caedus
Registered
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 18
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
National debt.
- Thread starter Swfl
- Start date
caedus
Registered
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 18
caedus
Registered
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 18
And yet you still voted for this lying sack of shit, twice.
Swiper for president
"May the force be with you all"
the only people i trust are true constitutionalist. Its black and white... What does the constitution state. Give the power to the states, the federal gov't should not be incontroll. If the state wants socialized health care let the state vote on it, but it allows the citizens to stay or leave and not be effected with out having to leave the country our fathers have fought for. I would have no issue with it if it was properly voted in.
The problem is it was not really voted in, no one understands it both democrats and republicans the people who wrote the bill lie about it. I remember obama putting out every thing he passes he will post online for the people to read. Either its some secret website or hes not owning up. To bill should have been broken down and rewritten for the general population to understand. Then an actual vote will take place. People voted for the idea of better health care but does any one actually fully understand what it will do to the economy, to the people, and what else is written in the fine print?
The problem is it was not really voted in, no one understands it both democrats and republicans the people who wrote the bill lie about it. I remember obama putting out every thing he passes he will post online for the people to read. Either its some secret website or hes not owning up. To bill should have been broken down and rewritten for the general population to understand. Then an actual vote will take place. People voted for the idea of better health care but does any one actually fully understand what it will do to the economy, to the people, and what else is written in the fine print?
the people defending our ridiculous military spending obviously do not know half the SHIT the military spends money on like paper generals that do noting but suck political cock for funding and those paper generals having their own chefs and jets... golf courses, etc etc etc. we could cut back military spending by HALF if we eliminate the bullshit and STILL pay the troops more.
I really like Ron Paul, I think he is a good man and very intelligent.
very few generals or admirals actually have this privilege. As for golf courses and ect i think your blinded by the media. In 2006-2008 general p. spent 80% of his time in Iraq before he got transferred to centcom. I did play golf in Iraq but it was with donated range balls an old 7 iron and hitting them into the lake the was at camp victory. Generals make nothing compared to the civilian politicians. Military spending is fine, its DOD spending that is horrible. No one service member is over paid period. Not even a general or admiral. The time they spend away from their family to defend this country is insane.
So please before you go google a one sided we page or article save your time. The problem is that war is basically a for profit business. Politicians make $$$ off of war, with contract jobs or will higher contract companies for future political support. It is DOD spending not military spending. The military does not agree that we spend 300$ for a bolt that goes on an F18 that you can get from lowes for 50 cents. That is DOD paying out to over priced contractors NOT OUR MILITARY.
He never had a chance before the Democrats and Republicans FEAR him so much because he is not for gov't power but for the people. He has say with Forbes and actually came up with a way in the early 90's to put our country out of debt but everyone thought he was insane. I hope his son gets elected.
SheriV
Registered
I like how a discussion about government turns into "eat a fat dick"
lolz
lolz
its because people want the gov't to be ran in their idea of what they want. The issue is the gov't should do what is best to keep the people free, to ensure that the states do not dictate the citizens. They should protect and secure that nation and what is best for the nation. There responsibility should not be welfare, medical, and ect. That is a state and county responsibility. We want so much free stuff which is the problem when nothing in life is free.
A gov't funded medical? WHen the gov't is trillions in debt? Who is going to fund this? Tax dollars will not be able to fund it alone. So we will then print more money which will devalue our dollar even more. So on they raise minimum raise well they can raise it all they want but it doesnt do shit if they keep devaluing our dollar. That is the reason why fuel cost so much. Ron Paul goes over this week. The democrats want you to believe its big business and the republicans want you to believe its because the democrats wont let us drill. Neither has any thing to do with it. It is because we keep printing money we do not have which reduces the value of our money which in returns makes all goods more money and with out inflation going up at the same rate as our dollar value dropping it hurts us even more. So the 20$ you made an hour this year is not the same as the 20$ you made a few years ago.
A gov't funded medical? WHen the gov't is trillions in debt? Who is going to fund this? Tax dollars will not be able to fund it alone. So we will then print more money which will devalue our dollar even more. So on they raise minimum raise well they can raise it all they want but it doesnt do shit if they keep devaluing our dollar. That is the reason why fuel cost so much. Ron Paul goes over this week. The democrats want you to believe its big business and the republicans want you to believe its because the democrats wont let us drill. Neither has any thing to do with it. It is because we keep printing money we do not have which reduces the value of our money which in returns makes all goods more money and with out inflation going up at the same rate as our dollar value dropping it hurts us even more. So the 20$ you made an hour this year is not the same as the 20$ you made a few years ago.
heckler7
Registered
Obama is like the woman on stage at the magic show, he's just diverting your eyes away from the people who are really ruining the country, all the rich fucks controlling congress
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
It is inevitable. Politics, religion, gay right, abortion, and baseball discussions always at some point end up to "suck a fat dick".
agree.
I know you know this, but i'm posting it because people need to read this to know what our federal govt is authorized to do.
ARTICLE I
SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
caedus
Registered
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 18
what the hell is wrong with sucking a fat dick? 
Debt Ceiling Delusions
By:
Peter Schiff
Friday, October 11, 2013
The popular take on the current debt ceiling stand-off is that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has a delusional belief that it can hit the brakes on new debt creation without bringing on an economic catastrophe. While Republicans are indeed kidding themselves if they believe that their actions will not unleash deep economic turmoil, there are much deeper and more significant delusions on the other side of the aisle. Democrats, and the President in particular, believe that continually taking on more debt to pay existing debt is a more responsible course of action. Even worse, they appear to believe that debt accumulation is the equivalent of economic growth.
If Republicans were to inexplicably prevail, and the federal government were to cut spending so that its expenditures matched its tax revenues (a truly radical idea) the country's financial mess would be laid bare. The government would have to weigh the relative costs and benefits of making interest payments on Treasury debt (primarily to foreign creditors) or to trim entitlements promised to U.S. citizens. But those are choices we will have to make sooner or later anyway. In fact we should have dealt with these issues years ago. But generations of mechanistic debt ceiling increases have allowed us to perpetually kick the can down the road. What could possibly be gained by doing it again, particularly if it is done with no commitment to change course?
The Democrats' argument that America needs to pay its bills is just hollow rhetoric. Paying off one's Visa bill with a new and bigger MasterCard bill can't be considered a legitimate payment of debt. At best it is a transfer. But in the government's case, it doesn't even qualify as that. Treasury debt is primarily bought by the Fed, foreign central banks, and major financial institutions. None of that will change with a debt ceiling increase. We will just go to the same people for greater quantities. So it's like paying off your Visa card with a bigger Visa card.
According to modern economists, an elimination of deficit spending will immediately cause a dollar for dollar decrease in GDP. For example, if the government stopped sending food stamp payments to poor people, then grocery stores would lose business, employees would be laid off, and the economy would contract. But this one dimensional view fails to appreciate that the purchasing power of the food stamps had to come from somewhere. The government can't create something from nothing. Taxation transfers purchasing power from people living in the present to other people living in the present. In contrast, borrowing transfers purchasing power from people living in the future to people living in the present. The good news for politicians is that future people don't vote in current elections (and current voters don't seem to appreciate the cost to their future selves of current policy).
The Obama Administration has congratulated itself for turning around the contracting economy that it inherited from President Bush. But even if you take the obscenely low official inflation statistics at face value, we only grew at an anemic 1.075% annual pace from 2009 to 2012 (far below the between 3% and 4% that the U.S. averaged post World War II). Sadly, this growth pales in comparison to the accumulation of new debt that we are borrowing from the future.
U.S. GDP is measured at roughly $15 trillion per year. 2% growth means that each year the GDP is approximately $300 billion larger than the prior year. But in the less than five years since Obama took office, the federal government has added, on average, about $1.3 trillion per year in new debt, a pace that is four times higher than the growth. If the deficit were subtracted from GDP, America would be shown to be stuck in a severe recession that Washington can't acknowledge. But such a reality is more consistent with the dismal job prospects and stagnant incomes experienced by most Americans.
The belief that deficits add to the economy, and that debt can be dealt with in an imaginary future (that never seems to arrive) is the foundation upon which the President can chastise the Republicans as irresponsible suicide bombers. Using this logic, he can argue (with a straight face) that borrowing is the equivalent of paying. That the President can make this delusional argument is not so surprising (no lie too great for the typical politician to attempt). What is alarming is that the media and the public have swallowed it so willingly. As they call for limitless increases in borrowing, Democrats have offered no plan to reduce the current debt and they are unwilling to negotiate with Republicans on that topic. Yet somehow they have been perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility.
While the Republicans have a dismal track record of their own when it comes to budgetary management, it can't be disputed that the minor dip in that rate of increase in spending that resulted from the recent Sequester, happened only because they dug in on the issue. Without the 2011 debt ceiling drama, there is no chance that any spending would have been touched.
Democrats had warned that the $85 billion in sequestration cuts slated for fiscal year 2013 (about 2% of the Federal budget) would be sufficient to bring on economic Armageddon. But guess what? We survived. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continued with such rhetoric by declaring that there are no more cuts to be found anywhere in the $3.8 Trillion dollar federal budget. (Apparently he missed last week's 60 Minutes piece on the spreading epidemic of federal disability fraud.)
We have to acknowledge what even the Republicans haven't fully grasped. We are in such a deep debt hole that there is no solution that does not involve serious economic pain. Tea Party Republicans rightly believe that government spending is a drag on economic growth. As a result, they conclude that immediate spending cuts will help with the "recovery". But they are confusing real economic growth with the delusional expansion created by deficit spending (which is actually damaging the real economy). If they cut the deficit, this phony economy may likely implode and cause widespread distress.
So even though a reduction in government borrowing and spending does help the economy, it won't feel very helpful tomorrow. The more we borrow and spend today, the more we will suffer tomorrow when the bills come due. Ironically, cutting government spending now helps the economy by allowing the economic adjustment to happen sooner rather than later. But this type of long-term thinking is very difficult for politicians to consider.
Unfortunately our debts don't leave us much in the way of choices. We can choose to pay now or try to pay later. But the longer we wait the steeper the bill.
Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, best-selling author and host of syndicated Peter Schiff Show.
By:
Peter Schiff
Friday, October 11, 2013
The popular take on the current debt ceiling stand-off is that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has a delusional belief that it can hit the brakes on new debt creation without bringing on an economic catastrophe. While Republicans are indeed kidding themselves if they believe that their actions will not unleash deep economic turmoil, there are much deeper and more significant delusions on the other side of the aisle. Democrats, and the President in particular, believe that continually taking on more debt to pay existing debt is a more responsible course of action. Even worse, they appear to believe that debt accumulation is the equivalent of economic growth.
If Republicans were to inexplicably prevail, and the federal government were to cut spending so that its expenditures matched its tax revenues (a truly radical idea) the country's financial mess would be laid bare. The government would have to weigh the relative costs and benefits of making interest payments on Treasury debt (primarily to foreign creditors) or to trim entitlements promised to U.S. citizens. But those are choices we will have to make sooner or later anyway. In fact we should have dealt with these issues years ago. But generations of mechanistic debt ceiling increases have allowed us to perpetually kick the can down the road. What could possibly be gained by doing it again, particularly if it is done with no commitment to change course?
The Democrats' argument that America needs to pay its bills is just hollow rhetoric. Paying off one's Visa bill with a new and bigger MasterCard bill can't be considered a legitimate payment of debt. At best it is a transfer. But in the government's case, it doesn't even qualify as that. Treasury debt is primarily bought by the Fed, foreign central banks, and major financial institutions. None of that will change with a debt ceiling increase. We will just go to the same people for greater quantities. So it's like paying off your Visa card with a bigger Visa card.
According to modern economists, an elimination of deficit spending will immediately cause a dollar for dollar decrease in GDP. For example, if the government stopped sending food stamp payments to poor people, then grocery stores would lose business, employees would be laid off, and the economy would contract. But this one dimensional view fails to appreciate that the purchasing power of the food stamps had to come from somewhere. The government can't create something from nothing. Taxation transfers purchasing power from people living in the present to other people living in the present. In contrast, borrowing transfers purchasing power from people living in the future to people living in the present. The good news for politicians is that future people don't vote in current elections (and current voters don't seem to appreciate the cost to their future selves of current policy).
The Obama Administration has congratulated itself for turning around the contracting economy that it inherited from President Bush. But even if you take the obscenely low official inflation statistics at face value, we only grew at an anemic 1.075% annual pace from 2009 to 2012 (far below the between 3% and 4% that the U.S. averaged post World War II). Sadly, this growth pales in comparison to the accumulation of new debt that we are borrowing from the future.
U.S. GDP is measured at roughly $15 trillion per year. 2% growth means that each year the GDP is approximately $300 billion larger than the prior year. But in the less than five years since Obama took office, the federal government has added, on average, about $1.3 trillion per year in new debt, a pace that is four times higher than the growth. If the deficit were subtracted from GDP, America would be shown to be stuck in a severe recession that Washington can't acknowledge. But such a reality is more consistent with the dismal job prospects and stagnant incomes experienced by most Americans.
The belief that deficits add to the economy, and that debt can be dealt with in an imaginary future (that never seems to arrive) is the foundation upon which the President can chastise the Republicans as irresponsible suicide bombers. Using this logic, he can argue (with a straight face) that borrowing is the equivalent of paying. That the President can make this delusional argument is not so surprising (no lie too great for the typical politician to attempt). What is alarming is that the media and the public have swallowed it so willingly. As they call for limitless increases in borrowing, Democrats have offered no plan to reduce the current debt and they are unwilling to negotiate with Republicans on that topic. Yet somehow they have been perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility.
While the Republicans have a dismal track record of their own when it comes to budgetary management, it can't be disputed that the minor dip in that rate of increase in spending that resulted from the recent Sequester, happened only because they dug in on the issue. Without the 2011 debt ceiling drama, there is no chance that any spending would have been touched.
Democrats had warned that the $85 billion in sequestration cuts slated for fiscal year 2013 (about 2% of the Federal budget) would be sufficient to bring on economic Armageddon. But guess what? We survived. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continued with such rhetoric by declaring that there are no more cuts to be found anywhere in the $3.8 Trillion dollar federal budget. (Apparently he missed last week's 60 Minutes piece on the spreading epidemic of federal disability fraud.)
We have to acknowledge what even the Republicans haven't fully grasped. We are in such a deep debt hole that there is no solution that does not involve serious economic pain. Tea Party Republicans rightly believe that government spending is a drag on economic growth. As a result, they conclude that immediate spending cuts will help with the "recovery". But they are confusing real economic growth with the delusional expansion created by deficit spending (which is actually damaging the real economy). If they cut the deficit, this phony economy may likely implode and cause widespread distress.
So even though a reduction in government borrowing and spending does help the economy, it won't feel very helpful tomorrow. The more we borrow and spend today, the more we will suffer tomorrow when the bills come due. Ironically, cutting government spending now helps the economy by allowing the economic adjustment to happen sooner rather than later. But this type of long-term thinking is very difficult for politicians to consider.
Unfortunately our debts don't leave us much in the way of choices. We can choose to pay now or try to pay later. But the longer we wait the steeper the bill.
Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, best-selling author and host of syndicated Peter Schiff Show.
