Political Forums  

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


Thanks Tree11Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 24th, 2015, 09:33 AM   #41
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
You have gotten closer to the correct response than anyone I have read so far.. but


1 Obama got eleced there Democrat FILIBUSTER PROOF majority in the Congress

2. Bush Took office during the front end of a recession as well.

3. Bush also after May 2001 had a DEMOCRAT senate to oppose him

so, Actually Obama's path was of less resistance than Bush's..

Still no one has figured it out.. Think people think... My goodness, this is one reason our Republic is going down this path to failure. No one understands how it is suppose to work.
That's because it doesn't fucking work half the time, like chickens running around without heads. But people are too afraid or don't know how to change the way things work so that we can actually start doing things right for once.
Beasty is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 09:37 AM   #42
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
That's because it doesn't fucking work half the time, like chickens running around without heads. But people are too afraid or don't know how to change the way things work so that we can actually start doing things right for once.
The problem isn't afraid.. PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN how it works.

I have let this tread go long enough..

BUSH NOR OBAMA ARE RESPSONSIBLE FOR THE DEBT... CONGRESS (BOTH HOUSES: SENATE AND HOUSE) that caused the debt.

We can argue who controlled the house and senate during the debt creation..

I PUT THIS THREAD OUT TO SEE IF ANYONE, understood.. but no..

To Busy blaming PRESIDENTS FOR ACTS OF CONGRESS...


IT IMO you can close the thread.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 10:00 AM   #43
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Obama's tax cuts made the tax system more complicated and many were aimed toward special interests that supported him on the campaign trail.

I believe that Bubba Jones can do a better job spending his own hard earned cash than what results from federal government deciding what to spend his money on.
I don't think that is necissarily true. It depends upon a few things, for instance whether or not the goal of Bubba Jones' spending is only to maximize his own well being or also the well being of the world around him. If it is indeed the latter case, then it may not be accurate that Bubba Jones is capable of contributing to certain industries or programs (which are ultimately derived to meet the needs of a general populace, so in retrospect I suppose you could consider that the real motive) with the same consistency or opportunity for correction in the event of failure; or, at the very least, the odds of successfully realizing these goals goes down when you allow Bubba Jones as an individual to try and piece together a method of meeting people's needs while not really incorporating their participation.

It's a part of a larger concept of the disconnect within our socio-economic situation, one in which we understand the goal of capital and resources are to satisfy the needs of human beings, but are met with roadblock after roadblock when we assign the task of satisfying those needs to private enterprises who are met with a confliction of interest. As car dealership WANTS everyone to have a car, because that is how the institution sustains itself (if you zoom out, in the big picture of things the car dealership has manifested because humans require someone to provide transportation so society can function, but this is usually not conspicuous to those involved). However, the car dealership can never truly satisfy this need because in doing so, it can no longer keep up with the economic constraints of supporting itself (and it needs to, because humans benefit from it doing so, namely so that they in turn can sustain themselves as well).

It proves a very real and dangerous flaw in the manner in which we conduct ourselves economically, namely that we intentionally put ourselves at a disadvantage so that we can forever find some disadvantage to correct without addressing the problem in it's entirety. It's no wonder that a private enterprise can never achieve maximum proficiency when it is constantly tasked with meeting societies needs and explicitly not doing so at the same time.

What people misunderstand is that because private enterprise at the moment functions more efficiently than nationalized institutions, that this is always the case; or if not, the task is too difficult to accomplish and this we should stick with what we have. Both of these assumptions will have grave consequences as the century continues, because what we need from our own social and economic institutions will be better served by the implementation of a more Marxist understand of how we ought to conduct ourselves and the institutions from which we rely on. But as long as we resist what could better for whatever mental reasoning, we impede not only ourselves but our children and future generations.

Last edited by Beasty; February 24th, 2015 at 10:05 AM.
Beasty is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 10:05 AM   #44
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
I don't think that is necissarily true. It depends upon a few things, for instance whether or not the goal of Bubba Jones' spending is only to maximize his own well being or also the well being of the world around him. If it is indeed the latter case, then it may not be accurate that Bubba Jones is capable of contributing to certain industries or programs (which are ultimately derived to meet the needs of a general populace, so in retrospect I suppose you could consider that the real motive) with the same consistency or opportunity for correction in the event of failure; or, at the very least, the odds of successfully realizing these goals goes down when you allow Bubba Jones as an individual to try and piece together a method of meeting people's needs while not really incorporating their participation.

It's a part of a larger concept of the disconnect within our socio-economic situation, one in which we understand the goal of capital and resources are to satisfy the needs if human beings, but are met with roadblock after roadblock when we assign the task of satisfying those needs to private enterprises who are met with a confliction of interest. As car dealership WANTS everyone to have a car, because that is how the institution sustains itself (if you zoom out, in the big picture of things the car dealership has manifested because humans require someone to provide transportation so society can function, but this is usually not conspicuous to those involved). However, the car dealership can never truly satisfy it's need because in doing so, it can no longer keep up with the economic constraints of supporting itself (and it needs to because humans benefit from it doing so, namely so that they in turn can sustain themselves as well).

It proves a very real and dangerous flaw in the manner in which we conduct ourselves economically, namely that we intentionally put ourselves at a disadvantage so that we can forever find some disadvantage to correct without addressing the problem in it's entirety. It's no wonder that a private enterprise can never achieve maximum proficiency when it is constantly tasked with meeting societies needs and explicitly not doing so at the same time.

What people misunderstand is that because private enterprise at the moment functions more efficiently than nationalized institutions, that this is always the case; or if not, the task is to difficult to accomplish and this we should stick with what we have. Both of these assumptions will have grave consequences as the century continues, because what we need from our own social and economic institutions will be better served by the implementation of a more Marxist understand of how we ought to conduct ourselves and the institutions from which we rely on. But as long as we resist what could better for whatever mental reasoning, we impede not only ourselves but our children and future generations.
There are jobs you need government to perform.. There are jobs that Government is doing that they should never have gotten involved.

Federal Government should:

1. provide NATIONAL DEFENSE

2. Provide INTERSTATE law enforcement.

3. Promote and regulate INTERSTATE commerce

4. Promote and regulate INTERNTIONAL commerce.

Done

No retirement

No charity

not insurance

These should be left to state and local governments.

Closer to home these are located the more efficient and more the People have a say in how much or how little is needed.


Smaller federal government and as the government gets closer to home the more it involved is sould be in our lives.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 10:18 AM   #45
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
There are jobs you need government to perform.. There are jobs that Government is doing that they should never have gotten involved.

Federal Government should:

1. provide NATIONAL DEFENSE

2. Provide INTERSTATE law enforcement.

3. Promote and regulate INTERSTATE commerce

4. Promote and regulate INTERNTIONAL commerce.

Done

No retirement

No charity

not insurance

These should be left to state and local governments.

Closer to home these are located the more efficient and more the People have a say in how much or how little is needed.
But what I'm trying to say is that isn't really the case, only that it seems so because that's not how it is now.

Big government as a method of taking care of society is not something to be hated or pushed back from. In fact, as the population continues to grow, as we require technology and education more and more as a means of progress in the coming century, a strong centralized method of satisfying these problems can help us in ways in which private enterprise never could.

The problem is that it's so half assed today that it's hard not to hate what it's doing. I don't think it's done out of some larger conspiracy for intentional failure. It's born from some people trying to maintain their positions of power in an economic situation that demands that of them, and others who can see the pig picture, but can't really see each individual jigsaw piece and how they come together.

We ought to have centralized programs for most things, but they're failing right now because we don't have a society or a government actually built to compliment that kind of system.
Beasty is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 10:40 AM   #46
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
But what I'm trying to say is that isn't really the case, only that it seems so because that's not how it is now.

Big government as a method of taking care of society is not something to be hated or pushed back from. In fact, as the population continues to grow, as we require technology and education more and more as a means of progress in the coming century, a strong centralized method of satisfying these problems can help us in ways in which private enterprise never could.

The problem is that it's so half assed today that it's hard not to hate what it's doing. I don't think it's done out of some larger conspiracy for intentional failure. It's born from some people trying to maintain their positions of power in an economic situation that demands that of them, and others who can see the pig picture, but can't really see each individual jigsaw piece and how they come together.

We ought to have centralized programs for most things, but they're failing right now because we don't have a society or a government actually built to compliment that kind of system.
Let me tell you a story of a congressman from NY...

We had a Gas crisis... The Senator From NY told a Congressman from Middle TN "Why don't your constituants just catch the subway"

Okay.. response was I will drive from Tullahoma to Atlanta to catch the nearest subway.

Central Government doing other than those 4 duties is not even 1/2 assed.. because they have borrowed so much money they cannot even AFFORD 1/2 ASS.

Today.. SS steals 800,000 dollars from EVERY MINIMUM WAGE worker over their lifetime.

Last edited by TNVolunteer73; February 24th, 2015 at 10:42 AM.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 11:04 AM   #47
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Let me tell you a story of a congressman from NY...

We had a Gas crisis... The Senator From NY told a Congressman from Middle TN "Why don't your constituants just catch the subway"

Okay.. response was I will drive from Tullahoma to Atlanta to catch the nearest subway.

Central Government doing other than those 4 duties is not even 1/2 assed.. because they have borrowed so much money they cannot even AFFORD 1/2 ASS.

Today.. SS steals 800,000 dollars from EVERY MINIMUM WAGE worker over their lifetime.
What are you talking about? You cite the lack of a proper public transport system as the reason why a public transport system is bad. I don't really follow. By your own admission, if you had a public transport system in a government that could reasonably take care of it then it wouldn't be a problem... so why exactly are you against it?
Beasty is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 11:12 AM   #48
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
What are you talking about? You cite the lack of a proper public transport system as the reason why a public transport system is bad. I don't really follow. By your own admission, if you had a public transport system in a government that could reasonably take care of it then it wouldn't be a problem... so why exactly are you against it?
I see you have not been to rual America.

Subway system that connects towns 20 miles apart, through solid rock.. not that bright...

Plus that central government chose to fund welfare over infrastructure for 50 years.

plus when you have an agricultural base.

Last edited by TNVolunteer73; February 24th, 2015 at 11:19 AM.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 05:52 PM   #49
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
I see you have not been to rual America.

Subway system that connects towns 20 miles apart, through solid rock.. not that bright...

Plus that central government chose to fund welfare over infrastructure for 50 years.

plus when you have an agricultural base.
No, you're right. It's not that bright. But that doesn't mean the concept of decent public transportation should be scrapped. It needs work. It's hard to provide the kind of systems we think they could be when we fight tooth and nail against the taxes and big government policies needed to provide them. I mean to be completely fair, people don't want to pay the taxes needed to afford these things (and that is something all Americans, regardless of political leaning or party affiliation, struggle with). But they don't realize that Public ownership of all these things provides unique advantages. Not only does it make it financially less impactful over the long term on individual people, but because it is in the public sector it also provides the tools for the public to excersise the ability to ensure quality, something a consumer or patron to a private buisness can not, especially in cases of industries like telecommunications which are dominated by a select few major players who dictate the flow of the industry. Besides that, you also are equipped to provide services which would generally be much more financially burdening on a few rich players, since you are pooling money from everyone. It opens up doors to expensive but impactful projects which may have been too financially risky or costly for private persons to attempt.

I understand where you're coming from, that these public institutions haven't provided in ways in which advocates of big government say they will in their pitches; but to our credit, this isn't really the way in which it's supposed to be implemented by our standards either. The difference is, we still advocate these things because we know what they can do in proper hands. I don't think for one second we should just expand government as it exists right now- the people and the way in which it operates is not built for that, which is why it looks like these policies are failing right now. But before you can go about actually bringing these things into fruition, you have to be willing to change the systems which will implement them. To do that, you need Americans to be on board, but they're not, for many reasons, most of which pertain to the failures of the mutant forms of these policies in effect today. Implementing Big Government policies in our current government has done nothing but hurt the reputation and the prospect of what they could be, if everyone was willing to actually lay their cards out on the table and give it all they've got.
Thanks from TNVolunteer73
Beasty is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 12:22 AM   #50
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
No, you're right. It's not that bright. But that doesn't mean the concept of decent public transportation should be scrapped. It needs work. It's hard to provide the kind of systems we think they could be when we fight tooth and nail against the taxes and big government policies needed to provide them. I mean to be completely fair, people don't want to pay the taxes needed to afford these things (and that is something all Americans, regardless of political leaning or party affiliation, struggle with). But they don't realize that Public ownership of all these things provides unique advantages. Not only does it make it financially less impactful over the long term on individual people, but because it is in the public sector it also provides the tools for the public to excersise the ability to ensure quality, something a consumer or patron to a private buisness can not, especially in cases of industries like telecommunications which are dominated by a select few major players who dictate the flow of the industry. Besides that, you also are equipped to provide services which would generally be much more financially burdening on a few rich players, since you are pooling money from everyone. It opens up doors to expensive but impactful projects which may have been too financially risky or costly for private persons to attempt.

I understand where you're coming from, that these public institutions haven't provided in ways in which advocates of big government say they will in their pitches; but to our credit, this isn't really the way in which it's supposed to be implemented by our standards either. The difference is, we still advocate these things because we know what they can do in proper hands. I don't think for one second we should just expand government as it exists right now- the people and the way in which it operates is not built for that, which is why it looks like these policies are failing right now. But before you can go about actually bringing these things into fruition, you have to be willing to change the systems which will implement them. To do that, you need Americans to be on board, but they're not, for many reasons, most of which pertain to the failures of the mutant forms of these policies in effect today. Implementing Big Government policies in our current government has done nothing but hurt the reputation and the prospect of what they could be, if everyone was willing to actually lay their cards out on the table and give it all they've got.
Never said it should be scrapped.. But this is the problem when you have people from NY or CT making decisions for people from TN KY WY

Or even flip it people making decisions on programs from TN, GA, Alabama or OK for people of Chicago, NYC or LA..

This is why, most programs should be managed (if government should even do them at all) closer to home by state County or City governments.


Socialism is requires on a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT involved in everyone's lives....
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Reply

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

Tags
2008, 2015, obama, president



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remarks by the President Before Cabinet Meeting, 2/3/2015 The White House The White House 0 February 3rd, 2015 01:10 PM
Letter from the President -- FY 2015 Budget amendments The White House The White House 0 November 10th, 2014 08:10 AM
Letter from the President -- FY 2015 Budget Amendments The White House The White House 0 June 26th, 2014 12:30 PM
Mitt Romney for President 2008 RidinHighSpeeds Politicians 120 July 12th, 2007 10:57 AM
Barbara Boxer for President in 2008 intangible child Political Talk 10 April 28th, 2006 07:02 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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