| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2009 09:13:24 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Luckily, I am not 25. Either way, that asshole Obama is setting records with his ridiculous, liberal minded spending. Hopefully I'll be dead or somewhere around New Zealand when all you happy liberals have to deal with the damage he has done. At Obama's spending rate, you will never again see anything other than a massive deficit. But hey, we can always just print more dollars...right? F-ing liberal spending tactics will be the downfall of our nation. Watch. |
lol. Trust me, that's exactly how it is ever since we went away from the Gold standard, and the Federal Reserve essentially creates money out of thin air. It's not Obama's fault any more than it's FDR's fault...that's America. You think the Republicans/conservatives would be able to reverse this trend? Hardly. Here, Zeitgeist yourself. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:05:07 AM · #27 |
nm. can't find my "source" now. . .
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 10:06:22. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:06:14 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If you are in debt up to your eyeballs, it does not help to get another loan....That is a common sence lesson that congress and the Obama administration need to learn!!!! |
It's a bullshit thing to panic about. We've been in serious debt before and people were freaking out then and it's the same red herring.
Reagan and his liberal spending policies tripled the deficit and if you recall the Deficit Clock in Times Square that went up in th early 80's you'd have thought we were in such deep shit only to run a surplus a little over 8 years later.
I'm curious...what part of Reagans enormous deficits or Bushes are you guys NOT registering. These numbers aren't hard to find or understand yet you relentlessly blame Obama. It's hard to show respect but you guys seem pretty dense.
KArmat-Obama's a one termer. The bullshit machine hasn't even been turned on yet and they're ready to spend or say whatever it takes to bury him.
All for now...
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 10:08:53. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:10:22 AM · #29 |
Deficit and debt are not the same thing. One refers to the annual budget and the other is the accumulated amount.
Using the terms interchangeably leads to confusion.
If the 9 trillion is the deficit it is far worse than the accumulated debt being that amount as a deficit of that amount is adding that much to the accumulated debt over a very short period of time. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:20:59 AM · #30 |
What are some possible outcomes?
1. USA keeps debt reasonable, fluctuating up & down, and continues on its merry way.
2. USA's debt keeps increasing forever, and continues on its merry way.
3. USA's debtors finally try to collect, but tough luck for them, and USA continues on within a smaller market.
4. USA becomes a third world country.
5. The smaller market isn't enjoyed by the USA, so it conquers some other nations to get itself back on track.
I'm concerned about #5. I just hope that if Canada is conquered, the USA lets us keep our Tim Horton's.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:29:32 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
KArmat-Obama's a one termer. The bullshit machine hasn't even been turned on yet and they're ready to spend or say whatever it takes to bury him.
|
I dunno. Unless he shows some of his forepromised "change" he may be a one-termer. Right now, enough people are still happy enough with the promise of change to want him. ;) |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:39:48 AM · #32 |
Everyone that I have talked to (Republican and democrats) want him out of office before he ruins this country
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:00:43 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's funny, I never flip the race card and deplore those who do it for a living like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc.because I believe 90% of the time they're full of total shit and their claims don't hold water BUT I think a good deal of this anti Obama stuff is a race issue. Thinly veiled behind wild claims and righteous indignation, a spade is a spade...pardon the pun. |
Congratulations. You just flipped the race card. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:06:38 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Deficit and debt are not the same thing. One refers to the annual budget and the other is the accumulated amount.
Using the terms interchangeably leads to confusion.
If the 9 trillion is the deficit it is far worse than the accumulated debt being that amount as a deficit of that amount is adding that much to the accumulated debt over a very short period of time. |
Right, my understanding is that the yearly budget deficit is added to the overall debt. The $9 trillion, or whatever the amount is now, is the debt.
If we're assigning blame for this state of affairs, I'm sorry to all you conservatives but it's the Republican administrations that have practiced deficit spending and therefore added to the country's debt, not the Democratic administrations. The Congress now has "pay as you go" rules in effect, which means any new spending programs will have to find revenue sources up-front and therefore not add to the debt. Obama promised to fund the health care reform plan as well. The stimulus spending is temporary, not a long-term program going out into the future with no end in sight. The bank bailout funds, as well as the auto co. bailout funds, will be repaid (assuming the auto companies don't go bankrupt), so I don't think we have to worry about the Fed printing money. Social Security and Medicare will be the largest contributors to the national debt in the future because of the inversion of the ratio of taxpayers to retirees and because of the rising cost of health care generally. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:08:12 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Everyone that I have talked to (Republican and democrats) want him out of office before he ruins this country |
That's on the assumption that is wasn't already ruined prior to him taking Office. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:12:52 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Everyone that I have talked to (Republican and democrats) want him out of office before he ruins this country |
You really need to get out more.
Bush left office with a 22 percent approval rating and a wicked mess to clean up. Americans are unhappy in general and they should be but it's their own fault...getting high on Dorito fumes, reality TV and video games is a sure path to destruction.
I don't remember any President (including GW Bush) taking so much heat only 7 months in office as Obama has. I mean, Bush spent half of his first year on vacation and piddling around with religious right-wing causes until 9/11 and then he had a free pass for a while But not this guy.
Leaving Healthcare out for a moment what has he really done that's so awful...or economically speaking any different than what Bush wanted to do? I agree he's been trying to do a lot...maybe too much at once but he's fulfilling campaign promises and pretty much doing exactly what he ran on. Please keep in mind we were already totally fucked up, nearly beyond repair long before his sorry ass was sworn in. Get real...
This country is full of a Drama Queens. I'm afraid that we deserve or have earned every bad thing that is happening to us and we're missing a plumb opportunity to get the real bad guys. Why are so many people adamant about protecting the Status Quo?
Hey Canadians...you must be getting a big laugh about this. Don't we look silly?
eta: Hell yeah...I flipped the race card because that's what I sense a good deal of this is all about. A lot of mutts just won't come clean. You can plainly see it in the rhetoric at the town halls...on the signs being carried around and many people are just plain saying it, without disguise. I'm certain it's not an isolated thing. I didn't agree with Bill Clinton when he flipped it during the campaign. He claimed that an Obama Presidency would be polarizing due to his race. Now, I think he was right. Some of the arguments against him certainly hold water and that's only natural but most of it is complete bullshit. Some of it's being backed or propagated by special interest, ideologues and folks that have a lot to gain if he fails. Worst of all it's being well publicized how they are manipulating public opinion. It's embarrassing.
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 12:25:51. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:19:25 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I dunno. Unless he shows some of his forepromised "change" he may be a one-termer. Right now, enough people are still happy enough with the promise of change to want him. ;) |
Unless he drastically reduces the number of troops in the two countries we now operate our anti-Osama operations by the election, I suspect Obama can kiss his presidency good-bye. That one factor was the uniting glue that brought him this election. No wars, no Obama. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:41:31 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Hey Canadians...you must be getting a big laugh about this. Don't we look silly? |
No. Bullsh*t trickles up. Seriously.
"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." ΓΆ€” Thomas Jefferson
"The bold effort the present (central) bank (note: precursor to the Federal Reserve Bank) had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." -- Andrew Jackson
Modern Money Mechanics |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:44:20 AM · #39 |
We will see how the deficit looks in a few years when Obama is running for reelection. So far he hasn't gotten the fires out yet.
It takes a long time to reduce the deficit. You can't just drop half your services at once to get there. There are to many second hand effects to consider. Thats why it takes smart people to do it. The simpletons as well as the average Joe's go into "the sky is falling mode" when it comes to any kind of real change.
Clinton never balanced the budget(never a surplus). But he reduced it greatly and had us pointed that way with a plan layed out. It was too much to do with in 8 years. The republicans had a chance to get the first balanced budget in my life time. How great would GW have looked if he had gotten it done.
In the big picture we have to raise taxes and/or cut services. Sure you can cut waste but thats not enough(you will never cut all the waste or abuse). What services are you ready to lose? Or are you ready to pay more taxes? I believe a more fair tax system would be a good place to start. I don't believe Obama will ever get a balanced budget but I bet he will have us close. Maybe Hillary can get it done.
Its the politically motivated people who are whipping the simpletons into uprising that are the worry. It is crazy to me that people really believe some of the lies being told, they are like sheep.
It angers me to hear the way some people talk about our president. Say what you like about his policies but remember he is the President. We elected him. Thats right YOU and ME elected him. Personal attacks on him are unamerican.(I said the same thing about BC and GW) Please show a little respect for OUR president.
love |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:47:13 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Niten:
It angers me to hear the way some people talk about our president. Say what you like about his policies but remember he is the President. We elected him. Thats right YOU and ME elected him. Personal attacks on him are unamerican.(I said the same thing about BC and GW) Please show a little respect for OUR president.
love |
I agree and have said as much in the past to people. I'm then told that I just swallowed the kool-aid, or am a sheep, or can't think for myself. :(
Partisan politics seriously makes me ill. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 12:14:44 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Clinton never balanced the budget(never a surplus). But he reduced it greatly and had us pointed that way with a plan layed out. It was too much to do with in 8 years. The republicans had a chance to get the first balanced budget in my life time. How great would GW have looked if he had gotten it done.
|
Clinton did have a surplus in the last 2 years. In fact the debate was wheter we should pay down the debt or return the surplus to the tax payers.
Unless I am missing something here. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 04:02:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What are some possible outcomes?
1. USA keeps debt reasonable, fluctuating up & down, and continues on its merry way.
2. USA's debt keeps increasing forever, and continues on its merry way.
3. USA's debtors finally try to collect, but tough luck for them, and USA continues on within a smaller market.
4. USA becomes a third world country.
5. The smaller market isn't enjoyed by the USA, so it conquers some other nations to get itself back on track.
I'm concerned about #5. I just hope that if Canada is conquered, the USA lets us keep our Tim Horton's. |
I think this is one of the few decent answers on this thread. I'm concerned about a #6 which is war. Think of it as #3 on steroids. China tries to collect on its debt and we can't pay. China then comes to take it physically. ("Ok, how about we take Alaska instead?") Wars have been started for much smaller reasons than 10 trillion dollars and China's military is up to a 15-round fight with the US or, even worse, a 1-round nuclear conflict. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 04:14:34 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What are some possible outcomes?
1. USA keeps debt reasonable, fluctuating up & down, and continues on its merry way.
2. USA's debt keeps increasing forever, and continues on its merry way.
3. USA's debtors finally try to collect, but tough luck for them, and USA continues on within a smaller market.
4. USA becomes a third world country.
5. The smaller market isn't enjoyed by the USA, so it conquers some other nations to get itself back on track.
I'm concerned about #5. I just hope that if Canada is conquered, the USA lets us keep our Tim Horton's. |
I think this is one of the few decent answers on this thread. I'm concerned about a #6 which is war. Think of it as #3 on steroids. China tries to collect on its debt and we can't pay. China then comes to take it physically. ("Ok, how about we take Alaska instead?") Wars have been started for much smaller reasons than 10 trillion dollars and China's military is up to a 15-round fight with the US or, even worse, a 1-round nuclear conflict. |
History if full of war and conquest. Conventional war is great for geologists and metals markets. But nuclear war wouldn't be nearly as profitable. :-(
I think it's a real option that nobody wants to talk about.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 04:28:58 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Conventional war is great for geologists and metals markets. But nuclear war wouldn't be nearly as profitable. :-(
I think it's a real option that nobody wants to talk about. |
Worried your stockpile of gold will be irradiated?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 04:38:35 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What are some possible outcomes?
1. USA keeps debt reasonable, fluctuating up & down, and continues on its merry way.
2. USA's debt keeps increasing forever, and continues on its merry way.
3. USA's debtors finally try to collect, but tough luck for them, and USA continues on within a smaller market.
4. USA becomes a third world country.
5. The smaller market isn't enjoyed by the USA, so it conquers some other nations to get itself back on track.
I'm concerned about #5. I just hope that if Canada is conquered, the USA lets us keep our Tim Horton's. |
I think this is one of the few decent answers on this thread. I'm concerned about a #6 which is war. Think of it as #3 on steroids. China tries to collect on its debt and we can't pay. China then comes to take it physically. ("Ok, how about we take Alaska instead?") Wars have been started for much smaller reasons than 10 trillion dollars and China's military is up to a 15-round fight with the US or, even worse, a 1-round nuclear conflict. |
History if full of war and conquest. Conventional war is great for geologists and metals markets. But nuclear war wouldn't be nearly as profitable. :-(
I think it's a real option that nobody wants to talk about. |
Not to mention that, historically, wars have been real good for pulling us out of the economic doldrums...
R. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 06:45:05 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not to mention that, historically, wars have been real good for pulling us out of the economic doldrums...
R. |
It will probably be different this time around. The reason World War II resulted in us being an economic powerhouse was the fact that the rest of our manufacturing competition was lying in the rubble of Europe. Not only was there now a demand to rebuild, we were in the best position to do it.
These days our manufacturing capability is quite poor and if the war came to us we'd have even worse capability. That being said, I can't even fathom a war on our own soil due to our geographic isolation, but I tend to think in worst case scenarios. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 06:57:04 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... can't even fathom a war on our own soil due to our geographic isolation... |
It's nice to capture North America early on in a game of Risk. South America is close behind, then you have a nice baby-factory while you spoil your opponents chances at holding all of Europe, Asia, and Africa by moving all of your troops just one spot in. But there are no long range nukes or naturalized enemies in Risk. :-/ It's the stuff of my childhood nightmares, and now that I'm old enough not to care, I worry for the future of my daughters.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 07:11:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
even worse, a 1-round nuclear conflict. |
Don't worry about this one Doc. The leadership of China would be dead with 8 minutes of a mass launch on the US by China. Ain't gonna happen. They're doing far too fine a job of emasculating the US with their current plan to do something that stoopid.
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 19:13:37. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 07:27:43 PM · #49 |
It seems like Robert touched upon a possible solution (if not a solution, perhaps a temporary remedy) by mentioning conflicts. If things cannot be brought up to par, maybe direct competition can be brought down a bit.
China would be easy to crush, we only need to democratize it. Reality is, 1+billion people of different backgrounds/languages/culture/levels of economic development can only be ruled with a strong, centralized government such as current communist regime. If we were to infiltrate the internal order of China under a clout of bringing the 'better' form of government, we would effectively destroy that country. Imagine, if people of China were to choose one person to lead the country... how would that work? Regions would figure out that they're better off creating local leaderships etc. etc. and you can see where this will go - breakdown of a country. Of course, this would not go without bloodshed and war, so there - we would destroy one of the biggest economies in a blink of an eye.
And I'm sure the world will follow the marching band claiming how it is good for the Chinese, how it brings freedom to them, how they should embrace the change.
In the meantime, US and other portions of the western hemisphere would feel a temporary relief. The question then would be, who will be ready to step up and fill the huge manufacturing void...
There. Without mentioning any of the OPs names... |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 07:30:07 PM · #50 |
Check out the numbers on this info sheet regarding trade between the US and China. //www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009 We borrow their money to purchase stuff made by them. Who needs who the most? :(
I forget the "ground rules" but higher taxes are inevitable, IMO.
****
In a Risk scenario we could always hole up in Madagascar and send occasional forays into East Africa.
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 19:31:45. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 04:47:50 PM EDT.
