Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 125
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: The US republicans made/created America's national debt, and then they lie, and say the democrats did it.

  1. #1 The US republicans made/created America's national debt, and then they lie, and say the democrats did it. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    It was US republicans that created America's 99% to GDP national debt. And at the same time, republican CEO leaders lie and say, "the democrats are the big spenders, and create all of Americas debt."

    US republicans in this forum may try to discredit this, but all the facts and numbers say otherwise.

    In the following CBO chart, one only has to look at the, "of $" and "in %" debt increase columns, to see when republicans or democrats are in office. When the numbers rise republicans are in office, when the numbers fall democrats are in office.




    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------increase----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------debt----increase----------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------start-------end-----billions--dept/gdp----------------------------------------------
    --*U.S. president* ----------------party---years-----dept/gdp-dept/gdp---of $------in %------house control----senate control---
    Roosevelt D 1941–1945 50.4% 117.5% +203 +67.1% D D
    Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -8 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
    Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% +13 -21.7% D D
    Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% +6 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
    Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% +20 -5.2% D D
    Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% +30 -8.3% D D
    Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% +43 -8.3% D D
    Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% +101 -3.0% D D
    Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% +177 +0.2% D D
    Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% +288 -3.3% D D
    Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% +823 +11.3% D R
    Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% +1,050 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
    Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% +1,483 +13.0% D D
    Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
    Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0% R R
    Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
    Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +4,521 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
    Obama1 Barack Obama D 2009–2011 84.2% 99.6% +4,334 +15.4% 111th D, 112th R D


    (Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)




    Ronald Reagan's debt was created, by cutting taxes on America's richest citizens, and republican corporate give away's.
    Republican leaders lied/lie and say, "tax cuts for the rich increase government revenues", but that's a lie, and Reagan's tax cuts created huge deficits.

    Republican leaders also lie and say, "the reason Ronald Reagan had deficits, and created debt, was because of a democrat congress". But the truth is, public pressure caused Reagans democrat congress to give Reagan everything/anything he wanted.

    CBO records clearly show, the huge deficits and debt created by Ronald Reagan.



    When Bill Clinton became president, he reversed Ronald Reagan's policies. After Clinton reversed Reagan's policies, Americas deficits disappeared, and Clinton began paying down parts of Americas national debt. And under Clinton's policies, debt to GDP began falling. And if democrats would have remained in power, Americas national debt would be around 55?% to GDP today.



    But then G.W. Bush won the White house, and brought back Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, and Reagan's corporate give away's. And then Americas deficits and nation debt increased like never before.

    Republicans will say that G.W. Bush had to spend money, to fight al qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. But G.W. Bush spent $1 trillion+ more dollars on this, than any democrat would have. G.W. Bush attacked Iraq and Saddam Hussein, in the name of killing al qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. But Saddam Hussein was trying to kill al qaeda and Bin Laden, for many years before Sept 11th even happened. No democrat wanted to attack Iraq, and spend that $1 trillion+ dollars in a lie. (note: the 935 lies, said about Iraq, by G.W. Bush's White House, were said for a oil/weapons think tank called "the project for a new american century.")

    G.W. Bush created deficits and debt like no other, by giving tax cuts to rich people, and lying to get a trillion dollar war, and CBO records clearly show this.

    And today as always, republican leaders lie and say, "Barrack Obama is the biggest spender of all times". But the republican leaders never explain to their followers, how Obama had Bush's deficits handed to him, and has been forced to live in Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and pay for a republican war started by lies.

    But if one looks at "of $" and "in %", in the above CBO chart, you can see the numbers are starting to fall again since Obama is in office.








    The following link shows the cost of the Bush Tax cuts.
    http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

    The following link states how the Wall Street meltdown and a terrible recession, were caused by republican deregulation of corporations/billionaires.
    Bernie Sanders: `Deficit hawk hypocrites' want to cut Social Security - SGVTribune.com


    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    I'm not one to usually comment about politics, but didn't those Republican Presidential regime typically have a democrat controlled Congress. Doesn't congress essentially pass (vote) on the budget for the President to sign? Isn't it clear that both parties are equally to blame\credit fiscal mismanagement (e.g. Clinton years of lower deficit had a Republican congress) ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    In the following CBO chart, one only has to look at the, "of $" and "in %" debt increase columns, to see when republicans or democrats are in office. When the numbers rise republicans are in office, when the numbers fall democrats are in office.
    Perhaps look at the chart again? Or are you ignoring the largest increase in any term was by Roosevelt a Democrat, and 3rd largest increase is Obama, another Democrat...

    But to be fair, neither party has taken a serious role to keep deficits in check since Eisenhower--most of us gladly vote for the congressmen who can whore the most money for our districts while complaining about the rest of congress and the overall effect on the nation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What stands out for me is that the debt was in decline all the way up to Reagan, then climbs from there until Bush, drops a bit under Clinton, then it's been steady upward again.

    Man, Clinton sure did something right.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Man, Clinton sure did something right.
    A combination of a post Cold War bonus as the DOD was reduced (while ignoring such threats as two embassy bombings, a destroyer wrecked and the world trade center nearly destroyed), and dramatic increase of the internet to improve business efficiency.
    msafwan likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    True, internet was created in 1995!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Man, Clinton sure did something right.
    A combination of a post Cold War bonus as the DOD was reduced (while ignoring such threats as two embassy bombings, a destroyer wrecked and the world trade center nearly destroyed),
    So military spending is what's really driving the present deficit? If so then we really need to rethink how we deal with insurgencies, because otherwise we're not going to be able to afford any future invasions.

    If we can't afford invasions, then future enemies will see us as a paper tiger, an empty threat.

    and dramatic increase of the internet to improve business efficiency.
    For which his vice president, Al Gore deserves some small amount of credit, as he chaired the committee that made the fiscal decision to grant funding to the (then "Arpanet") project when he was in Congress. At a minimum that means he saw its potential and made a smart investment on the people's behalf.

    (A statement about this was later misquoted as him saying he had "invented" the internet, which is clearly false, but it doesn't change the fact he played a political role in its creation.)
    msafwan likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Mind boogling! promoted ARPANET, board director of Apple, senior advisor of Google!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Perhaps look at the chart again? Or are you ignoring the largest increase in any term was by Roosevelt a Democrat, and 3rd largest increase is Obama, another Democrat...
    The debt boost under Obama was leftover W's, the debt under Roosevelt was partly Hoover's and partly WWII, which Roosevelt did not start.

    A combination of a post Cold War bonus as the DOD was reduced
    Something Reagan failed to do, at great cost to the nation, crashing of banks and recessions and tripling of the debt and so forth
    (while ignoring such threats as two embassy bombings, a destroyer wrecked and the world trade center nearly destroyed),
    Clinton's responses to these was not only far cheaper, but far more effective, than Reagan's before or W's after, for their disasters
    and dramatic increase of the internet to improve business efficiency.
    Whitecollar business efficiency did not improve at that time - there was quite a bit of discussion about that in the papers etc, because the introduction of computers (not the internet, the computer) was supposed to yield big gains in efficiency but nobody could find any. The Federal bean counter response was to simply assume an efficiency improvement commensurate with the investment being made - that is not a joke.

    Greater business efficiency is beside the point anyway - we were talking about the national debt, which indeed is - the debt we have now - mostly a product of ill-advised tax cuts coupled with a bizarre level of peacetime military spending. So whichever Party you find responsible for huge tax cuts for rich people (the concomitant boosting of taxes on poor people didn't make up the slack) and very large increases in military borrowing, that's who built our deficit.

    The Republican Plan D Medicare boondoggle, squashing of cost controls on health care, and corruption in government contracting, were of course other worthy factors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I'm not one to usually comment about politics, but didn't those Republican Presidential regime typically have a democrat controlled Congress. Doesn't congress essentially pass (vote) on the budget for the President to sign? Isn't it clear that both parties are equally to blame\credit fiscal mismanagement (e.g. Clinton years of lower deficit had a Republican congress) ?

    Scientists call the US republican party a corporate propaganda group. And this propaganda group tells their followers 1,000's of lies.

    On of these lies is, that Ronald Reagan's democrat congress caused all of Reagan's deficits and debt.
    Reality is, America's politically uneducated general public, very much loved Ronald Reagan, and strongly desired to have all of Reagan's plans put into law. This public pressure caused Reagans democrat congress, to give Reagan everything he wanted. (The laws passed by that democrat congress were Reagan's laws.)


    And for Clinton.

    Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ronald Reagan's tax laws, lowered taxes on the super rich, and large corporations. This caused the US government to have less government revenue, and this created huge deficits that became debt.



    Clintonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. And this reversed Ronald Reagan's deficits and government debt.


    At this moment, I do not know how Bill Clinton got these tax laws passed. But wiki clearly states, Bill Clinton's passed tax laws, raised taxes on the top 1.2% wealthiest US wage earners.

    US republican propaganda groups, like Fox news and Rush radio say, "Bill Clinton wants to punish the rich" and, "the rich made America great, and we need to give the rich tax cuts, to keep America great."

    Point is, republican leaders would never raise taxes on the top 1% of richest Americans.

    Maybe Bill Clinton had a democrat congress when he first became president, and at that time he was able to pass his tax laws?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    In the following CBO chart, one only has to look at the, "of $" and "in %" debt increase columns, to see when republicans or democrats are in office. When the numbers rise republicans are in office, when the numbers fall democrats are in office.
    Perhaps look at the chart again? Or are you ignoring the largest increase in any term was by Roosevelt a Democrat, and 3rd largest increase is Obama, another Democrat...

    But to be fair, neither party has taken a serious role to keep deficits in check since Eisenhower--most of us gladly vote for the congressmen who can whore the most money for our districts while complaining about the rest of congress and the overall effect on the nation.

    Roosevelt's deficits and debt were caused by World war II.
    And unlike G.W. Bush's Iraq war, Roosevelt's democrat party leaders, did not tell 1,000's of lies, to get involved in World war II.
    You can Google "935 lies Iraq", and see G.W. Bush's White House (alone), told 935 lies to start the Iraq war. These republican Iraq war lies, were said for a oil/weapons think tank, called "the project for a new american century."


    You said, "neither party has taken a serious role to keep deficits in check", but nothing could be further from the truth.

    FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


    Around the year 2000, Bill Clinton had a federal surplus of $236 billion dollars. If you would have ever listened to Bill Clinton talk, you would know he took major steps, to keep deficits in check.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Man, Clinton sure did something right.
    A combination of a post Cold War bonus as the DOD was reduced (while ignoring such threats as two embassy bombings, a destroyer wrecked and the world trade center nearly destroyed),
    So military spending is what's really driving the present deficit? If so then we really need to rethink how we deal with insurgencies, because otherwise we're not going to be able to afford any future invasions.

    If we can't afford invasions, then future enemies will see us as a paper tiger, an empty threat.

    and dramatic increase of the internet to improve business efficiency.
    For which his vice president, Al Gore deserves some small amount of credit, as he chaired the committee that made the fiscal decision to grant funding to the (then "Arpanet") project when he was in Congress. At a minimum that means he saw its potential and made a smart investment on the people's behalf.

    (A statement about this was later misquoted as him saying he had "invented" the internet, which is clearly false, but it doesn't change the fact he played a political role in its creation.)

    All of Americas huge military spending, is caused/done by republicans like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. Democrats have always wanted to reduce military spending.

    Republicans will tell you, "the US government needs to spend money on defense."
    But republican defense spending, is just a favor for corporations like GE. Corporations like GE, are the ones who get the defense money, to create/make the tools of war.



    The fact is, America spends more money on its military, than China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and all of our Arab enemies (combined).

    List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    America could greatly reduce its military spending, and still spend more money on defense, than all of our real enemies combined x 10.
    Last edited by chad; August 28th, 2012 at 08:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    All of Americas huge military spending, is caused/done by republicans like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. Democrats have always wanted to reduce military spending.
    This statement is as flawed as your opening statements and just as easy to disprove.

    Your "all" doesn't' including increased in DOD spending by Carter, Clinton, nor account for reductions by Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush(41).


    And while I agree that military budget could be reduced, a pragmatic reduction that doesn't compromise our allies would mean major changing in our views and allowing transition time about many things such as shifting Japan towards a MUCH larger military.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Lynx
    We simply cannot afford to have such a costly military.
    Perhaps, we need to take a step back and let others come up to the plate.
    Or find another source of funding?

    Reagan finally forced the demise of the soviet union by stepping up the arms race to a level they could not afford.
    Is simple hubris doing the same for us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Lynx
    We simply cannot afford to have such a costly military.
    Perhaps, we need to take a step back and let others come up to the plate.
    Or find another source of funding?
    By what measure. It's not the most expensive part of our total budget, but IS Constitutionally mandated, while our vast and growing social programs (Social security, Medicare& Medicade) are not--That makes it really easy to prioritize things.

    I do agree we could probably reduce, perhaps by as much as half, the military budget, I wanted to caution though that the need to take up much of the slack to make up for reduced force projection capabilities can't be done in 4 or even 8 years--such a move would take a decade or more--longer than our political cycles. Such an effort would likely be stalled as well by the harsh reality that many of the nation's we'd want to build up to protect their regions have gone for generations comfortable with US protection, largely blind to the threats and reluctant to increase their own budgets even if for their own good.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Lynx:
    Take a giant step back and look at what it is we hope to acomplish with our military.
    Is it for national defense?
    Is it for the interests of the corporations?
    Is it for the defense of the individual citizen?
    (this -greater good vs individual good-was the source of the schism between Camus and Sartre)

    If we come down on the side of the safety of the citizen, then we must look at the whole of our complex political economic system.
    You can only accomplish a certain number of tasks at the same time. Where would our time and energy be best spent?
    If we cannot reign in the corporations responsible for outrageous costs of medical care(for example), then a social program makes the most sense for the majority of the citizens.

    We used to deride "those tax and spend liberals"
    are the borrow and spend war mongers a better choice?
    We have fought 2 wars on a credit card, which will take decades to pay off.
    If that is the best the department of state can accomplish, then perhaps we need to revisit that paradigm?
    The old phrase "don't bite off more than you can chew" comes to mind.

    As re social programs
    Are they not for the better lives of the citizens?
    Are the citizens here to serve the polity, or is the polity here to serve the citizens?

    ................
    and, "the power to raise an army", not "maintain a standing land army"
    Article 1 section 8 para 12---" congress shall have the power : To rais and support armies but no appropriations of money to that use shall be for a longer term tnan two years"
    (but, then again, I could be wrong)
    Last edited by sculptor; August 19th, 2012 at 01:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Take a giant step back and look at what it is we hope to acomplish with our military.
    Is it for national defense?
    Is it for the interests of the corporations?
    Is it for the defense of the individual citizen?
    Yes...and those aren't really seperate catagories--more than half of Americans invest in corporations.

    If we come down on the side of the safety of the citizen, then we must look at the whole of our complex political economic system.
    I completely agree. But checks for things not even mentioned in the Constitution to nearly half our population which has never made a net contribution in taxes is not smart, or part of creating a favorable political-economic system which keeps us secure.

    The real cost of 9/11, but harder to measure than our military dollars, is the huge drag on the world economy. If Clinton, for example, had actually gone after Bid-Laden, he might look less good on paper for balancing the budget, but he would have saved the world tens of trillions of dollars. Of course much of this is Monday morning quarterbacking, but the important point is we have both a Constitutional obligation to maintain a robust and flexible military and virtually no-obligation to make direct checks to Americans for unmentioned social programs in the constitution. Sorry I don't think direct payment and checks to Americans, who've never contributed directly to the US government, over three other levels of government, has ever been in American's best interest, nor for the common good.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    By what measure. It's not the most expensive part of our total budget,
    Yes it is.
    but IS Constitutionally mandated, while our vast and growing social programs (Social security, Medicare& Medicade) are not--That makes it really easy to prioritize things.
    There is no connection between the amount of wealth and time and effort that should be dovoted to something, by a sound government doing its job, and Constitutional mandates.

    Social programs of some kind are mandated, btw. Promoting welfare, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    By what measure. It's not the most expensive part of our total budget,
    Yes it is.

    The figure agree with the actual numbers as well. CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

    Social programs of some kind are mandated, btw. Promoting welfare, etc.
    Actually it says: "promote general welfare," something I wholeheartedly support--and it is specifically listed in section 8 (e.g., build post offices, roads, regular commerce etc.), and by extension early laws; it was never was intended to mean authority to tax people and give it direct from the federal government to individuals. I'd be willing to take that walk through US history if you want, but your reluctance to use use data and cite evidence to support your assertions (as in your very first post of this thread) make most conversations not worth having.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    The figure agree with the actual numbers as well. CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022
    Surely you are not asking us to accept the monies formally handed to the Department of Defense as the total cost of our military? That would be even sillier than including Social Security and Medicare in with the Federal budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Actually it says: "promote general welfare," something I wholeheartedly support--and it is specifically listed in section 8 (e.g., build post offices, roads, regular commerce etc.), and by extension early laws; it was never was intended to mean authority to tax people and give it direct from the federal government to individuals.
    Maybe, maybe not - It was even more certainly - explicitly - never intended to support a standing army, for sure.

    The general welfare was much improved by the steeply progressive income tax, it would seem - allowed us the benefits of the world's most powerful military, among other consequences. Maybe the most important benefit, though, was simply curbing the accumulation of the country's wealth in a small number of hands. Because that would be - is becoming - disastrous. What the government does with the money is one thing, and a major concern, but the simple self defense aspect of preventing such unstoppably influential piles of money is quite possibly its major promotion of the general welfare.
    Last edited by iceaura; August 19th, 2012 at 05:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    All of Americas huge military spending, is caused/done by republicans like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. Democrats have always wanted to reduce military spending.
    This statement is as flawed as your opening statements and just as easy to disprove.

    Your "all" doesn't' including increased in DOD spending by Carter, Clinton, nor account for reductions by Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush(41).


    And while I agree that military budget could be reduced, a pragmatic reduction that doesn't compromise our allies would mean major changing in our views and allowing transition time about many things such as shifting Japan towards a MUCH larger military.

    I said, "All of Americas huge military spending, is caused/done by republicans like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. Democrats have always wanted to reduce military spending".

    Your above listed chart, shows that my statement is correct.

    At Reagan's graph line tip, he was around $590,000 millions of FY2012 constant dollars.
    At Clinton's graph line tip, he was around $380,000 millions of FY2012 constant dollars.
    Just look at the above chart, Reagan's defense spending is in a much higher area than Clintons.

    G.W. Bush' peak is around $720,000 millions of FY2012 constant dollars. G.W. Bush's military spending was insane waste. Over $1 trillion of Bush's military spending, was to attack a country in the name of killing al qaeda, while that countries government was trying to kill al qaeda, for years before Sept 11 even happened.

    The democrats did not want to spend, that $1 trillion dollars for pure insanity. And the democrats have wanted to bring the troops home, and greatly reduce military spending.

    Your above chart also shows, that Obama is bringing military spending down.
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 03:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    All of Americas huge military spending, is caused/done by republicans like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. Democrats have always wanted to reduce military spending.
    This statement is as flawed as your opening statements and just as easy to disprove.

    Your "all" doesn't' including increased in DOD spending by Carter, Clinton, nor account for reductions by Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush(41).


    And while I agree that military budget could be reduced, a pragmatic reduction that doesn't compromise our allies would mean major changing in our views and allowing transition time about many things such as shifting Japan towards a MUCH larger military.

    And after the republicans military attack on Iraq, large groups of republicans were talking about attacking Iran as well.

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America would have attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.

    If America would have attacked Iran like many republicans wanted, our military spending would not even fit on your above chart.


    Republicans in Washington, spend money on the military/tax cuts, like a drunk sailor after a lobotomy.
    Last edited by chad; August 19th, 2012 at 09:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Your above listed chart, shows that my statement is correct.
    How? How does using the quantifier such as "like," in other words cherry picking through history, automatically mean you are ignoring the republicans who reduced the military and democrats who increased it?

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 19th, 2012 at 10:26 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-).
    A reasonable estimate would be a majority of the Republican intellectual wing, political leadership, relevant agency officials, consultants, think tank contributors, etc. The idea was certainly on the table, being discussed as a reasonable option, by the W&Cheney administration and its closest advisers. Like these guys: Empower America - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies who became these guys: Americans for Victory over Terrorism - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

    You have to remember that at the time the Ayn Rand/Leo Strauss crowd that had gained so much power in the Republican Party (Paul Ryan a junior but well-respected member, his campaign manager Senor and other campaign associates such as McConnel also members in good standing) expected the Iraq War to last less than six months, pay for itself in oil revenues, and result in some years of ("transitional") governance of these major oil fields by a cooperative strongman such as Adnan Chalabi.

    And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq,
    Only 6, in the budget relevant House, even voted against the War Resolution. None of them were in leadership positions, and Ron Paul was the only one of any influence nationally.
    or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?
    A total of 111 Dems in Congress even voted aye on the Iraq War Resolution, let alone agreed that attacking Iraq under those circumstances of propaganda and lies and political log-rolling was a good idea. Most of the Dem aye votes were qualified, explicitly, on W's public assertions that invasion was a "last resort", that the Resolution was for negotiating leverage not immediate use, which turned out to be (obviously was, actually) without basis in reality (he was already beginning the bombing phase, using intelligence obtained from infiltrating the UN inspection teams with US military spies).

    Of those 111, 82 were in the House, the division directly responsible for considering and finalizing the executive branch's budget. If the vote had been among Dems only, the US would have been spared trillions of dollars in public debt, hundreds of billions in foreign outlay for oil supplies, and tens of thousands of killed and injured citizens. In addition, Iraq would not have been put into the hands of hostile fundamentalist Islamic political forces, at ongoing and large US expense.

    The Iraq War illustrates the OP pretty well - a mostly Republican project or policy, enacted over mostly Democratic opposition, that crashed and added a fortune to the public debt, and is now being blamed on "both sides" and/or the Democrats by dishonest Republican spokesmen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Good. Only 111 Democratic Congressmen (82 in house+29 in senate) voted to invade Iraq...not hundreds==I stand corrected.

    --
    But ask yourself?
    How well do snap shots represent overall trends over the 3 generations of Americans which actively vote? This is why I prefer to look at longer records--they represent the broader and deeper sentiments of each party. Even the most recent Iraq war is hard to view in isolation; myself, many of my former military colloquies think history will view our two invasions as one war with a containment phases, since we never stopped military action there. What was the voting record the first time around?

    Many republicans ask why Clinton choose to ignore multiple acts of war from the same terror organization against our embassies, our Navy and our centers of trade on our shores .... to piss him off? Or out of blissful ignorance and nativity about how the world really works--that's pretty much how I view calls for dramatic reductions in the military now--as stupid and dangerously naive.

    As for Iran...How many bills to invade Iran? How did those votes turn out by party?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Many republicans ask why Clinton choose to ignore multiple acts of war from the same terror organization against our embassies, our Navy and our centers of trade on our shores .
    Yes, they do. Loudly and on TV. That's one of the places where the lying part comes in - Clinton didn't "ignore" anything, and in hindsight his responses have been proven to have been more effective than Reagan's or W's. More to the point in a budget discussion, they did not blow a hole in the budget and pile multiples on the public debt.

    Clinton's doings added very little to the public debt, and if for some reason you think it's relevant during his tenure America suffered less in the way of terrorist casualties or serious events than during either Reagan's or W's. Most of the debt added during his tenure was inertia from Reagan's combination of banking deregulation, tax cuts for rich people (large SS levy boost for the working class, borrowed by Reagan to game the budget numbers), and boondoggle spending (Star Wars?!) carried on by Bush in turn. It took him six full years of the most competent executive political efforts seen since Lyndon Johnson to get that mess under some kind of control - and then the public elected another Republican, only this time with a more cooperative Congress, and true to Reagan era form he drove directly into the nearest ditch and rolled the car - in both senses of "rolled".

    The point is that the OP is generally correct, and examples such as the Iraq War - you can talk about it as continuously fought since Bush, and the point remains the same - illustrate it very well: both the budget blowing, and the lying about it afterwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Lynx
    We simply cannot afford to have such a costly military.
    Perhaps, we need to take a step back and let others come up to the plate.
    Or find another source of funding?
    By what measure. It's not the most expensive part of our total budget, but IS Constitutionally mandated, while our vast and growing social programs (Social security, Medicare& Medicade) are not--That makes it really easy to prioritize things.
    I thought the founders considered a "well regulated militia" to be necessary to the security of a "free state".

    And I'm pretty sure some of them also expressed the sentiment that they believed "standing armies", on the other hand, are a danger to a free state.


    I do agree we could probably reduce, perhaps by as much as half, the military budget, I wanted to caution though that the need to take up much of the slack to make up for reduced force projection capabilities can't be done in 4 or even 8 years--such a move would take a decade or more--longer than our political cycles. Such an effort would likely be stalled as well by the harsh reality that many of the nation's we'd want to build up to protect their regions have gone for generations comfortable with US protection, largely blind to the threats and reluctant to increase their own budgets even if for their own good.
    We need to improve our diplomacy skills first. I think 1 or 2 million spent on improving that could save us 2 or 3 billion later on down the road in military costs.

    We need collective retaliation, where a terrorist group knows if they attack any member of the collective retaliation agreement, they're attacking the whole group, and will be collectively wiped out by that group. We couldn't get a meaningful "coalition of the willing" going because no such agreements about terrorism were in place prior to 9-11. So of course nobody felt like starting one up from scratch just then. Better to let the USA pay for it.

    We also need a clearer and less "convenient" definition of who can be shipped to Gitmo, one which will stand the test of time and never need any ad hoc adjustments. Also a very clear set of rules of engagement that allows civilians to be killed under predetermined circumstances (since they often are hit anyway.) Or defines what "acceptable" civilian casualties will be. The less confused we are on the political end, the less we force our troops to muddle about at cross purposes.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    ... We need to improve our diplomacy skills first. ....
    Interesting side note is Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva's comments about the P-5 "negotiators" as/re Iran's nuclear program.
    He found them arrogant, intransigent defenders of their positions and turf, rather than honest negotiators who were open for compromise and peacful resolution of what was seeming to become a dangerous sabre rattling prelude to war.

    When he decided to get involved, he found resistance but no support, untill after he had forced an agreement on the P-5(Turkey), and made his negative impressions public.

    Perhaps, money won't help the situation with our state department's "diplomacy"?
    There have been many instances where everything from ex-presidents(Carter) to religious leaders(Jesse Jackson) had to intervene when our "diplomatic corps" came up short.
    Perhaps, the department of state has so much ingrained corruption that only a wholesale replacement of the people there could have any chance of success in finding peaceful solutions to future crises?
    Perhaps, our department of state has relied on the military option for far too long to be willing to find non military solutions?

    Long ago, I had a sergeant who described the state department as a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, surrounded by an impenetrable fog of duplicity and misdirection.
    But then again he was an embittered cynic trying to just stay long enough to retire with his pension. I suspected that it was because he had once cared too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Your above listed chart, shows that my statement is correct.
    How? How does using the quantifier such as "like," in other words cherry picking through history, automatically mean you are ignoring the republicans who reduced the military and democrats who increased it?

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?

    The quantifier "like" is used to describe a (corporate) republican like Reagan or G.W. Bush.
    Republicans like Reagan and GW Bush, were never elected/allowed into office until Reagan.

    Republicans of the past like G. H. W. Bush, were not (corporate) republicans. They were against the "phony" supply side tax cuts, and also against lying for the advancement of Americas rich. But today republicans like G.H.W. Bush are gone, their thinking minds have been replaced, by an ideology of wanting tax cuts, small government, and an end of welfare.

    I guess liberals and conservatives see the world differently, and each can understand things the other can not.
    A liberal is able to understand that Reagan and GW Bush were corporate puppets, that were put into power by corporate America.
    These corporate puppets payback for power, is to grant Americas rich and large corporations favors.


    Reagan was just an out of work actor, until GE corporation made him rich. Reagan proved himself as a person to help Americas rich, so corporations helped him become president.

    G.W. Bush was a connected businessman/politician until Carl Rove found him. Rove made Bush promise to lower rich peoples/corporate taxes, then Rove gave him the means to become president.

    All these corporate puppets do, is grant favors for the rich and large corporations.

    Reagan did this when he became president.

    1.) He lowered rich peoples taxes.
    2.) He lowered corporate taxes.
    3.) Reduced corporate regulations.
    4.) Killed the fairness doctrine, b/c corporate America did not like it.
    5.) Stopped funding for solar/wind power research, b/c his corporate friends made billions from oil.
    ex.ex.ex.ex.

    G.W. Bush did this when he became president,

    1.) He lowered rich peoples taxes.
    2.) Tried/did eliminate the death tax, a tax that only effects the very rich.
    3.) He lowered corporate taxes.
    4.) He killed corporate regulations for air, and oil field practices,ex,ex,ex,ex.
    5.) Tried to privatize Social security, so the Wall street CEO's could get $750 billion dollars in fees. And his corporate friends, could also get everyones SS money invested in large US corporations, were the CEO's can touch it.
    6.) He lied about global warming happening for Exxon mobile.
    ex.ex.ex.ex.


    But it seems today real republicans of the past, like G.H.W Bush are gone. They have been replaced by corporate puppets, and serve the rich idiots, who cant think for themselves.

    I am sorry if I was rude,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?

    The Iraq war was caused by Cheny and Rumsfeld. They and other members of the Bush White house, were members of the oil/weapons think tank, called "the project for a new american century." This think tank has been begging the US government to invade/attack Iraq, for years before Sept 11 even happened.

    Cheny and Rumsfeld used Sept 11, to make their think tanks dreams come true. Bush's White house told 935 lies, to get America to attack Iraq. The biggest being Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with Sept 11.



    Today the corporations that fund "the project for a new american century", are in Iraq making billions of dollars.
    They are building water wells that cost them around $200 to make, and they charge the US government around $2500 dollars for each well. They build military bases in ways, to make the best money profits. And billions of dollars have just vanished.

    For example Halburton corporation, were Cheny made $60 million dollars as CEO, has had its business go up 700%, because of the Iraq war.
    Last edited by chad; August 23rd, 2012 at 09:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?

    The Iraq war was caused by Cheny and Rumsfeld.
    Hardly. It started with the invasion of Kuwait--I served with Iraqi officers who participated in that phase.
    When we stopped short of completely removing the government, Sadam spent the next decade practicing ethnic cleansing on his own people and continuously violating the no-fly zone, circumventing the embargoes and finally jerking around with inspection teams so none of us really knew what he had remaining or in new production for nuke weapons. Of course the last phase of the war was our second invasion and a range of tactics we'd probably both agree were naive, ignorant, if not dishonest to motivate the US and UK public--I would have preferred a much more honest approach--Sadam needed to go because he was still an SOB and with Saudi support for extremist we needed to secure a big oil supply anyhow and maintain a stretagic presence (Saudi kicked us out--an Al Queada objective). But lets put blame most of all where it's due--Sadam created most of his own problem including the two invasions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?

    The Iraq war was caused by Cheny and Rumsfeld.
    Hardly. It started with the invasion of Kuwait--I served with Iraqi officers who participated in that phase.
    When we stopped short of completely removing the government, Sadam spent the next decade practicing ethnic cleansing on his own people and continuously violating the no-fly zone, circumventing the embargoes and finally jerking around with inspection teams so none of us really knew what he had remaining or in new production for nuke weapons. Of course the last phase of the war was our second invasion and a range of tactics we'd probably both agree were naive, ignorant, if not dishonest to motivate the US and UK public--I would have preferred a much more honest approach--Sadam needed to go because he was still an SOB and with Saudi support for extremist we needed to secure a big oil supply anyhow and maintain a stretagic presence (Saudi kicked us out--an Al Queada objective). But lets put blame most of all where it's due--Sadam created most of his own problem including the two invasions.

    The 1st Iraq war started because of the invasion of Kuwait.
    I am talking about the 2nd Iraq war, the 2nd Iraq war was started because of Sept 11.

    You speak of ethnic cleansing, but what about the Nazi like ethnic cleansing, going on in Africa? I guess since republican corporate leaders, never said this was bad, its nothing to care about.


    Since you do not listen to, or read non-corporate news sources, you know nothing about Iraq's weapons inspections.
    The actual weapons inspectors in Iraq, knew Saddam had no W.O.M.D. They knew this by reasoning, and the fact that his chemical weapons lost their effectiveness with age. ex.ex.ex.


    You also somehow forgot, that G.H.W. Bush finished the Iraq war. He decided not to invade Iraq, because he cared too much about US troops, to see them get killed in Iraq. He also cared about all the innocent Iraqi people that would have been killed. You got caught up in the 935 Iraq lies, said by G.W.Bush's White House.

    Explain to me how G.H.W. Bush was wrong about calling the Iraq war over, tell me about his mistakes.




    Its sad, if you ever read about G.H.W. Bush's military service, you would know he was a true warrior, and an honorable and caring man.
    But today you and your military friends, have forgot about his service and honor. You forgot about his military trained decisions involving Iraq.

    Instead you follow G.W. Bush, and his White House.
    Your G.W. Bush is a military service dodger, he is a liar, and he created our dangerous national debt.

    The only time someone should listen to G.W. Bush, is if he is giving lessons on how to lie.


    As always sorry if I was rude,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; August 23rd, 2012 at 10:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Chad, you have a short view of history--in the historical view there was no 2nd war--it was a continuation of the actions that started with the Invasion of Kuwait--actions that in large part serve as book ends to my active military service.

    As for GHW, I fully agree with you and think he's the last president I had tremendous respect for with his ideas about compassionate conservatism--though at the time I some of the kinship was because his summer home was three miles from where I was raised--close enough to know many of the secret service who'd arrive before dawn to inspect his speed boat while talking to me and other fisherman and at trimes we shared amusing gibes about what he'd do about the price of lobsters as he motored out of the Kennebunk river.

    You speak of ethnic cleansing, but what about the Nazi like ethnic cleansing, going on in Africa?
    Not sure what you're talking about. Sadam forcibly moving over a million Kurds....I've driven through the destroyed villages he left behind in the Sinjar area. He tried to kill off the Marsh Arabs, by constructing some of the largest water diversion projects ever seen--I've seen that close up as well.

    Since you do not listen to, or read non-corporate news sources, you know nothing about Iraq's weapons inspections.
    I read some of them--they were put out by the UN, not any corporate news source--you can probably go back and read them today. It's one of the reasons I disagree with how G.W. shaped public opinion. The UN had found little evidence of WMD development--so that was probably unfounded--though it didn't' disprove lack of WMD either because their were huge gaps in their coverage and Sadam was a master of playing shuffle; Bin Laden had declared a Jihad against Sadam--so the story about an Al Q to Iraq connections was extremely far fetched as well. We had multiple reasons to take him out even without the WMD--and should have used them.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 24th, 2012 at 03:29 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Just imagine if those republicans would have got their way, and America attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time.
    Yes I'm sure there were one or two :-). And how should we weigh their opinions? Should consider their opinion more important than the republicans who's didn't want to attack Iraq, or perhaps dismiss the hundreds of democrats in congress who agreed with attacking both Iraq and Afghan?

    The Iraq war was caused by Cheny and Rumsfeld.
    Hardly. It started with the invasion of Kuwait--I served with Iraqi officers who participated in that phase.
    When we stopped short of completely removing the government, Sadam spent the next decade practicing ethnic cleansing on his own people and continuously violating the no-fly zone, circumventing the embargoes and finally jerking around with inspection teams so none of us really knew what he had remaining or in new production for nuke weapons.
    And underselling OPEC's oil price. He had many debts to pay.

    There was "oil for food" in place after 1995, but still 65 billion worth of oil moved.

    Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki oil for food
    Over US$65 billion worth of Iraqi oil was sold on the world market. About US$46 billion of these funds were intended to provide for the humanitarian needs of Iraqi people such as food and medicinein the context of international economic sanctions. A considerable amount was spent for Gulf War reparations through a compensation fund (25 percent since December 2000); UN administrative and operational costs for the programme (2.2 percent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme. Internal audits have not been made public.
    When you consider the positive effect Saddam's low oil prices had on the USA's economy, it's somewhat sickening that Iraq War supporters were able to spin Saddam's lack of adherence to it as a strong basis for invasion. He was breaking a treaty in a way that helped us.

    Sadam needed to go because he was still an SOB and with Saudi support for extremist we needed to secure a big oil supply anyhow and maintain a stretagic presence (Saudi kicked us out--an Al Queada objective). But lets put blame most of all where it's due--Sadam created most of his own problem including the two invasions.
    I'm confused what you mean exactly. You mean the Saudis support the extremists, right? Not Saddam. They totally hated Saddam (The Kuwaiti royal family are cousins to the Saudi Royal family - so they probably hated him worse than America did.)

    So your thinking is that we need to be in possession of Iraq's oil supply in case the Saudis quit dealing with us? Because what I'm seeing is that, without Saddam to compete with them, the Saudis are doing really, really....... really well for themselves.

    Is there even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that Saddam would ever quit selling oil to us if he had been allowed to stay in power? Inversely, what are the odds that we will ever actually succeed in getting any oil from Iraq's wells now that we've "secured" them?



    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    [

    Perhaps, money won't help the situation with our state department's "diplomacy"?
    There have been many instances where everything from ex-presidents(Carter) to religious leaders(Jesse Jackson) had to intervene when our "diplomatic corps" came up short.
    Perhaps, the department of state has so much ingrained corruption that only a wholesale replacement of the people there could have any chance of success in finding peaceful solutions to future crises?
    Yeah. There is a long standing tendency of presidents giving out abassadorships to their biggest financial contributors. It goes back so far into our history that it's almost an official tradition.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD

    did we invade for oil or was it a tad more complex\petrodollars hypothesis

    refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning."
    and:
    Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1] According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and upwards pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap.
    and:
    The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act, taking away Gold backing from the Pound Sterling and discreetly starting the eventual pegging of Gulf Arab Oil producers' currencies after Britain gave them independence in 1961 and 1971. These countries were further secured militarily after the Gulf War in 1990. This pegging of the currencies along with the exchanges being exclusively in USD in only two places, the IPE in London and NYMEX in New York City, has given the United States a near monopoly, with growing economies such as India and China waiting in line for orders. Critics say this revolutionary move by Iran in creating a rival market may also be one of the reasons for the ongoing energy-related US competition with Iran.
    from :
    Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of all the theories I've encountered, this one seems to have the most logic behind it.
    Your thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=sculptor;347903]In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD

    did we invade for oil or was it a tad more complex\petrodollars hypothesis

    refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning."


    Now I'm thinking its a tad more complex.
    The following link from topdocumentaryfilms.com goes to a documentary, were I first learned that the US invasion of Iraq, was for reasons other than the American way.


    The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror | Watch Free Documentary Online



    The above documentary has a LT.COL. USAF in it, that speaks about Saddam moving to the EURO just like you were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD

    did we invade for oil or was it a tad more complex\petrodollars hypothesis

    refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning."
    and:
    Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1] According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and upwards pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap.
    and:
    The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act, taking away Gold backing from the Pound Sterling and discreetly starting the eventual pegging of Gulf Arab Oil producers' currencies after Britain gave them independence in 1961 and 1971. These countries were further secured militarily after the Gulf War in 1990. This pegging of the currencies along with the exchanges being exclusively in USD in only two places, the IPE in London and NYMEX in New York City, has given the United States a near monopoly, with growing economies such as India and China waiting in line for orders. Critics say this revolutionary move by Iran in creating a rival market may also be one of the reasons for the ongoing energy-related US competition with Iran.
    from :
    Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Of all the theories I've encountered, this one seems to have the most logic behind it.
    Your thoughts?

    You spoke about a political agenda for a stronger US dollar.

    From who, CEO's in the US government? I have never seen any evidence that these people care about the health of the US dollar. They only seem to care about low rich/corporate tax rates, and loose regulations.



    The cause of the Iraq war seems simple to me. There were 11 or so workers, from the think tank "the project for a new american century" in the Bush White House during the time of Sept 11.

    I first learned of them from the documentary I gave you a link to above. After seeing the documentary I went to "the project for a new american century's" official website. I saw letters titled "why we should bomb Iraq now", "why we need to kill saddam", ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex. all signed by Cheney and Rumsfeld, written years before Sept 11 even happened.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were begging everyone to invade Iraq, for years before Sept 11 even happened.

    Sept 11 provided Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other white house think tank workers, the chance to make their think tanks dreams come true. They had to tell 935 lies to get the Iraq invasion, but they got it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    From who, CEO's in the US government? I have never seen any evidence that these people care about the health of the US dollar. They only seem to care about low rich/corporate tax rates, and loose regulations.
    Most wealth by Westerners is in the form of US dollars--preserving that wealth means maintaining a healthy dollar--it's a top priority. If you listen or read many of Paul Ryans arguments you'll realize he thinks the Fed trying to balance employment with while maintaining low inflation should be changed--he thinks only inflation should count because it preserves the power of the dollar. He goes into a line of questioning about this every time they question the Fed chairmen. I personally think Ryan is correct about this one.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were begging everyone to invade Iraq, for years before Sept 11 even happened.
    Of course. Cheney, Rumsfeld wanted to finish the job they started in 1990..and that they were dead in the middle of then and through the long war. While there's no doubt it was personal because of their close involvement at both ends of our adventures in Iraq--there probably aren't two living people who knew more about Iraq, Saddam and the big picture in the Middle East than Rumsfeld & Cheney.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 28th, 2012 at 09:58 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    and, Chad, don't forget that part that ends
    As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries.
    One of the contributing factors to our economic problems in the US was that the interest rates on debt both credit card, and mortgage, was increases in interest rates. Countries, like people who live beyond their means with borrowed money can easily become slaves to interest rates. If the dollar falls and the country then has to "refinance" at higher interest rates, our polity and our economy will likely fall into the abyss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    The US and EU economies seem to dictate the world economy and whilst ever they are having problems the rest of the world cannot prosper, as such there isn't really any safe havens to put money when the world economy is still such a mess. This means there isn't really a rush to divert money away from america, which would cause real problems, so even despite the debt realistically with good management it's only a matter of time before the US economy gets back on track, the EU and Euro especially have far bigger problems but thats another story, no the real question is are the american public going to give Obama more time or do they think the Republicans have the right plan?

    If they do go with the Republicans though and their idea of trickle down economics I suspect some americans are going to be waiting an awfully long time for that trickle, that's 'if' the Republican plan even works.
    Last edited by Ascended; August 29th, 2012 at 09:07 AM. Reason: put is instead of isn't - twice... my tpying is cr*p
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I'm tempted to vote for libertarian Gary Johnson if the panel in Iowa decides to let him be on the ballot---
    ( the republicans don't want him on the ballot, probably fearing that he would siphon off some Romney votes)
    (and the silly thing is, that if i cannot vote libertarian, I'll vote for Obama, who has disappointed me on many issues, not the least of which is the (non)labeling of GMO food likely because our ex governor Vilsack is his secretary of ag, and in Monsanto's pockets, and, Libya, etc...
    But, i suspect that I'd be even less happy with Romney.
    Never a good choice am I offered, just a selection between 2 stooges for the corporate interests.
    (sigh)
    If Gary gets on the ballot, I'll probably wait and vote late and see if I can catch some of the exit poles, and determine if Obama's slate needs my vote, meanwhile I'll vote to retain our current democratic congressman Dave Loebsack. Though I despise the democratic parties "super delegates" system---(each super delegate is worth 30,000 of my votes,which I find repugnant and anti democratic, but that doesn't really matter this time because the primary is meaningless.)
    Meanwhile, I am willing to sell my vote if anyone is interested.
    VOTE FOR SALE
    inquire within
    (or more properly phrased, I'll listen to any argument proffered for the candidate of your choice, and arguments accompanied with the most "free speech" dollars have a distinct advantage and are much more likely to succeed.)
    what am I bid?

    see Alexander Tyler
    Last edited by sculptor; August 28th, 2012 at 03:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    From who, CEO's in the US government? I have never seen any evidence that these people care about the health of the US dollar. They only seem to care about low rich/corporate tax rates, and loose regulations.
    Most wealth by Westerners is in the form of US dollars--preserving that wealth means maintaining a healthy dollar--it's a top priority. If you listen or read many of Paul Ryans arguments you'll realize he thinks the Fed trying to balance employment with while maintaining low inflation should be changed--he thinks only inflation should count because it preserves the power of the dollar. He goes into a line of questioning about this every time they question the Fed chairmen. I personally think Ryan is correct about this one.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were begging everyone to invade Iraq, for years before Sept 11 even happened.
    Of course. Cheney, Rumsfeld wanted to finish the job they started in 1990..and that they were dead in the middle of then and through the long war. While there's no doubt it was personal because of their close involvement at both ends of our adventures in Iraq--there probably aren't two living people who knew more about Iraq, Saddam and the big picture in the Middle East than Rumsfeld & Cheney.

    The Bush/Cheney White House lied to you about tax cuts, global warming, prayer, Social security, deficits, debt, the economy, jobs, the democrats, their military service, wages, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs, the death tax, ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    Then they said 935 documented lies about Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld are CEO's who only care about corporate and rich Americans tax rates. And their lies about Iraq killed/paralyzed 1,000's of US troops, and also killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis.


    Basically Cheney was CEO for Haliburton, and Haliburton paid him $60 million dollars. Then Cheney and the Bush crew told 935 lies about Iraq, in order to invade Iraq. Once America was in Iraq, Cheney then gave Haliburton no bid government contracts for jobs in Iraq. Then Haliburtons business went up 700%, because of those 935 documented lies.

    The Bush/Cheney White House told you around 1,500 lies, killed/paralyzed 1,000's of US troops with their Iraq lies, killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis, and then raised Americas debt from around 50% GDP to 100% GDP.

    Its really sad how so much of Americas Military stands with the Bush/Cheney White House.


    I stand with G.H.W. Bush in matters of Iraq, and he called the Iraq war over.
    Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11, and UN weapons inspectors knew Saddam had -0- WOMD.


    As always I am sorry if I was rude, have a great day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and, Chad, don't forget that part that ends
    As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries.
    One of the contributing factors to our economic problems in the US was that the interest rates on debt both credit card, and mortgage, was increases in interest rates. Countries, like people who live beyond their means with borrowed money can easily become slaves to interest rates. If the dollar falls and the country then has to "refinance" at higher interest rates, our polity and our economy will likely fall into the abyss.
    I dont mean to be rude but,

    How can the US government run higher deficits than most other countries?

    I think the reason the US can run higher deficits, is because our republican leaders, just dont care about deficits.

    These deficits are causing us to borrow money from China, they cause fear that makes the dollar loose value, they cause people to fear lending America money, and they cause needed social programs to be cut.

    Other countries who dont have lying CEO's running their governments, care about deficits and take measures to stop them.

    Perhaps there is something I am not seeing, but deficits mean you dont have enough money, and how can not having enough money be ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    These deficits are causing us to borrow money from China,
    Actually Americans, though various government agencies such as Social security and individuals with bonds and other instruments hold most of that debt.

    And Chris is right, as long we we stop spending, even moderate growth for a decade would get us back to a responsible debt load--but can Congress actually slow down the spending?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 28th, 2012 at 04:25 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ... -but can Congress actually slow down the spending?
    Your average congressman would cut spending but "Not in my back yard" (nimby)

    I know a fellow who builds components for the military, and to keep the contracts, he opened facilities in 2 other states, so he's got the support of more congressmen. And each congressman wants to be able to say that he brought jobs to his district.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm tempted to vote for libertarian Gary Johnson if the panel in Iowa decides to let him be on the ballot---
    ( the republicans don't want him on the ballot, probably fearing that he would siphon off some Romney votes)
    (and the silly thing is, that if i cannot vote libertarian, I'll vote for Obama, who has disappointed me on many issues, not the least of which is the (non)labeling of GMO food likely because our ex governor Vilsack is his secretary of ag, and in Monsanto's pockets, and, Libya, etc...
    But, i suspect that I'd be even less happy with Romney.
    Never a good choice am I offered, just a selection between 2 stooges for the corporate interests.
    (sigh)
    If Gary gets on the ballot, I'll probably wait and vote late and see if I can catch some of the exit poles, and determine if Obama's slate needs my vote, meanwhile I'll vote to retain our current democratic congressman Dave Loebsack. Though I despise the democratic parties "super delegates" system---(each super delegate is worth 30,000 of my votes,which I find repugnant and anti democratic, but that doesn't really matter this time because the primary is meaningless.)
    Meanwhile, I am willing to sell my vote if anyone is interested.
    VOTE FOR SALE
    inquire within
    (or more properly phrased, I'll listen to any argument proffered for the candidate of your choice, and arguments accompanied with the most "free speech" dollars have a distinct advantage and are much more likely to succeed.)
    what am I bid?

    see Alexander Tyler

    (edited after Sculptor's post.)

    Sculptor,

    The present day Libertarian party is a fake political party, created by Americas large corporations, and a few very greedy, and insane billionaires.

    The libertarian parties platform, would create a 3rd world like US government, and then these insane billionaires get a 0% tax rate.

    Also if the libertarian party platform was ever put into law, the IRS, EPA, and FDA would no longer be able to bother large corporations.





    The libertarian party wants to abolish/end/stop the following things, so they no longer exist.

    They want to abolish/eliminate the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, FBI, CIA, FDA, public schools, welfare, public libraries, Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal reserve, and unemployment benefits. The libertarian party wants to abolish any government program, that is not needed by billionaires and large corporations.

    The libertarian party actually wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare, so they no longer exist. They say that private charities will help all of America's seniors, once they no longer have Social security and Medicare. But think about it, America already has huge numbers of children who dont get enough food to eat, and private charities are not feeding them. If Americas private charities can not even feed our present hungry children, how will they help all the seniors without Social Security checks and Medicare?


    Just imagine if the libertarian party got their platform put into law. There would be no more public libraries or public schools. There would be no kind of welfare for jobless families. There would be no EPA to stop pollution. Their would be no FDA to make sure our drugs were safe. There would be no FBI or CIA. Their would be no more Medicaid. And there would be no more Social Security or Medicare.

    What is the difference between a 3rd world country, and a industrialized country? An industrialized country has all the things, the libertarian party wants to eliminate.



    The billionaires that wrote the present day libertarian party platform, do not need any of the agencies/programs they want to eliminate.
    Just imagine an America without all the things, the libertarian party wants to abolish, or you could just look at a 3rd world country.
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Chad
    where in hell did you get such a warped and twisted view of the libertarian party?

    It seems you're 1/2 right on 1/2 of what you wrote
    Please relook at each individual thing you stated, and come up with something that has a semblance of reality
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    These deficits are causing us to borrow money from China,
    Actually Americans, though various government agencies such as Social security and individuals with bonds and other instruments hold most of that debt.

    And Chris is right, as long we we stop spending, even moderate growth for a decade would get us back to a responsible debt load--but can Congress actually slow down the spending?

    If Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush never got elected, we would not even be talking about this. If they never got elected, our national debt would be around 55?% of GDP. And we would have around $7+ trillion dollars to borrow, to keep Americas people doing well.

    But people like you want to keep voting republican, and create huge deficits and debt, Why?

    Why would you vote/fight to create deficits and cut social spending?

    Sorry if I was rude.
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    chad
    where in hell did you get such a warped and twisted view of the libertarian party?

    It seems you're 1/2 right on 1/2 of what you wrote
    please relook at each individual thing you stated, and come up with something that has a semblance of reality

    When I get the chance, I will list proof for everything I said, in a later post in this thread.
    Last edited by chad; August 28th, 2012 at 05:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Just imagine if the libertarian party got their platform put into law. There would be no more public libraries or public schools.
    Yes you are correct about that...why should the federal government be involved in those things? What makes you think the states, counties and cities can't pay for them--they already pay most of the bill. Why does the federal government have to be everything?


    But people like you want to keep voting republican, and create huge deficits and debt, Why?

    Mostly true--but not always. I voted for Obama Chad, mostly because once Palen was nominated, I knew McCain had gone off the deep end or was thinking with the wrong head. Often military spending is necessary, Reagan probably saved the US trillions by ending the cold war. Likewise, Clinton saving were short sited--if he hadn't ignored three acts of war, we could have avoided the huge expenditures in Afghan and elsewhere.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Chad
    where in hell did you get such a warped and twisted view of the libertarian party?

    It seems you're 1/2 right on 1/2 of what you wrote
    Please relook at each individual thing you stated, and come up with something that has a semblance of reality

    Here are sources from many different places, that state the things I said.




    The following source states how the libertarian party wants to abolish the IRS.

    Gary Johnson's simple proposal: Abolish the IRS | Libertarian




    The following source states how the libertarian party, wants to abolish/eliminate social security, and replace it with a charity system.

    Libertarian Party on Social Security





    The following source states how the libertarian party wants to abolish the EPA.

    Libertarianism





    The following source states that the libertarian party wants to abolish the FCC.

    Criticism of the Libertarian Party Platform - Point by Point Analysis






    (What other statements of mine, about what the libertarian party wants to abolish, would you like sources for?)






    (Edited: to make correct / Sculptor) The following source shows, how a group of greedy and insane billionaires, created the present day libertarian party platform.

    The Billionaires' Tea Party (Full Length Documentary) - YouTube





    If you feel anything I said was twisted, then ask me for a source to prove it, and I will list a source. 97%+ of everything I said was true.


    Have a good one,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 2nd, 2012 at 10:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Just imagine if the libertarian party got their platform put into law. There would be no more public libraries or public schools.
    Yes you are correct about that...why should the federal government be involved in those things? What makes you think the states, counties and cities can't pay for them--they already pay most of the bill. Why does the federal government have to be everything?


    But people like you want to keep voting republican, and create huge deficits and debt, Why?

    Mostly true--but not always. I voted for Obama Chad, mostly because once Palen was nominated, I knew McCain had gone off the deep end or was thinking with the wrong head. Often military spending is necessary, Reagan probably saved the US trillions by ending the cold war. Likewise, Clinton saving were short sited--if he hadn't ignored three acts of war, we could have avoided the huge expenditures in Afghan and elsewhere.


    I am often wrong about many of the things, I say and believe about you. I have said this before, I guess I must assume things.

    And I feel really guilty and embarrassed, for causing you to state who you vote for.


    My beliefs and perhaps my comments, make it seem that in matters of politics, you are not well grounded. But the facts show, you are much more grounded in politics than I assume.



    Thank you for tolerating me,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Chad
    where in hell did you get such a warped and twisted view of the libertarian party?

    It seems you're 1/2 right on 1/2 of what you wrote
    Please relook at each individual thing you stated, and come up with something that has a semblance of reality



    Perhaps I used the wrong term above. Perhaps I should have said "the present day libertarian party platform, was created by a group of greedy and insane billionaires."

    The present day libertarian party platform, is a scam created by front groups, corporate think tanks, and insane billionaires.
    These billionaires/groups have an agenda to lower corporate taxes, lower rich peoples taxes, and end business regulations.


    Why does the libertarian party want to abolish the IRS and the EPA? So these government agencies can no longer bother these billionaires and large corporations.


    Birds of the feather flock together. And greedy and insane billionaires flock together. Each of these insane billionaires have different government agencies they want to abolish. Like the billionaire Koch brothers in the link bellow.

    Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    The billionaire Koch brothers publicly fight to abolish Social Security, the FBI, the CIA, and public schools. But the real goal of the libertarian party, is to abolish the EPA and IRS, so they can no longer bother these billionaires and large corporations.

    If you were to watch the documentary, I gave a link to above, you may get a better understanding of this.



    Please tell me the good that would come from abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA, FCC, public schools, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, ex.ex.ex.ex ?

    I understand why greedy and insane billionaires want to abolish these agencies and programs, but why would a regular American want to abolish these things?



    I like you Sculptor, and I am (really) sorry if I was rude,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Chad:
    You ain't all wrong, and a vote "Libertarian" would be mostly a "NO" vote
    Just a way of saying I ain't happy witht the status quo
    I would prefer complete freedom, and all the political special deals favoring insurance companies, big corporations, the medical establishment undone.
    Because I think that not likely to happen, I am more a socialist than a republican or democrat. " If you can't beat them, then work out the best deal you can get"

    The things I like about the libertarians is their anti military industrial complex stance, and i abhore living on debt,
    Mt ideal presidential ticket would have been Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, or Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
    so, maybe I'm a libertarian socialist or a socialistic libertarian?

    don't mind the rudeness here, after all this is the politics thread
    I'd actually expect more ranting here.
    the old saw: "keep it cordial and don't bring up religion or politics?

    As I said above, certain "democratic" practices are abhorent to me, and I despise the corporatocracy that seems to be the norm for the day.
    And yet, this system has allowed us to be here, now, chatting about our passions on machines that the system has created.
    I want a real democrat or a real republican without the gay marriage and abortion foils or smoke and mirrors that are meaningless to me and have almost nothing to do with running this country.

    I do believe that these endless wars have a lot to do with sustaining our constantly living in debt, which makes us slaves to the interest rates set by international bankers and credit rating agencies------(the USA being anything less than triple A seems darned strange, but maybe if we keep heading down this dept path, we'll learn to live with triple B)
    With each dollar we borrow, we lose another piece of freedom.

    me too
    sorry if i was rude
    such is politics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    (Edited: to make correct / Sculptor) The following source shows, how a group of greedy and insane billionaires, created the present day libertarian party platform.
    You do realize the Tea party is not the libertarian party...don't you? They are completely opposite on just about every social issue for starters.

    The founders of the Libertarians, such as David Nolan weren't billionaires, were following a philosophy that go back further than the US founding fathers, and in his case was an atheist--which is a long ways from most of the Tea party.

    --
    Please tell me the good that would come from abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA, FCC, public schools, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, ex.ex.ex.ex ?

    A balanced budget for starters--isn't that what this thread is about? Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare take up more than half and are growing--and none are in the US Constitution, nor anywhere's near the founding philosophies of our nation, where the fed did these to help groups of people (as listed in the Constitution...like building roads) and coordinated things between the states (as well as protecting the nation of course)--not gave our counterproductive handouts to individuals with IOUs stolen from our children.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    What I don't understand though is republican attitude to taxes, yes ok I can see they want to cut spending so they have more money left to pay down the national debt, but then on the other hand they want tax cuts for the rich which is going to reduce government income meaning they still can't pay down national debt. So really it still doesn't provide americans with a proper plan to pay down debt by either the Democrats or the Republicans. To get out of the current problem they need to cut spending accross the board and at least maintain probarbly actually increase income.

    But really the Republicans must think the american public is pretty stupid, if they are going to vote republican and they arn't rich. They are voting for tax cuts, extra money in the pockets of the richest while cutting programs to support the even ordinary americans nevermind the poorest. Why would anyone in their right mind want that if their not rich? Yet the Republicans still think they can convince non rich people it's a good deal, herrrm yes well we'll see.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I suspect the attitude toward taxes has a lot to do with who is funding the campaigns and the super pacs.

    Long ago, there was a theory that Reagan intended to drive the country into so much debt that so much of the budget was dedicated to servicing the debt that the gvmt. would have to cut back on the social programs.
    I always thought that a tad simplistic.

    The libertarian concept of doing away with the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax seems like it would encourage saving, which low interest rates and inflation make a bad choice---example, the savings account I have pays less interest than the rate of inflation, so my safety net savings lose buying power every year---------no incentive to save, except that the $ assures that i can live for 24 months with no income without constand monitoring by me.

    These policies tend to make me think that there is a greater strategy going on here which incourages debt for individuals as well as governments?
    caveat: I do not understand the economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    caveat: I do not understand the economy.
    Nobody does. That's why it's fucked up.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    But really the Republicans must think the american public is pretty stupid, if they are going to vote republican and they arn't rich. They are voting for tax cuts, extra money in the pockets of the richest while cutting programs to support the even ordinary americans nevermind the poorest. Why would anyone in their right mind want that if their not rich? Yet the Republicans still think they can convince non rich people it's a good deal, herrrm yes well we'll see.


    Many of those same republicans realize that many of the programs "to support even the ordinary American," actually don't. As one example, unemployment more than a few months long, creates a disensentive to look for work, get a marketable skill or to pull stakes and move to where the jobs are; Social security takes what should be available money for retirement savings, assumes people are too stupid to save for retirement, puts it into a low gain accounts that are not much better than putting the money in a hole in the back yard, while supporting a culture of devaluing the elderly. Food programs have been so badly implemented that government employees are being rewarded for breaking down people's desire to be independent--aka removing the pride (e.g. mountain pride) that built this country. My home town remains about 99% republican, most of them don't have a pot to piss in--but they realize the shape of the future and the federal governments role goes far beyond their ability to get a handout--one that many to this day refuse to take. To most of them, it's a lot bigger than what kind of money they can get from uncle sam--it's about getting federal government out of the way (yes I know there are actually more rep on government programs than dems by a narrow margin).
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 30th, 2012 at 12:56 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were begging everyone to invade Iraq, for years before Sept 11 even happened.
    Of course. Cheney, Rumsfeld wanted to finish the job they started in 1990..and that they were dead in the middle of then and through the long war. While there's no doubt it was personal because of their close involvement at both ends of our adventures in Iraq--there probably aren't two living people who knew more about Iraq, Saddam and the big picture in the Middle East than Rumsfeld & Cheney.
    Do you really believe that? Rumsfeld made the idiotic decision to disband the Iraqi national guard, thereby creating a big group of unemployed men with guns. Where else could he have expected they would bring their skill set other than to join (or become) an insurgency?

    Also do you really believe it was personal? Honestly? The Bush family isn't just GW Bush. It's a big family, and most of them are business people rather than politicians. Oil business people, to be specific.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    But really the Republicans must think the american public is pretty stupid, if they are going to vote republican and they arn't rich. They are voting for tax cuts, extra money in the pockets of the richest while cutting programs to support the even ordinary americans nevermind the poorest. Why would anyone in their right mind want that if their not rich? Yet the Republicans still think they can convince non rich people it's a good deal, herrrm yes well we'll see.


    Many of those same republicans realize that many of the programs "to support even the ordinary American," actually don't. As one example, unemployment more than a few months long, creates a disensentive to look for work, get a marketable skill or to pull stakes and move to where the jobs are; Social security takes what should be available money for retirement savings, assumes people are too stupid to save for retirement, puts it into a low gain accounts that are not much better than putting the money in a hole in the back yard, while supporting a culture of devaluing the elderly. Food programs have been so badly implemented that government employees are being rewarded for breaking down people's desire to be independent--aka removing the pride (e.g. mountain pride) that built this country. My home town remains about 99% republican, most of them don't have a pot to piss in--but they realize the shape of the future and the federal governments role goes far beyond their ability to get a handout--one that many to this day refuse to take. To most of them, it's a lot bigger than what kind of money they can get from uncle sam--it's about getting federal government out of the way (yes I know there are actually more rep on government programs than dems by a narrow margin).
    We could start a whole new thread about this. I certainly agree that most of the programs are designed to create dependency. Basically it's self preservation. The program needs people to need it. Otherwise the highly paid executives with college degrees in "government case worker", who are running the program, would have to quit and take their useless job skills over to McDonald's.

    However, if you want to slash the budget, then those people will say you're taking their job (which is true.)

    If you try to restructure the program so it encourages less dependency, they'll wave that "government case worker" degree in your face and tell you they're "more qualified to know what's best" than you are, and refuse those changes. It's a classic case of overwhelming bias preventing a person from accurately applying their education. But of course... we're conditioned to believe that nobody is ever biased in a way that could affect their judgement, and education is the sole determinant of wisdom or intelligence.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Otherwise the highly paid executives with college degrees in "government case worker", who are running the program, would have to quit and take their useless job skills over to McDonald's.

    Not really sure who you're talking about here. While there is certainly a culture of bureaucratic thinking in some agencies which tries to create bureaucracy under them to rise up the ladder--government workers aren't rich and most of their formal education is quite marketable. I totally agree though, that cutting those programs would usually mean cutting government workers--that's a good thing.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Otherwise the highly paid executives with college degrees in "government case worker", who are running the program, would have to quit and take their useless job skills over to McDonald's.
    Not really sure who you're talking about here. While there is certainly a culture of bureaucratic thinking in some agencies which tries to create bureaucracy under them to rise up the ladder-


    A very good way of describing it.


    -government workers aren't rich and most of their formal education is quite marketable.
    That may be true in a lot of cases. On the other hand, I met a lot of other students while in college who were studying liberal arts degrees with the hope of becoming a government case worker later on.

    I'm sure the guy at the very, very, very, very top of an organization will usually have a degree in some kind of hard science. (In which case I'm sure they could easily find work in the private sector.) Probably he/she also feels a lot of loyalty to his/her inferiors, to keep them in a job. (Many of whom very likely could not find work quite as easily.)

    I totally agree though, that cutting those programs would usually mean cutting government workers--that's a good thing.


    Yeah. It is, so long as they can find jobs somewhere else.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    students while in college who were studying liberal arts degrees with the hope of becoming a government case worker later on

    Quite honestly that's their problem for going into an unreliable field--they made bad choices.

    Yeah. It is, so long as they can find jobs somewhere else.

    I vehemently disagree. Government jobs are not a welfare program and should never even exist unless there is a legitimate and necessary purpose that serves the taxpayers. Government obligations to that worker are to give them a timely notice, perhaps some limited opportunity to work someplace they might be needed, and a smooth transition so their final paychecks/or pension doesn't get screwed up if there are no other openings. The employee is primarily responsible to find work--not the government.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    students while in college who were studying liberal arts degrees with the hope of becoming a government case worker later on

    Quite honestly that's their problem for going into an unreliable field--they made bad choices.

    Yeah. It is, so long as they can find jobs somewhere else.

    I vehemently disagree. Government jobs are not a welfare program and should never even exist unless there is a legitimate and necessary purpose that serves the taxpayers. Government obligations to that worker are to give them a timely notice, perhaps some limited opportunity to work someplace they might be needed, and a smooth transition so their final paychecks/or pension doesn't get screwed up if there are no other openings. The employee is primarily responsible to find work--not the government.
    That's great from a moral perspective. From a practical perspective, all those foolish decisions will inevitably affect the economy as a whole, impacting all of us (including those who made more intelligent decisions.) There needs to be some kind of plan for what to do with all those government workers so they don't just fill up the (already over saturated) unskilled labor markets.

    One possibility would be to criminalize illegal immigration, deport all the illegal immigrants, and then start a propaganda campaign to make people feel better about working as cooks, cleaners, field hands.... and etc. They'll make a smaller salary, but as you mentioned: they kind of deserve to.

    What we don't want is a bunch of unemployed people using up public services and/or crashing on their relatives' couches. Then we might as well have just paid for them the other way by keeping them employed.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    What we don't want is a bunch of unemployed people using up public services and/or crashing on their relatives' couches. Then we might as well have just paid for them the other way by keeping them employed.
    You are worrying about the wrong group. The unemployment rate for college grads have never gone above 5% through this entire economic crisis. Having a college education, even in a sucky area, pays off big time. The only practical consideration is people on the tax payers dime who aren't needed area drain on the tax payers or their children--as Eastwood said the other night when he stole the last night of Rep convention "get rid of them."

    The real problem through this times has been the ones who aren't college educated, and for the most part were never qualified to get a government job, nor most other jobs. It's one of the things I wish there was a lot more discussion about in the media as well.
    Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What we don't want is a bunch of unemployed people using up public services and/or crashing on their relatives' couches. Then we might as well have just paid for them the other way by keeping them employed.
    You are worrying about the wrong group. The unemployment rate for college grads have never gone above 5% through this entire economic crisis.


    Neither has government spending been dramatically reduced.

    Do you see a possible connection?


    Having a college education, even in a sucky area, pays off big time. The only practical consideration is people on the tax payers dime who aren't needed area drain on the tax payers or their children--as Eastwood said the other night when he stole the last night of Rep convention "get rid of them."

    The real problem through this times has been the ones who aren't college educated, and for the most part were never qualified to get a government job, nor most other jobs. It's one of the things I wish there was a lot more discussion about in the media as well.
    I'm trying to figure out whom you mean. Possibilities I can think of are:

    1) - Customer service representatives - like at the DMV or Social Security Office

    2) - Road Construction crews maybe?

    3) - Maybe some police officers? (However, in many areas a college degree is required to join the force.)

    4) - Post Office workers.


    Can you think of others? I'm trying to get a feel for who these people are that have no college degree and draw bigger salaries than they should.

    On the other hand, have you ever known somebody who wanted to be in the FBI? You pretty much have to show up with a college degree if you want a position there. Too many applicants, and not enough positions. Most of the "sexy" government positions are like that. There's huge competition to be a librarian, too, or to work on Senators' staffs.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If we're going to have a serious discussion about Federal Budget, why don't we actually have a look at it?

    From Lynx post #19 we can see that 68% of the money is gone before we could cut it. Leaving out social security it would be just under 50% gone before we can cut.

    Adding in the source of revenue:




    We see that we're borrowing 1.2 Trillion a year. 2.3 trillion being our income, and 3.5 trillion being our spending. I think we'd have to cut the programs down to a very tiny fraction of what they are to make that meet up.
    Last edited by kojax; September 1st, 2012 at 07:37 PM. Reason: fix link
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    (nods).
    That's why fiscal conservative are apoplectic over the deficit. Once recognized the tough choices are what to do about it--my preference is mostly to cut the optional programs which weren't included in the constitution and to a much lesser degree increase taxes on individuals (including poor and rich alike) leaving corporations alone so they aren't hamstrung even more.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    perhaps
    history may lead us to an understanding of what will happen to the debt.
    The debt is owed in dollars.
    Crank up the printing presses, and let the dollar fall and inflation soar
    when dollars are flowing in at twice the current level(todays buying power of a dollar needs 2 in this future to buy the same goods)
    pay off the debt in far cheaper dollars.

    (wild guess du jour)
    we will see 16% annual inflation within 4-6 years

    and, with cheaper dollars, we can export our way out of the rest of the debt.
    but your "made in china" $10 dollar wallmart trousers wil cost $20
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Lynx - you can plainly see on the revenue chart that corporations shoulder about all of 8% of the tax burden. While, individual income already covers 47%, or actually 83% if we lump income tax and social security tax into the same category. Short of putting corporate tax all the way down to 0%, I don't see how the current picture could be any closer to your ideal.

    I'll re quote the chart you presented earlier so we can see expenses and taxes (kind of) side by side.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post


    The figure agree with the actual numbers as well. CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

    .
    Perhaps a good refinement would be to give Medicaid its own tax category just like how Social Security has its own tax category. That would mean our income taxes are broken into three categories instead of two, but it would increase transparency so we could see more clearly how much government healthcare matters to our tax burden.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Lynx - you can plainly see on the revenue chart that corporations shoulder about all of 8% of the tax burden. While, individual income already covers 47%, or actually 83% if we lump income tax and social security tax into the same category. Short of putting corporate tax all the way down to 0%, I don't see how the current picture could be any closer to your ideal.
    Ideal is corporate at 0%. Given more than half America invest in corporations (which I think almost rises to a patriot duty), corporations are one of the main engines of our economy, and taxes on them are passed to consumers via price increases which in turn makes than less competitive, I think it's morally reprehensible that US corporations have to pay a red cent for operations in the US.


    Perhaps a good refinement would be to give Medicaid its own tax category just like how Social Security has its own tax category.
    That's mostly accounting trickery-- SS has been been raided and borrowed from numerous times, including the past couple years--it's never really been a separate category, has always been one of the most regressive (the rich live much longer) and lowest return systems imaginable.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 2nd, 2012 at 04:07 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Lynx - you can plainly see on the revenue chart that corporations shoulder about all of 8% of the tax burden. While, individual income already covers 47%, or actually 83% if we lump income tax and social security tax into the same category. Short of putting corporate tax all the way down to 0%, I don't see how the current picture could be any closer to your ideal.
    Ideal is corporate at 0%. Given more than half America invest in corporations (which I think almost rises to a patriot duty), corporations are one of the main engines of our economy, and taxes on them are passed to consumers via price increases which in turn makes than less competitive, I think it's morally reprehensible that US corporations have to pay a red cent for operations in the US.
    What about sole proprietorships? Is it fair for corporations to pay less tax than small business owners? Is there something special about a corporation that makes its contribution superior to that of private business owners?

    A private business owner has to pay income tax. Maybe capital gains tax could replace taxation of corporate income? (Since the owners are the stockholders, and their form of personal income from the venture is via their stock?)

    Or maybe we could go option #3: Not tax income gained from owning a business, and instead only tax personal income gained via working at a job?

    Perhaps a good refinement would be to give Medicaid its own tax category just like how Social Security has its own tax category.
    That's mostly accounting trickery-- SS has been been raided and borrowed from numerous times, including the past couple years--it's never really been a separate category, has always been one of the most regressive (the rich live much longer) and lowest return systems imaginable.
    Running the numbers, Social Security raised 829.08 billion via Social Security Tax, but only paid out 719.6 billion. It looks like on its own, it's financially solvent. If we want to look at ways to trim the budget and reduce the debt, it would seem a lot easier to just leave it out of the calculation and look at the rest. We can deal with it separately if we think it's being run inefficiently.

    As for raiding and borrowing, the money is effectively part of the National Debt. Why not look at that instead of the program itself? It's certainly not the program's fault.

    If we broke out medicare into its own tax category that would add transparency, and make it easier for people to mobilize and take action about it. Lumping it all together puts people in the awkward position of having to propose a solution to everything or nothing.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Chad:
    You ain't all wrong, and a vote "Libertarian" would be mostly a "NO" vote
    Just a way of saying I ain't happy witht the status quo
    I would prefer complete freedom, and all the political special deals favoring insurance companies, big corporations, the medical establishment undone.
    Because I think that not likely to happen, I am more a socialist than a republican or democrat. " If you can't beat them, then work out the best deal you can get"

    The things I like about the libertarians is their anti military industrial complex stance, and i abhore living on debt,
    Mt ideal presidential ticket would have been Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, or Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
    so, maybe I'm a libertarian socialist or a socialistic libertarian?

    don't mind the rudeness here, after all this is the politics thread
    I'd actually expect more ranting here.
    the old saw: "keep it cordial and don't bring up religion or politics?

    As I said above, certain "democratic" practices are abhorent to me, and I despise the corporatocracy that seems to be the norm for the day.
    And yet, this system has allowed us to be here, now, chatting about our passions on machines that the system has created.
    I want a real democrat or a real republican without the gay marriage and abortion foils or smoke and mirrors that are meaningless to me and have almost nothing to do with running this country.

    I do believe that these endless wars have a lot to do with sustaining our constantly living in debt, which makes us slaves to the interest rates set by international bankers and credit rating agencies------(the USA being anything less than triple A seems darned strange, but maybe if we keep heading down this dept path, we'll learn to live with triple B)
    With each dollar we borrow, we lose another piece of freedom.

    me too
    sorry if i was rude
    such is politics?

    I did not find you rude Sculptor, and I hope it goes both ways.

    I actually like and respect the libertarian way of thinking. But the US libertarian party is a scam, run by Americas large corporations. I will try to explain.

    Within the US republican party, there are groups like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and citizens for a sound economy. These groups were created/funded by large corporations and billionaires, and their only true goal is to lower taxes on Americas rich and large corporations, and end corporate business regulations. The Libertarian party is fully mixed in with these groups.

    The US Libertarian party platform, is the worst thing out there.



    I would like to respond more, but I am tired from not having a/c for the last few days, because of that hurricane, but power came back today.

    Have a good one,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 12:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    (Edited: to make correct / Sculptor) The following source shows, how a group of greedy and insane billionaires, created the present day libertarian party platform.
    You do realize the Tea party is not the libertarian party...don't you? They are completely opposite on just about every social issue for starters.

    The founders of the Libertarians, such as David Nolan weren't billionaires, were following a philosophy that go back further than the US founding fathers, and in his case was an atheist--which is a long ways from most of the Tea party.

    --
    Please tell me the good that would come from abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA, FCC, public schools, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, ex.ex.ex.ex ?

    A balanced budget for starters--isn't that what this thread is about? Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare take up more than half and are growing--and none are in the US Constitution, nor anywhere's near the founding philosophies of our nation, where the fed did these to help groups of people (as listed in the Constitution...like building roads) and coordinated things between the states (as well as protecting the nation of course)--not gave our counterproductive handouts to individuals with IOUs stolen from our children.



    The Tea Party and Libertarian party are closely connected. After all Libertarians appear in republican debates.



    Imagine an America without the IRS, EPA, FCC, FBI, CIA, FDA, public schools, welfare, public libraries, Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal reserve, and unemployment benefits.

    What would that America be like? Perhaps it would be easier to find a country, without those things and look at them.


    What countries dont have all those things?


    My point is America would be like a third world country, without those things.
    Or you could prove me wrong, and list a well off or industrialized country, without those things.

    Can you list one?


    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The Tea Party and Libertarian party are closely connected
    Not really and only for fiscal matters, they are completely different on just about every social issue. For the moment fiscal responsibility is more important and the dems, despite seeing the civil rest from overextended governments in Europe, still refuse to see the problem so there's no place else to turn.

    Actually I can envision an America without most of those things---as it was for much of America's history. If one thing is clear isn't that you seem to disagree with the principles apon which America was founded. Why do you think it's ok for the US fed government to be burdened with enormous debt loads from things not mentioned in the Constitution? The Federal government wasn't meant to handle everything--there's multiple tiers of government, each with their own levels of responsibility. And while I wouldn't get rid of them most I would dramatically scaled back to interstate issues. What should the government have to do with running your local library---or local school---not a damn thing beyond basic constitutional rights protections which is the only things that's actually their responsibility. Why do you think it's right for the government to tax everyone 6.2% and put it into a low return account that for the most part poor minority's will never see a positive return while only middle class+ women are sure to get good return for?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 3rd, 2012 at 12:58 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What I don't understand though is republican attitude to taxes, yes ok I can see they want to cut spending so they have more money left to pay down the national debt, but then on the other hand they want tax cuts for the rich which is going to reduce government income meaning they still can't pay down national debt. So really it still doesn't provide americans with a proper plan to pay down debt by either the Democrats or the Republicans. To get out of the current problem they need to cut spending accross the board and at least maintain probarbly actually increase income.

    But really the Republicans must think the american public is pretty stupid, if they are going to vote republican and they arn't rich. They are voting for tax cuts, extra money in the pockets of the richest while cutting programs to support the even ordinary americans nevermind the poorest. Why would anyone in their right mind want that if their not rich? Yet the Republicans still think they can convince non rich people it's a good deal, herrrm yes well we'll see.


    Knowing Europeans call the US republican party a cult.

    Yes, America needs to do everything you said. But I think we also have to realize that US republicans, created all of Americas financial problems, and we have to stop them from making things even worse.
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 01:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The Tea Party and Libertarian party are closely connected
    Not really and only for fiscal matters, they are completely different on just about every social issue. For the moment fiscal responsibility is more important and the dems, despite seeing the civil rest from overextended governments in Europe, still refuse to see the problem so there's no place else to turn.

    Actually I can envision an America without most of those things---as it was for much of America's history. If one thing is clear isn't that you seem to disagree with the principles apon which America was founded. Why do you think it's ok for the US fed government to be burdened with enormous debt loads from things not mentioned in the Constitution? The Federal government wasn't meant to handle everything--there's multiple tiers of government, each with their own levels of responsibility. And while I wouldn't get rid of them most I would dramatically scaled back to interstate issues. What should the government have to do with running your local library---or local school---not a damn thing beyond basic constitutional rights protections which is the only things that's actually their responsibility. Why do you think it's right for the government to tax everyone 6.2% and put it into a low return account that for the most part poor minority's will never see a positive return while only middle class+ women are sure to get good return for?
    Healthcare wasn't expensive during the early stages of American history. Doctors were typically poor, and willing to accept nearly anything at all in trade for their skills. It also wasn't common to sue them for malpractice. And you didn't need 10 years of school to become one.

    Personally I'm hard pressed to see how public health care is any different from having a public fire department. I'm sure strict libertarians would like to do away with public fire departments, and replace them with a private service you can call if your house catches on fire and you've enough money to pay out of pocket (or your neighbors can if they don't want the fire to spread to their houses too.)

    Social security is just a good way to keep people from being destitute. Lots of people lost thei 401k when Enron went under (and other business failures too.) It's not like they were stupid and didn't prepare for retirement, but even the very best investments can fail. Social Security earns a small return because it's guaranteed. No private sector fund would ever be able to give the same return at the same risk (that being 0 risk, or nearly.) Sure, a lot of them can give a much better return at non-zero risk, but then we're comparing apples and oranges. (In general comparing the return of a high risk investment against the return of a low risk investment is just plain an unfair comparison.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The Tea Party and Libertarian party are closely connected
    Not really and only for fiscal matters, they are completely different on just about every social issue. For the moment fiscal responsibility is more important and the dems, despite seeing the civil rest from overextended governments in Europe, still refuse to see the problem so there's no place else to turn.

    Actually I can envision an America without most of those things---as it was for much of America's history. If one thing is clear isn't that you seem to disagree with the principles apon which America was founded. Why do you think it's ok for the US fed government to be burdened with enormous debt loads from things not mentioned in the Constitution? The Federal government wasn't meant to handle everything--there's multiple tiers of government, each with their own levels of responsibility. And while I wouldn't get rid of them most I would dramatically scaled back to interstate issues. What should the government have to do with running your local library---or local school---not a damn thing beyond basic constitutional rights protections which is the only things that's actually their responsibility. Why do you think it's right for the government to tax everyone 6.2% and put it into a low return account that for the most part poor minority's will never see a positive return while only middle class+ women are sure to get good return for?

    Think about what you are talking about doing.

    Without the EPA there would be no one to stop pollution.
    Think about all the hazardous chemicals, the EPA has stopped/cleaned in the last 25 years.
    Without the EPA in America for the last 25 years, huge parts of America would be a toxic sludge wasteland.
    What problem does your crowd have with clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean animal habitat?

    Without the FDA we would have 10,000x more dangerous drugs on the market, and our food would have less standards than dog food.
    What problem does your crowd have with safe food, safe medications, and safe medical devices?

    Without social security many of Americas seniors would live in poverty.

    Without Medicare many American seniors who get cancer and heart problems will die, because they cant afford the doctor bills.

    Without welfare poor mothers would not get baby formula, and we would have lots of sick children.

    Without Medicaid the poor will drop dead like flies, when they get a disease thats expensive to cure. (40,000 uninsured Americans already die like this each year)




    Billionaires like the Koch brothers tell (you) about these ideas, but they dont think about the results to regular Americans. And they do not think about the results to Americas air, land, water, animals, and public health. They only think about getting the IRS and the EPA off their corporations backs.




    Lets make a list of some countries, that already don't have the agencies, you want to abolish. Then we can compare them to America, in areas like food safety and medication safety. And we can compare them in air and water quality. We can also compare them in public health, and the general health of the non-rich.

    List of countries without government agencies/programs like the EPA, FDA, Social Security, Medicare, ex.,ex.ex.
    1. Somalia
    2. Small dirt poor Arab countries (you may know their names)


    Can/will you add more countries to the above list, so we can see what life is like in countries, that already don't have the agencies you want to abolish?

    Perhaps we could add India to the list?
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 05:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The Tea Party and Libertarian party are closely connected
    Not really and only for fiscal matters, they are completely different on just about every social issue. For the moment fiscal responsibility is more important and the dems, despite seeing the civil rest from overextended governments in Europe, still refuse to see the problem so there's no place else to turn.

    Actually I can envision an America without most of those things---as it was for much of America's history. If one thing is clear isn't that you seem to disagree with the principles apon which America was founded. Why do you think it's ok for the US fed government to be burdened with enormous debt loads from things not mentioned in the Constitution? The Federal government wasn't meant to handle everything--there's multiple tiers of government, each with their own levels of responsibility. And while I wouldn't get rid of them most I would dramatically scaled back to interstate issues. What should the government have to do with running your local library---or local school---not a damn thing beyond basic constitutional rights protections which is the only things that's actually their responsibility. Why do you think it's right for the government to tax everyone 6.2% and put it into a low return account that for the most part poor minority's will never see a positive return while only middle class+ women are sure to get good return for?


    Can you list any facts, figures, or rational statements, that show Americas food, medicines, air, land, water, and public health will be ok, without the agencies/programs you want to abolish?
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 05:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Without the EPA there would be no one to stop pollution. [/quote]
    Really? So your state and community has absolutely no laws to prevent pollution? Why do you think the fed government is the only level that can provide government?

    I know in WA State there's many pollution laws on the books.
    Laws and Rules | Washington State Department of EcologyWA State would be quite safe from its own pollution without federal regulation. And it would be a bit cheaper for WA businesses because they'd have one less level of often redundant regulations to deal with. The parts of EPA regulations I'd (and WA) would want to keep would be pollution along the major rivers that flow into the state, such as the Snake and Columbia and in the waters off shore--the EPA could be much smaller (I never said abolish it) and focused on those types of interstate and international issues as is supposed to be the role of the federal government.

    Without social security many of Americas seniors would live in poverty.

    Without Medicare many American seniors who get cancer and heart problems will die, because they cant afford the doctor bills.

    Without welfare poor mothers would not get baby formula, and we would have lots of sick children

    None of those are the federal governments problem or level of responsibility--again the state, local government and community are closer and more responsible to the problems and better able to handle them. (that's why nothing like them is listed in the Constitution) And your fooling yourself is you think SS is a good deal. If I'd been forced to put my 6% into even conservative stocks and bonds over the past 40 years, even through the crazy market of the past ten years, I'd be a millionaire by now able to either live more comfortably or pass most of it to my son. Most old folks would be far better if the money they'd put into SS would have put into the market--Much Much better off.
    If you want to do some comparatives play with the following two links. For my wife and I our average SS return will be about 4%, while the stock market return has between 10-12%. Not only that, but there's about a 15% chance I'll never collect because I'll be dead.
    Political Calculations: Approximating Social Security's Rate of Return
    CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500
    I'd be all for compulsory investments into the market or in government bonds and the like perhaps combined with a tax/fee if one was so stupid not to put money away for their future.
    --
    Lets look at public schools--local and state funds about 85%.
    And has the federal funding, which started in the late 1960s really helped? Or has it burdered states with one-size fits all types of programs which over the past 3 decades only produced small test score improvements despite the US putting the more $/student of just about any country in the world. Go to any small school (I've been to dozens as I learn to be a teacher) and you don't have to look far or long to find waste--such as a full time speech pathologist who sleeps most days because there isn't enough work at the school, but cannot be shared through the district because of federal regulations; untested techno gadgets hidden in closets and storage rooms never asked for, not tested in educational settings etc but bought with federal dollars.
    http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TI5y9SvQJRI/AAAAAAAAOYs/eA5iAVzQnRE/s1600/SAT1.jpg


    Billionaires like the Koch brothers tell....
    Most of the libertarian ideas have been around since the 18th century--Koch brothers don't have a thing to do with them.



    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I thought you might like this read, since it hits on many of the issues we've been hitting.
    ".....What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust....."

    We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show - Telegraph
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To Lynx_Fox,


    So you think we should privatize Social security?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I thought you might like this read, since it hits on many of the issues we've been hitting.
    ".....What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust....."

    We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show - Telegraph





    You want to privatize Social security.
    Do you know that most/every country that has privatized their Social security system, has seen their seniors get less money?

    If America ever privatizes Social Security, Wall Street CEO's will take $750 billion dollars in fees.
    All of Americas seniors will get less SS money, because the Wall Street CEO's will take $750 billion.
    The rich will get more, and the poor will get less, but thats what you fight for.

    Also I have seen the stock market crash 2x, during these 2 crashes, I have seen people loose huge amounts of money.
    What would have happened to everyones SS money, if it was in the stock market for those 2 crashes? (Americas seniors would be in the poor house)
    But you dont care about Americas seniors, you care about the Wall street CEO's, getting their $750 billion dollars of the seniors retirement money.


    Then you want the Fair/flat tax, Why?

    As you know, Americas CEO billionaires pay 0%-17% of their income in federal taxes, while Americans who make $90,000 a year pay over 30% of their income in federal taxes. But you love this, because its helps the rich, and pains Americans who make around $90,000 a year.

    But I guess you know theres a problem, the rich and poor both pay the same (state) tax rates.
    How will (you) help the billionaires have lower (state) tax rates, than regular Americans? You want the Fair/flat tax. The fair/flat tax will make things right in your eyes, because billionaires will have lower state tax rates, than regular Americans.

    What about the huge national debt caused by US republicans? But you could care less, because republicans lower billionaires taxes.

    What about the 1,000's of lies said by US republicans? But you could care less, because they lower billionaires taxes.



    The bottom line is, everything you desire protects the rich, and literally kills and devastates the poor.


    40,000 Americans die each year from not having health insurance, but you don't care, and your crowd gladly lets those Americans die.
    Huge numbers of Americas kids are hungry, and dont have enough food to eat, but you dont care, and your crowd gladly lets them go hungry.
    Huge numbers of Americans dont have jobs, but you dont care, and your crowd gladly will let them become homeless.


    Please give us more ideas, that will help America.

    What else should we do?
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I thought you might like this read, since it hits on many of the issues we've been hitting.
    ".....What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust....."

    We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show - Telegraph


    I looked at your link above, the following 2 statements were taken from it,

    "The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it"


    "The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union."


    Can you explain these 2 above statements?
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 04:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Also I have seen the stock market crash 2x, during these 2 crashes, I have seen people loose huge amounts of money.
    What would have happened to everyones SS money, if it was in the stock market for those 2 crashes? (Americas seniors would be in the poor house)
    But you dont care about Americas seniors, you care about the Wall street CEO's, getting their $750 billion dollars of seniors retirement money.


    Run the numbers is all I can say. For someone my age, just shy of 50, who watched their investments plummet than rise again, the difference is 4% expected return for SS (assuming I live to an average lifespan) versus 10% for the average market including the crashes That's why I provided those links. Somewhere near retirement age even during the worse of the market crash a couple years ago would have made huge returns, much better than the measly amounts SS provides--and if they were a poor minority male unlikely to ever get their money back under either system. Any type of multi-decade investments, as as privatized SS could be, are going to be able to weather severe crashes, in this case the 2nd worse over the past century. Seniors would be miles ahead. The ones who lost their shorts were short term margin investors--long term investors didn't suffer at all and historically almost never do when more than ten years is considered, as it would be for SS.

    --
    And with all due respect Chad, stop attributing things I've never said to me. I'm not opposed to raising taxes in the rich or anyone else--and have written as much several times in this very thread. I am opposed to doing that to make up for losses that contradict the very framework of our how our federal government is supposed to operate in relation to the states. I don't want to just stick it to the rich though---why because the top 5% pay more than 50% of the income tax revenue and top 50% of income already pay 97% of the income tax revenue. We might have income disparity gap in the US that's unhealthy, but using an already outrageously progressive tax system even worse isn't going to help.
    Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Knowing Europeans call the US republican party a cult.
    Do they? I have never heard anyone in Europe say that.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Without social security many of Americas seniors would live in poverty.

    Without Medicare many American seniors who get cancer and heart problems will die, because they cant afford the doctor bills.

    Without welfare poor mothers would not get baby formula, and we would have lots of sick children

    None of those are the federal governments problem or level of responsibility--again the state, local government and community are closer and more responsible to the problems and better able to handle them. (that's why nothing like them is listed in the Constitution)
    I think it would be too much a hassle to deal with people moving across state lines. Whichever state offered the best medicare benefits would end up shouldering nearly 100% of the burden as every sane elderly person would move there to collect it.

    And once you've got one state chock full of old people - who's paying for it?


    And your fooling yourself is you think SS is a good deal. If I'd been forced to put my 6% into even conservative stocks and bonds over the past 40 years, even through the crazy market of the past ten years, I'd be a millionaire by now able to either live more comfortably or pass most of it to my son. Most old folks would be far better if the money they'd put into SS would have put into the market--Much Much better off.
    If you want to do some comparatives play with the following two links. For my wife and I our average SS return will be about 4%, while the stock market return has between 10-12%. Not only that, but there's about a 15% chance I'll never collect because I'll be dead.
    Political Calculations: Approximating Social Security's Rate of Return
    CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

    The benefit of social security is that it's guaranteed so long as you live to collect it. Also it helps people who lost their 401k or otherwise were unable to amass a good retirement for themselves. Not all of them are at fault for what happened to them. Many of them were very hard working individuals who earned college degrees, paid taxes, and did all the same things right as you do, but got unlucky.

    If you believe in the presumption of innocence then you wouldn't want to punish the guilty and the innocent together.


    I'd be all for compulsory investments into the market or in government bonds and the like perhaps combined with a tax/fee if one was so stupid not to put money away for their future.
    Market capitalism and compulsory purchasing don't go well together hand in hand. You'd end up with something just as bad as having the government do it.

    First of all, smart investors help the market, while bad investors hurt it. It's a good idea to take all the dumb people and discourage them from troubling themselves because either they're just going to sink all of their funds into the sure bet, or they're going to make uninformed decisions about what risky bets to take. If they go through a proxy investor, there's no guarantee that proxy investor won't just be selling them snake oil.

    We've witnessed in the past decade that quite a many of them were doing just that. The proxy investor would set things up so he/she made a commission on every transaction, whether the outcome was good or not, and then just encouraged people to wildly throw their money around so there would be many transactions. When the market fell, the proxy investor lost little to nothing, or maybe even made more money on the increased transactions as people short sold their stocks to save what they could.

    I don't see how the government would do a worse job of choosing proxy investors than the people did themselves. I would think there's a chance it might even do a better job.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Knowing Europeans call the US republican party a cult.
    Do they? I have never heard anyone in Europe say that.

    I have read news story's were European writers call them a cult. These European writers followed the US republicans during an election. They noticed all the lies they say about health care, taxes, Global warming, ex,ex,ex,ex.

    They thought the lies republicans say about Steven Hawking, were just unthinkable.

    Then they heard the republican lies, about how Obama wants to "kill Americas senior citizens." Then they started calling them a cult.


    These European writers know that the US republican party, is the party that happily allows 40,000 Americans to die each year, from no insurance.
    They also know the republicans fight and desire, for poor Americans to (not) be allowed to sue drug corporations, for selling drugs that kill.
    Then they say Obama wants to kill American seniors.

    Republicans fight to abolish class action lawsuits, so that only rich people, would be able to sue in federal court.



    I went to Google and searched "republican cult" and "republican party becoming a cult", but so many results came up, I could not find the European storys.
    I will look again.
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 07:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Knowing Europeans call the US republican party a cult.
    Do they? I have never heard anyone in Europe say that.

    Johann Hari: The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It just occurred to me that wanting uninformed people to invest in the stock market is exactly the best way for a disreputable investing firm to make the most possible amount of money.

    Of course the top 1% would want that. It's like getting poor people to just open up their wallets and let you reach in.

    And naturally since the Republican party is essentially the top 1%'s fan club, they would want it too.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I thought you might like this read, since it hits on many of the issues we've been hitting.
    ".....What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust....."

    We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show - Telegraph

    Ever since I started posting to you in this thread, I have felt guilty for the way I have spoken to you.

    You are a fantastic person, and I could write about all your positive attributes, for a very, very, very long time.

    I am sorry for the wording, style, and strategy I have used in my posts to you.

    Have a great day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    This next election has the following choices,

    A.) make rich peoples and poor peoples tax rates the same, and keep Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, and the FDA.
    B.) make rich peoples tax rates lower than the poor, and let Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, and the FDA be abolished/die from lack of funds.

    And you republicans will choose B.)

    How can you all sacrifice your own Medicare and FDA, in order to make rich peoples tax rates lower than yours.


    Look at the $4.5 trillion dollar deficits created by G.W. Bush.
    If we get the republican president, he will cut rich peoples taxes just like Reagan and G.W. Bush, and our deficits will rise to like $6 trillion dollars, and our government will not have money to fund things like Medicare.



    The republican CEO leaders workers, tell you all 1,000's of lies, and today you all live in these lies.
    The republican leaders tell you "we need to cut rich peoples taxes, to keep America great."

    But what did the rich do with Reagan's and G.W. Bush's "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts?

    The rich used the "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts to build factories in China.
    And they also used the cuts to buy airplanes, Rolls Royce's, and big houses.



    Or what about your mothers Social Security, Medicare, and FDA.
    How can you all take away these things, from your own mothers, in exchange for tax cuts for the rich, so the rich can build factories in China?

    Or do you exchange your mothers Medicare, so the rich can buy airplanes and Rolls Royces, with their supply side cuts?
    Last edited by chad; September 3rd, 2012 at 11:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    There's (2) kinds of rich people.

    Democrat rich people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
    And republican rich people like the Koch brothers.

    Democrat billionaires want a progressive tax system, so their tax dollars help the poor to live well.
    And republican rich people want a trickle down tax system, so the rich have lower tax rates than the poor.

    The republican billionaires want to abolish Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public welfare.

    These republican billionaires are greedy, immoral, and insane. These men have billions of dollars in the bank, and they want their tax rates lower than the poor. And they want to end Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare.


    My point is these republican billionaires, don't care about our families health, they only care about their tax rates and corporations profits.

    What do republican billionaires do with their supply side/trickle down tax cuts?


    The evidence shows they would build factories in China.
    How could republican billionaires care about American jobs, when they want to take away our Medicare, Medicaid, and public welfare?


    Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The rich used the "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts to build factories in China.

    True to a large degree because of the unfavorable tax structure, burdensome deeply layered regulations, and expensive work force of operating in the US.
    -And I'm not sure why you insist on saying the rich don't pay enough, or lower than poor---I already showed you the income tax number and it wasn't close.
    Even if you include the sum of medicare, SS and income taxes it's still highly progressive with someone making 200K/yr paying more than twice % of than someone on the poverty line. Check for yourself and factcheck your own assumptions.
    2012 Tax Rate Calculator

    Much of the problem is the current system has nearly half of America paying very little of the total tax revenue, but they still vote for representatives who'll give handouts to them, effectively bypassing three levels of government, removing incentive to do better for themselves in the process-- everyone needs skin in the game and that simply isn't the case right now. While I loath the republican party at the moment, the Tea Party faction is mostly right about where we need to go with the budget. Your choice A) is a false one--medicare and SS and our extensive entitlement systems can't continue as is without the US heading down the austerity budget road reeking havoc in Europe.





    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The rich used the "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts to build factories in China.

    True to a large degree because of the unfavorable tax structure, burdensome deeply layered regulations, and expensive work force of operating in the US.
    -And I'm not sure why you insist on saying the rich don't pay enough, or lower than poor---I already showed you the income tax number and it wasn't close.
    Even if you include the sum of medicare, SS and income taxes it's still highly progressive with someone making 200K/yr paying more than twice % of than someone on the poverty line. Check for yourself and factcheck your own assumptions.
    2012 Tax Rate Calculator

    Much of the problem is the current system has nearly half of America paying very little of the total tax revenue, but they still vote for representatives who'll give handouts to them, effectively bypassing three levels of government, removing incentive to do better for themselves in the process-- everyone needs skin in the game and that simply isn't the case right now. While I loath the republican party at the moment, the Tea Party faction is mostly right about where we need to go with the budget. Your choice A) is a false one--medicare and SS and our extensive entitlement systems can't continue as is without the US heading down the austerity budget road reeking havoc in Europe.







    Thanks for telling me, I guess I have been posting a 1/2 mistake. I should have been saying "CEO's and Americas richest families".

    Perhaps rich people like Brad Pitt and P. Diddy pay taxes, maybe too much?


    But its the CEO's and Americas richest families, that fund our politicians, they are the ones I am talking about.


    These billionaire CEO's pay 15%-17% in federal taxes, and many pay 0%.
    The link bellow shows Bill Gates and Warren Buffet on stage together, speaking about how wealthy peoples taxes are too low, its a 3 minute link.

    Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy - YouTube
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 03:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The rich used the "supply side"/ "trickle down" tax cuts to build factories in China.

    True to a large degree because of the unfavorable tax structure, burdensome deeply layered regulations, and expensive work force of operating in the US.
    -And I'm not sure why you insist on saying the rich don't pay enough, or lower than poor---I already showed you the income tax number and it wasn't close.
    Even if you include the sum of medicare, SS and income taxes it's still highly progressive with someone making 200K/yr paying more than twice % of than someone on the poverty line. Check for yourself and factcheck your own assumptions.
    2012 Tax Rate Calculator

    Much of the problem is the current system has nearly half of America paying very little of the total tax revenue, but they still vote for representatives who'll give handouts to them, effectively bypassing three levels of government, removing incentive to do better for themselves in the process-- everyone needs skin in the game and that simply isn't the case right now. While I loath the republican party at the moment, the Tea Party faction is mostly right about where we need to go with the budget. Your choice A) is a false one--medicare and SS and our extensive entitlement systems can't continue as is without the US heading down the austerity budget road reeking havoc in Europe.






    The following link is for CTJ "Citizens for tax justice", I notice the links you post, and you may find CTJ very informative. They seem to treat republicans and democrats the same.

    Citizens for Tax Justice


    Like the following CTJ link that shows, how Obama's (proposal) to extend parts of Bush's tax cuts, would add $243 billion to our deficit a year.

    Fact Sheet: Proposals for Extending Bush Tax Cuts for Another Year Would Cost Upwards of $240 Billion | CTJReports





    If we are going to talk about Americas money/deficit/debt problems, we should talk about the cause.


    The following CTJ link shows, how Bush's tax cuts cost $2.5 trillion dollars.

    http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf



    The following CTJ link shows how extending the Bush tax cuts to 2022, will add $5.4 trillion dollars to our debt.

    Another Decade of Bush Tax Cuts Will Cost More than Twice as Much as the First Decade | CTJReports








    The republicans are also lying to you about Social Security (Social security is not going bankrupt.)

    The republicans lie and say Social security is going bankrupt, so they can privatize Social Security. They want to privatize SS, so the Wall Street CEO's can take $750 billion dollars of the SS money. The republican CEO's also want the SS money privatized and invested in their corporations, so the CEO's can take huge personal pay raises with the SS money.

    Social Security being in trouble, is just another republican lie. Social security has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.





    The great Social Security lie - 1 - retirement planning - MSN Money




    Bernie Sanders on Social Security




    Media Jump On Idea That Social Security Is Going Bankrupt, Ignore Easy Way To Ensure Its Future | ThinkProgress







    The following link shows how the Koch brothers, and 23 other republican billionaires are attacking Social Security.

    Bernie Sanders: `Deficit hawk hypocrites' want to cut Social Security - SGVTribune.com



    The following 3 1/2 minute video with Bernie Sanders, aka "the only honest human being in Washington", talks about how the republican think tanks spread 1,000's of lies, it talks about Social security not being bankrupt, and how these republican billionaire's workers manipulate Americans.

    Koch Brothers Exposed - YouTube



    Take care of yourself, and have a great day/night,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; September 4th, 2012 at 03:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    On SS, none address my key points. It's not in the Constitution, isn't a separate trust (It frequently exchanges money with the general fund), is very low-yielding and extremely regressive tax systems--I never said it's going bankrupt. I care deeply for the Constitution, if I'm going to be forced to pay 6.3% I'd like some respectable return and none of us like regressive tax systems.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ... Much of the problem is the current system has nearly half of America paying very little of the total tax revenue, but they still vote for representatives who'll give handouts to them, effectively bypassing three levels of government, removing incentive to do better for themselves in the process-- ...
    A quote(?) from the oft misquoted Alexander Tytler?

    A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,
    Cherry picking the constitution much as cherry picking the bible, or any other document or body of knowledge is invariably problematic as the outcome of the arguement misleads until the whole refutes the cherries and the arguement falls like a house of cards.

    SS ain't specifically in the constitution, neither are corporations
    Most corporate priveledge was legislated from the bench, starting with dartmouth, not by your elected representatives.
    Armies existances are specifically prohibited for periods longer than 2 years.

    The document had flaws from day one, ergo the "bill of rights".
    Nice blueprint as documents go, but the blueprint ain't the house, and on the jobsite the details get sorted out.

    Creations of things like corporations, trade written licensing, and attendant quasi monopolistic outcomes, need to be addressed on the jobsite-----------keep the blueprint handy, but let it be your servant and not the other way round?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    In reference to a national retirement plan:
    "The reason the federal government “must not be encouraged to interfere” was because it lacked the constitutional authority to interfere. Not only had the States not surrendered these powers, but they did not vest the federal government with any general authority over them."

    F.D.R

    Even F.D. Roosevelt recognized the SS act was not Constitutional.


    It was only through the power of taxation, the same clause evoked by Chief Justice Roberts for Obama/Romney care, that the SS act was allowed to survive Constitutional challenges. It was bad policy during the 1930's where most people were forced to pay it's 2%+ tax rate, but usually didn't even survive that long. It's only survived by brute force raising the tax over and over, literately stealing money from young families to give to elderly who didn't plan and to many who never need the money; it still is one of the worst conceived and regressive tax systems ever devised combined with the mistaken assumption that people aren't smart enough (an anathema to the very notion of individual independence) to save for their own elderly years. It would take 20 years to unscrew the Ponzi scheme, but it should be done.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. National debt and GDP
    By Stanley514 in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 12th, 2012, 01:42 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2011, 12:20 PM
  3. Republicans are Ignorant
    By gottspieler in forum Politics
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: May 24th, 2011, 01:40 AM
  4. British Only---Vote Liberal Democrats
    By Quantime in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 04:31 PM
  5. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    By Time Master in forum In the News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 28th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •