|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 22, 2016 12:36:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 22, 2016 14:40:35 GMT -8
It would seem only common sense to think that a union of members with such diverse interests and even more diverse economic power would be doomed after a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jan 24, 2016 11:50:39 GMT -8
Socialism eventually breaks any economy, too many countries like Greece and Spain are in the European mix with their massive deficit spending. Pre Obama America used to stabilize any Euro country who got into fiscal trouble by simply writing a check. But with the US now owning a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR National debt, that's not going to happen anymore, we actually need bailing out almost as much as the Euros do.
What a mess, a correction or perhaps a collapse is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 25, 2016 10:04:43 GMT -8
Socialism eventually breaks any economy, too many countries like Greece and Spain are in the European mix with their massive deficit spending. Pre Obama America used to stabilize any Euro country who got into fiscal trouble by simply writing a check. But with the US now owning a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR National debt, that's not going to happen anymore, we actually need bailing out almost as much as the Euros do. What a mess, a correction or perhaps a collapse is inevitable. Oh yes. Obama created the entire national debt. :rotflmao Haters continue to hate. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jan 25, 2016 15:35:54 GMT -8
Socialism eventually breaks any economy, too many countries like Greece and Spain are in the European mix with their massive deficit spending. Pre Obama America used to stabilize any Euro country who got into fiscal trouble by simply writing a check. But with the US now owning a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR National debt, that's not going to happen anymore, we actually need bailing out almost as much as the Euros do. What a mess, a correction or perhaps a collapse is inevitable. Oh yes. Obama created the entire national debt. :rotflmao Haters continue to hate. Why do liberals have selective amnesia when it comes to the Obama Presidency? OK I see your point, I guess 12 trillion isn't such a big deal when you consider all of the cool stuff (civil unrest, ISIS, unchecked illegal immigration, Obamacare, domestic terrorism, high unemployment) we received in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 25, 2016 18:28:44 GMT -8
I am convinced that prominent Democrats (i.e, office holders, Leftist academics, and respected commentators) do not see the national debt as a problem. Anyway not a "big" problem. To me, that is insanity. Clearly, there will come a time when mere service on the national debt will overwhelm every other area of federal spending. It's purely a matter of numbers.
Ask yourself, when was the last time that Barack Obama or a Congressional Democrat spoke publicly about the need to balance the federal budget and pay down at least a bit of the national debt? Yes, you hear the Dems bragging about how the deficit has come down. That's all well and good. But like a ship that's sinking, until all the holes in the hull are plugged, the vessel is still going to sink. If some of the holes are plugged, it just won't sink quite as fast.
All that should be obvious when one examines the history of quite a few countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, countries that kept national budgets in the red as if there would never be a piper to be paid. Exhibit #1: Greece. Exhibit #2: Argentina.
The long and the short of it is that collectivists see income redistribution as much more important than sound fiscal policy. They are like survivors of a sunken ship floating in a life raft in the middle of the ocean hoping to be rescued. Instead of rationing supplies storied in their life raft, they prefer to consume everythng right away as if they were not in mortal danger.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 25, 2016 19:12:54 GMT -8
I am convinced that prominent Democrats (i.e, office holders, Leftist academics, and respected commentators) do not see the national debt as a problem. Anyway not a "big" problem. To me, that is insanity. Clearly, there will come a time when mere service on the national debt will overwhelm every other area of federal spending. It's purely a matter of numbers. Ask yourself, when was the last time that Barack Obama or a Congressional Democrat spoke publicly about the need to balance the federal budget and pay down at least a bit of the national debt? Yes, you hear the Dems bragging about how the deficit has come down. That's all well and good. But like a ship that's sinking, until all the holes in the hull are plugged, the vessel is still going to sink. If some of the holes are plugged, it just won't sink quite as fast. All that should be obvious when one examines the history of quite a few countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, countries that kept national budgets in the red as if there would never be a piper to be paid. Exhibit #1: Greece. Exhibit #2: Argentina. The long and the short of it is that collectivists see income redistribution as much more important than sound fiscal policy. They are like survivors of a ship sinking floating in the middle of the ocean hoping to be rescued. Instead of rationing supplies storied in their life raft, they prefer to consume everythng right away as if they were not in mortal danger. AzWm The big problem here is there is no one to come to our rescue. We have always been the lender of last resort. Obama has turned us much closer to being that Banana Republic we talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 26, 2016 9:56:15 GMT -8
I am convinced that prominent Democrats (i.e, office holders, Leftist academics, and respected commentators) do not see the national debt as a problem. Anyway not a "big" problem. To me, that is insanity. Clearly, there will come a time when mere service on the national debt will overwhelm every other area of federal spending. It's purely a matter of numbers. Ask yourself, when was the last time that Barack Obama or a Congressional Democrat spoke publicly about the need to balance the federal budget and pay down at least a bit of the national debt? Yes, you hear the Dems bragging about how the deficit has come down. That's all well and good. But like a ship that's sinking, until all the holes in the hull are plugged, the vessel is still going to sink. If some of the holes are plugged, it just won't sink quite as fast. All that should be obvious when one examines the history of quite a few countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, countries that kept national budgets in the red as if there would never be a piper to be paid. Exhibit #1: Greece. Exhibit #2: Argentina. The long and the short of it is that collectivists see income redistribution as much more important than sound fiscal policy. They are like survivors of a ship sinking floating in the middle of the ocean hoping to be rescued. Instead of rationing supplies storied in their life raft, they prefer to consume everythng right away as if they were not in mortal danger. AzWm The big problem here is there is no one to come to our rescue. We have always been the lender of last resort. Obama has turned us much closer to being that Banana Republic we talk about. Obama didn't wage two wars on the credit card. You cons don't seem to have had an issue with that. Also there was something called the 'great recession' in which the government spent lots of money to get us out of. Yes, the national debt is an issue that needs resolution. The problem is that the Dems and Pubs refuse to work with each other on any issue. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 26, 2016 10:17:26 GMT -8
The big problem here is there is no one to come to our rescue. We have always been the lender of last resort. Obama has turned us much closer to being that Banana Republic we talk about. Obama didn't wage two wars on the credit card. You cons don't seem to have had an issue with that. Also there was something called the 'great recession' in which the government spent lots of money to get us out of. Yes, the national debt is an issue that needs resolution. The problem is that the Dems and Pubs refuse to work with each other on any issue. No, the problem is Obama has taken us right up to the brink and wants to keep on spending. We must solve our own problem since no one else has the capability. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 26, 2016 11:28:45 GMT -8
The big problem here is there is no one to come to our rescue. We have always been the lender of last resort. Obama has turned us much closer to being that Banana Republic we talk about. Obama didn't wage two wars on the credit card. You cons don't seem to have had an issue with that. Also there was something called the 'great recession' in which the government spent lots of money to get us out of. Yes, the national debt is an issue that needs resolution. The problem is that the Dems and Pubs refuse to work with each other on any issue. First of all, the Democrats idea of "working together" is for the Republicans to roll over and accept the Dems' proposals without change.
As far as the two recent wars, I think it's pretty important to differentiate between the two. Let's keep in mind that Barack Obama, when it suited his political purposes, called the Afghan war "the good war." Then, as President, he basically forgot about that war, at least in terms of rallying the nation behind it. (Compare his benign neglect with respect to America's war with the stirring rhetoric of FDR and Winston Churchill. Churchillian is NOT a term that anyone would use to describe Obama's statements about either the Iraq or Afghan wars.
And, when he decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he set a date certain for our withdrawal in the same message. Honestly, can anyone think of a stupider action by any President? The red line fiasco was a major error, but he mentioned the red line almost off-handedly when speaking contemporaneously. On the other hand, the Afghan date-certain statement was clearly deliberate and planned ahead of time. Hard to defend it by saying that he misspoke.)
One can argue that invading Iraq was unwise (I think it was clearly legal, but that's for another discussion). It certainly was costly and the aftermath not well managed. But by withdrawing all our forces from Iraq against the advice of virtually all military advisors, Obama managed to turn a dicey but reasonably stable situation in to a catastrophe. Please consider the word "catastrophe." The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was a disaster. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was a catastrophe. Barack Obama has managed to make himself a walking definition of the old tennis term "unforced error."
With respect to the housing crisis, there were a number of causes for that disaster. The Democrats like to blame the whole thing on George W. Bush, but he tried to get Congress to do something about the too-easy lending practices that were largely responsible for the crash. Who opposed such remedial action? The Democrats. Example? Barney Frank, making his best Alfred E. Neuman imitation when he told the nation that there was nothing wrong.
The national debt problem cannot be solved by raising taxes again and again. Ultimately, this nation must reduce spending enough in order to balance the federal budget. Well, we must do that if we do not wish to become another Greece or Argentina.
(Here's one thing that could be done to reduce spending without compromising outcomes; in fact, outcomes could and likely would be enhanced. I refer to the unconscionable fact that the U.S. government has nearly 50, yes FIFTY, different job training programs, most of which are never evaluated. Do we really need 47 different programs. Here's a link:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-there-are-49-different-federal-jo/)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 26, 2016 11:58:06 GMT -8
Obama didn't wage two wars on the credit card. You cons don't seem to have had an issue with that. Also there was something called the 'great recession' in which the government spent lots of money to get us out of. Yes, the national debt is an issue that needs resolution. The problem is that the Dems and Pubs refuse to work with each other on any issue. First of all, the Democrats idea of "working together" is for the Republicans to roll over and accept the Dems' proposals without change.
As far as the two recent wars, I think it's pretty important to differentiate between the two. Let's keep in mind that Barack Obama, when it suited his political purposes, called the Afghan war "the good war." Then, as President, he basically forgot about that war, at least in terms of rallying the nation behind it. (Compare his benign neglect with respect to America's war with the stirring rhetoric of FDR and Winston Churchill. Churchillian is NOT a term that anyone would use to describe Obama's statements about either the Iraq or Afghan wars.
And, when he decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he set a date certain for our withdrawal in the same message. Honestly, can anyone think of a stupider action by any President? The red line fiasco was a major error, but he mentioned the red line almost off-handedly when speaking contemporaneously. On the other hand, the Afghan date-certain statement was clearly deliberate and planned ahead of time. Hard to defend it by saying that he misspoke.)
One can argue that invading Iraq was unwise (I think it was clearly legal, but that's for another discussion). It certainly was costly and the aftermath not well managed. But by withdrawing all our forces from Iraq against the advice of virtually all military advisors, Obama managed to turn a dicey but reasonably stable situation in to a catastrophe. Please consider the word "catastrophe." The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was a disaster. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was a catastrophe. Barack Obama has managed to make himself a walking definition of the old tennis term "unforced error."
With respect to the housing crisis, there were a number of causes for that disaster. The Democrats like to blame the whole thing on George W. Bush, but he tried to get Congress to do something about the too-easy lending practices that were largely responsible for the crash. Who opposed such remedial action? The Democrats. Example? Barney Frank, making his best Alfred E. Neuman imitation when he told the nation that there was nothing wrong.
The national debt problem cannot be solved by raising taxes again and again. Ultimately, this nation must reduce spending enough in order to balance the federal budget. Well, we must do that if we do not wish to become another Greece or Argentina.
(Here's one thing that could be done to reduce spending without compromising outcomes; in fact, outcomes could and likely would be enhanced. I refer to the unconscionable fact that the U.S. government has nearly 50, yes FIFTY, different job training programs, most of which are never evaluated. Do we really need 47 different programs. Here's a link:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-there-are-49-different-federal-jo/)
AzWm
Just to amplify your point on the housing crisis. I mentioned in another thread that the movie "The Big Short" gives a rather simplistic, entertaining and scary account of the housing crisis. You will also get a view of how inept some bankers and federal regulators were about what was going on at that time. To top it off they give you the added punch in the gut by telling you that most of the wrong doers were let off the hook and the taxpayers were once again left holding the bag. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 27, 2016 8:49:59 GMT -8
First of all, the Democrats idea of "working together" is for the Republicans to roll over and accept the Dems' proposals without change.
As far as the two recent wars, I think it's pretty important to differentiate between the two. Let's keep in mind that Barack Obama, when it suited his political purposes, called the Afghan war "the good war." Then, as President, he basically forgot about that war, at least in terms of rallying the nation behind it. (Compare his benign neglect with respect to America's war with the stirring rhetoric of FDR and Winston Churchill. Churchillian is NOT a term that anyone would use to describe Obama's statements about either the Iraq or Afghan wars.
And, when he decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he set a date certain for our withdrawal in the same message. Honestly, can anyone think of a stupider action by any President? The red line fiasco was a major error, but he mentioned the red line almost off-handedly when speaking contemporaneously. On the other hand, the Afghan date-certain statement was clearly deliberate and planned ahead of time. Hard to defend it by saying that he misspoke.)
One can argue that invading Iraq was unwise (I think it was clearly legal, but that's for another discussion). It certainly was costly and the aftermath not well managed. But by withdrawing all our forces from Iraq against the advice of virtually all military advisors, Obama managed to turn a dicey but reasonably stable situation in to a catastrophe. Please consider the word "catastrophe." The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was a disaster. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was a catastrophe. Barack Obama has managed to make himself a walking definition of the old tennis term "unforced error."
With respect to the housing crisis, there were a number of causes for that disaster. The Democrats like to blame the whole thing on George W. Bush, but he tried to get Congress to do something about the too-easy lending practices that were largely responsible for the crash. Who opposed such remedial action? The Democrats. Example? Barney Frank, making his best Alfred E. Neuman imitation when he told the nation that there was nothing wrong.
The national debt problem cannot be solved by raising taxes again and again. Ultimately, this nation must reduce spending enough in order to balance the federal budget. Well, we must do that if we do not wish to become another Greece or Argentina.
(Here's one thing that could be done to reduce spending without compromising outcomes; in fact, outcomes could and likely would be enhanced. I refer to the unconscionable fact that the U.S. government has nearly 50, yes FIFTY, different job training programs, most of which are never evaluated. Do we really need 47 different programs. Here's a link:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-there-are-49-different-federal-jo/)
AzWm
Just to amplify your point on the housing crisis. I mentioned in another thread that the movie "The Big Short" gives a rather simplistic, entertaining and scary account of the housing crisis. You will also get a view of how inept some bankers and federal regulators were about what was going on at that time. To top it off they give you the added punch in the gut by telling you that most of the wrong doers were let off the hook and the taxpayers were once again left holding the bag. As my mother used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. G.W. Bush used the term "ownership society." My feeling is that the concept is a good one, implying that people will be more responsible citizens if they have a piece of the pie to call their owh. Wikipedia offers this definition: The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments. Seriously, how can you argue against that? But the Democrats, quick to see racism everywhere, took this good idea too far, beginning with Bill Clinton. Under Clinton, lenders were encouraged ..... ordered might be a better word ..... to use laxer standards when deciding who was to be given loans. Again, it was a noble idea, but the fact was that huge numbers of people were given home loans that they could not repay. Apparently, lenders were all to eager to follow the Dems' recommendations in this area. Yes, there was more to the Great Recession than just housing, but the bursting of the housing bubble was a major cause. The Democrats will never admit that the unintended consequences of their good intentions were at least partly to blame for the fiscal disaster of 2009-2009. In any case, we must get our fiscal house in order. That will not be easy. As I have written, you can't do that by continuing to raise taxes and cutting the U.S. military. Some discipline in the area of deciding what the government should and should not do financially will be required. Sadly, most politicians find that as hard to do as juggling live hand grenades. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 27, 2016 14:55:33 GMT -8
Just to amplify your point on the housing crisis. I mentioned in another thread that the movie "The Big Short" gives a rather simplistic, entertaining and scary account of the housing crisis. You will also get a view of how inept some bankers and federal regulators were about what was going on at that time. To top it off they give you the added punch in the gut by telling you that most of the wrong doers were let off the hook and the taxpayers were once again left holding the bag. As my mother used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. G.W. Bush used the term "ownership society." My feeling is that the concept is a good one, implying that people will be more responsible citizens if they have a piece of the pie to call their owh. Wikipedia offers this definition: The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments. Seriously, how can you argue against that? But the Democrats, quick to see racism everywhere, took this good idea too far, beginning with Bill Clinton. Under Clinton, lenders were encouraged ..... ordered might be a better word ..... to use laxer standards when deciding who was to be given loans. Again, it was a noble idea, but the fact was that huge numbers of people were given home loans that they could not repay. Apparently, lenders were all to eager to follow the Dems' recommendations in this area. Yes, there was more to the Great Recession than just housing, but the bursting of the housing bubble was a major cause. The Democrats will never admit that the unintended consequences of their good intentions were at least partly to blame for the fiscal disaster of 2009-2009. In any case, we must get our fiscal house in order. That will not be easy. As I have written, you can't do that by continuing to raise taxes and cutting the U.S. military. Some discipline in the area of deciding what the government should and should not do financially will be required. Sadly, most politicians find that as hard to do as juggling live hand grenades. AzWm I agree in total. I could further amplify and explain how the creation of derivatives allowing you to invest (bet) on both sides of the market based on the unknown content of bundled loans just about assured the market would fall apart. |
|
