Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 9th, 2012, 01:57 PM   #21
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25 View Post
Ok, you're right I shouldn't have bashed you as such and for that I do apologize. I am a bit perplexed though. You tell me that Keynesian economics is a great means of regulating the economy, however, you support Austrian ideals. The root causes of the boom/bust cycle is fractional reserve banking and central bank ownership of a private entity. Keeping interest rates artificially low only delays the inevitable bust cycle, powered by devaluing the dollar and creating inflation is all counterproductive to the recovery of an economy. We're seeing this right now. Austerity works, people just do not like the fact that they have to live within their means or perhaps below their means during a recession. The temporary hardship buy bad economic policy cannot be solved by a spend & tax policy.


LOL I don't support Austrian ideals, How? Because I support doing something about the Fed? Austrians aren't the only ones who advocate for doing something about our banking system. Progressives, Conservatives, the Green Party, Libertarians all agree that we need to do 1 thing or another to fix the problem. It's a beliefs not only held by Libertarians. I was one of the 1st members on this site to bring up the topic about wheeling in the Federal Reserve. Actually for the 1st time in this country we've gone for almost 50 years without a major banking crisis starting in the 1930s to the 80s because FDR regulated our banks and taxes. What causes the cycle of boom and bust is low taxes on the rich. What they do with that extra hot cash from low taxes is either stash it in tax haven bank accounts or gamble with it in the stock market creating bubbles. If you want to stop bubbles, regulate our banks and raise taxes. That is if, we haven't nationalize Fed and destroyed fractional reserve banking.



And excuse me, you're repeating false hoods again Dan. I just explain to you how Austerity doesn't work. You can't name me a country that cut their way to prosperity. Tax and spend is how you say save and stabilize an economy. It's been done and it worked. lol I've just explained this to you and now you're repeating lies again.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25 View Post
I love the fact you brought up France as your gold nugget of the greatness of Socialism. And I definately appreciate IT bringing up foreign debt as related to national debt. You and I must watch what happens with France in the next few years. My personal guess is that the Obama administration is going to ask Hollande to refrain from implementing his policies he campaigned on until our election year has ended. Unfortunately, my guess is that Obama will get re-elected. Romney is too much of an elitist ass(as if Obama isn't?). But I have a feeling that since the rest of the Eurozone is banking on austerity moves, and France is not, France will probably bring down the whole system.




You're contradicting yourself Dan. If Austerity works, then why the people of France rejected Austerity polices and in favor of socialist policies? This proves my argument that you can't cut your way to prosperity. Look at the Democratic Socialist countries Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, and ect. They have some of the strongest economies on the planet and some of the strongest social welfare programs.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25 View Post
And austerity that the Eurozone is so far in it's infancy an accurate assessment cannot even be made at this point. The Euro was a horrible idea for europe, it pretty much caused whats happening today. I'm sorry, I cannot feed the hand that's killing me if it gives me only enough to survive. The answer to our debt currency is to go farther into debt to the central bank and for that I can't concede. If their system of debt money keep them billioniares at our expense why support them making ever the more money? To me it's bad policy. Hopefully we'll see some good fiscal austrians in our congress that can rid us of the Fed, move away from fractional banking, and either outlaw usury or regulate it so banks have to invest,or spend their profits.



I'm not holding my breath though, it's going to take a world wide economic meltdown to actually get back to an economic policy that actually makes sense. But seriously, I cannot wait to see what happens in France. Hell, I'll make a deal with you Fayt. If in 4 years of socialist economic policy driven by keynesian thought works in France and they come out of the whole they're in now, I concede to socialism full and complete.


Why not now? It worked for us and is working in the Democratic Socialist Northern European countries. The economic modals I want to mimic are those countries Dan and what this country use to modal before Reaganomics. Why not become a progressive based on these facts alone? I can name examples of countries that's working based of the policies I'm advocating for, you can't.



Based on sheer common sense (respectfully) you should just become a Democratic Socialist now.
Fayt is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 07:01 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).
borden123 is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 08:32 AM   #23
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html
Fayt is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 08:43 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123' timestamp='1338044504' post='404392

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110']

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Fayt, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Obama's budget for the 2012 year alone is $3.7 trillion. That, right there, is almost double what your claim is, and it's only counting the expenditures of 1 year. On top of that, the national debt has now increased more during Obama's past 3 years and 2 months in office ($4.939 trillion...hmmmm, that's also greater than your original $2 trillion claim) than it did during the 8 years of the Bush presidency ($4.899 trillion).
borden123 is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 10:20 AM   #25
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1338049921' post='404406

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338044504' post='404392']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110']

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Fayt, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Obama's budget for the 2012 year alone is $3.7 trillion. That, right there, is almost double what your claim is, and it's only counting the expenditures of 1 year. On top of that, the national debt has now increased more during Obama's past 3 years and 2 months in office ($4.939 trillion...hmmmm, that's also greater than your original $2 trillion claim) than it did during the 8 years of the Bush presidency ($4.899 trillion).

[/quote]



No bush spent over $6 trillion and counting. Obama put bushes spending on the budget and is why the debt increased to over 15 trillion dollars. You can repeat your lies but I'll just continue to copy and past the facts.











http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html
Fayt is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 10:31 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123' timestamp='1338050630' post='404410

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1338049921' post='404406']

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338044504' post='404392']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110']

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Fayt, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Obama's budget for the 2012 year alone is $3.7 trillion. That, right there, is almost double what your claim is, and it's only counting the expenditures of 1 year. On top of that, the national debt has now increased more during Obama's past 3 years and 2 months in office ($4.939 trillion...hmmmm, that's also greater than your original $2 trillion claim) than it did during the 8 years of the Bush presidency ($4.899 trillion).

[/quote]



No bush spent over $6 trillion and counting. Obama put bushes spending on the budget and is why the debt increased to over 15 trillion dollars. You can repeat your lies but I'll just continue to copy and past the facts.











http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Obama's debt is Bush's fault? Yeah, because that makes complete sense.



Fayt, I'm not the one who's lying here. Face the facts, and please stop being ignorant. Obama is spending more than Bush did. He is also increasing the national deficit more than Bush did. Oh, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth. How can they be considered a deficit if they generated revenue?
borden123 is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 11:14 AM   #27
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1338056403' post='404441

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338050630' post='404410']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1338049921' post='404406']

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338044504' post='404392']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110']

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Fayt, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Obama's budget for the 2012 year alone is $3.7 trillion. That, right there, is almost double what your claim is, and it's only counting the expenditures of 1 year. On top of that, the national debt has now increased more during Obama's past 3 years and 2 months in office ($4.939 trillion...hmmmm, that's also greater than your original $2 trillion claim) than it did during the 8 years of the Bush presidency ($4.899 trillion).

[/quote]



No bush spent over $6 trillion and counting. Obama put bushes spending on the budget and is why the debt increased to over 15 trillion dollars. You can repeat your lies but I'll just continue to copy and past the facts.











http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Obama's debt is Bush's fault? Yeah, because that makes complete sense.



Fayt, I'm not the one who's lying here. Face the facts, and please stop being ignorant. Obama is spending more than Bush did. He is also increasing the national deficit more than Bush did. Oh, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth. How can they be considered a deficit if they generated revenue?

[/quote]



It makes perfect sense because Obama put Bush's spending on the budget which Bush hid away. So you're wrong. Live with the fact that your conservative economic ideology is a lie. A BIG lie. lol



Now become a good progressive.
Fayt is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 11:20 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123' timestamp='1338057110' post='404448

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1338056403' post='404441']

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338050630' post='404410']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1338049921' post='404406']

[quote name='borden123' timestamp='1338044504' post='404392']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1336425236' post='400110']

[quote name='Danjb25' timestamp='1336417524' post='400096']

It amazes me still that even with damning evidence that both sides of the aisle are completely corrupt one has to place sole blame on "them". US government printing it's own money to pay back debt goes against the powers that be who control the politicians. If voter fraud and politicians being bought out was not an issue we could just elect those who wouldn't be controlled. However, I see the whole house of cards tumbling before any changes are made.


Put people back to work will enable more tax revenue to pay down the debt several times over over and over again.
I agree, but the answer is not raising taxes. A rise in taxes will actually decrease the amount of jobs available because large corporations will start outsourcing more jobs (it's cheaper that way).



I think it's kind of funny how you associate all of the spending in this country with the Republicans. Never mind that Obama is spending so much that he's actually raising the national debt roughly 3 times faster than Bush did ($607 billion increase per year compared to $1.723 trillion increase per year).

[/quote]



Corporations are outsourcing their corporations because lax trade policies and again, both democrat Obama and Clinton only spent together over $2 trillion dollars. Here's the sources.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Fayt, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Obama's budget for the 2012 year alone is $3.7 trillion. That, right there, is almost double what your claim is, and it's only counting the expenditures of 1 year. On top of that, the national debt has now increased more during Obama's past 3 years and 2 months in office ($4.939 trillion...hmmmm, that's also greater than your original $2 trillion claim) than it did during the 8 years of the Bush presidency ($4.899 trillion).

[/quote]



No bush spent over $6 trillion and counting. Obama put bushes spending on the budget and is why the debt increased to over 15 trillion dollars. You can repeat your lies but I'll just continue to copy and past the facts.











http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html

[/quote]Obama's debt is Bush's fault? Yeah, because that makes complete sense.



Fayt, I'm not the one who's lying here. Face the facts, and please stop being ignorant. Obama is spending more than Bush did. He is also increasing the national deficit more than Bush did. Oh, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth. How can they be considered a deficit if they generated revenue?

[/quote]



It makes perfect sense because Obama put Bush's spending on the budget which Bush hid away. So you're wrong. Live with the fact that your conservative economic ideology is a lie. A BIG lie. lol



Now become a good progressive.

[/quote]The facts remain: Obama is on pace to spend more than Bush, Obama has increased the deficit more than Bush did, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and generated revenue. Fayt, these are facts, not lies.
borden123 is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #29
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123 View Post
The facts remain: Obama is on pace to spend more than Bush, Obama has increased the deficit more than Bush did, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and generated revenue. Fayt, these are facts, not lies.


That's not what my sources say.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html



You're just bitter because your conservative ideology is a failure so you feel the need to keep wasting your time posting to me to prove yourself. However, you're not convincing anyone but yourself. But I'm here to keep copy and pasting the facts.
Fayt is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 11:36 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by borden123' timestamp='1338060059' post='404477
The facts remain: Obama is on pace to spend more than Bush, Obama has increased the deficit more than Bush did, and the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and generated revenue. Fayt, these are facts, not lies.


That's not what my sources say.



http://www.whitehous...s-national-debt

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

http://www.nytimes.c...dt-graphic.html



You're just bitter because your conservative ideology is a failure so you feel the need to keep wasting your time posting to me to prove yourself. However, you're not convincing anyone but yourself. But I'm here to keep copy and pasting the facts.
I've said all I need to say. You have refused to accept anything I post. So, what's the point?
borden123 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt

Tags
100, debt, money, watch



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Money and Debt pensacola_niceman Debt 16 February 3rd, 2016 09:45 AM
The Debt Ceiling Pays Off Money The Republicans Already Spent skews13 Current Events 38 January 7th, 2013 12:15 PM
Succintly Expressed by a 12 Year Old Girl, How America Got So far in Debt, and How to Get Out of Debt Immediately, Told in Six Minutes Radicalcentrist Debt 0 June 14th, 2012 12:34 PM
U.S. National Debt tadpole256 Debt 25 May 21st, 2007 04:52 PM
US National Debt? liberalguy Debt 26 April 14th, 2005 06:01 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.