Since the Debt doesn't matter...

[top gun]

GenSeneca;81618]I'm doing the same with Obama...

Okaaaaaay... he won't even be in office for another 8 days.

... And by my disagreeing with Obama's policies and proposals, you poison the well by saying I'm not giving Obama a chance.

I'll address your other comments later.

You'll either give change a chance or you will complain before anything even has a chance to work. At the end of the day I don't really care who likes what... as long as things improve from where we are now.

I'm just saying to be fair to anyone you have to first see if they can accomplish something before you definitively say that they can't.

Believe it or not I gave even Bush that lead-way at first. True as things worsened I ramped up the rhetoric but I certainly didn't condemn him before he even sat in the chair!

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;81687]Even if it is/were true that he promoted selective intel, that they knew was questionable, embellished other intel, and invaded a country that was boxed in, that would not mean that he lied.

If people were to spend their time building a case for what you listed above they would have made far more headway than they did making a case for a falsehood that a lie was told.

Of course they choose to create the illusion of a lie because they could make it stick with the ignorant electorate and because the smaller reality of what could be made from the accusations above would not add up to too much. Don't get me wrong, I think some of those accusations are true to a degree. I just don't think they are very powerful accusations.

Whereas the accusation of a lie was very powerful just not true.

The main problem is that when people choose to focus on creating the illusion of a powerful lie rather than the reality of a less powerful truth they hurt the country as much a they damage the opposition party. So many are bemoaning the opinion other countries have of us while they were in large part responsible for creating it. I see the promotion of that falsehood as almost traitorous.

Now you are being less than straight forward trying to spin away from the reality of the situation.

When the President lays out something as serious as our men & women going into combat with the guarantee there will be loss of life the standard to me is...

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!

By no stretch of the imagination was this the case with the Bush administration. It's been well documented by well know insiders of this administration that Bush had going into Iraq on the table way before 9-11 even happened and then when 9-11 happened even though they knew Hussein & Iraq had no part in it whatsoever they said and I quote... Hussein has to pay for this.

The Bush administration took the old diversionary tactic of... A WINK IS AS GOOD AS A NODE TO A BLIND HORSE!

Unfortunately it's the American people who were the blind horse in this analogy.

Examples are not hard to find... 935 false statements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf57LknWIXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXbKLyP_9ac

 

[Dr.Who]

Now you are being less than straight forward trying to spin away from the reality of the situation.

When the President lays out something as serious as our men & women going into combat with the guarantee there will be loss of life the standard to me is...

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!

By no stretch of the imagination was this the case with the Bush administration. It's been well documented by well know insiders of this administration that Bush had going into Iraq on the table way before 9-11 even happened and then when 9-11 happened even though they knew Hussein & Iraq had no part in it whatsoever they said and I quote... Hussein has to pay for this.

The Bush administration took the old diversionary tactic of... A WINK IS AS GOOD AS A NODE TO A BLIND HORSE!

Unfortunately it's the American people who were the blind horse in this analogy.

Examples are not hard to find... 935 false statements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf57LknWIXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXbKLyP_9ac

Then go back and look at Powells speech. They didn't give as the main reason for going to war that Hussein had a part in 911. That is just wrong.

They said there was a lot of evidence that he was a threat to the United states. And there was a lot of evidence. And there are plenty of quotes from Democrats and other countries indicating that that was the prevailing opinion of virtually everyone. And he was a threat. Obviously in hind sight he was not yet a threat with WMD.

The fact that he did not have an operational part in the planning and execution of 911 is irrelevant. Though he did have a part in it since he encouraged terrorist generally to be opposed to Isreal and the United States. It is a fact that he paid any terrorists money for acts of terror against anyone he did not like. That supports terrorism in general and is involvement of some sort.

Anyone reading Powells speech knew what was ironclad and knew what was spin. Knowing what was spin it is foolish to go back after the fact and say that what you knew to be spin was a lie. And when I use the word spin I am not using it in the sense that outright intentionally wrong facts were said, I mean that things were said with an emphasis placed in one biased direction. We knew it was biased, he knew it was biased, no one was mislead because of the bias as it was as plain as the nose on your face.

By all means blame them for being biased. But don't be a hypocrite since every single politician we have is equally biased. Every war in history has been lead up to with biased rhetoric. And through it all the bias is plainly seen.

 

[BigRob]

Are your Crying-Towels monogrammed? ​

Shaman, this borders on a personal attack, please refrain in the future. Also please report any posts where you feel you have been attacked as well.

 

[GenSeneca]

The beauty of Democracy is anything can be changed at any time by a vote of its people. You don't take that right away just because a particular group fears a bad outcome.

We are a Republic and the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected... You don't give a rats anus about the minority because your particular group has pipe dreams of a good outcome.

Gen you have been at times, how do I put this, let's say less than civil. I fight in kind. You have every right to disagree with anything I say. But when you cross that line, yes I will be standing there to confront you.

You accused me of being a racist from the first moment I disagreed with Obama, you still seem to think that two wrongs make a right and your justified in any attack against me.

All things don't have to be permanent to help.

When the government takes power away from its citizens, it never gives that power back... we have to take it back.

That's the problem with your labeling ideology. If you are starving you don't care if the guy giving you a piece of bread is a Capitalist or Socialist or Facist... he's just giving you a piece of bread.

When he's handing out poison bread to thin the heard, I care.

Capitalist systems have both prospered and failed.

Capitalism has never failed, its the natural order of all life. People like you suffocate it with government regulation and when it convulses, you point and say "look, its failing!! Only more red tape over its mouth and nose can help!!!"

As we plan to reduce the war hugely and pull out of Iraq. Slightly different then when just going in.

While expanding the war in Afghanistan and even pushing into Pakistan...
I was against us going into Iraq but the only thing that would have been more irresponsible than staying in Iraq, would have been leaving before the Iraqi's could hold their country. Your plan to leave immediately after the invasion would have left it a failed state in the hands of terrorists.

That "skyrocket" quote is a partial quote taken out of context and you know it... this is why we don't get along.

No its not... He's Anti-Coal, Anti-Nuclear, Anti-Oil (the cheapest forms of energy) and Pro-super-expensive-unreliable-energy.

As far as your "smokes" I wish they'd tax them to about $10 a pack... or better yet just outlaw their sale for health reasons. I've seen to many people die because of them and they raise everyone's healthcare cost while providing no good effects whatsoever... they only feed their own dependence.

Its supposed to be smokers... I left the "R" off. Your a coach right? We should ban all athletic equipment and sports... way too many sports injuries that result in unnecessary and avoidable healthcare costs. Yes, thats sarcasm meant to point out your authoritarianism and total disrespect for the minority.

ALL GREAT IDEAS! Our military should be tech driven not boots driven. We should be in the military business of always being able to repel any force but not occupy entire countries. We 21st century tthinking... not Cold War thinking.

The same thinking that led to our vulnerability on 9/11...
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."--Obamamessiah
It won't even be tech driven...

And the means testing for S.S. is another great idea. If the choice becomes say raising everybody to collect any benefit to 70-75 or have some income restrictions on benefits for people that say bring in 100,000K or 150,000K per year without it... I'm fine with that. It's still there if they need it.

Why do you feel you have the right to other peoples money? Why do you feel entitled to what you didn't earn?

When you take money from a rich person, its called theft... When the government does it for you.. its rationalized as compassion... but its still theft.

Somethings are needed and justifyable...

And those things are enumerated in the Constitution.... but you don't care about the definitions of the words Provide and Promote, you think they mean the exact same thing.... Its either that or you have contempt for our constitution and would like to discard the parts of it you disagree with in order to more easily disregard the rights of the minority.

 

[Dr.Who]

ALL GREAT IDEAS! Our military should be tech driven not boots driven. We should be in the military business of always being able to repel any force but not occupy entire countries. We 21st century tthinking... not Cold War thinking.

Our military is tech driven. we have the most technologiclly advanced military on the planet and the most tech it can be.

The cold war was a war of technology not of boots. It was the expense of the technology that caused the stress that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had a far larger population and could have recruited far larger numbers of soldiers than we could have.

And the means testing for S.S. is another great idea. If the choice becomes say raising everybody to collect any benefit to 70-75 or have some income restrictions on benefits for people that say bring in 100,000K or 150,000K per year without it... I'm fine with that. It's still there if they need it.

While you are at it why not convert all insurance plans to means testing? Who cares that people bought an insurance policy with a promise that certain benefits would be paid out. The gov can just decide to change the benefits that were promised. So when you get in a car accident don't be surprised if the gov says that you limits were too high and your family doesn't get the treatment you bought because it is too expensive.

 

[Pidgey]

Posted this elsewhere, but it probably should go in this thread:

Couple of graphs to consider with respect to US debt:

Here's a link to some expansion on the first graph:

http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupda...hat-Does-Debt--Buy--For-the-U.S.-Economy.aspx

...and then this one:

In the first, you can see how the trendline projected a rough date when further investment in our economy would no longer get a return on your money. In the second, you can see that the recent injection by the Fed has hastened that date to... today.

Please note that while certain periods (read: presidencies) caused relatively minor fluctuations, nothing has actually stopped the downward trend (although you can see an interesting downward perturbation resulting from Jimmy Carter's time in office and a flattening during Reagan's). This actually suggests that there's another controlling factor that seems not to have been identified in virtually all public discourse on the subject.

Also, don't try to read too much into the noise patterns overlaying the basic signal. Different theories abound, but the Elliot wave principle seems to be as good of a theory as any other.

If, after pondering the material above for awhile, you still don't get it, we'll see if we can get our resident genius to explain it to you.

Dang... I just bit a hole clean through my lip...

 

[GenSeneca]

Pidgey,

Thanks for the graphs and info, though it will fall mostly on deaf ears.

What is your position on using deficits to create tax cuts that incentivize buisiness to expand and/or locate here instead of elsewhere in the world?

I'd like to see us go from a 35% corporate tax to a 15% rate.

I'd also love to see us move to a flat tax of 15% on individual taxpayers.

While both would create deficits short term, the GDP would skyrocket faster than Obama's energy prices and unlike the "stimulus" packages, would actually net a return on our investment.

 

[Pidgey]

Uhh... those graphs point to something way-the-h*ll-and-gone more insidious than you might be thinking--they're essentially saying that for the bulk of businesses, there won't be a way to make money anymore. Now, you have to understand that there's a difference between money, currency and value. It's possible to have a reality where you're making more money exponentially but the value is dropping every bit as fast as the dollar amount is increasing.

For a great many companies, the current financial environment is completely unworkable in the arena of long-term planning and budgeting. While the Democrats blame it on the Republicans, the Republicans blame it on the Democrats, etc., it's so much larger of a problem that it's fast becoming a Greek Tragedy.

Sure, businesses could see a short-term gain in profitability by cutting their tax burdens and then all the benefits that you'd see from changing the color of the ink on the bottom line would help for awhile. BUT... you're only going to forestall this coming crisis by a very little bit. And in order to analyze that problem, we're going to have to step back far enough to truly see The Big Picture...

 

[top gun]

Then go back and look at Powells speech. They didn't give as the main reason for going to war that Hussein had a part in 911. That is just wrong.

They said there was a lot of evidence that he was a threat to the United states. And there was a lot of evidence. And there are plenty of quotes from Democrats and other countries indicating that that was the prevailing opinion of virtually everyone. And he was a threat. Obviously in hind sight he was not yet a threat with WMD.

The fact that he did not have an operational part in the planning and execution of 911 is irrelevant. Though he did have a part in it since he encouraged terrorist generally to be opposed to Isreal and the United States. It is a fact that he paid any terrorists money for acts of terror against anyone he did not like. That supports terrorism in general and is involvement of some sort.

Anyone reading Powells speech knew what was ironclad and knew what was spin. Knowing what was spin it is foolish to go back after the fact and say that what you knew to be spin was a lie. And when I use the word spin I am not using it in the sense that outright intentionally wrong facts were said, I mean that things were said with an emphasis placed in one biased direction. We knew it was biased, he knew it was biased, no one was mislead because of the bias as it was as plain as the nose on your face.

By all means blame them for being biased. But don't be a hypocrite since every single politician we have is equally biased. Every war in history has been lead up to with biased rhetoric. And through it all the bias is plainly seen.

I've done all I can. I've posted the 935 falsehoods that were spread out over a whole lot of time INCLUDING PROMOTING FALSEHOODS KNOWN TO THEM AT BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

We've had people from inside the Bush administration over the last few years break ranks and publicly come forward with the truth of the Bush/Cheney intent.

And we all now know the REALITY of the situation... what there was, what there wasn't, who had connections, who didn't have any connection.

So I guess you'd rather I'd say the Bush administration was just incompetent and not out right fraudulent.

I'm sorry I can't... because I truly don't believe that.

 

[Dr.Who]

What is your position on using deficits to create tax cuts that incentivize buisiness to expand and/or locate here instead of elsewhere in the world?

I'd like to see us go from a 35% corporate tax to a 15% rate.

I'd also love to see us move to a flat tax of 15% on individual taxpayers.

While both would create deficits short term, the GDP would skyrocket faster than Obama's energy prices and unlike the "stimulus" packages, would actually net a return on our investment.

And if the GDP were high enough it would cover the deficit. It isn't even too hard a math problem to determine how much the GDP would need to grow for a 15% tax rate to yield a larger return than the present tax rate at the present GDP.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've done all I can. I've posted the 935 falsehoods that were spread out over a whole lot of time INCLUDING PROMOTING FALSEHOODS KNOWN TO THEM AT BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

We've had people from inside the Bush administration over the last few years break ranks and publicly come forward with the truth of the Bush/Cheney intent.

And we all now know the REALITY of the situation... what there was, what there wasn't, who had connections, who didn't have any connection.

So I guess you'd rather I'd say the Bush administration was just incompetent and not out right fraudulent.

I'm sorry I can't... because I truly don't believe that.

Too bad you didn't do a better job of identifying falsehoods that were actually lies. You need to combine a false statement with an intent to make that false statement. If it is just wrong (incompetence not being the only reason people can be wrong) then it is not a lie. If they intended to mislead people on another statement but then said things that were true that is not a lie either - that sadly is spin. (when they tell the truth but people come away with a warped perception anyway)

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;81745]We are a Republic and the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected... You don't give a rats anus about the minority because your particular group has pipe dreams of a good outcome.

Look up the word Republic. A Republic is a "representative democracy". The representation is there by means of individual state representatives. So every state has it's own representatives to vote on behalf of the people of the local level that elected them.

Of those votes the majority rules. It doesn't mean I don't care about everybody just because I agree with changes... it just means we disagree on the best policy.

You accused me of being a racist from the first moment I disagreed with Obama, you still seem to think that two wrongs make a right and your justified in any attack against me.

When the government takes power away from its citizens, it never gives that power back... we have to take it back.

I don't know if you're a racist or not. If you said something I felt was racist I might have drawn a conclusion... I'm not calling you a racist now and I'm not going back over every thread to see what you said in the past.

We just see things differently. I don't know your exact political position... maybe Libertarian? But being as you often speak up for the Pubbies over the Dems I just feel it's important to note from my side of the fence I and I think a lot of people right now were much more afraid of the Republicans taking power away from the people... or at the very least giving extra power to the rich & powerful.

Can't we possibly wait and see how things progress in this new year before we get too upset? Just see if it's not really as bad as you project.

When he's handing out poison bread to thin the heard, I care.

See this is why I come down on you sometimes. You go over the top. President Obama is a good intellegent human being... he's an American... he's a father. No one is handing out posion... I wouldn't even say Bush handed out poison.

Capitalism has never failed, its the natural order of all life. People like you suffocate it with government regulation and when it convulses, you point and say "look, its failing!! Only more red tape over its mouth and nose can help!!!"

I have no idea where you get this at but you are mistaken. But regardless of that I'm not against a regulated Capitalist system. Like I posted and historian will confirm completely unchecked Capitalism is not a good thing and was proven not a good thing right here in America with the Robber Barons and monopolies..

While expanding the war in Afghanistan and even pushing into Pakistan...
I was against us going into Iraq but the only thing that would have been more irresponsible than staying in Iraq, would have been leaving before the Iraqi's could hold their country. Your plan to leave immediately after the invasion would have left it a failed state in the hands of terrorists.

Dude I'm tired of talking about it... it was all wrong. The good thing is we will now see rapid improvements & changes in policy that I think will be extremely helpful for a plethora of reasons.

No its not... He's Anti-Coal, Anti-Nuclear, Anti-Oil (the cheapest forms of energy) and Pro-super-expensive-unreliable-energy.

Give it a chance. We need to be more energy independent and we know pollution is not a good thing. We can find compromises and still move forward for the long term betterment.

Its supposed to be smokers... I left the "R" off. Your a coach right? We should ban all athletic equipment and sports... way too many sports injuries that result in unnecessary and avoidable healthcare costs. Yes, thats sarcasm meant to point out your authoritarianism and total disrespect for the minority.

But that's not an accurate or parallel analogy. Smoking does no one any good and has documented detrimental heath effects on both the smoker and those around the smoker.

Not the same with sports. People do get injured but they are participating in the healthy enjoyment of something... in fact even gaining good health benefits from the exercise.

Not even the same with alcohol... or even pot. People that aren't alcoholics actually receive relaxation and in some cases heart health benefits from low to moderate drinking. Certain patients actually get real proven medical benefits from pot.

Smoking has not one redeeming feature. It's merely an unhealthy habit that feeds it's own unhealthy habit. So I could care less about the tax they put on it.

Why do you feel you have the right to other peoples money? Why do you feel entitled to what you didn't earn?

If our elected representatives vote to spend it then we have to pay for it. I could go in and easily cut things that from my perspective are over expenditures that you might want to keep and visa versa.

The problem is in essence the type of government we have believe it or not. All politics is local. The Republican Senator trying to get money for his district on a bridge to nowhere is competing with the Democratic Senator that wants to bring money back to his district for Food Stamps or something.

It's set up this way but I hope with a little pulling together President Obama can help us see that we need to work together on some things.

I personally believe we are in no position to give the rest of the world the amounts of money we do. I know our military can be run more efficiently. I know Social Security & Medicare are probably the two most important government programs... and I know we can do something to improve our healthcare system.

And those things are enumerated in the Constitution.... but you don't care about the definitions of the words Provide and Promote, you think they mean the exact same thing.... Its either that or you have contempt for our constitution and would like to discard the parts of it you disagree with in order to more easily disregard the rights of the minority.

Sure I do... Provide for the common defence and promote the general Welfare. I care about that. Has nothing at all to do with Nation Building or playing World police... even Libertarian Ron Paul was highly outspoken on this.

Let's be kind and work together for this first year and I think you will be surprised what good we can accomplish!

 

[top gun]

Too bad you didn't do a better job of identifying falsehoods that were actually lies. You need to combine a false statement with an intent to make that false statement. If it is just wrong (incompetence not being the only reason people can be wrong) then it is not a lie. If they intended to mislead people on another statement but then said things that were true that is not a lie either - that sadly is spin. (when they tell the truth but people come away with a warped perception anyway)

When some tells 935 untrue statements all on just one subject... rest assured there are lies in there that they are covering.

And if you go to the President's State of the Union Speech and compare what he said with what has now been reported he was actually told BEFORE that speech it's crystal clear lying.

What you are trying to do is not at all uncommon in politics. Reagan did it with Iran Contra and many others have as well. It's called plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability is a purposely set up scenario where a President knows the truth on a matter but has the built in process of using underlings to be able to deny knowing the information.

That's also intent.

 

[Pidgey]

And if the GDP were high enough it would cover the deficit. It isn't even too hard a math problem to determine how much the GDP would need to grow for a 15% tax rate to yield a larger return than the present tax rate at the present GDP.

But you'd still have to assume some things in order to make such a projection.

Ya' know, when talking economy, the hardest thing to do is actually identify what's really going on--even for economists! It's energy--always was, always will be. Even back when it was a hunter/gatherer existence seeing as how the energy in the food was the only kind in play...

...until man made fire--with fire, you could do all sorts of things! But make no mistake, all those things have some root basis in our survival--it's just a more luxurious survival today for those of us living in the developed and developing worlds.

Which brings us to an equation of sorts:

Economy = Energy Produced x Efficiency x Distribution

The trick, of course, is to define the terms with real numbers and plot a curve over time to see how it goes--and whether or not it mirrors what we're seeing in the big, wide world. I could be off my rocker, of course, but methinks me's not.

Anyhow, let's let the "x" that we want to solve for be the amount of energy in BTUs delivered to the citizenry of the US on a per capita basis. We can get yearly census data here and world primary energy consumption data here. inserting a formula column with simple division and... voila':

(link to the full-sized version)

The years shown are from 1980 to 2006, by the way. Couple of interesting notes: the big downstroke on the left was compliments of Jimmy Carter and the modest downstroke a quarter of the way from the right was 9/11.

Now, we can continue on and further modify the curve by adjusting it for the rising cost of energy--it's too late in the evening for me to piddle around with that in a serious way, but you should be to intuit what the effect of that's going to ultimately be.