Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Conservatives vs Liberals


Agent0range

Recommended Posts

Deflation is a magic word the establishment loves to hate. Consumers suddenly won't want to buy things when there's cheaper prices on the things they buy. Employers suddenly won't want to hire employees for lower salaries! Everything will suddenly grind to a halt because the pigs will be squealing and tearing their own beds again. According to Keynesians, deflation isn't a consequence of a great depression, it's the cause!

When the deflation occurs in the stock market due to competition, inefficiencies, geopolitics, you know, real reasons for freaking decline, the shareholders will rout. They bet it was worth this, and it's only worth that. It's mayhem when that is a lot less than this. And Keynesians can't handle that. Who the hell do they think they are?

The owners are the lonely unsung protected class in this country anymore. Yet our noble and accomplished panickers would be replaced by other shareholders who were happy to have what they had at the cheaper price they got it for. You can't sell anything unless someone's there to buy it from you and that include stocks. People were just selling it down to other people, and that creates a herd mentality and then there's a panic, and then we wind up calling it a depression in the stock market. And so we institutionally protect ourselves from negative consequences for our own actions and it's really pathetic. We don't care about those future shareholders, we only care about the big ones we've got right now! And they need protecting, by the force of their almighty govt, in the name of economic order and stability. The system rewards current shareholders. It rewards current owners and then throws bones at the general population to say it did something.

The extreme bias in the way the economy is reported is where people get so confused about the economy. There's always a "housing crisis" when housing prices go down double digits, it's not an opportunity or a blessing for buyers. I read about the "housing recovery" in California when the prices went up 19% in one year. Well so much for being a homeowner in California. I've been "recovered" right out of the market.

So according to the way this is reported, I must be out of my mind for looking for a house as a shelter and not an investment! The real value of a home to me is the utilitarian value it provides to my life and family. Not the nominal value some county tax auditor tells me it's worth on paper. It doesn't even matter what it's worth on paper if it's going to serve as a reliable dwelling for years or decades.

It's always a "recovery" for the owners. It's always a "crisis" for the owners. And that's how the media reports it.

Speaking of inflation, I think their heads are inflated too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I thought that under Reagan the national debt was reduced...I may have to research that, I'll admit....

Quite the opposite. The national debt went exponential under Reagan's pens and proposals. Remember how liberals were horrified by his military spending, his daughter going out and marching with people wearing skull masks and waving signs with dead bodies on them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I thought that under Reagan the national debt was reduced...I may have to research that, I'll admit....

You better do some research before somebody has an heart attack laughing at that claim.

Now, I give you he did not reach Dubya levels....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You better do some research before somebody has an heart attack laughing at that claim.

Now, I give you he did not reach Dubya levels....

Or Obama's for that matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so let me get this straight... it's usually the conservative administrations that run up the largest debts? i thought so,,, but i keep hearing otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so let me get this straight... it's usually the conservative administrations that run up the largest debts? i thought so,,, but i keep hearing otherwise.

This current liberal administration is well on track to blow them all out of the water racking up as much debt as all 18 republican administrations, the previous 14 democrat administrations, 4 democratic-republican administrations, 4 Whig administrations, 1 national republican administration, 2 independent administrations, 2 national union administrations and 1 federalist administration combined. All by themselves this current democrat administration gives the heavy weight title solely to the democrats.

That's why you keep hearing otherwise. Far as I can tell the era of enormous debts started with Reagan at $1.8T in 2 terms, Bush Sr. at $1.5T in one term, Clinton at $1.3T in 2 terms. Bush Jr. at $5.8T in two terms and Obama at $5.1T in 1 term.

Let's be fair about who racks the debts though. It's progressives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This current liberal administration is well on track to blow them all out of the water racking up as much debt as all 18 republican administrations, the previous 14 democrat administrations, 4 democratic-republican administrations, 4 Whig administrations, 1 national republican administration, 2 independent administrations, 2 national union administrations and 1 federalist administration combined. All by themselves this current democrat administration gives the heavy weight title solely to the democrats.

That's why you keep hearing otherwise. Far as I can tell the era of enormous debts started with Reagan at $1.8T in 2 terms, Bush Sr. at $1.5T in one term, Clinton at $1.3T in 2 terms. Bush Jr. at $5.8T in two terms and Obama at $5.1T in 1 term.

Let's be fair about who racks the debts though. It's progressives.

So this administration is responsible for the spending on Bush's unfunded and unnecessary war in Iraq?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever cowboy. It is what it is.

Moving on, this link is pretty neat. Breaks down debt year by year by administration. No wonder it was called the roaring twenties. A billion dollar surplus every year of the decade.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the deficits Republicans have run up have tended to be situations of recovering from recessions caused by Democrats balancing the budget by raising taxes and tearing down America's defenses. Just my perspective from another country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright cowboy, let's look at what Obama has spent on the wars and for arguments sake we'll call it Bush's share.

I get $543 billion of the $6 trillion of Obamas first term debt spent on Bush's wars.

2010

$167.3 billion for overseas contingency operations, which meant increased troops in Afghanistan and a slow wind-down in Iraq. For more, see FY 2010 Military Budget.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/FY-2010-Federal-Budget.htm

2011

$159.4 billion in contingency funds to support initiatives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/FY-2011-Federal-Budget.htm

2012

The incremental costs of funding Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), including ongo- ing efforts in Afghanistan and transition activi- ties in Iraq, are funded separately in the Budget at $118 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/library/fy2012defense.pdf

2013

Overseas Contingency Operations ( $98.7 billion for the War in Afghanistan).

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/fl/FY-2013-US-Federal-Government-Budget.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright cowboy, let's look at what Obama has spent on the wars and for arguments sake we'll call it Bush's share.

I get $543 billion of the $6 trillion of Obamas first term debt spent on Bush's wars.

2010

$167.3 billion for overseas contingency operations, which meant increased troops in Afghanistan and a slow wind-down in Iraq. For more, see FY 2010 Military Budget.

http://useconomy.abo...eral-Budget.htm

2011

$159.4 billion in contingency funds to support initiatives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

http://useconomy.abo...eral-Budget.htm

2012

The incremental costs of funding Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), including ongo- ing efforts in Afghanistan and transition activi- ties in Iraq, are funded separately in the Budget at $118 billion.

http://useconomy.abo...2012defense.pdf

2013

Overseas Contingency Operations ( $98.7 billion for the War in Afghanistan).

http://useconomy.abo...ment-Budget.htm

And how much do we place on the heads of the do-nothing congress which has refused to pass a budget and merely continues raising the debt ceiling and refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy to take care of budget deficits that continue to add compound interest? And how much do we pay in interest on the trillion we borrowed from China for this war?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can scour the links yourself for the overall military budgets for those four years but I'll tell you the total was $3.02 trillion. Subtract 543 and Obama has spent $2.48 trillion on military in four years without the Middle East wars. What now Cowboy? Is that Bush's fault too? I'm just giving out the numbers. Why do you feel the need to spin them?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fantasy that raising taxes or confiscating wealth would or could pay down the debt wouldn't you agree that the first logical step would be to spend only what comes in or less? Last year, iirc, the Feds took in $2.6T in revenues and spent $3.8T.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fantasy that raising taxes or confiscating wealth would or could pay down the debt wouldn't you agree that the first logical step would be to spend only what comes in or less? Last year, iirc, the Feds took in $2.6T in revenues and spent $3.8T.

Such a policy would be fiscally restrictive, and the Fed is being depended too much already to stimulate the economy. Regardless, because of budget tightening forced by the Republicans in the "government shutdown" fiasco, the deficit is rapidly shrinking. We are going back to the situation at the end of the Clinton years where the government runs a surplus, and this, without Fed stimulation (which is also being reduced) will prevent a real economic recovery if not cause a recession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one observation about military spending: the city that does not maintain its walls eventually must do the bidding of others, if not worse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fantasy that raising taxes or confiscating wealth would or could pay down the debt wouldn't you agree that the first logical step would be to spend only what comes in or less? Last year, iirc, the Feds took in $2.6T in revenues and spent $3.8T.

And how much of this was on defense? Why are food programs for the poor the only ones on the table for cuts? I would relish cutting spending, I just don't think people should go hungry to achieve it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one observation about military spending: the city that does not maintain its walls eventually must do the bidding of others, if not worse.

We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. Just how big does this wall need to be? At what point do we stop this arms race with ourselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one observation about military spending: the city that does not maintain its walls eventually must do the bidding of others, if not worse.

I feel we probably spend too much on defense but to cut I'll only go as low as 3x the budget of the next biggest spender behind us which still amounts to much less than we spend now yet keeps us well ahead of the competition.

Or perhaps it a budget as much as the next three biggest spending countries combined. I had it all figured out a couple months ago but my point stands.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel we probably spend too much on defense but to cut I'll only go as low as 3x the budget of the next biggest spender behind us which still amounts to much less than we spend now yet keeps us well ahead of the competition.

At least that's a start and I think would cut more than cutting 100% of food programs would
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least that's a start and I think would cut more than cutting 100% of food programs would

Who wants to cut food programs? I only want checks and balances on welfare. Too often these days it's treated as an entitlement as in an entitlement regardless of necessity and thereby a way of life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who wants to cut food programs? I only want checks and balances on welfare. Too often these days it's treated as an entitlement as in an entitlement regardless of necessity and thereby a way of life.

The last I heard Paul Ryan was trying to cut something like 500 million from food stamps. And raising defense. Republican insistence on cutting food programs while raising defense is why we never have a budget any more. It is based on need except in cases of fraud which I think should be stopped. Raising the minimum wage would cause many working poor to get off food stamps. Half of Wal-Mart full time employees are on food stamps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel we probably spend too much on defense but to cut I'll only go as low as 3x the budget of the next biggest spender behind us which still amounts to much less than we spend now yet keeps us well ahead of the competition.

Or perhaps it a budget as much as the next three biggest spending countries combined. I had it all figured out a couple months ago but my point stands.

What people say they spend on defense and what they actually spend are generally not the same. What one spends should be based on projected requirements, not what others are doing.

Actually I think the US is being quite smart about it, although the generals have been forced into this by politics, what they are doing is figuring out ways to do their mission without a lot of manpower by using technology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people say they spend on defense and what they actually spend are generally not the same. What one spends should be based on projected requirements, not what others are doing.

Actually I think the US is being quite smart about it, although the generals have been forced into this by politics, what they are doing is figuring out ways to do their mission without a lot of manpower by using technology.

And this approach is bankrupting us. There is no doubt no army can stand up to us in a conventional war but we can't afford to continue being the world's policeman or using a might makes right approach to foreign policy.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this approach is bankrupting us. There is no doubt no army can stand up to us in a conventional war but we can't afford to continue being the world's policeman or using a might makes right approach to foreign policy.

This "not being the world's policeman" is just a slogan; the US is not and could not play such a role. That however does not mean I don't approve of the moral principal that those with the ability and opportunity to correct evils don't have a responsibility. The genocide in Rwanda and now threatening in S. Sudan are examples. If the US does nothing (as happened in Rwanda) thousand may die. Now it can be argued that others should help, but when the US does nothing no one else dares and it becomes a game of everyone saying "not my fault.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the opposite. The national debt went exponential under Reagan's pens and proposals. Remember how liberals were horrified by his military spending, his daughter going out and marching with people wearing skull masks and waving signs with dead bodies on them.

I guess I didn't know that, I didn't really get interested in politics (ignorance verily is bliss) until later in life. I think it started when I read a book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Edward Griffith, I believe. Then my friend Sue is really interested into politics and she tapes shows for me to watch, so I've learned a lot from her. Well, I may be an ignoramus, but at least I admit it. Seriously though, politics and economics are so confusing...and then when you talk to people, if they don't agree with what you say, they're like "well, that has been disproven" or "that has been discredited". This happened to me when I discussed with someone (who was planning to run for Congress) about Austrian economics (I may have it wrong but I mean the school of economics that propounds that you can increase revenue by lowering taxes because you increase currency flow by businesses starting). He said it had been discredited...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.