down?
>>
>> http://static6.businessinsider.com/chart_viewer#moneygame101711.jpg
>
>That chart is not seasonally adjusted.
>Seasonally adjusted unemployment has been staying steady.
So the actual raw unemployment is 2 million
less than the Department of Labor publishes?
Wait till the president hears this.
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> >http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
>>
>> Now, here the chart seems to include all debt,
>> inclusive, state and local, federal (what gives???)
>>
>> financial company, non-financial company, ?????
>> and household borrowing.
>>
>> It seems to be a continuance of the trend seen
>> before except for the years 98 and 99, what was
>> that from?
>
>Did you ever hear of the Dot/Com bubble?
maybe investors got burned.
>> >Today the US is no longer running up debt.
>>
>> The federal debt is not rising?
>
>Try to pay attention.
>Total US Debt is not rising for the first time since WW2.
>As the chart shows total debt decreased in 2009.
>2009 was a little taste of what the US economy
>looks like with shrinking debt.
>
>Here is the same Total US $$borrowed/year chart for 1971-2011:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
>> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
>>
>> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
>> the president wants more.
>
>$1.5 trillion is just barely enough to keep debt from shrinking.
>It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
>
>Debt is where money comes from
>If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
>a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
>debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
>
>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
nothing for the general population in this event.
>The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
>If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
>we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
>was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
better rate than for a long time and were buying
savings bonds.
But the amount in treasuries did not drop
much even though a lot of people redeemed
to buy homes and cars.
I think you give government too much credit.
>If we balance the budget we will have shrinking debt and
>a depression much worse than the 1930's
to spend more and the senate has locked themselves
in the closet.
>> >Tha US is in better fiscal shape than
>> >it has been in decades.
>> >But it needs to detox.
>>
>> But is in worse political shape,
>
>worse political shape is good thing.
>It means the politicians and the bankers that back them
> are in a box where they belong.
too much rumor and gossip already.
if they keep building homes, mortgage debt could continue
to go up because they are building bigger homes, no more
of the 26 x 28 like in 1950.
>> >will kill the economy if Congress tries to balance the budget
>>
>> They might try to reduce the deficit, but will
>> fall way short of balancing the budget, that is
>> simply not possible without drastic changes
>> in both taxes and spending.
>
>That is correct.
>
>"balancing the budget" means Congress changes the law to
>increase taxes and reduce spending (by a lot).
>For you - It means your SS goes down or ends completely.
>> >Balancing the budget will guarantee a depression worse than
>> >the great depression
>>
>> That would hardly seem possible with all the
>> pension funds and social programs.
>
>The pension funds and social programs will be gone.
backup.
>> How can there be so much difference between
>> conservative economists who seem to think the
>> ideal would be _no_ government at all, and what
>> your assessment seems to be, that the federal
>> government is, what, supporting the economy
>> with spending?
>
>The government isn't supporting the economy.
>It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
>catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
total debt is staying the same and the government
is borrowing $1.5 Trillion a year.
>However, the govt is supporting you, and millions like you.
program in force.
>> And your reference site has this, unemployment down?
>>
>> http://static6.businessinsider.com/chart_viewer#moneygame101711.jpg
>
>That chart is not seasonally adjusted.
>Seasonally adjusted unemployment has been staying steady.
less than the Department of Labor publishes?
Wait till the president hears this.
jim
Oct 21, 2011, 11:08:53 AM10/21/11
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:39:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
>
> That says "change from a year ago".
new debt the nation accumulated in that year
I don't think you are smart enough to understand this
You should put your head back in the sand and go back to sleep.
>
>
> >> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
> >>
> >> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
> >> the president wants more.
> >
> >$1.5 trillion is just barely enough to keep debt from shrinking.
> >It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
> >
> >Debt is where money comes from
>
> Then debt free money needs to be created.
>
> >If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
> >a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
> >debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
> >
> >http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.pn
>
> An intelligent congress would assure the money
> supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
> which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
> nothing for the general population in this event.
The money supply is not in the hands of the FRB
> supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
> which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
> nothing for the general population in this event.
It never as been.
The money supply is in the hands of the free markets and
the free markets has screwed up the money supply with
bad borrowing decisions.
That is why the economy is teetering on the brink of a depression.
The only thing keeping the economy from falling off the brink
is the federal budget deficit which is allowing the private
sector to deleverage without crashing the economy.
http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?p=4202
>
> >The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
> >If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
> >we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
> >was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
>
> People were earning money during WWII at
> better rate than for a long time and were buying
> savings bonds.
economy built up savings and got out of debt and back
on to the road to growth.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
> >
> >The government isn't supporting the economy.
> >It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
> >catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
>
> But the private debt must be shrinking if the
> total debt is staying the same and the government
> is borrowing $1.5 Trillion a year.
Private debt has shrunk from $44 trillion to $41 trillion in the last
3 years.
But it has a long way to go before deleveraging is over.
Scout
Oct 21, 2011, 11:55:14 AM10/21/11
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>
>
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
>> > "Tom S." wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
>> > Balancing the budget now will make the
>> > 1930's look like the good times.
>>
>> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
>> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
>
> Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
> The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
> 180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> will ever change
Yep, but other than once before in a time of war, has the debt been so high
>
> Scout wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
>> > "Tom S." wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
>> > Balancing the budget now will make the
>> > 1930's look like the good times.
>>
>> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
>> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
>
> Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
> The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
> 180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> will ever change
or grown so quickly, and unlike before we can't expect the spending to end
anytime soon. All projections show massive debt regularly being added to the
existing debt far outpacing economic growth and increases in tax revenue.
jim
Oct 21, 2011, 1:07:16 PM10/21/11
to
Scout wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news:CLqdnTSWac3VQj3T...@bright.net...
> >
> >
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> >> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
> >> > "Tom S." wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
> >> > Balancing the budget now will make the
> >> > 1930's look like the good times.
> >>
> >> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
> >> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
> >
> > Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
> > The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
> > 180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> > will ever change
>
> Yep, but other than once before in a time of war, has the debt been so high
> or grown so quickly,
Yes that is true.
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news:CLqdnTSWac3VQj3T...@bright.net...
> >
> >
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> >> news:w6CdnfJr49CITz3T...@bright.net...
> >> > "Tom S." wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> So we can spend our way to prosperity?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You won't get prosperity by balancing the budget.
> >> > Balancing the budget now will make the
> >> > 1930's look like the good times.
> >>
> >> And in a few more decades, not balancing the budget could make the Great
> >> Depression look like just a mild slow down in the economy.
> >
> > Why? That is just your made up fantasy based on ignorance.
> > The US has been running a fiscal deficit for
> > 180 years and there is no reason to believe that
> > will ever change
>
> Yep, but other than once before in a time of war, has the debt been so high
> or grown so quickly,
And you refuse to learn anything from the last time that
the US saw the total US debt peak and then collapse
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
>and unlike before we can't expect the spending to end
> anytime soon.
You can count on that.
That is because any attempt to curtail the deficit
will trigger a depression.
And the onset will be swift just like in 2008 and just like
in 2008 the response from Congress will be large bailouts
That is not a scenario of fiscal responsibility - It is lunacy.
> All projections show massive debt regularly being added to the
> existing debt far outpacing economic growth and increases in tax revenue.
What we had prior to 2008 was unsustainable growth in US total debt
Now the US total debt is not growing.
That is sustainable.
This is the Total accumulated US debt in in trillion $$
emoneyjoe
Oct 21, 2011, 6:29:43 PM10/21/11
to
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:08:53 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
at a time.
I would think in a normal year the nation should
add debt, bigger population, inflation, etc.
>> >> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
>> >>
>> >> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
>> >> the president wants more.
>> >
>> >$1.5 trillion is just barely enough to keep debt from shrinking.
>> >It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
>> >
>> >Debt is where money comes from
>>
>> Then debt free money needs to be created.
>
>No sense dwelling on something that is not going to happen.
It may become absolutely necessary, then what?
>> >If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
>> >a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
>> >debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
>> >
>> >http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.pn
>
>
>>
>> An intelligent congress would assure the money
>> supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
>> which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
>> nothing for the general population in this event.
>
>The money supply is not in the hands of the FRB
>It never as been.
What? Isn't that what the changes in interest
rates and the QEs are all about?
>The money supply is in the hands of the free markets and
>the free markets has screwed up the money supply with
>bad borrowing decisions.
Is there a number with debt subtracted from account
balances? Does the money supply really affect inflation
when it is too high?
>That is why the economy is teetering on the brink of a depression.
And jobs are not the big problem?
>The only thing keeping the economy from falling off the brink
>is the federal budget deficit which is allowing the private
>sector to deleverage without crashing the economy.
>
>http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?p=4202
That is what you have been saying. But if it
was the case in the 1930s, why has it been allowed
to be a problem now.
I see no reason the federal government cannot
use money to stabilize the economy no matter what
happens, I see that in the wording of the Constitution,
and things have changed so much in 220 years.
In 1800 it was essential to limit money to equity
and real value because a man's labor was involved
in everything and there was a limit on what could be
produced.
There are things now that really need a larger
market, industries that are sluggish, and to keep
them functioning, sales to any place in the world,
even funded with created money would seem a
good idea.
>> >The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
>> >If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
>> >we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
>> >was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
>>
>> People were earning money during WWII at
>> better rate than for a long time and were buying
>> savings bonds.
>
>That is exactly right. Buying US treasuries is how the
>economy built up savings and got out of debt and back
>on to the road to growth.
>
>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
Why isn't buying CDs the same thing? Why don't
people that have the extra money go into business,
why do they have to buy treasuries?
>> >The government isn't supporting the economy.
>> >It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
>> >catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
>>
>> But the private debt must be shrinking if the
>> total debt is staying the same and the government
>> is borrowing $1.5 Trillion a year.
>
>No duh, Sherlock.
>
>Private debt has shrunk from $44 trillion to $41 trillion in the last
>3 years.
>But it has a long way to go before deleveraging is over.
Are you sure the federal debt is not included in
that $41 Trillion?
There should be a number that is healthy for
all concerned, keeping financial institutions in
business seems as important overall as keeping
railroads and river boats functioning.
I just think money should be used more, and
laws used less.
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:39:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
>>
>> That says "change from a year ago".
>
>The Change from a year ago in Total debt is how much
>new debt the nation accumulated in that year
>
>I don't think you are smart enough to understand this
>You should put your head back in the sand and go back to sleep.
I sleep with my head on a pillow, about 3 or 4 hours
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:39:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3tt3rso
>>
>> That says "change from a year ago".
>
>The Change from a year ago in Total debt is how much
>new debt the nation accumulated in that year
>
>I don't think you are smart enough to understand this
>You should put your head back in the sand and go back to sleep.
at a time.
I would think in a normal year the nation should
add debt, bigger population, inflation, etc.
>> >> >Total debt is no longer growing at a exploive rate.
>> >>
>> >> $1.5 Trillion a year is pretty explosive, and
>> >> the president wants more.
>> >
>> >$1.5 trillion is just barely enough to keep debt from shrinking.
>> >It is just enough to keep the total debt growth at zero.
>> >
>> >Debt is where money comes from
>>
>> Then debt free money needs to be created.
>
>No sense dwelling on something that is not going to happen.
>> >If the total debt starts to fall the economy has
>> >a shrinking supply of money and that will start a
>> >debt-deflation spiral worse than what happened in the 30's
>> >
>> >http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.pn
>
>
>>
>> An intelligent congress would assure the money
>> supply is adequate and not leave it up to the FRB,
>> which did nothing in the 1930s, and has done
>> nothing for the general population in this event.
>
>The money supply is not in the hands of the FRB
>It never as been.
rates and the QEs are all about?
>The money supply is in the hands of the free markets and
>the free markets has screwed up the money supply with
>bad borrowing decisions.
balances? Does the money supply really affect inflation
when it is too high?
>That is why the economy is teetering on the brink of a depression.
>The only thing keeping the economy from falling off the brink
>is the federal budget deficit which is allowing the private
>sector to deleverage without crashing the economy.
>
>http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?p=4202
was the case in the 1930s, why has it been allowed
to be a problem now.
I see no reason the federal government cannot
use money to stabilize the economy no matter what
happens, I see that in the wording of the Constitution,
and things have changed so much in 220 years.
In 1800 it was essential to limit money to equity
and real value because a man's labor was involved
in everything and there was a limit on what could be
produced.
There are things now that really need a larger
market, industries that are sluggish, and to keep
them functioning, sales to any place in the world,
even funded with created money would seem a
good idea.
>> >The US currently has GDP growth with no increase in debt
>> >If we keep that up for another decade (or more)
>> >we will get back to where we were at the end of WW2 which
>> >was when the private sector deleveraging ended the last time.
>>
>> People were earning money during WWII at
>> better rate than for a long time and were buying
>> savings bonds.
>
>That is exactly right. Buying US treasuries is how the
>economy built up savings and got out of debt and back
>on to the road to growth.
>
>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Total-Credit-Percent-of-GDP.png
people that have the extra money go into business,
why do they have to buy treasuries?
>> >The government isn't supporting the economy.
>> >It is preventing the economy from imploding due to a
>> >catastrophic failure in the marketplace caused by private debt.
>>
>> But the private debt must be shrinking if the
>> total debt is staying the same and the government
>> is borrowing $1.5 Trillion a year.
>
>No duh, Sherlock.
>
>Private debt has shrunk from $44 trillion to $41 trillion in the last
>3 years.
>But it has a long way to go before deleveraging is over.
that $41 Trillion?
There should be a number that is healthy for
all concerned, keeping financial institutions in
business seems as important overall as keeping
railroads and river boats functioning.
I just think money should be used more, and
laws used less.
Gunner Asch
Oct 22, 2011, 11:32:39 AM10/22/11
to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:28:57 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
>
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but
>Your "wildly successful capitalist system" is dead broke.
>It has been broke for a dozen years or more.
This of course is the result of Socialists fucking up the works.
>Your "wildly successful capitalist system" is dead broke.
>It has been broke for a dozen years or more.
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch
jim
Oct 22, 2011, 12:32:28 PM10/22/11
to
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:28:57 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but
> >Your "wildly successful capitalist system" is dead broke.
> >It has been broke for a dozen years or more.
>
> This of course is the result of Socialists fucking up the works.
>
The mountain of private sector debt is what is
weighing down the economy.
And when Congress attempts to balance the budget, you will see
unemployment shoot upward and the price of houses, equities and
precious metals will shoot downward.
Gunner Asch
Oct 22, 2011, 4:57:04 PM10/22/11
to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:09:01 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
>> the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
>> all the investment in the world is not going to get
>> people to buy what they already have three of.
>
> fdr increased taxes on the upper percent during the depression, and
>got really impressive growth rates.
He sure did. Unemployment went from 32% to 35%
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> I know you are wrong about increasing taxes on
>> the upper 20 percent doing harm to the economy,
>> all the investment in the world is not going to get
>> people to buy what they already have three of.
>
> fdr increased taxes on the upper percent during the depression, and
>got really impressive growth rates.
Gunner
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 7:59:13 AM10/23/11
to
Trickle down was highly successful for me, in the eighties.
When Ronald Reagan was president.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:c246921a-3812-4b81-b589-
When Ronald Reagan was president.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:c246921a-3812-4b81-b589-
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 8:00:47 AM10/23/11
to
Actually, federal spending (remember, every dollar the Fed
spends was forcibly taken from someone via taxes) is killing
the economy. Much better to reduce regulations and let the
free market work.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net>
wrote in message
news:9953644c-7e1e-46c3...@t10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
spends was forcibly taken from someone via taxes) is killing
the economy. Much better to reduce regulations and let the
free market work.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net>
wrote in message
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 8:02:58 AM10/23/11
to
I remember the Reagan years. that's when I started my
business. The prosperity and economic growth was amazing.
Same with the Bush tax cuts. I have little hope any more.
Change it back!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net>
wrote in message
news:8f2cf458-8364-447f...@u2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
business. The prosperity and economic growth was amazing.
Same with the Bush tax cuts. I have little hope any more.
Change it back!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net>
wrote in message
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 8:06:18 AM10/23/11
to
I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
news?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
news?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:CLqdnTSWac3VQj3T...@bright.net...
news:CLqdnTSWac3VQj3T...@bright.net...
Ed Huntress
Oct 23, 2011, 8:40:09 AM10/23/11
to
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message news:j80vqu$1mb$1...@dont-email.me...
I remember the Reagan years. that's when I started my
business. The prosperity and economic growth was amazing.
Same with the Bush tax cuts. I have little hope any more.
Change it back!
[reply]
Change it back to what, Chris? The top corporate tax rate through most of
Reagan's term was 47%. It's now around 35%. During Reagan's term, the
capital gains tax INCREASED to 28%. It's now 15%. Through most of Reagan's
term, the top individual income tax rate was 50%. It's now around 36%.
We had prosperity, or the appearance of it, because Reagan put us on that
big credit card in the sky, *even when the economy was running hot*. There
is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
Is that what you want to "go back" to?
--
Ed Huntress
jim
Oct 23, 2011, 11:47:39 AM10/23/11
to
Ed Huntress wrote:
> There
> is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
> while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>
You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/13/935954/-Fairy-Tales-of-the-Coming-State-of-the-Union:-Our-Grandchildren-Must-Repay-National-Debt-
The US Federal govt has run a perpetual deficit for
180 years and there is no basis to believe that will end soon.
The current lunacy is going to be an extremely costly experiment.
That experiment will demonstrate conclusively how stupid it is to
try to base fiscal policy on emotional beliefs learned from
puritanical childhood fairy tales. (i.e. rumpelstiltskin economics)
There is good reason to believe that the current
economic mess was triggered by the Clinton administration's
attempt to "balance the budget".
That is when the economy ran off the rails and this depression started.
The only thing that kept the ball in the air for the following
10 years was insane levels of borrowing (mostly by private entities)
But like all things that are unsustainable that debt binge
could not be sustained.
US national Debt is now no longer escalating.
http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
In the 1990's when what the govt owed to the private
sector started to trend downwards, all the other sector
debt turned upward - until it hit the wall.
The attempt at federal surplus could only be supported because
of the massive private sector dis-saving.
But not much good resulted from that attempt.
The federal debt is not really debt that belongs to anybody at all.
Congress is charged with creating money in the constitution
and what we call the federal debt is simply part of that process.
Attempts to get rid of the federal debt tend to be nothing more than
misguided attempts to run the economy out of money.
That is not to say that federal deficits can't be mismanaged.
But it certainly is never going to be managed well if voters
rely on fairy tales for guidance.
There was a time 70 years ago when federal debt was
more than 60% of all US debt, but that wasn't a problem because that
govt debt was the nation's savings built up during the 30's & WW2
The high ratio of federal debt to private debt was the start
of a period of great economic growth.
It was also the start of a long period of decline in the ratio
of public debt to private debt.
By 2007 the federal debt (the nation's savings) had
been depleted down to 10% of all US Debt.
The US is now back in a period of saving where the private debt is
shrinking and the federal debt is building.
Eventually savings will be restored and growth will resume.
With good management that process of rebuilding savings
could be accelerated.
With bad management it is going to be a long hard slug.
Ed Huntress
Oct 23, 2011, 12:20:11 PM10/23/11
to
"jim" wrote in message news:0YSdnaWMBtq9qjnT...@bright.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
> There
> is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
> while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>
That is incorrect.
You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
[reply]
Over 60% of China's working-age population is underemployed, indebted
peasants, Jim, and they've been staging regular revolts. China's official
unemployment numbers include only urban and TVE (town/village enterprises).
If you include the cash-poor underemployed peasantry, more than half of
their population would fit into our U6 category.
Of course they're deficit-spending, to avoid another revolution in the
countryside. And they can pull it off, given their mercantilist policies.
Again, there is no theoretical basis for such spending in a *developed*
economy that is growing and adding employment.
--
Ed Huntress
=============================================================================================
jim
Oct 23, 2011, 12:54:43 PM10/23/11
to
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> "jim" wrote in message news:0YSdnaWMBtq9qjnT...@bright.net...
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> > There
> > is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
> > while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
> >
>
> That is incorrect.
> You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
> China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
> that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
>
> ===========================================================================================
>
> [reply]
>
> Over 60% of China's working-age population is underemployed, indebted
> peasants
What was it 20 years ago? 80%?
>
> "jim" wrote in message news:0YSdnaWMBtq9qjnT...@bright.net...
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> > There
> > is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
> > while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
> >
>
> That is incorrect.
> You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
> China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
> that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
>
> ===========================================================================================
>
> [reply]
>
> Over 60% of China's working-age population is underemployed, indebted
> peasants
You made the claim:
There is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that
legitimizes running deficits while employment is increasing
*and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
The Chinese would have to turn into complete idiots to
start to follow your theory.
> and they've been staging regular revolts. China's official
> unemployment numbers include only urban and TVE (town/village enterprises).
> If you include the cash-poor underemployed peasantry, more than half of
> their population would fit into our U6 category.
>
> Of course they're deficit-spending, to avoid another revolution in the
> countryside. And they can pull it off, given their mercantilist policies.
>
> Again, there is no theoretical basis for such spending in a *developed*
> economy that is growing and adding employment.
I didn't say a word about govt spending. Since you brought it up,
I would agree that the US has way too much govt spending, but that
is irrelevant to the merits of your claim regarding deficits.
Frank
Oct 23, 2011, 1:05:44 PM10/23/11
to
On 10/19/2011 10:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:3cuu9798l50v08dc3...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
>>>> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
>>>
>>> Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and
>>> until you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any
>>> respect for people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards
>>> that know about it and refuse to do the right thing.
>>>
>>> Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in.
>>> You? You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
>>
>> Get some help freak. Once again the right wing nutjobs prove they
>> care nothing about facts and can only spew ridiculous hatred.
>>
>
> The words of a coward who sees crime and is afraid to report it while
> lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
>
> http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-Idiot-
> Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
Better site:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Reminds me, only known picture of dudu:
http://www.focuspower.com/portfolio/CD_noticeme1_front.JPG
> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:3cuu9798l50v08dc3...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
>>>> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
>>>
>>> Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and
>>> until you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any
>>> respect for people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards
>>> that know about it and refuse to do the right thing.
>>>
>>> Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in.
>>> You? You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
>>
>> Get some help freak. Once again the right wing nutjobs prove they
>> care nothing about facts and can only spew ridiculous hatred.
>>
>
> The words of a coward who sees crime and is afraid to report it while
> lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
>
> http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-Idiot-
> Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
Better site:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Reminds me, only known picture of dudu:
http://www.focuspower.com/portfolio/CD_noticeme1_front.JPG
Ed Huntress
Oct 23, 2011, 1:07:10 PM10/23/11
to
"jim" wrote in message news:D6qdnULv2uRK2znT...@bright.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:0YSdnaWMBtq9qjnT...@bright.net...
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> > There
> > is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
> > while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
> >
>
> That is incorrect.
> You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
> China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
> that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
>
> ===========================================================================================
>
> [reply]
>
> Over 60% of China's working-age population is underemployed, indebted
> peasants
>What was it 20 years ago? 80%?
>You made the claim:
>There is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that
>legitimizes running deficits while employment is increasing
>*and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>Both GDP and employment are rising fast in China.
>The Chinese would have to turn into complete idiots to
>start to follow your theory.
Jim. They've deficit-spent, largely starting in 2009, to stimulate growth
primarily in the countryside, to ward off social unrest. They didn't need it
to stimulate growth in the urban engines of their economy.
And, still, there is no theoretical, economic basis for it. It's a
social/political issue.
Trying to compare our economies is pretty silly.
--
Ed Huntress
> and they've been staging regular revolts. China's official
> unemployment numbers include only urban and TVE (town/village
> enterprises).
> If you include the cash-poor underemployed peasantry, more than half of
> their population would fit into our U6 category.
>The US doesn't count the farm economy in their employment figures.
>
> Of course they're deficit-spending, to avoid another revolution in the
> countryside. And they can pull it off, given their mercantilist policies.
>
> Again, there is no theoretical basis for such spending in a *developed*
> economy that is growing and adding employment.
>You must have gone completely blind and read something not there.
>I didn't say a word about govt spending. Since you brought it up,
>I would agree that the US has way too much govt spending, but that
> is irrelevant to the merits of your claim regarding deficits.
somewhere else.
It's too bad. Within a very narrow scope, you have a lot of interesting
ideas to communicate. But you're really in the tank, trying to create things
out of thin air.
--
Ed Huntress
jim
Oct 23, 2011, 1:42:51 PM10/23/11
to
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> >You made the claim:
>
> >There is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that
> >legitimizes running deficits while employment is increasing
> >*and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>
> >Both GDP and employment are rising fast in China.
> >The Chinese would have to turn into complete idiots to
> >start to follow your theory.
>
> You're trying to relate two hugely different economies and economic systems,
> Jim.
You are the one who made the lousy generalization.
>
> >You made the claim:
>
> >There is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that
> >legitimizes running deficits while employment is increasing
> >*and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>
> >Both GDP and employment are rising fast in China.
> >The Chinese would have to turn into complete idiots to
> >start to follow your theory.
>
> You're trying to relate two hugely different economies and economic systems,
> Jim.
I just produced an obvious counter-example to your
generalization.
> They've deficit-spent, largely starting in 2009, to stimulate growth
> primarily in the countryside, to ward off social unrest. They didn't need it
> to stimulate growth in the urban engines of their economy.
They need it to generate internal demand to offset falling
external demand.
Plus they have been deficit spending through their
govt controlled bank system long before 2009.
But none of that is particularly relevant to the question at hand.
You can nit pick all you want.
It has not much to do with defending your claim.
>
> And, still, there is no theoretical, economic basis for it. It's a
> social/political issue.
>
> Trying to compare our economies is pretty silly.
Scout
Oct 23, 2011, 1:49:04 PM10/23/11
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:0YSdnaWMBtq9qjnT...@bright.net...
>
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> There
>> is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
>> while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>>
>
> That is incorrect.
> You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
> China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
> that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/13/935954/-Fairy-Tales-of-the-Coming-State-of-the-Union:-Our-Grandchildren-Must-Repay-National-Debt-
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/chin-o07.shtml
>
>> There
>> is no theory, Keynesian or otherwise, that legitimizes running deficits
>> while employment is increasing *and* GDP is growing at a healthy rate.
>>
>
> That is incorrect.
> You just refuse to look at anything but your pet economic theory.
> China is doing an excellent job of demonstrating
> that govt deficits and GDP growth are compatible.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/13/935954/-Fairy-Tales-of-the-Coming-State-of-the-Union:-Our-Grandchildren-Must-Repay-National-Debt-
Gunner Asch
Oct 23, 2011, 3:38:04 PM10/23/11
to
>
>Reminds me, only known picture of dudu:
>
>http://www.focuspower.com/portfolio/CD_noticeme1_front.JPG
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 5:16:32 PM10/23/11
to
I don't remember the numbers off hand. But, reading in
Rush's book, the taxes came down.
Here is what the house has to say.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Tax increases stifle the economy. Cuts lead to prosperity.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ea40b2e$0$13492$607e...@cv.net...
Rush's book, the taxes came down.
Here is what the house has to say.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Tax increases stifle the economy. Cuts lead to prosperity.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ea40b2e$0$13492$607e...@cv.net...
Gary Forbis
Oct 23, 2011, 3:54:47 PM10/23/11
to
On Oct 23, 8:47 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> There is good reason to believe that the current
> economic mess was triggered by the Clinton administration's
> attempt to "balance the budget".
I disbelieve this.
> There is good reason to believe that the current
> economic mess was triggered by the Clinton administration's
> attempt to "balance the budget".
If my memory serves correctly, during the 12 month prior
to the 2000 election the FED raised interest rates 14 time.
I believe they did this cause a slowdown and favor a republican
president but the FED said they did this because they feared
inflation that they didn't see but were trying to prevent.
Here's the thing, If the federal government ran surpluses
and reduced debt the effect is a slowing of the economy.
Doing this means the FED doesn't need to increase interest
to do the same thing.
The use of interest rates to control the economy tends to
prefer entrinched capital who can afford to take advandage
of minor variations and average risk over a larger set of assets.
Federal tax policy can favor capital or labor as needed to maintian
a vibrant economy.
The repeal of Glass-Steagal under Clinton and the change
in tax policy to run large deficits under Bush while the economy
was good left is in this mess. The tools we need to rebuild the
economy are as available with huge debt and deficits as they
would have been with smaller debt and a balanced budget at the
start of the recession.
Did you know cash is counted as part of the US debt? The economy
needs a certain amount of money to clear accounts. The amount
needed depends upon the economic activity the nation can support
and the velocity of money. The way the money enters the economy
sets the agenda for econmomic activity. It's not enough to have
money enter the economy through borrowing because the nation
has a large portion of its people under water and they cannot engage
in economic activity their production would support and in fact their
productive capacity is going unutilized, being lost as wastage.
One of the Clinton initiatives he has supported since being president
is the establishment of micro-loans. The idea is that people who
want to work can't do so because they lack the $50 to $1,000 they
need for capital investment, these loans are too small for commercial
banks, and the individuals in these countries don't have the credit
history to support signature loans. We are in need of microloans
here in the US but our economy as it exists can't justify them.
While a planned economy is doomed to failure there are methods
and technologies needed to support a market economy that supports
the people. We have to find ways to get the money needed into the
hands of potential and willing producers whose products would be
in demand by their aggregate sef-sustaining consumer needs and
desires. (That is to say, their supply would meet or exceed their
growing demand and the markets would clear with the money afforded
them.)
jim
Oct 23, 2011, 5:50:23 PM10/23/11
to
Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
> news?
>
I read better and keep up better than you do.
>
> I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
> news?
>
The federal debt is not causing a problem.
It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
The total US debt broken down into sectors:
http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
That turned out to be disastrous.
The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
Ed Huntress
Oct 23, 2011, 6:37:14 PM10/23/11
to
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message news:j820a8$umh$1...@dont-email.me...
>I don't remember the numbers off hand. But, reading in
>Rush's book, the taxes came down.
>
>Here is what the house has to say.
> http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
>
Second, note the sleight-of-hand: they talk about the percentage of total
taxes paid by the top 1% going up, but they neglect to mention the
corresponding increase in their average income. This little trick frequently
is used by conservatives today, to hide the fact that the primary cause of
these higher amounts being paid by the very wealthy are the result of their
very large increase in incomes, not their tax rates.
I don't want to burden this discussion with mountains of detail, but you can
see from the numbers:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
...that the top marginal rate for individual income taxes throughout most of
Reagan's term was 50%. Likewise, I could show the backup for the other
statements I made in that last post. (If you read that PDF, be sure to stick
to "nominal" rates or "adjusted for inflation" numbers throughout.
Otherwise, you'll be spinning like a top.)
>Tax increases stifle the economy. Cuts lead to prosperity.
Reagan's "prosperity" occurred on the upswing of the business cycle -- after
a recession that he and Volcker induced *intentionally*, to take the heat
out of interest rates and inflation. It worked admirably to kill inflation.
Unemployment went up to over 10.5%, but there was no financial crisis to
prevent the following upswing, so that Reagan "prosperity" looks, under
careful analysis, to be mostly the result of the normal business cycle.
When the top marginal tax rate was 70%, it made sense to reduce it -- to
50%. Now we have 35%. Would it make sense to lower it more? The net effect,
in the view of most economists, is that it would be negative. The decline in
revenue would do more damage than any modest increase in GDP.
You can argue that until the cows come home. I've seen the quality of
knowledge of the people who argue the issue here and I have to say that they
really aren't up to it. I'm not up to it, either. I can quote some studies
for you, but it's really a matter of attitude more than one of facts at our
level of discussion.
So believe what you want. Keep in mind that Laffer, who created that famous
curve, has said on several occasions that he has no idea where we actually
fall on his curve. We could already be at a tax level so low (the lowest
since 1950, overall) that reducing the rates more will cause a serious
decline in revenues and little stimulus to economic activity.
That seems to be the more-or-less consensus among real economists. The
argument comes from real philosophical partisans, like Ron Paul and his
Austrian School gang. I don't believe them. You're welcome to, of course.
--
Ed Huntress
Tankfixer
Oct 23, 2011, 7:01:50 PM10/23/11
to
In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
jim
Oct 23, 2011, 9:43:41 PM10/23/11
to
The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
the US is no longer growing.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
Ask your self this question
Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
50% unemployment?
That will be what will happen when Congress
attempts to balance the federal budget.
Historically, what has the nation got from the
52 trillion dollars of debt it has accumulated?
Since WW2 the amount of GDP growth per total dollar borrowed has
steadily declined.
In the 50's there was close to $1 growth for
every $1 dollar borrowed in the US.
By 2007 there was $6 dollars increase in debt for
every $1 dollar increase in GDP.
Today the ratio is better than the 50's.
Now there is more than $1 dollar in GDP growth for
every dollar that is borrowed.
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 10:28:44 PM10/23/11
to
Does the debt chart show the federal debt levelling out?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html
Maybe the overall consumer debt is levelling out. I think
that's cause the consumer is scared to spend money in the
Obama economy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html
Maybe the overall consumer debt is levelling out. I think
that's cause the consumer is scared to spend money in the
Obama economy.
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net...
Stormin Mormon
Oct 23, 2011, 10:30:31 PM10/23/11
to
I disagree. If the Fed balances its own budget, the consumer
confidence will go way up, and the spending will resume. And
the hiring. And the tax increase to the Fed and states will
go way up.
This reckless fed spending has everyone scared, especially
me.
confidence will go way up, and the spending will resume. And
the hiring. And the tax increase to the Fed and states will
go way up.
This reckless fed spending has everyone scared, especially
me.
Tankfixer
Oct 23, 2011, 10:52:47 PM10/23/11
to
In article <wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net>, - jim
> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> the US is no longer growing.
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
>
> Ask your self this question
> Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
> 50% unemployment?
>
> That will be what will happen when Congress
> attempts to balance the federal budget.
Based on what ?
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>
> Tankfixer wrote:
> >
> > In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
> > "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
> > >
> > > Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
> > > > news?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I read better and keep up better than you do.
> > > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
> > > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
> > > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
> > >
> > > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
> > > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
> > > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
> > >
> > > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
> > > That turned out to be disastrous.
> > >
> > > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
> >
> > So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>
> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
Last years Federal spending was $1.26 Trillion in excess of reciepts.
>
> Tankfixer wrote:
> >
> > In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
> > "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
> > >
> > > Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
> > > > news?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I read better and keep up better than you do.
> > > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
> > > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
> > > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
> > >
> > > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
> > > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
> > > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
> > >
> > > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
> > > That turned out to be disastrous.
> > >
> > > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
> >
> > So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>
> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> the US is no longer growing.
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
>
> Ask your self this question
> Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
> 50% unemployment?
>
> That will be what will happen when Congress
> attempts to balance the federal budget.
Scout
Oct 24, 2011, 12:13:19 AM10/24/11
to
> Tankfixer wrote:
>>
>> In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
>> "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>> >
>> > Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
>> > > news?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I read better and keep up better than you do.
>> > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
>> > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
>> > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
>> >
>> > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
>> > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
>> > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
>> >
>> > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
>> > That turned out to be disastrous.
>> >
>> > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
>>
>> So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>
> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
Warning: Bullshit approaching.
>>
>> In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
>> "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>> >
>> > Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
>> > > news?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I read better and keep up better than you do.
>> > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
>> > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
>> > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
>> >
>> > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
>> > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
>> > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
>> >
>> > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
>> > That turned out to be disastrous.
>> >
>> > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
>>
>> So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>
> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> the US is no longer growing.
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
And seems to be a high point as well.
Let's look at the data shall we?
2009-07-01 52328.59
2009-10-01 52346.84
2010-01-01 51880.22
2010-04-01 51856.37
2010-07-01 52131.27
2010-10-01 52494.41
2011-01-01 52644.68
2011-04-01 52554.37
Looks like a steady upwards trend line to me.
Sure there's a minor bump in 2010, but overall the trend is still an upwards
climb.
So tell me, do you regularly post graphs that immediately disprove your
assertion?
> Ask your self this question
I would answer "yes" to that question.
> Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
> 50% unemployment?
that we would hit 50% unemployment simply because steps were taken to start
the process of balancing the budget some number of years from now.
Tell you what, first show us that 50% would be unemployed by any process to
balance the federal budge then we can consider whether your question needs
to be answered.
Further care to tell us the consequences of continuing to run up trillion
dollar increases in the federal debt each year?
emoneyjoe
Oct 24, 2011, 2:28:14 AM10/24/11
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:52:47 -0700, Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m>
wrote:
>In article <wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net>, - jim
>"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>>
>> Tankfixer wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
>> > "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>> > >
>> > > Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
>> > > > news?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I read better and keep up better than you do.
>> > > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
>> > > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
>> > > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
>> > >
>> > > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
>> > > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
>> > > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
>> > >
>> > > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
>> > > That turned out to be disastrous.
>> > >
>> > > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
>> >
>> > So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>>
>> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
>
>Last years Federal spending was $1.26 Trillion in excess of reciepts.
Which may not be as bad as it seems;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.png
if the GDP continues to rise and federal spending levels off.
>> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
>> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
>> the US is no longer growing.
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
>>
>> Ask your self this question
>> Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
>> 50% unemployment?
>>
>> That will be what will happen when Congress
>> attempts to balance the federal budget.
>
>Based on what ?
I guess Jim assumes a domino effect, if a lot of
federal workers get laid off, a lot more property goes
to foreclosure and that could cause a lot of financial
institutions to fail.
Debt has become too high a percentage of GDP
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10403-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz1bg0QFqb6
the question is, who holds all that debt, the total
assets is something not obvious but may be critical
in the resistance to crisis if a lot of foreclosures and
bankruptcies take place.
In a nutshell, any reduction in income or funding
has to be slow enough so that those affected can
sell, refinance, or do something to avoid bankruptcy
or just plain walking away from the problem.
>> Historically, what has the nation got from the
>> 52 trillion dollars of debt it has accumulated?
>>
>> Since WW2 the amount of GDP growth per total dollar borrowed has
>> steadily declined.
>> In the 50's there was close to $1 growth for
>> every $1 dollar borrowed in the US.
>>
>> By 2007 there was $6 dollars increase in debt for
>> every $1 dollar increase in GDP.
>> Today the ratio is better than the 50's.
>> Now there is more than $1 dollar in GDP growth for
>> every dollar that is borrowed.
The charts down on the page in the url above
shows that, it isn't clear to me what the financial
sector debt is.
Household debt is probably not a problem for
those with jobs or income, but that is where part
of the problem is if more workers are laid off.
Interest rates were quite high during the
Clinton years compared to now, so even though
things seemed good then, the rise in debt at
those interest rates might have been adding to
a growing problem.
wrote:
>In article <wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net>, - jim
>"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>>
>> Tankfixer wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <wpqdnYXQ3ca-ETnT...@bright.net>, - jim
>> > "sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net spouted !
>> > >
>> > > Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I guess you don't read the news, or stay current on national
>> > > > news?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I read better and keep up better than you do.
>> > > The federal debt is not causing a problem.
>> > > It was the $44 trillion that is owed by rest of the US.
>> > > that was the cause of the 2008 financial train wreck.
>> > >
>> > > The total US debt broken down into sectors:
>> > > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/528.pdf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The federal govt debt was 60% of the total US at the end of WW2
>> > > That resulted in the strongest period of economic growth in history.
>> > >
>> > > By 2007 the federal debt was down to only 10% of the total US debt
>> > > That turned out to be disastrous.
>> > >
>> > > The problem is debt, but it is not the federal debt.
>> >
>> > So it's ok, to just keep borrowing and spending ?
>>
>> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
>
>Last years Federal spending was $1.26 Trillion in excess of reciepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.png
if the GDP continues to rise and federal spending levels off.
>> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
>> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
>> the US is no longer growing.
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=TCMDO#
>>
>> Ask your self this question
>> Is it OK to put the nation into a deep depression with
>> 50% unemployment?
>>
>> That will be what will happen when Congress
>> attempts to balance the federal budget.
>
>Based on what ?
federal workers get laid off, a lot more property goes
to foreclosure and that could cause a lot of financial
institutions to fail.
Debt has become too high a percentage of GDP
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10403-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz1bg0QFqb6
the question is, who holds all that debt, the total
assets is something not obvious but may be critical
in the resistance to crisis if a lot of foreclosures and
bankruptcies take place.
In a nutshell, any reduction in income or funding
has to be slow enough so that those affected can
sell, refinance, or do something to avoid bankruptcy
or just plain walking away from the problem.
>> Historically, what has the nation got from the
>> 52 trillion dollars of debt it has accumulated?
>>
>> Since WW2 the amount of GDP growth per total dollar borrowed has
>> steadily declined.
>> In the 50's there was close to $1 growth for
>> every $1 dollar borrowed in the US.
>>
>> By 2007 there was $6 dollars increase in debt for
>> every $1 dollar increase in GDP.
>> Today the ratio is better than the 50's.
>> Now there is more than $1 dollar in GDP growth for
>> every dollar that is borrowed.
shows that, it isn't clear to me what the financial
sector debt is.
Household debt is probably not a problem for
those with jobs or income, but that is where part
of the problem is if more workers are laid off.
Interest rates were quite high during the
Clinton years compared to now, so even though
things seemed good then, the rise in debt at
those interest rates might have been adding to
a growing problem.
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 7:26:00 AM10/24/11
to
Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> Does the debt chart show the federal debt levelling out?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html
The nation has only two choices:
A large federal debt and a depression or
a large federal debt without a depression
Trying to balance the budget will get you the
large federal debt with a depression
The cause of the depression will be the private sector debt.
>
> Maybe the overall consumer debt is levelling out. I think
> that's cause the consumer is scared to spend money in the
> Obama economy.
It doesn't matter who gets elected in 2012 this is the new reality.
Households perceive that borrowing put them in a hole and
more borrowing will only put them deeper in the hole.
Prior to 2006 the perception was that borrowing was the fastest
way to build wealth.
In 2007 US Households had $13.5 trillion in Home equity and
$13.5 trillion in total debt.
In 2009 US Households had only $6 trillion in home equity and
$14.5 trillion in total debt.
Today Household debt is $14 trillion and home equity is
still holding steady at $6 trillion.
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 7:48:13 AM10/24/11
to
The total US debt would be $80 trillion by now.
The crash in private debt was inevitable.
>
> So tell me, do you regularly post graphs that immediately disprove your
> assertion?
total debt and massive depression that is much worse than the 30's.
The current federal deficit matches the amount of debt the private
sector is shedding every year. As a result total debt is nt growing.
At the current level of federal revenue and outlay the
private sector debt hangover is manageable.
Today Debts are being repaid and unemployment is
not increasing.
The economy is currently in equilibrium but it is poised on
the edge of a cliff
Remove those deficit dollars flowing into the economy
and the private sector debt becomes unmanageable
just like it was in the 30's
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 8:19:47 AM10/24/11
to
Tankfixer wrote:
>
> Last years Federal spending was $1.26 Trillion in excess of reciepts.
You should be thankful.
>
> Last years Federal spending was $1.26 Trillion in excess of reciepts.
Were it not for that deficit, the nation would be
deep in a depression with half the workers unemployed.
>
> Based on what ?
>
Look at the last time total credit market debt collapsed
Only this time the private sector ran the debt up much higher and
has a whole lot farther to fall.
http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/454a.pdf
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 11:31:24 AM10/24/11
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
> >> That will be what will happen when Congress
> >> attempts to balance the federal budget.
> >
> >Based on what ?
>
> I guess Jim assumes a domino effect, if a lot of
> federal workers get laid off,
You aren't going to have a balanced budget by
> >> That will be what will happen when Congress
> >> attempts to balance the federal budget.
> >
> >Based on what ?
>
> I guess Jim assumes a domino effect, if a lot of
> federal workers get laid off,
laying off federal workers. You can eliminate every
federal employee and 90% of the deficit will still remain.
And yes all those laid off workers will no longer be
spending their paychecks so the people who produced those
goods and services that federal employees purchase will
lose their jobs also. And that means all those unemployed not
paying taxes and collecting unemployment.
The net deficit reduction will be small or non-existant
A serious attempt to balance the budget would take deep
cuts to military, Social Security, and medicare spending plus
big tax increases to raise more revenue.
Do you think doing that won't cause a depression?
Millions would lose their jobs and spiraling deflation
would be the reality as people are forced to sell off
assets at a loss to make up for declining income.
From 1998 to 2008 total US net borrowing was equal to
25% of GDP every year.
Then all of a sudden the borrowing stopped...
Today the private sector is paying back a sum equal to
10% of GDP and the federal govt is borrowing a sum equal to
10% of GDP.
That balances to make total US net borrowing about zero.
The US has been living beyond its means for decades
Prior to 2009 you have to go back to the 1930's to
find another year where US total debt went down (was less than
the year before).
In 2007 the US added nearly $5 trillion to
its total debt in one year
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
Nickname unavailable
Oct 24, 2011, 11:55:06 AM10/24/11
to
On Oct 23, 2:38 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:05:44 -0400, Frank
>
>
>
> <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 10/19/2011 10:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> >> d...@dudu.org wrote innews:3cuu9798l50v08dc3...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:05:44 -0400, Frank
>
>
>
> <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 10/19/2011 10:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
> >>> <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
>
> >>>>> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
> >>>>> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
>
> >>>> Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and
> >>>> until you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any
> >>>> respect for people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards
> >>>> that know about it and refuse to do the right thing.
>
> >>>> Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in.
> >>>> You? You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
>
> >>> Get some help freak. Once again the right wing nutjobs prove they
> >>> care nothing about facts and can only spew ridiculous hatred.
>
> >> The words of a coward who sees crime and is afraid to report it while
> >> lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
>
> >>http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Comedy/Insult-Comedy/You-Are-An-...
> >>>>> Which one you want to make you look stupid? Oh,
> >>>>> wait, you don't need any help from me to look stupid.
>
> >>>> Truthfully, i'm not interested in anything you have to say unless and
> >>>> until you turn in you felon neighbor. Personally I don't have any
> >>>> respect for people that break the law. I have even less for the cowards
> >>>> that know about it and refuse to do the right thing.
>
> >>>> Hell, at least your neighbor is taking astand for what he beleives in.
> >>>> You? You are just a mealy mouthed pussy.
>
> >>> Get some help freak. Once again the right wing nutjobs prove they
> >>> care nothing about facts and can only spew ridiculous hatred.
>
> >> The words of a coward who sees crime and is afraid to report it while
> >> lecturing others about imaginary crime are of little import.
>
> >> Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha/29718
>
> >Better site:
>
> >http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
>
> SAVED!! Thanks!!!
>
>
>
> >Reminds me, only known picture of dudu:
>
> >http://www.focuspower.com/portfolio/CD_noticeme1_front.JPG
>
> One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
> in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
> and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
> not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
> Gunner Asch
The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what Republicans
>
> >Better site:
>
> >http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
>
> SAVED!! Thanks!!!
>
>
>
> >Reminds me, only known picture of dudu:
>
> >http://www.focuspower.com/portfolio/CD_noticeme1_front.JPG
>
> One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
> in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
> and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
> not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
> Gunner Asch
are really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
enemies of.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 24, 2011, 11:57:09 AM10/24/11
to
On Oct 23, 4:16 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
most richest middle class the world has ever seen was created. have
fun explaining away 1981-2011, where the richest, largest middle class
the world has ever seen was destroyed:))))))
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't remember the numbers off hand. But, reading in
> Rush's book, the taxes came down.
>
> Here is what the house has to say.
> http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
>
> Tax increases stifle the economy. Cuts lead to prosperity.
>
have fun explaining away the era from 1933-1981. where the largest
> I don't remember the numbers off hand. But, reading in
> Rush's book, the taxes came down.
>
> Here is what the house has to say.
> http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
>
> Tax increases stifle the economy. Cuts lead to prosperity.
>
most richest middle class the world has ever seen was created. have
fun explaining away 1981-2011, where the richest, largest middle class
the world has ever seen was destroyed:))))))
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Gray Guest
Oct 24, 2011, 12:05:41 PM10/24/11
to
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in
news:wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net:
> First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
> The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> the US is no longer growing.
Do you still work? if you do please tell me the company that would be so
stupid as to hire you so I can avoid their products or services.
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
Gray Guest
Oct 24, 2011, 12:18:01 PM10/24/11
to
Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in news:3c08c58f-03e0-469d-
b103-568...@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 23, 2:38 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:05:44 -0400, Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On 10/19/2011 10:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> >> d...@dudu.org wrote innews:3cuu9798l50v08dc3ltonrifhe3fl5r89a@
>> Â
b103-568...@y35g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 23, 2:38 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:05:44 -0400, Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On 10/19/2011 10:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Gunner Asch
>
> The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what Republicans
> are really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
> enemies of.
>
Sorry that has already been assigned to the Democrats.
>
> The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what Republicans
> are really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
> enemies of.
>
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 12:32:21 PM10/24/11
to
Gray Guest wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in
> news:wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net:
>
> > First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
> > The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> > For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> > the US is no longer growing.
>
> You are a complete and total idiot.
>
> Do you still work? if you do please tell me the company that would be so
> stupid as to hire you so I can avoid their products or services.
move to Outer Mongolia to avoid all the companies I've done work for.
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 24, 2011, 12:38:30 PM10/24/11
to
jim wrote:
>
> I work as a independent consultant. You would have to pack up and
> move to Outer Mongolia to avoid all the companies I've done work for.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
emoneyjoe
Oct 24, 2011, 1:34:04 PM10/24/11
to
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:26:00 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:
Those numbers are bogus, they were estimated
by taking the worse case loss of equity on homes and
applying that to the entire nation.
The house next door to me was appraised at
$40,000 for taxes, it just sold for $70,000, I just
got appraised at $35,000 up from $32,000.
The idiots that are estimating equity across
the board are clueless, doing great harm to the
state tax base.
Near military bases soldiers get a minimum
of $600 a month housing allowance, what price
home will that buy?
Many $500,000 any up homes may lose equity,
but the average house assessed at $110,000 may
not lose any equity at all.
wrote:
by taking the worse case loss of equity on homes and
applying that to the entire nation.
The house next door to me was appraised at
$40,000 for taxes, it just sold for $70,000, I just
got appraised at $35,000 up from $32,000.
The idiots that are estimating equity across
the board are clueless, doing great harm to the
state tax base.
Near military bases soldiers get a minimum
of $600 a month housing allowance, what price
home will that buy?
Many $500,000 any up homes may lose equity,
but the average house assessed at $110,000 may
not lose any equity at all.
emoneyjoe
Oct 24, 2011, 1:53:44 PM10/24/11
to
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:31:24 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> >> That will be what will happen when Congress
>> >> attempts to balance the federal budget.
>> >
>> >Based on what ?
>>
>> I guess Jim assumes a domino effect, if a lot of
>> federal workers get laid off,
>
>You aren't going to have a balanced budget by
>laying off federal workers. You can eliminate every
>federal employee and 90% of the deficit will still remain.
>And yes all those laid off workers will no longer be
>spending their paychecks so the people who produced those
> goods and services that federal employees purchase will
>lose their jobs also. And that means all those unemployed not
>paying taxes and collecting unemployment.
> The net deficit reduction will be small or non-existant
Most people assume that a mixture of both
tax increases and budget cuts will bring the
deficit down substantially over several years,
they know it isn't possible in one year.
>A serious attempt to balance the budget would take deep
>cuts to military, Social Security, and medicare spending plus
>big tax increases to raise more revenue.
I see that less likely than funding social programs
with created emoney.
>Do you think doing that won't cause a depression?
I think congress is delinquent for not creating
some emoney to fund social programs and some
infrastructure repairs.
>Millions would lose their jobs and spiraling deflation
>would be the reality as people are forced to sell off
>assets at a loss to make up for declining income.
I think you give federal spending too much
credit.
>From 1998 to 2008 total US net borrowing was equal to
>25% of GDP every year.
>Then all of a sudden the borrowing stopped...
In 1998 interest rates were 8%, by 2002 they
were 3% on CDs.
>Today the private sector is paying back a sum equal to
>10% of GDP and the federal govt is borrowing a sum equal to
>10% of GDP.
>That balances to make total US net borrowing about zero.
Federal dollars never equal private dollars in
buying power, you would have a hard time co-relating
federal and private debt effects on the economy.
>The US has been living beyond its means for decades
>Prior to 2009 you have to go back to the 1930's to
>find another year where US total debt went down (was less than
>the year before).
I that a surprise to anybody? There was no
home building in the 1930s, most household debt
is mortgage related.
>In 2007 the US added nearly $5 trillion to
>its total debt in one year
>
>http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
It doesn't make sense for the average person to
be concerned about that, each should make plans
for what they would do if they lost their job.
wrote:
>emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> >> That will be what will happen when Congress
>> >> attempts to balance the federal budget.
>> >
>> >Based on what ?
>>
>> I guess Jim assumes a domino effect, if a lot of
>> federal workers get laid off,
>
>You aren't going to have a balanced budget by
>laying off federal workers. You can eliminate every
>federal employee and 90% of the deficit will still remain.
>And yes all those laid off workers will no longer be
>spending their paychecks so the people who produced those
> goods and services that federal employees purchase will
>lose their jobs also. And that means all those unemployed not
>paying taxes and collecting unemployment.
> The net deficit reduction will be small or non-existant
tax increases and budget cuts will bring the
deficit down substantially over several years,
they know it isn't possible in one year.
>A serious attempt to balance the budget would take deep
>cuts to military, Social Security, and medicare spending plus
>big tax increases to raise more revenue.
with created emoney.
>Do you think doing that won't cause a depression?
some emoney to fund social programs and some
infrastructure repairs.
>Millions would lose their jobs and spiraling deflation
>would be the reality as people are forced to sell off
>assets at a loss to make up for declining income.
credit.
>From 1998 to 2008 total US net borrowing was equal to
>25% of GDP every year.
>Then all of a sudden the borrowing stopped...
were 3% on CDs.
>Today the private sector is paying back a sum equal to
>10% of GDP and the federal govt is borrowing a sum equal to
>10% of GDP.
>That balances to make total US net borrowing about zero.
buying power, you would have a hard time co-relating
federal and private debt effects on the economy.
>The US has been living beyond its means for decades
>Prior to 2009 you have to go back to the 1930's to
>find another year where US total debt went down (was less than
>the year before).
home building in the 1930s, most household debt
is mortgage related.
>In 2007 the US added nearly $5 trillion to
>its total debt in one year
>
>http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdef5d17f8b9ab70de60000/chart-of-the-day-total-us-net-borrowing-1978-2009.jpg
be concerned about that, each should make plans
for what they would do if they lost their job.
Ed Huntress
Oct 24, 2011, 1:58:06 PM10/24/11
to
"emoneyjoe" wrote in message
news:er7ba7ddgokh1uvg9...@4ax.com...
The Zillo Home Value Index (a good independent source, which bases its
numbers on actual selling prices) says that homeowners lost 29.5% of total
home value since the peak in June, 2006. That's as of May, 2011.
Home value is not home equity, however. I'm sure some more research would
allow you to make a reasonable estimate of actual equity loss.
--
Ed Huntress
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 2:18:41 PM10/24/11
to
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=OEHRENWBSHNO,TLBSHNO,
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 24, 2011, 2:40:41 PM10/24/11
to
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> Near military bases soldiers get a minimum
> of $600 a month housing allowance, what price
> home will that buy?
transferred too often to screw with buying a house every time they are
transferred.
Gunner Asch
Oct 24, 2011, 3:01:28 PM10/24/11
to
>enemies of.
The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what fucktards
Leftwingers are..is watching their claims about Republicans.
Point, set and match.
Gunner
Ed Huntress
Oct 24, 2011, 3:24:04 PM10/24/11
to
"jim" wrote in message news:TOednRMA1fGfMTjT...@bright.net...
value.
--
Ed Huntress
Tom S.
Oct 24, 2011, 3:32:25 PM10/24/11
to
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lfKdnYoxtI-qLDjT...@earthlink.com...
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> Near military bases soldiers get a minimum
>> of $600 a month housing allowance, what price
>> home will that buy?
>
>
> None, if they have any brains. Military personnel are typically
> transferred too often to screw with buying a house every time they are
> transferred.
>
While they are mobile, transfers are not even close to what they were before
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> Near military bases soldiers get a minimum
>> of $600 a month housing allowance, what price
>> home will that buy?
>
>
> None, if they have any brains. Military personnel are typically
> transferred too often to screw with buying a house every time they are
> transferred.
>
the 80's.
One reason for this is "unit cohesion" that drops when a unit is a constant
revolving door.
Tom S.
Oct 24, 2011, 3:34:09 PM10/24/11
to
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jedba7huhs8s5eshk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>
>> The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what Republicans
>>are ?really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
>>enemies of.
>
> The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what fucktards
> Leftwingers are..is watching their claims about Republicans.
>
> Point, set and match.
>
It's called "psychological projection" (or sometimes "deflection").
>>are ?really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
>>enemies of.
>
> The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what fucktards
> Leftwingers are..is watching their claims about Republicans.
>
> Point, set and match.
>
Ed Huntress
Oct 24, 2011, 3:47:06 PM10/24/11
to
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:lfKdnYoxtI-qLDjT...@earthlink.com...
Misattributed to me. However, that's probably the result of this damnfangled
Windows Live Mail, which is even worse than OE.
--
Ed Huntress
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 24, 2011, 4:22:16 PM10/24/11
to
have little impact on a 'unit' and greatly outnumber the troops who see
combat.
Nickname unavailable
Oct 24, 2011, 4:22:02 PM10/24/11
to
On Oct 24, 2:34 pm, "Tom S." <tmsw...@cox.com> wrote:
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
yea, like michelle bachmans war on homosexuals, and her ERR,
"HUSBAND":)))))))))))))))))))))))))
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"HUSBAND":)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Nickname unavailable
Oct 24, 2011, 4:17:10 PM10/24/11
to
elected and try to prove it to you.
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 24, 2011, 4:24:08 PM10/24/11
to
Tankfixer
Oct 24, 2011, 6:02:34 PM10/24/11
to
In article <H42dnVIPa_ibVDjT...@earthlink.com>, - Michael
A. Terrell mike.t...@earthlink.net spouted !
Even support personel are assigned to units.
A. Terrell mike.t...@earthlink.net spouted !
Gray Guest
Oct 24, 2011, 6:06:02 PM10/24/11
to
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
news:EoqdnXsXz5mKDjjT...@bright.net:
That explains the modern American economy. Are you taking all the blame.
news:EoqdnXsXz5mKDjjT...@bright.net:
Michael A. Terrell
Oct 24, 2011, 6:45:01 PM10/24/11
to
I was always assigned to HQ Command after Basic. Most of the two HQ
Command Companies had no idea who I was, or what I did if I didn't tell
them. I didn't know more than a dozen at either base.
jim
Oct 24, 2011, 6:57:34 PM10/24/11
to
Gray Guest wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
> news:EoqdnXsXz5mKDjjT...@bright.net:
>
> >
> >
> > Gray Guest wrote:
> >>
> >> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in
> >> news:wOidnUrMl9VPXznT...@bright.net:
> >>
> >> > First of all your question makes an incorrect assumption.
> >> > The US as a whole is no longer borrowing and spending.
> >> > For the first time in 70 years the total debt of all
> >> > the US is no longer growing.
> >>
> >> You are a complete and total idiot.
> >
> > Put your head back in the sand and you'll feel better
> >
> >>
> >> Do you still work? if you do please tell me the company that would be so
> >> stupid as to hire you so I can avoid their products or services.
> >
> > I work as a independent consultant. You would have to pack up and
> > move to Outer Mongolia to avoid all the companies I've done work for.
> >
>
> That explains the modern American economy. Are you taking all the blame.
But i don't think the economy is in that bad of shape.
4 years ago the US economy borrowed nearly 5 trillion dollars in
order to produce $14 trillion in goods and services.
this year it borrowed only a couple hundred billion
to generate around $15 trillion in production.
Gray Guest
Oct 24, 2011, 7:14:09 PM10/24/11
to
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
news:KJednQnfcIbCcDjT...@bright.net:
A person with a functioning brain might identfy that as a problem.
rangerssuck
Oct 24, 2011, 7:18:55 PM10/24/11
to
On Oct 24, 7:14 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote innews:KJednQnfcIbCcDjT...@bright.net:
Or, a person with a functioning brain might recognize a change in
trajectory. Do you really expect that anyone - Democrat, Republican or
otherwise - with any economic policy could erase all that debt
instantaneously?
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote innews:KJednQnfcIbCcDjT...@bright.net:
trajectory. Do you really expect that anyone - Democrat, Republican or
otherwise - with any economic policy could erase all that debt
instantaneously?
Gray Guest
Oct 24, 2011, 7:24:46 PM10/24/11
to
rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote in news:526c67f7-7a31-4ba0-b91b-
3e98ae...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 7:14 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote
innews:KJednQnfcIbCcDjTnZ2dnUVZ_vudn
> Z...@bright.net:
I would expect them to try and not pretend like increasing it
unneccessarily is trying.
3e98ae...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 7:14 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote
> Z...@bright.net:
unneccessarily is trying.
Gunner Asch
Oct 24, 2011, 7:26:00 PM10/24/11
to
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> Face it, conservatives tell you government doesn't work and then get
>elected and try to prove it to you.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> Face it, conservatives tell you government doesn't work and then get
>elected and try to prove it to you.
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman,
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among
others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back
to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe
Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections;
Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including
chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress
toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint
resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb
18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to
its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not
yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the
United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture
than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know,
actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear
warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends
in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley
Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such
weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the
Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back
in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry
into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving
those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in
April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He
has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is
trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons
of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass
destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should
assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al
Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." --
Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy,
Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct
2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that
war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert
Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build
those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we
had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." --
John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of
mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations
Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry,
Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for
the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is
neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no
inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has
continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."
-- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that
the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of
grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat
to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of
the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard
gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic
missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale
chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in
1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can
obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that
is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy
towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm
and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games
the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and
legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the
United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry
Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a
letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski,
Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back
to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe
Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections;
Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including
chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress
toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint
resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb
18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to
its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not
yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the
United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture
than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know,
actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear
warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends
in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley
Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such
weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the
Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back
in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry
into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving
those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in
April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He
has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is
trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons
of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass
destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should
assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al
Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." --
Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy,
Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct
2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that
war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert
Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build
those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we
had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." --
John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of
mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations
Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry,
Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for
the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is
neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no
inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has
continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."
-- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that
the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of
grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat
to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of
the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard
gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic
missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale
chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in
1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can
obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that
is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy
towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm
and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games
the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and
legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the
United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry
Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages