US Debt at Record $9 Trillion

[LoungeMachine]

US debt tops $9 trillion for first time-Treasury
Reuters - 18 hours ago
National Debt at Record $9 Trillion
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The national debt has hit $9 trillion for the first time.

The Treasury Department, which issues a daily accounting of the debt, said Wednesday that the debt subject to limit was at $9 trillion on Tuesday. It was $8.996 trillion on Monday.

Last month, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law an increase in the government's borrowing ceiling to $9.815 trillion. It was the fifth debt limit increase since Bush took office in January 2001. Those increases have totaled $3.865 trillion.

The administration contends the rising debt reflects such factors as slow economic growth during the 2001 recession, the Sept. 11 attacks and the cost of fighting terrorism.

Democrats place much of the blame for the exploding debt on Bush's first-term tax cuts, which they say are tilted to the wealthy. The administration says those tax cuts helped to jump-start the economy and resulted in falling budget deficits in recent years.

The tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. The administration and Republicans in Congress want to see them made permanent; many Democrats would like to see them revamped to provide more benefits to lower and middle-income taxpayers.

The budget deficit for the 2007 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $162.8 billion, the lowest in five years.

In 2004, the deficit was $413 billion, a record in dollar terms.

The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits plus money that the government borrows from the Social Security and other government trust funds.

The total national debt is actually higher than $9 trillion because it includes borrowing by some agencies that are not covered by the congressional debt limit. That total was $9.086 trillion on Tuesday.

It took the country from George Washington until Ronald Reagan to reach the first $1 trillion in debt.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iysuMkhgYOGlcySlgMom_teZ6WcQD8SP46T00

[scamper]

This sucks ass

[LoungeMachine]

Well put.

:gulp:

1992 - 2000 looking pretty good about now, eh?

[WACF]

How the hell do you pay that off?

It would take years(decades) just to help lower interest payments enough to have extra money available every budget.

[Nitro Express]

I've been on this planet for 42 fucking years. Most of those 42 the US has been sinking into more and more debt. It's been a steady slide into the abyss since 1972.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WACF
How the hell do you pay that off?

It would take years(decades) just to help lower interest payments enough to have extra money available every budget.

We could try taxing the fucking oil companies...

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by WACF
How the hell do you pay that off?

It would take years(decades) just to help lower interest payments enough to have extra money available every budget.

You don't. You tottaly crash the fucker since it's almost worthless anyways. The rich who run the world have the lions share of their assets invested out of the dollar anyways and what these people want is raw resources because that is what the world wants right now and the prices will go higher. Oil being the most popular.

Now China and Europe both need that Middle East oil. They are going to fight for it. Europe doesn't have a big enough military machine and China is becoming stronger and stronger every year.

What you do, is you buy a military machine by buying the US Presidency. If you do some research on the Bush Administration, it's the old NATO guard backing it. They want the North American Union tied in with the European Union. They want to control the Persian Gulf oil flow.

As far as the US Dollar and the US goes, these people could care less. The Chinese hold lion's share of the US Dollars so just let it crash, the resulting desperation will allow the Amero and the North American Union to come into play. The currency is being printed right now in the Denver mint and it's only a matter of time before we bomb Iran.

I figure it will be in December since the US rules the night and the nights will be long. The Dollar is unsavable and those in charge know more than anybody.

[knuckleboner]

it's actually not that hard to retire the debt. although, yes, at a minimum it will take decades to do. but that's by design. just like a home mortgage, most bonds the government sells (that's how we borrow money) have long-term repayment schedules.

we currently have the funds to pay off the interest/repayments for outstanding bonds that come due each year. the problem is that we are also currently adding to that debt each year by running constant budget deficits.

however, if we were to go through another period of extended balanced budgets, the debt would begin to shrink.

the debt, itself, is not the problem. it's the deficit trends.

[WACF]

Yes...a deficit budget is not going to help one bit.

A balanced budget on the other hand...without extra payments on the debt to reduce interest payments is a slow process...your kids won't even see it paid off.

[WACF]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We could try taxing the fucking oil companies...

You don't?

[Blackflag]

"Well Done Republicans..."

I wonder when people will wise up and stop the 'my team is the good guys' bullshit? Until then, there will never be any accountability.

You know I have no love lost for Bush. But tell me - who approves the budget? Who approves the special appropriations? Who approved the last $80 billion?

Can't be your beloved democrats, because we need to vote them in next time, right? Baa. Baa.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
"Well Done Republicans..."

I wonder when people will wise up and stop the 'my team is the good guys' bullshit? Until then, there will never be any accountability.

You know I have no love lost for Bush. But tell me - who approves the budget? Who approves the special appropriations? Who approved the last $80 billion?

Can't be your beloved democrats, because we need to vote them in next time, right? Baa. Baa.


:rolleyes:

We want to spend on infrastructure like Levees and bridges.

They want to send billions to the offshore accounts of Halliburton and Blackwater

And you're comparing the last YEAR to the previous 6 under Bush, and 6 under Clinton ????????

Give me a break.

No, you're right.

We should wait to vote in 51 Independents.

In the meantime, those small government fiscal consoervative Republicans will do just fine.

Sometimes it's YOU who has a cartoonish view of the world.

No love lost for Bush? :rolleyes:

whatever.

[LoungeMachine]

I love that we have Black Flag to come in and give us all civics 101

Gee, Mr. Wizard, I dunno..

Who approves budgets?

While you're here can you tell us how the term Free Booter became today's Filibuster?

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

And you're comparing the last YEAR to the previous 6 under Bush, and 6 under Clinton ????????


Remind me...what were the number of democrat votes on the budgets in the previous 6 years?

How did the democrats vote on the AUMF?

And how do you think the spending levels were during the Clinton years? Just to set the record straight in this Clinton love-fest: the reason for the economic success was simply the strength of the economy. A clown could have run that economy and come out on top. Indeed, it was his lack of action helped the economy the most.

Or is your point that your beautiful democratic congress has "only" had one year to do its job? Yeah, Lounge...maybe next year they'll stop the flow of money. Or maybe the year after that..? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
give us all civics 101

My point is not to give this forum its badly needed political science, economics, or law lessons.

My point is that there are not two teams, like you so desperately want to believe.

There is one team - and you're not on it. You'll never be on it. You're just another of the faceless douchebags financing it and cheering it on.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
it's actually not that hard to retire the debt. although, yes, at a minimum it will take decades to do. but that's by design. just like a home mortgage, most bonds the government sells (that's how we borrow money) have long-term repayment schedules.

we currently have the funds to pay off the interest/repayments for outstanding bonds that come due each year. the problem is that we are also currently adding to that debt each year by running constant budget deficits.

however, if we were to go through another period of extended balanced budgets, the debt would begin to shrink.

the debt, itself, is not the problem. it's the deficit trends.

The money itself is all illusion so it's what magic trick or to use a David Copperfield term "illusion" you can get away with. When the dollar was backed by silver and gold commodities, no more notes could be issued than there was gold or silver in the reserves to back it up. The value of the money was determined by the world commodity markets.

With the Federal Reserve and deficite spending, the value of the money is determined by the Fedral Reserve manipulation. Hell, the whole banking system is bullshit now. With Merrill Lynch and Chase bundling sub prime loans into bonds and selling them grade A to investors, it hard to top that on the bullshit scale.

It's all IMAGE folks and we aren't going to pay back shit. We are going to stick China will bad dollars and merge with the European Union. That's the big plan. The new currency will just need to be promoted by some big name celebrities telling Joe Six Pack how wonderful it is and we tie it to the Euro. Then we can start running up new debts. It's funny money backed by no government or commodities. It's simply printed by a private central banking system that has been playing the game for 300 years. Google Rothschilds if you want to know more.

[Nitro Express]

The Dollar is only worth what you can trade it for and confidence is waining. It's nothing more than some paper or code in a computer.

Compared to oil the Dollar is nothing. We are going for the real wealth. The last cheap oil reserves in the world and we are willing to do anything to get it. The puppet govt. thing didn't work in Iraq, so we will bomb Iran this winter and make the oil even more valuable. We have plenty of nasty weapons to keep the Iranians at bay or that's what the war mongers think. Dick and Monkey Brain even have tactical nukes on the table for this one.

[Nitro Express]

There is one team - and you're not on it. You'll never be on it. You're just another of the faceless douchebags financing it and cheering it on.

Yup. Japan has it's Shogun hiearchy that runs it's huge business and banking conglomerates.

North America and Europe have their international banking hiearchy. The Rothschilds being in power for appox. 300 years and the Rockefellers being in power for approx. 100 years in North America. All have very powerful ties in industry, business, and politics.

Unless you are in the inner circle of the Council on Foriegn Relations; you aren't in the club. Dick Chenney was chairman. About any real power wielding politician is in the club and some of the most successful business leaders.

Unless you personally know David Rockefeller: you're out of the loop. Bono found this out. LOL! He did get to meet David Rockefeller but I don't think Mr. Rockefeller was interested in forgiving third world debt. since it's how he extorts the raw resources he so loves from these poor countries.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag


My point is that there are not two teams, like you so desperately want to believe.

There is one team - and you're not on it. You'll never be on it. You're just another of the faceless douchebags financing it and cheering it on.

Neither are you.

Nor will you ever be.

But some of us prefer to shine a light on who the major offenders are, and if you had half the brain you claim, you'd know the record 9Trillion dollar debt is LARGELY the fault of Reagan, Bush Sr, and King George.

But feel free to continue to think you have any more insight and / or control than any of us.

Yakima being the financial hub of the Western World and all....

It's a fucking politcal message board [bored] dedicated to an aging rock star clinging to his legacy with both hands.

If you want to impress someone, go post your shit at Bloomberg.

We're just letting off steam. You actually think you're here to make a difference.

And I enjoy laughing at that. :D

Dr. Pibb for everyone! I'm buying

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Why is it when you tout the virtues of democrats, you're letting off steam...but when I say the two parties are indistinguishable, I'm "making a difference?" To let off steam, you had to have actually done something during the day. Playing on the internet doesn't count.

And I defy you to show me where I ever said I had a brain.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
you'd know the record 9Trillion dollar debt is LARGELY the fault of Reagan, Bush Sr, and King George.
...
Yakima being the financial hub of the Western World and all....


I can't resist... please tell me how the current debt is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. (but not Clinton, of course!) when their debt has already been retired?


And don't you dare make fun of my beloved Yakima...the nerve.:mad:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I can't resist... please tell me how the current debt is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. (but not Clinton, of course!) when their debt has already been retired?


And don't you dare make fun of my beloved Yakima...the nerve.:mad:


"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

- Richard B. Cheney 2001

99% of the policy shop wonks and foreign policy hawks in this administration are/were retread leftovers from Reagan Bush I

Cheney
Wolfowitz
Perle
Negromponte
Poindexter
Rumsfeld
Baker

He's been surrounded by Daddy and The Gipper's henchmen since day one.

Were we not in surplus at the end of Bubba's reign?

Large Defense Contracts and Tax Cuts for the Uber Wealthy.

Think Chimpy dreamed that up in Crawford himself?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Why is it when you tout the virtues of democrats, you're letting off steam...but when I say the two parties are indistinguishable, I'm "making a difference?" To let off steam, you had to have actually done something during the day. Playing on the internet doesn't count.

And I defy you to show me where I ever said I had a brain.

I defy you to show me where I've said The dems have virtues. :D

In theory, there is a difference between the two.

And until a 3rd party becomes viable enough to scare the Dems back to their roots [FDR - New Deal] [JFK - New Frontier] then yes, they're going to be Repuke-Lite. i.e. Shrillary.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
"Well Done Republicans..."

I wonder when people will wise up and stop the 'my team is the good guys' bullshit? Until then, there will never be any accountability.

You know I have no love lost for Bush. But tell me - who approves the budget? Who approves the special appropriations? Who approved the last $80 billion?

Can't be your beloved democrats, because we need to vote them in next time, right? Baa. Baa.

A lot of those appropriations are going to that giant sucking sound in the Middle East quagmire...

Something the the Democrats are trying to stop, or at least, reduce significantly...

[LoungeMachine]

FROM WORLD NUT DAILY, NO LESS


Bush spending up to 5 times more than Clinton
Reagan Revolution architect calls it 'era of obese government'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 3, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



WASHINGTON – Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.

In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.

Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.

"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."

No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.

Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.

"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Richard Viguerie

Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.

"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."

The numbers?


Johnson: 4.1 percent

Nixon/Ford: 5 percent

Carter: 1.6 percent

Reagan: 1.4 percent

Bush I: 3.8 percent

Clinton: 2.1 percent

Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once – for a non-spending issue – in his second term.

"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms – despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."

Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.

But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.

"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.

Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.

"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."

[Redballjets88]

Originally posted by WACF
How the hell do you pay that off?

It would take years(decades) just to help lower interest payments enough to have extra money available every budget.

we could start making countries pay us back for money we have given them.

[Eddie's Booze]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
we could start making countries pay us back for money we have given them.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
we could start making countries pay us back for money we have given them.

What do you mean?

Foreign Aid? Loans?

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

- Richard B. Cheney 2001

99% of the policy shop wonks and foreign policy hawks in this administration are/were retread leftovers from Reagan Bush I

Cheney
Wolfowitz
Perle
Negromponte
Poindexter
Rumsfeld
Baker

He's been surrounded by Daddy and The Gipper's henchmen since day one.

Were we not in surplus at the end of Bubba's reign?

Large Defense Contracts and Tax Cuts for the Uber Wealthy.

Think Chimpy dreamed that up in Crawford himself?

Well, that was long. Let me ask the question again: "please tell me how the current debt is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. (but not Clinton, of course!) when their debt has already been retired?"

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


In theory, there is a difference between the two.


And of course, we live in a theoretical world. So let's theoretically keep blaming republicans for everything while theoretically building up the democrats. Meanwhile, in reality, they both need to be held accountable.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Something the the Democrats are trying to stop, or at least, reduce significantly...

Only a hard core sheep could say that with a straight face.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Well, that was long. Let me ask the question again: "please tell me how the current debt is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. (but not Clinton, of course!) when their debt has already been retired?"

:rolleyes:

Fuck you're stupid sometimes.

Either that or Nick is right, and you just troll for fights for the sake of argument.

BushCO has followed the legacy of Reagan and Bush the Elder of destroying the middle class for the benefit of the Uber wealthy 2%, at the expense of the economy.

Don't be such a fucking douche all the time. You damn good and well they're all playing with the same loaded deck.


And shove your strawman "you're all Democratic Sheep" argument up your ass while you're at it. :rolleyes:

We've all been 500# shithammers on them as well since last November.


I once thought you might bring soemthing to the forum, but I'm begining to see what Nick was talking about.

I've also noticed that you never actually make any comments on your own, but rather just critique other's.

You're the guy who brings the chick to the gig, stands in the back, and tells her how much better you used to play that solo back in the day.


But thanks for the breaking newsflash that the whole system is fucked, and that neither Party is making a difference at the moment.

We hadn't noticed. :rolleyes:

You obviously have been oblivious to who's actually been in CONTROL of DC the last 19 of 27 years.

:gulp:

But then what does it really matter? If by posting my threads on here I'm doing nothing, then you commenting and critiquing them is doing less than nothing.

So on the great politico online curve, I've managed to beat the Mr. Pibb whore from Yakima.

Wouldn't my parents have been proud. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
"Well Done Republicans..."

I wonder when people will wise up and stop the 'my team is the good guys' bullshit? Until then, there will never be any accountability.



Could you provide the quote where I claimed the Dems are the good guys, and that I haven't held them accountable.

I'll be in the bar.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

Fuck you're stupid sometimes.

So now instead of answering the question, we've devolved into simple namecalling. What does that tell you about how well thought out your positions are?


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
BushCO has followed the legacy of Reagan and Bush the Elder of destroying the middle class for the benefit of the Uber wealthy 2%, at the expense of the economy.


You said the current $9T is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. Was that just more blowhard bullshit, or do you have a point? Because "they're all the same kind of bad guy" doesn't really support your statement, do you think?





Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And shove your strawman "you're all Democratic Sheep" argument up your ass while you're at it.

I know you're in love with the "strawman argument" concept. But at least use the fucking term properly, ok? Please? For me?

A strawman arguement is one in which a peson proposes a hypothetical to prove you wrong, but the scenario isn't analogous to the issue you're discussing.

Calling somebody a sheep is not an argument, it's an insult. Clear? And do you think somebody who says, "Something the the Democrats are trying to stop, or at least, reduce significantly..." is anything other than a sheep?



Originally posted by LoungeMachine

I once thought you might bring soemthing to the forum, but I'm begining to see what Nick was talking about.

Boo hoo. Somebody called me on my statement and I didn't have a good response. Sound like anybody else? War?

This, my friend, is letting off steam. Do something productive and stressful with your day and you'll understand what the term means. :D

Until then, you can just cry and throw insults when you don't like what people say...but you know just as well as I do what that makes you...:cry2:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Could you provide the quote where I claimed the Dems are the good guys, and that I haven't held them accountable.

I'll be in the bar.

:gulp:

Demcrats vote in the budget. You say the republicans are to blame. Is that accountability? Save that logic for the teenagers on here in awe of you.

And just to clarify for you: "provide the quote" is a strawman argument. "YOU are a sheep" is not.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Demcrats vote in the budget. You say the republicans are to blame. Is that accountability? Save that logic for the teenagers on here in awe of you.

And just to clarify for you: "provide the quote" is a strawman argument. "YOU are a sheep" is not.

Who had complete control of the gov't (executive and legislative) from 2001 to 2006?

What options does the minority party have? To paralyze gov't?

[Steve Savicki]

Wonder if it's time to increase the taxes for big businesses now.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who had complete control of the gov't (executive and legislative) from 2001 to 2006?

What options does the minority party have? To paralyze gov't?

In 2003, the budget was split 50-50, with democrats voting for the budget.

I'm not saying what the minority party should be doing...I'm saying what the minority is doing: the same as the republican party. There is no 'minority' party. If there were, 2007 would be a different story - using your logic. But nothing changed, did it?

Whatever, man. You guys are too hard core to discuss with. If you say something in disagreement, it ends up in namecalling...like angry retards who don't know what they're pissed off about.

p.s. Steve Savicki is my idol.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
In 2003, the budget was split 50-50, with democrats voting for the budget.

A budget that was largely imposed on them by the elected majority. Any real legislation proposed by Democrats was squashed with an almost unprecedented "in your face bitch!" attitude by the Republicans whilst there own bills were thrust onto the floor, with token pork handouts to insure Democratic votes...

It's not about statistics of how many voted, it's about the nuances of the whole process....

They made deals to get the best deals they could get.

But who was sponsoring these bills?


I'm not saying what the minority party should be doing...I'm saying what the minority is doing: the same as the republican party. There is no 'minority' party. If there were, 2007 would be a different story - using your logic. But nothing changed, did it?

Wow. What massive oversimplifications. Should I expect anything more from you?

No minority party? Orelly?

So, both "democrats" and "republicans" split the Houses 50-50?

So, things with the "do-nothing" Republican congress that challenged nothing that Bush ever did and completely shut out "democrats" from legislative sessions and marginalized them to an extent that was so bitter, petty and personal - it was reminiscent of an earlier, less civilized age, would be the same if Democrats would be in charge?

I guess you haven't really read a fucking newspaper in years...

But then, you'd have to avoid "facts" like the GOP Congressmen (as the "party of fiscal responsibility") under Gingrich were the ones that made the fiscal "contract with Amerika," in which they've violated nearly every supposed sacred tenet of since 1996, despite their ludicrous grandstanding...


Whatever, man. You guys are too hard core to discuss with. If you say something in disagreement, it ends up in namecalling...like angry retards who don't know what they're pissed off about.

p.s. Steve Savicki is my idol.

"Name-calling...angry retards?"

Wow, is this a troll or are you always so, hypocritical, self-contradicting and nullifying? it's almost like a Bush-conservative talking about fiscal responsibility...

The "problem" is that you're making over-generalizations that have little bearing in truth.

I'll agree that going Democrats is hardly the panacea of all our problems, or that they are blameless. Nor do I advocate mindless partisan balloting. But I don't think one can have lived through eight years of Clinton and then eight years of the monkey-asshat we have now and claim it was "the same."

The party that controls congress and the White House is the one that holds the agenda. It's about emphasis and direction of the leadership. The Republicans are a clear fail here for the past six-to-sixteen years, from taking the congress in the 90s to handing the White House to the anointed one. The Republicans are the party espousing supposed "fiscal responsibility," and morality, and have shown themselves to be inept hypocrites on both counts.

Here's a refresher for you in case you missed it:

"The Worst Congress Ever (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41145)"

Here's an extract:


But the 109th Congress is no mild departure from the norm, no slight deviation in an already-underwhelming history. No, this is nothing less than a historic shift in how our democracy is run. The Republicans who control this Congress are revolutionaries, and they have brought their revolutionary vision for the House and Senate quite unpleasantly to fruition. In the past six years they have castrated the political minority, abdicated their oversight responsibilities mandated by the Constitution, enacted a conscious policy of massive borrowing and unrestrained spending, and installed a host of semipermanent mechanisms for transferring legislative power to commercial interests. They aimed far lower than any other Congress has ever aimed, and they nailed their target.

"The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School. "I think that if the Framers went to Capitol Hill today, it would shake their confidence in the system they created. Congress has become an exercise of raw power with no principles -- and in that environment corruption has flourished. The Republicans in Congress decided from the outset that their future would be inextricably tied to George Bush and his policies. It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove. Congress became a mere extension of the White House."

The end result is a Congress that has hijacked the national treasury, frantically ceded power to the executive, and sold off the federal government in a private auction. It all happened before our very eyes. In case you missed it, here's how they did it -- in five easy steps:

[Blackflag]

Your whole post ignores the bald facts ("oversimplified") and struggles to read between the lines so that you can continue to have faith in your "party." Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

Tell me - why does the democratic congress continue to spend billions on Iraq? Why have they taken no steps to draw down the troops? Why have they done - well, nothing?

To answer Lounge's point earlier about destroying the middle class, I ask: who proposed nafta? Who signed it into law? This is one group acting together to accomplish a single agenda.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Your whole post ignores the bald facts ("oversimplified") and struggles to read between the lines so that you can continue to have faith in your "party." Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

Really? What's my "party?"

"Bald facts?" Like you ignore my entire post?


Tell me - why does the democratic congress continue to spend billions on Iraq? Why have they taken no steps to draw down the troops? Why have they done - well, nothing?

Oh I don't know - because their majority isn't big enough to meet the threashhold to override neither the Republican minority or the Presidential veto...

Do I really have to explain that to you?

And they haven't "taken steps?" They've in fact sponsored many of the bills doing exactly that, but have failed to pass or they've been vetoed...


To answer Lounge's point earlier about destroying the middle class, I ask: who proposed nafta? Who signed it into law? This is one group acting together to accomplish a single agenda.

NAFTA wasn't just Clinton's baby. He was facing a Republican majority in congress. If he had shot down NAFTA, he would have looked like the anti-business liberal...

In any case, we're talking about today's recent Congress, are we not?

[Redballjets88]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What do you mean?

Foreign Aid? Loans?

loans etc... not forgein aid, although we did totally fund the rebuilding of europe after WW2, maybe we can go back on our word.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
So now instead of answering the question, we've devolved into simple namecalling. What does that tell you about how well thought out your positions are?



You said the current $9T is the fault of Reagan and Bush Sr. Was that just more blowhard bullshit, or do you have a point? Because "they're all the same kind of bad guy" doesn't really support your statement, do you think?






I know you're in love with the "strawman argument" concept. But at least use the fucking term properly, ok? Please? For me?

A strawman arguement is one in which a peson proposes a hypothetical to prove you wrong, but the scenario isn't analogous to the issue you're discussing.

Calling somebody a sheep is not an argument, it's an insult. Clear? And do you think somebody who says, "Something the the Democrats are trying to stop, or at least, reduce significantly..." is anything other than a sheep?




Boo hoo. Somebody called me on my statement and I didn't have a good response. Sound like anybody else? War?

This, my friend, is letting off steam. Do something productive and stressful with your day and you'll understand what the term means. :D

Until then, you can just cry and throw insults when you don't like what people say...but you know just as well as I do what that makes you...:cry2:


LMAO

Pot? Kettle.


And you do use strawman all the time. You will posit that that I hold dems blameless, and defend and support them, so that you can bloviate about how they're one in the same...


All the while ignore my countless posts/threads calling out the dems.

My "well done republicans" subtext is my opinion that the Republican party/mindset of Reagen "voodoo economics", and the spending of the Republican controlled Congress has made a mockery of today's Republicn "conservatives"

This dogma and mindset has allowed King George to reign over the nighmares we're facing now.

Don't agree? Fine. Make your case. But your only goals are to pick fights with Nick or myself. That's why you seldom bother to reply to anyone else's posts. You certainly don't bring your own takes to the table.

I stand by my statements, and like I said I'm begining to see where Nick was coming from. I misjudged you. I thought you were actually going to bring something to the table.

But hey, every form of entertainment needs critics. Knock yourself out.

I look forward to some brilliant insights and solutions we mortals have yet to see. I know you've just been sandbagging, and warming up by trolling Nick and myself.

But before you try and claim we're taking this shit seriously, or thinking it matters in the real world, or are shilling for the Dems, do your research. Or not.

But if your argument is that the Dems are somehow just as guilty as the Big Government / Privitize the Military / Cut Taxes in War Time Republican Party....... welp, you're nuts.

And for the record, I'm anti-nafta. Like it matters.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

THE DESTABILIZING FOREIGN POLICIES OF BUSHCO ARE ABOUT TO COME HOME TO ROOST.

Under BushCO fuel prices more than triple....





:rolleyes:


$100 Oil May Mean Recession as U.S. Economy Hits `Danger Zone'

By Simon Kennedy and Joe Richter

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Rising fuel prices that businesses and consumers took in stride earlier this year may now be near the point of pushing the weakened U.S. economy into recession.

``We are in a danger zone,'' says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc. and a former Federal Reserve economist. ``It would take two shocks to bring the economy to its knees. We got one shock in the form of the credit crunch. Oil could be that second shock.''

Crude-oil prices are poised to cross the $100-a-barrel mark while the U.S. economy is still reeling from a surge in corporate borrowing costs. Europe and Japan are vulnerable as well, after the U.S. subprime-mortgage collapse contaminated their credit markets.

Even before the latest jump in energy costs, economists expected U.S. growth to slow to less than 2 percent in the fourth quarter -- half the third quarter's pace. Andrew Cates, an economist at UBS AG in London, said his models suggest a 45 percent chance of a U.S. recession next year, up from 33 percent last month, as oil prices prove a ``growing concern.''

Japan risks its fourth recession since the early 1990s, with its index of leading economic indicators falling to zero for the first time in a decade. The European Commission last week cut its 2008 growth forecast for the 13 nations that share the euro to 2.2 percent from 2.5 percent, partly because of costlier crude. The economy grew 2.8 percent last year.

Energy Efficiency

The world economy may still dodge recession as emerging markets continue to expand. A report last week by Deutsche Bank AG said gains in energy efficiency mean the effect of more expensive oil will ``remain muted.''

Even so, gloom is spreading at a speed that suggests ``we're walking a really fine line,'' says John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina. ``Even a month ago, you probably wouldn't have thought we'd be seeing a sustained credit problem and oil holding up above $85 a barrel.''

Crude oil traded at a record $98.62 last week on the New York Mercantile Exchange and ended the week at $96.32, bringing its increase this year to 58 percent. Prices adjusted for inflation exceed the previous record, set in 1981 when Iran cut exports.

The dilemma for central banks is how to balance oil's drag on their economies against the risk of higher inflation. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told Congress Nov. 8 that oil prices threaten both ``renewed upward pressure'' on inflation and ``further restraint on growth.''

Accelerating Inflation

Such concerns prompted the European Central Bank to keep interest rates on hold last week, and President Jean-Claude Trichet said he still sees a danger that inflation will accelerate.

Clayton Jones, chief executive officer at Rockwell Collins Inc., says central bankers should err on the side of supporting growth. Jones, whose Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based company makes aircraft-cockpit instruments, said in an interview that he's ``much more worried about recessionary impacts rather than inflationary impacts.''

Manufacturers are among the first to feel the pinch: Rising energy prices are increasing their costs while drooping consumer and business confidence erodes demand.

In the U.S., the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index fell to a seven-month low in October as gauges of orders and production declined.

Lower Profits

Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc., the world's biggest maker of bulldozers and excavators, cut its profit forecast on Oct. 19 and said the economy would be ``near to, or even in, recession'' in 2008.

The pain doesn't stop there. Rising jet-fuel prices are forcing airlines to curtail expansion plans. Chicago-based UAL Corp.'s United Airlines said it may cut capacity in 2008 to make up for higher fuel costs. Cologne-based Deutsche Lufthansa AG is raising fuel surcharges on long-haul flights.

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. is ``reconsidering our growth rate for next year,'' because of ``very significant'' cost increases, Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said Nov. 7.

Meanwhile, U.S. shoppers, who helped propel most of the current expansion, may cut back as gasoline and home-heating costs rise. Retail-sales growth from November through January may be the slowest since 2002, consultant Ernst & Young estimates. Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

`A Huge, Real Shock'

Fuel costs are ``a huge, real shock'' to consumers, says Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics LLC and a professor at New York University. ``High oil prices are going to remain with us until we go into a recession.''

Europe's manufacturers are contending not only with increased energy costs but also the euro's rise to a record against the dollar, which is hobbling exports.

An index of manufacturing growth in Europe dropped to the lowest level in more than two years in October, and confidence among executives in Germany fell to a 20-month low.

Morgan Stanley's model of activity in the euro zone is now flashing the ``risk of manufacturing recession,'' according to Chief European Economist Eric Chaney, a former official at the French ministry of finance. He says the area's economy may run close to its ``stall speed'' of about 1 percent in the first quarter, and ``oil is not making things easier.''

Biggest Decline

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, the world's largest maker of printing machines, last week reported its quarterly profit dropped by almost half, triggering the biggest decline in its shares since 2004. ``Energy and raw-material costs have made life difficult,'' says Dirk Kaliebe, chief financial officer of the Heidelberg, Germany-based company.

The pain extends to China and India as governments pare energy subsidies, putting more of the burden on companies and consumers. China increased fuel prices by as much as 10 percent Nov. 1, and India may follow as soon as this week.

``The stage is set for a significant slowdown in global manufacturing,'' says Joseph Lupton, a former Fed economist now at JPMorgan Chase & Co., which predicts industrial-production growth worldwide will decelerate by more than half before the end of this year, to about 3 percent.

The speed of the latest jump in oil prices tests the resilience of economies that weathered previous increases, says David Hale, president of Chicago-based Hale Advisors LLC.

``We've had stages in which the price has gone up over a period of two or three years,'' he told a Nov. 7 teleconference. ``The recent price spike from $85 to $96 has happened in just a few weeks, so this will pose more of a risk.''

The longer prices remain high, the greater the threat, says Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse Holdings Inc. in New York.

While Soss doesn't expect a recession, he compares the danger to ``driving on an icy road: You may get away with it for a while, but the risk of having an accident has gone up.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at skennedy4@bloomberg.net ; Joe Richter in Washington Jrichter1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 11, 2007 19:02 EST

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMAO

Pot? Kettle.


And you do use strawman all the time. You will posit that that I hold dems blameless, and defend and support them, so that you can bloviate about how they're one in the same...


All the while ignore my countless posts/threads calling out the dems.

My "well done republicans" subtext is my opinion that the Republican party/mindset of Reagen "voodoo economics", and the spending of the Republican controlled Congress has made a mockery of today's Republicn "conservatives"

This dogma and mindset has allowed King George to reign over the nighmares we're facing now.

Don't agree? Fine. Make your case. But your only goals are to pick fights with Nick or myself. That's why you seldom bother to reply to anyone else's posts. You certainly don't bring your own takes to the table.

I stand by my statements, and like I said I'm begining to see where Nick was coming from. I misjudged you. I thought you were actually going to bring something to the table.

But hey, every form of entertainment needs critics. Knock yourself out.

I look forward to some brilliant insights and solutions we mortals have yet to see. I know you've just been sandbagging, and warming up by trolling Nick and myself.

But before you try and claim we're taking this shit seriously, or thinking it matters in the real world, or are shilling for the Dems, do your research. Or not.

But if your argument is that the Dems are somehow just as guilty as the Big Government / Privitize the Military / Cut Taxes in War Time Republican Party....... welp, you're nuts.

And for the record, I'm anti-nafta. Like it matters.

:gulp:

See, now that last post really started to hurt my feelings. Did you ever stop and think that maybe Blackflag has a tender side, too?

Why do you have to take everything so personally and get so wound up? Why don't you just take your meds and relax for a while?

I just asked what the basis of your statement was - that Reagan was responsible for the $9T. You still have no answer...but that's cool - we all get caught saying stupid shit occasionally. Nothing to get all defensive about.

BTW - that still isn't a strawman argument, I'm sorry to say. Your homework assignment is to reread the definition of a strawman until you understand it.

:alien:

[LoungeMachine]

Actually, I've given the Reagan answer repeatedly.....

You just refuse to accept it, which is your right.

If you can't see the conections with Reagan's policies, and what BushCO has slung for 7 years, that's not my issue.....

Jesus, my good man, they've even stooped to HIRING fucks with the names Poindexter Rumsfeld, Cheney, Armitage, et al......

Even the Neo-Con Shitbags that used to haunt this place worhipped the fucking vegetable..... and I don't mean ketchup.


I could not possibly care less if you agree with ANYTHING I say, I'd just like for once for you to actually live by your superior "code of internet wackjobs" you love to spout...

We already have 1 Baby's On Fire, two is redundant.....


And no, to answer your question, I've never stopped to consider your feelings. I figure anyone as smart and calculating, and above the fray such aas yourself is completely devoid of those silly human frailities.....


As for the meds, welp..... I'm no stranger to self medication if that's your point. :D


:gulp:

Now, can you tell us all how Bill and Nafta are to blame for the $9T ?

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Actually, I've given the Reagan answer repeatedly.....

Sorry, that was it? Because the current idiots ran up a giant debt, it's the fault of everybody else who has also done so in the past? It's the fault of whoever gave them the idea? That's weak. If that's your theory, I guess you can also blame all the other countries that have done so in the past for our $9T...I guess you can even blame Keynes. Damn them all for our troubles! :rolleyes:


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Now, can you tell us all how Bill and Nafta are to blame for the $9T ?
The legacy of nafta is higher trade defecits and lower GDP growth. But my point was not to say it was Clinton's fault - my point was that Bush wrote up the thing and Clinton signed it i.e. concerted effort by both parties to destroy the middle class.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Sorry, that was it? Because the current idiots ran up a giant debt, it's the fault of everybody else who has also done so in the past? It's the fault of whoever gave them the idea? That's weak. If that's your theory, I guess you can also blame all the other countries that have done so in the past for our $9T...I guess you can even blame Keynes. Damn them all for our troubles! :rolleyes:
.

:rolleyes:

unfuckingbelievable

Yeah, 2001-7 was performed in a vacuum.

Chimpy and his republican cohorts came up with their doctrine of tax cuts while spending your way out of trouble on the backs of the middle class all on their own.

poof. There it was.


And using the "new and improved" cold war enemy of ISLMAOFASCISTS to ratchet up the military just like under Ronnie is mere coincidence as well....

Whatever.

I said "well done republicans" because for the MOST part, this mess we're in is the fault of REPUBLICANS and their focus and prioroties.

And I stand by it.

But somehow in your addled mind, I'm letting the Dems off the hook, since I've been so supportive of them lately. :rolleyes:

Now, where's that surplus. I know it's around here somewhere.....

:gulp:

dumbass.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
. concerted effort by both parties to destroy the middle class.

Which was actually started under Reagan.

How many jobs in 1980 were union compared to today?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag


If that's your theory, I guess you can also blame all the other countries that have done so in the past for our $9T...I guess you can even blame Keynes. Damn them all for our troubles! :rolleyes:

.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Excellent point.

Guess I never thought of that.

I didnt need to merely blame the republican administrations in the last 27 years for the current bunch of morons we have.

How silly.

In fact, it's safe to say BushCO bears no resemblence whatsover to those silly Tax and Spend Reaganites with the aversion to military buildups. :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Too funny....

I just noticed you've been logged into this forum for 2 hours waiting for my reply....

This is the highlight of your night, isn't it?

You can't WAIT to reply to whatever I've posted on this.

Just sitting here waiting, you were.... Had I known, I would have cut my little get together shorter, and come in and replied so you didnt have to wait so long.

2 hours sitting in the forum without posting? Catching up on reading old threads?

Nah.

You missed me.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

National Debt History
by President
White House Data on
Gross National Debt
National Debt Graph (2007 Budget data)

.
In 1981 the gross national debt, compared to the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931, 32.5%. It could have been paid off then more easily than at any time in the previous 50 years. Despite his claim to hate the debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending. This is not partisan politics, this is straight off the White House web site.
As the graph shows, Bush II repeated Reagan's performance and turned the debt upward again. Bush II's own Office of Management and Budget provides all the data.
Look at the graph and imagine where we would have been if Clinton had continued the Reagan-Bush-Bush trend.
Click image below to enlarge.

National Debt as % of GDP. see also: (Source)

How could Reagan mistake the lowest national debt for the highest?
He forgot inflation and forgot the US was growing—size matters.
This graph compares the size of the Gross National Debt (the blue line, $T) with a typical part of the U.S. economy — spending on furniture. The vertical line (1979) is when Reagan got it backwards.
As can be seen furniture spending was at an "all time record high" in 1979, just like national debt. Was America going crazy on furniture? Was the debt going crazy? No. No. The country was just getting bigger and richer, and dollars were worth less. The debt was actually shrinking relative to the national income. The most popular national debt web sites are still making Reagan's mistake.
The debt grew rapidly during World War II, but its growth during peace-time prosperity starting in 1982 was without precedent.

Some say Reagan had nothing to do with the debt's U turn
They say it was Congressional Democrats. Not true. Had things worked out just as Reagan proposed and predicted, the debt still would have gone up 85% as much. But even this is deceptive. The reason his predicted savings did not materialize was not Congress. The reason was that he predicted much more economic growth from supply-side magic than actually happened. So he counted on taxes that were never collected to help his budgets. In fact a study by the House found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed.

Whose National-Debt Numbers?

The data plotted here were taken directly from the White House web site and plotted without modification. For details, see (Source).

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[Blackflag]

Five posts with no point...and a 'somebody please miss me?'

Is this a cry for help, or have you lost the plot?

:smoke2:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Five posts with no point...and a 'somebody please miss me?'

Is this a cry for help, or have you lost the plot?

:smoke2:

This from the guy who sat logged into the forum for 2 hours without posting......

yet happened to reply 2 minutes after I log out.

:D

Classic.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
This from the guy who sat logged into the forum for 2 hours without posting......

yet happened to reply 2 minutes after I log out.

:D

Classic.

If it makes you feel better about yourself, we can pretend anybody on here knows/cares when you log off... but I reccommend you upgrade your Netscape 2.0 and learn what tabbed browsing is.

You really want somebody to hang on your words, don't you? This thread has turned just a little bit pathetic now, time to let it fade away... :uck:

[LoungeMachine]

And yet here you are......

Still posting in this thread...

Well, it's not like you've been bothered with any other threads....

LMAO

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
If
but I reccommend you upgrade your Netscape 2.0 and learn what tabbed browsing is.




:lol:

Kept it tabbed just in case Lounge responds....

priceless.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:lol:

Kept it tabbed just in case Lounge responds....

priceless.

:gulp:

Just in case? Just in case?? Do you really think it's possible that you wouldn't?

14.7 posts per day, baby...living the life!



It's cool...I'll play along..."yes, lounge, people care when you're on the computer...what you say matters to people in the world!" :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

You still on this?


LMAO

Even had to go back and edit your post...

Just to make sure you were impressive. :D

Same time tomorrow?

Probably.

:gulp:

Next time maybe you wont need to go back and edit your work.

:lol:

[Blackflag]

Response time: 1:20. Impressive. Wonder how long til your next post?

Tell you what - last word is yours...your ego needs it.

14.7, baby!!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Response time: 1:20. Impressive. Wonder how long til your next post?

Tell you what - last word is yours...your ego needs it.

14.7, baby!!

Classic. :D

Yes, the 30 minutes a day I spend typing 14.78 posts is keeping me from solving world hunger and global warming. :D

Much like your hours spent in the Poon Forum scanning for things not seen in your real life time. :D

Accept your defeat and move onto another thread, Yakima.

Here's one for you....

THIS current occupation is a direct result of GHW Bush's invasion of Iraq 16 years ago.....

Let's see if you're bright enough to connect the dots. No fair asking a classmate either. I want you to show all work.

It's been fun, buttercup.

:gulp:

[NATEDOG001976]

Sounds like the average american. "in debt"

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by NATEDOG001976
Sounds like the average american. "in debt"

Just who do you think is going to pay back this $9 Trillion?

FYI YOU now owe $40,000.00 personally for the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We'll take a check.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

It's been fun, buttercup.

:gulp:

Butter what? What? Buttercup? How can you say that without feeling like a douche?

I mean, you and I both know you don't go around calling people "buttercup" out in the real world.

You could try being yourself on here and leave the "persona" behind. People would still like you, man. No posing required. What the fuck.