Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Staga on October 03, 2004, 04:12:02 AM
-
US Foreign debt is reaching skies; now it's 25000$ per every US citizen.
Your kids will be pleased :rofl
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/us_nat_debt.gif)
-
Laugh all you want, we intend on defaulting on our debt and dragging the world into a depression like never before. You think we will buying your Nokia phones then?
-
Another Ameri-stalker.
-
We could always be Finland.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Ignorance is a bliss :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Ignorance is a bliss :)
That's what I meant.
-
btw why is it that Democrats are bringing down your debts but when a Republican takes the wheel your debts jump up?
Who's going to pay back the money GWB is using now?
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw why is it that Democrats are bringing down your debts but when a Republican takes the wheel your debts jump up?
Who's going to pay back the money GWB is using now?
What do you care? Why does Finland have one of the highest cases of cirrhosis of the liver among Nordic Countries?
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw why is it that Democrats are bringing down your debts but when a Republican takes the wheel your debts jump up?
Who's going to pay back the money GWB is using now?
You are.
Now quit banging the retarded chick on the Fry-O-Lator and start flipping them burgers faster.
-
Why is Chlamydia on the rise in Finland? Who's going to pay for that? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14520170&dopt=Abstract)
-
Interesting graph. Shows just how expensive Reagan's cold war really was.
-
Those were some great times under carter eh guys?
Wars get paid for (cold or not) eventually without raising taxes.... Democrat social programs never do the just grow and grow and grow and grow..
Who do you want to win this election staga?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Interesting graph. Shows just how expensive Reagan's cold war really was.
Compared to the alternative I think we all got a bargain. You're welcome.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Compared to the alternative I think we all got a bargain. You're welcome.
Nonsense. Nuclear holocaust would have cost FAR less money... but then the debt per capita would be much higher as a result... tough decision.
-
Well?
Who's taking better care about US economy: Dems or Rebs ?
-
You're welcome too, AKIron.
-
staga... as I have said.. wars get paid for social programs just grow. the cold war was very expensive but you will note that it was allmost paid for by the time klinton took power... The democrats have the highest effect on debt in the long run.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The democrats have the highest effect on debt in the long run.
lazs
You sure are right with that one: Chart clearly shows how Dems have been keeping your debts low while Rebs have been borrowing money from left and right; money your kids need to pay back.
-
the chart shows no such thing. the greatest debt we have is social security. this is a democratic program that was put in place more than a half a century ago... the next biggest debt is welfare.... another democratic debt that haunts our children and causes even more debt every year...
What would you say was the cause of the debt the Repulicans incurred?
lazs
-
a rep admin saves the arse of a handsomehunkcrat one just about everytime as the dem ride the wave created by the previous admin (when rep) to the crest and bails just at the start of the crash ...
please tell us what Bush should have done instead of what he did to stop the recession before it went into a depression??
raised taxes??/ yeah, that would have done wonders... maybe tax the airline industry at the close of '01 to pay for another useless social program...
funny how no one mentions euro politics, unless they cave to terrorists, on this board... must stink to envy a country as great as America as some do here on a daily basis...
-
eagler... I believe that stagas point is that we need higher taxes and more social programs rather than wars.
We could have come out even better in WWII I suppose if we would have stayed out longer. Vietnam was expesnsive but they are both payed for now... iraq will be paid for soon enough too and..... without raising taxes... unless of course... we elect kerrie and he adds a bunch of socialist giveaways and bleeds the wealthy job creators.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the chart shows no such thing. the greatest debt we have is social security. this is a democratic program that was put in place more than a half a century ago... the next biggest debt is welfare.... another democratic debt that haunts our children and causes even more debt every year...
What would you say was the cause of the debt the Repulicans incurred?
lazs
Exactly Lazs - Pretty much everything up to 45% or so is due to DNC created programs.
Still, the GOP has had both houses and the White House for 4 years and spending still goes up. Which is why I'm not voting for them.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Exactly Lazs - Pretty much everything up to 45% or so is due to DNC created programs.
Still, the GOP has had both houses and the White House for 4 years and spending still goes up. Which is why I'm not voting for them.
LOL
you think skerry and his gang would spend less???
or do you just want to pay more taxes? you can pay mine if you want to pay more ...
and paying more will not reduce anything, as laz states it would just help fund more laz dem social programs - free food, free housing, free medical .... key word = "FREE" - free to those who receive them as they do not contribute to pay the taxes that funds them.. the spending would continue as it isgoing to Iraq and post 9/11 security (though the dems would cut that b4 they put a dem voter to work and cut their free ride...)
thought it was great when skerry said he did not want/need Bushs tax cut, Bush should have given him the addy to the IRS in Atlanta right there and then - LOL
-
Where do the commy socialist programs fall in?
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/us_nat_debt.gif)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Where do the commy socialist programs fall in?
right under the tax increases..
-
Eagler I'm not voting for Kerry, he would make the problems even worse.
-
coffee... what percentage of the overall debt do you attribute to the commie socialist programs? What part do social security and welfare play in the debt?
The repulicans go with a strong military and the dems go with giveaway commie socialist programs... the difference is that the dems ask for more money from us to pay for em and their programs haunt us, our children and our childrens children.
lazs
-
I just look at the graph and well, there it is. And BTW, social security is fine so long as they dont overspend as to be not able to afford it. Alot of people retire and depend on their social security. Remember the graphs of % of taxpayers between wealthy and poor, most people are not wealthy. However the wealthy decisionmakers are the ones making the decisions that would cut into the poors social security.
-
If a couple makes $100k, and the wife spends $100k, and the husband spends $50k, who is responsible for the $50k debt?
-
I'll admit that social security should be optional nowadays. It was great during the 40s and helped the masses to believe in their gov a little more post the 30s. Today however, there are better ways to invest in your retirement plan. Unless someone messes that up also.
-
Social security is fine so long as the government stays out of it? Well.... yeah... allmost everything is fine so long as government stays out of it.
perhaps if social security were privatised the benifiets from it would be closer to an amount that those who pay into it could live on.
spin it any way you like but our debt is almost entirely the result of military spending and liberal socialist democrat programs that require more and more money every year.
lazs
-
Raise taxes and lower spending. That is the only responsible thing to do right now. Clinton did it, and we had a surplus. That was a good thing. Reagan built up the debt on defense spending, but that was done for a good reason. Now it is time to pay for it.
As far as the health of the economy, what matters more for that is the confidence of the people. When people are scared they will lose their jobs, that affects consumer spending much more than raising taxes. When people got back $300 the other year, did that boost the economy? What's $300 to someone who might be laid off? People say "the president doesn't matter to the economy", well I disagree. The president can inspire confidence in the nation, or he cannot. Look at Carter, and what the economy was like then. Contrast that with Reagan or Clinton.
Who inspires more confidence, Bush or Kerry?
-
Originally posted by phookat
Who inspires more confidence, Bush or Kerry?
^^^ joke right???
too early- to raise taxes now would kill the economic recovery
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
If a couple makes $100k, and the wife spends $100k, and the husband spends $50k, who is responsible for the $50k debt?
The husband ,as a married man I'm sure of this !
-
Originally posted by Eagler
^^^ joke right???
too early- to raise taxes now would kill the economic recovery
And starting a war help economy ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
And starting a war help economy ?
So we should avoid protecting our homeland because of it's effect on the economy?
Now that's French logic for you.
Maybe we should have just built a Maginot Line. That worked well.
-
You can get a graph for any point you want to make, these days.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
^^^ joke right???
Yeah, it's a joke. The punch line is, "neither one". For the moment, anyway.
Originally posted by Eagler
too early- to raise taxes now would kill the economic recovery
I don't think so. During a time of recession, if you lower taxes, people just put the extra money in the bank. They don't spend it because they're worried about their jobs. Government spending keeps the money circulating, and circulation is what gets the economy rolling again. I think people forget that taxes and spending isn't taking money out of the economy--it is actually just the opposite, it is forcing money through the economy at a time when individuals are cutting back. Big gov't spending is not a good thing long-term or when taken to excesses...but it's good for a recession.
What is actually taking money out of the economy, long term, is the national debt.
Once the economy gets going, then you cut back spending--but you still keep taxes up, because we are in debt and we need to pay it off.
Phookat for Prez. LOL.
-
that depends on how the gov spends the money it collects in taxes
I do not think more social program spending would help the economy whereas defense spending would .. if they need more, I am sure they will get - I do not want to give it away any sooner than I have to though
-
me thinks phookat has a degree in ecnonimcs.
-
I would agree to the extent that defense is better than getting people hooked on welfare rolls. Better to encourage industry than freeloading. But a safety net (i.e. temp unemployment benefits) is needed because it reduces fear--and reducing fear is what gets us out of the hole. Also there are other things to spend money on, such as infrastructure. Fix up more roads, subsidize or build telecom deployments, and a lot of other things.
But the point is, you don't lower taxes during a recession. That's the wrong move.
-
LMAO B17 :D
-
For all the talk about being pro-business, you'd think the Republicans would have some straightforward, simple-to-point to economic accomplishments. But they don't.
The president goes around touting a non-farm payroll number of 144,000 as job creation, when 150,000 is the replacement jobs level, so anything less than that represents an increase in unemployment.
It is the responsibility of the president of the United to States to own up to and admit that his tax cuts have utterly failed to create jobs as he promised they would, and as he claims even today that they are. This will be the only administration in our lifetimes (or our father's and mother's lifetimes) to see a net loss of jobs.
Recession is essentially a Republican-led phenomenon and relatively rare when Democrats are in the White House. The data all show this. It's not something that's really debateable. There is simply no way to slice the economic figures to show that Republican presidents don't kill growth.
There are many ways to slice the data to show that Democrats are better at managing the economy. Here's one:
Average annual GDP growth
Bush 43: 2.52%
Clinton: 3.62%
Reagan/Bush: 2.71%
Carter: 3.33%
Nixon/Ford 3.02%
Johnson 5.30%
Without exception in the past half century, growth has slowed when a Republican took over from a Democrat and speeded up when a Democrat took over from a Republican.
Bush 43 is merely the most dramatic case of a long-standing pattern.
Unemployment averages are dramatically higher under Republican presidents and personal income growth lags under GOP administrations. Deficits soar under Republicans and the Dow Jones Industrial Average underperforms
Some claim that the Bush recession isn't really Bush's fault. They throw out budget timelines, after effects of previous administrations and even say it is just a case of bad luck - you know, 9-11 and everything. But all these happened on his watch. The captain of any ship with such bad luck would be relieved of duty in the blink of an eye.
Why is the Dow down twice as much under Bush as under Carter? Stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do with budget timing - they are the purest representation of economic expectations and they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who have money to bet are betting that Bush will continue to kill growth. I think a lot of investors don't believe Bush will wrap up the Iraq war and they don't believe Bush will cut spending.
Economic growth since 1945 has been markedly slower under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. It's a simple, verifiable fact. Twelve straight quarters of growth under Bush is markedly slower less than Clinton's 8 straight years of economic growth. Just as growth in the Reagan/Bush/Nixon years averaged considerably less than that under Carter/Clinton.
It is certainly possible that one president could hit a patch of bad luck. This is why it's important to look at the data going back 50 years. The odds are small that a whole series of Republican administrations got hit by bad economic luck. A much more likely explanation is that Republican presidents make bad policy decisions.
There is no doubt that tax cuts for the wealthy can increase investment faster than tax cuts for those earning $35,000 or less. The working poor don't invest too much - they're too busy trying to live month-to-month. But when the tax cuts do not spur growth or are not invested, it's time to stop them and consider the debt and deficit.
The biggest surplus in the history of the U.S. was not invested in improving the lives of Americans by this administration. The biggest surplus in history was squandered into the biggest deficit in history.
And don't forget that all that money is yours. You worked hard to earn that money to give to your government in the form of taxes. Every administration must invest it properly in the best interest of all Americans or face the consequences at the ballot box.
(I can't wait to be in one of these presidential debates about 12 years from now...)
-
Jesus, I like it that you're posting more Rolex.
Same as how it's great when ya get a rare Dinger post. Always interesting to read.
And I liked seeing Neubob's post... Like something real.
And Tweety's...
There's hope for this joint afterall....
-
so the economy is immediate ..
don't think anything happens that fast .. unless you are talking about airliners into 110 story buildings in downtown Manhattan
every dem admin economic success was created by the Rep admin preceding him and has been wrung dry by the time the dem is booted from office..
sorry phoo - I'll take my money back whenever it is given to me
the gov gets all the money they need, they just need to learn to spend it wisely - they have zero accountability
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So we should avoid protecting our homeland because of it's effect on the economy?
Nope, it's not the point here,I was not questioning the rightness of the Iraq war.
Eagler posted :"too early- to raise taxes now would kill the economic recovery"
Doesn't wars have this effect in general ?
Now that's French logic for you.
Maybe we should have just built a Maginot Line. That worked well. [/B]
hu ? don't see how it's in the context of the discution.
-
so rolex... are you claiming that the social programs like welfare under johnson grew the economy or that the tax cuts under the republican admins shrunk it? You believe that the economy turns on a dime?
lazs
-
Eloquent arguement Rolex. I don't agree with your conclusions.
Originally posted by Rolex
For all the talk about being pro-business, you'd think the Republicans would have some straightforward, simple-to-point to economic accomplishments. But they don't.
I would argue that broader world events had a much greater impact on this than any sitting president, but since you adress that later, so shall I.
Recession is essentially a Republican-led phenomenon and relatively rare when Democrats are in the White House. The data all show this. It's not something that's really debateable. There is simply no way to slice the economic figures to show that Republican presidents don't kill growth.
There are many ways to slice the data to show that Democrats are better at managing the economy. Here's one:
Average annual GDP growth
Bush 43: 2.52%
Clinton: 3.62%
Reagan/Bush: 2.71%
Carter: 3.33%
Nixon/Ford 3.02%
Johnson 5.30%
Without exception in the past half century, growth has slowed when a Republican took over from a Democrat and speeded up when a Democrat took over from a Republican.[/B]
How about looking at these in terms of world conflict? In the past 50 years, Democrats have been on the scene for the start of every major American conflict and Republicans were there at the end of it.
Cold War: Roosevelt (D) to Regan (R)
Korean 'War': Truman (D) to Eisenhower (R)
Vietnam 'War': Kennedy (D) to Nixon (R)
You could even argue that the first blows on Americans in the war on terror occurred during Clinton's (D) watch. Who will end it? and how much will it cost? I would argue that a sitting American President has only a marginal immediate impact on the economy. If that's the case, then you should look to wider causes for economic growth.
Some claim that the Bush recession isn't really Bush's fault. They throw out budget timelines, after effects of previous administrations and even say it is just a case of bad luck - you know, 9-11 and everything. But all these happened on his watch. The captain of any ship with such bad luck would be relieved of duty in the blink of an eye.[/B]
I think you'll find that as far as those arguements are concerned, most people who bring them up in the defense of the current President do so as failures of the last President. Luck only seems to be mentioned in the rebuttal. Sometimes a captain of a ship is brought on to whip it back into shape.
Stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do with budget timing - they are the purest representation of economic expectations and they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who have money to bet are betting that Bush will continue to kill growth. I think a lot of investors don't believe Bush will wrap up the Iraq war and they don't believe Bush will cut spending.[/B]
Perhaps investors are still woozy from all the corporate scandals that inflated the internet bubble. If I saw my friends lose their livelihoods on the stock market because some executive wanted a golden parachute, I'd get out too.
There is no doubt that tax cuts for the wealthy can increase investment faster than tax cuts for those earning $35,000 or less. The working poor don't invest too much - they're too busy trying to live month-to-month. But when the tax cuts do not spur growth or are not invested, it's time to stop them and consider the debt and deficit.
The biggest surplus in the history of the U.S. was not invested in improving the lives of Americans by this administration. The biggest surplus in history was squandered into the biggest deficit in history.[/B]
This statement seems to assume a starting point prior to the tech bubble bursting, and not the bottom of the recession when the tax cuts were inacted. It's not proper math. Also don't forget that the tax revenues that generated that budget surplus were inflated for the same reason that the stock market was in 1999.
(I can't wait to be in one of these presidential debates about 12 years from now...) [/B]
[applause] When you run, let us know who you are. We can say "Look! He played Aces High!"[/applause]
-
Bi-partisan BS.
Go teams! Keep on ****ing us, the majority obviously don't care.
-SW
-
the only real facts in this partisan thread are that for the most part.... there is two kinds of spending that affect the debt... social spending programs and military.
It is pretty obvious that the democrats spend on social programs and the republicans spend on military.
I contend that the social programs are ruining us and that even "safety nets" are best left to private sector. I contend that because the military costs so much that it is easy to fund these social program (initially) by gutting the military.
This is fine until we need the military (and we allways do eventually) and then.... we have the burden of the ever increasing social programs costs added to the new military spending that is required.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Laugh all you want, we intend on defaulting on our debt and dragging the world into a depression like never before. You think we will buying your Nokia phones then?
beautiful.:lol
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Interesting graph. Shows just how expensive Reagan's cold war really was.
SOURCE?!
to bad is wrong.
The dept as a percentage of GDP is only 4% now and it never was 90%. the highest it went was 38% after WWII.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
every dem admin economic success was created by the Rep admin preceding him and has been wrung dry by the time the dem is booted from office.
Not really. What a president does now does have a current effect on the economy. Reagan building up the debt was great for the economy, short term. Now we are paying for it, long term. Sure, there was a good reason for it...but this is not a dem vs rep issue.
Originally posted by Eagler
sorry phoo - I'll take my money back whenever it is given to me
So would anybody, individually. Who doesn't want more money? Doesn't mean it is the right thing for the gov't to do, at this time. There is waste in the gov't sector, but that doesn't change the current objective reality.
-
Originally posted by JBA
The dept as a percentage of GDP is only 4% now and it never was 90%. the highest it went was 38% after WWII.
Well if you say so then I believe in you :)
:aok
btw if you read that chart you'll find the source where it came from.
-
Both parties are enemies to the American people.
You all have been bamboozled and hornswaggled.
-SW
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even "safety nets" are best left to private sector.
You're missing the point of a safety net. It isn't about efficiency. Hell, nothing about the gov't is efficient.
-
phoo... I don't think I am misssing the point but it is possible. My contention is that safety nets are basicly insurance. Aflac kinda thing... I contend that government can regulate insurance but should stay out of the insurance ownership bussiness.
For instance... they can regulate profits and.... they can set settlement limits as a good thing. For them to take over any insurance like social security or even... welfare... is ludicrous given their proven track record.
lazs
-
I think phoo is saying that even if cheap and efficient insurance was available, there would be people that need it and wouldn't take advantage of it (through choice or ignorance). I think phoo sees a utility of government mandated insurance that serves the public interest (increased productivity, public health, decreased crime etc).
To a certain point (perhaps not quite as far as phoo), I agree with that statement.
-
Here's what I'm getting at. The purpose of a safety net like unemployment benefits, is not really insurance. It is to give people the confidence to spend money. The reason the government should do it is not to protect individuals, but to help the economy out of a hole. Once it is out of the hole, people have jobs and the amount you spend on unemployment benefits decreases naturally.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Here's what I'm getting at. The purpose of a safety net like unemployment benefits, is not really insurance. It is to give people the confidence to spend money. The reason the government should do it is not to protect individuals, but to help the economy out of a hole. Once it is out of the hole, people have jobs and the amount you spend on unemployment benefits decreases naturally.
I remember learning in my mandatory economics class that a healthy economy has between 4 and 6% unemployment (people changing jobs). The US is at what... 5.4%? I doubt unemployment expenditures will decrease any time soon. The question is: does it allow for people to get in thier new jobs faster or prevent some other malady that the public would rather not have to deal with.
Maybe a better example of the government funded safety net would be bankruptcy protections. It used to be that if somebody borrowed a lot of money to start a business and then defaulted, they had to sell their family into slavery. That situation quashes a lot of creativity and entrepreneurialism. I think bankruptcy protection affords us more in the end than it costs.