Thread: They chose to fail.

Please take note that there appears to be some irregularities with the S&P folks and some insider info at the markets this week. Fed is taking a look,,,so one wonders why the blatent bull crap of a downgrade happened at all to a country who has never defaulted on anything.

Originally Posted by jpn

Wow.

The shear lack of actual information that you possess makes your every post a trip into right-wing fantasy world. The world of Weird Net Daily and Fox "News."

You call Clinton a tax and spender. Well, you got the tax part right. The spend part, not so much.
As for Obama, "borrow and spend" is exactly what people who actually want the best for the country--as opposed to the best for their narrow and petty political interests--should advocate.

Learn something, like one of your fellow travelers in Congress. (Not that he will, but anyway).

Advocating for anything else is what people who want the country to fail so they can win the White House in 20212 do.

Where's your loyalty, Chassis? To the country? Or to the party of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and (snicker) Newt Gingrich?

Just wondering if you could explain for me how borrowing to the extent he has is good for the country.

Borrowed money, as I understand it, has to be paid back. Who is going to do that, our grandchildren?

Originally Posted by jpn

Wow.

The shear lack of actual information that you possess makes your every post a trip into right-wing fantasy world. The world of Weird Net Daily and Fox "News."

You call Clinton a tax and spender. Well, you got the tax part right. The spend part, not so much.

Well considering there wasn't a single year he was in office that the government didn't add to the debt, yup, he got the spend part right too.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Then apparently you should learn what the numbers mean.

It's very simple math, you spent more than you took in, you increased your debt. You spend less than than you took in, you decreased your debt.

Your problem is twofold. One you don't understand the numbers, and two, you don't want to understand them, because the truth conflicts with the lie you want so badly to believe.

The numbers on the debt simply do not lie.

.....

It helps if you use the right numbers
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

Ever wonder why you're the only one who believes this?
Why all the newspapers and magazines, and radio and TV stations EVEN FOX, say there was a surplus?

Hear that,
It's the world laughing.... and they're not laughing with you....

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

Just wondering if you could explain for me how borrowing to the extent he has is good for the country.

Borrowed money, as I understand it, has to be paid back. Who is going to do that, our grandchildren?

That my friend is something a liberal will never understand. They in fact want another stimulus for infrastructure that they want a new bridge, that our grandchildren will have to pay for. And when our grandchildren want a new bridge they will not get it because they have to pay the debt that we lived high on the hog on.

Liberals think there is no end to the money supply, thus want to borrow and spend to keep their life style, and be damned who has to pay for it.

Originally Posted by goober

It helps if you use the right numbers
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

Ever wonder why you're the only one who believes this?
Why all the newspapers and magazines, and radio and TV stations EVEN FOX, say there was a surplus?

Hear that,
It's the world laughing.... and they're not laughing with you....

Yes, the world is laughing at you goober. Because you simply refuse to face the truth. The truth you simply cannot defeat, no matter how hard you try.

The funniest thing of all? That the numbers you posted there, don't even add up to the numbers you've posted elsewhere. You've claimed 300 billion dollar surplus, 400 billion, and yet even with the numbers you posted there, it's 201 billion in the BEST year under his watch. And of course when you look at the numbers treasury says the debt increased by 17 billion. You've got 228 billion missing there, and you don't know where it is.

For 2005 it says Bush only ran a deficit of 248 billion. Think that's right? I certainly don't, and neither does Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

For 2008...455 billion in the red. Think that's right? I mean after all, you've said Bush left Obama with a trillion dollar deficit. There's a whole lotta dollars missing there aren't there? Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010 says there's a bit over 1 trillion, your numbers say 455 billion, still think yours is right?

And of course for the first budget Owebama stuck his signature to, it's only showing 1.42 trillion. Yet the Treasury says 1.88 trillion was added to the debt.

You might want to use a calculator next time you think about posting more nonsensical numbers that don't match anything else you post.

Note my numbers never change, nor does the source, which you can't impeach

Of course if you don't pay taxes ... which have been low since 1995 ... debts accumulate. Of course the tax cuts didn't expire.

Scout.com: Taxes lowest in 60 years

Originally Posted by michael h

Of course if you don't pay taxes ... which have been low since 1995 ... debts accumulate. Of course the tax cuts didn't expire.

Scout.com: Taxes lowest in 60 years

So what's your excuse on them accumulating since 1957? And for almost every year since 1900?

Originally Posted by 9aces

So what's your excuse on them accumulating since 1957? And for almost every year since 1900?

Actually I assign most of the deficit to the loss of GDP and subsidizing of corporate profit through job exports to cheap labor. Tax rates had worked reasonably to procure revenues. Reagan was smart enough to raise rates after losses of revenues during his first term ... something these corporate wags are not smart enough to do.

How different would it be as a person (USA) who had a net income of 1 million a year and expenses of 1 million. The person decides to give a friend (corporations) 25% of his income and incurs new expenses. So he borrows to make up for lost income. He then proceeds to blame his financial problems on the boogeyman.

The US funded corporate profits with free trade agreements through legislation. After creating unemployment, lost GDP, and lost revenues by this action (which it refuses to acknowledge for its corporate friends interest) it doesn't raise funds to pay for government. How does it respond to increased corporate profits? It lowers corporate taxes through loopholes and tax breaks.

So you decrease revenues to support your corporate friend. Then you blame all the problems on everything but your actual problem. Its spending, its the greedy elderly, its the socialist boogeyman, its lazy uncreative Americans, its those liberals who want to steal the richs money.

All the time data says its low taxes, lost jobs to free trade, less GDP, tax loopholes, unemployment, continuous war, and corporate greed.

Tax rates did not become a main issue until we exported our economy to make corporations rich.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Yes, the world is laughing at you goober. Because you simply refuse to face the truth. The truth you simply cannot defeat, no matter how hard you try.

The funniest thing of all? That the numbers you posted there, don't even add up to the numbers you've posted elsewhere. You've claimed 300 billion dollar surplus, 400 billion, and yet even with the numbers you posted there, it's 201 billion in the BEST year under his watch. And of course when you look at the numbers treasury says the debt increased by 17 billion. You've got 228 billion missing there, and you don't know where it is.

For 2005 it says Bush only ran a deficit of 248 billion. Think that's right? I certainly don't, and neither does Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

For 2008...455 billion in the red. Think that's right? I mean after all, you've said Bush left Obama with a trillion dollar deficit. There's a whole lotta dollars missing there aren't there? Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010 says there's a bit over 1 trillion, your numbers say 455 billion, still think yours is right?

And of course for the first budget Owebama stuck his signature to, it's only showing 1.42 trillion. Yet the Treasury says 1.88 trillion was added to the debt.

You might want to use a calculator next time you think about posting more nonsensical numbers that don't match anything else you post.

Note my numbers never change, nor does the source, which you can't impeach

Yer PWNed again, face it, you're the last one who still believes that crap.
Ever wonder why you have no allies in this fight?
Ever wonder why even the borderline retarded have dropped the "No Clinton Surplus" crap?
You ARE still using the same numbers, BTW, those numbers don't mean what you think they mean, which is why you are so hilarious

The numbers you think you are using are here on this chart.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

Originally Posted by goober

It helps if you use the right numbers
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

Ever wonder why you're the only one who believes this?
Why all the newspapers and magazines, and radio and TV stations EVEN FOX, say there was a surplus?

Hear that,
It's the world laughing.... and they're not laughing with you....

Maybe the world read the thread where you were talking about a "short squeeze" in oil? That would certainly make the world laugh.

Originally Posted by michael h

Actually I assign most of the deficit to the loss of GDP and subsidizing of corporate profit through job exports to cheap labor. Tax rates had worked reasonably to procure revenues. Reagan was smart enough to raise rates after losses of revenues during his first term ... something these corporate wags are not smart enough to do.

Which of course is one reason you fail. You simply fail to look at what's important. Your debt, and your ability to pay it. The US government hasn't been paying for it's debt for a very long time.

For you it's how much of the pie can government steal to try and buy the votes of enough to keep on stealing.

Originally Posted by michael h

How different would it be as a person (USA) who had a net income of 1 million a year and expenses of 1 million. The person decides to give a friend (corporations) 25% of his income and incurs new expenses. So he borrows to make up for lost income. He then proceeds to blame his financial problems on the boogeyman.

And his creditors forclose on him, and at some point he simply can't get anyone to loan anything to him. That's how it's different.

Never mind the person in your example is a complete moron.

Originally Posted by michael h

The US funded corporate profits with free trade agreements through legislation. After creating unemployment, lost GDP, and lost revenues by this action (which it refuses to acknowledge for its corporate friends interest) it doesn't raise funds to pay for government. How does it respond to increased corporate profits? It lowers corporate taxes through loopholes and tax breaks.

You can't raise enough funds to pay for everything government wants. I would have thought that would be supremely obvious by now.

Originally Posted by michael h

So you decrease revenues to support your corporate friend. Then you blame all the problems on everything but your actual problem. Its spending, its the greedy elderly, its the socialist boogeyman, its lazy uncreative Americans, its those liberals who want to steal the richs money.

I decrease revenues to starve a government who is incapable of using them. Unlike you I understand how wealth is created, and who creates it.

Originally Posted by michael h

All the time data says its low taxes, lost jobs to free trade, less GDP, tax loopholes, unemployment, continuous war, and corporate greed.

Yup, and who makes those decisions? Government, the one you want to give more to in order to subsidize their ability to make MORE bad decisions.

Originally Posted by michael h

Tax rates did not become a main issue until we exported our economy to make corporations rich.

Tax rates aren't the issue now. The fact government entitlement programs are now seen to surpass ANY amount of revenue you can collect is.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Which of course is one reason you fail. You simply fail to look at what's important. Your debt, and your ability to pay it. The US government hasn't been paying for it's debt for a very long time.

For you it's how much of the pie can government steal to try and buy the votes of enough to keep on stealing.


And his creditors forclose on him, and at some point he simply can't get anyone to loan anything to him. That's how it's different.

Never mind the person in your example is a complete moron.


You can't raise enough funds to pay for everything government wants. I would have thought that would be supremely obvious by now.


I decrease revenues to starve a government who is incapable of using them. Unlike you I understand how wealth is created, and who creates it.


Yup, and who makes those decisions? Government, the one you want to give more to in order to subsidize their ability to make MORE bad decisions.


Tax rates aren't the issue now. The fact government entitlement programs are now seen to surpass ANY amount of revenue you can collect is.

Obviously tax rates are part of the issue as we are not paying our bills. Reagan recognized this. Also if you have policies which decrease revenues from jobs ... maybe we shouldn't be exporting jobs ... which leads back to the trade off of jobs for corporate profits. Where is the revenue from corporate profits that was worth 9% unemployment?

I guess I am making the point of both revenue and spending. Where did we get 868 billion for defense spending?