Chatham County Online BBS
April 24, 2014, 10:52:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: We've got local links galore! Check out the Chatham Links
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 17   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Number of Days Without the Apocalypse (caused by Democrats)  (Read 12536 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #90 on: November 19, 2012, 07:10:12 PM »

Quote
I'll match you character for character any time.


That doesn't even make a d%%n bit of sense.



I believe he challenged you to a typing contest or something.

Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 03:50:52 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 2885



« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2012, 07:14:16 PM »

Quote
I'll match you character for character any time.


That doesn't even make a d%%n bit of sense.



I believe he challenged you to a typing contest or something.




 Grin
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
cccoach
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 05, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
Date Registerd:July 08, 2007, 06:30:46 PM
Posts: 1377


« Reply #92 on: November 19, 2012, 07:35:54 PM »


Quote
That is fine, but please note that I made a thread specifically for it and I already put some information out there about the numbers.  Basically, I did half your homework for you, not to mention the fact that you were first asked on November 9th and now it is November 19th, so for ten days you've had plenty of time to come up with something.  So your ohmygoshgivemesometime is a bit hollow.  It is worth the wait though if you'll actually participate.

I am trying to balance my time with family and holidays. I'm sorry if lengthy posts are not my #1 priority

Quote
1. The entire cost of WWII for the U.S. was about 350 billion.  187.5 billion of that came from the American people in the form of war bonds.  It was patriotic duty to buy those, and some of them were never redeemed.  The bonds we are selling now are bought primarily by foreign interests.  That means that our domestic banks and the average Joe doesn't not hold sway over the bond market as they did in WWII.  Today, that is outside interests.
2. The other difference was that WWII ended.  We are resorting to bond sales to keep us operating.  Even if you ended the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would still be running a deficit.
3. We had significant advantages over Europe from an economic standpoint.  For one thing, our factories weren't bombed to hell and back.  We did not have the cost of labor disparity we have now when it comes to competitors like China, India, Malaysia, Eastern Europe, Russia, Taiwan, etc.  

1. If we are going to compare apples let's be clear, the national debt in 1945 was $3.3 trillion adjusted for inflation, significantly higher than the current debt (although projections show us approaching this level in the next decade), particularly when compared to GDP (7.4%)  While it is nice that bonds were purchased by the average Joe, it doesn't fundamentally change the nature of a bond, a bond purchased by China is no more ownership of the United State than the average Joe.  It's also important to note that less than 1% of war bonds were unredeemed. The simple fact is that debt is debt.
2. Another noteworthy difference? People in 1950 paid higher tax rates than now. If you would argue that we should follow that 1940s example would you also argue that we should increase our tax rates? (In fairness, 1950 also had smaller government.)
3. We still have significant advantages. Primarily we do not have a population that is aging at the same rate as China and several of the other listed countries. They may be tigers now but they have their own fiscal cliffs that are approaching that are going tot work to our advantage.

Quote
You're right, it kinda did.  Except for closing the tax loopholes.  Conservatives really raked Reagan over the coals for doing that during his time in office, and I'm sure the top 1% was suspicious of Romney when he said that.  

Then if that is the case do you support Obama because he had lower tax rates than Reagan?  

Quote
I disagree with you here.  Worrying about social policy to the extent we need to be concerned about economics is not something we can afford to do right now.  That is not to say that social policy isn't important.  It is.  But whether or not contraception is being included in healthcare plans isn't as important as figuring out how to keep this system from collapsing around our ears.  And yes, the contraception issue was of utmost importance to many voters when they went to the polls.  The Obama Administration and the Democrats successfully managed to make this election about social issues more than it probably should have been.  They did it with the help of Republican idiots like Akin, Walsh, Mourdock, and King.  Republicans need to clean house and because of their refusal to do so, they allowed it to be about something other than the economy.  

Then we must agree to disagree. While Republican voters run around lamenting that "we don't get" it, I would beg to differ. I think that social policy is equally important to budget policy. I think contraception being included in healthcare programs IS a primary voting issue for me. I agree with you about the election revolving around social issues, but that doesn't mean that aren't equally important. I would also offer that had the Republican party had said, "sc$$w it, you can marry a goat" or "You know, what it - it aint my body, do what you want - but let's fix the economy" they would have won the election. Instead they chose to run on social issues, I would even argue they lost on social issues, but this is a fight they chose. I think we are in agreement in that regard. If Republicans would clean house and run on their fiscal platform instead of their social platform I would be more than willing to vote for them. Sadly, they seem more focused on who is marrying who.  

Quote
You seem to favor big government so I find your comment here confusing.

To the contrary. This depends on perspective. I think big government is a government that tells you who you can marry. Big government tells a woman what she can do with her body. Big government favors a religion. We can argue about whether Democrats favor bigger institutional government, but I think we can just as easily argue that Republicans currently favor bigger social government.  So - in that regard I think your vote for Romney actually supports bigger government - just in a different way.

Quote
I'm sorry, but the part about the ARRA is not correct.  That was an Obama maneuver, not a Republican one.  The blame/credit for the bank bailouts rests with the Republicans.  I think it is a good start that you acknowledge the prospect of a second great depression.  Please think about this concept for a moment: You believe it is logical to assume that we would have had another depression.  Yet, you think it is illogical for people to be concerned that our actions in late 2008 and 2009 merely rescheduled a depression.  What I believe is that the weight of that fiscal crisis was more than we could bear, and so we've pushed the inevitable out into the future.  But the bad debt that existed at the banking institutions simply got changed into bad debt that the government now holds.  It didn't get paid off.  It is still there.

But you scoff at those that are worried that it is going to eventually catch up with us?  I'm sorry cccoach, but our concerns are valid, and if you could just take your politics out of the equation I think you'd see it too.  After all, you saw it the first time.  Why can't you see it now?

I do not believe I even mentioned ARRA. I would argue that everything leading up to ARRA was in fact, part of the bailout. You admit yourself that the bank bailouts rest squarely on the Republicans - and yet, are condescending towards the Democrats for ARRA when both contributed to national debt? Once again, we will have to agree to disagree about a second great depression. I believe that we have averted a second great depression, which is what we would have had without ARRA, automotive bailouts and bank bailouts. It is impossible to prove or disprove this but the CBO numbers would indicate that ARRA had a significant impact on the economy in a positive manner. Was it worth it?  I don't know - but hindsight is always 20 / 20 isn't it.  Once again, time will tell whether we've rescheduled a second great depression. I do think we will deal with an extended recession but I also believe that an extended recession is a better alternative than and extended great depression.

I'm not scoffing at economic concerns. I'm scoffing at the notion that an Obama presidency is any more detrimental than a  Romney presidency. I would argue that they are pretty dang close to the same thing and it wouldn't have taken much for Romney to have been president, he just did a poor job of picking his battles.

I would also argue that you are scoffing at voters that chose Obama as their presidential candidate. I did not want "freebies" Heck, my vote for Obama guarantees me a higher tax rate. My vote for Obama was centered on social policy and fiscal policy. I simply could not discern enough of a difference between Obama and Romney in fiscal policy to make the difference. I would also offer that a primary consideration for me in choosing a president revolved around Supreme Court justices. I believe we have the potential for 2 supreme court justices vacancies. I believe Obama is far more likely to pick secular supreme court justices, an important factor for me.

Finally, I respect your choice of Romney. I think he was a good man that did not clearly articulate his argument. I wish he had not needed to swing so hard to the right to cement his base. But that decision alienated me - and frankly it alienated enough people that he lost.  Give me a fiscally conservative Republican that can keep his church out of government and I'm onboard, otherwise i suspect that Republicans will continue to suffer losses.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 07:37:50 PM by cccoach, Reason: Tone was poor towards PI » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #93 on: November 19, 2012, 08:18:02 PM »


Quote
That is fine, but please note that I made a thread specifically for it and I already put some information out there about the numbers.  Basically, I did half your homework for you, not to mention the fact that you were first asked on November 9th and now it is November 19th, so for ten days you've had plenty of time to come up with something.  So your ohmygoshgivemesometime is a bit hollow.  It is worth the wait though if you'll actually participate.

I am trying to balance my time with family and holidays. I'm sorry if lengthy posts are not my #1 priority

Quote
1. The entire cost of WWII for the U.S. was about 350 billion.  187.5 billion of that came from the American people in the form of war bonds.  It was patriotic duty to buy those, and some of them were never redeemed.  The bonds we are selling now are bought primarily by foreign interests.  That means that our domestic banks and the average Joe doesn't not hold sway over the bond market as they did in WWII.  Today, that is outside interests.
2. The other difference was that WWII ended.  We are resorting to bond sales to keep us operating.  Even if you ended the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would still be running a deficit.
3. We had significant advantages over Europe from an economic standpoint.  For one thing, our factories weren't bombed to hell and back.  We did not have the cost of labor disparity we have now when it comes to competitors like China, India, Malaysia, Eastern Europe, Russia, Taiwan, etc.  

1. If we are going to compare apples let's be clear, the national debt in 1945 was $3.3 trillion adjusted for inflation, significantly higher than the current debt (although projections show us approaching this level in the next decade), particularly when compared to GDP (7.4%)  While it is nice that bonds were purchased by the average Joe, it doesn't fundamentally change the nature of a bond, a bond purchased by China is no more ownership of the United State than the average Joe.  It's also important to note that less than 1% of war bonds were unredeemed. The simple fact is that debt is debt.

It doesn't change the nature of the bond, but it does change the nature of the buyer, which is the point I was actually making.  An entity that makes a large percentage of bond purchases can also opt out of those bond purchases.  A buyer like China can greatly affect us meeting our obligations if they decide to direct their buying agencies to work in concert.  I understand that debt is debt, but the motivations of the entities you own the money to really matters.

2. Another noteworthy difference? People in 1950 paid higher tax rates than now. If you would argue that we should follow that 1940s example would you also argue that we should increase our tax rates? (In fairness, 1950 also had smaller government.)

I think you are making the same mistake as Paul Krugman, which is to make the argument that higher tax rates contribute to economic growth.  The economy in that period, for reasons I already stated, was destined to grow because of our advantages.  Taxation did not affect growth in spite of the rate.  And if you noticed, the tax rate began to decline sharply, thanks in part of JFK.

3. We still have significant advantages. Primarily we do not have a population that is aging at the same rate as China and several of the other listed countries. They may be tigers now but they have their own fiscal cliffs that are approaching that are going tot work to our advantage.

Their fiscal cliffs are actually our fiscal cliffs.  What I'm talking about is a labor cost comparison.  We have advantages in some areas but not in some key areas.  If I have to start from the beginning to explain to you the differences between the competitive advantages we had in the 1950's and the ones we have today, then it is an absolute waste of time to have this discussion with you.  I'm sorry if I seem a bit frustrated but if you know so much about histroy, it should not be necessary to explain the difference to you.

Quote
You're right, it kinda did.  Except for closing the tax loopholes.  Conservatives really raked Reagan over the coals for doing that during his time in office, and I'm sure the top 1% was suspicious of Romney when he said that.  

Then if that is the case do you support Obama because he had lower tax rates than Reagan?  

What sort of strange argument is this?  I was pointing out that some of the policies Romney supporter weren't necessarily in lock step with what the top 1% wanted.  You're trying to go tit for tat or something and I assure you that to do so would not yield the victory you imagine.  Let's not do that.  Instead, let's try to keep the main thing the main thing.

Quote
I disagree with you here.  Worrying about social policy to the extent we need to be concerned about economics is not something we can afford to do right now.  That is not to say that social policy isn't important.  It is.  But whether or not contraception is being included in healthcare plans isn't as important as figuring out how to keep this system from collapsing around our ears.  And yes, the contraception issue was of utmost importance to many voters when they went to the polls.  The Obama Administration and the Democrats successfully managed to make this election about social issues more than it probably should have been.  They did it with the help of Republican idiots like Akin, Walsh, Mourdock, and King.  Republicans need to clean house and because of their refusal to do so, they allowed it to be about something other than the economy.  

Then we must agree to disagree. While Republican voters run around lamenting that "we don't get" it, I would beg to differ. I think that social policy is equally important to budget policy.

Then yes, we must agree to disagree.  If you are starving to death, social issues are not at the top of the list.  What it comes down to is the severity of the economic issues we face.  You're a social issues voter, which you've made clear.  That's why I really find it hard to take you seriously when you say you would vote for a fiscal conservative.  Even if a conservative candidate made no attempt whatsoever to campaign on social issues, you'd probably find some wedge issue that you just couldn't live with and that would be reason enough to vote Democrat.  Let's just be honest here cccoach.  You'll more than likely find some kind of reason not to vote for the fiscal person.  Fiscal policy and social policy are so entwined I think it would be nearly impossible to separate them.  Romney didn't run on social issues.  The Democrats successfully made the election about social issues.  Romney let the Democrats/Obama control the issues and that was his undoing.  It would also have helped if he hadn't been a Mormon, as many evangelicals stayed home.  I can't imagine what they were thinking but who knows?

I think contraception being included in healthcare programs IS a primary voting issue for me.

And this is exactly why a fiscal conservative will never get your vote.

I agree with you about the election revolving around social issues, but that doesn't mean that aren't equally important. I would also offer that had the Republican party had said, "sc$$w it, you can marry a goat" or "You know, what it - it aint my body, do what you want - but let's fix the economy" they would have won the election. Instead they chose to run on social issues, I would even argue they lost on social issues, but this is a fight they chose. I think we are in agreement in that regard. If Republicans would clean house and run on their fiscal platform instead of their social platform I would be more than willing to vote for them. Sadly, they seem more focused on who is marrying who.  

No, I'm sorry but I don't quite buy that.  You are more worried about who is marrying who.  You've already said those are primary voting issues for you.  If they are on equal footing as the economy, there will always be more social issues that drive you to vote for a Democrat.  For what it is worth, I'm frustrated with the state level Repubs for worrying about who is calling what marriage.  But that shouldn't have been the primary issue in this election, in my opinion.  

Quote
You seem to favor big government so I find your comment here confusing.

To the contrary. This depends on perspective. I think big government is a government that tells you who you can marry. Big government tells a woman what she can do with her body. Big government favors a religion. We can argue about whether Democrats favor bigger institutional government, but I think we can just as easily argue that Republicans currently favor bigger social government.  So - in that regard I think your vote for Romney actually supports bigger government - just in a different way.

You favor big government of a certain flavor.  And you're right, my vote was never able to be cast in support of smaller government because the only candidate that was actually for smaller government was Paul Ryan.  Even that is kind of debatable.  What I would like is for a candidate who is actually for smaller government across the board, but other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, there's not one.  But the reality is they never had a chance and so I had the dilemma of picking a poison.

Quote
I'm sorry, but the part about the ARRA is not correct.  That was an Obama maneuver, not a Republican one.  The blame/credit for the bank bailouts rests with the Republicans.  I think it is a good start that you acknowledge the prospect of a second great depression.  Please think about this concept for a moment: You believe it is logical to assume that we would have had another depression.  Yet, you think it is illogical for people to be concerned that our actions in late 2008 and 2009 merely rescheduled a depression.  What I believe is that the weight of that fiscal crisis was more than we could bear, and so we've pushed the inevitable out into the future.  But the bad debt that existed at the banking institutions simply got changed into bad debt that the government now holds.  It didn't get paid off.  It is still there.

But you scoff at those that are worried that it is going to eventually catch up with us?  I'm sorry cccoach, but our concerns are valid, and if you could just take your politics out of the equation I think you'd see it too.  After all, you saw it the first time.  Why can't you see it now?

I do not believe I even mentioned ARRA. I would argue that everything leading up to ARRA was in fact, part of the bailout. You admit yourself that the bank bailouts rest squarely on the Republicans - and yet, are condescending towards the Democrats for ARRA when both contributed to national debt?

Sorry you find me condescending.  I find you quite rude actually.  But aside from that, I have REPEATEDLY said that both sides share the blame.  If you had only taken some time to actually read what I've written, you wouldn't have said that.  But obviously, you haven't.  I've done it at least two dozen times.  Really cccoach, if you're going to debate with someone, please make an honest attempt to understand their position first.  That starts with reading what they post.  


Once again, we will have to agree to disagree about a second great depression. I believe that we have averted a second great depression, which is what we would have had without ARRA, automotive bailouts and bank bailouts. It is impossible to prove or disprove this but the CBO numbers would indicate that ARRA had a significant impact on the economy in a positive manner. Was it worth it?  I don't know - but hindsight is always 20 / 20 isn't it.  Once again, time will tell whether we've rescheduled a second great depression. I do think we will deal with an extended recession but I also believe that an extended recession is a better alternative than and extended great depression.

You're not giving any reason as to why we've somehow managed to eliminate the possibility of a great depression.  I guess time will tell, but if it happens cccoach, I guess you'll have the comfort of knowing that you'll never have to admit you're wrong.  If things get as bad as I think they might, we'll have much more pressing concerns than debating it on a message board.  You might console yourself with the thought that you weren't the only one that missed it.  But remember that you didn't miss it.  We told you it was coming.  You just chose to ignore it.

I'm not scoffing at economic concerns. I'm scoffing at the notion that an Obama presidency is any more detrimental than a  Romney presidency. I would argue that they are pretty dang close to the same thing and it wouldn't have taken much for Romney to have been president, he just did a poor job of picking his battles.

I'm sorry but it sure seems like you're gloating, which is find I guess.  I just asked you to explain why you have so much confidence in a recovery using actual data to backup your assertion.  If you can't do that, then your optimism is laudable but possibly unwarranted.

I would also argue that you are scoffing at voters that chose Obama as their presidential candidate. I did not want "freebies" Heck, my vote for Obama guarantees me a higher tax rate. My vote for Obama was centered on social policy and fiscal policy.

I'm not trying to scoff at anyone.  I think you're a bit frustrated because I've put you on the spot to provide some sort of basis for your opinions.  Are you not scoffing at people who have valid economic concerns?  Hell yes you are.  As far as voting for Obama on "fiscal policy", I have to wonder if you typed thinking about tax increases and reduced military spending?  

I simply could not discern enough of a difference between Obama and Romney in fiscal policy to make the difference. I would also offer that a primary consideration for me in choosing a president revolved around Supreme Court justices. I believe we have the potential for 2 supreme court justices vacancies. I believe Obama is far more likely to pick secular supreme court justices, an important factor for me.

Again with the social issues.  I guess I see where you're coming from now.  You figure there's no difference between the two, but I have to disagree.  We know what Obama has done in office with respect to spending.  I've got no reason to believe that he actually intends to reduce entitlement spending.  Maybe Mitt's policies would have been a wash from a fiscal perspective, but there's also a chance that he could have done some good things with regard to the economy.  We'll never know at this point.


Finally, I respect your choice of Romney. I think he was a good man that did not clearly articulate his argument. I wish he had not needed to swing so hard to the right to cement his base. But that decision alienated me - and frankly it alienated enough people that he lost.  Give me a fiscally conservative Republican that can keep his church out of government and I'm onboard, otherwise i suspect that Republicans will continue to suffer losses.


No, I really doubt you would be onboard.  Everything else you're saying is at odds with that claim.  I also don't think Romney swung hard to the right.  Romney was anything but a hard right candidate.  

What you're looking for is a Libertarian like Gary Johnson.  I can save you the trouble cccoach, because I've already done this exercise myself and know where it leads.  You are not going to find what you describe in the Republican party.  Their platform is not compatible with small government.  But neither is the Democrat platform.  The only difference between you and a conservative is the flavor of control you want the government to have.

That makes you and I fundamentally different.  I'm also different from a slew of right wing posters on here who want the opposite of what you want.  But that's ok, I think I can live with that.  =)

« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 08:23:35 PM by Pi » Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
cccoach
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 05, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
Date Registerd:July 08, 2007, 06:30:46 PM
Posts: 1377


« Reply #94 on: November 19, 2012, 10:28:15 PM »

Quote
A buyer like China can greatly affect us meeting our obligations if they decide to direct their buying agencies to work in concert.  I understand that debt is debt, but the motivations of the entities you own the money to really matters.

Name one consequence of a foreign entity owning the bond.  They cannot change the terms of the bond. They cannot recall the bond. And even if they could do so, what would be the motivation? It would only result in us defaulting on the bond and them losing equity in the bond.

Quote
I think you are making the same mistake as Paul Krugman, which is to make the argument that higher tax rates contribute to economic growth.  The economy in that period, for reasons I already stated, was destined to grow because of our advantages.  Taxation did not affect growth in spite of the rate.  And if you noticed, the tax rate began to decline sharply, thanks in part of JFK.

I would argue that higher taxes do not necessarily lead to slower economic growth. We would disagree that the economy was "destined" to do anything, it suggest predestiny which implies that factors beyond our control made the economy grow. The simple fact is that some our greatest economic growth has occurred during times of higher taxation. Correlation or Causation? I don't know, but to argue that economic growth cannot occur during times of higher taxation is historically inaccurate.

Quote
Their fiscal cliffs are actually our fiscal cliffs.  What I'm talking about is a labor cost comparison.  We have advantages in some areas but not in some key areas.  If I have to start from the beginning to explain to you the differences between the competitive advantages we had in the 1950's and the ones we have today, then it is an absolute waste of time to have this discussion with you.  I'm sorry if I seem a bit frustrated but if you know so much about histroy, it should not be necessary to explain the difference to you.

Then we are in the same boat. We have had some advantages in the past, but we have several advantages in the present and near future. Unlike China and nearly all of Europe we have a younger population. We still have the economic advantage of being a large, wealthy nation. We also have the advantage of China and India's rapidly growing middle class. With that growth comes a population that demands greater wages While our labor problems are difficult, China's are potentially disastrous. I'm sorry you think this aspect of the discussion is a waste of time, but please remember I didn't see any point in having this discussion to begin with. You are the one that insisted I participate in a discussion of economics, one I hesitated to engage in for this very reason.

Quote
What sort of strange argument is this?  I was pointing out that some of the policies Romney supporter weren't necessarily in lock step with what the top 1% wanted.  You're trying to go tit for tat or something and I assure you that to do so would not yield the victory you imagine.  Let's not do that.  Instead, let's try to keep the main thing the main thing

I do not anticipate that this discussion is going to yield a victory for either side. I said at the beginning of the discussion that we weren't going to end up agreeing. The best I can hope for is that we will understand each other a bit better, but I have my opinions and you have yours. Viva la difference.

Quote
If you are starving to death, social issues are not at the top of the list.  What it comes down to is the severity of the economic issues we face.  You're a social issues voter, which you've made clear.  That's why I really find it hard to take you seriously when you say you would vote for a fiscal conservative.  Even if a conservative candidate made no attempt whatsoever to campaign on social issues, you'd probably find some wedge issue that you just couldn't live with and that would be reason enough to vote Democrat.  Let's just be honest here cccoach.  You'll more than likely find some kind of reason not to vote for the fiscal person.  Fiscal policy and social policy are so entwined I think it would be nearly impossible to separate them.  Romney didn't run on social issues.  The Democrats successfully made the election about social issues.  Romney let the Democrats/Obama control the issues and that was his undoing.  It would also have helped if he hadn't been a Mormon, as many evangelicals stayed home.  I can't imagine what they were thinking but who knows?

I'm not even sure what to say. You seem to have me figured out, so why are you curious or surprised? I'm extremely fiscally conservative in my private life, I don't anyone a dime and my wife and I have saved a great deal of our earnings so why wouldn't I expect the same from my government? On the flip side, as a student of history I also believe that social issues are extremely important. You keep discussing how great the 1950s were but that is a partial truth. The 1950s were not great periods of times for women, minorities, homosexuals, etc. etc.  Essentially the 1950s were a great time if you were a health Anglo male. So yes, social issues are important to me. I understand that they are less important to you in the context of the economy but evidently that is not the case for all of us. I would also argue that the Republicans defined the election primarily as a social issue starting with the Republican primaries, a hand that Romney won and then was forced to deal with. I believe there was no valid reason the Democrats should have won but somehow, the Republican party found a way.

Quote
No, I'm sorry but I don't quite buy that.  You are more worried about who is marrying who.  You've already said those are primary voting issues for you.  If they are on equal footing as the economy, there will always be more social issues that drive you to vote for a Democrat.  For what it is worth, I'm frustrated with the state level Repubs for worrying about who is calling what marriage.  But that shouldn't have been the primary issue in this election, in my opinion.  

Well....... That is why we have opinions I guess.

Quote
You favor big government of a certain flavor.  And you're right, my vote was never able to be cast in support of smaller government because the only candidate that was actually for smaller government was Paul Ryan.  Even that is kind of debatable.  What I would like is for a candidate who is actually for smaller government across the board, but other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, there's not one.  But the reality is they never had a chance and so I had the dilemma of picking a poison.

We both picked a poison. I liked Gary Johnson but couldn't see a chance in hell for him winning. Maybe that is a failure on my part.

Quote
Sorry you find me condescending.  I find you quite rude actually.  But aside from that, I have REPEATEDLY said that both sides share the blame.  If you had only taken some time to actually read what I've written, you wouldn't have said that.  But obviously, you haven't.  I've done it at least two dozen times.  Really cccoach, if you're going to debate with someone, please make an honest attempt to understand their position first.  That starts with reading what they post.  

Once again I'm not sure how to respond. I've read your posts multiple times and find them thoughtful even when I disagree with them. I will also tell you, this is not a debate. I understand your position. We simply have different opinions. Just because I don't agree with doesn't make you wrong, nor does it make you right. It simply makes us two opinions in a sea of representative democracy.

Quote
You're not giving any reason as to why we've somehow managed to eliminate the possibility of a great depression.  I guess time will tell, but if it happens cccoach, I guess you'll have the comfort of knowing that you'll never have to admit you're wrong.  If things get as bad as I think they might, we'll have much more pressing concerns than debating it on a message board.  You might console yourself with the thought that you weren't the only one that missed it.  But remember that you didn't miss it.  We told you it was coming.  You just chose to ignore it.

I haven't eliminated the possibility of a great depression anymore than I've eliminated the possibility of being hit by a tornado. I simply think the chances are greatly diminished. I'm not sure what you believed I would have missed? I was reading over 1911A's 100 list and with only a few rare exceptions I'm about as disaster prepared as a person can be. I don't think good preparation is just for Democrats or Republicans - it's just a good idea.

Quote
I'm not trying to scoff at anyone.  I think you're a bit frustrated because I've put you on the spot to provide some sort of basis for your opinions.  Are you not scoffing at people who have valid economic concerns?  Hell yes you are.  As far as voting for Obama on "fiscal policy", I have to wonder if you typed thinking about tax increases and reduced military spending?  

Once again, I don't think we can talk about sound fiscal policy without talking about tax increases and decreased military spending.

Quote
Again with the social issues.  I guess I see where you're coming from now.  You figure there's no difference between the two, but I have to disagree.  We know what Obama has done in office with respect to spending.  I've got no reason to believe that he actually intends to reduce entitlement spending.  Maybe Mitt's policies would have been a wash from a fiscal perspective, but there's also a chance that he could have done some good things with regard to the economy.  We'll never know at this point.

There is also a chance Romney would have followed through with some of his social policies. But as you said, we'll never know at this point.

Quote
No, I really doubt you would be onboard.  Everything else you're saying is at odds with that claim.  I also don't think Romney swung hard to the right.  Romney was anything but a hard right candidate.  

What you're looking for is a Libertarian like Gary Johnson.  I can save you the trouble cccoach, because I've already done this exercise myself and know where it leads.  You are not going to find what you describe in the Republican party.  Their platform is not compatible with small government.  But neither is the Democrat platform.  The only difference between you and a conservative is the flavor of control you want the government to have.

That makes you and I fundamentally different.  I'm also different from a slew of right wing posters on here who want the opposite of what you want.  But that's ok, I think I can live with that.  =)

Perhaps you are right, but as I've said, it wouldn't have taken me a great deal to have voted for Romney. It would not have been the first time I've voted for a Republican presidential candidate and I'm guessing it won't be the last. At the inception of this conversation you had mentioned wanting to understand why people voted for Obama. The best I can offer you is my reason, I'm not trying to convince you because understandably, you have your own reasons.

Finally, thank you for the conversation. I've stayed away from the board at times simply because it turns into an exchange of one liners. We may not agree but I do appreciate the perspective.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 10:55:57 PM by cccoach, Reason: I use the word \"well\" too much and can\'t spell for s@@t » Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 09:57:23 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7457


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #95 on: November 19, 2012, 11:47:47 PM »

Name one consequence of a foreign entity owning the bond.  They cannot change the terms of the bond.

Cannot?  You seem to believe there are still rules about this stuff.  There aren't.

Quote
The simple fact is that some our greatest economic growth has occurred during times of higher taxation.

But not as a result of the higher taxation; in spite of it.  What do you not get about wealth creation, coach?  The government doesn't create any; swiping money from the economy via taxation reduces the ability to create more wealth by and in the private sector.

Quote
We still have the economic advantage of being a large, wealthy nation.

Large, yes.  Wealthy, NO.  That's what Pi's been trying to tell you, and I.  Unless you count the wealth in private hands, but that's not "we" and not a pot ready to be mulcted because the government has no spending discipline.

Quote
I would also argue that the Republicans defined the election primarily as a social issue starting with the Republican primaries, a hand that Romney won and then was forced to deal with.

Wrong.  Pi's right on this; the Democrats defined it as an issue, beginning with Stephanopoulous' question, early on and out of the blue, asking Romney about his view of the future legality of contraception control.  Baffled everybody that question, except the Dems who knew the Republicans were being set up, right then.  There was and is no interest in "birth control" as an issue per se, just that people should pay for their own, and, period.  That the Republicans didn't get a firm handle on how to deal with the hand dealt them by Left was the problem that allowed them to be painted as "wanting to drag us all back to the '50s".  Shame on the Left.

Quote
I was reading over 1911A's 100 list ....

It's not "1911A's 100 list"; I just brought it here for folks to consider.

Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2012, 01:46:27 AM »

Name one consequence of a foreign entity owning the bond.  They cannot change the terms of the bond. They cannot recall the bond. And even if they could do so, what would be the motivation? It would only result in us defaulting on the bond and them losing equity in the bond.

The bond market has only one way that it could destabilize.  And that is if the buyers change their buying habits.  If you don't think the Chinese leverage their bond buying position when it comes to trade negotiations, then I have some real estate investments for you.  Also, when individuals buy bonds, the buy decision is spread out over many actors.  If China decides not to buy bonds, or even to buy less of them, then that is a huge portion of the market that won't show up to buy our stuff.

You might ask how the Chinese could divest themselves of bonds they already purchased.  I think that is less of a threat than for them to change course and buy bonds from Europe or somewhere else.  If you recall the nuclear policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction", I'm sure you'll remember that is isn't a good strategy after all.  The same goes for that policy when it comes to economics.  The bond market is a lot more stable when it is further stratified.  If you start getting down to a few major players, it means less stability.

I would argue that higher taxes do not necessarily lead to slower economic growth. We would disagree that the economy was "destined" to do anything, it suggest predestiny which implies that factors beyond our control made the economy grow. The simple fact is that some our greatest economic growth has occurred during times of higher taxation. Correlation or Causation? I don't know, but to argue that economic growth cannot occur during times of higher taxation is historically inaccurate.

It isn't causation.  I'm not arguing that growth can't occur.  If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that high taxes are not a contributing factor to growth. Don't believe me?  Just wait and see.  We are already starting to feel the effects of higher taxation with the bump in capital gains and the healthcare bill.  Wait until the rest of the taxes go up next year.  I'll post the evidence right here on this board, and I'll be sure to save this post just so I can refer back to it later.

Then we are in the same boat. We have had some advantages in the past, but we have several advantages in the present and near future. Unlike China and nearly all of Europe we have a younger population. We still have the economic advantage of being a large, wealthy nation. We also have the advantage of China and India's rapidly growing middle class. With that growth comes a population that demands greater wages While our labor problems are difficult, China's are potentially disastrous. I'm sorry you think this aspect of the discussion is a waste of time, but please remember I didn't see any point in having this discussion to begin with. You are the one that insisted I participate in a discussion of economics, one I hesitated to engage in for this very reason.

You hesitated I think because your gloating got you into a discussion you weren't really prepared to have.  If you can't see the difference between the advantages we had in the 1950's over the ones we have today, then I don't know what to say.  If you would have read one of my other threads, you would have seen what China does to suppress wages.  They do it by buying bonds, ironically enough.  What is apparent to me is that economics isn't your strong suit and perhaps it was wrong of me to expect you to know what you are talking about.

I'm not even sure what to say. You seem to have me figured out, so why are you curious or surprised? I'm extremely fiscally conservative in my private life, I don't anyone a dime and my wife and I have saved a great deal of our earnings so why wouldn't I expect the same from my government? On the flip side, as a student of history I also believe that social issues are extremely important. You keep discussing how great the 1950s were but that is a partial truth. The 1950s were not great periods of times for women, minorities, homosexuals, etc. etc.  Essentially the 1950s were a great time if you were a health Anglo male. So yes, social issues are important to me. I understand that they are less important to you in the context of the economy but evidently that is not the case for all of us. I would also argue that the Republicans defined the election primarily as a social issue starting with the Republican primaries, a hand that Romney won and then was forced to deal with. I believe there was no valid reason the Democrats should have won but somehow, the Republican party found a way.

No, you have constructed a straw man and I really don't appreciate it.  If you want to know why I'm being a bit less polite in my response here, look no further than what you said above.  It is aggravating that you would pretend that I'm saying something I'm not.  What I said about the 1950's was that:

1. We had a competitive advantage that was unprecedented and has not been matched, even remotely, since.
2. The growth was in spite of the high tax rate, not because of it.

Those points were made only because you said that since we came out of our debt after WWII, we have every reason to believe we can do it now.  I was explaining to you that the two are apples and oranges, and that we no longer enjoy that kind of advantage.  I was not pronouncing the 1950's to be the best of all times in all aspects.  Unless you're talking about the budgetary impact of the Great Society/entitlement programs, then what you say there is not really relevant.  You're taking a discussion that is supposed to be based on the data and trying to cloud it with a moral discussion.  That's not an honest way of doing business.

Once again I'm not sure how to respond. I've read your posts multiple times and find them thoughtful even when I disagree with them. I will also tell you, this is not a debate. I understand your position. We simply have different opinions. Just because I don't agree with doesn't make you wrong, nor does it make you right. It simply makes us two opinions in a sea of representative democracy.

I am sorry to say that I have read your posts and given them the time and consideration they deserve.  But I have found them wanting with respect to actual detail based on data.  Instead, what I've gotten are vague pronouncements that you felt you needed to justify gloating.  Opinions are cheap, cccoach.  Well constructed arguments are expensive with respect to time and effort.  I can see exactly what this conversation has been worth to you based upon what you have (or more to the point have not) put in it.

It would have been much easier for everyone involved if you'd have simply admitted up front that you have no earthly idea how to back up your arguments with actual data, and left it at that.

I haven't eliminated the possibility of a great depression anymore than I've eliminated the possibility of being hit by a tornado. I simply think the chances are greatly diminished. I'm not sure what you believed I would have missed?

You can't offer any cogent explanation as to why the chances have been diminished.  You can't show me any sort of plan to balance the budget within some specified time frame.  You can't do any of that, so it isn't as if your assessment is missing something.  There's no assessment whatsoever.

Perhaps you are right, but as I've said, it wouldn't have taken me a great deal to have voted for Romney. It would not have been the first time I've voted for a Republican presidential candidate and I'm guessing it won't be the last. At the inception of this conversation you had mentioned wanting to understand why people voted for Obama. The best I can offer you is my reason, I'm not trying to convince you because understandably, you have your own reasons.

Finally, thank you for the conversation. I've stayed away from the board at times simply because it turns into an exchange of one liners. We may not agree but I do appreciate the perspective.

Well, even though you didn't answer the main questions I asked of you and instead turned the conversation toward ancillary topics, I do thank you for not being a hit and run poster.  Someday, I hope you take a look at the "Fix" thread you keep avoiding and really take the time to look at what I'm saying.  If you just look at the data for a moment, and really think about what it means in the context of our current leadership and the lack of political will, you will undoubtedly have an "Oh Sh!*t" moment.  Maybe then you'll see what I see.  Maybe you'll just avoid it or see what you want to see.  Either way, the sun will rise tomorrow.  Because the sun doesn't give a damn about the quantity or quality of existence of gnats living on a dirt ball 93 million miles away.  But you and I should.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 02:03:24 AM by Pi » Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 09:57:23 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7457


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #97 on: November 20, 2012, 04:13:32 AM »

Ya know, focus is a good thing and I can see that you, Pi, have homed in on a target and participation by others is unnecessary.

Fine.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2012, 11:17:16 AM »

Ya know, focus is a good thing and I can see that you, Pi, have homed in on a target and participation by others is unnecessary.

Fine.

If it still provides an avenue to get the argument out there...
Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
cccoach
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 05, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
Date Registerd:July 08, 2007, 06:30:46 PM
Posts: 1377


« Reply #99 on: November 22, 2012, 08:51:34 AM »

Week 2 - Turkey on the table - Fiscal Cliff approaching, American consumers still buying stupid plastic cr#p at a ridiculous rates - yet the world seems to keep turning in spite of Obama presidency.

Quote
Ya know, focus is a good thing and I can see that you, Pi, have homed in on a target and participation by others is unnecessary.

You know, just because he can form a sentence without yelling "get off my lawn, you dirty kids" doesn't make him your intellectual superior. Made you should just try harder 1911!

Quote
The bond market has only one way that it could destabilize.  And that is if the buyers change their buying habits.  If you don't think the Chinese leverage their bond buying position when it comes to trade negotiations, then I have some real estate investments for you.  Also, when individuals buy bonds, the buy decision is spread out over many actors.  If China decides not to buy bonds, or even to buy less of them, then that is a huge portion of the market that won't show up to buy our stuff.

Quote
You might ask how the Chinese could divest themselves of bonds they already purchased.  I think that is less of a threat than for them to change course and buy bonds from Europe or somewhere else.  If you recall the nuclear policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction", I'm sure you'll remember that is isn't a good strategy after all.  The same goes for that policy when it comes to economics.  The bond market is a lot more stable when it is further stratified.  If you start getting down to a few major players, it means less stability.

You still haven't named a single consequence. You merely restated exactly what I said. Please answer the question. What would be a single consequence of a foreign entity owning a bond. You were wrong about Joe Average cashing in war bonds, could you possibly be wrong about this? Doesn't matter, you wouldn't admit it if you were.

Quote
It isn't causation.  I'm not arguing that growth can't occur.  If you read what I wrote, I'm saying that high taxes are not a contributing factor to growth. Don't believe me?  Just wait and see.  We are already starting to feel the effects of higher taxation with the bump in capital gains and the healthcare bill.  Wait until the rest of the taxes go up next year.  I'll post the evidence right here on this board, and I'll be sure to save this post just so I can refer back to it later.

You cannot prove it is not causation, nor can I prove that is. You've already backed off your previous statements about taxes ruining economic growth when prevented with evidence how much further do you wan to go? "Just Wait and See"  Personally, I believe that higher taxes cause zombie attacks, don't believe it! Just wait and see!  That's a dumb statement - you're using a predictive model that has no control group. Any single item in a fluctuating economy will become your evidence. You believe you are so amazing at numbers?  Give us real numbers of your predictive model instead "oh my God the world is going to collapse." Then let's see how it plays out.  I'll tell you what, give me your numbers for the last day of Obama's presidency and then let's see how they play out. I'm gambling that they're grossly over estimated and tainted by your self-evident hatred of Obama.

Quote
You hesitated I think because your gloating got you into a discussion you weren't really prepared to have.  If you can't see the difference between the advantages we had in the 1950's over the ones we have today, then I don't know what to say.  If you would have read one of my other threads, you would have seen what China does to suppress wages.  They do it by buying bonds, ironically enough.  What is apparent to me is that economics isn't your strong suit and perhaps it was wrong of me to expect you to know what you are talking about.

I hesitate because I have a life outside of pointlessly arguing on an online BBS. You and I aren't going to agree and that - is ok. There are certainly differences between our 1950s advantages and our 2012 advantage, it doesn't change the fact that there are advantages. China certainly does a great deal to suppress wages. They do a great deal more to suppress wages than purchasing bonds, but like all great growing economies it will only delay the inevitable rise of wages, which is exactly why a lot of manufacturing now finds itself moving to Vietnam.  I'm not sure what your basis is for economics "not being my strong suit" but let me point out a few things. I'm not the one on an online BBS complaining about "supporting two households", nor am I running around yelling the "the economic sky is falling". Perhaps, if you spent a little more of your time practicing that economic genius you claim to possess and less time worrying about what people think on a local BBS you could worry a little less about our impending economic collapse!

Quote
No, you have constructed a straw man and I really don't appreciate it.  If you want to know why I'm being a bit less polite in my response here, look no further than what you said above.  It is aggravating that you would pretend that I'm saying something I'm not.  What I said about the 1950's was that:

1. We had a competitive advantage that was unprecedented and has not been matched, even remotely, since.
2. The growth was in spite of the high tax rate, not because of it.

Those points were made only because you said that since we came out of our debt after WWII, we have every reason to believe we can do it now.  I was explaining to you that the two are apples and oranges, and that we no longer enjoy that kind of advantage.  I was not pronouncing the 1950's to be the best of all times in all aspects.  Unless you're talking about the budgetary impact of the Great Society/entitlement programs, then what you say there is not really relevant.  You're taking a discussion that is supposed to be based on the data and trying to cloud it with a moral discussion.  That's not an honest way of doing business.

1st -  I.... couldn't... possibly... care....less... about... what..... you... appreciate....   I didn't ask you to come post on a thread I started. I wasn't that interested in your opinion, and yet you keep begging for response, if you don't appreciate the response..then don't respond! Your implication is that we had an economic advantage in the 1950s - that economic advantage also came with social cost. You can try and separate those factors. I cannot and will not. You cannot prove that it was in spite of a high tax rate, you can only form a hypothesis that you cannot prove. Also who said we were solely having a discussion based solely on data?

Quote
I am sorry to say that I have read your posts and given them the time and consideration they deserve.  But I have found them wanting with respect to actual detail based on data.  Instead, what I've gotten are vague pronouncements that you felt you needed to justify gloating.  Opinions are cheap, cccoach.  Well constructed arguments are expensive with respect to time and effort.  I can see exactly what this conversation has been worth to you based upon what you have (or more to the point have not) put in it.

Quote
It would have been much easier for everyone involved if you'd have simply admitted up front that you have no earthly idea how to back up your arguments with actual data, and left it at that.

I'm not sure that your paraphrasing Glenn Beck's arguments arguments qualifies as actual data.  If you are so concerned about actually data, where are your citations?  Why do you only seem to go to websites that only support your "data"?  I respect the amount of time you've invested in citing conservative websites, but I thoroughly think that time could have been better invested in doing something about your economics rather that rehashing Fox news economics reference. Once again - I stated from the beginning that this was a pointless discussion. You are going to believe whatever weird conspiracy theories you want to believe and I'm going to continue functioning just fine in society.

Quote
Well, even though you didn't answer the main questions I asked of you and instead turned the conversation toward ancillary topics, I do thank you for not being a hit and run poster.  Someday, I hope you take a look at the "Fix" thread you keep avoiding and really take the time to look at what I'm saying.  If you just look at the data for a moment, and really think about what it means in the context of our current leadership and the lack of political will, you will undoubtedly have an "Oh Sh!*t" moment.  Maybe then you'll see what I see.  Maybe you'll just avoid it or see what you want to see.  Either way, the sun will rise tomorrow.  Because the sun doesn't give a damn about the quantity or quality of existence of gnats living on a dirt ball 93 million miles away.  But you and I should.

I haven't posted on your "Fix" thread simply because there isn't a fix on it. There is you complaining about the current president. I've taken the time to read what you've posted. I simply don't agree with it, It strikes me as being weakly researched with a predefined idea of the outcome before you started. But hey, you should have a chance to prove it. Seeing how you believe that economic collapse is impending why don't you make some predictions?  Why don't you tell us your predictions for the each year of the Obama presidency.  You could list unemployment, GDP, National Debt, NASDAQ, Dow-Jones inflation rate or any other factors you want and then you can make a prediction for where the will be during Obama presidency?   The great thing is that we then don't have to argue. If you're predictions are anywhere near correct then you're right and we're sc##wed and if you're wrong, well, then the rest of us will continue on our merry way without fear of economic doom.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #100 on: November 22, 2012, 10:59:21 PM »

You still haven't named a single consequence. You merely restated exactly what I said. Please answer the question. What would be a single consequence of a foreign entity owning a bond. You were wrong about Joe Average cashing in war bonds, could you possibly be wrong about this? Doesn't matter, you wouldn't admit it if you were.


Where was I wrong about the cashing out of war bonds?  I only said that some of them never got cashed out.  Why is it that your only recourse is to trot out some sort of strawman?

I already named consequences of one actor holding a large portion of the debt.  Just because you don't understand my explanation doesn't mean I haven't provided one.  Here's some more for you:

http://economyincrisis.org/content/what-if-china-dumps-our-debt

You cannot prove it is not causation, nor can I prove that is. You've already backed off your previous statements about taxes ruining economic growth when prevented with evidence how much further do you wan to go? "Just Wait and See"  Personally, I believe that higher taxes cause zombie attacks, don't believe it! Just wait and see!  That's a dumb statement - you're using a predictive model that has no control group.


Now you're just making things up.  If you had paid attention, you'd have seen that I even mention raising taxes as one way to address the debt.  Again, you are making things up as you go along because you have no argument.  You seem to be claiming that high tax rates for the top earners = economic growth.  You're the one that brought that out, not I, so it is up to you to defend your statement.  

I think you need to go look up the definitions of "correlation" and "causation".  I also think you're being nasty instead of actually providing some sort of argument.  I think that your arguments are unfounded and you've consistently avoided answering the questions I've asked you.  So this is your cover?  

Any single item in a fluctuating economy will become your evidence. You believe you are so amazing at numbers?  Give us real numbers of your predictive model instead "oh my God the world is going to collapse." Then let's see how it plays out.  I'll tell you what, give me your numbers for the last day of Obama's presidency and then let's see how they play out. I'm gambling that they're grossly over estimated and tainted by your self-evident hatred of Obama.


You're wrong if you think I hate Obama.  I don't hate Obama at all.  I've got nothing personal against the man.  See if you can find anywhere that I ever said I hated him.  I don't like some of his policies.  But I also don't like some of Romney's policies.  It is just that when I compared the two, I found myself voting for the lesser of two less than ideal choices.

I also have already provided numbers in this thread, which I've already linked to once and should be fairly easy for you to find.  
http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,28187.0.html
What I specifically show there is how difficult it will be to address the debt, even if we use different strategies for doing so.  The reason I think that is important is because we keep increasing the money supply.  There are two primary things we are risking by doing that.

1. Inflation
2. Saturation of the bond market

I'm sure you understand inflation, so I don't have to go into detail there do I?  As far as saturation is concerned, what I think we have to watch out for is a decrease in demand for our bonds.  If that happens it could affect how the government pays for its obligations such as entitlement checks, pay checks, all all sorts of other spending.  The bond sales are our government's "credit card".  Place a limit on that card and we're going to have problems.

Also, I'm not saying that the world is going to collapse.  What I am predicting is destabilization of the economy, the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression.  The effects of this could be more pronounced due to the fact that we have many services and products that are outsourced.  In the 1930's we produced a lot of food domestically, but it was sourced a lot more locally than it is now.  But to be honest with you, I'm not exactly sure what we're going to have.  That's part of the reason I'm worried.  There are so many different scenarios.  You yourself said it is always a good idea to be prepared, so I'm not sure why you take issue with my concern.  

I've gone into the numbers many times cccoach.  I've asked you to do it and in this conversation you haven't come forward with anything except gloating and rudeness.

I hesitate because I have a life outside of pointlessly arguing on an online BBS. You and I aren't going to agree and that - is ok. There are certainly differences between our 1950s advantages and our 2012 advantage, it doesn't change the fact that there are advantages. China certainly does a great deal to suppress wages. They do a great deal more to suppress wages than purchasing bonds, but like all great growing economies it will only delay the inevitable rise of wages, which is exactly why a lot of manufacturing now finds itself moving to Vietnam.  I'm not sure what your basis is for economics "not being my strong suit" but let me point out a few things. I'm not the one on an online BBS complaining about "supporting two households", nor am I running around yelling the "the economic sky is falling". Perhaps, if you spent a little more of your time practicing that economic genius you claim to possess and less time worrying about what people think on a local BBS you could worry a little less about our impending economic collapse!


Where have I claimed economic genius?  All I've ever done is ask for a conversation.  I say economics isn't you strong suit because you never use it to argue your points.  How many times have you used any sort of data to back up your assertions?  You ask me to provide something to back up my opinion.  I can make a list of a dozen threads.  What can you present?  Not a damn thing.  That tells me you don't know what you're talking about and now you're angry that someone pointed it out.  Well, if you want to prove you do, then by all means do so.


1st -  I.... couldn't... possibly... care....less... about... what..... you... appreciate....   I didn't ask you to come post on a thread I started. I wasn't that interested in your opinion, and yet you keep begging for response, if you don't appreciate the response..then don't respond! Your implication is that we had an economic advantage in the 1950s - that economic advantage also came with social cost. You can try and separate those factors. I cannot and will not. You cannot prove that it was in spite of a high tax rate, you can only form a hypothesis that you cannot prove. Also who said we were solely having a discussion based solely on data?


Ah, deflection.  You don't care about this discussion and you don't care about facts.  You just made the claim that the economic boom we had in the 1950's had a social cost?  A social cost?  I bet you have a fascinating explanation for that based on all sorts of false assumptions and revisionist history.  Let me guess: you can't have a discussion about economics without talking about racism?  Is that because when someone says the 1950's, the first thing that comes to mind is racism?  Is that the only perception you have of the 1950's?  

You apparently don't know a damn thing about the competitive advantage, or how to even compare it with what we do or don't have today, so you're arguing from a position of ignorance.  And that's why you don't have any numbers either.


I'm not sure that your paraphrasing Glenn Beck's arguments arguments qualifies as actual data.  If you are so concerned about actually data, where are your citations?  Why do you only seem to go to websites that only support your "data"?  I respect the amount of time you've invested in citing conservative websites, but I thoroughly think that time could have been better invested in doing something about your economics rather that rehashing Fox news economics reference. Once again - I stated from the beginning that this was a pointless discussion. You are going to believe whatever weird conspiracy theories you want to believe and I'm going to continue functioning just fine in society.


I am really confused by what you write here.  The issues I have with how the government has handled things are not a right/left thing.  I'm really mystified as to why you would say that.  It is as if you havent' read a thing I've posted.  Did you ignore all the times I criticized GWB?  How about Romney's unwillingness to consider cutting military spending?  How about my criticism of GWB's unfunded medicare mandate?  

Looking at economic data is not voodoo cccoach.  It isn't a weird conspiracy theory to be concerned about where we are heading.  If what I'm saying is so weird and far out, why can't you just formulate an argument based on the numbers to prove me wrong?  That should be a simple exercise.  But you're incapable of doing so and have decided to just be a jerk.  But people see through that cccoach.

Put up or shut up.  It is as simple as that.  Or don't shut up and continue to look foolish.  Whichever floats your boat.


I haven't posted on your "Fix" thread simply because there isn't a fix on it. There is you complaining about the current president. I've taken the time to read what you've posted.


Complaining about the current President?  You read that and that's all you could come up with?  No, if you read it, you didn't understand it.  I was talking about all the proposals for addressing the debt, including the ones that Obama has proposed.


I simply don't agree with it, It strikes me as being weakly researched with a predefined idea of the outcome before you started. But hey, you should have a chance to prove it. Seeing how you believe that economic collapse is impending why don't you make some predictions?  Why don't you tell us your predictions for the each year of the Obama presidency.  You could list unemployment, GDP, National Debt, NASDAQ, Dow-Jones inflation rate or any other factors you want and then you can make a prediction for where the will be during Obama presidency?   The great thing is that we then don't have to argue. If you're predictions are anywhere near correct then you're right and we're sc##wed and if you're wrong, well, then the rest of us will continue on our merry way without fear of economic doom.


Weakly researched?  Maybe I am just an amateur.  But I see zero research from you.  You've given us nothing.  If you recall, I asked you to show, with some kind of numbers, why there's nothing to worry about.  But you cannot do that.  In fact, you won't even try.  All you can do is insult the person who is trying and show nothing of your own.

If my points are weakly researched, then please show me where they are incorrect or inaccurate.  But you won't do that will you cccoach, because that would mean you've have to read and think about something.  And I think you've already established your track record on that.  What you want to do here is make this as nasty as possible so that I just go away and leave you alone and stop asking you to do something you're not able to do.  That's your game, and I get it.

I really have no choice but to give you what you want.  You apparently can't discuss the economy without strawmans, false accusations, and deflections to social issues.  And gosh knows you can't do it with any data.  I'm never going to get an answer from you.  You'd have saved me some time if you'd simply said you didn't have a clue.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 11:16:07 PM by Pi » Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2012, 01:59:13 AM »

First, my sincere apologies for not responding any sooner, but I've been down and out for the count these past couple of weeks with pneumonia (pretty rough time of it to say the least). Anyway, I know the interest in following this thread seem to have diminished; nonetheless, I wanted to take a moment to respond. It is a great thing if discussions can result in getting all of us to think a bit clearer and harder about the situation we, as a country, are currently mired in.


I think these are great questions. Let me be clear, I do think that we have incredibly serious fiscal problems facing us as a nation, but then again this nation has had several fiscal crisis facing us in the past, and yet, the union endures. Let's remember that while  we as a nation have a great deal of debt, it still isn't as bad as some the debts we have faced in the past. The highest level of debt we've had was post WWII and yet, we somehow survived and even thrived during the 1950's.

If I'm reading you correctly, what you're saying is: we are facing serious financial problems but because this great nation has always found a way out of financial predicaments in the past, you, therefore, have confidence that such will always happen (or will happen in this one instance). I, in all honesty, am glad you can find such confidence at the present time in our legislators to do the right thing and get us, as a nation, back to economic good. However, although I'm sure you are aware, I must point out that such a conclusion is what's know as a logical fallacy (a non sequitur), as the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.  As you well know, simply because something may have happened countless numbers of times in the past, there is no guarantee the results will be the same in any particular set of circumstances. Therefore, I do pray that others are not so lackadaisical in resting on our past achievements, thereby not seek to improve our current position.

Further, I'm not sure where you got the information you've cited about the country not currently being in the "highest level of debt." Out of curiosity, do you remember where you got that?

I remember reading somewhere that during the 1950's, the US lead the world in production/exporting of goods, and was also number one in wages/benefits offered to workers. I will look for this if you'd like to see it. But, the point in my mind is: what changed since then? Answer: corporate tax structure and industry regulations. Nowadays, any US company attempting to compete in the global marketplace is doing so with one hand tied behind their back, so to speak. Other countries that do not place such burdens on business offer an environment conducive to success, which the US companies cannot compete. Hence, the very reason so many companies are relocating beyond our borders. Yet few Americans understand this phenomena.  

Quote
I would also respond to question about "supporting" this administration by saying that I so much "support" this administration as much as I "didn't" support Romney. As I think I've clearly stated, I wouldn't have thought it was the end of the world if Romney had won the presidency - I think he was an honorable man but I had problems with his philosophies that I'll try to list.......

I understand it might very well mean a lot to you to reiterate these points, but, in all honesty, it truly has no bearing on the points I was raising about our situation. I sincerely believe it really matters not who is in the White House, as the root causes for our economic debacle would not have changed one iota, nor would any appropriate corrective measures been implemented - only band-aids much like what has happened throughout our history as a nation. It shouldn't be difficult to understand for any typical American that our legislators do not have what it takes to make the hard decisions, thus the very reason these kinds of decisions get kicked down the road for someone else to deal with (it's what our elected officials do best).

Quote
I think these are both great questions and points. But I think if we are going to have a discussion about our current spending it has to be in the context of the economic crisis of 07' - 08'.  To quickly summarize - we had a choice. Let the economy collapse naturally and face extended depression or try and prop up the economy by artificially pumping as much cash into as possible. Let's be honest, both solutions suck but in my opinion the second sucked less. Let's also be honest, the Republicans were as responsible for the economic stimulus as Democrats, so there is plenty of blame to go around. Now that's what we are facing, repayment of what would have been the second great depression.

You are absolutely correct in stating that ALL of our elected officials share in responsibility for the current economic crisis, as it most certainly can't be blamed on any one party - it's been going on for far too many years, and from elected officials of every stripe.

I can not claim to have the answers, but it seems logical to me that some semblance of free-market forces should come into play (or should have come into play) when determining viable solutions affecting various economic sectors. If the government deems some business (or businesses), "Too Big To Fail!" then subsequently removes all consequences resulting from risky behavior (business practices), well, it should come as no surprise if the risk is removed, why should we believe the future risky behavior will greatly diminish or stop? It's human nature.

Further, most all of us been taught that such government interference into the economy is good and proper. After all, haven't we been taught to spend, spend, spend in order to right the economy? Well, yes, for an economy that is rooted in false stimulus's it is good and proper. Most people haven't the slightest clue regarding what the Federal Reserve is and does, and how it is largely responsible for the economic condition of this country, as well as the world.
 
I wished I had more time at the present to elaborate why I think what I do about the Federal Reserve, and our elected officials, as there truly is so very much more to say.  Perhaps when I get to feeling a bit better.

Lastly, I wanted to say that your title for this thread seems to suggest a mockery of folks who believe a day of reckoning is on the way. You, of all people, should know that although extreme, it is still not intrinsically impossible. Furthermore, such a day of reckoning is clearly mentioned in the Holy Scriptures for the end-days.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 02:05:39 AM by Jeff G » Logged
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 03:50:52 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 2885



« Reply #102 on: November 29, 2012, 01:27:24 PM »

Hope you're feeling better and on the mend Jeff!
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
cccoach
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 05, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
Date Registerd:July 08, 2007, 06:30:46 PM
Posts: 1377


« Reply #103 on: November 29, 2012, 02:27:53 PM »

Week 3 - Another week under Obama presidency. No apparent collapse of the United States.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Online Online

Last Login:Today at 10:51:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3160



« Reply #104 on: November 29, 2012, 02:48:21 PM »

Week 3 - Another week under Obama presidency. No apparent collapse of the United States.




and

Logged

"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch"
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 17   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!