Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
This should help you a bit in understanding where the debt is in the US, Amandy, and I won't give you rhetoric ...
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/10/14/4-f...al-debt-and-default/?intcmp=AE-ENDART1-BL-REL
This is partly true ... partly, for political interests, but I can't think of any other nation which provides more humanitarian help when catastrophes strike anywhere in the world. What grips me is that the US is the most powerful technology country in the world, and we tend to "give" our technology away rather than use it as leverage.
You're on the internet, right now, using US technology. How much did you pay for this technology?
Very nicely put on all counts, Mac.
Perfect examples of this kind of catastrophe aid are the Indian Ocean/Indonesian Tsunami in 2006 and Typhoon Hainan (local name Yolanda) in 2013. Who was the first country there distributing donated supplies from back home? Who's military was the first on the scene distributing food and water and helping to build shelters? It was the USA. Both were devastating events to the areas of the world that were affected. The Philippines still has a lot of rebuilding to do from the Typhoon, but most of that is due to government corruption and infighting over there. I have a lot of friends who were greatly affected by this storm on Leyte. The Indonesian Tsunami was even worse. 250,000 people dead or missing. And the US was there first on both, even though we are a lot further away in distance than some of those great political and economic machines you mentioned, namely China and Russia. Where were they helping the people right outside their back door? Nowhere to be found. China has a billion person military. Are you telling me a few million of those could not be spared for a while to help these devastated areas? No, Amandy. We are not perfect, but we are not nearly the villains you want the world to see us as.
National Debt vs GDP - No More Excuses
We can pop charts up until the ink runs out, guys, but I believe this unbiased report explains the real concern with the rising National Debt. Coincidently, the country has been in far worse shape with the ND ... that in the 1940's when the debt was 124% of GDP. There's one thing that makes sense, however, we have to quit continuing to dig the hole to the point where we no longer can get out of it. And, although both parties are guilty of the existing ND, its quite obvious where it really started and accelerated it. That means adjustments to spending AND taxes. As far as I'm concerned, Reagan's Supply Side Economics started this, and has created a major divide between the "haves & have nots".
I'll let this unbiased Washington Post report speak for the National Debt concern, and its got all the "pretty graphs" to make it easy, even for a 5th grader to comprehend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
We can pop charts up until the ink runs out, guys, but I believe this unbiased report explains the real concern with the rising National Debt. Coincidently, the country has been in far worse shape with the ND ... that in the 1940's when the debt was 124% of GDP. There's one thing that makes sense, however, we have to quit continuing to dig the hole to the point where we no longer can get out of it. And, although both parties are guilty of the existing ND, its quite obvious where it really started and accelerated it. That means adjustments to spending AND taxes. As far as I'm concerned, Reagan's Supply Side Economics started this, and has created a major divide between the "haves & have nots".
I'll let this unbiased Washington Post report speak for the National Debt concern, and its got all the "pretty graphs" to make it easy, even for a 5th grader to comprehend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
Last edited:
And for all you believers in Ronald "walks on water" Reagan, and all the so called "jobs he created" in the 1980's, maybe you should read this one. Even Republicans won't discuss these facts:
http://www.businessinsider.com/ronald-reagans-million-jobs-month-2015-1
It sure deflates all that boosting about the jobs he created. However, politicians seem to be Teflon when it comes to living with their own BS ... unfortunately, the citizens have to make their beds in it. It only makes sense that we have a better understanding of all the smoke & mirrors they use. Personally, I just wish to discredit "Supply Side" as a solution to our country's issues. But, for Republicans, it would require them admitting that it is a failure of economic principles, as George H Bush even called it "voodoo economics".
http://www.businessinsider.com/ronald-reagans-million-jobs-month-2015-1
It sure deflates all that boosting about the jobs he created. However, politicians seem to be Teflon when it comes to living with their own BS ... unfortunately, the citizens have to make their beds in it. It only makes sense that we have a better understanding of all the smoke & mirrors they use. Personally, I just wish to discredit "Supply Side" as a solution to our country's issues. But, for Republicans, it would require them admitting that it is a failure of economic principles, as George H Bush even called it "voodoo economics".
Last edited:
So is candy & pastry to a fat person, sysco ... makes 'em feel good. You wish to toss the irrelevancy of the reports due to my AGE as to why things were so good or bad for you during those presidencies ... you being one of how many people, 137 million?
This is the problem ... if the charts and info don't support what you believe, they become unimportant, manipulated, biased ... time to pull the heads out of the sand.
How come I prospered under Reagan? And so did a lot of other people. Carters years were nothing but stagnation and no leadership.
The 80's were difficult for some people because of the shakeups in the steel and auto industries. I felt bad for them but the marketplace was dictating a downsizing because of lousy products or inefficient plants.
The 80's were difficult for some people because of the shakeups in the steel and auto industries. I felt bad for them but the marketplace was dictating a downsizing because of lousy products or inefficient plants.
Exactly my point ... YOU and those benefiting from it, prospered, and when Reagan left office, the National Debt had tripled ... no other president has come close to tripling the ND. But, more important, our policies abandoned the principles that had kept the national debt low (and continuing to decrease); now it was "give humongous tax cuts to the wealthy and to corporations, and jobs will be created. Yep, sure did ... as the margin of worker pay to executive pay skyrocketed in separation, and as Reagan back doored the working citizens with taxes to pay their fair share. And crony capitalism raised it's head, and so did vulture capitalism ... buy outs, mergers, terminations, etc in the 1990's.
Yeah, you lived well, but at the expense of the overall country ... did you send the people that paid for your good fortune a "thank you"? Just saying ...
By the way, inflation is coming back soon, and when it does, the Carter inflation years will look like 1st grade math compared to what we'll see, as our government has manipulated inflation for way, way too long. This country needs lots and lots of revenue growth, and cutting taxes all in the glory of the failed "Trickle Down" is NOT the answer. More people with jobs, spending on goods & services, and paying taxes, the better. The report just today in Sunday's paper ... by 2016 the 1%ers will own 50% of all wealth ... Fifty Percent.
Last edited:
Reagan had to deal with Democrat controlled congress. He had to go along with them to get anything done.
He also had to work with the Federal Reserve that was trying to undo the inflation damage from the Carter years.
What you conveniently ignore is, as the smokestack industries faded in size, the newly invented computer industry expanded at an astounding rate.
There were excesses for sure. But i would rather deal with that than the malaise of Carter.
As for the taxcuts? It helped me. I could now afford a brand new 4x4. Ahhhh, thise were the days.
He also had to work with the Federal Reserve that was trying to undo the inflation damage from the Carter years.
What you conveniently ignore is, as the smokestack industries faded in size, the newly invented computer industry expanded at an astounding rate.
There were excesses for sure. But i would rather deal with that than the malaise of Carter.
As for the taxcuts? It helped me. I could now afford a brand new 4x4. Ahhhh, thise were the days.
Mac is right as always, we should make the rest of the world pay for internet just like they make us pay for oil. We would wipe out our debt in probably a year. I am just speculating of course
The Washington Post is unbiased? Seriously?
Amandy and others are weighing in on what Hitler ultimately wanted. Historians cannot agree, and possibly Hitler could not make his mind up. For sure, Hitler's views evolved after Mein Kampf. British historian Stephen Bungay, in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy, notes that Hitler wanted Britain to sue for peace in 1940. Hitler did not want to invade Britian and give them a decisive military defeat, which he felt would cost Britain her empire. But, Germany would not get the empire. Instead, the U.S. and Japan would. This argument has also been made elsewhere. Of course, Germany bungled the bombing of Britain and eventually Germany lost the ability to invade Britain, anyway.
However, writers Rick Atkinson, Milton Mayer and others have noted that Germany trained men in U.S. geography, to assist in governing various sections of the U.S. after Germany eventually invaded and conquered the U.S. One German that Meyer interviewed said that he was told that the master plan was to defeat the U.S. by the late 1940s.
Philip Roth has discussed the proposed German invasion of the U.S. in his fiction, which followed much research that Roth first undertook.
It is interesting to speculate what would have happened eventually if Hitler had conquered Europe and Britain. Perhaps eventually, after they killed all of the jews and other minorites, Germany might have decided ruling this much of the world was not worth the trouble. Then, they might have withdrawn. In the present day, I am sure that Germany wishes it did not economically have to deal with Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.
However, writers Rick Atkinson, Milton Mayer and others have noted that Germany trained men in U.S. geography, to assist in governing various sections of the U.S. after Germany eventually invaded and conquered the U.S. One German that Meyer interviewed said that he was told that the master plan was to defeat the U.S. by the late 1940s.
Philip Roth has discussed the proposed German invasion of the U.S. in his fiction, which followed much research that Roth first undertook.
It is interesting to speculate what would have happened eventually if Hitler had conquered Europe and Britain. Perhaps eventually, after they killed all of the jews and other minorites, Germany might have decided ruling this much of the world was not worth the trouble. Then, they might have withdrawn. In the present day, I am sure that Germany wishes it did not economically have to deal with Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.
falcond ... even though the sources shown for those graphs are the Federal Reserve & Treasury Department ... this is exactly what I mean. Doesn't matter where the information comes from, if it doesn't support your ultra-right wing biasness, it's not valid. This is exactly why politics is like a dog chasing its tail ... its always someone else's fault when it goes bad, always their own ideas when things go good. Hell, Mitch McConnell is now saying the reviving economy is because of Republicans ... what an idiot! But some of you will actually buy into his BS.
What's it got to take to PROVE the platform the Republicans have sworn their souls to the past 34 years is WRONG?
Yeah, I guess if I was the Koch Brothers, or some multi-millionaire, I'd be this way too. But something tells me none of you people, reading this, are in that group, and far, far from it. It's only a matter of time that someone in that party finally gets the balls to stand up and say ... "Supply Side-Trickle Down-Voo Doo" economics does NOT WORK ... for the country, let's change our strategy. And their stupid polices will eventually get to you, I promise.
I guess the only alternative for these guys IS to rig the voting system, and pad the judicial system with right wing judges, because the popular votes will NEVER vote these fools into office. That's what MONEY in politics does to reasoning and logic ... KILLS IT! Plutocracy Here We Come!
Mac
Last edited:
Mac, you and I both know the government is full of it (just look at the unemployment numbers). I did not look at the graphs, which is my bad, to see the source, because I saw you calling the Washington Post unbiased.
As for McConnell, he is an idiot. Always has been. Always will be. And he is by no means conservative. Why the people of Kentucky (or Ohio for Boehner) can't see that is totally beyond me.
And I agree with you about the always someone else's fault on the bad things, always their success when an idea works. If these idiots could move their egos out of the way and actually do what is best for the country, we would be in a whole lot better shape.
What it is going to take is smaller government, less spending, before more taxes are even considered, a balanced budget, following the laws of the Constitution, being honest with the American people, a media that follows Walter Cronkite's motto - "We report, you decide.", judges that do not try to legislate from the bench, no amnesty for illegals and securing the border, Government agencies that do not write laws, but only recommend them, going to the flat or fair tax, eliminating HUD, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and doing a whole host of other things. When these things happen, if our economy tanks, THEN and ONLY THEN will I believe that Conservatism and Capitalism do not work. Until that day, I see far more evidence that they work than evidence that they don't.
As for voting and people never voting these fools into office, I am going to have to assume that you were on Pluto for the elections of 2010 and 2014? lol.
As for McConnell, he is an idiot. Always has been. Always will be. And he is by no means conservative. Why the people of Kentucky (or Ohio for Boehner) can't see that is totally beyond me.
And I agree with you about the always someone else's fault on the bad things, always their success when an idea works. If these idiots could move their egos out of the way and actually do what is best for the country, we would be in a whole lot better shape.
What it is going to take is smaller government, less spending, before more taxes are even considered, a balanced budget, following the laws of the Constitution, being honest with the American people, a media that follows Walter Cronkite's motto - "We report, you decide.", judges that do not try to legislate from the bench, no amnesty for illegals and securing the border, Government agencies that do not write laws, but only recommend them, going to the flat or fair tax, eliminating HUD, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and doing a whole host of other things. When these things happen, if our economy tanks, THEN and ONLY THEN will I believe that Conservatism and Capitalism do not work. Until that day, I see far more evidence that they work than evidence that they don't.
As for voting and people never voting these fools into office, I am going to have to assume that you were on Pluto for the elections of 2010 and 2014? lol.
Amandy, care to talk about American space technology? This July when we flyby Pluto, that will mean the USA as visited every primary object in the solar system. We even get an asteroid rondesvoux in a couple months.
And if course we can discuss the technological differences between the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers on Mars. And how American technology has kept one of those rovers in operation for 11 years.
And of course we can talk about Cassini, still in operation around Saturn.
Now what has everybody else done?
And if course we can discuss the technological differences between the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers on Mars. And how American technology has kept one of those rovers in operation for 11 years.
And of course we can talk about Cassini, still in operation around Saturn.
Now what has everybody else done?
