50 replies to this topic

[godnodog]

Also Ron Paul is correct, don´t do to others what you don´t want do be done to you.

US overspents in military defense, remember Eisenhower:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." http://www.npr.org/2...-50-years-later

US needs to cut on defense and Europe needs to increase on defense budget, like decreasing overall operational means but increasing quality in technological operational means. Example It´s better 20 Eurofighters than 40 F-16, and better prepared pilots.

[Yamato]

How about that F-35 JSF, Europe's mini-me for the F-22?  A colossal budget overrun for both the US and Europe.  Our legislators had the audacity to mull over a vaunted "2nd engine", as if to say, costs have already exploded beyond all hope of control so what the heck, let's get redundant with our waste too!   That's the Industrial Complex hard at work with the taxpayer's money.

I'd rather have 40 F-16s than 20 Eurofighters, assuming price parity and especially assuming the offensive missions that the US always uses its fighter aircraft to perform.   At the end of the day (these days) an aircraft is just the truck that hauls the ordnance to the target.

Our moronic leaders, slaves to the MIC that they are, have sold us up the river on every major technological front there is and looking at the accounting they haven't even done that well.   What would had made me proud is a new lightweight fighter that spanks the Eurofighter in capability and cost both.  Alas, I expect too much.

[Yamato]

godnodog, on 27 June 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

First, the journalist is either a moron or a manipulative man or both, and the politic should have kept composure.
The state debt definition given by Stark is only partial and it´s seen under a specific "vision / current of thought" (sorry for my lack of vocabulary) of economics.

Any deficit year after year becomes unsustainable in medium and long therm, and here the journalist is right, so governments does have to take mesures that they don´t overspent constantly, so we have to have fiscal years with surplus, so that the national debt does not become unsustainable. When it comes to interest rate Stark  is correct, it depends on the value of %.

Take Germany for example, people are buying german debt at a negative interest, so buyers will actually loose money! But the risk is considered to be non existent.

Another example, having an interest rate of, say, 2% on a debt of 10 billions is better than have an interest of 3,5% in 500 millions, yet you pay more in the first case than in second, but that is because of volume, because 2% in $100 is $2 and 3,5% in $100 is $3,5, and this proves that the journalist is a moron and thus why Stark lost his temper.

The journalist is also right when it comes to overall debt, the US debt is bigger than the Eurozone combined, and bigger per head than the greek at least until the begining of the debt crisis in Europe. But the US can print money but money devalues, so the Euro is a more safer currency than the Dollar, because the ECB is far more conservative when it comes to printing money.

This is why the European Commission President Barroso went somewhat crazy last week in the G20 summit. Europe debt crisis is more political (national politics differences among european nations) and far more manageable than the american debt.

The real moron is the one who thinks that a gigantic bank that enables much of that overspending should also be the entity setting interest rates in place of the market.   Who's getting punished today in that environment?  The elderly.  The people on a fixed income.  The sick and the disabled.  The people whose lives are financially destroyed by a health event.   Banks enjoy extended periods of zero percent interest rates on the backs of the American people and what thanks do we get?   Credit card APRs through the roof.   Zero percent interest rates on our savings.   Jacked up fees.  It's punish the good and reward the bad.  It's privatize the gains and socialize the losses.   Moral hazard is running wild through the system to the point that the markets don't even make sense anymore.   If you did everything right by western cultural standards, if you worked all your life and conscientiously saved your money so you could take care of yourself later in life, you're the one getting hit the hardest.  Sad.

[godnodog]

Yamato, on 27 June 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

The real moron is the one who thinks that a gigantic bank ....if you worked all your life and conscientiously saved your money so you could take care of yourself later in life, you're the one getting hit the hardest.  Sad.

One question, you quoted me and based on your text/answer i did not understand if you agreed with me or not or if you were even criticizing me. Nevertheless I agree with your statement, the powerless guy always get punched around. Western democracies are very sick, even though they´ve never been particularly healthy.

Goldman Sachs should be liquidated for their work with the greek frauds.

[Yamato]

godnodog, on 27 June 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

One question, you quoted me and based on your text/answer i did not understand if you agreed with me or not or if you were even criticizing me. Nevertheless I agree with your statement, the powerless guy always get punched around. Western democracies are very sick, even though they´ve never been particularly healthy.

Goldman Sachs should be liquidated for their work with the greek frauds.

I agree with you too, but I was referring to the Fed.  Goldman should be boycotted in civil protest though, absolutely.  

[cerberusxp]

So what? We have one broke economy bailing out another broke economy that is bailing out another broke economy. The horror, the madness and who will be on top when it is all said and done? China and Russia says check mate!

Edited by cerberusxp, 29 June 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[Mr. Smith]

Yamato, on 23 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Democrats:  At the time of this video, government overspending increased the national debt by over a factor of 12 since Mr. Stark here took office ($400B to $5T), and that's your butter boy's attitude about his overspending?   What is wrong with most Democrat voters?

Again I'll ask, What's your source for those numbers?


ETA: While there's plenty of good arguments for what's wrong with demopcratic voters, this isn't one of them. I know you pulled those numbers out of someone's backside so I'll let you take a goood long gander at a much more realistic picture on this.


http://factcheck.org...inferno-or-not/

Read'em 'n weap.

Edited by Framling, 29 June 2012 - 04:27 AM.

[ranrod]

Yamato, on 23 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Democrats:  At the time of this video, government overspending increased the national debt by over a factor of 12 since Mr. Stark here took office ($400B to $5T), and that's your butter boy's attitude about his overspending?   What is wrong with most Democrat voters?

Hey Yamato, I'll admit politics is one of my weakest subjects, so bear with me.  On the first clip the journalist was focusing on the borrowing part of the discussion while the politician was focusing on the Republican cuts.  The politician was arguing that by Republicans cutting revenue (by reducing the tax burden on the rich), we would be at a budget deficit.   Once the revenue cuts are in place, the government has to debate how/where to make the cuts.  While the government debates, they have to borrow money to keep going.  Since they can't agree on what to cut, the debates carry on for some time.  During that time, the Republicans kept cutting revenue over and over again without having corresponding cuts in spending, thereby ballooning the amount the US ows significantly.  As I understand it, the Republicans, want to create a huge national debt on purpose in order to force the downsizing of the government, while keeping to their principles of no military cuts and reducing the tax burden on large corporations and the rich.  That was what the Norquist pledge was all about.  If the parties agreed on what to cut or how much to spend, we would have no problems.  I'm not sure how to justify the Republican's point of view.  From my poor understanding of this it seems like the Republicans are willing to ruin the country financially and make life hard for most Americans in order to placate large corporations and the rich.  Wired Magazine quoted Cheney saying, "let the country go bankrupt" to an advisor.  Is the goal important enough to justify the consequences?  What's the Republican's point of view?  We're not overcutting, we're overspeanding?  Why make revenue cuts we can't afford?  Is the fear that if we don't cut revenue first, the spending cuts will never take place?  Why do they want those spending cuts so badly?

[Yamato]

Framling, on 29 June 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

Again I'll ask, What's your source for those numbers?


ETA: While there's plenty of good arguments for what's wrong with demopcratic voters, this isn't one of them. I know you pulled those numbers out of someone's backside so I'll let you take a goood long gander at a much more realistic picture on this.


http://factcheck.org...inferno-or-not/

Read'em 'n weap.

What is my source for those numbers?   Any chart from a reliable source that tracks US national debt on an annual basis is an easy to find source for those numbers which are already quite antiquated when you realize what the debt is today.   The spending problem of this federal government has gone off the hook.  So long as you're not paying it back, you sound more than happy to continue on with the charade.  So we keep borrowing, printing and spending to keep us all fat, happy, decadent and self-entitled.


And it has nothing to do with Obama.  I'll just use Obama's sources for what has to do with Obama.



I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio.   I know what recession and depression are.  Not the kind you can pretend your way out of, but the kind you can't.   I grew up in the kind of depression caused by temporary government-fueled demand that we couldn't borrow ourselves out of because there was no big magic bank to print it or hand of force to take it

[Yamato]

ranrod, on 29 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Hey Yamato, I'll admit politics is one of my weakest subjects, so bear with me.  On the first clip the journalist was focusing on the borrowing part of the discussion while the politician was focusing on the Republican cuts.  The politician was arguing that by Republicans cutting revenue (by reducing the tax burden on the rich), we would be at a budget deficit.   Once the revenue cuts are in place, the government has to debate how/where to make the cuts.  While the government debates, they have to borrow money to keep going.  Since they can't agree on what to cut, the debates carry on for some time.  During that time, the Republicans kept cutting revenue over and over again without having corresponding cuts in spending, thereby ballooning the amount the US ows significantly.  As I understand it, the Republicans, want to create a huge national debt on purpose in order to force the downsizing of the government, while keeping to their principles of no military cuts and reducing the tax burden on large corporations and the rich.  That was what the Norquist pledge was all about.  If the parties agreed on what to cut or how much to spend, we would have no problems.  I'm not sure how to justify the Republican's point of view.  From my poor understanding of this it seems like the Republicans are willing to ruin the country financially and make life hard for most Americans in order to placate large corporations and the rich.  Wired Magazine quoted Cheney saying, "let the country go bankrupt" to an advisor.  Is the goal important enough to justify the consequences?  What's the Republican's point of view?  We're not overcutting, we're overspeanding?  Why make revenue cuts we can't afford?  Is the fear that if we don't cut revenue first, the spending cuts will never take place?  Why do they want those spending cuts so badly?

Republican partisan interests are nothing I'm interested in either.  But the policies from both parties tend to favor the very big and punish the very small.   When you raise taxes you push competition out of the market that can't afford to compete there.  Republicans and democrats alike have been subsidizing big oil with over $5 billion in subsidies a year for the past 100 years.   I don't want record profits for Exxon Mobil.  I want John and Betty Smith to be able to afford to file some patents and start a new business from their home.  If you're a small business owner pulling several million dollars a year in revenue and your effective tax rate is already close to 50% before you even begin to start paying your bills, how much higher do you think those taxes need to go to be fair?   60%?  70%?   A small business that pays less taxes would be able to afford to grow and that means grow its payroll.  The biggest companies getting the subsidies from government can afford to hire more people under any tax environment because they're so leveraged, and that's the output that gets thrown into the data when democrats tell you how great higher taxes are for the economy.   If I can't afford to pay the prohibitive costs of starting my own Green Energy Company, so I send my resume to Exxon Mobile and get a desk job paying $50k a year instead, is that a wash economically to you because the numbers are the same?  Because the hours are the same?  Because the dollars are the same?   Not to me.  A good economy is about more than government befuddled statistics.  It's about paying for what we consume.  It's about inviting more competition, not cutting it off.   A freer economy might have far less growth and that's just fine with me because it'll also have far less bubble.

So the solution to this isn't partisan or even bipartisan because both parties want to spend like drunken sailors when they get their hands on the big checkbook in the sky.

The first big swing of the fiscal sword to solve this problem should be a balanced budget amendment.   We can all correctly presume that if it's so vital for spending levels to stay as high as they are today (and that's a case democrats and republicans will both need to make for their own programs) then taxes will need to be raised accordingly to close those deficits.  I'm all for that.  I want these partisans brought to heel and made honest on both sides of the aisle.  If they can't agree on priorities, then it's a 25% haircut across the board.  People who aren't serious about cutting spending would never agree to any of this, and it doesn't matter what party they're from.

If you have 22 minutes of time, please watch this testimony to Congress:

[Mr. Smith]

Yamato, on 29 June 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

And it has nothing to do with Obama.  I'll just use Obama's sources for what has to do with Obama.

If you read the factcheck article you'd see that spending is not going through the roof. But revenues have dropped through the floor. His first year he was already underwater thanks to the previous administrations legislation, or lack of, to pay for certain things.

His increases are even less than the previous admins. Read the whole article,then you can see the upside and downside. While your there, you can find some good lies they've caught our CiC in, so it's hardly biased.

[Yamato]

Framling, on 29 June 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

If you read the factcheck article you'd see that spending is not going through the roof. But revenues have dropped through the floor. His first year he was already underwater thanks to the previous administrations legislation, or lack of, to pay for certain things.

His increases are even less than the previous admins. Read the whole article,then you can see the upside and downside. While your there, you can find some good lies they've caught our CiC in, so it's hardly biased.

I have the Obama administration as my source for what I'm saying.  I don't need extracurricular sources that ignore the numbers that serve to excuse Obama's guilt relative to other guilty Presidents and guilty legislators.  I don't care if "Obama's increases are less than" anything.   Spending should be commensurate with revenue.  The solution remains: Balance the budget.

I'm not even suggesting paying down the debt.  Trying to turn the discussion to something like that would be political suicide.  Nobody on Capitol Hill rubs two words together suggesting something as ridiculous as that.   But, by all means, jam the taxes through the roof if you think it won't cost you politically.  I'd love for every partisan alive to commit political suicide like that; works for me.  

[Mr. Smith]

Yamato, on 29 June 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I have the Obama administration as my source for what I'm saying.  I don't need extracurricular sources that ignore the numbers that serve to excuse Obama's guilt relative to other guilty Presidents and guilty legislators.  I don't care if "Obama's increases are less than" anything.   Spending should be commensurate with revenue.  The solution remains: Balance the budget.

I'm not even suggesting paying down the debt.  Trying to turn the discussion to something like that would be political suicide.  Nobody on Capitol Hill rubs two words together suggesting something as ridiculous as that.   But, by all means, jam the taxes through the roof if you think it won't cost you politically.  I'd love for every partisan alive to commit political suicide like that; works for me.  

I see I'm talking to a wall. Since you refuse to look at the bigger picture, i'll leave you with this.  

“I must say, I never expected to see the day where I would be talking about anything other than reducing the debt, I'm running into the tyranny of zero, which is where you can't reduce (the debt) any more”
-Alan Greenspan.

In other words, we've got bills to pay and it doesn't matter who's in office they have to be paid. Especially since much of these "Bills" originated under a prior administration. If we don't pay our bills what happens next makes would make Greece look like a picnic. You have zero grasp of macro-economics, this much is obvious. You'd probably be better off taking your ill-placed angst to a forum where people are really good at parroting what someone said on AM radio than here.

[Yamato]

Framling, on 29 June 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

I see I'm talking to a wall. Since you refuse to look at the bigger picture, i'll leave you with this.  

“I must say, I never expected to see the day where I would be talking about anything other than reducing the debt, I'm running into the tyranny of zero, which is where you can't reduce (the debt) any more”
-Alan Greenspan.

In other words, we've got bills to pay and it doesn't matter who's in office they have to be paid. Especially since much of these "Bills" originated under a prior administration. If we don't pay our bills what happens next makes would make Greece look like a picnic. You have zero grasp of macro-economics, this much is obvious. You'd probably be better off taking your ill-placed angst to a forum where people are really good at parroting what someone said on AM radio than here.

But I have a non-zero grasp of microeconomics?   How's that?  

When you're in debt you have unpaid bills.   That's what debt is.  

What picture is bigger than our insolvent march to bankruptcy?  Next quarter's GDP or the 2012 election or something?

[ranrod]

Framling, on 29 June 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

If you read the factcheck article you'd see that spending is not going through the roof. But revenues have dropped through the floor. His first year he was already underwater thanks to the previous administrations legislation, or lack of, to pay for certain things.

His increases are even less than the previous admins. Read the whole article,then you can see the upside and downside. While your there, you can find some good lies they've caught our CiC in, so it's hardly biased.

Aren't you guys talking about the same thing?  Wether you say the revenues have fallen too low or the spending is too high it's ultimately the same problem.  Is it a concern of placing blame accurately?  At this point balancing the budget will mean making some tough cuts.  Republicans want to cut social programs which is a very divisive issue.  Will balancing the budget have to be somehow forced upon congress?