Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crockett on October 04, 2007, 08:52:24 PM
-
I was wrong all this time.. It seems George Bush did have a master plan and has one upped Bill Clinton, he has cut our national debit in half.
All we have to do is pay our debit in Euros...
Hell at the rate it's going now, we can likely cut it in half using Canadian dollars in the next 6 months. Tip.. buy Pecos now because they will likely be worth more than the USD, by the time we are done with George..
Thanks for ruining my country's future George, and to think I always thought he'd end up being a lame duck president..
-
Ahhh, thats okay...we Canadians will still luv ya, but it'll cost you a buck and a half for a loonies worth.;)
RTR
-
Oh I just Love posts like this :)
Ok, let's do some math.
Poor Bush, that Evil Evil man.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/darby1.html
Here is a link to a summary of the national debt. Now, most will look at the huge debt, and will wet themselves over how large an amount "we" owe, but typically don't understand how vast the US Wealth is. Imagine, if you will, You having a 100K per year job, you own a 3/4 million dollar home, Paid For, and your total Debt is perhaps a 1k credit card. Are you really that concerned about it? Can you comprehend just how Wealthy this nation is?
Even the site I Linked is slanted to "prove" just how bad off we are, and from Their Own Biased Views I give you, This :)
Let's look Historically at not the Dollar Figures, but the Percentages, if you would. Do the math, I used excel to figure the percentages.
Evil Bush has us at 0.004% That's our "share" of the debt.
Clinton had us at 0.005%
Bush Senior, Spawner of the Evil Bush had us at 0.006%
Reagan, while working with the rest of the free nation to diffuse communism, had us way up at 0.009%! Now, think about this, 0.009% That's 9K against 1 Million Dollars. Stuff a Mil in a bank and you can make 9k by lunch for crying out loud.
Ok, let's get serious.
Carter 0.022% Uh Oh, that's 22K, now, in the late 70s, that was alot of cash. 22k Then was a whole lot harder to get than 22k now, and quite a bit different than 9k, would you agree?
Let's continue.
Ford 0.031%
Nixon 0.043%
Johnson 0.055%
Kennedy! GASP 0.061%
Eisenhower 0.062%
Truman 0.058%
Roosevelt 0.054%
Hoover 0.557% <-- Careful, watch the decimal point! That's a biggie
Coolige 0.719% WOWZA
Harding 0.501%
Wilson 0.453%
Taft 3.334% Yep, sure was a small number, $30.00 per year, but that's a Huge Chuck of personal income.
Roosevelt 3.428%
McKinley 3.630%
Yanno, if you pay attention to soundbites, you are going to get an ulcer.
The Current Administration, And Equally Commendable the Previous few Administrations Regardless of Party, have gotten you off the hook Individually for a Far Far Smaller share of the national debt than Ever Before.
Now, before you criticize any president, I dare you to tell me YOUR Personal Debt is even Remotely Close to this current percentage.
Come on guys, the soundbites are designed to get you riled up, Think this stuff through for crying out loud. Tell those idiots in the newsrooms to stuff it and quit feeding you Drivel. Demand the Facts and then burn a few brain cells and figure out the truth.
Don't rely on the media to spoon feed you what they want you to think.
-
ROC you ignore the biggest factor that is the cause of the real issue. No other president in the history of this country has depended on outside financing of our debit like this administration has.
In short Japan, China and a few others now own this country.
-
But as the national economy grows, doesn't it make sense to tie up Their resources instead of ours?
If you found a car you wanted, for 20k, and had the option of taking your Own Cash and paying for it, or Investing that cash in an IRA at 6% then taking out a loan at the Bank of India for 4.2%, would that be prudent?
Are you Sure the nation is Dependant on that outsourced money? Are you sure it isn't simply an investment?
China is growing by leaps and bounds, they need cash to do this, they are Going to make cash one way or another, might it be a good idea to use and tie up some of it, leaving less for other competing nations to use?
There might be more to this than you are considering.
I can tell you for a Fact, that Japan got the raw end of the huge influx of capital they stuffed into the US market in the mid 90s. Japan and China don't have nearly the resources to "own" this country. They might invest, as this nation is investing world wide, but they don't own squat in comparison to the national wealth.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Oh I just Love posts like this :)
Ok, let's do some math.
Poor Bush, that Evil Evil man.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/darby1.html
Here is a link to a summary of the national debt. Now, most will look at the huge debt, and will wet themselves over how large an amount "we" owe, but typically don't understand how vast the US Wealth is. Imagine, if you will, You having a 100K per year job, you own a 3/4 million dollar home, Paid For, and your total Debt is perhaps a 1k credit card. Are you really that concerned about it? Can you comprehend just how Wealthy this nation is?
:rofl
Median household income: $48,201
Median household debt: $18,654
Average mortgage debt per household: $167,000
-
Yes, but you have to look at the big picture. Right now European companies can come in and buy out US owned companies and it cost's them 50% of what it costs a US company on the global market.
Then if you turn it around and talk about US companies trying to expand in say Europe. It cost our companies 50% more on the global market than their competitors in Europe.
This kind of stuff is not good for the long term aspects and future growth of our economy. Sure here in the US it has very little affect on our day to day lives, but in the future that will start to change if things keep going like they are.
Remember we are now a nation of consumers rather than producers like we were 50 years ago. It will eventually start costing us more to do that consuming..
-
Buy yuan.
-
Originally posted by ROC
China is growing by leaps and bounds, they need cash to do this, they are Going to make cash one way or another, might it be a good idea to use and tie up some of it, leaving less for other competing nations to use?
What are you talking about. China and Japan use their own currencies.
I can tell you for a Fact, that Japan got the raw end of the huge influx of capital they stuffed into the US market in the mid 90s. Japan and China don't have nearly the resources to "own" this country. They might invest, as this nation is investing world wide, but they don't own squat in comparison to the national wealth.
They own enough US promissory notes to sink it's economy and bankrupt the US federal government. They have bought something better than resources, they have bought power.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
They own enough US promissory notes to sink it's economy and bankrupt the US federal government. They have bought something better than resources, they have bought power.
Exactlly the point I was getting at..
-
How I envision crockett posting on the AH BBS OT:
(http://www.impawards.com/2005/posters/chicken_little_ver3.jpg)
-
the sky is falling, sky is falling ...AAAAHHHHHH :O
-
All you have to do is listen to David Walker from the GAO office to realize that if the federal government does not change the way it does things, we are going to be in a world of hurt as we get closer to 2030.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061084cg.pdf
-
ROC,
Excellent argument.
When you brought up the sound bites of the media it reminded me of what my Professor told our class a couple of semesters ago. "There's 3 groups of people you shouldn't believe; the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Media.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
All you have to do is listen to David Walker from the GAO office to realize that if the federal government does not change the way it does things, we are going to be in a world of hurt as we get closer to 2030.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061084cg.pdf
Watch out, the forum's "so called" conservatives will claim it's all just liberals trying to make money selling books.
-
see germany, still export nation nr.1
a strong € is not allways a warm welcome.
But i suggest to invest in € to be on the safe side ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
They own enough US promissory notes to sink it's economy and bankrupt the US federal government. They have bought something better than resources, they have bought power.
When you borrow a million, the bank owns you. When you borrow a billion, you own the bank. -- Donald Trump
-
Originally posted by ROC
Oh I just Love posts like this :)
Ok, let's do some math.
Poor Bush, that Evil Evil man.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/darby1.html
Here is a link to a summary of the national debt. Now, most will look at the huge debt, and will wet themselves over how large an amount "we" owe, but typically don't understand how vast the US Wealth is. Imagine, if you will, You having a 100K per year job, you own a 3/4 million dollar home, Paid For, and your total Debt is perhaps a 1k credit card. Are you really that concerned about it? Can you comprehend just how Wealthy this nation is?
Even the site I Linked is slanted to "prove" just how bad off we are, and from Their Own Biased Views I give you, This :)
Let's look Historically at not the Dollar Figures, but the Percentages, if you would. Do the math, I used excel to figure the percentages.
Evil Bush has us at 0.004% That's our "share" of the debt.
Clinton had us at 0.005%
Bush Senior, Spawner of the Evil Bush had us at 0.006%
Reagan, while working with the rest of the free nation to diffuse communism, had us way up at 0.009%! Now, think about this, 0.009% That's 9K against 1 Million Dollars. Stuff a Mil in a bank and you can make 9k by lunch for crying out loud.
Ok, let's get serious.
Carter 0.022% Uh Oh, that's 22K, now, in the late 70s, that was alot of cash. 22k Then was a whole lot harder to get than 22k now, and quite a bit different than 9k, would you agree?
Let's continue.
Ford 0.031%
Nixon 0.043%
Johnson 0.055%
Kennedy! GASP 0.061%
Eisenhower 0.062%
Truman 0.058%
Roosevelt 0.054%
Hoover 0.557% <-- Careful, watch the decimal point! That's a biggie
Coolige 0.719% WOWZA
Harding 0.501%
Wilson 0.453%
Taft 3.334% Yep, sure was a small number, $30.00 per year, but that's a Huge Chuck of personal income.
Roosevelt 3.428%
McKinley 3.630%
Yanno, if you pay attention to soundbites, you are going to get an ulcer.
The Current Administration, And Equally Commendable the Previous few Administrations Regardless of Party, have gotten you off the hook Individually for a Far Far Smaller share of the national debt than Ever Before.
Now, before you criticize any president, I dare you to tell me YOUR Personal Debt is even Remotely Close to this current percentage.
Come on guys, the soundbites are designed to get you riled up, Think this stuff through for crying out loud. Tell those idiots in the newsrooms to stuff it and quit feeding you Drivel. Demand the Facts and then burn a few brain cells and figure out the truth.
Don't rely on the media to spoon feed you what they want you to think.
Reagan share rose 275%
1st Bush share rose 60%
Clinton share rose 15%
2nd Bush share rose 40%
hmmm:eek:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When you borrow a million, the bank owns you. When you borrow a billion, you own the bank. -- Donald Trump
Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. I wonder if there are any banks, I could take out a loan to own. :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When you borrow a million, the bank owns you. When you borrow a billion, you own the bank. -- Donald Trump
Except when the bank is China.
-
So you are saying China wants to bankrupt the USA so that they do not have any return on investment...
damn commies just don't understand the capitalistic system.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you are saying China wants to bankrupt the USA so that they do not have any return on investment...
No, I am saying that even though we have borrowed over a trillion dollars from China ("the bank"), we still do not own the bank. As the value of the dollar continues to drop internationally our debt becomes a less attractive investment.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
As the value of the dollar continues to drop internationally our debt becomes a less attractive investment.
Hence as the dollar approaches zero we owe zero... as the initiator of the thread lamented.
-
skyrock... you are not reading it correctly... even with gutting the military... under klinton our share of debt was slightly higher than second bush... less than first bush... the real large amounts were under democrats... but... they all do it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hence as the dollar approaches zero we owe zero...
Uhmm no, in that case we get hyperinflation and forced to trade and borrow in another currency.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hence as the dollar approaches zero we owe zero... as the initiator of the thread lamented.
Yup thats true, and we will not be able to borrow in dollar denominated assets at that point.
Now seeing as we have such a huge trade deficit, we have no assets in the currency that the rest of the world will accept.
One thing to keep in mind is that unlike borrowing other folks money from a bank, we are borrowing our own money from china.
If Trump were trying to borrow his own money from a bank he never would have made that ridiculous statement.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Now seeing as we have such a huge trade deficit, we have no assets in the currency that the rest of the world will accept.
And since we have no assets to trade, the trade deficit approaches zero. Whether we like it or not.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And since we have no assets to trade, the trade deficit approaches zero. Whether we like it or not.
We often refer to that as bankruptcy.
shamus
-
2 Bighorn......
check ur PM's
-
Originally posted by Shamus
We often refer to that as bankruptcy.
shamus
The trade deficit can be helped with a weak dollar. Ask Boeing.
(I am just seeing a silver lining to the dark clouds)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The trade deficit can be helped with a weak dollar. Ask Boeing.
(I am just seeing a silver lining to the dark clouds)
It most certainly can if we have something to export.
Has Boeing taken over the old saying of "whats good for General Motors is good for the country"?
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... you are not reading it correctly... even with gutting the military... under klinton our share of debt was slightly higher than second bush... less than first bush... the real large amounts were under democrats... but... they all do it.
lazs
I was reading debt per share, and I quoated the numbers posted. What is incorrect about my post?
-
Originally posted by Shamus
It most certainly can if we have something to export.
In 2006 we only exported 1.024 trillion dollars worth of goods:
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%
capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%,
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
Apparently you are right: We have nothing to export.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In 2006 we only exported 1.024 trillion dollars worth of goods:
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%
capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%,
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
Apparently you are right: We have nothing to export.
And in the meanwhile imported 1.861 trillion worth of goods.. ouch.
You have more services to export than goods in relation to imports. The worth of exported services was 0.42 trillion while the value of imports was 0.34 trillion.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
And in the meanwhile imported 1.861 trillion worth of goods.. ouch.
I believe that is why it's called a trade deficit. I believe if the numbers were reversed, some different terminology would be required.
-
well if they keep sending us goods in exchange for "worthless paper" ( as someone called it), who is the fool?
-
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/07/not_so_scary.html
Interesting read.
-
Originally posted by john9001
well if they keep sending us goods in exchange for "worthless paper" ( as someone called it), who is the fool?
Dunno... When they realise the paper is worthless you'll be in a world of hurt. What goes around, comes around.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... you are not reading it correctly... even with gutting the military... under klinton our share of debt was slightly higher than second bush... less than first bush... the real large amounts were under democrats... but... they all do it.
lazs
First off the amount of the debit is illrelavent. It doesn't matter if it was 5 trillion under Bush one and 500 trillion under Clinton. I didn't even bother reading the numbers so I can't say if they are accurate or not. Simply because that number doesn't matter if you can pay it off.
The only thing that matters, is if you can pay off the debit. That is what balancing the budget means. The amount of spending, means nothing as long as the money is there to pay for what you spent.
That is what Clinton did, which you seem to miss in your typical have to bash a liberal idealism. Clintion "balanced" the budget. That means the govt had "surplus" money to pay off that debit at the end of the fiscal year.
Clinton did not pay off the debit and make it zero. He put govt spending in check and balanced the budget just like you do with your checkbook, hopefully.
Had we stayed on Clinton's plan the national debit "would" have been paid off. However Bush came in and threw away everything Clinton admin did, then went on to double the national debit in less than 6 years.
That's what your so called "conservative small govt" Republicans do best. See you Republicans want to always whine about taxes and all this BS but at the end of the day, they always overspend and cause this kind of issue.
-
Originally posted by crockett
First off the amount of the debit is illrelavent. It doesn't matter if it was 5 trillion under Bush one and 500 trillion under Clinton. I didn't even bother reading the numbers so I can't say if they are accurate or not. Simply because that number doesn't matter if you can pay it off.
The only thing that matters, is if you can pay off the debit. That is what balancing the budget means. The amount of spending, means nothing as long as the money is there to pay for what you spent.
That is what Clinton did, which you seem to miss in your typical have to bash a liberal idealism. Clintion "balanced" the budget. That means the govt had "surplus" money to pay off that debit at the end of the fiscal year.
Clinton did not pay off the debit and make it zero. He put govt spending in check and balanced the budget just like you do with your checkbook, hopefully.
Had we stayed on Clinton's plan the national debit "would" have been paid off. However Bush came in and threw away everything Clinton admin did, then went on to double the national debit in less than 6 years.
That's what your so called "conservative small govt" Republicans do best. See you Republicans want to always whine about taxes and all this BS but at the end of the day, they always overspend and cause this kind of issue.
Basically, you can "Balance the Economy," or you can "Balance the Budget." Most of the time, doing one either way will work to direct detriment to the other.
I'll be the first one to swear off socialism, and never telling someone else what to do, but all American Citizens need to learn economics. It's embarrassing the extreme lack of knowledge of it, and even more so the politician's ploys to play off of your fears.
-
The only number of significance is the portion of the annual budget devoted to debt service....it seems to be quite small. For about 5 years in the 90's (coincidentally or not starting after the THEN fiscally conscious GOP won the House, our projected annual deficits went from 200 billion to nearly zero---Only reason for that was greater-than-expected tax revenues from a hot economy, and military budget cuts, and welfare reform...which was predicted to be a disaster. (Doesn't seem to have been such) At any rate, by the time Clinton LEFT office, we ere heading into a small recession, followed by 9/11 and a BIG recession, and the need to put all the military cuts BACK in, plus a LOOOTTTT more. The only response from the left side of the aisle is that things were rosey under Clinton.
-
Originally posted by crockett
That's what your so called "conservative small govt" Republicans do best. See you Republicans want to always whine about taxes and all this BS but at the end of the day, they always overspend and cause this kind of issue.
You forgot to mention they always expand government while they are at it. Otherwise, spot on.
-
The trade deficit is different from the national debt. Actually, the weak dollar is a result of the 500 billion dollar trade deficit. This is just things starting to equal out. Now canadians are coming across the border to buy our stuff instead of us going to canada to buy. This is a boon for American business.
I'm no good at economics, but it would seem to me as the trade deficit swings the other way the dollar will become stronger. And I could be wrong, but I would say the greenback is pretty strong if it takes a 500 billion dollar trade deficit for foreign currency to equal ours in value.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I believe that is why it's called a trade deficit. I believe if the numbers were reversed, some different terminology would be required.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by rpm
You forgot to mention they always expand government while they are at it. Otherwise, spot on.
Yes and the other thing they fail to realise in regards to the big picture. If we didn't have a national debit, taxes would very likely be much less. Meaning the glorious goal of less taxes that Republicans swear to love, would end up coming naturally as a result of our country having a surplus budget.
Just like if you are in heavy debit personally. If you want to get out of it, you have to cut back on things you would like to have and focus on paying off your bills. Once you pay them off, you are then free to do as you will.
That's what needs to happen in this country, we need to put full focus on paying off the debit then we can worry about tax cuts and social programs.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The only thing that matters, is if you can pay off the debit. That is what balancing the budget means. The amount of spending, means nothing as long as the money is there to pay for what you spent.
That is what Clinton did, which you seem to miss in your typical have to bash a liberal idealism. Clintion "balanced" the budget. That means the govt had "surplus" money to pay off that debit at the end of the fiscal year.
At what cost, our military? Clinton gutted the armed forces to "balance the budget" and I for one don't think it was worth it.
-
Originally posted by crockett
..... then we can worry about tax cuts and social programs.
Your right, lets tax our way into prosperity.:rofl
-
Originally posted by FBBone
At what cost, our military? Clinton gutted the armed forces to "balance the budget" and I for one don't think it was worth it.
I dunno, FB-I remember even before Desert Shield and Desert Storm, That the first rounds of base closures' were going around. This was not too long after the 'fall of the wall', and all kinds of crap was going on. Even a Republican President will cut things if it seems like he can get away with it, and Save some money-It helps them look good fiscally. That was Bush Sr., during the Desert Storm days.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
At what cost, our military? Clinton gutted the armed forces to "balance the budget" and I for one don't think it was worth it.
Your defense budget was still one of the largest in the world regardless of the cuts. And no, I'm not talking of the sheer money put into it, but the percentage of the national budget.
The military spending pretty much ruined the Soviet Union too.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I dunno, FB-I remember even before Desert Shield and Desert Storm, That the first rounds of base closures' were going around. This was not too long after the 'fall of the wall', and all kinds of crap was going on. Even a Republican President will cut things if it seems like he can get away with it, and Save some money-It helps them look good fiscally. That was Bush Sr., during the Desert Storm days.
Hush it's easier to blame Clinton because it sounds better to them.. Never mind actual facts..