DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If its fair to bash liberals and democrats, its fair to bash conservatives and republicans. If you dont like it, dont do it.
It's fair to bash both, but, it's only fair if you properly ascribe to them what is actually theirs. Bashing the President for 2008 deficits isn't proper, and I made that mistake years ago when I first joined this board. I was "put in my place" (probably more harshly than necessary), and have since been much more accurate. If we're just going to bash either party, then I'll start bashing the Democrats for getting us into the War in Iraq. 
quote:
Ever notice I will give fair if not property respect to people that have served in Congress or the military? Giving their title and name. Rather than an abbreviation, unless its well known (i.e. JFK). I dislike those that hack up politicians names as being immature. I've heard quite a few 'ideas' on Mr. Trump's name. An I dislike it. Likewise of seeing images of him with a 'Hitler mustache'. An have corrected people on the Speaker of the House's last name.
None of this means jack shit to this thread.
quote:
I'll try others as they treat met. In many cases, I overlook the insults and focus once more on the discussion. Yeah, I get passionate on here; who doesn't? You've gotten passionate and hot-headed on here. You've insulted me, I've insulted you. Maybe not a good thing long term, eh?
I don't blame President Clinton or Bush for 9/11. I do blame Mr. Bush for the handling of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
Well, W was the CiC barely into 2009, so any mistakes after that certainly can't be blamed on him.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Kenny Rogers knows much better than you when to "fold 'em."
I never really enjoyed poker. Diplomacy, Warhammer 40K, and Werewolf are better mind games.
Lucky in love, unlucky in cards. Lucky in cards, unlucky in love. Unfortunately, I, once again, am an exceptional person, in that I am the exception, as neither of those statements fits me. lol
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Next lie: $2T-$11.5T
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
I know it's not easy info to find ( ), so I went to my super secret search engine (aka "Google") and looked up "national debt in 2000." The link above was found after much searching and wading through ad links and... okay, it was the 2nd entry after the 3 ads.
National Debt on 9/30/2000: $5.67T (not $2T)
National Debt on 9/30/2008: $10.0T (not $11.5T)
You probably used the debt numbers from the proper years, so, let's look at that, shall we?
National Debt on 9/30/2001: $5.8T
National Debt on 9/30/2009: $11.9T
Which numbers are being used here? Current value or actuated for future value? The US Government uses both processes so it is important to know which is being used. What your stating is the 'current value', what I stated was 'what numbers will exist in the future'. Meaning that the dollar's more likely 'value' based upon a number of normal, fairly easily to determined factors (i.e. rate of inflation over 'X' years).
Cite that source, then, Joether. I know I went to a "questionable" link, treasury.gov...
I think I just did....
On both accounts.
Technically speaking, you don't have to quote a source from either, as both are general knowledge. You quote sources when the information is very specific or new. Both concepts have been around for over ten years. For example, if I stated Dick Cheney said 'x' on a certain date, I would have to cite the source of the information (i'm citing a specific entity on a specific date). That the US Government used both computing criteria is fairly known in economics and most political think tanks.
If Your really concern about it, I could try researching it as a favor for you.
Notice in the OP, I site quite a number of different sources. That is because the information is either specific or new. There are cases (more with online than published works) in which the cites source's information changes. In which case the person making the argument can claim 'good faith' that the information they had stated 'X' when 'Y' is now true. But then that falls to others to determine the level of trust.
Sorry. It wouldn't be a favor. You made a claim. Back it up. If not, then don't ever ask for a source again.
quote:
quote:
I think you got the basic idea, but didn't follow it to the correct conclusion (your like 75% there).
The number I quote was $2 trillion. An educated guess based on the future value. This is a number the GOP was quoting throughout the first term of Mr. Bush's stay in the White House. This was used to downplay the real numbers (which your quoting at $5.6 trillion). What was going on in the nation between 2000-2003?
Would the American people have been 'on-board' with going into two separate theaters of war that would place considerably more burdens on the national debt if they were told the debt was $2 trillion or $5 trillion? It sounds dumb to say it......BUT.....'2' is smaller than '5'. Not just from a mathematical perspective, but a psychological one. The GOP/TP had to sell the conflicts to their own constituents as 'not increasing the debt'. You might recall in those three years, supporters of the GOP wanted to cut costs (i.e. the five tax cuts in those years), rather than raise them (because they just got done telling their supporters that Democrats are 'The Party of Tax and Spend').
Important to know the history of events and their perspective from different viewpoints, is it not?
You can't spin your way out of this one, Joether. You lied. Deal with it (and the TP that you hate so much wasn't around in 200-2003).
I don't need to spin it, its US History! Go look it up to your heart's content!
They did not exist (to my knowledge) of your claim of '200' AD. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt your missing a zero. Chalk it up as 'teasing in a friendly manner'....
The Tea Party did exist in 2000-2003. They were known at the time as the 'Militia Man Movement'. Or more precisely, what remained of that loose knit of organizations from the Clinton Administration. On April 18th, 1995, the Militia Man Movement of then was not very different from today's Tea Party Movement in ideals, concerns, or views.
Huh. We're both wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Historyquote:
References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held in the 1990s and before.[17][18][19][20] In 1984, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), a conservative political group whose self-described mission was "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." Congressman Ron Paul was appointed as the first chairman of the organization. The CSE lobbied for policies favorable to corporations, particularly tobacco companies.[citation needed]
In 2002, the first[citation needed] Tea Party movement website was designed and published by the CSE at web address www.usteaparty.com, and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated."[74][75] The site did not take off at the time.[76] In 2003, Dick Armey became the chairman of CSE after retiring from Congress.[77] In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into FreedomWorks, for 501c4 advocacy activity, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Dick Armey stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David Koch stayed as Chairman of Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward.[78][79] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks were "probably the leading partners" in the September, 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington, also known as the "9/12 Tea Party," according to The Guardian.[80]
Commentaries on origin
Fox News Channel commentator Juan Williams has said that the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign.[81] Indeed, Ron Paul has stated that its origin was, on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a, 24 hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary,[82] but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some the movement's core beliefs.[83][84] Writing for Slate.com, Dave Weigel has argued in concurrence that, in his view, the "first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul," with the movement expanding and gaining prominence in 2009.[65] Barack Obama, the first African American President of the United States, took office in January, 2009.
Journalist Jane Mayer has said that the Koch brothers were essential in funding and strengthening the movement, through groups such as Americans for Prosperity.[78][79] In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that organizations within the movement were connected with non-profit organizations that the tobacco industry and other corporate interests worked with and provided funding for,[74][85] including groups Citizens for a Sound Economy (founded by the Koch brothers).[86][87] Al Gore cited the study and said that the connections between "market fundamentalists", the tobacco industry and the Tea Party could be traced to a 1971 memo from tobacco lawyer Lewis F. Powell, Jr. who advocated more political power for corporations. Gore said that the Tea Party is an extension of this political strategy "to promote corporate profit at the expense of the public good."[88]
Former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, keynoting a Tea Party Tax Day protest at the state capital in Madison, Wisconsin on April 15, 2011, reflected on the origins of the Tea Party movement and credited President Barack Obama, saying "And speaking of President Obama, I think we ought to pay tribute to him today at this Tax Day Tea Party because really he’s the inspiration for why we’re here today. That’s right. The Tea Party Movement wouldn’t exist without Barack Obama.
No idea where you get your "militia man movement" claim.
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
FFS, Joether!! Not only did you lie about what years W was in control of the economy, but you lied abut how much debt there was!! To be sure, W piled debt on like it was going out of style. "Slick Willy" only added, roughly, $1.4T in his 8 years, so W was an awful lot worse than him (and conservatives were not happy about W's spending, no matter what bullshit you sling). Bush's final 2 years saw a debt increase of $2.9T, almost half of all the debt his Administration oversaw.
There is a difference between the Clinton and Bush administration that followed it. The Democrats and Republicans got together and hashed out a compromise on the budget back in 1995. This resulted in the nation experiencing a budget surplus. Since that time, making agreements on the federal budget have become more and more intense and 'stand-off-ish'. You might recall the 'Super Committee' on the Budget in 2011? In which Republicans according to House Speak Bohmer stated 'We have 98% of what we want on our side'; and still stalled for the remaining 2% when the deadline was hit. Republicans took a beating in the polls and election due to it.
So here is the question: Why did the debt increase under the Bush Administration?
Why? You see, there was this thing called a "recession" that happened right as he was getting into office, which reduced revenues (but we recovered from that), and over the course of his Presidency, spending was never reduced, or even contained.
The end of the 'Dot Com Era' was around 1998-1999. By 2001, the economy could best be defined as 'lukewarm' or 'neutral'. Neither a real bull or bear market. And certainly not an economic recession! The Bush administration tried a number of things to 'jump start' the economy. Somethings work for a few months, and others just flat out failed. Ironically the domestic economy was not the Bush administration's strong suit. The GOP did many unhealthy things in government that would later market a major recession starting in the mid-point of 2007. Why, how, and when, is for another thread!
I'll give you a D+....
A D+ from you probably means an A from a well-heeled person.
The "dot com" bubble burst's recession was not over by 2001. As a matter of fact (and history), the early 2000's recession didn't start until March of 2001. So, you were either wrong, or lying. That info isn't difficult to find, so I'm not sure which descriptor is accurate.
quote:
The GOP really fucked up. They wanted to 'starve the beast' back in 2000 (campaign promises in 1999). They took a series of tax cuts that effected both 'all of us' and the 1%'. This dropped effective gross revenue for the following year by estimates of $300-500 Billion (my best guess given what I knew at the time). The problem depends on your viewpoint. The Republicans wanted ot reduce the budget, and the Democrats resisted. Because lowering revenue and the budget are two separate concepts in our government. The Republicans claim Democrats dragged their feet on everything; Democrats stated more money was being removed from Democratic 'sacred cows' than Republican. Each year, from 2001 to 2007, this nation experienced a deficit which was added to the national debt. In 2008's budget, the Democrats tried to do the same thing Republicans did earlier; and the Republicans played the same games the Democrats did. So the deficit simply grew, as did the national debt.
Spending and Revenues are two sides of the Budget coin. Sadly, as our revenues have increased (and, they have), but spending increases have outpaced them (which I blame both Obama and Bush 43).
quote:
There is LOTS of blame across the board. That's just in 2008, not 2015! Its gotten steadily worst since 2008. Again, we all are to blame for this crap.
Revenues have been rising (there was a slight drop after the Great Recession). I've voted for people who have, at least, paid lip service towards reducing spending.
quote:
quote:
There is a very logical answer to this. Trust me when I say "I know the answer". That both parties view the other as 'the evil doer', and their views as 'just and correct for the American people'. There is an actual string of events that would place this nation on a course for 'higher debt'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, where is our debt now? $17.8T, as of 9/30/2014. $5.9T added during Obama's first 5 years in control. Annual deficits have dropped (even though spending hasn't) as the economy has been recovering. Revenues have been at all-time highs, yet we keep adding to the debt.
Notice I'm not arguing the numbers your using here on the debt?
Since the question I asked above, leads us to these very numbers. An I'm not going to give you anymore hints!
I think we both understand the debt is....FUCKING HIGH....and not good for the nation long term. That I understand your view on how the nation should lower this value (i.e. a combination of lowering taxes and budget). I'm not entirely sure you understand mine. Its not so much as 'raise taxes', as is a combination of 'cutting the budget, raising taxes, and considerations alternative concepts/ideas'. We've had these chats before. I think your idea has some very deep flaws to its execution, and hope you remember my....long....explanation of the effects. An that many economists on all sides agree to the viewpoint I was stating as 'not being in the best interests of the nation'.
Consider what your saying on a personal level. Your in debt. Your current job pays $65K/year grossing. Assuming your good with a budget, you'll take the debt down in 10 years (where 'X' is the amount you owe). Which of the following makes more sense:
A ) Take a new job at $45k/year grossing and cutting budgetary items here and there.
B) Getting a new job at $85K/year grossing, while cutting some budgetary items and pouring more money against the principle?
Of course, 'B' is the best option at the micro level. At the macro level, that means higher taxes, tariffs, and fees, right? An I agree, yes it does. At the micro level, your employer will most likely expect more from you for $85K/year than either $65K/year or $45K/year. This means more stressing situations, less time with family, handling more job responsibilities. For some people, they can do this, for others, they can not.
So while 'A' allows an easier time with stress and responsibilities, the time to pay that debt off is much longer. Resulting in more interest being paid. Option 'B' adds considerably more stress and responsibilities, but lowers the debt faster, resulting in less money being paid on the principle.
So what is the answer? Lowering the budget....fairly....between the two parties. But not to quickly, nor sharply. And considering whether the nation will be in a bull or bear market for the following year (this is FUCKING TOUCH to predict). Yes, taxes, tariffs and fees will be raised. Hopefully, if we have performed the math correctly, we have a surplus. We used that surplus to pay down the existing debt.
Now here is were it becomes REALLY important and tough (like the previous paragraph isn't tough already, right?): This would be done through one or more bills that become law (because that is the process by which budgets are made in the nation). It would be up to....ALL AMERICANS....to keep ALL SIDES financially accountable to the budget. I hate to say, but disasters and other taxing events will take place during this time. That is the penalty for this nation's people not watching nor understanding laws passed by this nation's government.
You've seen how well Americans on all sides of the political spectrum understand The Affordable Care Act? Both in the nation and on this forum, right? Now try to imagine how well the American people can follow the financial plan of getting us out of debt? Being manipulated by people that have a financial/political (or both) stake in the current and final outcome? You've seen how many times I've had to correct people on the ACA, right? Try to imagine how often I'll have to correct people on this law or set of laws for the budget?
If revenues are down because of a recession, you fix the recession, not ratchet up taxes. Revenues grew during the Bush Administration. They grew quite a bit, even. They have continued to grow, even though all those evil, nasty "Bush Tax Cuts" aren't gone. They grew while we were still enjoying the tax cuts, even.
An how do you fix a recession?
I will be fair and say this has to be broken down into two separate answers: The recession is due to lack of demand, and, the recession is due to lack of supply. How a government would handle either is actually different.
Curious I explained how to reduce the debt and you got out of that whole thing "...not ratchet up taxes.". I honestly hate saying this like a fear monger. But either this nation raises the taxes now and deals with the debt now. Or later on we'll raise the taxes quite a bit more and for longer, later. You get to pick one, there is not alternatives (unless all our debtors are willing to forgive the debt and we accept our credit rating going into the toilet for the next thirty years). This is not something we can really bullshit as a nation.
That's what the Democrats wanted.
Actually, recessions don't just happen from lack of demand or lack of supply. Both of those are symptoms, not causes. Malinvestment is the action that causes market failures in the form of demand or supply lack. Home investments (either in buying a home, or investing in a security backed by mortgages) when home values are in a bubble, and you'll lose your ass when that bubble bursts (and it will) and your perception of the value of your home isn't close to it's actual value. I think my sister is still underwater on her mortgage after buying a home in 2007. Luckily, her and her husband aren't big on carrying debt, so they don't have much other debt and are keeping up with their payments.
But, what happened to all those securities backed by mortgages? Those who held those investments found that the paper they were written on ended up being worth more than the investment itself. Lax lending standards (actually, lenders still loaned based on risk, but since they were selling off their mortgages almost before the ink dried, their risk was almost nil) led to inflated demand, and then inflated supply. When people started defaulting on mortgages, the MBS's were toast and there was an over supply of houses, and then the homebuilders got fucked as the glut of foreclosures reduced home prices, and they couldn't sell the houses, or couldn't sell them at cost, let alone at a profit.
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You are ethically bankrupt.
Or is it your just not understanding because I left things out on purpose? This is a discussion not a lecture, right? Therefore, we benefit by me leaving some details and concepts out (if it were a lecture, they would be added). Thus, if a good argument is made by someone else, I might learn something I would not have known before. Thereby reducing 'group think' and lessening ideological rigidness as it relates to the topic. There is a method to the madness.....
Nope. You're ethically bankrupt.
Yeah, cus you have been 100% truthful and honest all this time, right?
Pot calling the Kettle Black!
Where have I not been truthful or honest? Note there is a difference between being wrong, and not being truthful. I've probably acknowledged a higher percentage of my errors more than anyone here. I know you can't say the same.
I suppose, I could be wrong, and you might not be ethically bankrupt. But, that would mean you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, which brings up a different descriptor...
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread