Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Yawn... and all that drivel has what exactly to do with spending in this and future years? Oh yea, nothing. All that stuff is on Bush and the republicans, and has absolutely nothing to do with current administration spending. I get it, you hate Bush. That's fine. You just have to learn to not let it get in the way of rational analysis.
Wait... let me get this straight. The repubs have zero power. The dems have an absolute filibuster proof majority in congress, they can do whatever they want, no matter what the republicans do or don't do. And you suggest that we as a public should be demanding MORE "accountability" from the republicans? For their continued failure .... to do what exactly? They have no power to do anything.
No, the responsibility is 100% on the democrats right now. Trying to pin *anything* that happens in government right now (and probably in the next 8 years) on the repubs is plain stupid.
Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Come on lighten up, he can't help but act on emotion rather than facts.
The spending happening now is in no way the republicans fault. Obama and the Dems are passing it through so its on their hands.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
Last time I checked, you were a trolling partisan hack
Oh...and you have something dribbling out of YOUR mouth too...Why don't they have power? Because they've fucking sucked the last 30 years.
There's your need for accountability.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Actually, that choice will probably be made for us soon by the Chinese and our other foreign creditors. Once they decide to stop funding our deficits, you can kiss goodbye Social Security and those other sacred cows of domestic spending. The beast will have been completely starved and we can find out what a post-New Deal world will be like.
Oh please. Just admit that you were on a partisan rant and move on. Face it, there is absolutely no rational argument that anyone could possibly make to hold republicans accountable for anything coming out of DC over the next 8 years. None. Deflect all you like about "last 30 years" other such irrelevant nonsense, none of that changes whether they should be held accountable for current and future spending.
I posted a simple fact that continue to want to ignore: the republicans don't have enough votes in congress and they don't have the white house. They are powerless. Trying to put blame on them because they are a "wedge party" is laughable at best.
I'm no republican, I'm a fiscal consecrative, and the republicans have demonstrated their own lack of fiscal responsibility time and again. I have no illusion that the repubs would be doing anything better in the same situation (absolute control), but the fact is that the dems are in control now and are spending money at a rate never seen in the history of the world. Can't deflect blame on that one, they own it.
Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Here,
Dems in Control
Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
Now as you can see the Dems control both House and Senate. As you may or may not know, Obama is a democrat. That means they are in control.
Now did I go to fast for you? If I have not, then you can see that Dems are in control and all the spending they are doing is on their hands.
Yes, they are in control as of Franken going to Washington a month ago.
All the rest of the Republicans in here spewing lies that Dems have been in control since 2006 are FULL OF SHit and should be tried for treason and deported.
The only thing gasping for air is Republicans especially the supporters in here.
I'll give you this, you are cheap entertainment.
Thanks saving money at least in one area. :laugh: :thumbsup: :beer:
Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Yes, Dems have not been in control since 2006, but they are now. Now, a lot of the spending has been from Rs but the Ds seem as if they are TRYING to beat the Rs.
Now some of the spending is bound to be good for us in the long run, but a lot of it is pointless and won't help us.
So fucking what? What have you proved here? That everything the Dems do to help the economy, and whatever they spend on top of that, is there fault?
Did you not fucking comprehend my post? Are you that fucking dense? Ohhh, yes you are, because you're the typical "Republican" that infects the Party of Lincoln, close-minded, short-sighted fucktards.
Why are the Dems even in control right now? Because in the last 30 years the Republicans have outspent the Democrats 10:1. In the last 30 years they have become the party of small government to the party of "smaller governments than the democrats, barely". They have become the party of limited government to the party of "we are the government, we are the majority, you will conform or be cast out" in all issues, religious and non. They have become the party of "me" and the party of fear.
I am a registered Republican but haven't voted that way in my life. Why? Because there hasn't been one mother fucking Republican candidate worth the name that's presented themselves.
All we've gotten is more fiscally liberal than the liberals and neo-religo-fascists. You are the perfect example.
You want to control spending, hold Repuglicans for the disgrace they have made out of the Republican party. Vote in more than empty suit control freaks and remake the Republican party into something that can actually counter this fiscal insanity. Put trust back into the party and split it from the fascists.
Yet, people refuse to do that because they're a fucking pathetically weak fools who want to place blame on everybody but themselves. Sounds familiar, right? It's the Repuglican credo.
Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
First I am not a republican nor Democrat, I find both parties to be full of retards and they do not share the same beliefs as I.
Also, I agreed with you the republicans overspent, but does 2 wrongs make a right?
What we had was a natural economic downtime, and all this spending is just prolonging it.
Brigandier
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 4,394
- 2
- 81
Why the escalation of the national debt continues to be viewed as a partisan issue is baffling to me. The system has been around since the country's birth and up until the 1930's had largely been used to fund war efforts. The desperate times of the depression gave rise to a new school of thought, Keynesian Economics, and through FDR's New Deal was given its chance to succeed.
The basic tenet of the philosophy was that times of economic hardship the capacity for the market to produce products had not changed, it was only the demand. Since, they reasoned, it followed economic hardships were caused when demand was operating below efficiency for any number of reasons, tight credit markets an example of one such factor. The private markets, they reasoned, could not recover from downturns on their own.
Government was the logical choice for that savior party. Who, in times of tight credit, could always borrow more as they were backed not by tangible collateral, but by the entire productive capacity of a nation? The New Deal came with a flurry of spending and appeared to be gaining small successes before America was dragged into WWII. WWII ballooned the nation debt and the period following the war was marked by productive prosperity and growth. As the American economy exploded the debt, once over 100% the level of the annual GDP shrank steadily until the 1980's. Reagan helped start a ballooning of the National Debt that, with Obama following Bush's trends, has become truly bipartisan and the defining hallmark of a new American system.
I view this gamble will continue being made until, at some point, the payments made on the national debt will take a prohibitive chunk of the GDP and the tired and true methods of throwing money at economic woes will no longer work. This endpoint comes, at least logically in my mind, at a time where historically average gains in GDP are no longer sufficient to pay for the debt. The responses thereafter really don't matter. At that point the more the government tries to help, the worse things will become. The first response would be to slash any extraneous programs. Problems, once heralded as solved and dead would spring up with any ugly ferociousness. The people, dependent on a small level of aid will be the first to be cut. Eventually, those once dependent on aid will be poor enough to reapply. Their creditors will demand they raise taxes to pay the interest, and if heeded, the raised taxes will cripple an already crippled economy. The only solution is WWIII.
That, I think, is the scariest aspect and is the end point of any rational inspection of plans of this personality. They only allow people to play two sides of one game, the entire time knowing the game may be a lie that while initially fun demands too much of the players to finish. WE can certainly avoid the end of the game if we duck out at half-time, but with everyone polarized on an issue that is just dollars and cents. Bickering about whether deficit spending by cutting taxes or deficit spending by social programs is more effective at curtailing unhappy times and preventing doom. Of course one always points the finger at the other, without anyone realizing that the debt is a number, and more important than where the money goes is the simple, objective fact that it is going up at a rate that would require an untold age of economic expansion to justify and reapy the costs incurred.
Keynes' followers always were quick to point out the loans would be paid by future prosperity, but each time of prosperity, instead of paying the loan, found ways to justify further expansions of the program. I ask simply: if the time to pay is in the future, and we constantly place desires of short-term expansion ahead of long term obligations; what significance does the long run play?
I will let my opponent answer this one as he is quite clear, as wise Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."
The basic tenet of the philosophy was that times of economic hardship the capacity for the market to produce products had not changed, it was only the demand. Since, they reasoned, it followed economic hardships were caused when demand was operating below efficiency for any number of reasons, tight credit markets an example of one such factor. The private markets, they reasoned, could not recover from downturns on their own.
Government was the logical choice for that savior party. Who, in times of tight credit, could always borrow more as they were backed not by tangible collateral, but by the entire productive capacity of a nation? The New Deal came with a flurry of spending and appeared to be gaining small successes before America was dragged into WWII. WWII ballooned the nation debt and the period following the war was marked by productive prosperity and growth. As the American economy exploded the debt, once over 100% the level of the annual GDP shrank steadily until the 1980's. Reagan helped start a ballooning of the National Debt that, with Obama following Bush's trends, has become truly bipartisan and the defining hallmark of a new American system.
I view this gamble will continue being made until, at some point, the payments made on the national debt will take a prohibitive chunk of the GDP and the tired and true methods of throwing money at economic woes will no longer work. This endpoint comes, at least logically in my mind, at a time where historically average gains in GDP are no longer sufficient to pay for the debt. The responses thereafter really don't matter. At that point the more the government tries to help, the worse things will become. The first response would be to slash any extraneous programs. Problems, once heralded as solved and dead would spring up with any ugly ferociousness. The people, dependent on a small level of aid will be the first to be cut. Eventually, those once dependent on aid will be poor enough to reapply. Their creditors will demand they raise taxes to pay the interest, and if heeded, the raised taxes will cripple an already crippled economy. The only solution is WWIII.
That, I think, is the scariest aspect and is the end point of any rational inspection of plans of this personality. They only allow people to play two sides of one game, the entire time knowing the game may be a lie that while initially fun demands too much of the players to finish. WE can certainly avoid the end of the game if we duck out at half-time, but with everyone polarized on an issue that is just dollars and cents. Bickering about whether deficit spending by cutting taxes or deficit spending by social programs is more effective at curtailing unhappy times and preventing doom. Of course one always points the finger at the other, without anyone realizing that the debt is a number, and more important than where the money goes is the simple, objective fact that it is going up at a rate that would require an untold age of economic expansion to justify and reapy the costs incurred.
Keynes' followers always were quick to point out the loans would be paid by future prosperity, but each time of prosperity, instead of paying the loan, found ways to justify further expansions of the program. I ask simply: if the time to pay is in the future, and we constantly place desires of short-term expansion ahead of long term obligations; what significance does the long run play?
I will let my opponent answer this one as he is quite clear, as wise Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."
Since I haven't seen anyone address them from a purely economical view in this thread, I'll provide my take on it.
First off, the debt numbers he provided do not seem to account for inflation or he simply fails to provide any numbers on it.
Secondly, global inflation will rise as a by-product of worldwide global bailouts, effectivly cancelling out a large portion of the debt in the long run.
Last, China is only able to appear as strong as they are due to tight government control of the currency, fixing of the exchange rates, and massive communist work projects / labor camps (that are providing free labor while pulling out portions of the population who now no longer need jobs) / internal money floats.
The economy of the world is a tide, and right now the tide is rising and coming in. You can either scream at the ocean and try to build sandbags to keep it out or you pump injections of money in to keep it at a competitive rate until you can rebuild damaged portions of your economy on higher ground.
This is simple economics blended with common sense.
First off, the debt numbers he provided do not seem to account for inflation or he simply fails to provide any numbers on it.
Secondly, global inflation will rise as a by-product of worldwide global bailouts, effectivly cancelling out a large portion of the debt in the long run.
Last, China is only able to appear as strong as they are due to tight government control of the currency, fixing of the exchange rates, and massive communist work projects / labor camps (that are providing free labor while pulling out portions of the population who now no longer need jobs) / internal money floats.
The economy of the world is a tide, and right now the tide is rising and coming in. You can either scream at the ocean and try to build sandbags to keep it out or you pump injections of money in to keep it at a competitive rate until you can rebuild damaged portions of your economy on higher ground.
This is simple economics blended with common sense.
Brigandier
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 4,394
- 2
- 81
Global inflation would help the debt seem to be smaller in nominal terms, and repayment during this period would be beneficial. You are assuming that the banks of the world would allow the level of inflation necessary to trivialize an ever growing debt.
China, can be viewed either of two ways. If you are a capitalist, China is a timebomb waiting to explode. The stratification of wealth must have some toll on the people and eventually should crumble. Another way to look at it is that the rigid control exerted by the government on the economy is not entirely different than the end result of Keynesian policies. The communist principles demanded the government take total care of its citizens, but in seeming contrast to those ideals China has given control back to the people and is enjoying a period of economic growth. The politicians in America, however, were borne of a free legacy, and each time they levy some new control on America it isn't because they wanted to, but because they needed to.
Communist China, borne with obligation of control in order to protect, found the path of prosperity on a path that ends at capitalism and America, the symbol of capitalism the world round, is chasing prosperity down an ever-narrowing road of controls. At the end, in their eyes, we're all dead. When America finally reaches the end of its long run, struggling against the confines of the box,labeled "happiness" by its government manufacturer, will they understand that the people, denounced as loonies, crying both crazy and sane warnings may have been paranoid but the problem wasn't there was nothing to fear, that they only feared it too much.
The length of time necessary for this process extends past this generation, but that does not nullify the responsibility of those that see signs of warning to shout it out in the face of ridicule and oppression. If those timid spirits are frightened of the collective opinion they need only remember that at one time, those calling for this thing called America were deemed just as crazy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter