I am confused: Please tell me how it works?

satv365 · #21 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 02:50 AM

Didnt let me post the pic, here it is.

Image:Silvercertificate.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dom1 · #22 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

U.S. GAO - Summary This little gem talks about the fact that government debt has increased by 33% between 2003 and 2007
It talks about the fact they are raiding the social security funds, and the fact Bush has passed legislation three times since he has been in office to raise the federal debt that can be maintained by law. Its a real gem.

Anyway fellows have fun , you can find the short version or the long version here of their analysis of just about every aspect of our government and economy , if you can stand to look at them. I am sure some need the short version.

They may be raiding social security, I wouldn't be surprised, Clinton did the same thing, it isn't something that most people pay attention to because as long as the benefits keep coming people don;t get too concerned.

However, I didn't see in the link where he was raiding social security. Social security is part of the debt, and that is what it is referring to here. Of our nine trillion dollar debt over half is wrapped up in things like social security. The public debt is different than the overall debt.

Cookie Parker · #23 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

They may be raiding social security, I wouldn't be surprised, Clinton did the same thing, it isn't something that most people pay attention to because as long as the benefits keep coming people don;t get too concerned.

However, I didn't see in the link where he was raiding social security. Social security is part of the debt, and that is what it is referring to here. Of our nine trillion dollar debt over half is wrapped up in things like social security. The public debt is different than the overall debt.

Your link, please....opinions from you are not worth the time and effort to read...

Dom1 · #24 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

Your link, please....opinions from you are not worth the time and effort to read...

Link on what?

Clinton raiding social security or that social security is part of the debt?

What does it matter anyway? You won't respond if you are proven wrong, you have proven that time and time again. Tell you what, I will post a link if you promise to respond to it.

Tokenconservative · #25 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

But you asked and he answered, and quite accurately. There are no Mea Culpas on the question in Jeopardy when the answer is given, and he gave a very accurate one. You asked WHENEVER...I would assume that means back to when the Constitution was ratified?

So there are good things? Make up your mind.

Why stop there?

Why not go back 8-10,000 years?

No, he did not answer. Asking more questions is not answering...it's um...answering a question WITH a question.

As a shrieking, TEOTWAWKI, anti-American lefty, you BELIEVE that is answering the question, but in fact, it the rules of rational discourse, it's one of the most egregious errors you can make.

As to your spurious implication that we should go back to this or that date for our proof: um...no. We can't even really go back to the Great Depression because of how DIFFERENT (comparing apples and Soviet era Zir sedans?) was the interaction between govt and industry/economy then (ne'er the twain shall meet, basically--yes, yes I know all about govt grants to early industrialists...yawn, do let's move at MINIMUM into the 20th century, shall we?).

The Malthusian and then Keynesian economics that informed Western economies prior to the 1950s have been thorougly repudiated by MODERN theories.

"Modern" is a KEY term here. It's lots and lots of anti-free market fun to jump up and down and shriek "Great Depression!! Great DEPPPRRESSSSSIONNNNNN!!!" but an event like that as, I believe, I explained earlier and nothing you--or anyone in here--have said to rationally counter it, simply cannot happen in today's MODERN (see? TOLDJA it was a key term!) economic structures.

I'm sorry about that...I really am. It destroys the TEOTWAWKI myths of so many, yourself apparently among them, but there it is, nonetheless.

But please, answer me this: what is IN it for the fat, white rich man to destroy the US economy? How will he profit from turning everyone else into destitute slaves who cannot afford to buy anything he sells?

Now, riddle me this: which political movement tends to GAIN the most from hysterical monstershouting about an economic TEOTWAWKI?

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #26 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

This has nothing to do with environmental regulations wacko .

I am just putting out the warning, more because I care about the American people than anything else.

You see Tokie , I am just one of millions who see this coming .

But unfortunately hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans are just like you . They have their head stuck in the sand , and only care about themselves.

Well I am a humanitarian , so even for stupid people , they deserve a warning. If one or two heed the warning and take the opportunity to do something to help their families before it gets bad , then those of us who spread this warning will not have done so in vain.

You know , many terrible things are right around the corner for this country, but this was something that had not occurred to me yet.

I imagine that will happen , Fat Rich men buying what they want, from people who are just looking to feed their families. Except it won't stop at 14 year old girls . From what I have seen they want them much younger , like 4-5 years old , and they don't just want girls , many of them want little boys.

Thanks Tokie for providing us with vivid nightmares of what this country has become.

Yes, it does. Or do you deny, against the mountains of evidence, that international socialism-communism has had as it's foundational desire, the end of that poli-economic system which so directly competes with it: Western free market capitalism?

If you know ANYthing about the MODERN "environmental" movement, then you must know that it is this movement that absorbed Euro and American communists and (open) socilists after the collapse of the USSR and that. Even one of the founders of Green Peace has admitted that this absorbtion became a coup, and that the internationalist communists now RUN the international "environmental" movement, and that includes the US.

If you know anything about your religion other than "I hate Bush and America!" then you will also know that a base assumption of Kyoto, is that the US economy is the PRIMARY cause of "Global Warming," and that "Global Warming" cannot be stopped without first shutting down that economy, while giving a winky-winky pass to economies such as China's, India's, Malaysia's, even Canad's, largely, though on a REAL basis any of these add exponentially more "greenhouse gasses" to the atmosphere than the US; China and India DWARF the US contribution, but to you, that does not matter because, the US (under Bush) is eeeeevvviiiiillllllll!!!

What do you see coming? The same stuff nutcases like you "saw coming" at Y2K? Do you have your cases of long-term survival foods? Your white, food-grade plastic buckets? Or the same stuff nutcases in the late 70s and throughout the 80s "saw coming," when they were running around like chickens with THEIR heads cut off, screaming that the Japanese and even the Canadians(!) were taking over the US and that we were doomed--DOOOOMEEDDDDD!!!--and that a collpase was imminent.

Did I miss either of those collapses? Were they not sufficiently reported in the papers and by Dan Rather back in the day? Musta been too many ugly dog or pretty baby contests to cover the day the world ended then?

But enuff of this, Peach: put your money where your mouth is. Let's make a bet. $5-$10k okay with you? Let's find a lawyer between us in say, Kansas City, who can set up an interest-bearing (let's not be stupid) fund to hold each of our pot. We will make this wager: that by 01/01/2009, the US economy will have collapsed. No, I am not going to allow you to say "someday." We need a set time. You say "soon," a pretty subjective time frame, so let's pin it down. And let's pin down "collapse," too.

If the stock market dips 10% that's not a "collapse."

We will need to agree that these things will come to pass in the US:

1. Inflation over 25%
2. Unemployment over 50%
3. Negative growth at the -25% level.
4. Stock market at 0 or fewer points and holding at a sub-zero level for six months.
5. All foreign lenders call their US notes "due and payable" and the US declares insolvency.
6. 10-15% of Americans starving (not undernourished...STARVING).

So, you up for it?

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #27 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Okay I promised them so here they are .

These reports are the short version from The Government Accountability Agency . Now keep in mind I have watched these guys many times testify on c-span. They are accountants and offer no remedies they just report the facts.

LOL Some of us who have ran our own businesses know the type. They are all about numbers , opinions don't top the numbers.

U.S. GAO - Summary This little nightmare has the accountants warning that " our nation is on a imprudent and fiscally unsustainable path. This is found throughout their reports , those same words. Just about in every sector of the economy I have looked at as reported by the governments accountants they say the same thing .

Our nation is on a fiscally imprudent and fiscally unsustainable path.

In the link above they are warning the Next president that he needs to do something about it. They do that in just about every sector of the economy they report on.
Makes you wonder why anybody would want the job of president right now.

U.S. GAO - Summary This little ditty deals with our countries long tern fiscal path and medical costs , the accountants say its unsustainable.

U.S. GAO - Summary This little gem talks about the fact that government debt has increased by 33% between 2003 and 2007
It talks about the fact they are raiding the social security funds, and the fact Bush has passed legislation three times since he has been in office to raise the federal debt that can be maintained by law. Its a real gem.

Anyway fellows have fun , you can find the short version or the long version here of their analysis of just about every aspect of our government and economy , if you can stand to look at them. I am sure some need the short version.

You don't understand much about politics and these agencies, huh?

They were saying EXACTLY the same things when Reagan was building up debt to destroy the Soviet Union.

What um....what happened to that debt? Oh, and the dire warnings of GAO and other accountants at that time....um, were they right?

Did the American ecnomy collapse as they were "projecting" it would, then?

I misremember.

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #28 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

It didn't say tems of millions wouldn't have jobs. Some said that some industries would leave and tens of millions would be out those jobs, but new jobs are created as well, so those people would not necessarily be out of work. For example, one of the industries they are talking about is he huge industry of transcription. It is not only getting outsourced (lets say a person is the US gets 12 cents a line whereas a person from India gets 4 cents a line) but new technology is being created which will eliminate the need for as many transcriptionists. Things like machines which will convert the words of the doctors, social workers, etc, to paper like the transcriptionists are doing now. While it does eliminate those transcriptionist jobs it does create other jobs which are better paying right here. It won't offset those transcription jobs, but those people will just have to find another job since there old one is no longer viable.

As long as we have growth then we should be creating new jobs. Thing is, for a very long time we have dominated the rest of the world economically and the rest of the world is developing and catching up. A smaller piece of the pie is not necessarily a result of us slowing down, but others speeding up. I mean how long was China supposed to stay down with all their enormous resources? Same with India.

The foreign investment is something that we don't necessarily want, but we are also invested in other nations as well. Whether anyone likes it or not, this is a global economy, and you have two choices. Either to embrace it or to turn your back on it.

What are the ramifictions of turning your back on the global economy?

As far as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (which would be relatively speaking), when has that not occurred? During the prosperous 90's the economic gap was growing faster than it was before then and since then. Despite that it is seen as a period of good economic times, due mainly to an explosion of technology, which also put people out of work - but created new jobs in the process.

Good points.

Britain was THE economic powerhouse of the world for how long? Various forces (including the rise of the US economy) put an end to their hegemony, but not to Britain as far as I can tell.

They went through some rough times in the 80s and 90s (when the pound was DOWN against the dollar!?) during/after the Thatcher changes to the economy, moving them AWAY from the socialism they were descending into.

Now, they are again, and economic powerhouse. Not of the sort they were when they were an empire, but there are no longer thousands of unemployable pipefitters and bricklayers sitting on the dole...even famous writers no longer get to sit on the dole before their novel hits the big time.

Tokie

Cookie Parker · #29 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Link on what?

Clinton raiding social security or that social security is part of the debt?

What does it matter anyway? You won't respond if you are proven wrong, you have proven that time and time again. Tell you what, I will post a link if you promise to respond to it.

Yup...links to those....I'd love to see that substantiated as opposed to you repubs just slandering democrats and posters.....truly believing your frigging word is worth anything....

So, dipshit...where's your link?

freedomlover · #30 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Why stop there?

Why not go back 8-10,000 years?

No, he did not answer. Asking more questions is not answering...it's um...answering a question WITH a question.

As a shrieking, TEOTWAWKI, anti-American lefty, you BELIEVE that is answering the question, but in fact, it the rules of rational discourse, it's one of the most egregious errors you can make.

As to your spurious implication that we should go back to this or that date for our proof: um...no. We can't even really go back to the Great Depression because of how DIFFERENT (comparing apples and Soviet era Zir sedans?) was the interaction between govt and industry/economy then (ne'er the twain shall meet, basically--yes, yes I know all about govt grants to early industrialists...yawn, do let's move at MINIMUM into the 20th century, shall we?).

The Malthusian and then Keynesian economics that informed Western economies prior to the 1950s have been thorougly repudiated by MODERN theories.

"Modern" is a KEY term here. It's lots and lots of anti-free market fun to jump up and down and shriek "Great Depression!! Great DEPPPRRESSSSSIONNNNNN!!!" but an event like that as, I believe, I explained earlier and nothing you--or anyone in here--have said to rationally counter it, simply cannot happen in today's MODERN (see? TOLDJA it was a key term!) economic structures.

I'm sorry about that...I really am. It destroys the TEOTWAWKI myths of so many, yourself apparently among them, but there it is, nonetheless.

But please, answer me this: what is IN it for the fat, white rich man to destroy the US economy? How will he profit from turning everyone else into destitute slaves who cannot afford to buy anything he sells?

Now, riddle me this: which political movement tends to GAIN the most from hysterical monstershouting about an economic TEOTWAWKI?

Tokie

The following is the question you asked:

Can you show me where, anyplace or any time in history, that raising taxes has had a net result of improving an economy over the long run?

When you are proven wrong, you then want to change the scope. Lesson: Don't ask a question if you don't want the answer.

As to StormanNormans response: He did not answer you question with a question. It is really very silly to say he did, when anyone can cruise back and see that he didn't.