National Debt

[KJUN]

I think this is well done.

 

[Outcast]

That is very well done.

 

[wade]

What kind of Commie Pinko Propaganda bull crap is that?

I'm just warming you up for the next response.

 

[Outcast]

What kind of Commie Pinko Propaganda bull crap is that?

I'm just warming you up for the next response.

The kind that uses math to prove something... and does a good job at it...

 

[KJUN]

That makes me think of

"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything."

and

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

...even this one might be appropriate

Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.

 

[wade]

I liked the video and understood all the big numbers, that's because I have piled higher and deeper after my name.

I worry it is hard to impress people by quoting Homer Simpson. Lets quote Gandhi or Stephen Hawking.

 

[KJUN]

"I don't know which is a bigger disappointment - my failure to formulate a workable unified field theory, or you."

Better? .

 

[wade]

OK I'll buy that one.

 

[Austin M]

This is the biggest problem facing this country right now. I think it is the nail in Americas coffin. My only problem with this video is that is seemed like he was justifying Bush driving 60 mph. Going along with the metaphor, I don't think blind people should drive at all, let alone drive at 60 mph. It's also funny that Clinton was the slowest driver. Republicans always want to paint Dems as "big spenders", but under Clinton we balanced the budget. I remember the Republicans debating over what they would do with the surplus. I guess we know now. lol

I am one of the ones this guy talks about. I usually bring up Bush out of control spending when someone is talking about Obama out of control spending. Not to justify Obama spending, but to point out both parties are and have been out of control!

This economic collapse has changed all my views of this country and the two parties. I am done with the Republican party. The straw that broke my back was "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" statements being made while our economy was melting down, after all the years of Rep. debt. I just will not believe the Rep. leaders were all that dumb. I believe they chose to profit themselves and their friends at the expense of the country. They chose short term personal gain over long term sustainability for the country. I can't believe I was that dumb to believe there false Reaganomics theory for all those years. Art Laffer is a bad joke to me now. Government tax cuts are great for business in the short term, but are just as harmful as debt if budgets aren't cut with the tax cuts. As a matter of fact they create debt under those circumstances. And don't get me started on the Rep. lead phony FED. Don't get me wrong I'm not for the Democrats either. I now think they are both co-captains in our sinking ship.

 

[Austin M]

I would also like to add this clip reminded me of the documentary IOUSA. Anyone with netflix should check it out.

 

[KJUN]

This is the biggest problem facing this country right now. I think it is the nail in Americas coffin. My only problem with this video is that is seemed like he was justifying Bush driving 60 mph.

I didn't get that at all. I just got that there is a difference in fast and REALLY fast. It's like kicking someone in the groin and shooting them in the head. Both should get you in trouble, but one is worse. You might have a few people screaming for the death penalty for the kick, but the ones that don't might for the shot!

It's also funny that Clinton was the slowest driver. Republicans always want to paint Dems as "big spenders", but under Clinton we balanced the budget.

Are you purposely missing what caused that to make a point I'm not clever enough to catch? That was a Dem president with a Rep Congress. The Congress put the brakes on what Clinton tried to do. Remember his failed attempt at health care? It wasn't Clinton - it was the BRAKE that was built into that system. If we had a Rep congress now, Obama wouldn't be able to spend like crazy, either. He is NOT the sole blame. He only shares it with Congress.

For the record, I think the reverse would be good, too. A Dem congress would put the brakes some on a Rep president. The different goals results in one part of the federal government slowing down the plans of the other....and the country does best under those situations in MANY cases.

Ultimately, BOTH parties are rotten, and we NEED the conflict to prevent all this crazy stuff that happens when ONE holds all of the reins.

I am one of the ones this guy talks about. I usually bring up Bush out of control spending when someone is talking about Obama out of control spending. Not to justify Obama spending, but to point out both parties are and have been out of control!

Do you REALLY not see a difference between Bush and Obama - who spent in a year what Bush spent in 8 years??? Really? You don't see a difference?

Let's ignore that Bush STARTED spending so much because of 11Sept....that was a war BOTH parties supported at first. What about Obama's war that cost more that THEY can't even explain why we are fighting except to say, "Bush wasn't there!" HA! Ignore all of that and you are still comparing a kick to a shot. BOTH can kill you, but only one can be fixed. That's not a defense of Bush - it is still an attack on his policies.

I believe they chose to profit themselves and their friends at the expense of the country.

I agree with everything you said about the Republicans, but do you honestly believe this CROOK from Chicago throwing money like crazy to his friends and to behave like a king using our money like he owns it is anything but worse? Do you believe the country being run by lawyers that have never actually WORKED in the real world (i.e., the private industries that DO drive a countries real economy) are BETTER?

I'd say that I would rather be ran by the mafia, but I'm not sure this is NOT the Chicago mafia already!

I can't believe I was that dumb to believe there false Reaganomics theory for all those years.

It is only false because it is the ONLY system that has EVER worked in this country. If someone wants communism, then they can go to any and every other country that have failed trying it!

 

[tsst]

Our best hope is that it turns into a 4 year budget and someone else has a tad more sanity in the second four years!

 

[Outcast]

Our best hope is that it turns into a 4 year budget and someone else has a tad more sanity in the second four years!

We can only hope...

 

[Austin M]

I didn't get that at all. I just got that there is a difference in fast and REALLY fast. It's like kicking someone in the groin and shooting them in the head. Both should get you in trouble, but one is worse. You might have a few people screaming for the death penalty for the kick, but the ones that don't might for the shot!

I think the two are like Bush shooting a father in the head, and then Obama shooting the fathers kids in the head. Which is worse?

Are you purposely missing what caused that to make a point I'm not clever enough to catch? That was a Dem president with a Rep Congress. The Congress put the brakes on what Clinton tried to do. Remember his failed attempt at health care? It wasn't Clinton - it was the BRAKE that was built into that system. If we had a Rep congress now, Obama wouldn't be able to spend like crazy, either. He is NOT the sole blame. He only shares it with Congress.

Rep. vs Dem so easily turns into he said she said. So for the sake of band width...Ok Rep. saved us from Clinton spending. They put the breaks on for Clinton so they could spend it themselves when they got into power, at a record pace at the time? I understand what your saying about the two party breaking system, but even with the breaks our debt is unsustainable.

For the record, I think the reverse would be good, too. A Dem congress would put the brakes some on a Rep president. The different goals results in one part of the federal government slowing down the plans of the other....and the country does best under those situations in MANY cases.

I think our country does best under sound money. Unfortunately for my kids this has not happened in my short 33 years... under either party. I wish I would have known much sooner. I would be sitting in a much better place right now. Not that I am in a bad place right now, but I think I will be in my life time.

Ultimately, BOTH parties are rotten, and we NEED the conflict to prevent all this crazy stuff that happens when ONE holds all of the reins.

I could not agree more with "BOTH parties are rotten". I don't know what you mean by conflict though?

Do you REALLY not see a difference between Bush and Obama - who spent in a year what Bush spent in 8 years??? Really? You don't see a difference?

No I truely don't see the difference, and this is why. This is the way I see it. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, known as the busted .com bubble. Instead of taking our licks Bush tried to cover the recession up with money, or fill the recession hole up with money. After all we had a budget surplus at the time. This created a phony economy that the Bush administration called "growth". This "growth" was a new bubble known as a housing bubble, and all bubbles must burst. As we all know the housing bubble burst on Bush watch and again chose to cover it or fill it with money. The problem with covering up a recession with money or filling a recession hole up with money is it becomes a case of pay me now or pay me later. And if you pay me later it will be with compound interest! So Obama took a play out of the Bush play book and continued filling the busted housing bubble recession up with money. Bush spent at record levels to fill the giant crater the .com bubble left. Bush started to fill the catastrophic crater the housing bubble left. Obama is spending at even higher record levels because the crater is so much bigger, plus he's paying the compound interest from the .com crater. This is one short answer to why I don't see a difference in the two. I now believe Obama policies are just an extention of Bush policies. Sorry I don't see the difference because the dollar amount isn't as important to me as the root cause.

If I choose to over spend on a credit card every month by $500 or $1000 the end result is the same. The laws of compound interest will eat my future earns either way.

Let's ignore that Bush STARTED spending so much because of 11Sept....that was a war BOTH parties supported at first. What about Obama's war that cost more that THEY can't even explain why we are fighting except to say, "Bush wasn't there!" HA! Ignore all of that and you are still comparing a kick to a shot. BOTH can kill you, but only one can be fixed. That's not a defense of Bush - it is still an attack on his policies.

Really that's why Bush started spending? If that was the case then he couldn't stop? I guess he got hooked on spending, kind of like a drug. I supported both wars at first too. I now feel like a sucker. We're going to be in the two longest wars in American history. Go to Iraq on false or bad intelegence because Saudi Arabian nationals attacked us from training camps that America created in Afganastan to fight the Russians. Ya, I think I was a sucker and both parties sold me a bill of goods.

I agree with everything you said about the Republicans, but do you honestly believe this CROOK from Chicago throwing money like crazy to his friends and to behave like a king using our money like he owns it is anything but worse? Do you believe the country being run by lawyers that have never actually WORKED in the real world (i.e., the private industries that DO drive a countries real economy) are BETTER??

No, I don't believe this CROOK. Unfortunatly I did believe the CROOK before him. I now think they both behave like kings throwing our money away.

It is only false because it is the ONLY system that has EVER worked in this country. If someone wants communism, then they can go to any and every other country that have failed trying it!

I think "communism" is a Republican red herring. I'll through "socialism" in there too. The real evil is debt. Free market capitalism will fail from debt too. I'm not for communism or socialism. I just want our leaders to address this nations real problem...debt.

 

[Austin M]

I'd like to add free market communism is going to eat us alive. Can you say China?

 

[KJUN]

I'd like to add free market communism is going to eat us alive. Can you say China?

Yeah, but can we spell it as "nightmare?"

 

[KJUN]

I could not agree more with "BOTH parties are rotten". I don't know what you mean by conflict though?

I'll explain conflict because (I suspect) you'll likely agree with my meaning. Party 1 wants to spend money on X. Party 2 wants to spend money on Y. If Party 1 controls Congress and the white house, then we spend a lot of money on X. If Party 2 controls both, then we spend a lot of money on Y. If Party 1 has Congress and Party 2 has the white house, then they both do everything they can to stop the OTHER party from wasting all the money one the OTHER option. In other words, 1 stops 2 from spending on Y while 2 stops 1 from spending on X.

Neither side gets to runaway crazy with the checkbook because the other side doesn't want them to spend it on what they want. The CONFLICT was just my term for the arguments over what to spend the money one, and (when things work best for America), they don't ever agree on anything so it never gets spent. No spending = lower taxes = better economy.

 

[El Jefe]

I liked the video and understood all the big numbers, that's because I have piled higher and deeper after my name.

I worry it is hard to impress people by quoting Homer Simpson. Lets quote Gandhi or Stephen Hawking.

Wade, do you also have a BS?

I know Homer Simpson....but I do not know the others. Is Ghandi a new rap star....you know, with one name and all?

And that little road trip was neat. Would be very interesting to see the road trip after 3 more years...if the projections become reality. I remember a Bush one time saying "no new taxes".....that didn't happen. Hopefully, the same little thing is true here.....you know, "spending money freely"....lets hope this one doesn't happen as well.

 

[KJUN]

I remember a Bush one time saying "no new taxes".....that didn't happen.

That and the GCA is what killed his chances at re-election, too. Too bad they don't LEARN from the lessons and mistakes of past presidents, eh?

Bush Senior is NOT someone you are very likely to ever hear me defend, either.

 

[Austin M]

Ok, I get what conflict is to you now. Party 1 or 2 spending on X or Y is what the public focuses on. The other unspoken side to our debt problem is our Central Bank, known as the Federal Reserve. Here is a quote from an old banker that sums it up for me. This quote ties party 1 and 2, spending on X and Y to the Federal Reserve.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws" Mayor Amschel Rothschild