isadore;1327495 wrote:well gosh a ruddies his race has been the major point of attack by you opponents of him. Claiming his presidency was illtegitimate because of false charges about his place of birth. And now we see you folks threatening seccession as your racist philosophical ancesters did 150 years ago to defend slavery, now you threaten it to defend racist privilege.

Yep, that's it. :rolleyes:

ccrunner609;1327540 wrote:Isidore we are all now dumber from reading your posts. You sir are a complete idiot blind to what is actually going on.

Just one point to prove you wrong........Taxing the so called rich, runs this place for something like 8 days, doesnt pay down the debt and will likely make everyone poorer since the rich are the engines to the economy. They pay more in taxes already, create jobs and buy big things that require alot of jobs to make. Take their money, they dont create jobs, dont buy big things and make the poor poorer.

gosh a ruddies some like so much to suck up to the rich even when it helps to bury our country. Your numbers and facts are incorrect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/business/economy/the-case-for-raising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all

ccrunner609;1327558 wrote:Here is a nice number for you.....we just flew buy it and it isnt slowing any:

$16,000,000,000,000.

That is a whopping $51,400 of debt for every man, women , child. I dont care what you say on this board......this has to scare the **** out of you and if you continue to ignore the fact that this president, regardless of race, cant figure out how to turn the dial back...he is an idiot. His lapdogs, Pelosi and reid and others are all doing his work. Until he LEADS as the president we will be a 3rd world country by 2016.

and gosh what built up this enormous debt? the tax policy favoring tax cuts for the rich has brought on this situation, the policies of reagan and bush. Now we have a President with the guts to turn around this destructive policy.

ccrunner609;1327558 wrote:Here is a nice number for you.....we just flew buy it and it isnt slowing any:

$16,000,000,000,000.

That is a whopping $51,400 of debt for every man, women , child. I dont care what you say on this board......this has to scare the shit out of you and if you continue to ignore the fact that this president, regardless of race, cant figure out how to turn the dial back...he is an idiot. His lapdogs, Pelosi and reid and others are all doing his work. Until he LEADS as the president we will be a 3rd world country by 2016.

about 100% of GDP. Plenty of countries have recovered from much larger debts as a percentage of gdp and believe it or not the doomsdayers were around in those days too.

ccrunner609;1327587 wrote:You do realize that more then 1/2 of that is your boys debt???? He has done NOTHING, ZERO to bring it down. He is not a leader, all he does is pass it along to congress for Harry and Nancy to **** up. His lap dogs are so partisan that nothing gets done.

TAXING THE RICH ISNT GOING TO DO IT.

gosh "boys debt" interesting term to use in to in part to describe our First African American President. Wow you know Clinton raised the tax rate on the highest income groups and we got a budget surplus. Of course obama was blocked in his efforts to do it by the threat of Republican Senate filibuster and house block by boehner and cantor.

BoatShoes;1327574 wrote:about 100% of GDP. Plenty of countries have recovered from much larger debts as a percentage of gdp and believe it or not the doomsdayers were around in those days too.

What countries have recovered from much larger debts?

fan_from_texas;1327672 wrote:What countries have recovered from much larger debts?

The US. In a debt/GDP ratio, anyways. Obviously not as big of a dollar amount.

ccrunner609;1327662 wrote:STFU, he had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didnt do a damn thing to bring down the debt....only ring it up more

gosh a ruddie, you called our First African American President "boy' wow. Obama advocated raising taxes on the rich from the beginning, republican intransigence and use of the filibuster thwarted his efforts.

fan_from_texas;1327672 wrote:What countries have recovered from much larger debts?

The UK is my favorite example because John Maynard Keynes was writing at the time calling for more government spending when their debt was larger than our own.



The French also had a national debt around 250% of GDP for several years following WWI, the United States National Debt was at 120% of GDP after WWII and the Japanese have had a large national debt as a percentage of gdp for a while now and the bond vigilantes have still not attacked.

In fact, if we had the health care costs of countries like France and the UK for example we'd be looking at budget surpluses into perpetuity rather than our not-so-pleasant long term budget picture.

Interesting--thanks. It seems that most of those situations are tied to massive defense expenditures for a major war.

I'm not sure that France post-WWI is a helpful example: their ongoing budgetary issues were partially eased by reparations/exploitation of German resources. When that stopped, the French economy was so weak they weren't able to effectively mobilize and didn't last long against the Wehrmacht in round 2. I'm not sure if that's a good example to point to--unless we think a good outcome for the US is dramatically cutting spending to the point of being overrun by another power within two decades.

Re USA post-WWII, that's also a unique situatoon. We didn't suffer much in the war while the rest of the world was hollowed out, giving us a bit of an unrealistic advantage in exporting/growing. I don't see that as a realistic outcome here.

I'm not convinced that a 100% ratio is fatal, but we do need to make longterm changes to the revenue/spending imbalance.

fan_from_texas;1327672 wrote:What countries have recovered from much larger debts?

I'm just happy he's reversed his earlier posture and now admits that massive debt is indeed something to be recovered from.

isadore;1327566 wrote:and gosh what built up this enormous debt?

If you would have read the article posted, you would know.

WebFire;1328039 wrote:If you would have read the article posted, you would know.

what is obvious, is that Republican tax and economic policy beginning with reagan put us into our present situation. now our first African American President is solve the problem if Republican greed and intransigence does not block him. And start with raising tax on the rich.

isadore;1328057 wrote:what is obvious, is that Republican tax and economic policy beginning with reagan put us into our present situation. now our first African American President is solve the problem if Republican greed and intransigence does not block him. And start with raising tax on the rich.

When does he plan on starting to fix the deficit and debt? Because he hasn't started at all yet.

WebFire;1328086 wrote:When does he plan on starting to fix the deficit and debt? Because he hasn't started at all yet.

Growth is more important than debt/deficit.

Not that you have to kill growth to address those things but many of the ideas/ideals that Republicans have had would in fact hurt growth. Doesn't help to balance the budget and end up with 20% unemployment or some shit.

Of course there are those on the left not willing to discuss deficit/debt reduction just as there are many on the right not willing to talk about options that aren't "cut all the taxes and balance the budget immediately". Both are childish and stupid positions.

I Wear Pants;1328106 wrote:Growth is more important than debt/deficit.

I generally agree, but growth is much tougher to get. You can try the stimulus route and hope for good multipliers, but because of political reasons, most of the money won't be spent efficiently to stimulate growth, potentially leaving you with low growth and even more debt, compounding the longterm problem.

You can encourage growth by making structural economic changes (see the forced privatization in southern Europe, and taking steps to make it easier to fire people). Those are areas where the US doesn't have as much room to make changes. Sure, we can reduce some of the regulatory burden (which Cass Sunstein and co were working on), but at the end of the day, any regulatory rollback to spur growth runs big political risks because of voter ignorance.

fan_from_texas;1328116 wrote:I generally agree, but growth is much tougher to get. You can try the stimulus route and hope for good multipliers, but because of political reasons, most of the money won't be spent efficiently to stimulate growth, potentially leaving you with low growth and even more debt, compounding the longterm problem.

You can encourage growth by making structural economic changes (see the forced privatization in southern Europe, and taking steps to make it easier to fire people). Those are areas where the US doesn't have as much room to make changes. Sure, we can reduce some of the regulatory burden (which Cass Sunstein and co were working on), but at the end of the day, any regulatory rollback to spur growth runs big political risks because of voter ignorance.

That's because we've got a weird and stupid mix of industries and areas that either currently or have in the not distant past had too much or too little regulation so we get these idiotic dichotomies of "regulation am bad"/"regulation am good".

Growth is much more complicated than debt/deficit but is what we should be trying to keep/get more of.

WebFire;1328086 wrote:When does he plan on starting to fix the deficit and debt? Because he hasn't started at all yet.

Gosh a ruddies in 2009 our first African American President was represented with a collapse economy brought on by Republican policies, two wars mismanaged by Republicans, the leader of the 9/11 massacre of Americans still on the loose nearly 8 years after killing 3000 Americans. He has had a lot to do. Now he can get started raising the taxes on the rich.

isadore;1328171 wrote:Gosh a ruddies in 2009 our first African American President was represented with a collapse economy brought on by Republican policies, two wars mismanaged by Republicans, the leader of the 9/11 massacre of Americans still on the loose nearly 8 years after killing 3000 Americans. He has had a lot to do. Now he can get started raising the taxes on the rich.

So he waited 4 years to start? WTF has he been doing?

ccrunner609;1328220 wrote:What we have is a congress that is not capable of getting aything done because our president is a horrible leader.

You really don't understand how our government is set up do you?

WebFire;1328218 wrote:So he waited 4 years to start? WTF has he been doing?

I realize you would have preferred he let thousands of more American service people die and Osama live, he did not. Presented with a recalcitrant Republican congressional delegation he saved American lives and our economy around. now despite your opposition he will push to tax the rich and greedy.

ccrunner609;1328220 wrote:What we have is a congress that is not capable of getting aything done because our president is a horrible leader.

we have our first African American President opposed by a racist tea party dominated republican congressional delegation.

your input

ernest_t_bass;1327222 wrote:Just read this entire article, and it sickens me:

http://www.crisishq.com/why-prepare/economic-collapse-inevitable/

I seriously cannot believe that we have four more years of Obama, who is IMO the anti-christ. Laugh, scoff... don't care, but that's my opinion.

Great article...but why the tie in to Obama? The article describes the pattern of behavior since Lincoln. Don't for a minute think that Obama invented the economic collapse, Like your Carlin video clearly indicates....it is not the politicians for they are simply the puppets of the true anti-Christs.