PDA

View Full Version : We may be in another recession already.


cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 09:13 AM
last quarter the economy shrunk just like some people were saying. Of course liberals tried to tell us this is a recovery. But now if we shrink again this quarter it will be officially another recession. Good job Obama!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/30/us-economy-shrinks-01-percent-1st-time-in-3-12-years/

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 09:37 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578273611039517142.html

U.S. economic momentum screeched to a halt in the final months of 2012, as lawmakers' struggle to reach a deal on tax increases and budget cuts likely led businesses to pare inventories and the government to cut spending.

Obama's recovery in shambles!

Requiem
01-30-2013, 09:41 AM
When defense spending is contracted at ~ 22% -- this is going to happen. All other reports are showing that the signs elsewhere are encouraging. Try reading more than just a headline from FOXNEWS.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 09:54 AM
The economy IS what it is when you're not dumping money into it to make it work better. Maybe rather than a recession, we're just in what the economy will be in the future.

Rohirrim
01-30-2013, 10:23 AM
The overwhelming majority haven't had a "recovery" anyway, so it doesn't really matter to them. Just more of the same.

As for this recession, Tim Noah puts it beautifully: This recovery has been a luxury item. For the bottom 99%, real income growth over the first two years of the recovery was one-fifth of one percent. The richest percentile saw its income rebound by 11.6%. It is only slightly sensational to point out that the 1%'s income has outgained the rest of the economy by a factor of 58 in the recovery.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-rich-get-richer-2010-was-a-very-good-year-to-be-in-the-1/253990/

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 10:45 AM
When defense spending is contracted at ~ 22% -- this is going to happen. All other reports are showing that the signs elsewhere are encouraging. Try reading more than just a headline from FOXNEWS.

nope Obama only adding low paying jobs houshold income way down. Hopefully it gets better but Obama has no plans. Its all spend more on healthcare, cut defense but still fight huge wars, gun control, now immigration that will make Obamacare even more expensive.

When will he do the one thing we really need to do. Address how to get more revenue from the corporate money stored overseas. We have to cut drastically the worldwide tax rate but then also make a law that forces them to return at least 50% of the profits made overseas to the American banking system.

But you cant make them pay 35%. They already pay up to 50% and even more in other countries to set up shop. Our oil companies pay through the ass which is why they offshore those profits in other countries. Then you see how they did that and scream holy cow they made 5 billion in africa and didn't pay any tax. But the truth is that paid 5 billion in tax and costs to do it. Now you want them to give another 35%, it doesn't make sense. Drop it, make them bring half of it home or some other reasonable %, and tax it at about 10% max. Govt would make a lot of revenue on something like that. But obama never saw a tax he didn't want to raise. he doesn't care about the economy as much as he does changing govt into his view. Healthcare, immigration,. gun control, all the big liberal ideals of big govt taking care of us.

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 11:36 AM
nope Obama only adding low paying jobs houshold income way down. Hopefully it gets better but Obama has no plans. Its all spend more on healthcare, cut defense but still fight huge wars, gun control, now immigration that will make Obamacare even more expensive.

When will he do the one thing we really need to do. Address how to get more revenue from the corporate money stored overseas. We have to cut drastically the worldwide tax rate but then also make a law that forces them to return at least 50% of the profits made overseas to the American banking system.

But you cant make them pay 35%. They already pay up to 50% and even more in other countries to set up shop. Our oil companies pay through the ass which is why they offshore those profits in other countries. Then you see how they did that and scream holy cow they made 5 billion in africa and didn't pay any tax. But the truth is that paid 5 billion in tax and costs to do it. Now you want them to give another 35%, it doesn't make sense. Drop it, make them bring half of it home or some other reasonable %, and tax it at about 10% max. Govt would make a lot of revenue on something like that. But obama never saw a tax he didn't want to raise. he doesn't care about the economy as much as he does changing govt into his view. Healthcare, immigration,. gun control, all the big liberal ideals of big govt taking care of us.

But we managed to overcome the true threat to society and our way of life - Gays are now allowed in the military.

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 11:59 AM
But we managed to overcome the true threat to society and our way of life - Gays are now allowed in the military.

If Clinton was the its the conomy stupid, Obama is the it's everything but the economy stupid.

Rohirrim
01-30-2013, 12:24 PM
If Clinton was the its the conomy stupid, Obama is the it's everything but the economy stupid.

And the right wing crazies in Congress who simply want to stick their heads into the sand if they can't take our economics back to the 1890s have no blame in the matter? Man, you guys really do live in an echo chamber.

Rohirrim
01-30-2013, 12:27 PM
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/thanks-obama-06.gif

That One Guy
01-30-2013, 01:13 PM
And the right wing crazies in Congress who simply want to stick their heads into the sand if they can't take our economics back to the 1890s have no blame in the matter? Man, you guys really do live in an echo chamber.

The government's job isn't to create an economy - merely to make conditions in which one can thrive. Sorry, until someone presents an idea which stops all our jobs from going overseas, they're just pissing up a rope.

In reality, the current idea of take from the rich to give to the poor is a roundabout method of the trickle down theory that all yous folks seem to despise. You still end up with the big guys holding the money while the guys on bottom cross their fingers and hope the big guys will decide to create jobs. If the big guy instead says, "look at all the profit" and pockets it, we're right back the next year trying to take from the rich guy again.

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 05:19 PM
Listening to dems blame a hurricane for the economy going into a recession is pretty amusing don't you all think? Try having jets slammed into the most important financial city in the country and see what it does for your plans. We will be wishing for Bush JR back soon enough. Obama's economy is going to tank.

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 05:23 PM
Also the govts revenue dropping so much they are forced to cut our security defense spending is also their fault. They have created an environment hostile to big and small businesses alike and now not enough people working to fund the budget like it should be.

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 05:25 PM
So during the whole last 4 months of the election Obama lying again. He said things looking up blah blah. Romney was saying no we are heading into more contraction with your policies! Now it turns out the media just helps report everything is ok when in fact right now as we speak we are as bad off as we ever were.

Arkie
01-30-2013, 05:46 PM
It was an unexpected surprise for Wall Street. ::)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21261323

The fourth-quarter shrinkage in economic output comes as a shock to analysts on Wall Street, who had been expecting 1.1% growth according to a poll by news agency Reuters. Not one economist surveyed had predicted an economic contraction.

El Minion
01-30-2013, 06:42 PM
http://i.imgur.com/gyOQj4f.gif

El Minion
01-30-2013, 06:42 PM
http://i.imgur.com/3Azzv.gif

El Minion
01-30-2013, 06:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/w4ks7.gif

El Minion
01-30-2013, 06:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/9B5F2.gif

cutthemdown
01-30-2013, 07:22 PM
El Minion you don't think Obamas policies could have anything to do with a slow recovery? Bury your head in the sand much? But I blame Obama for that because he has you fooled. :)

lonestar
01-31-2013, 01:18 AM
Looks like el noopinion has become the new cartoon boi apologist for nobama..

Typical. A serious subject is broached and all he has is cartoons.

The true mindset of the far looney left.

lonestar
01-31-2013, 01:22 AM
El Minion you don't think Obamas policies could have anything to do with a slow recovery? Bury your head in the sand much? But I blame Obama for that because he has you fooled. :)

I suspect the trillions he spent trying to stimulate the economy has not kicked in yet.

Just heard that 70% think the moron is doing a good job.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice and I'm a looney leftist liberal.

Rohirrim
01-31-2013, 04:56 AM
If you think the economy is bad now, wait until the idiot rightards in charge of the Troglodyte Party impose their austerity measures on the rest of the country. Much of the downturn now is caused by the anticipation of their stupidity, but they don't care. Like the Islamic fascists, they believe that the best path is always backwards. Ha!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/2013-sequestration-gdp-report_n_2584742.html

peacepipe
01-31-2013, 05:10 AM
El Minion you don't think Obamas policies could have anything to do with a slow recovery? Bury your head in the sand much? But I blame Obama for that because he has you fooled. :)

Yeah,he should've done a bigger stimulus.

BroncoBeavis
01-31-2013, 06:17 AM
Listening to dems blame a hurricane for the economy going into a recession is pretty amusing don't you all think? Try having jets slammed into the most important financial city in the country and see what it does for your plans. We will be wishing for Bush JR back soon enough. Obama's economy is going to tank.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/29/3rd-quarter-gdp-growth-due-to-government

Great thing is they never blame fluctuations in govt spending when the numbers are good. That's only useful as an excuse for failure.

Rohirrim
01-31-2013, 06:51 AM
Listening to dems blame a hurricane for the economy going into a recession is pretty amusing don't you all think? Try having jets slammed into the most important financial city in the country and see what it does for your plans. We will be wishing for Bush JR back soon enough. Obama's economy is going to tank.

After all, isn't that the basic rightard plan? ;D

TonyR
01-31-2013, 09:35 AM
This is mostly due to the largest decrease in defense spending in 40 years. But by all means, blame Obama if that makes you feel better.

Fedaykin
01-31-2013, 11:02 AM
This is mostly due to the largest decrease in defense spending in 40 years. But by all means, blame Obama if that makes you feel better.

Do you realize how many idiots on this board don't understand that large cuts to the federal government will always lead to a recession and raised unemployment? It's quite amazing how many people here don't understand that simple connection. There are at least several who do, of course, but want their cake and eat it too (want cuts, and also want to blame the consequences on "the other guys")

Of course, this thread mostly seems to be a circle jerk for those that revel in the economy worsening because their party/beliefs are more important to them than anything else. Just like their reps.

Rohirrim
01-31-2013, 11:56 AM
Do you realize how many idiots on this board don't understand that large cuts to the federal government will always lead to a recession and raised unemployment? It's quite amazing how many people here don't understand that simple connection. There are at least several who do, of course, but want their cake and eat it too (want cuts, and also want to blame the consequences on "the other guys")

Of course, this thread mostly seems to be a circle jerk for those that revel in the economy worsening because their party/beliefs are more important to them than anything else. Just like their reps.

That's really the point. The Right Wingers in Congress have a political incentive to destroy the economy, and for them, politics comes first.

Arkie
01-31-2013, 04:08 PM
Do you realize how many idiots on this board don't understand that large cuts to the federal government will always lead to a recession and raised unemployment? It's quite amazing how many people here don't understand that simple connection. There are at least several who do, of course, but want their cake and eat it too (want cuts, and also want to blame the consequences on "the other guys")


But the they aren't cutting spending since adjustments were made to avoid the fiscal cliff. Spending will go up 1.87% this year.

elsid13
01-31-2013, 04:22 PM
This is nothing. Notices are starting to going out now to reduce the direct support services and production contracts, and come April we will start to see government wide furlough.

mhgaffney
01-31-2013, 04:42 PM
We never left.

There was no recovery.

The economy has been in the toilet for years.

Things are going to get a lot worse in the coming daze.

lonestar
02-01-2013, 02:06 AM
This is nothing. Notices are starting to going out now to reduce the direct support services and production contracts, and come April we will start to see government wide furlough.

An amazing concept, do nothing jobs actually being cut.

The only time we do not spend money is when Washington is shut down.

But then if the jobs in the federal governent had not increased dramatically over the past four years the jobs creation nobama had would have led to the recession then.

So waste another 5 trillion and hope for the best. Ahahahahaha

Y'all voted for this empty suit now it sounds like time to pay the piper.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2013, 05:30 AM
That's really the point. The Right Wingers in Congress have a political incentive to destroy the economy, and for them, politics comes first.

Federal spending is currently 20% higher than it was in 2008. How much debt do we have to chain to the grandkids to finally "fix" the economy?

Its also fun to watch the guys constantly clamoring to slash defense spending suddenly crying about the antikeynesian tragedy of it all.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 07:33 AM
An amazing concept, do nothing jobs actually being cut.

The only time we do not spend money is when Washington is shut down.

But then if the jobs in the federal governent had not increased dramatically over the past four years the jobs creation nobama had would have led to the recession then.

So waste another 5 trillion and hope for the best. Ahahahahaha

Y'all voted for this empty suit now it sounds like time to pay the piper.

I guess ignorance must truly be bliss. Bush was the most profligate president in decades and we didn't hear a peep out of hypocrites like you when he and the Republicans were binging on government spending like a bunch of drunken sailors for eight years. Not one single veto of a Republican spending plan in his first term. You want to see what destroyed America? Go look in the mirror.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 07:36 AM
Federal spending is currently 20% higher than it was in 2008. How much debt do we have to chain to the grandkids to finally "fix" the economy?

Its also fun to watch the guys constantly clamoring to slash defense spending suddenly crying about the antikeynesian tragedy of it all.

The Keynesian tragedy happened when your boy Ronnie Raygun decided the rich needed a 50% tax cut and he would make up for it by robbing everybody's social security. How's that feudalism working out for you? Finally figuring out that the serfs can't support the government? Too bad.

DenverBrit
02-01-2013, 08:27 AM
Congress has no part in the slow recovery?

Businesses, who are enjoying record profits, yet aren't hiring, have no part in the economy?

Banks and financial institutions sitting on record amounts of cash, have no
role?

Shrinking State and Federal Government, has no impact?

It's all down to just one guy?

Seriously??

TonyR
02-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Federal spending is currently 20% higher than it was in 2008. How much debt do we have to chain to the grandkids to finally "fix" the economy?

Its also fun to watch the guys constantly clamoring to slash defense spending suddenly crying about the antikeynesian tragedy of it all.

I notice you didn't have much to say in this thread:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110012

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Federal spending is currently 20% higher than it was in 2008. How much debt do we have to chain to the grandkids to finally "fix" the economy?

Its also fun to watch the guys constantly clamoring to slash defense spending suddenly crying about the antikeynesian tragedy of it all.

The liberals have been fudging numbers to make it look like economy is recovering. In reality the new jobs being added are low paying and household debt skyrocketing under Obama. Sure he keeps interest rates ridicuously low to try and hide that fact. Hey if we can keep borrowing we will be ok right?

Obama is an unmitigated disaster but liberals will never admit it. Lets hope in 4 yrs people will wise up and elect some republican. I am hopeful repubs can at least hold their ground in the midterms in 2 yrs. if they could even gain a few more seats in the Senate that would be a bonus.

I really think dems smart though. They will back off gun control now and push immigration. They have seen what gun control will do to them. In a few months we won't even be talking about that anymore.

TonyR
02-01-2013, 10:48 AM
Sure he keeps interest rates ridicuously low to try and hide that fact.

LOL He keeps rates low? Typical stupidity from you. What would you do, raise interest rates? Explain this one please.


They have seen what gun control will do to them.

Gun control? You mean the thing that a majority of Americans support?

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 11:05 AM
I guess ignorance must truly be bliss. Bush was the most profligate president in decades and we didn't hear a peep out of hypocrites like you when he and the Republicans were binging on government spending like a bunch of drunken sailors for eight years. Not one single veto of a Republican spending plan in his first term. You want to see what destroyed America? Go look in the mirror.

Bush had to build homeland security and he won his war. Obamas surge was a huge failure. Now he wants to put in a def sec who wanted to quit Iraq before the surge. That would have led to chaos and secertian violence on Syrias scale. Bush JR has been proven right that Saddam Hussien could be eliminated and have the country get more stable each yr. In 10-15 yrs Iraq will be light years ahead of Syria which followed the Obama hands off approach.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 11:09 AM
Tony by making things like student loans and car loans really easy to get all it does is allow those industries to charge more then their product is worth. By making int rates so low we encourage people to spend beyond their means.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 11:10 AM
I realize thats the federal reserve but still its a govt wide approach from both parties actually.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 11:13 AM
Majority of Americans support gun control but those numbers skewed into areas where liberals already do well. NY/CA/DC. That issue won't be so kind to your Senators in rural areas. Also Americans fooled by media into thinking assault rifles are more dangerous then hunting rifles of the same calibar and rate of fire.

Country will go along with background checks on new gun purchases with exemptions for family and thats about it.

TonyR
02-01-2013, 11:31 AM
Tony by making things like student loans and car loans really easy to get all it does is allow those industries to charge more then their product is worth. By making int rates so low we encourage people to spend beyond their means.

I'm just not sure what your suggested alternative to lower interest rates would be. Lower rates allows people to refi their mortgages, allows more people the ability to afford homes, allows businesses to borrow more affordably, etc. These are all stimulative to some degree, no? I don't know that people are "borrowing beyond their means" a lot right now because lending standards have tightened considerably. Again, I don't know what alternative you're suggesting by criticizing low interest rates.

peacepipe
02-01-2013, 11:40 AM
Majority of Americans support gun control but those numbers skewed into areas where liberals already do well. NY/CA/DC. That issue won't be so kind to your Senators in rural areas. Also Americans fooled by media into thinking assault rifles are more dangerous then hunting rifles of the same calibar and rate of fire.

Country will go along with background checks on new gun purchases with exemptions for family and thats about it.
VA,PA,NJ are not liberal strongholds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks_n_2590495.html

The issue of gun control remains highly partisan, with Democrats more than twice as likely as Republicans to say they're dissatisfied with current gun laws. But background checks have shown the potential to transcend that divide. In Virginia, Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to support background checks, according to Quinnipiac, while in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the gap between the groups stood at a mere 2 percentage points.

While Quinnipiac's Virginia results are somewhat more favorable on expanding background checks than those of a Roanoke College poll also released this week, the Roanoke survey likewise found overwhelming support for the measure. In the Roanoke poll, 86 percent of Virginians, including 84 percent of gun owners, favored background checks at gun shows. Universal background checks were favored by three-quarters of Virginians and just under two-thirds of Virginian gun owners.

Nationally, surveys taken since the Newtown, Conn., shooting similarly show a broad consensus behind background checks, outstripping the support given to most other gun control policies. A CBS/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans favor universal background checks. Other surveys showed support for the proposal hovering somewhere between 80 and 90 percent.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 11:41 AM
The liberals have been fudging numbers to make it look like economy is recovering. In reality the new jobs being added are low paying and household debt skyrocketing under Obama. Sure he keeps interest rates ridicuously low to try and hide that fact. Hey if we can keep borrowing we will be ok right?

Obama is an unmitigated disaster but liberals will never admit it. Lets hope in 4 yrs people will wise up and elect some republican. I am hopeful repubs can at least hold their ground in the midterms in 2 yrs. if they could even gain a few more seats in the Senate that would be a bonus.

I really think dems smart though. They will back off gun control now and push immigration. They have seen what gun control will do to them. In a few months we won't even be talking about that anymore.

You still don't get it, do you? There was no reason to go into Iraq. Not only that, it was a violation of everything America is supposed to stand for. There were no WMDs. There was no threat to the U.S. In fact, it has made us weaker by strengthening Iran's influence in the region. Cheney lied us into that war. Wolfowitz lied us into that war. Powell lied us into that war. Here's the casualty list: http://antiwar.com/casualties/ We blew a trillion dollars. Here's the list of war profiteers that raked in billions: http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

Don't you get it? The whole thing was a boondoggle. A scam. A complete rip off planned by Cheney and his cohorts. Wake the **** up.

And you think more Republicans in the Senate will fix everything? No wonder this country is so ****ed up; Voters who think like you.

Arkie
02-01-2013, 11:42 AM
Congress has no part in the slow recovery?

Businesses, who are enjoying record profits, yet aren't hiring, have no part in the economy?

Banks and financial institutions sitting on record amounts of cash, have no
role?

Shrinking State and Federal Government, has no impact?

It's all down to just one guy?

Seriously??

The federal government is bigger than it's ever been. Spending is still growing even this year. State governments are becoming more and more insignificant these days as the federal government takes over.

elsid13
02-01-2013, 12:00 PM
The federal government is bigger than it's ever been. Spending is still growing even this year. State governments are becoming more and more insignificant these days as the federal government takes over.

No it not. Since 1962 the highest workforce (include the military, legislative, judicial and post office) was 6,639, 000 (1968). As of 2011 it was 4,403,000.


www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/#url=Historical-Tables

DenverBrit
02-01-2013, 12:01 PM
The federal government is bigger than it's ever been. Spending is still growing even this year. State governments are becoming more and more insignificant these days as the federal government takes over.

It appears that it is finally shrinking after spiking from Bush to Obama.

Federal employment has fallen for seven of the last eight months, the longest sustained drop in more than a decade. The decline is tiny: Just 9,900 fewer workers in May compared with a year earlier, excluding postal and temporary Census workers, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a fraction of the 2.2 million civilian federal workforce.

Nevertheless, the reversal marks the end of a period of enormous employment growth that spanned the end of George W. Bush's presidency and the start of President Obama's term.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-31/federal-workforce-decline-growth/55318944/1

But that is one small part of the equation that effects the economy.

TonyR
02-01-2013, 01:26 PM
Bush had to build homeland security and he won his war. Obamas surge was a huge failure. Now he wants to put in a def sec who wanted to quit Iraq before the surge. That would have led to chaos and secertian violence on Syrias scale. Bush JR has been proven right that Saddam Hussien could be eliminated and have the country get more stable each yr. In 10-15 yrs Iraq will be light years ahead of Syria which followed the Obama hands off approach.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

I was reminded of a few key things today. The first is that the Republican party in Washington has no regrets about the Iraq War. McCain and Butters reveled in the same utter certainty of their moral and strategic high ground today as they did in the run-up to the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, after the worst national security lapse since Pearl Harbor. Sure, we were so negligent we allowed more than 3,000 innocents to be mass-murdered not far from where I am typing this; yes, we reacted to the atrocity by bungling the search for the actual culprits, brutally torturing countless suspects (some to death), and then starting a second war on false grounds that cost a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But you, Mr Hagel, were wrong about the surge!

He wasn't, as I have long argued. The promise of the surge was to buy enough time and peace to get the sectarian mess of post-Saddam Iraq to resolve itself peacefully and form a viable non-sectarian polity. That hasn't happened. What we have is a Shiite authoritarian government in open conflict with both the Sunnis and the Kurds - and greater Iranian influence in the country. The surge did dampen some violence, but the collapse in mass murder was more a result of a political decision by the Anbar tribes to turn against the Sunni extremists, exhaustion after a long period of ethnic cleansing and segregation, and American money to bribe away the rest. It was a face-saver for a war that had manifestly failed. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/clusterchuck.html

Arkie
02-01-2013, 04:53 PM
No it not. Since 1962 the highest workforce (include the military, legislative, judicial and post office) was 6,639, 000 (1968). As of 2011 it was 4,403,000.


www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/#url=Historical-Tables

The federal government is the biggest it's ever been when it's measured by expenditures even after adjusting for inflation.

peacepipe
02-01-2013, 05:17 PM
The federal government is the biggest it's ever been when it's measured by expenditures even after adjusting for inflation.

Lol really!? You're a joke.

Arkie
02-01-2013, 05:38 PM
Lol really!? You're a joke.

When was it bigger?

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 05:44 PM
It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

frerottenextelway
02-01-2013, 07:26 PM
It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

Iraq is just essentially an extension of Iran now. You're like a real life Steven Colbert.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 08:46 PM
Iraq is just essentially an extension of Iran now. You're like a real life Steven Colbert.

When was the last time Iraq shot at one of our jets or offered money to kill jews? They have been totally nuetered and taken out. Iran is probably next at some point.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2013, 06:38 AM
No it not. Since 1962 the highest workforce (include the military, legislative, judicial and post office) was 6,639, 000 (1968). As of 2011 it was 4,403,000.


www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/#url=Historical-Tables

If onliez we could get ourselves wrapped up in another east asian land war. Then the economy would totally fix itself. LOL.

Our active duty forces are almost a third of what they were back then. These Keynesians really need to think through all these military cuts they love so much.

1968. LOL

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2013, 06:42 AM
Meanwhile, in the real world...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/clusterchuck.html

These two lines are comic genius. I tip my hat sir.

Rohirrim
02-02-2013, 09:25 AM
It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

So your foreign policy is that if some country wants to invade another, they just need the permission of the U.S. first, because, after all, the United States controls the world? I'm guessing the founders might have had a few issues with this interpretation. It's very Romanesque.

Arkie
02-02-2013, 12:30 PM
If onliez we could get ourselves wrapped up in another east asian land war. Then the economy would totally fix itself. LOL.

Our active duty forces are almost a third of what they were back then. These Keynesians really need to think through all these military cuts they love so much.

1968. LOL

I know. LOL
The federal workforce is only part of the spending. In 1968, it was probably half of a little pie chart. In 2013, it's just a sliver in a humongous pie chart. I'm not blaming it on Obama or any other President. They're not in charge of spending, and much of the spending is mandatory. It's just a fact it's at an all-time high.

cutthemdown
02-02-2013, 03:53 PM
So your foreign policy is that if some country wants to invade another, they just need the permission of the U.S. first, because, after all, the United States controls the world? I'm guessing the founders might have had a few issues with this interpretation. It's very Romanesque.

We pretend its the UN and we get enough worldwide support to not be the Romans but it's not a bad example of a republic in action. If we can stay on top half as long as them we did pretty well.

I may have made my point in a flippant manner but it still stand to reason USA won't let countries invade other countries anymore unless we are on board with it. If you do sanctions and probably military action will follow. You do agree with that right? Sure we stay out of it sometimes but if its any kind of vital area we will be responding.

No way Saddam and his family would stay in power long term after invading Kuwait. For some reason Bush sr and Clinton played games with him. Bush Jr finished him off and it was a good thing. Could you imagine Saddam and his crazy sons still be in power? who knows what they would be up to right now.

TonyR
02-02-2013, 03:55 PM
What if Obama had Reagan's government spending?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/charts-what-if-obama-spent-like-reagan/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

[T]hese graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Rohirrim
02-02-2013, 04:46 PM
We pretend its the UN and we get enough worldwide support to not be the Romans but it's not a bad example of a republic in action. If we can stay on top half as long as them we did pretty well.

I may have made my point in a flippant manner but it still stand to reason USA won't let countries invade other countries anymore unless we are on board with it. If you do sanctions and probably military action will follow. You do agree with that right? Sure we stay out of it sometimes but if its any kind of vital area we will be responding.

No way Saddam and his family would stay in power long term after invading Kuwait. For some reason Bush sr and Clinton played games with him. Bush Jr finished him off and it was a good thing. Could you imagine Saddam and his crazy sons still be in power? who knows what they would be up to right now.

Iraqi troops had already left Kuwait by the time we invaded. It was none of our business. America is not the policeman of the world.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2013, 06:19 PM
What if Obama had Reagan's government spending?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/charts-what-if-obama-spent-like-reagan/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

"Contribution to Change in Quarterly GDP" what kind of bull**** stat is that. LOL

Has that 'statistic' ever been used for anything ever?

TonyR
02-02-2013, 06:33 PM
"Contribution to Change in Quarterly GDP" what kind of bull**** stat is that.

One that's clearly way over your head. If you'd actually take the time to read the article before posting your silly criticisms you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.

cutthemdown
02-02-2013, 07:48 PM
Iraqi troops had already left Kuwait by the time we invaded. It was none of our business. America is not the policeman of the world.

Well its a good think France stepping up a little now to help us. We do need help I agree with 100% the days of us being able to manage the whole world are over.

Top goals should be help from China to deal with N Korea. Help from Russia and China to deal with Iran. A few more rouge nations to go and the world can move forward into a new era.

In many ways though we are the policeman of the world. But we need help. We felt much like you do after ww1 and the hands off approach was a disaster for the world.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2013, 09:33 PM
One that's clearly way over your head. If you'd actually take the time to read the article before posting your silly criticisms you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.

Yes, the genius of Ezra Klein is truly beyond most of us. Maybe all of us. He's an economic idiot savant. Or at least the first part. :)

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7ZPfcTW6E4HYaYUrgAJr7TJOYgGFxz _VkqkWiqzUMwfdKo5kjCA

Oh, and what even this Factcheck graph doesn't tell you? 2009's budget was passed by a Democratic Congress and then held until Obama took office to sign it in January. A Democratic Congress and Obama presided over the largest increase in Federal spending since World War II. Your buddy Ezra just lopped off the front edge of the jump in spending and then focused on "percentage change" (as if that mattered) in a poorly-executed shell game.

"Well yeah, we're spending more than ever, but that doesn't matter because once we blew up spending, we didn't keep blowing it up as fast as when we started!"

Fact is, our federal government spent the last 4 years spending more than ever and the only thing we have to show for it is a double dip.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 09:49 PM
Fact is, our federal government spent the last 4 years spending more than ever and the only thing we have to show for it is a double dip.

The last four years witnessed the putting back on the books the deficit spending of the previous eight.

Remember, it was your boy Bush who blew up the government's finances, with not one expensive war, but two very expensive wars, a sop to the oldsters with Medicare part D, and to top it all off, he cut taxes on his hyper-rich "base".

Bush and cronies **** a ton, and you're blaming Obama for the inability of Lysol to cover up the fecal odor.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2013, 12:01 AM
The last four years witnessed the putting back on the books the deficit spending of the previous eight.

Remember, it was your boy Bush who blew up the government's finances, with not one expensive war, but two very expensive wars, a sop to the oldsters with Medicare part D, and to top it all off, he cut taxes on his hyper-rich "base".

Bush and cronies **** a ton, and you're blaming Obama for the inability of Lysol to cover up the fecal odor.

We put more debt on in one year than we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade. Try harder.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 12:10 AM
We put more debt on in one year than we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade. Try harder.

Total bull****, we've spend 3-4 trillion on wars in the last decade.

Direct costs, VA, pensions, rebuilding efforts, interest costs, etc.

http://costsofwar.org/

(by Brown University)

Not to mention, the he bulk of the increase in deficit over the last decade is due to increased defense spending.

$400 bn/yr in DoD budget (above 2000 spending)
$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2013, 12:22 AM
Total bull****, we've spend 3-4 trillion on wars in the last decade.

Direct costs, VA, pensions, rebuilding efforts, interest costs, etc.

http://costsofwar.org/

(by Brown University)

Not to mention, the he bulk of the increase in deficit over the last decade is due to increased defense spending.

$400 bn/yr in DoD budget (above 2000 spending)
$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/iraq-and-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 12:26 AM
Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/iraq-and-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

As stated right there on the page, the CBO is only counting DoD funds and training funds/aid, which aren't even close to the amount of money actually spent.

'Between September 2001 and October 2012, lawmakers have appropriated about $1.4 trillion (including an estimated $127 billion for fiscal year 2012) for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other war-related activities. Of that funding, about $1.25 trillion has gone to the Department of Defense, with nearly $150 billion provided for training indigenous security forces and for diplomatic relations and foreign aid for Iraq and Afghanistan. "

Learn to read and learn to understand how defense spending occurs.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 12:28 AM
And like i said, that website comes to us via Brown University one of the most well respected universities in the entire world...

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2013, 12:47 AM
Fun example of the epic bull**** being spread here...

$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

Do you realize that the entire VA budget and military pension spending combined doesn't equal $300 billion a year?

So unless you're arguing that a President Gore would've abolished the VA and ended all military pensions, it looks to me like you're smoking crack.

And lumping predicted future interest in is nice and all, but in a fair comparison, factoring interest would increase our trillion dollar budget deficits far more. But I doubt you want to go there.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 01:33 AM
Fun example of the epic bull**** being spread here...

Do you realize that the entire VA budget and military pension spending combined doesn't equal $300 billion a year?


Yep, which is why I didn't claim that. As indicated, that $300 is (granted, an off the cuff est) a sum of all of the indirect costs of those wars/yr.

(and btw, VA+pensions comes to about 250bn/yr total).

Pensions: $100bn


And lumping predicted future interest in is nice and all, but in a fair comparison, factoring interest wold increase our trillion dollar budget deficits far more. But I doubt you want to go there.

Nothing about "predicted future interest", some portion of the current interest is due to defense spending. What portion it is, of course, is a hard ting to determine, but you don't rack up trillions (even one) in borrowing without hefty interest payments.

Again, I'm citing Brown which is taking a deep look into direct and indirect costs, and you counter with the CBO that is, by their own admission, only counting DIRECT costs (i.e. funds specifically appropriated to the DoD).

To imply/claim the direct costs are the only costs ( a position to put forward and are apparently still trying to defend -- correct me if I'm wrong) is ****ing ridiculous.

cutthemdown
02-03-2013, 02:14 AM
Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/iraq-and-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:18 AM
People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.



Ya think?

:thumbs:

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:19 AM
People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.

Moron. I've already pointed out, several times, why the CBO numbers are incomplete.

If you don't have the integrity to actually acknowledge that, then GFY.

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:21 AM
Moron. I've already pointed out, several times, why the CBO numbers are incomplete.

If you don't have the integrity to actually acknowledge that, then GFY.

Typical. Change the subject by citing CBO as inaccurate and then call names. Right out of DUMOCRAT 101.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:25 AM
Typical. Change the subject by citing CBO as inaccurate and then call names. Right out of DUMOCRAT 101.

Oh look, the drive by idjit has showed up. I have not claimed the CBO is inaccurate, only that it's incomplete (and explained why).

So I pose the same question: Do you have the integrity to actually acknowledge that?

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:26 AM
Let me add "Figures never lie, but LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE "

Brown U respected by all the far left. Ahahahahahaha

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:27 AM
Let me add "Figures never lie, but LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE "

Brown U respected by all the far left. Ahahahahahaha

Care to point out what you think is wrong with what I am saying, or are you happy just to be a clown?

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:28 AM
Oh look, the drive by idjit has showed up. I have not claimed the CBO is inaccurate, only that it's incomplete (and explained why).

So I pose the same question: Do you have the integrity to actually acknowledge that?

So it is incomplete. Hmm sounds to me that means inaccurate.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:30 AM
Care to point out what you think is wrong with what I am saying, or are you happy just to be a clown?

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:31 AM
So it is incomplete. Hmm sounds to me that means inaccurate.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

Nope, I don't dispute the accuracy of the figures they give for DIRECT costs. What butthead posted simply didn't include the INDIRECT costs. I you had half a ****ing clue -- about anything -- this wouldn't even be a point of argument.

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:33 AM
Nope, I don't dispute the accuracy of the figures they give for DIRECT costs. What butthead posted simply didn't include the INDIRECT costs. I you had half a ****ing clue -- about anything -- this wouldn't even be a point of argument.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:36 AM
So we've yet again reconfirmed that lonestar and cutlet have exactly zero integrity. Neither have a ****ing clue about what the cited CBO numbers represent, yet continue to do nothing but drop ad hominem attacks at me.

Dishonest pieces of **** -- both of them.

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:36 AM
As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

Only one doing nothing but name calling is you bub. You'll want to look up a word: hypocrite

lonestar
02-03-2013, 02:37 AM
So we've yet again reconfirmed that lonestar and cutlet have exactly zero integrity. Neither have a ****ing clue about what the cited CBO numbers represent, yet continue to do nothing but drop ad hominem attacks at me.

Dishonest pieces of **** -- both of them.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

TonyR
02-03-2013, 08:59 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110012

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2013, 01:59 PM
Nope, I don't dispute the accuracy of the figures they give for DIRECT costs. What butthead posted simply didn't include the INDIRECT costs. I you had half a ****ing clue -- about anything -- this wouldn't even be a point of argument.

Here's the main problem with your argument though. The study on the site you linked doesn't present information supporting your position.

You said that the current deficit spending is a result of military/war spending in Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan if you consider that "Bush's War" as well) And to back that up you cited a number meant to establish (credibly or not) a true long-term cost of the war(s) in question.

But what you fail to realize is you're not making a long-term cost argument. You're making a "this is why we've had trillion dollar deficits for the last four years" argument.

The main difference between the CBO number and your cherry-picked number is that the CBO number is an accurate representation of what's ALREADY BEEN spent, while your number is an estimate of that hard CBO number plus what MIGHT BE spent some time in the future, due to obligations possibly brought on by the war(s)

Unfortunately (for your point), money yet to be spent cannot be blamed for current or past deficits. Sure, there's a broader argument to be had about the total cost of the wars over the long run. But in relation to what you said, that debate is a red herring. Those two wars had relatively little to do with why our current federal budget is so far out of control.

W*GS
02-03-2013, 02:04 PM
Those two wars had relatively little to do with why our current federal budget is so far out of control.

Since the costs of those wars were covered with borrowed money, what's been the impact on the interest on the debt?

Fedaykin
02-03-2013, 02:30 PM
Here's the main problem with your argument though. The study on the site you linked doesn't present information supporting your position.


Talking about all the direct+indirect costs, and citing research papers explaining where the numbers came from doesn't support my position? That's... hilariously idiotic.


You said that the current deficit spending is a result of military/war spending in Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan if you consider that "Bush's War" as well) And to back that up you cited a number meant to establish (credibly or not) a true long-term cost of the war(s) in question.

But what you fail to realize is you're not making a long-term cost argument. You're making a "this is why we've had trillion dollar deficits for the last four years" argument.


No, I said that

a.) The cost of the warmongering in the last decade is much more than the anual deficit

AND

b.) That the bulk of (not the totality of) the current deficit is due to defense spending. Please actually respond to what I say no just tilt at strawmen.

The former I cite a well respected university, the latter is just simple math and a functional understanding of the budget. Would you like to see the details of that math?


The main difference between the CBO number and your cherry-picked number is that the CBO number is an accurate representation of what's ALREADY BEEN spent, while your number is an estimate of that hard CBO number plus what MIGHT BE spent some time in the future, due to obligations possibly brought on by the war(s)

Unfortunately (for your point), money yet to be spent cannot be blamed for current or past deficits. Sure, there's a broader argument to be had about the total cost of the wars over the long run. But in relation to what you said, that debate is a red herring. Those two wars had relatively little to do with why our current federal budget is so far out of control.

No, like I've said half a dozen times, the number the CBO has is money handed to the DoD, which does not represent the full cost of the war, since the DoD budget does not include any indirect costs.

Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you just not have enough integrity to admit that you were mistaken in your assumption that the cost of the wars = the money given to the DoD?


Tell me this: How much money did the U.S. spend on defense in 2012? Do you understand the federal budget and what all the expenditures in various line items are about to figure that out? Hint: The DoD got a little over $700 billion, but that does NOT represent the total spending on defense in 2012 -- not even close.

Also tell me this: If I buy a house for $200,000 and have a mortgage at a rate that I incur $150,000 of interest and pay $750/yr in home insurance, how much did that house cost me?

a.) $200,000
b.) $372,500
c.) something else

cutthemdown
02-03-2013, 03:12 PM
Anyone who tries to blame the war spending is an idiot. At most maybe it cost a couple trillion dollars over 10-12 yrs even adding in hidden costs. It's a liberal lie that defense spending to blame. They continue to support policies that put a drag on job creation and higher tax revenues.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Talking about all the direct+indirect costs, and citing research papers explaining where the numbers came from doesn't support my position? That's... hilariously idiotic.

I tried to keep it civil. You decided to go full herpderp, so here goes.



b.) That the bulk of (not the totality of) the current deficit is due to defense spending. Please actually respond to what I say no just tilt at strawmen.

The former I cite a well respected university, the latter is just simple math and a functional understanding of the budget. Would you like to see the details of that math?

It's clear to me you don't have even a basic understanding of the study you cited. That study is attempting to calculate costs we might pay 20 or 30 years from now. They're not talking about what impacted the 2011 or 2012 federal budgets. Those numbers are fixed and well known. And the deficits were driven by components much larger than increased defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

Regular funding for the Department of Defense increased from $513 billion to $518 billion, including a 1.6% pay raise for military personnel. Funding for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan was reduced from $158 billion to $115 billion.

There's no sane way to blame war spending for a trillion dollars a year of debt.


Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you just not have enough integrity to admit that you were mistaken in your assumption that the cost of the wars = the money given to the DoD?

The CBO details what has been paid in detail. The only argument is what might have to be paid in the future. But that has zero to do with what was already paid. There's only one purposefully obtuse person in this conversation.


Tell me this: How much money did the U.S. spend on defense in 2012? Do you understand the federal budget and what all the expenditures in various line items are about to figure that out? Hint: The DoD got a little over $700 billion, but that does NOT represent the total spending on defense in 2012 -- not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Military_budg et_and_total_US_federal_spending

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

You could literally disband the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces completely, and we'd still be running hefty deficits. That's how delusional you are.

Also tell me this: If I buy a house for $200,000 and have a mortgage at a rate that I incur $150,000 of interest and pay $750/yr in home insurance, how much did that house cost me?

a.) $200,000
b.) $372,500
c.) something else

You specialize in irrelevant questions. We're comparing borrowed money to borrowed money here. Sweating interest payments on one side but not the other is disingenuous. What do you reckon the interest payments on the 6 trillion in debt we've added since 2009 is going to cost? Far more than any interest on 1.4 trillion in war spending.

cutthemdown
02-03-2013, 10:04 PM
It is ridiculous to blame a current deficit on money that might have to spent in the future to take care of war vets. Its almost like Obama claiming the reduction in iraqi war spending as a budget cut. LOL classic.

The problem is liberal anti business practices from the EPA to the FDA that stifle revenue and money for the govt.

lonestar
02-03-2013, 11:43 PM
It is ridiculous to blame a current deficit on money that might have to spent in the future to take care of war vets. Its almost like Obama claiming the reduction in iraqi war spending as a budget cut. LOL classic.

The problem is liberal anti business practices from the EPA to the FDA that stifle revenue and money for the govt.

Whoops coherent thinking going on, in a far left liberal infected thread..

CUT you know better than TO DO that. :thumbs:

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 04:19 PM
I'm not saying that we won't have future costs from the wars i am sure we will but Obama hasn't spent any money on future costs so he can't blame them for any of his economic debt. he's piling it up because his economy stinks and he spends too much money. Mostly though he's piling up debt because the economy stinks. He continues to support energy policies that hurt big industry. he continues to support policies that thwart things like oil pipelines, rare earth mining. His tax policies are dubious at best and his tax on medical device makers is very controversial. Already its costing jobs in America.

Obamacare smacking small business right in the face. In my hometown they thought they would pass a tax on hotels over 100 rooms. They did this buy saying if you have over 100 rooms you have to a minimum of 12 bucks an hour to your fulltime employees.

LOL in the last couple months 4 hotels that ran in the 125 to 150 room just closed down to 99 and laid people off. The poor workers were out picketing one place not really understanding it was the voters who screwed them over. i couldn't believe it when it passed by my city is very liberal. In that same time they turned down an offer to rebuild this area by our waterfront because the builder wanted to go to high and they didn't want over so many stories. Straight turned down like a 300 million dollar project. That is liberals in action right there.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 04:20 PM
So where is all the money Obama has spent on future war costs Fed? Cmon we would all love to hear where that so called future war money went. Oh let me guess its in the future so Obama hasn't paid for any of that.

Fedaykin
02-04-2013, 10:00 PM
It's clear to me you don't have even a basic understanding of the study you cited. That study is attempting to calculate costs we might pay 20 or 30 years from now. They're not talking about what impacted the 2011 or 2012 federal budgets.


Complete and utter bullsh*t. The study details direct & indirect costs through 2011 and the direct costs through 2012 -- totaling $3T or more. It also talks about future spending of course, which is where the $4T+ figure comes from.

It also goes into depth about other things like opportunity costs, etc. that are not included in those totals.

Look at the big summary table: It's lays it out in a nice fashion that even an idiot should be able to understand.

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

Of course, getting back to the start of this, remember we're comparing the total cost of the wars to the total cost of the current deficit.


There's no sane way to blame war spending for a trillion dollars a year of debt.


Nope, which is why I didn't even try to blame the entire deficit on it. Again, dig deep for the honesty necessary to respond to what I'm actually saying and stop tilting at strawmen. It's not helping your case.


The CBO details what has been paid in detail. The only argument is what might have to be paid in the future. But that has zero to do with what was already paid. There's only one purposefully obtuse person in this conversation.


No, the CBO details the money directed specifically to the Department of Defense, which does not represent all the expenditures related to war spending. Why can't/won't you recognize that?

Again, I've provided you the information that lays it out, which includes all of already spent funds, currently obligated funds, and likely future expenditures.


You could literally disband the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces completely, and we'd still be running hefty deficits. That's how delusional you are.

..snip...


So in other words my assumption was correct. You have not the slightest clue about the actual amount of money spent on defense per year (and again, tilting at a strawman argument). The DoD budget only represents about 2/3 of total defense spending.

Again I ask, would you like to see the break down? You can easily google the information or simply read up about what purposes various department and agencies fulfill. For example, the Department of Energy has an explicitly defense related task of maintaining the nuclear arsenal, and NASA does military R&D, and the Department of the Treasury pays military pensions. None of that defense related spending comes from the DoD budget.

You could also search the forum, I've posted about it several times.


You specialize in irrelevant questions. We're comparing borrowed money to borrowed money here. Sweating interest payments on one side but not the other is disingenuous. What do you reckon the interest payments on the 6 trillion in debt we've added since 2009 is going to cost? Far more than any interest on 1.4 trillion in war spending.

Nah, you specialize in non sequitors. The purpose of the question was to see if you had the honestly and understanding necessary to recognize direct and indirect costs outside the context of defense spending. Instead you go off on a non sequitor trying to imply that I'm holding some double standard about interest payments, which I'm not.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 10:54 PM
Now Obama wants to put Lew in charge of the treasury. This is the guy who sold the idea of sequester to Ried in the Senate. Meanwhile our economy shrank and we have the lowest % of the labor force participating % is the worst in what decades? Obama picks friggin turds that is for sure.

TonyR
02-05-2013, 07:59 AM
Meanwhile our economy shrank...

We've already been over this. Do you know why/how our "economy shrank"? And are you aware that the looming cuts are going to make it "shrink" even more? On the one hand you complain about government spending and bash Obama/Dems/liberals for it, and then on the other you complain when there are cuts and it "shrinks" GDP. You need to pick a side. Do you want cuts, or not want cuts? Or do you just want to complain and bash Obama?

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 08:20 AM
Complete and utter bullsh*t. The study details direct & indirect costs through 2011 and the direct costs through 2012 -- totaling $3T or more.

Question. Do you read the **** you post?

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

One of the lines right there adding into your $3T total is

"Projected Obligated Funds for Veterans' Medical and Disability to 2051"

Then there's

"Social Costs to Veterans and Military Families"

Here, we're not even talking about money paid by the federal government at all. Instead they're trying to stab at a dollar value on the hardship placed on military families. News flash, most legislation of any significance has some social cost. This cost is never factored into whether a bill increases/decreases the federal deficit, because those costs aren't paid out of the federal budget.

This would be like saying Obamacare cost 10 times as much as advertised because we should count all the insurance premiums paid by citizens under the new federal mandate. The government doesn't budget that way. And you're fine with that, so long as it suits you.

But my personal favorite is where your $3T figure (in addition to the bull**** above) factors in the lion's share of Homeland Security spending over the last decade. Apparently TSA screeners and border patrol are Iraq/Afghan theater Veterans now. LOL

The old hiptard line used to be that all that war spending was taking away from much needed Homeland Security budget.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/nickel-and-diming-homeland-security

Now though, you're trying to lump it all in as if it was the same thing. How convenient.

You also say you're not factoring in interest. But when you dig into the details of your 'reference' and you see, yup, there it is. Interest costs.

Please, next time you post an article as proof of something, read it first. Try to understand it. Then discuss.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 11:33 AM
Let me guess liberals don't want to use indirect costs when arguing what Obamacare will cost us?

Fedaykin
02-05-2013, 08:33 PM
Question. Do you read the **** you post?

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

One of the lines right there adding into your $3T total is

Then there's

Here, we're not even talking about money paid by the federal government at all. Instead they're trying to stab at a dollar value on the hardship placed on military families. News flash, most legislation of any significance has some social cost. This cost is never factored into whether a bill increases/decreases the federal deficit, because those costs aren't paid out of the federal budget.


Are you blind, deaf dumb or just that ****ing stupid?

See the line that says: SUBTOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FY2001 Through FY2011, Constant $2011 -- $2,657.3?

Notice how it ****ing says through 2011, not 2012?

You know it's 2013, right? meaning at least one additional fiscal year (i.e. 2012) of spending has occurred above and beyond the figure there. The average is $240bn a year, so

2657+240 = $2897bn ~=$3T



This would be like saying Obamacare cost 10 times as much as advertised because we should count all the insurance premiums paid by citizens under the new federal mandate. The government doesn't budget that way. And you're fine with that, so long as it suits you.


Once again, you're just tilting against a strawman.


But my personal favorite is where your $3T figure (in addition to the bull**** above) factors in the lion's share of Homeland Security spending over the last decade. Apparently TSA screeners and border patrol are Iraq/Afghan theater Veterans now. LOL


Last time I checked, the entire purpose of the huge build up in HS is the same justification for Afghan/Iraq: the "War on Terror". Of course, you also keep ignoring that the point is that the total cost of all the wars going on (no matter if you leave off HS or not) is far, far more than a single years deficit, especially if you exclude that portion of the deficit that is coming from those wars.



The old hiptard line used to be that all that war spending was taking away from much needed Homeland Security budget.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/nickel-and-diming-homeland-security

Now though, you're trying to lump it all in as if it was the same thing. How convenient.


Oh look, more random distractions from you. You have a serious issue with that, don't you?


You also say you're not factoring in interest. But when you dig into the details of your 'reference' and you see, yup, there it is. Interest costs.


I never said that I'm not factoring in interesting. Do you have serious reading problems or what?


Please, next time you post an article as proof of something, read it first. Try to understand it. Then discuss.

The only one not understanding things here is you bub...

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 09:10 PM
We've already been over this. Do you know why/how our "economy shrank"? And are you aware that the looming cuts are going to make it "shrink" even more? On the one hand you complain about government spending and bash Obama/Dems/liberals for it, and then on the other you complain when there are cuts and it "shrinks" GDP. You need to pick a side. Do you want cuts, or not want cuts? Or do you just want to complain and bash Obama?

sequester was the white houses idea. Bob Woodward proved that in his book. So anything that is a result of them is Obamas fault. He didn't want to deal with anything before the election so he had Lew float the idea of sequester to Ried.

Its all a symptom of Obama refusing to ever do a budget.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 09:18 PM
We've already been over this. Do you know why/how our "economy shrank"? And are you aware that the looming cuts are going to make it "shrink" even more? On the one hand you complain about government spending and bash Obama/Dems/liberals for it, and then on the other you complain when there are cuts and it "shrinks" GDP. You need to pick a side. Do you want cuts, or not want cuts? Or do you just want to complain and bash Obama?

We have the lowest participation rate of the labor force in the last 30 yrs but Obama will still sick the EPA on energy producers. We are all paying for the liberal agenda right now. Houshold debt climbing under Obama, workforce shrinking, spending growing and now its so bad he will have to cut defense making us less safe. He's a friggin disaster.

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 09:28 PM
Are you blind, deaf dumb or just that ****ing stupid?

See the line that says: SUBTOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FY2001 Through FY2011, Constant $2011 -- $2,657.3?

Notice how it ****ing says through 2011, not 2012?

You know it's 2013, right? meaning at least one additional fiscal year (i.e. 2012) of spending has occurred above and beyond the figure there. The average is $240bn a year, so

2657+240 = $2897bn ~=$3T

So you're just going to keep extrapolating those numbers out as we go and pretend like everything in the budget that changed since 2001 is part of Bush' Iraq/Afghan war effort? Even though Bush hasn't had any say on spending decisions since 2008? DHS's budget was never higher than Obama's first two years when he had an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Yet you not only count DHS dollars completely unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan, you keep tallying Democratic budget increases in that department under the "Bush did it!" column. There's nothing rational about this approach.

Another point of contention:

The Senate vote for authorizing use of force in Afghanistan was 97-0. We were going to war in Afghanistan whether Bush was president or not. In fact Obama talked at length in 2008 about how the war in Iraq took resources away from the 'good' war in Afghanistan. So if we take him at his word, had we not invaded Iraq, he would've spent even more in Afghanistan. In what fantasmical alternate universe was war in the Afghan theater not going to happen? Think back to 9/11. War somewhere was predetermined. And that can't be blamed on Bush.

Last time I checked, the entire purpose of the huge build up in HS is the same justification for Afghan/Iraq: the "War on Terror". Of course, you also keep ignoring that the point is that the total cost of all the wars going on (no matter if you leave off HS or not) is far, far more than a single years deficit, especially if you exclude that portion of the deficit that is coming from those wars.

Bull****. This conversation was specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan. Read back. Bringing in DHS spending is changing the subject. Not to mention, again, DHS' budget was never as high under Bush as Obama. You can't pretend like absolutely everything we've done since 2001 was Bush's decision, or that it would've worked out any different with anyone else. How about all those body scanners in airports? What's the story there? Those were a response by Obama's DHS to the Christmas Day bomber in 2009. Were those expenses removed from your study? Of course not. They're still filed under the "Bush's fault/War on Terror" column. Because this "study" lacks any credibility.

Do you honestly believe under another President after 9/11, there would've been no push for increased airport security budgets? Hint: DHS was formed with a 90-9 vote in the Senate. Again, your fantasyland projection here assumes that none of this money would have been spent if not for Bush. That's certifiably insane, given the reality of what happened back then.

But really that's all just a nice distraction on your part. Because this conversation was all about and only about Iraq and Afghanistan. Fun game you've got going here though... ignoring the clear CBO report on what those two wars cost so you can bring in some study that doesn't even pretend to be studying the same thing.

"Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive because of airport baggage scans and interest payments!" -Fed LOL

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 10:06 PM
We put more debt on in one year than we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade.

Oh and BTW this is the point I made that you're arguing with. So by factoring in Homeland Security and trying to stretch further than a decade, you're violating the terms of the debate in every conceivable way.

Fedaykin
02-05-2013, 10:09 PM
So you're just going to keep extrapolating those numbers out as we go and pretend like everything in the budget that changed since 2001 is part of Bush' Iraq/Afghan war effort? Even though Bush hasn't had any say on spending decisions since 2008? DHS's budget was never higher than Obama's first two years when he had an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Yet you not only count DHS dollars completely unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan, you keep tallying Democratic budget increases in that department under the "Bush did it!" column. There's nothing rational about this approach.

Another point of contention:

The Senate vote for authorizing use of force in Afghanistan was 97-0. We were going to war in Afghanistan whether Bush was president or not. In fact Obama talked at length in 2008 about how the war in Iraq took resources away from the 'good' war in Afghanistan. So if we take him at his word, had we not invaded Iraq, he would've spent even more in Afghanistan. In what fantasmical alternate universe was war in the Afghan theater not going to happen? Think back to 9/11. War somewhere was predetermined. And that can't be blamed on Bush.


Bull****. This conversation was specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan. Read back. Bringing in DHS spending is changing the subject. Not to mention, again, DHS' budget was never as high under Bush as Obama. You can't pretend like absolutely everything we've done since 2001 was Bush's decision, or that it would've worked out any different with anyone else. How about all those body scanners in airports? What's the story there? Those were a response by Obama's DHS to the Christmas Day bomber in 2009. Were those expenses removed from your study? Of course not. They're still filed under the "Bush's fault/War on Terror" column. Because this "study" lacks any credibility.

Do you honestly believe under another President after 9/11, there would've been no push for increased airport security budgets? Hint: DHS was formed with a 90-9 vote in the Senate. Again, your fantasyland projection here assumes that none of this money would have been spent if not for Bush. That's certifiably insane, given the reality of what happened back then.

...


No blame at all was cast in this particular instance -- the only true point of contention here is you think all the warmongering costs less than a year's deficit, and you cherry pick direct funding numbers to try to support that..

Nice try at a red herring though. I see you've done from trying to defend your absurd position into full out distract with logical fallacies mode.


But really that's all just a nice distraction on your part.


The only one coming up with huge lengthy distractions is you bub (see the entirety of your post quoted here).


Because this conversation was all about and only about Iraq and Afghanistan. Fun game you've got going here though... ignoring the clear CBO report on what those two wars cost so you can bring in some study that doesn't even pretend to be studying the same thing.


You continue to pretend that the direct appropriations to the wars (the $1.4T) are the only costs associated with those wars. Completely idiotic. You want to pretend that the interest doesn't count, that caring for the vets doesn't count, that paying to rebuild the **** we destroyed doesn't count, that replacing all the equipment and training new troops doesn't count, etc.

Complete. Utter. Bull****.


"Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive because of airport baggage scans and interest payments!" -Fed LOL

Oh look, an appeal to ridicule, based on a straman. How quaint.

Fedaykin
02-05-2013, 10:12 PM
Oh and BTW this is the point I made that you're arguing with. So by factoring in Homeland Security and trying to stretch further than a decade, you're violating the terms of the debate in every conceivable way.

With or without DHS, your position falls on it's face.

a.) Even without DHS, we're talking $2.6T spent (not 1.4) in the last decade

and like I said

b.) a large part of the current deficit is spending (direct and indirect) on those wars.


"violating the terms of debate huh" why don't you try engaging honestly and dropping all the bull**** red herrings, strawmen and other distractions?

(for the record, I don't give a flying **** about tone, I care about content)

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 11:15 PM
With or without DHS, your position falls on it's face.

a.) Even without DHS, we're talking $2.6T spent (not 1.4) in the last decade

and like I said

b.) a large part of the current deficit is spending (direct and indirect) on those wars.

First, the $2.6 figure cited clearly INCLUDES DHS spending. And interest. Not sure what you're smoking on that. It also has some other pretty weakly defined categories. In fact when you dig into the specifics of their work, you see a lot of references to Congressional Research Service studies for many of their numbers. So I wondered if the Congressional Research Service agreed with these supposed findings?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res. 48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately.

Of this $1.283 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $806 billion (63%), OEF $444 billion (35%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (2%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans.

Funny, I thought you said that lower amount didn't include any of these things.

(for the record, I don't give a flying **** about tone, I care about content)

Heh. On my side, we have the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service. On yours, you have some hack partisan website that counts TSA baggage handlers and FEMA employees as forces in the war on terror.

Doesn't look to me like you care about either one.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqpYBlI3xMFkQDeKMzbuIq9P0LfvpYF LtJiSAtQwgL_UY51Bar7g

cutthemdown
02-06-2013, 01:52 PM
Nice Beavis good stuff!

Arkie
02-07-2013, 11:59 AM
We've already been over this. Do you know why/how our "economy shrank"? And are you aware that the looming cuts are going to make it "shrink" even more? On the one hand you complain about government spending and bash Obama/Dems/liberals for it, and then on the other you complain when there are cuts and it "shrinks" GDP. You need to pick a side. Do you want cuts, or not want cuts? Or do you just want to complain and bash Obama?

There hasn't been any shrinking due to spending cuts. If we actually did reduce spending, that would be positive for the economy because the government is draining the economy of the resources it needs to grow. The government is a growing expense on the economy.

elsid13
02-07-2013, 03:18 PM
There hasn't been any shrinking due to spending cuts. If we actually did reduce spending, that would be positive for the economy because the government is draining the economy of the resources it needs to grow. The government is a growing expense on the economy.

What resources are you talking about? Is it labor? capital? raw materials?


There is more then enough slack in the economy right now that there is no problem to meet private sector resources demand

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 03:25 PM
What resources are you talking about? Is it labor? capital? raw materials?


There is more then enough slack in the economy right now that there is no problem to meet private sector resources demand

You are so wrong. Rare Earth minerals are a huge problem and are driving up the costs of batteries, speakers, wind turbines and solar panels just to name a few.

Over the decades mining rare earth became too costly because of the environmental demands of the USA. In the meantime China took it over and dominates the market in the 90% range.

We do have a CA rare earth mine almost up and running. Its taken so long. Why? you guessed it red tape from CA and FED regulators.

Anyone who thinks Obamas attack on oil, coal, and mining isn't hurting the economy is probably not thinking it all the way through and instead just thinking well we need to move away from those types of energy.

Arkie
02-07-2013, 04:48 PM
What resources are you talking about? Is it labor? capital? raw materials?


There is more then enough slack in the economy right now that there is no problem to meet private sector resources demand

Our economy is based on consumption. We're not producing as much as we used to. The biggest thing we are creating is debt. The Fed can create all the capital they want. It doesn't create new wealth. Most of the new Fed money hasn't worked it's way into the economy yet. Either prices will skyrocket, or the government will implement price controls that will create shortages and long lines.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 05:15 PM
I like the liberal idea that we need more companies to build things in America. It has to be sort of high end stuff though and our labor not skilled for that. Chinese workers kick our ass because they have been doing it on a larger scale.

We need to change the way we educate the people. HS is a friggin joke and only some of the kids work hard there on the way to college. We force the other ones into college but the dont get degrees that pay anything. Too many college students were like me and picked easy crap like music lol.

It would be better to offer stuff in HS that gets kids ready to do jobs like go work at an apple computer factory in the USA. The problem is the chicken and the egg. We need the jobs here before we could really have people aim to get them. But apple goes where the best workers are.

We have gotten to far over into the service economy and right now we probably do need more manufacturing jobs actually making something. I can see why they bailed out the auto industry even though many of them didn't deserve it because their cars stink. But you need them to stay in business or the workforce will lose that expertise as well.

Its just that our govt makes it so much more expensive to make things in America. The attack on energy for one makes have manufacturing here really expensive.

We need a territotorial corp tax system with different rates for different parts of the world. But then make them bring profits home instead of offshoring them. Drop the rate in exchange for closing the loophole.

Our govt just seems really more interested in things like social problems, gay marraige, gays in the military, gun control, womens rights.

Arkie
02-07-2013, 05:57 PM
Our govt just seems really more interested in things like social problems, gay marraige, gays in the military, gun control, womens rights.

The only reason they're interested in those things is because they are the most divisive. It's interesting how they have us divided 50/50. The two-party system seems too perfect and calculated that half of the voters will fall on each side. It's easier to control us when we fight each other and get distracted from the real problems.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 11:27 PM
The only reason they're interested in those things is because they are the most divisive. It's interesting how they have us divided 50/50. The two-party system seems too perfect and calculated that half of the voters will fall on each side. It's easier to control us when we fight each other and get distracted from the real problems.

I agree absolutley.

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 04:08 AM
You can see Obama trying to blame the sluggish economy on the sequester right now. LOL we are already contracting and he knows it. His whole first term economic plan is an utter failure. He didn;t hit any of the goals he set for the economy.

Now he knows it and is looking for a new albatross to hang it on. Bush getting to far in the rearview mirror to still work. So now he blames repubs in congress instead. Why because they only caved to higher taxes on the rich once so far this yr. He just got his taxes raised. Its time to barter on cuts with no new taxes but he won't do it.

Why because any deal is still not going to fix economy. He will be stuck with finally having to own this crap. Instead he will keep playing hardball so no deal gets done.

TonyR
02-26-2013, 07:34 AM
...the sluggish economy...

The recent rapid increase in gas prices, coupled with the expiration of the temporary payroll tax cut, is killing the economy right now.

baja
02-26-2013, 08:06 AM
What's killing the economy is the predicted and expected death of the fiat money system.

Like all ponzi schemes it had a life cycle.

baja
02-26-2013, 08:10 AM
Beware the Ides of March.

Rohirrim
02-26-2013, 09:12 AM
Let's see: You set up a capitalist, consumer society. The point is for everybody to buy stuff to keep the whole thing rolling. Then, you take the majority of the wealth and give it to the smallest segment of that society by massively cutting their taxes. You discover that they don't spend much. They prefer to hide the wealth offshore and figure out new ways to dodge old taxes. They prefer sitting on the sidelines (on their bags of money) where it's nice and safe. Then, you discover that you need to tax the hell out of the rest of the people in order to keep the government ball rolling (you've still got unfunded wars, the wreckage from a bankster ponzi scheme, and whatnot you have to pay for), but you find out that when you do that, the largest segment of the society (you know, the ones you are relying on to spend in order to keep the economy going) stop spending what little they have. Then, the ones with all the wealth say that they would love to help, but they're not going to put their money back into the economy until things get better. Call them the "Have your cake and eat it too" crowd. The majority say they're not going to spend because they don't have anything to spend. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise because the people who are trying to make stuff and sell it, aren't making enough to stay in business. So they start cutting jobs in order to trim their costs and charging more for their products.

Meanwhile, the ideologues on the Right decide that what is needed now is austerity. The government debt they haven't worried about for thirty years, well, they're suddenly worried about it now. And they decide that now is the time for the largest employer in the country, the government, to start cutting jobs. They decide that now, when the need is greatest, it's time for the biggest cuts. When they were riding high, in charge of government, slashing taxes and regulations during the boom times, not one of them mentioned, "Hey? Wouldn't this be a good time to start reducing government debt?" Hell no. They were in the lead in the spending frenzy. Hell, they were driving the government spending bandwagon. Their hero, George Bush, was spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, if you listen to them, they're not responsible for anything. It's all the other guy's fault. Remarkable, ain't it?

Oh, and all that money offshore? They say the best solution for that is to give the rich more tax breaks and THEN they'll bring the money back.

See why I keep going back to Mad Hatter's Tea Party meme?

baja
02-26-2013, 09:35 AM
Do you get the feeling some entity is trying to destroy the financial system?

If so who and why?

TonyR
02-26-2013, 09:38 AM
^ No, no, no, Roh. You have it all wrong. It's all the government's fault! And the poor people!

BroncoBeavis
02-26-2013, 09:42 AM
Sad fact of the matter is that deindustrialization has much more to do with the decline of the middle class than tax policy.

You're mistaking the symptom for the disease. You can't preserve the greatest economy on earth by replacing plant workers with professional consumers.

The upper (ownership) class isn't impacted so much because they can own production (or at least importation) whether it's here or someplace else. And the less competitive we get as a nation, the more incentive they have to make sure it goes someplace else.

To borrow from the (old) Ford model others here have cited. We need to focus our nation on production. The rest falls into place.

Rohirrim
02-26-2013, 11:23 AM
What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

BroncoBeavis
02-26-2013, 01:20 PM
What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

I agree with protectionism so far as "slave labor" nations go. Free trade with China should've never been on the table. Unfortunately it's a little too late to put that cat back in the bag.

As for trade protections against other free nations... that's more counterproductive than anything.

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 04:50 PM
So when a Republican is president IE Bush sr and Bush JR the recessions we face are all their fault. But when a Democrat has one he gets a free ride blaming the guy before him?

Get a clue liberals Obamas policies are dragging this recession longer then it needs to be.

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 04:51 PM
What we need is a little protectionism. The job of our government is not to uphold the free market ideology of global capitalism, it's to provide for the "general welfare" of the American people. Time to rewrite some trade policy and if the rich want to hide their assets offshore, they can take themselves and their families offshore as well. Bring the jobs home. If that disrupts globalism, tough ****. All globalization has done anyway is turn the third world into one giant slave labor camp on one end and a bunch of billionaires on the other.

Ok so you do that and then prices for those good go up. How does that help us? The they just slap a tarrif on something we export and so on and so on. You should be smarter then this.

mhgaffney
02-26-2013, 05:38 PM
Just wait until the mandated cuts take hold. Instant economic depression.

mhgaffney
02-26-2013, 05:48 PM
Let's see: You set up a capitalist, consumer society. The point is for everybody to buy stuff to keep the whole thing rolling. Then, you take the majority of the wealth and give it to the smallest segment of that society by massively cutting their taxes. You discover that they don't spend much. They prefer to hide the wealth offshore and figure out new ways to dodge old taxes. They prefer sitting on the sidelines (on their bags of money) where it's nice and safe. Then, you discover that you need to tax the hell out of the rest of the people in order to keep the government ball rolling (you've still got unfunded wars, the wreckage from a bankster ponzi scheme, and whatnot you have to pay for), but you find out that when you do that, the largest segment of the society (you know, the ones you are relying on to spend in order to keep the economy going) stop spending what little they have. Then, the ones with all the wealth say that they would love to help, but they're not going to put their money back into the economy until things get better. Call them the "Have your cake and eat it too" crowd. The majority say they're not going to spend because they don't have anything to spend. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise because the people who are trying to make stuff and sell it, aren't making enough to stay in business. So they start cutting jobs in order to trim their costs and charging more for their products.

Meanwhile, the ideologues on the Right decide that what is needed now is austerity. The government debt they haven't worried about for thirty years, well, they're suddenly worried about it now. And they decide that now is the time for the largest employer in the country, the government, to start cutting jobs. They decide that now, when the need is greatest, it's time for the biggest cuts. When they were riding high, in charge of government, slashing taxes and regulations during the boom times, not one of them mentioned, "Hey? Wouldn't this be a good time to start reducing government debt?" Hell no. They were in the lead in the spending frenzy. Hell, they were driving the government spending bandwagon. Their hero, George Bush, was spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, if you listen to them, they're not responsible for anything. It's all the other guy's fault. Remarkable, ain't it?

Oh, and all that money offshore? They say the best solution for that is to give the rich more tax breaks and THEN they'll bring the money back.

See why I keep going back to Mad Hatter's Tea Party meme?

The debt problem is the cover story. The real story is that the dollar is being destroyed day by day.

So what do the financial elite do? They use their power to save themselves. They arrange for the fed to give them free money (bail out $ and Q-E-3 $).

They take some of the free money and short down the price of gold and silver. Then they use the rest of the free money to buy up as much gold and silver as they can.

When the dollar tanks -- the rich will be sitting pretty with piles of gold and silver.

It's a fail safe strategy -- if you happen to own a bank.

MHG

BroncoBeavis
02-26-2013, 06:01 PM
Just wait until the mandated cuts take hold. Instant economic depression.

Wow. For someone so honed in on misinformation, you seem to have plenty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/24/Web-Resampled/2013-02-23/_tn_1001.6.2617659532_Oh6rEn43EeKaddqwIBZw2g_w-sequesterpolitics--300x581.jpg

cutthemdown
02-27-2013, 12:34 AM
All the dire predictions on layoffs and mass service interuptions are BS. This is how you force them to tighten the belt. Provide same services for less money. This is the goal we all should want to see. I know our military can still kick ass with a few billion less here and there. They can trim the fat its just that it will be painful to do so. It's hard work but unless we force them they won't ever do it.

Hell liberals should be loving these mandatory cuts. Do you really need another tax raise so bad you would be willing to give up cutting the military. Something you have hammered on for yrs.

TonyR
02-27-2013, 12:37 PM
Get a clue liberals Obamas policies are dragging this recession longer then it needs to be.

Which ones, specifically?

cutthemdown
02-27-2013, 03:18 PM
Which ones, specifically?

Healthcare reform, hostile towards energy producers through the EPA, high taxes on the job creators, lack of corporate tax reform and a new territorial system, a failed stimulus giveaway mostly to his union masters, poor leadership in the world when it comes to Libya, Syria, Egypt. Now he wants to raise min wage which is also another horrid idea that would hurt our economy and force more low wage earners onto the govt rolls. His on and off again energy policy in the gulf of mexico where he stopped them from drilling, then sort of let them start again, then stopped them, then sort of lets some open. Just a mish mash of policy that lost jobs. More regulations at the FDA which lead to higher food prices. The tax on medical device makers which is the worst idea of the whole healthcare reform. His stocking of the NLRB with union cronies who then attacked jobs in right to work states. AND THEN THE BIGGIE RUNAWAY SPENDING!

cutthemdown
02-27-2013, 04:19 PM
It's time for liberals to admit having EPA go after power producers it has ramped up emegry costs. Those costs are hurting big business, small business and the general public. The benefits of this attack by the EPA are dubious as they have no facts to show these new EPA rules will cool the earth.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 08:10 PM
Which ones, specifically?

too many for you to go over? not surprising because there are so many of them.

DenverBrit
02-28-2013, 08:47 PM
Healthcare reform, hostile towards energy producers through the EPA, high taxes on the job creators, lack of corporate tax reform and a new territorial system, a failed stimulus giveaway mostly to his union masters, poor leadership in the world when it comes to Libya, Syria, Egypt. Now he wants to raise min wage which is also another horrid idea that would hurt our economy and force more low wage earners onto the govt rolls. His on and off again energy policy in the gulf of mexico where he stopped them from drilling, then sort of let them start again, then stopped them, then sort of lets some open. Just a mish mash of policy that lost jobs. More regulations at the FDA which lead to higher food prices. The tax on medical device makers which is the worst idea of the whole healthcare reform. His stocking of the NLRB with union cronies who then attacked jobs in right to work states. AND THEN THE BIGGIE RUNAWAY SPENDING!

Where do you get this information, because it's not remotely correct.

The Long Run History of Taxes on the Rich

We know that taxes on the very rich are at a historic low right now, which will go even lower if Mitt Romney wins. But how low, exactly?

All the detailed studies I know of go back only to 1960. I’ve written about Piketty-Saez; the 2010 Economic Report of the President (pdf) also provided estimates, not taking into account corporate taxes:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/12/opinion/071212krugman2/071212krugman2-blog480.jpg
All these estimates show that taxes on the rich are the lowest they have been in half a century. But what about before 1960? Well, we know that the top marginal tax rate was even higher in the 40s and 50s than in the 60s; and it was very high by modern standards through much of the 30s too.

So I think it’s safe to say that taxes on the rich are currently lower than they have been for not 50 but 80 years. And if Mitt Romney gets his way, we’ll bring those taxes down to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.

DenverBrit
02-28-2013, 08:51 PM
Corporate Profits Soar To Record, Now More Than Double Their Peak Under Ronald Reagan

U.S. corporate profits have soared 71 percent, after taxes, under the crushing grip of Dear Leader Obama, Bloomberg writes. No other president since World War II, when America was also run by socialist monsters, has seen such a profit increase. Corporate profits are the highest share of GDP since at least 1947, when record-keeping began, if you can trust the government's records. "Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy," Bloomberg writes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/corporate-profits-record_n_2494743.html

TonyR
03-01-2013, 09:15 AM
too many for you to go over? not surprising because there are so many of them.

Actually, yes. I don't have time to give each the time and effort they deserve. But a general response is that most of your list is either biased, oversimplified, not really Obama's fault (or remotely his fault alone), open to interpretation, or subjective. And most are more than one of these things.

Take for example foreign policy. These issues are extremely complex and in most cases you don't know exactly what the administrations policy or long game is, and you don't know exactly what's actually going on. Add to this that many foreign policy experts are very positive about Obama's overall foreign policy, particularly in the wake of what happened in the previous administration.

El Minion
03-05-2013, 02:58 PM
Dow closes at record high (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/investing/stocks-markets/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130305085225-dow-030513-620xa.gif

The Dow Jones industrial average rallied to a new record high Tuesday.

The Dow climbed more than 125 points to close at a record high of 14,253.77, topping the prior record set in October 2007. Earlier, the blue chip index climbed to an intraday record of 14,286.37.

The S&P 500 added 15 points and finished at its highest level since October 2007 and is now only about 2% away from its record closing high.

"We're back to the highest levels in history, but we've got more things going for the economy and the market than we did last time," said Art Hogan, managing director at Lazard Capital.

Back in 2007, the economy was on the verge of winding down and heading into a tailspin, he said, whereas now it's continuing to improve, albeit slowly.

Continues (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/investing/stocks-markets/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

ZONA
03-05-2013, 04:42 PM
I've never understood why any middle or poor income person would be a Republican, in these days that is. Trickle down economics? Forget for a second that it doesn't create jobs. Let's say for argument sake that it does create some jobs. You can look at any report and they will all be the same. The income level for 99% of workers in the US has pretty much been at a stand still. You can create a billion burger flipper jobs all you want, it's not going to make a bigger and stronger middle class. The Republican party leaders don't want to give an inch to the middle and the poor. Oh you want jobs, that's cool, we'll create some jobs for you. We'll slash your benefits and pay you like crap and we'll skim everything else so that we, the rich, are the one's who see big hikes in salary. I've got to hand it to them though, they've had a masterful plan. Make these people focus on war and God and they'll be thankful for any damn job we provide. Meanwhile, we'll suck them dry of all the wealth and we'll live like kings. Open your F'm eyes already.

frerottenextelway
03-08-2013, 09:40 AM
Lol, Cutt must be devastated witht he Job numbers out today.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 02:48 PM
Sory but the labor force contracted by 130 thousand workers They did add more jobs then expected but the drop in rate is only because less people are looking for work. They added jobs last quarter also and the economy still shrank. This thread is about economic growth more then how govt fudges unemployment numbers to never show they true amount of unemployed. Still some good news in construction where new jobs were added.

houghtam
03-08-2013, 04:05 PM
Sory but the labor force contracted by 130 thousand workers They did add more jobs then expected but the drop in rate is only because less people are looking for work. They added jobs last quarter also and the economy still shrank. This thread is about economic growth more then how govt fudges unemployment numbers to never show they true amount of unemployed. Still some good news in construction where new jobs were added.

Actually about .1% of the .2% drop (half, to the mathematically challenged) is a result of new jobs.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 06:10 PM
Actually about .1% of the .2% drop (half, to the mathematically challenged) is a result of new jobs.

right the growth is so slow you could almost call it stagnant. You trying to prop this up as robust growth is a joke.

unemployment should be about 5%. Our economy should grow at about 1-2 a yr minimum.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 06:15 PM
Now Obama wants to try this new terror suspect in America? in our judicial system? **** that send him to Guantanamo for interrogation where he belongs. I will give Obama some credit though. His new policy of reaching out to repubs like he recently did is great. IMO Obama had pressure from the liberal activist side to push left coming out of the gate. He tried it and in many cases still is. Like trying this enemny combatant in America. But I bet fiscally hes about to come right because he sees that his agenda gts ****ed by playing hardball right now.

Then maybe if the tax raising nonesense turns into some smart corp tax reform, solve the problem off offshore profits not coming back to America, and lets get on with this.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 06:17 PM
If Obama wants growth there is only one way to get it. He has to loosen up the EPA on energy producers and manufacturing.

We have a rare earth mine in CA almost ready to re-open. Its been a slog of EPA BS like you wouldn't believe. When it open you watch you will see it make a difference in our economy. Obama could do some really good things but most likely he blows it.

DenverBrit
03-08-2013, 06:32 PM
With businesses making record profits and sitting on trillions in cash , why aren't they hiring?

It's because they don't need to. They are squeezing productivity from employees and using technology to expand. There are other components, but you don't have to look far for explanations.

Economists say many employers aren’t really feeling that much pressure to hire new workers.

After all, many workers who have been able to hold onto their jobs these last few years will tell you that they are working harder than ever, either because business has picked up or because they are also taking on responsibilities for people who have been let go. And yet, not many people have received significant raises in recent years as wages have stagnated.

Because companies can push their employees to be more productive for the same or less pay, they don’t have a great incentive to hire more workers. Instead, they’re more likely to either push people harder or come up with technological solutions for getting more work done.

“All companies are operating very lean,” Mayland said. “For many businesses, they’re back up to the 2007 to 2008 levels of business activities, but what we find is they’re doing it with significantly lower levels of employees.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/fiscal-cliff-other-reasons-companies-arent-hiring-more-workers-1C7357026

In addition, technology and other productivity improvements have helped boost per-employee sales and profits in recent years, which could reduce the urgency for some companies to hire. In the Sageworks survey, 23 percent of respondents said their clients’ efficiency has reduced the need to hire additional people.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2012/06/04/why-arent-companies-hiring/

peacepipe
03-08-2013, 06:47 PM
If Obama wants growth there is only one way to get it. He has to loosen up the EPA on energy producers and manufacturing.

We have a rare earth mine in CA almost ready to re-open. Its been a slog of EPA BS like you wouldn't believe. When it open you watch you will see it make a difference in our economy. Obama could do some really good things but most likely he blows it.

All that seems to be your head is old recycled Republican BS talking points.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 07:49 PM
Yeah those old BS talking points about how high energy costs thwart growth.

houghtam
03-08-2013, 08:02 PM
Yeah those old BS talking points about how high energy costs thwart growth.

Growth at the cost of the environment isn't worth it. And forcing the EPA to relax standards would be going against public opinion on both sides of the aisle. In a word, suicidal. Even Republicans want the EPA to be the one to decide the standards.

Fully 75 percent of voters (even 62 percent of Republicans) think EPA, not Congress, should decide on air pollution rules.

http://grist.org/clean-air/2011-10-12-even-republicans-favor-epa-rules/#

W*GS
03-08-2013, 08:56 PM
If Obama wants growth there is only one way to get it. He has to loosen up the EPA on energy producers and manufacturing.

"Only one way"?

Bull****.

I think you'd crap in your pantry if you believed it would make you a buck.

cutthemdown
03-08-2013, 10:15 PM
"Only one way"?

Bull****.

I think you'd crap in your pantry if you believed it would make you a buck.

I'm surprised Obama doesn't want a union for that. Then he would give pantry crappers minimum wage. You can't have an economy without energy. Cheap energy should be the goal of every president until we beat China. We can worry about cooling the Earth later. What good is a cool Earth if we lose our status as biggest and the best? That ain't cool! I would rather heat the **** out of the Earth and stay on top as long as possible. You think China and Russia are worried about co2?

houghtam
03-08-2013, 10:30 PM
I'm surprised Obama doesn't want a union for that. Then he would give pantry crappers minimum wage. You can't have an economy without energy. Cheap energy should be the goal of every president until we beat China. We can worry about cooling the Earth later. What good is a cool Earth if we lose our status as biggest and the best? That ain't cool! I would rather heat the **** out of the Earth and stay on top as long as possible. You think China and Russia are worried about co2?

Do you know what the difference in standard of living between the "biggest and best" and countries like Germany, UK, or Canada? Have you ever been abroad?

I know you don't believe in global warning but let's just pretend you agree with 97% of science. Is the perceived drop in quality of life from #1 to say #10 that much of a difference that its worth gambling the future of the entire world and millions of lives?

And that's just if you believe the quality of life in the US is #1 in the world. Unless when you refer to "biggest and best" you refer to military power, in which case that doesn't really get you anything, as no major power has any interest in military conquest anymore. To do so is to invite ruin. It seems like every major civilized nation understands that...except the US.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 08:08 PM
Houghtam just basically admitted the policies he supports will end up dropping the USA to about 10th instead of 1st. Great at least the Earth will be cool.......not! Show me one shred of evidence that Obama has cooled the Earth.

baja
03-09-2013, 08:10 PM
WANT TO REPAIR THE ECOLOGY OF THE EARTH IN A YEAR?

http://www.kacperpostawski.com/306/scientific-testing-of-adya-clarity-video-interview-with-dr-clement-matt-bakos/

W*GS
03-09-2013, 08:49 PM
What good is a cool Earth if we lose our status as biggest and the best? That ain't cool! I would rather heat the **** out of the Earth and stay on top as long as possible.

Go out in a blaze of glory, eh?

Man, you are stupid.

Let's put it to a vote of the planet. 315,000,000 Americans vs. 6,755,000,000 everybody else.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 08:55 PM
So now the rest of the world gets to vote our energy prices up? And America spends its capital for the Earth while Russia, China, Indonesia, Brazil, India get to do as they please? I think not WIGGS. It's an awesome line of posts though that really shows how niave liberals are. So what the Earth warms a bit we will adapt. Being the superpower is what is most important.

Haoughtam acutally would prefer America 10th to get his liberal agenda in place.

W*GS
03-09-2013, 08:57 PM
So what the Earth warms a bit we will adapt. Being the superpower is what is most important.

King of the ****pile isn't much of an accomplishment.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 09:04 PM
King of the ****pile isn't much of an accomplishment.

Better then eating the **** of Chinese and the Earth still warming. You said it man America a drop in the bucket 300 million to billions! Unless China agree to halt growth and start retooling to be green it's all ****ing moot. Hell we owe them money explain to me how this works out for us in a positive way? Until all the world is on board wasting money on it is detrimental to our economy and our future as a world power.

Solar power and wind power are not going to conquer the world. The are BS plans to create energy and will never meet the worlds energy demands.

W*GS
03-09-2013, 09:20 PM
Better then eating the **** of Chinese and the Earth still warming. You said it man America a drop in the bucket 300 million to billions! Unless China agree to halt growth and start retooling to be green it's all ****ing moot. Hell we owe them money explain to me how this works out for us in a positive way? Until all the world is on board wasting money on it is detrimental to our economy and our future as a world power.

Solar power and wind power are not going to conquer the world. The are BS plans to create energy and will never meet the worlds energy demands.

This is you with a Koch up your ass:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw5idjL3lt1qzkc7no1_400.jpg

baja
03-09-2013, 09:51 PM
Stop fretting about global warming;

http://www.lunarplanner.com/HolyCross.html

W*GS
03-09-2013, 10:03 PM
Stop fretting about global warming;

http://www.lunarplanner.com/HolyCross.html

Goddamn but you're a flake.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 10:06 PM
Wiggs won't argue that co2 reduction by the USA will cool the Earth because he knows it won't. It won't halt, stop, or control global climate change at all. Why? Because he knows India, China, Indoensia, Brazil won't be switching off coal and oil anytime soon. Maybe in another 100 yrs but if we try and move to fast we destroy our economy.

W*GS
03-09-2013, 10:09 PM
Wiggs won't argue that co2 reduction by the USA will cool the Earth because he knows it won't. It won't halt, stop, or control global climate change at all. Why? Because he knows India, China, Indoensia, Brazil won't be switching off coal and oil anytime soon. Maybe in another 100 yrs but if we try and move to fast we destroy our economy.

Since when do we let China, India, Brazil, Indonesia dictate our energy policy?

Hell, let's get them to run our country for us.

**** you, cut.

houghtam
03-09-2013, 10:14 PM
Houghtam just basically admitted the policies he supports will end up dropping the USA to about 10th instead of 1st. Great at least the Earth will be cool.......not! Show me one shred of evidence that Obama has cooled the Earth.

No, I admitted the US is slipping out of "#1" (however you classify that) regardless of whose policies are in place. Some would say that the US isn't #1 anymore in quality of life. I'm sure there are probably millions (billions?) of people around the world believe their quality of life to be just as good as that in the US. I'm sure many of them are right, too.

But you can go right on ahead and rah rah the US right into an early grave. I'm much less concerned about how much money I have than whether where I live is worth living. Why aren't you? Are you that insecure about yourself that you need need need as much money as possible? I learned to get out of that game years ago, and I'm not really that old.

houghtam
03-09-2013, 10:21 PM
Wiggs won't argue that co2 reduction by the USA will cool the Earth because he knows it won't. It won't halt, stop, or control global climate change at all. Why? Because he knows India, China, Indoensia, Brazil won't be switching off coal and oil anytime soon. Maybe in another 100 yrs but if we try and move to fast we destroy our economy.

Some of us don't care what China does.

Some of us just don't want that **** in our backyard. Why can't you respect that? Aren't you the same people that bitch about having to look at a wind turbine? Why should I have to submit to a pipeline running through my country where, if it leaks, it's not going to get cleaned up...period?

All for what, 10 cent cheaper gas? No thanks. No way. Not worth it. Not in my country.

baja
03-09-2013, 11:21 PM
Since when do we let China, India, Brazil, Indonesia dictate our energy policy?

Hell, let's get them to run our country for us.

**** you, cut.

Do you even know you are a prisoner of your false beliefs?

W*GS
03-10-2013, 09:03 AM
Do you even know you are a prisoner of your false beliefs?

Yeah, yeah.

The reptilians run it all.

Goddamn, but you're a flake.

BroncoBeavis
03-10-2013, 09:37 AM
Some of us don't care what China does.

Some of us just don't want that **** in our backyard. Why can't you respect that? Aren't you the same people that b**** about having to look at a wind turbine? Why should I have to submit to a pipeline running through my country where, if it leaks, it's not going to get cleaned up...period?

All for what, 10 cent cheaper gas? No thanks. No way. Not worth it. Not in my country.

The end of this road is that there are few pipelines or coal plants in the third world. Some call that an aspiration I guess.

Rohirrim
03-10-2013, 10:32 AM
WANT TO REPAIR THE ECOLOGY OF THE EARTH IN A YEAR?

http://www.kacperpostawski.com/306/scientific-testing-of-adya-clarity-video-interview-with-dr-clement-matt-bakos/

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/con-man4.jpg

Rohirrim
03-10-2013, 10:34 AM
Some of us don't care what China does.

Some of us just don't want that **** in our backyard. Why can't you respect that? Aren't you the same people that b**** about having to look at a wind turbine? Why should I have to submit to a pipeline running through my country where, if it leaks, it's not going to get cleaned up...period?

All for what, 10 cent cheaper gas? No thanks. No way. Not worth it. Not in my country.

We need to sell our people, our country, our culture, our way of life, our children and their children to China. It's our path to prosperity.

houghtam
03-10-2013, 11:29 AM
The end of this road is that there are few pipelines or coal plants in the third world. Some call that an aspiration I guess.

Yeah, yeah.

The US will be a third world country if we don't allow big energy to operate unfettered.

Goddamn, but you're a flake.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 01:15 PM
Once again emotional BS from liberal pussies. Its not worth the mother Earth to use oil and gas for electricity. We need to cool mother earth regardless of if it will work. Even if China doesn't and passes us up as the number 1 economy it will be worth it for us to do th right thing because we don't let China influence our energy policy. Who cares as long as Al Gore gets to **** us all in the mouth with his big energy dong.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 01:17 PM
Still waiting for some great research, some of those famous liberal graphs you all put up that shows how much our energy policies will cool the Earth over the next 10 years.

W*GS
03-10-2013, 01:18 PM
Once again emotional BS from liberal pussies. Its not worth the mother Earth to use oil and gas for electricity. We need to cool mother earth regardless of if it will work. Even if China doesn't and passes us up as the number 1 economy it will be worth it for us to do th right thing because we don't let China influence our energy policy. Who cares as long as Al Gore gets to **** us all in the mouth with his big energy dong.

Tell us to which planet we can move once the ecosystems of this one are too damaged to accomodate our large and growing population.

What's the backup for Earth?

Once again, you want us to be Rulers of the Planet, regardless of the cost. Goddamn but you're a stupid ****.

houghtam
03-10-2013, 01:31 PM
Tell us to which planet we can move once the ecosystems of this one are too damaged to accomodate our large and growing population.

What's the backup for Earth?

Once again, you want us to be Rulers of the Planet, regardless of the cost. Goddamn but you're a stupid ****.

He doesn't care. He won't be alive.

Long as he's paying $3.75 at the pump and not $3.85.

Now tell us more about the tenets of this "Christianity" you speak of...

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 01:37 PM
We won't need to go anywhere. The Earth will be fine for humans until the sun or a big celestial object decides otherwise. The notion co2 will decide the Earths fate so completely misleading and a total fantasy of Al Gore and the left.

W*GS
03-10-2013, 01:47 PM
We won't need to go anywhere. The Earth will be fine for humans until the sun or a big celestial object decides otherwise.

How many humans and at what level of development?

The notion co2 will decide the Earths fate so completely misleading and a total fantasy of Al Gore and the left.

Completely unsupported by the facts.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 01:53 PM
How many humans and at what level of development?



Completely unsupported by the facts.

Eventually we will probably travel to other planets and live there. We will probably in the next 100 years master the scientific endeavor of fusion and all the energy it will unlock.

How many of us? Who knows I would guess we have more to fear from super strains of viruses and anti biotic resistant bacterias then we do global warming. What would you say kills more humans wiggs? Global warming or severe outbreaks of ebola and it's ilk? But eventually we probably master curing many of them.

Sorry but the temp of the Earth is very low down the list. We already can cool the Earth on a temporary basis with bioengineering. If obama put money it that instead of failed solar we would be better off.

W*GS
03-10-2013, 01:58 PM
It's geoengineering, dope.

It won't fix all the other impacts we're having on the climate system - it deals with temps, and that's about it, and even then, far from perfectly.

You're just another technology-will-save-us, even when said technology is pure vaporware. In short, fantasyland.

Rohirrim
03-10-2013, 02:00 PM
You know what allowed creatures to come onto the land? These tiny little alga over millions and millions of years put so much oxygen into the atmosphere that the excess created a layer of ozone which blocked the sun's damaging UV rays. Before that, creatures could only live in the seas where they were protected. So you want to argue that mankind belching billions of tons of industrial gasses into the atmosphere isn't going to do anything harmful? Keep living in a dream world.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 02:21 PM
You know what allowed creatures to come onto the land? These tiny little alga over millions and millions of years put so much oxygen into the atmosphere that the excess created a layer of ozone which blocked the sun's damaging UV rays. Before that, creatures could only live in the seas where they were protected. So you want to argue that mankind belching billions of tons of industrial gasses into the atmosphere isn't going to do anything harmful? Keep living in a dream world.

Thats not my argument so you must not be talking to me.

houghtam
03-10-2013, 03:19 PM
How many of us? Who knows I would guess we have more to fear from super strains of viruses and anti biotic resistant bacterias then we do global warming. What would you say kills more humans wiggs? Global warming or severe outbreaks of ebola and it's ilk? But eventually we probably master curing many of them.

Pick up a book sometime.

Lack of potable water is a much bigger threat to overpopulation than any of that.

Guess what processes are known to cause groundwater corruption?

cutthemdown
03-11-2013, 03:05 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/paulson-said-to-explore-puerto-rico-as-home-with-low-tax.html

Pick up a newspaper. More rich Americans are going to be moving away from high tax areas. Also you are wrong about water being more of a risk to America then drug resistant strains. When I say we I am talking about America. I agree places like the mideast are ****ed they better make some desalination.

I just watched a show on BBC that said doctors feel in 20 yrs having an operation of any kind could be life or death when it comes to infections. It already is but right now our drugs still work. That is changing though. Hopefully our govt pumping money into research on new ways to kill bacterial infections.

cutthemdown
03-11-2013, 03:08 PM
Damage from fracking overstated.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/February/200201.asp

Rohirrim
03-11-2013, 04:03 PM
All I can say is, now that America is going down the crapper, I'm relieved to discover that many of her major corporations are able to jump ship. That's the spirit!

It has become increasingly common for companies to move or keep their profits overseas. The biggest U.S. companies boosted their offshore cash hoards by 14 percent last year, according to a separate Bloomberg report. Apple, Microsoft and Google together have more than doubled their overseas holdings over the past two years. The drugmakers Merck and Johnson & Johnson each saved about $2 billion last year by shifting profits overseas, according to Bloomberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

cutthemdown
03-11-2013, 05:31 PM
Rho whats your idea to get those offshore profits back into the American system? I have given mine over and over. We have to make two corp tax rates. One for domestic profits and one for profits made in other countries.

They don't shift profits as much as we have certain huge companies that do a lot of business overseas not bringing the money home. Why should they? After paying high tax to do business in other countries they dont want to pay another 35% to bring that money home to the USA. Until this issue is handled our economy really can't grow much. Obama can do whatever he wants but he has to make doing business in America more friendly if he wants economy to grow a lot.

We should drop the corp tax rate to about 10% for profits made overseas. The tradeoff would be American companies by law forced to bring at least half of what they earn overseas back to America and pay the 10%. Right now we get 35% of almost nothing.

I think we should also drop the corp rate in America also but only for companies re-investing in America.

our article mentions its common for them to move or keep profits overseas. IMO it's mostly keep overseas. The problem isn't money made in America being swindled out of the country.

Rohirrim
03-11-2013, 06:50 PM
Corporations aren't people, no matter what that ****head Scalia thinks. The corporate rate is the lowest it's been since the 50s. These people are greedy bastards. They take our jobs overseas and then want a tax break for doing it. It's like teams telling communities to build them a stadium or they'll leave and take the team with them.

You really don't see what's happening do you? Globalism is devaluing labor across the globe while funneling more wealth to the investor class. You know what Lincoln said? Labor comes first. Our country comes first. Not corporate profits. Some people in America have become so caught up in ideology that they don't see their country being sold out from under their feet.

houghtam
03-11-2013, 08:20 PM
Corporations aren't people, no matter what that ****head Scalia thinks. The corporate rate is the lowest it's been since the 50s. These people are greedy bastards. They take our jobs overseas and then want a tax break for doing it. It's like teams telling communities to build them a stadium or they'll leave and take the team with them.

You really don't see what's happening do you? Globalism is devaluing labor across the globe while funneling more wealth to the investor class. You know what Lincoln said? Labor comes first. Our country comes first. Not corporate profits. Some people in America have become so caught up in ideology that they don't see their country being sold out from under their feet.

He knows this, Roh. He's just decided the rich have already won, so you might as well treat them as nice as possible and maybe they'll give him some. He's just like Saruman. But like Sauron, the rich do not share power.

cutthemdown
03-11-2013, 09:55 PM
The reality is we have corps making profit overseas and we need that money brought back to the USA. Doesn't matter what your corp tax rate is if they don't bring it back to get taxed you get nothing.

TonyR
03-12-2013, 09:01 AM
Damage from fracking overstated.


Fracking uses a lot of water. And in a state like CO where there isn't enough water that's a huge problem. Just one of many, many issues that have to be considered.