[quote]hspder wrote:
So, directly, yes, it is mostly the Fed and the Market, but the Administration’s influence is pivotal, like it or not.[/quote]
I agree, the influence is there, much the same way the administration’s influence is pivotal wrt terrorist forces, DHS, and domestic attack.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
According to you - the only way we would be able to get a loan is if we first have enough money to pay the note off before getting the loan. [/quote]
Oh, c’mon, even you realize that’s completely absurd and I never said that. You’re either mixing revenue with profit (which I’d be surprised with you being a CPA) or simply trying to be a smartass.
Clearly, there’s no point in continuing this conversation, since you’ve made up your mind and you are simply going to distort or deny everything I write. Hopefully it has helped others understand the seriousness of the situation – clearly YOU are beyond help.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I asked you in my post to explain what you meant by the government providing for the people, or whatever you said. I did accuse you of asserting the failed lib policies of the past, but all that is requried is for you to explain how you are going to acheive your objectives without a tax increase. [/quote]
If you REALLY was trying to understand what I meant, you would not have immediately jumped to the conclusion you always want to jump to. That’s called giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I’m also pretty sure my opinion of you is pretty much consensual around here – not that I care much, mind you. But since you asked…
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
According to you - the only way we would be able to get a loan is if we first have enough money to pay the note off before getting the loan.
Oh, c’mon, even you realize that’s completely absurd and I never said that. You’re either mixing revenue with profit (which I’d be surprised with you being a CPA) or simply trying to be a smartass.
Clearly, there’s no point in continuing this conversation, since you’ve made up your mind and you are simply going to distort or deny everything I write. Hopefully it has helped others understand the seriousness of the situation – clearly YOU are beyond help.
[/quote]
No - I am just beyond swallowing your koolaid.
I have distorted no more than you have.
When there is enough cash flow to service the debt, and there is a very low debt ratio - money could and should be lent.
You want to take market forces out of the equation and scare everyone with these doomsday numbers.
When foregin investors stop seeing the US as a golden goose, then maybe you and your ideas will have some merit. Until then, we are not as bad off as you would like - or no one would be investing in us.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…
Yet the economy is growing, personal incomes are up 9%, and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.
Damn tax cuts. They work every time they are used. [/quote]
Tax receipts are up because AMT has not been addressed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
According to you - the only way we would be able to get a loan is if we first have enough money to pay the note off before getting the loan.
Oh, c’mon, even you realize that’s completely absurd and I never said that. You’re either mixing revenue with profit (which I’d be surprised with you being a CPA) or simply trying to be a smartass.
Clearly, there’s no point in continuing this conversation, since you’ve made up your mind and you are simply going to distort or deny everything I write. Hopefully it has helped others understand the seriousness of the situation – clearly YOU are beyond help.
No - I am just beyond swallowing your koolaid.
I have distorted no more than you have.
When there is enough cash flow to service the debt, and there is a very low debt ratio - money could and should be lent.
You want to take market forces out of the equation and scare everyone with these doomsday numbers.
When foregin investors stop seeing the US as a golden goose, then maybe you and your ideas will have some merit. Until then, we are not as bad off as you would like - or no one would be investing in us.[/quote]
The debt will F us in the end no matter how much we cut taxes.
Spending is the one and only problem.
Thats like saying you need to make more money to pay off your credit cards instead of cutting back on spending.
[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I asked you in my post to explain what you meant by the government providing for the people, or whatever you said. I did accuse you of asserting the failed lib policies of the past, but all that is requried is for you to explain how you are going to acheive your objectives without a tax increase.
If you REALLY was trying to understand what I meant, you would not have immediately jumped to the conclusion you always want to jump to. That’s called giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I’m also pretty sure my opinion of you is pretty much consensual around here – not that I care much, mind you. But since you asked…
[/quote]
Oh, you hurt my feelings…I am about to cry.
Funny, though, how you don’t answer simple questions, but continue your personal attack. Very ‘liberal’ of you btw.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Listen you Bush haters will blame him for everything, give him no credit for anything, and bash him without end. However, Bush has kept America safe – the last time I looked, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. is under the {b] Executive Branch [/b] of which he is the head. As Truman said, “the buck stops here.”[/quote]
You are such an idiot. This is exactly the type of thing that makes the President and Administration look bad when things like Abu-Graib happen.
Why weren’t you saying things like this during that time? All we heard then was that he wasn’t personally responsible and there was no need for anyone to resign over the scandal.
Obviously, based on your reasoning, you would think somebody should be held accountable at an upper level for failures that occur as well. Way to go, that’s forward thinking for you!
LOL. You are such a laughable and ignorant person. You continually throw labels around as if you can just stick them onto things and make it true. Please, grow up, wake up, or do whatever it is you need to do to start seeing the world around you in some manner related to reality.
You are an embarrassment to any groups you claim affiliation with.
Republican tragedy: The American people are hooked on socialistic spending. To remain a viable party, they have taken to spending like Democrats. No one seeks to really curb spending any longer.
As the debt compounds and with the horrors of the SS deficit in mind, I truly fear for the future of this country.
HH
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The debt will F us in the end no matter how much we cut taxes.
Spending is the one and only problem.
Thats like saying you need to make more money to pay off your credit cards instead of cutting back on spending.[/quote]
If you did both - you would build wealth, not just get out of debt. Since the Gov’t should not be in the business of turning a profit, it would mean even deeper tax cuts if we could control spending.
But when over 40% of our spending is for entitlements, you can only cut so much unless someone in DC nuts up and abolishes about 85% of the entitlements.
Funding social security will be what kills us -
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Funding social security will be what kills us -
[/quote]
Just an honest question, but how will the cost of Social Security compare to the cost of the war in Iraq?
If they are in the same ballpark, it looks like something to be upset about, but nothing that can’t be handled…
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Funding social security will be what kills us -
Just an honest question, but how will the cost of Social Security compare to the cost of the war in Iraq?
If they are in the same ballpark, it looks like something to be upset about, but nothing that can’t be handled…[/quote]
Because of the baby boomers becoming eligible for SocSec, there will be far less workers to pay for the ever increasing, spiraling cost of funding social security.
The war is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of funding Social Security.
And SocSec is a millstone that will be here forever unless something is done now.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Because of the baby boomers becoming eligible for SocSec, there will be far less workers to pay for the ever increasing, spiraling cost of funding social security.
The war is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of funding Social Security.[/quote]
I know how it works, what I’m looking for is numbers?
Assuming that people aren’t paying enough on average to cover their own costs, then yes, of course it will be a burden on everyone.
I’m not so interested in the political fight over this issue, but more so the numbers involved.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…
Yet the economy is growing, personal incomes are up 9%, and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.
Damn tax cuts. They work every time they are used.
my point wasnt to get in a pissing fight about what economic figures I can come up with to favor my take.
I am asserting that we are on the verge of an economic slowdown, as indicated by this quarters earnings reports, and RECENT economic news, not last quarters.
As a result of INFLATION you would expect income to increase it’s a natural cause and effect situation.
I agree that the economy has performed well over the last few years. But often times what a president does during his presidency has a lasting effect long after he departs
I think the fed has worked too hard to manage inflation - particularly Greenspan. No one wants to see a return to the Carter-like inflationary days, except farmers.
A president has little if anything to do with the economy. The fed, and the market has much more play in that. [/quote]
Agreed, the president has indirect effects on the economy, the fed has far more ability to influence the economy.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The debt will F us in the end no matter how much we cut taxes.
Spending is the one and only problem.
Thats like saying you need to make more money to pay off your credit cards instead of cutting back on spending.
If you did both - you would build wealth, not just get out of debt. Since the Gov’t should not be in the business of turning a profit, it would mean even deeper tax cuts if we could control spending.
But when over 40% of our spending is for entitlements, you can only cut so much unless someone in DC nuts up and abolishes about 85% of the entitlements.
Funding social security will be what kills us -
[/quote]
‘if’?
case closed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Republican tragedy: The American people are hooked on socialistic spending. To remain a viable party, they have taken to spending like Democrats. No one seeks to really curb spending any longer.
As the debt compounds and with the horrors of the SS deficit in mind, I truly fear for the future of this country.
HH[/quote]
HH,
It is called ‘starve the beast’.
It works for me.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.
Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.
Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.
HH
[/quote]
You leave out the fact that he ordered his secret police to torture his people into the 20th century. Can’t hate Saddam and love the Shah. They have to much in common.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Has anybody been blown up since? Do you even realize that the 9/11 attacks were due mainly to Clinton’s inaction in confronting terrorism?
…[/quote]
Was Clinton sitting in his Texas ranch the month before the attacks? Was he reading in a class during the attacks? Did he continue to read after he was informed of the attacks?
Did he run for cover for several days?
No, that’s what your cowboy did.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
A lower dollar is not a bad thing in and of itself.
The lower the dollar - the more competitive American farmers can be in the world market.
May not mean much to a bunch of city slickers, but it’s my bread and butter. When Farmers make money - I make money. [/quote]
A lower dollar means that the US economy isn’t doing as good as the European or Canadian economy.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.
Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.
Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.
HH
Please don’t forget that wonderfully conceived and executed “hostage rescue” mission.
I guess no one will be confusing that with the hostage rescue that President Reagan pulled off on the Isle of Grenada.
But then he was a GREAT President.
[/quote]
You’re leaving out the fact that he was negotiating with Iran to hold on to the US hostages untill after the elections.
He was a traitor and should have been shot.