A Complete Waste of Space

You misspelled "far left" in your sig - it's not "forward".

Good post Slick. Cuz everyone knows that spending money you don't have and going into more debt is the way out of debt..................

ruggbutt wrote:Good post Slick. Cuz everyone knows that spending money you don't have and going into more debt is the way out of debt..................

It seems counterintuitive, yet history shows that it has worked, every time.

How to kill an economy?
Simple.
Vote Democrat.

Prediction, Obama will loose to any Republican challenger by the largest margin in history.

HH

callmeslick wrote:

ruggbutt wrote:Good post Slick. Cuz everyone knows that spending money you don't have and going into more debt is the way out of debt..................

It seems counterintuitive, yet history shows that it has worked, every time.

Please to show links, supportive proof, of the "history"...every time....?
If this is such a wonderful idea...why wasn't it done ten years ago? twenty years ago? thirty years ago?
Why isn't it working now? I may be a "rube"? But, don't ya have to pay back loans with interest? Doesn't that
take away from the "over all" profits? Who are we going to borrow from? What are we gonna use for collateral?
Why do the tax payers have to be responsible for paying back the loan?

Pudfark wrote:Please to show links, supportive proof, of the "history"...every time....?

I won't go back through history too far, but the article shows a couple and I'll add one. WWII, essentially mass government deficit spending, coupled with more timid government spending from the New Deal, got us out of the Great Depression. More pertinent to today, Dwight Eisenhower's will to spend, via deficit spending, despite a postwar debt load, to build the Interstate system, ramped up the economy for nearly 20 years. Further boosts of a nearly unfathomable nature came from government spending on the Space Program, despite no real purpose beyond a show of balls with the USSR.

If this is such a wonderful idea...why wasn't it done ten years ago? twenty years ago? thirty years ago?

a great question, Pud, with a simple answer. Ronald Reagan sold the public on the bizarre notion that government is BAD, and ever since, politicians lack the political will to buck that idea and risk their jobs.
In other words, doing the right thing for the economy is bad short-term politics.

Why isn't it working now?

It is, comparatively, and it worked for the brief time the Germans tried it, until they changed to the cut spending tactic.

I may be a "rube"? But, don't ya have to pay back loans with interest? Doesn't that
take away from the "over all" profits? Who are we going to borrow from? What are we gonna use for collateral?
Why do the tax payers have to be responsible for paying back the loan?

[/quote]

I think you're getting confused now. The taxpayers pay back all national debt, but if the economy booms
(examples from the late 1950's to the early 70's abound) the increased revenue from increased income makes the burden lighter by comparison on all. Eventually, if you sustain a real boom, like in the 1990's, you can zero out the annual deficit and pay back the debt. We were doing so nicely, until Bush decided to give the surplus and then some back to those of us with inherited wealth. By rights, the rest of you all should have been pissed as hell, but, sadly, nary a peep from the sheep.

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:Please to show links, supportive proof, of the "history"...every time....?

I won't go back through history too far, but the article shows a couple and I'll add one. WWII, essentially mass government deficit spending, coupled with more timid government spending from the New Deal, got us out of the Great Depression. More pertinent to today, Dwight Eisenhower's will to spend, via deficit spending, despite a postwar debt load, to build the Interstate system, ramped up the economy for nearly 20 years. Further boosts of a nearly unfathomable nature came from government spending on the Space Program, despite no real purpose beyond a show of balls with the USSR.

WWII has nothing to do with what is going on now, it's spending, borrowing or otherwise...So, what you're saying is the our Government supplies taxpayer funded projects to create jobs for the same taxpayer (rob Peter to pay Paul)...How about this for an idea? Why are we not working overtime to enable an export economy...ya know, like the Chinese? Make use of our existing infrastructure...the roads are still there...tighten up our belts and compete price wise with the rest of the world...take our market share back. Until we do? We are screwed. Our government owns a lot of oil, only 17% of the area/land is allowed to drill....We could, if we wanted to, develop it and quit sending 100's of billions of dollars out of the country..that's probably to simple for most to digest...

If this is such a wonderful idea...why wasn't it done ten years ago? twenty years ago? thirty years ago?

a great question, Pud, with a simple answer. Ronald Reagan sold the public on the bizarre notion that government is BAD, and ever since, politicians lack the political will to buck that idea and risk their jobs.
In other words, doing the right thing for the economy is bad short-term politics.

Seems like it's time to quit electing the self serving hidden agenda types...It's a damn shame and a tell on the people of this country when they cannot discern the difference... This is the number one reason, I have said "term limitation" in the past..it's a place to start.

Why isn't it working now?

It is, comparatively, and it worked for the brief time the Germans tried it, until they changed to the cut spending tactic.

I very much disagree. I don't see it, don't hear it and have not read it anywhere...all I know? If ya don't pay the bills, you live in the dark, under a tree and the running water is down by the creek.

I may be a "rube"? But, don't ya have to pay back loans with interest? Doesn't that
take away from the "over all" profits? Who are we going to borrow from? What are we gonna use for collateral?
Why do the tax payers have to be responsible for paying back the loan?

I think you're getting confused now. The taxpayers pay back all national debt, but if the economy booms
(examples from the late 1950's to the early 70's abound) the increased revenue from increased income makes the burden lighter by comparison on all. Eventually, if you sustain a real boom, like in the 1990's, you can zero out the annual deficit and pay back the debt. We were doing so nicely, until Bush decided to give the surplus and then some back to those of us with inherited wealth. By rights, the rest of you all should have been pissed as hell, but, sadly, nary a peep from the sheep.[/quote]

Nope, I'm not confused. We gave away/lost our international markets, stole from each other till we were blind and giddy and NOW we have to pay the piper....Conservative people live within their means. They don't accumulate debt to the degree/point that their great grandchildren are gonna have to pay for it. Adding to this massive debt? Will make repayment mathematically impossible. The wealthy people in this country? Should be given tax incentives to invest in job creation and reclamation/new world markets. Not by placing additional debt burdens on the rest of us. Yes, it's that simple......

Pudfark wrote:WWII has nothing to do with what is going on now, it's spending, borrowing or otherwise...So, what you're saying is the our Government supplies taxpayer funded projects to create jobs for the same taxpayer (rob Peter to pay Paul)...How about this for an idea? Why are we not working overtime to enable an export economy...ya know, like the Chinese? Make use of our existing infrastructure...the roads are still there...tighten up our belts and compete price wise with the rest of the world...take our market share back. Until we do? We are screwed. Our government owns a lot of oil, only 17% of the area/land is allowed to drill....We could, if we wanted to, develop it and quit sending 100's of billions of dollars out of the country..that's probably to simple for most to digest...

Pud, get in touch with reality. We aren't going to compete for exports with the Chinese unless we drop the average wage to around 20 cents per hour. Maybe, you'd be willing to have your kids and grandkids work for 50 cents per hour and we can compete with the Mexicans. The infrastructure is shot....forget about roads, we need work on everything; water, electric, rail, sewage as well as getting the power sources away from petroleum. We better be willing to pay whatever it takes to fix those all, or we're doomed to second rate status within a generation. Finally, as I've said before, and been shown NOTHING to dispute my assertion:
WE DON'T HAVE THE OIL RESERVES TO SUSTAIN THE US CONSUMPTION. Period, we don't. Drill all you want, empty the strategic reserve, whatever. We would be out of oil within 3 years, tops.

Seems like it's time to quit electing the self serving hidden agenda types...It's a damn shame and a tell on the people of this country when they cannot discern the difference... This is the number one reason, I have said "term limitation" in the past..it's a place to start.

no real dispute here.....my take is to hold the 'people' responsible for their own gullibility. It would be nice if we found some actual leaders, though, as well.

.

I very much disagree. I don't see it, don't hear it and have not read it anywhere...all I know? If ya don't pay the bills, you live in the dark, under a tree and the running water is down by the creek.

perhaps you're not looking in the right places. The stock market is up, production and employment is creeping upward. Factory orders are up. This is in stark contrast to nations who merely 'slashed' government without stimulus.

Nope, I'm not confused. We gave away/lost our international markets, stole from each other till we were blind and giddy and NOW we have to pay the piper....Conservative people live within their means. They don't accumulate debt to the degree/point that their great grandchildren are gonna have to pay for it. Adding to this massive debt? Will make repayment mathematically impossible. The wealthy people in this country? Should be given tax incentives to invest in job creation and reclamation/new world markets. Not by placing additional debt burdens on the rest of us. Yes, it's that simple......

well, I'll give you this much.....that idea is pretty simple(take that however you wish). Sadly, 'trickle down' theories are always pretty simple. They also have failed, consistently, and the victims are always the same.
Fuck the people who aren't rich enough to benefit, is how it works. If you are ok with that, I should be, too, I suppose. It's just that I suspect the nation will become non-functional and resemble Egypt of late if too much more of this collective fuckover continues. All it will take is a critical mass of dirt-poor young people in a generation or so. I really wish not to see that day, nor have my descendants see it.

Well Slick...that only leaves one recourse.

Ya know what I mean?

"Pud, get in touch with reality. We aren't going to compete for exports with the Chinese unless we drop the average wage to around 20 cents per hour. Maybe, you'd be willing to have your kids and grandkids work for 50 cents per hour and we can compete with the Mexicans. The infrastructure is shot....forget about roads, we need work on everything; water, electric, rail, sewage as well as getting the power sources away from petroleum. We better be willing to pay whatever it takes to fix those all, or we're doomed to second rate status within a generation. Finally, as I've said before, and been shown NOTHING to dispute my assertion:
WE DON'T HAVE THE OIL RESERVES TO SUSTAIN THE US CONSUMPTION. Period, we don't. Drill all you want, empty the strategic reserve, whatever. We would be out of oil within 3 years, tops"