Tim Geithner - We can't cut the size of govt. We must pay more taxes. by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

This isn't an issue over having an opinion, so I'm really lost as to what you're attempting to say.

Obama has inflated the size of govt by 25%, and now we're on the verge of falling into default. Massive spending and growth of govt has sped us up to this point, but some how Geithner thinks we can just raise taxes , on the very productive segment of society needed to jump start the economy, so as to keep the massive beast that is the Federal govt comfortably fed.

It's time for the Fed govt to go on a diet. We don't get fit by trying to take in MORE, we start living with LESS.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 3:31 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Actually, with a debt the size of the one we have, you have to take in MORE while spending LESS.

What you absolutely CAN'T do is pay down the debt by taking in less. You can't spend your way out of debt, but you can't tax-cut your way out of it, either.

Geithner's wrong about not being able to cut the size of the government, if that is indeed what he said; he's not wrong about needing to take in more than we spend in order to address the debt, though.

If fact, last time we actually DID take in more in revenue than we were spending, a certain Mr. Bush had the bright idea to give everyone a refund, slash the amount coming in, and radically increase the spending.

Funny how not one single so-called "conservative" here had a disparaging word to say about it at the time...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 3:54 PM

America loves a winner!

Keeping the tax rates low, and making cuts in some areas, will stimulate the economy, free up that capital that's being sat on, and get folks back to work. Putting a larger burden on the private sector won't yield an over all surplus to the govt, i'll only slow the economy down further.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 4:01 PM

Damn it. Deleted my post. Tim Geitner is spouting nonsense. The budget is $3.7 trillion

The healthcare budget 1.1 trillion, is paying 3 times what other private healthcare systems with a better record than ours pay because we are not negotiating for prices, and we're feeding bankers in the middle.

2/3 of social security goes to the very wealthy.

We're only taxing FICA on 20% of incomes.

Correct these three problems and you could pay for the whole system with a 1% income tax, or a 1% import tariff.

Next.

"We need the money for Education?" Who does he think he's fooling. The FED spending only a sliver on education. Standard emotional dribble.

Here's the budget

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/ind
ex.html

Okay, I just balanced the budget. Now lets cut some more:

Wars. Clearly around $300 billion, plus non-budgetary supplementals. Average for a year, probably 1/2 trillion.

Next, bailouts. About the same, on average.

We now have a trillion dollars.

Let's keep cutting. $100 billion in subsidies.

What's this with the debt. Let's renegotiate that debt. I don't want to pay interest on it. I say "Okay, if you don't want hostile trade policy, you'll give us 0% APR."

Oh, and you better believe the FED wants free trade. It's what they do. That will give us $500 billion.

We spend $100 billion collecting the revenue? Screw that. Automate the whole thing.

Now I have $1.6 trillion dollars and I haven't cut anything from govt. We still have the same troop levels, the same military R&D the same services for the poor and middle class, and I've lowered taxes by up to 20% on incomes.

My 1.6 trillion goes to pay back the debt. First year: China. I don't want to owe China any money. Also, I have some money left over, I'm paying back everyone who hates us. I don't want to owe them money.

Now I am going to get rid of the FED. I don't think they'll let me do it legally, so I'll do it financially. I give incentives to our allies to purchase our debt from the FED. Then I can ignore them. I will pay our allies back over a ten year period.

Once that's done, or started, I am going to pass a financial reform which says that the US govt. owns it own money.

Oh, and I would try to shift that income tax over to tariffs.

Honestly, I think Tim Geitner sounds earnest, but he's spouting nonsense. Either he's totally corrupt or a total moron. I tend to think the former.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 4:05 PM

America loves a winner!

A tax cheat ? Corrupt ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 4:41 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

If you're underweight you need to take in more, which I would think is a more accurate metaphor for when you don't have enough of something.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 6:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
If you're underweight you need to take in more, which I would think is a more accurate metaphor for when you don't have enough of something.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

Well, the fed govt needs to pay attention to Michelle's Let's Move idea, and stop stuffing its face.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2011 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Keeping the tax rates low, and making cuts in some areas, will stimulate the economy, free up that capital that's being sat on, and get folks back to work. Putting a larger burden on the private sector won't yield an over all surplus to the govt, i'll only slow the economy down further.

Lowering tax rates and freeing up capital hasn't helped. That's actually what got us here - a decade of Bushonomics. We already know that doesn't work.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:05 AM

Bushonomics was bad, the worst the country has seen since FDR, but it's not what got us here. The "cost" of the Bush tax cuts was $170 billion when they were introduced, $130 billion for Obama's first budget and $105 billion for 2012.

Now measure that against the deficits. You can see the impact of the tax cuts clearly during the Bush years, and again here, longer term

$2.3 trillion may sound a lot like $3.7 trillion until you realize that there's $2 trillion in revenue.

Okay, So, Obama supported Bush's bailout. $700 billion. Then Bush wanted to scale it back to $350 billion and Obama went personally to the white house to plead for him *not* to do that. So, this explains the 2008 bar, it's $350 billion lower than it should be, because of TARP1. 2009, with this extension, should have been around the same. But then, Obama passed another $900 billion bailout bill right after coming into office. That's where things head off a cliff.

Meanwhile, they started crafting a 2010 budget. Having inflated the 2009 budget from what it was by 1.25 trillion, they built that excess into the next three budgets by just spending money. But what did we get for it? Obamacare isn't even in this yet, and my understand is, it spends some money, but mostly its an assault on the people, forcing them to spend money. So WTF is going on?

Repealing a $105 billion tax cut is not going to balance your $1.7 trillion dollar projected 2012 deficit.

So, Reagan tax cuts are barely visible on the graph. Anyone who's played sim city knows that lower taxation leads to a growing economy and more money (in sim city, the ideal is around 7%)

You can nitpick the game design, but was written as a simulation for management, not as a videogame, initially, and the general trends that work in the game tend to reflect real life.

Point being:

There's an ideal taxation rate that would generation the most tax revenue. at 0%, you would have nothing. At 100%, the economy would be producing no yield, so you would have nothing again. Somewhere in the middle is a peak at which your taxes do less damage to the economy but still represent enough of a % of that yield where you get your maximum dollars.

This is where the tax and spend model is just wrong. More is not better. More is not more money. More can be less money.

So, yes, Clinton balanced the budget, and he may have done some shifty things on the side, but the major thing he did was cut spending. Raising taxes wouldn't have done it for him, and it won't do it for Obama.

As Obama raises taxes, as he has planned, he will offset a portion of that spending.

Let's move passed this tax cut repeal towards the real tax hike: The 50% bracket.

The wealthy represent almost $2 trillion of america's income, or about half of the total salaries. By raising this tax a scaled 10% as proposed, we would generate, in theory, another $200 billion.

Now do both, and we would get $300 billion. (Bush tax cuts amount to just under 5%)

Now, the idea that would generate an increase in income long term is based on the fallacy that nothing would change: There would be no decline in the economy, and no money would move offshore to avoid this taxation (And the money is leaving. it's going to china. If you pursue it, the people will follow their money to china. Keep pushing, they'll renounce their US citizenship.)

At this point, we would have a 50% tax. Now some people say "Oh, that's nothing, we used to have 90%." Sure. We used to have slavery too. More to the point: We used to have WWII. That wasn't a great policy decision. War with Japan. We succeeded in helping create communist China.

So, back to the books.

$300 billion is barely making a dent in this budget, but look what you're doing to the tax rate.

50% Federal
10% State (NY, most places are lower, 5%, CA is higher)
AMT 7%
15.3% FICA*

* your paycheck may say half as much, because "the employer is putting in half" <- this is voodoo economics. The employer is paying the entire cost of hiring you, that means the whole 15.3% no matter what gets written on the ledger.

That's 82.3%

Okay, now knock that down to the average american family, who will be paying l7% less than this, so 65.3% (lower in Texas, which has no state income tax.)

The median household income in the United States is $46326. (Roughly half are on the FICA share, so that means half of those are 7.65% higher in taxed income they never see.)

This makes a neat $48,098 as the typical US pre-tax household income. This leaves us with $16,690

Average american family insurance program $13375
Average american property tax $2000

Your take home pay? $1,315

Rent or mortgage on that?

Okay. Let's say "sure, that's bad, but I'll never be in the $250,000 and over 50% bracket. I'm going to live in texas, and only pay 25% (plus 15.3%) but 0% state and 0% AMT because Texas taxes are subsidized by the federal govt.

That assumes the rest of us keep subsidizing Texas, and keep earning money.

Now, about the tax bracket. Remember the two recent moves against limit american gold and limiting online currency? Those speak to me of planned currency devaluation. That's also the only way you dig out of this deficit without cutting spending.

Rule of thumb: Whatever the intentional devaluation, you get that again in de-investment, because no one wants to hold a devalued currency.

So, a 50% devaluation means 75%. This means we multiply all numbers by 4. (this is very likely.)
Even if we don't devalue, the falling dollar due to the high deficits will have this effect by the end of Obama's next term anyway.

So, that means $200k as the avg. household income. 37+15+7+10=69%=$62,000-$8,000* property -53,000* for the family insurance plan =$1,000
* (remember the 4:1 devaluation that created your higher income.)

Okay, so I get a higher paying job. put me at $250. Bang, in comes the 50%, now I'm slapped with another 13% tax. That's making it look like this:

50+15.3+7+10=82.3%=$44,250-$8,000 -53,000 for the oh screw it.

Now, let's say we up our income. Maybe we need $300k? Mtg. payments 1-2k per month *12 months * 4:1 currency devaluation=48-96,000

This doesn't even count in the cost of college education, now 100-250k per child, etc. pre-devaluation

Now you're going to need a salary for a standard family with one child in colllege at a time for 16 years, plus the total cost of the home on that mortgage frame, so the current cost is, in average debt accumulated, 800,000 or 50,000 per year with no changes to currency or tax policy.

Add to that $214,000 in insurance, assuming absolutely no rise in rates once insurance is mandatory, and absolutely no currency devaluation, even though the exchanges are already devaluing us 30% based on the 2011 data alone..

At 83% tax, you're going to need to take home $110,000 to not pay any bills or put any food on the table. That means you're looking at, to make a normal household income and live a normal borderline lower-middle class living, over one million dollars a year.

Now, I've had some experience with jobs, and I know that once you get passed the joe shmoe level, they expect 80 hours a week, not 40, and you will need both parents working to generate 8,000 work hours per year. That's assuming that American labor will be worth $125 an hour.

Now, sure, US dollars will be cheap, but not that cheap. This is $31.25 per hour today. How does that compete in the global market. Wage rates are already 1/2 that in countries that have *higher* worker productivity and education than we do.

So how do they do it? Serfdom? Peasants in the fields making 50 cents an hour? (nice media myth) No. They have govts. that do not spend $3.7 trillion a year, that are not requiring their citizens to spend a projected $2 trillion a year on health insurance, that do not have 20 trillion in mortgage debt, paying 1.4 trillion a year in interest to banks which are getting bailouts, sending us into, count them six
pakistan, iraq, afghanistan, syria, yemen, lybia
wars, not to mention the insurgencies we're funding, and the welfare to the corporations, the rich...

It cannot be done. It's that simple.

Let's say you actually raise the tax rate to 100%. Can you pay for all this spending? Yes, you even have a little left over to pay down the debt, but your people have zero income. It will leave you room for $1000 a year stipend for a national food program so your 300 million homeless do not starve. Only, given the history of such programs, they will starve.

Here's a radical idea: cut spending.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Keeping the tax rates low, and making cuts in some areas, will stimulate the economy, free up that capital that's being sat on, and get folks back to work. Putting a larger burden on the private sector won't yield an over all surplus to the govt, i'll only slow the economy down further.

Lowering tax rates and freeing up capital hasn't helped. That's actually what got us here - a decade of Bushonomics. We already know that doesn't work.

In fact, you have it completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts worked. Stimulated the economy and kept unemployment low. It was the massive excess spending, as well as the Dodd/ Frank lead housing bubble, that caused the economy to go sideways. Michael Moore even claims we have 'plenty ' of money, in the private sector. The problem is, you and he want to simply take it, via taxes, and feed the govt. Others want to grow the economy , involve more people , and rise the tide of economic prosperity.

More people benefit from lower taxes, and the govt gets more money, as folks go back to work and start contributing.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:17 AM

Quote:

It's a nice graph, and from such a reliable source as "winteryknight". ;)

Too bad it's not accurate.

1) Where are the costs of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars? Remember those? The ones that conveniently kept getting left out of the Bush (GOP) budgets? Those were on the order of $170-200b/year, all of it kept off the books. How very convenient.

2) The "Obama tripled the deficit" myth. See that big red bar, the first big red bar on the right? Yeah, THAT is your "last GOP budget", the one signed by Bush for Fiscal Year 2008. Bush signed that one; it's his budget. Obama's not setting a pattern here; he's following the pattern set by his predecessor.

And of course, now that the GOP has control of the House, where budget bills must originate according to the Constitution, we have even more spending. Of course, we also have no budget... Hey, there's a though - if you don't officially HAVE a budget in place, you don't have deficits, do you? I mean, if you can leave two entire WARS off a budget and nobody (on the right, anyway) even bothers to remember them, then why can't you just leave the whole budget off the budget, and claim to have balanced the budget and created a surplus?!

Just kidding on that last part. But I'm honestly surprised someone hasn't suggested it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:32 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

You've got to cut spending, AND raise taxes.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:17 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

I'm sorry I know that must have taken a while to write but I'm gonna pick up on one thing you said: do you actually believe that the US should have stayed out of the Second World War? If so, you are a fool on so many levels.

Also, trickle-down economics doesn't work, the New Deal was a neccessity and it sure as hell didn't make the situation any worse and state-run Medicare works none too bad.

That's what I know from having a neutral perspective from over here.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Keeping the tax rates low, and making cuts in some areas, will stimulate the economy

Been there, done that, and look where that's gotten us!

Because contrary to popular opinion, Obama has NOT raised taxes. We are still operating on the same tax cuts that Bush put in place .... Been doing that for 12 years... Banks and businesses are sitting on TONS of cash. So where's that stimulated economy??? Where are the jobs?

Do you know what a definition of insanity is, Rappy? It's when you keep doing the same thing over and over, and you keep expecting different results. Well, we have been doing "the same thing" since your great god Reagan*:

free trade
low taxes
deregulation
out-of-control wartime spending

And yet, here we are today, sinking into oblivion. So please, stop trying to convince us that your way is the correct way, because... unlike you... the rest of us are capable of learning from experience.

*With one exception: Clinton did three things that laid the foundation of fiscal responsibility and true economic recovery: He cut military spending, raised taxes, and raised the minimum wage. And during his Presidency we had higher job growth and reduced deficit than under any of the Republican Presidents.

Geithner's an idiot. And you're an idiot too, Rappy. Don't expect us to follow you down the idiot-path.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You've got to cut spending, AND raise taxes.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Kind of my point. You can't spending-cut your way out of debt, and you can't tax your way out of it, either. Gotta do both.

The Clinton years saw more growth and lower unemployment, more job creation and more sustained growth - all with higher taxes. The post-WWII era saw some tremendous growth, too - and with MUCH higher taxes.

Fix Social Security, and remove ANY ability for ANYONE to borrow against it by leaving the lockbox full of IOUs. DT suggests stamping out the ability of "the rich" to collect Social Security, which they paid into their entire working lives. Fix the payroll tax rate instead - do away with the $108,600 income cap on payroll taxes, and Social Security is fixed on the spot.

Get the top tax rates back to where they were during the Eisenhower years, since he's pretty universally agreed upon as a "good" conservative President. We were still producing things in this country, still creating jobs, still employing people, even though the top tax rate went as high as 94%. (That's darn near 100%, DT, and there was still economic growth!)

Heck, get the top tax rate back to where it was under that other "great conservative", Reagan.

Cut spending. Start with the military. Cut it 10% per year for 5 years; that gets you a little more than 40% less in military spending (not 50%; do the math, map it out - 90% one year, 90% of that the next, and so on). The U.S. didn't get attacked on 9/11 because Clinton cut military spending; we still had the highest military spending on Earth, and the most powerful military. The entire arsenal of al Qaeda in the U.S. consisted of this: four box cutters. Those four box cutters - about $20 worth - cost us literally TRILLIONS of dollars in military spending, and for what? We've killed an awful lot of people, and caused more to be killed, by our actions. But we are no safer now than we were on September 10th.

Osama bin Laden said he would bleed this country dry. According to John "We're BROKE!" Boehner, he did. Boehner says al Qaeda won the war on terror.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Keeping the tax rates low, and making cuts in some areas, will stimulate the economy
Been there, done that, and look where that's gotten us!

Because contrary to popular opinion, Obama has NOT raised taxes. We are still operating on the same tax cuts that Bush put in place .... Been doing that for 12 years... Banks and businesses are sitting on TONS of cash. So where's that stimulated economy??? Where are the jobs?

Do you know what a definition of insanity is, Rappy? It's when you keep doing the same thing over and over, and you keep expecting different results. Well, we have been doing "the same thing" since your great god Reagan*:

free trade
low taxes
deregulation
out-of-control wartime spending

And yet, here we are today, sinking into oblivion. So please, stop trying to convince us that your way is the correct way, because... unlike you... the rest of us are capable of learning from experience.

*With one exception: Clinton did three things that laid the foundation of fiscal responsibility and true economic recovery: He cut military spending, raised taxes, and raised the minimum wage. And during his Presidency we had higher job growth and reduced deficit than under any of the Republican Presidents.

Geithner's an idiot. And you're an idiot too, Rappy. Don't expect us to follow you down the idiot-path.

Rappy insists that Clinton just got "lucky" with the tech boom. I have to ask, though: How could such a boom happen with such high taxes? After all, clearly nobody had any capital lying around to invest in technology, right? Those low unemployment numbers he keeps crediting to Bush? Look into them; they were from the Clinton years and policies, and unemployment started going up almost the moment Bush took office, and never again approached the low levels achieved under Clinton. Note that Rappy will NEVER give Clinton credit for his accomplishments.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:03 AM

Mike,

1) You have a good point about supplementals, a trick which still continues, but that's not it either. Bush allocated about a 1/2 trillion a year in the budget, he just snuck in a couple hundred billion extra, but so does Obama. This isn't making the trillion plus difference.

2) Would have been, if Obama hadn't tacked on an extra bailout. Not arguing to defend Bush, I'm just sick of this tired "Obama inherited this mess" argument. Reality is: No, he didn't.

Obama inherited a mess that the sort of mess that Nixon left to Ford. But Obama is not Gerald Ford, nor is he Jimmy Carter. Instead, Obama has taken the Hoover plummet. It's similar to what Johnson did when he inherited a mess from Kennedy: Made it far worse. This time, however, it's pretty irreparable.

What we needed was Mr. Fixit. What we got was Mr. "It's not my fault. The car was broken when you drove it into the garage. Its blowing up was just an aftereffect of the condition you gave it to me in, and has nothing to do with my garage burning down while your car was in it."

I'm not defending the GOP, who are hardly fiscally responsible, but this is not just a slight degeneration of monetary policy, it's cascading off the edge of a cliff.

Quote:
I mean, if you can leave two entire WARS off a budget

This is the sort of thing I nitpick. I was as harsh on Bush as anyone here, but this is an exaggeration. Yes, he did some funny money deals to make the wars look like they weren't costing as much as they did, but he did spend a fortune on them.

Now, sure, part of the problem here is that no one fixed Soc. Sec., a problem which will get steadily worse, and part of the problem is that both presidents increased medicare*, and part of the problem is that debts are cumulative.

But something's gotta make you wake up and say "Okay, maybe some of these new things we have, we can't afford." I mean, it's like if your kid went out to Comicon for the weekend and came back with a credit card debt. Last time this happened, it was a couple hundred and you shrugged it off; this time it was $100,000.

BTW, I don't think I'll like the GOP's budget cuts. This is a vicious cycle: The dems introduce new spending bills, and the republicans look at whatever helps people, and kill it. They keep all the imperial police state and corporate welfare nonsense.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
I'm sorry I know that must have taken a while to write but I'm gonna pick up on one thing you said: do you actually believe that the US should have stayed out of the Second World War? If so, you are a fool on so many levels.

Also, trickle-down economics doesn't work, the New Deal was a neccessity and it sure as hell didn't make the situation any worse and state-run Medicare works none too bad.

That's what I know from having a neutral perspective from over here.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

The only fan of trickle down here is Obama. It was used as a slight against Reagan, but Obama actually said he supported the theory.

That's the only thing I agree with you here on.

1) WWII was a moronic and ridiculously expensive thing to do. We killed millions of Japanese, and created a chaos in China that killed many more than the whole war in Europe. We certainly didn't do a damn thing about Hitler or the Holocaust (We very intentionally didn't do a damn thing about it.)

Oh, and the New Deal was a disaster. By the numbers, we never left the great depression. The New Deal sealed it, and made it last forever. That brings us to the mess we're in right now.

The only solution is to take back the currency, the mess that got us into WWI, which was also moronic, and if we hadn't done it, there would not have been a WWII.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You've got to cut spending, AND raise taxes.

No, you don't. That's just the rallying cry from those who want to condition us all to think that we're not paying enough directly to the govt. We are. They're just spending far, far too much. Period.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:22 AM

America loves a winner!

The techie boom was independent and started to get its foundation long before Clinton's taxes. You mistakenly want to tie one to the other, and think that it was BECAUSE of Clinton's taxes, that we as a nation enjoyed such prosperity. The techie boom was going to happen, high taxes or not. Clinton just got lucky, for a while, and then unlucky, when the bubble burst. None of his polices caused the boom or the bubble, he just got stuck in the middle of it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The techie boom was going to happen, high taxes or not. Clinton just got lucky, for a while, and then unlucky, when the bubble burst. None of his polices caused the boom or the bubble, he just got stuck in the middle of it.

Oh, so now you're saying that taxes DON'T have an effect on bubbles and investment? That we COULD raise taxes, just like Clinton did, and not derail underlying growth?

Can't have it both ways, rappy.

Yeah, I know: It's a tough concept to parse. Keep at it. You'll get it some day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:38 AM

America loves a winner!

You may find this a hard concept, but sometimes independent things can co-exist, at the same time, and not have a damn thing to do with each other.

A landslide can occur while there's a forest fire burning, but one doesn't necessarily have to have caused the other.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You may find this a hard concept, but sometimes independent things can co-exist, at the same time, and not have a damn thing to do with each other.

And yet, curiously, you have made the exact opposite argument: that taxes are inevitably the death-knell of economic growth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 8:51 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You may find this a hard concept, but sometimes independent things can co-exist, at the same time, and not have a damn thing to do with each other.
And yet, curiously, you have made the exact opposite argument: that taxes are inevitably the death-knell of economic growth.

Not " taxes " , excessively high taxes, and the threat of such, upon an uncertain market. And the market hates uncertainty, especially when dealing w/ the expense bombs , which are hidden in O-Care, as we're finding out now.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM

If the market hates uncertainty so much, why does the GOP keep ramping up that uncertainty by waffling on raising the debt ceiling? They're the ones creating the uncertainty that they supposedly hate.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:58 AM

This is pointless.

Clinton's budgetary balance was due to the peace dividend.

What happens in the private sector only has moderate effect on the public sector.

To some extent, Bush Sr. gets the credit for ending the cold war, allowing the peace dividend.

But ultimately, Clinton gets the credit, for cashing that dividend, and downsizing the military.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is pointless.

Clinton's budgetary balance was due to the peace dividend.

What happens in the private sector only has moderate effect on the public sector.

To some extent, Bush Sr. gets the credit for ending the cold war, allowing the peace dividend.

But ultimately, Clinton gets the credit, for cashing that dividend, and downsizing the military.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

That pretty much confirms my point that you'll get a lot further towards balancing a budget by NOT having endless wars going than you will by starting wars in vain hopes of stimulating the economy.

Can anyone name me a war or "police action" that the U.S. has been heavily involved in since WWII that HASNT' resulted in another recession?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:06 PM

No argument here.

Keynes fatal error was that he did not measure into his equation the net benefit to the society of the work being done in the creation of active marketable labor.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Not " taxes " , excessively high taxes, and the threat of such, upon an uncertain market. And the market hates uncertainty, especially when dealing w/ the expense bombs , which are hidden in O-Care, as we're finding out now.

Great! So let's end uncertainty right now: Let's raise taxes on the rich from 35% to 40% (not "excessive" as far as I can tell), raise the debt ceiling, and cut military spending by 10% (which is a huge ongoing expense-bomb). Let's raise the contribution threshold to Social Security and Medicare to cover a person's full income. That will erase the greater uncertainty of US default and the follow-on catastrophic increase in interests rates. N'est ce pas?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:02 AM

I think TPTB are panicking a little bit about the recent situation in Hong Kong. The local banks have come to the decision that the US dollar is not a currency, and have stop accepting it as such. This is what led Hu Jintao to make that comment.

It's a pretty profound statement, but their reasoning was that hard currency is freely convertible into standard forms of wealth such as precious metals, and that it exists in known measurable levels and cannot be created on a whim.

This is the uncertainty in the market.

If the dollar is not a currency, what is it? A scrip? That's apparently the take, that the USD is parallel to some Soviet era moneys which were really only accepted certain places.

I recall a couple years ago when this uncertainty struck before, right after the first bailouts, that a couple places in New York City stopped taking dollars, but they weren't major banks. The Hong Kong Dollar is pegged to the US Dollar, which makes it an issue for them. They are seeing an increasing abandonment of their currency. Still, the scenario they paint is a very plausible one.

So, yes, the resolution of the situation would remove uncertainty, but that doesn't always lead to stability. Or, not at a level you might want. The austerity measures you just proposed are a start, but they would need to be a little more radical to cover the gap. If the gap is not covered, we may enter a currency devaluation scheme, confirming at least some of the fears in Hong Kong.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:34 AM

There's also more than a bit of uncertainty about Greece's situation, which is kind of ironic since they're really in no worse shape than we are...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If the dollar is not a currency, what is it? A scrip? That's apparently the take, that the USD is parallel to some Soviet era moneys which were really only accepted certain places.

It is still the official exchange currency for oil. Which is why the USA will bomb the snot out of any oil-producing nation which has the cojones to contract for something OTHER THAN USD... hence Iraq and Libya.

If we cut the military by 10% (that also includes the funding resolutions which don't make it into the "official budget" from some stupid reason), raise taxes on those making more than $250,0000, and remove the limit that we currently place on SSI taxes, we will have taken a HUGE step towards solving our fiscal crisis. I'll pencil-whip the numbers for you later and post them.

It's not that difficult, it's just that various special interests (bankers and industrialists hiding behind tea-baggers, the military-industrial machine, health insurances and big pharma) are holding Washington hostage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:36 AM

True, but that's subject to change. Right now the largest economy the dollar is tied to is China, but that peg is feeling a little wobbly. Our Japanese peg is also a bit loose.

If HK doesn't abandon the peg, citizens of HK will abandon the HKD. If that happens, they flee to the RMB. If that peg wobbles... there's a chain reaction here of wobbly pegs.

Remember the sterling pegs? It wasn't the end of the world for Britain when they fell, but it was the end of the empire, or maybe a post mortem elegy to the empire.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Great! So let's end uncertainty right now: Let's raise taxes on the rich from 35% to 40% (not "excessive" as far as I can tell), raise the debt ceiling, and cut military spending by 10% (which is a huge ongoing expense-bomb). Let's raise the contribution threshold to Social Security and Medicare to cover a person's full income. That will erase the greater uncertainty of US default and the follow-on catastrophic increase in interests rates. N'est ce pas?

Huzzah Sig! Yes, taxes on the rich have been MUCH higher in the past, and the economy has boomed. On the other hand, Bush's tax cuts for the rich have done exactly what? Nothing but make the gap between haves and have nots MUCH bigger. Hmmmm... (and you forgot close loopholes and subsidies to companies making billions)

DT,

Quote:
The dems introduce new spending bills, and the republicans look at whatever helps people, and kill it. They keep all the imperial police state and corporate welfare nonsense.

Right on. That's so damned obvious, but nobody seems to talk about it much. If we could just get some kind of COMPROMISE (you know, that word that makes Tea Partiers scream!) on those concepts...

I know, I know, I'm a hopeless dreamer.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If the market hates uncertainty so much, why does the GOP keep ramping up that uncertainty by waffling on raising the debt ceiling? They're the ones creating the uncertainty that they supposedly hate.

When's the last time the Dems ( controlling both houses and the white house for 2 years, and still controling 1 house and the white house now ) have submitted ANY budget?

Oh, Obama did, once. It was hilariously voted down 97-0.

The majority party is leading - from behind.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:21 PM

Which house originates all spending bills, according to the Constitution?

Anyone? Bueller? Rappy? Anyone?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:25 PM

While advisors come up with many of them, bills can originate in either house. The restriction of bills to the house is specific to revenue (tax) bills. It's worth recognizing at the time the only taxes levied by the federal govt. were import tariffs. Many people have argued that the intention of the 16th amendment was to levy a tax upon corporate profits, not personal income, a case which I have seen defended, but can't defend myself, though I get that in principle, this is what the plurality of lawmakers intended.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:59 PM

Quote:
Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that only the House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too — is this true?"

A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html

Precedence and custom - and the explicit written intent of the Federalists, whom the Republicans seem to hold in some esteem - have made this the purview of the House, and the House won't generally go along with any revenue or spending bill not originated there. So do you really think that *THIS* House of Representatives is going to pass a budget originated in the Senate?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:29 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Wow, DT, I really agree with/like your original post about getting rid of debt. But then you WWII post was like entering an alternate deminsion of bizarro. This does occasionally happen with you and I, you say a bunch of things that I agree with and then, broyyyyyyng, you bust out something from way in left field that makes absolutely no sense to me. I suppose its just an illustration of how we're all different and how we shouldn't assume things about each other. I'm not going to say "I'm disappointed in you" the way Niki did to me because it doesn't acomplish anything, but its pretty obvious to me that we wouldn't all be sitting about typing on this discussion board if the Nazis had won. And not having this site would be the least of our worries.

Bizarro world.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Wow, DT, I really agree with/like your original post about getting rid of debt. But then you WWII post was like entering an alternate deminsion of bizarro. This does occasionally happen with you and I, you say a bunch of things that I agree with and then, broyyyyyyng, you bust out something from way in left field that makes absolutely no sense to me. I suppose its just an illustration of how we're all different and how we shouldn't assume things about each other. I'm not going to say "I'm disappointed in you" the way Niki did to me because it doesn't acomplish anything, but its pretty obvious to me that we wouldn't all be sitting about typing on this discussion board if the Nazis had won. And not having this site would be the least of our worries.

Bizarro world.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Riona,

It comes from a LOT of studying of history. Half the people here probably agree, but also, they would be the ones most familiar with History. Hero would disagree ;)

But first off let me debunk a myth:

1) Nazi Germany would not have won the war.

2) Nazi Germany had already lost. We did not defeat Nazi Germany. The Soviets did.

3) Goering had never had any interest in the war, and ended it as soon as he came to power, which he did by personally shooting Hitler in the head, a fact which is in absolutely no historical dispute*

*What is in dispute was whether this was "an assisted suicide" as Goering claimed, or an assassination, which is probably more likely, is the subject of debate.

The reason Goering would make this claim was to make his ascendancy to the Chancellorship of Germany secure. If he had assassinated the Fuhrer, it would have been difficult for him to assume the post (Just as it would have been for LBJ to succeed JFK if he had admitted to having Kennedy shot.)

The truth is that Goering hated Hitler for a reason that differs from the ones that everyone else hates him for: He thought that he was destroying Germany. When the Red Army started sweeping across eastern europe it became clear to Goering that Hitler would fight to the bitter end in a pointless last stand which would lead to the total destruction of the Fatherland.

So, in order to enter the real world, you have to accept two facts of WWII from an American perspective, facts which I feel are fairly undisputed in historical circles:

1) There are two wars here. One is a war in Europe. That war in europe, without the US was won by Russia.

Now, from that people we can debate "What would happen if Russia had conquered all of Europe?" I would argue that it would have held it for five years tops. There's a long history of this on the continent.

2) The US war was a war with Japan. We started that war in 1937 when we attacked Manchukuo (Japanese occupied Machurian) which we did with OUR ALLIES (Russia and Nazi Germany.) Yes, you read that correctly.

Germany switched sides in 1938 to support Japan after promoting German friendly Tojo to a position of minister of defense, who then instituted a de facto military coup. The result of this was the conquest of China and SE Asia by Japan.

FDR, one of the greatest nutjobs of all time, (along with Tojo, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill et al at the time, and most of all, Mao) went on a war for "Manifest Destiny" more than anything else. He envisioned east asia as a US colony much like Britain had. He and his lunatic successor Harry Truman sacrificed millions of lives to reach this megalomaniacal goal.

When Truman gained control of the six million man force that ruled all of east asia, he reacted by disbanding it, in what is viewed by some historians as the stupidest thing ever done by a human. (The competitor is the war of the triple alliance by Francisco Solano Lopez. It depends on how personal the impact of the stupidity is considered.)

Now, the main point of this idiocy was that it created a power vacuum in the most powerful nation on earth. The reason Truman did it was that he was an idiot, and like Gerald Ford in his refusal to back the VC against Saloth Sar, he opted for his own personal pro-western candidate, Chiang Kai Shek.

The problems with this idea are as numerous as the German invasion of Russia or more so, but the short of it is: There was already a pro-american captialism government controlling China, or had been: Imperial Japan. A bird in the hand is worth a hundred million in the bush in this case.

The result was that Soviety backed Mao Tse Dong was able to take over the country, in spite of having failed miserably 12 years earlier because now he was virtually unopposed. The only thing that Chiang was able to accomplish aside from the accession of Taiwan was the slaughter of an additional 20 million people to Mao's 60 million, which should really be added to the death toll of FDR's lunatic war.

Now fast forward to the present day: The US is collapsing under the weight of 14 trillion in debt. The origins of this?

Spending policies dictated by war bond holders. How does this happen? The US cannot write any policy without the okay of bond holders because if they do not have that, they will not have any money with which to fund those policies. Hence, the only policies ever passed are those that bond holders like. Bond holders like policies that hand them money, and increase the deficit, so they can have more bonds, which gives them more power, and more money.

The war created the $2 trillion war bond market which has now spawned the $14 trillion debt monster.

Secondly...

The result of the disastrous war (which we lost) was the world's most powerful nation being controlled by a socialist lunatic, and growing into a serious trade problem for the US, led by the fact that they are one of the bond holders.

This is where it gets economically really ugly for us. Our policy with china is to hemorrhaging money to China as we lose business to them, buy their goods without tariff, and sell goods to them at 50% tariff, they win all ways, because they hold 1.4 billion* of our bonds.

* when you include all Chinese states, not just Beijing, but Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.

Most of our bonds are held by the international banks of the federal reserve, which is a product of Wilson and WWI, but the debt they use to control policy is a side effect of FDR's WWII, and utterly pointless war with Japan, a US ally, which has been a US ally since 1855, with the singular exception of this war.

Now I will leave the remaining rant to the other folks on the board real familiar with the situation, of whom I count Frem and John, but there are a couple others out there.

Oh, and First and foremost I want you to accept the reality that Nazi Germany fell to the Soviet Union, not the United States, a reality which is essential to any discussion of what the world map might have looked like without US involvement.

Then you might want to look into the US role in the creation of Nazi Germany, but that's another story. Most particularly the issue of WWI, the War Debt and the Wiemar Republic.

(Sorry, you've just opened the world's largest can of worms. There is so much information on the topic in part because the much of Europe has devoted a great deal of its academic system to the topic.)

If you want to get rid of the debt, though, you first have to understand where it comes from.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 7:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
True, but that's subject to change. Right now the largest economy the dollar is tied to is China, but that peg is feeling a little wobbly. Our Japanese peg is also a bit loose.

If HK doesn't abandon the peg, citizens of HK will abandon the HKD. If that happens, they flee to the RMB. If that peg wobbles... there's a chain reaction here of wobbly pegs.

Remember the sterling pegs? It wasn't the end of the world for Britain when they fell, but it was the end of the empire, or maybe a post mortem elegy to the empire.

What we are seeing is the dissolution of the American Empire. We can speed it up by blowing wads of debt onto our armed forces, or slow it down by building up our economy (not our dollar or Wall, Street, our REAL economy) but we will very soon just be one of many. And that's OK. The question is: What kind of shape do we wind up in?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 8:16 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry I know that must have taken a while to write but I'm gonna pick up on one thing you said: do you actually believe that the US should have stayed out of the Second World War? If so, you are a fool on so many levels.

Also, trickle-down economics doesn't work, the New Deal was a neccessity and it sure as hell didn't make the situation any worse and state-run Medicare works none too bad.

That's what I know from having a neutral perspective from over here.

Really the Brits shoulda been cursing that the US got into the war. You'd think it was the shared culture and history wanting to protect the English motherland, or you'd think it was the horrors of the rape of Nanking and the concentration camps, but no. America made out like bandits after all that, since all the other big economies of Europe and Asia were pretty much bombed to ruins.

Some would argue that got the US out of the depression more than did the New Deal. I'm starting to agree with them.

Point about the state run medical system, but that's not what's being proposed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 8:20 AM

Quote:
That pretty much confirms my point that you'll get a lot further towards balancing a budget by NOT having endless wars going than you will by starting wars in vain hopes of stimulating the economy.

Can anyone name me a war or "police action" that the U.S. has been heavily involved in since WWII that HASNT' resulted in another recession?

A valid point. None. The only time this works is when you crash all the other economies and are the only one left standing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 8:40 AM

Quote:
What we are seeing is the dissolution of the American Empire. We can speed it up by blowing wads of debt onto our armed forces, or slow it down by building up our economy (not our dollar or Wall, Street, our REAL economy) but we will very soon just be one of many. And that's OK. The question is: What kind of shape do we wind up in?

Also agreed.

The only concern I have with losing superpower status is the possible rise of a one world government. We've ticked off lots of people who wouldn't mind seeing us humbled, they're likely to get a pretty major vote, and some of our citizens are still innocent.

But the current military and imperialistic course is not sustainable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 9:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Riona:

Quote:
....was like entering an alternate deminsion of bizarro. This does occasionally happen with you and I, you say a bunch of things that I agree with and then, broyyyyyyng, you bust out something from way in left field that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Been there, done that! It's my main problem with DT, sadly, because a lot of what he says makes sense.

Quote:
I'm not going to say "I'm disappointed in you" the way Niki did to me because it doesn't acomplish anything

Geeez, what's going on? This really seems to have gotten to you or something, you gotta drag it over from another thread just to snark me? Again? Obviously I seem to have pissed you off with my remark, but geez...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 9:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig:

Quote:
What we are seeing is the dissolution of the American Empire. We can speed it up by blowing wads of debt onto our armed forces, or slow it down by building up our economy (not our dollar or Wall, Street, our REAL economy) but we will very soon just be one of many. And that's OK.

Yup. As you and I and others have been saying for quite some time. Every empire crumbles eventually, and I wouldn't mind if we weren't the biggest bully on the block anymore either. I just hope it gets better for THE PEOPLE than it is now.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 9:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I agree:

Quote:
Some would argue that got the US out of the depression more than did the New Deal

Tho' I'd say both of them had pretty hefty influence. Wars are usually profitable--for one segment of the economy or another. And I see you're another who agrees that

Quote:
the current military and imperialistic course is not sustainable.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 9:44 AM