Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Whose debt problem is worse: EU or US?

Whose debt problem is worse: EU or US? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Why are you even arguing with lowcheckit ? Just ignore that dud.

-t
Turdle666 is just upset because he lost every argument to me.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 01:24 AM
 
Sadly, I don't think the election will do anything but keep us going full steam ahead over the cliff regardless of who is elected.

Romney in some ways would be worse that Obama. I think he's a hopeless RINO and rather than push for any serious financial reforms he'll just go right along with the debt spiral, allowing the continued mess to be entirely blamed on Republicans.

In many ways, I see no upshot to him being elected. Maybe if he had some sense with Supreme Court justices appointed during his time in office, but that's about it.

At this point I say just let Obama have another 4 years, and hope we can somehow get a congress that will block any further boondoggles he wants to create. Let him and the Democrats take the sole blame for the mess they're creating, the job losses, the continued weakened economy and hopefully after a full 8 years voters will want some REAL change that involves getting serious about cutting the greedbag D.C clown brigade down to size. (IE: an ACTUAL conservative candidate might stand a chance.)

Until then, a lot of people are going to have to continue to eat the shit sandwiches they voted for with all their nanny-state pipe dreams. Really, when there's no chance of reversing course, why should Republicans step in to preside over that mess?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 08:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Sadly, I don't think the election will do anything but keep us going full steam ahead over the cliff regardless of who is elected.

Romney in some ways would be worse that Obama.
You agree that the candidate selected by Republicans wouldn't bring about your Conservative Utopia. This tells me that liberals and at least 50% of conservatives (ie: 75% of the US population) want a different political landscape than you do.

You guys keeps on whining about "big government". But you don't talk at all about how to achieve your Utopia when 75% of the US population disagrees with you. What is your plan to get a small government candidate into office, even if it's 4 years from now? It had better not be "hope the conservatives see the light next time, even though they haven't even seen that light in our lifetimes".


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
hopefully after a full 8 years voters will want some REAL change that involves getting serious about cutting the greedbag D.C clown brigade down to size. (IE: an ACTUAL conservative candidate might stand a chance.)
Oh, wait ... your plan *is* hope-and-pray ...
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This tells me that liberals and at least 50% of conservatives (ie: 75% of the US population)
Actually, you can't assume that 100% of liberals support big government, it might be only 51% (the same assumption you are making for the conservative block). Or it might even be far less than that, if most liberals simply care weakly about reducing the size of government so that issue is obscured for them by social issues like civil rights, making them allow a vocal big-gov minority to sway party policy.

In the abstract, you can assume that the candidate selection process will be heavily biased towards individuals who (a) seek power and (b) are not actively trying to undermine the expansion of the very power they currently seek. Therefore it should be expected that when comparing people who want to expand government or reduce it, the former will be more concentrated in government than their representation in the general population.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 11:31 AM
 
It's amazing that most of the left (and also many on the right) still don't understand that the MAIN problem is politicians and a corrupt DC culture, and not the party they belong to.

DC corrupts. Period. The current system is created to allow corruption and personal enrichment. That's why it doesn't matter if you get Obama or Romney. The outcome will be 99% the same.

Most people are fools. If you want change, you gotta elect someone who is radical enough to do what he says. Ron Paul was our only chance for meaningful change. Don't elect a certified liar like Obama and expect his Hope and Change message will have any real impact.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 01:20 PM
 
Please not another 4 years of Obama, that means enduring another 4 years of news stories about his birth certificate
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's amazing that most of the left (and also many on the right) still don't understand that the MAIN problem is politicians and a corrupt DC culture, and not the party they belong to.

DC corrupts. Period. The current system is created to allow corruption and personal enrichment. That's why it doesn't matter if you get Obama or Romney. The outcome will be 99% the same.

Most people are fools. If you want change, you gotta elect someone who is radical enough to do what he says. Ron Paul was our only chance for meaningful change. Don't elect a certified liar like Obama and expect his Hope and Change message will have any real impact.

-t

You might have gotten your hope and change with Ron Paul if he were a dictator, but you've completely contradicted yourself here. He'd have to work with the corrupt Congress just like any other leader.

What happened to Big Mac? He disappeared.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 03:00 PM
 
The problem is more the corruption of Congress and now the corruption that is occurring in the judiciary system. The president is not nearly as powerful as Congress and most of the corruption and the path the country takes comes from what happens in Congress.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You might have gotten your hope and change with Ron Paul if he were a dictator, but you've completely contradicted yourself here. He'd have to work with the corrupt Congress just like any other leader.
Uhm, no. He could just veto everything coming out of a corrupt congress.

That would not fix things, but at least it would stop the madness of crazy spending.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, no. He could just veto everything coming out of a corrupt congress.

That would not fix things, but at least it would stop the madness of crazy spending.

-t

Vetoing everything that came his way would be infinitely worse. If you are going to cut stuff, you not only need to account for the value of the program as I have been saying as to not kill off something that has been profitable, but you need some sort of replacement. No politician is going to want to work with Paul on a replacement after he has vetoed his bills.

Ron Paul would be successful if he had buy-in from the other Republicans as to his agenda and ideas, if the corruption within his party didn't interfere, and if the Democrats could work constructively with the Republicans.

There is an awful lot of "ifs" here and a complete dependence on constructive politics, which is really what I think you are getting at - politics are not constructive. However, I don't think Ron Paul or any president can change this on their own, and I quite frankly think it's naive to think that Paul alone could transform our politics into something constructive. He is an adversary to many within his own party, let alone the Democrats.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's amazing that most of the left (and also many on the right) still don't understand that the MAIN problem is politicians and a corrupt DC culture, and not the party they belong to.

DC corrupts. Period. The current system is created to allow corruption and personal enrichment. That's why it doesn't matter if you get Obama or Romney. The outcome will be 99% the same.

Most people are fools. If you want change, you gotta elect someone who is radical enough to do what he says. Ron Paul was our only chance for meaningful change. Don't elect a certified liar like Obama and expect his Hope and Change message will have any real impact.

-t
That's some funny stuff.

Turdle blames the left because Republicans didn't vote for Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate.

Maybe the right is too dumb to know what's good for them.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Vetoing everything that came his way would be infinitely worse. If you are going to cut stuff, you not only need to account for the value of the program as I have been saying as to not kill off something that has been profitable, but you need some sort of replacement.
You're acting like congress wouldn't change their behavior in reaction. Once they called his bluff a few times and he didn't flinch, then congress would have to actually start proposing reductions that would address these concerns. And then once the new bills are actually a step towards reduction for once instead of away from it, the pres could start not-vetoing things here and there.

No politician is going to want to work with Paul on a replacement after he has vetoed his bills.
Sometimes you can't get what you want. Sometimes the other guy is more stubborn. Checks AND balances, not just checks.

...However, I don't think Ron Paul or any president can change this on their own, and I quite frankly think it's naive to think that Paul alone could transform our politics into something constructive. He is an adversary to many within his own party, let alone the Democrats.
I get what you're saying, I really do. But we don't need to give up just because we can't strike a winning blow on the very first volley. He couldn't transform things, it's true. But he could jump start that transformation, and at the very least even if he _does_ nothing to change things, it certainly would be a wake-up call to those who came after, that the voting populace is fed up with bowing to defeatism on this issue.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:20 PM
 
I can hardly believe that some fellow conservatives would prefer another four years of BHO over Romney. It's hard to fathom. Even if Romney is a total RINO, how in the world is that worse than Obama? I've never bought into the notion held by some that burning the country to the absolute ground is a better course than electing a compromise candidate because the compromise candidate isn't ideologically pure.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 29, 2012 at 04:26 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Even if Romney is a total RINO, how in the world is that worse than Obama?
Politics in this country in a nutshell.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:25 PM
 
Obama is more liked around the world? Better for international reputation.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're acting like congress wouldn't change their behavior in reaction. Once they called his bluff a few times and he didn't flinch, then congress would have to actually start proposing reductions that would address these concerns. And then once the new bills are actually a step towards reduction for once instead of away from it, the pres could start not-vetoing things here and there.


Sometimes you can't get what you want. Sometimes the other guy is more stubborn. Checks AND balances, not just checks.


I get what you're saying, I really do. But we don't need to give up just because we can't strike a winning blow on the very first volley. He couldn't transform things, it's true. But he could jump start that transformation, and at the very least even if he _does_ nothing to change things, it certainly would be a wake-up call to those who came after, that the voting populace is fed up with bowing to defeatism on this issue.


I get what you're saying too, and I don't feel as strongly about what I'm saying as I probably came across, but I have two minds about this stuff...

One is that maybe you're right, and that a series of small minor victories in succession will allow our politics to be constructive again. Maybe we just need a series of jump starts like you are describing.

The other is that maybe we need to bottom out and just collectively say "**** this", putting aside the arms race of stupid (including far left and right blather) before we really commit to making our politics constructive. It's really hard to envision a positive outcome to this too, and even harder to envision this without a ton of drama, casualties, ugliness, and probably violence.

I'm not one to get all hyperbolic about stuff like somebody like Big Mac, I don't foresee us having to eat cat food, but I have noticed that the general public does eventually clue in to stuff, it just takes some time. For instance, by the end of Bush's term his popularity was crazy low... I felt it should have been crazy low much sooner, but people eventually came around. Maybe we are starting to see the same sort of thing with gay marriage too. Perhaps people will eventually see that the political freak show of obsessing over inconsequential issues and paying attention to certain bloviating ignoramuses in the media is deconstructive too.

Or, maybe we will all be eating cat food soon.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
 
I guess Big Mac is ignoring me. Awesome!
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, no. He could just veto everything coming out of a corrupt congress.

That would not fix things, but at least it would stop the madness of crazy spending.

-t
Congress can get past a veto with 2/3 majority at each house.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I guess Big Mac is ignoring me. Awesome!
No. I just took the weekend off. As I said, I gave you credit for your post showing areas where you'd cut spending.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I can hardly believe that some fellow conservatives would prefer another four years of BHO over Romney. It's hard to fathom. Even if Romney is a total RINO, how in the world is that worse than Obama?
Because every Republican Presidential candidate is worst than Pres. Obama.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I've never bought into the notion held by some that burning the country to the absolute ground is a better course than electing a compromise candidate because the compromise candidate isn't ideologically pure.
I think it's because letting the country burn to the ground is seen as the easiest way to get voters to accept something truly different.

We constantly see conservatives pointing fingers at liberals for big government woes. Yet, when presented with the big government activities of conservative governments, they quickly say "those weren't real conservatives" or "we haven't seen a truly conservative government in our lifetimes". The tells me that, even amongst conservative voters, there is little appetite for reducing the size of the government ... or even an understanding of what that *really* means (except as a way to demonize the other side).

I don't disagree with the idea of smaller government, but I don't think the small government dreamers have any real idea about *how* to convince voters (even the conservative voters) to accept it, other than to let the country burn first.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
No. I just took the weekend off. As I said, I gave you credit for your post showing areas where you'd cut spending.
Thank you, but since you sort of chided me for not showing areas where I'd cut spending, I'd really appreciate it if you would summarize my positions so I can understand why it is that you feel like I'd turn this country into Greece if I were president.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Congress can get past a veto with 2/3 majority at each house.
Yes, but that's quite a high hurdle.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I think it's because letting the country burn to the ground is seen as the easiest way to get voters to accept something truly different.

We constantly see conservatives pointing fingers at liberals for big government woes. Yet, when presented with the big government activities of conservative governments, they quickly say "those weren't real conservatives" or "we haven't seen a truly conservative government in our lifetimes". The tells me that, even amongst conservative voters, there is little appetite for reducing the size of the government ... or even an understanding of what that *really* means (except as a way to demonize the other side).

I don't disagree with the idea of smaller government, but I don't think the small government dreamers have any real idea about *how* to convince voters (even the conservative voters) to accept it, other than to let the country burn first.

Any more I think that the small government dreamers simply have their heads up their asses, they don't really know what they want or what they say they want really means.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but you cannot get to a place of small government without discussing value and what should (and not simply what could) be cut. You can't simply start cutting stuff because your gut feeling feels good about cutting certain things for ideological reasons, you have to be practical about this, and I've yet to come across these small government dreamers that are really interested in having these sorts of conversations. To them it seems more about this weird religion of theirs.

Among those that could justify their desires to cut certain things with practical rationales, I think they'd still have more success persuading others if they demonstrated that these desires are based on something other than their emotions and feelings, and/or empty rhetoric involving ambiguous provocative words like "freedom" and "liberty".

In short, they need to start being coherent.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I know I'm sounding like a broken record
QFT.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
QFT.

-t

I blame it on the MacNN hamstar!
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Among those that could justify their desires to cut certain things with practical rationales, I think they'd still have more success persuading others if they demonstrated that these desires are based on something other than their emotions and feelings, and/or empty rhetoric involving ambiguous provocative words like "freedom" and "liberty".
Sounds like a double-standard to me. Those "certain things" were enacted without practical rationales, with nothing more than emotions and feelings like "hope" and "change." Why should the standard be higher for bringing them down than it was for setting them up?

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but you cannot get to a place of small government without discussing value
Why? Were costs considered as heavily when the decision was made to enlarge the government to where it already is? And were those cost considerations accurate, in hindsight? If not, then I see no reason why the standard should be higher on the way back down. That would be a double-standard.

It comes down to ideology on both sides. You think that cuts should be extensively justified because government handouts and services are your ideological default. Conservatives likewise think that spending should be extensively justified, because thrift and self-sacrifice are their ideological default. Neither side is ever going to adequately justify or analyze anything to the satisfaction of the other, because it's simply not possible. We're not fortune tellers, and the information to predict something this massive just doesn't exist. Sometimes you just have to fly without a net, and open your eyes to the fact that that's really what you've been doing the whole time, since your own ideology has been a false sense of security.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:28 AM
 
What do you know of my ideological default, Skeleton?

I don't have an ideological default when it comes to devising infrastructure, my ideological default is to use the best tool for the job, whatever that happens to be.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What do you know of my ideological default, Skeleton?
I know that you sound like a broken record when it's time to justify cuts, but I've never once seen you demand or criticize any justification for increases.

I don't have an ideological default when it comes to devising infrastructure, my ideological default is to use the best tool for the job, whatever that happens to be.
Ok I'll play along. What's the best tool for reducing the debt? And when was the last time you argued for a cut instead of an increase?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I know that you sound like a broken record when it's time to justify cuts, but I've never once seen you demand or criticize any justification for increases.
What increases would you have like for me to have criticized? What increases have occurred recently?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 01:11 AM
 
I'll let hyteckit field that one:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post4169773

Recent times have been a cornucopia of spending increases. That you can't think of any is exactly my point.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'll let hyteckit field that one:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post4169773

Recent times have been a cornucopia of spending increases. That you can't think of any is exactly my point.

Just tell me what we've increased spending on and I'll tell you my viewpoint if I have one so you can proceed to do your usual dissection of whatever I say.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but you cannot get to a place of small government without discussing value and what should (and not simply what could) be cut. You can't simply start cutting stuff because your gut feeling feels good about cutting certain things for ideological reasons, you have to be practical about this, and I've yet to come across these small government dreamers that are really interested in having these sorts of conversations.
Sure you can. We've already talked about this. You can just start cutting shit.

You can discuss all you want; it doesn't matter what it is, some group will claim that it absolutely cannot or should not be cut. It is, after all, "free" government money that is being spent because someone is very happy to receive the money and that someone has a vote(s).

Just cut stuff based on what you think should be cut. Later on everyone can have the outraged discussion about whether it should be cut or how much the cuts should be. Obama should have an easy time with his constituency: cut the military, cut the useless subsidies that are the only thing keeping redneck farmers in business. Repubs can counter with the healthcare and welfare-state payments. And so on, like a see-saw battle of political divisiveness where a given party campaigns on reinstating the spending cut by the other party and cutting the spending favoured by the other party.

"Everybody hurts". Success!
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:17 AM
 
Our modern political class as a whole is incapable of such shared pain leadership. If only it were as easy as you describe it to be. Balancing the budget should be a no-brainer, but when it comes to politicians spending other people's money, it seldom ever is.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Just tell me what we've increased spending on and I'll tell you my viewpoint if I have one so you can proceed to do your usual dissection of whatever I say.
Why don't you just tell me what I should tell you what we've increased spending on, and then I'll tell you what you told me?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What do you know of my ideological default, Skeleton?
Default as in having gone bankrupt ?

That would explain...

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why don't you just tell me what I should tell you what we've increased spending on, and then I'll tell you what you told me?

Discussions with you feel like IRS audits.

Is your little mini obsession of me fun for you? I guess I should feel flattered!
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:08 PM
 
Financial analyst just reported the following on CNBC: According to recently released research, when a country crosses above 90% Debt:GDP, 1% of GDP per year is lost and countries that face debt levels that high usually stay at those debt levels for an average of 23 years.

Another data point to keep in mind when certain people stress how much value government spending provides to the economy.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 30, 2012 at 02:20 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Discussions with you feel like IRS audits.

Is your little mini obsession of me fun for you? I guess I should feel flattered!
Hey you started it. What do you think is supposed to happen when instead of stating your case you ask the other person to state your case? That's totally weird, no one else does that besides you. And it doesn't make much sense. If I'm the first person to ever try to do it right back to you so you can see how it feels, then well, get used to it, I won't be the last.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Hey you started it. What do you think is supposed to happen when instead of stating your case you ask the other person to state your case? That's totally weird, no one else does that besides you. And it doesn't make much sense. If I'm the first person to ever try to do it right back to you so you can see how it feels, then well, get used to it, I won't be the last.

I was attempting to avoid another round of annoying Skeleton dissection.

To your credit, if I ever want to know how something I said two weeks ago is inconsistent with something I've said more recently when interpreted a particular way and how this brings up a double-standard, and analyze this to death with several rounds of back and forth word jousting and mind games, peering into my inner soul in the process, you've got this down better than anybody!

There is no spoon.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:49 PM
 
besson, do you not see that Uncle is using your own rhetorical tricks against you?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Financial analyst just reported the following on CNBC: According to recently released research, when a country crosses above 90% Debt:GDP, 1% of GDP per year is lost and countries that face debt levels that high usually stay at those debt levels for an average of 23 years.
They probably had the study of Reinhart & Rogoff in mind. Basially, 90% Debt to GDP was the point of no return for the majority of the countries.

This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly

-t
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:02 PM
 
That's it. I wasn't fast enough to catch the name of it, thank you. I guess it wasn't recently released research, but this is empirically verified truth - the case is closed. Who can argue with us?
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 30, 2012 at 03:09 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Who can argue with us?
I'm sure besson will.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
That's it. I wasn't fast enough to catch the name of it, thank you. I guess it wasn't recently released research, but this is empirically verified truth - the case is closed. Who can argue with us?
Nobody can, when you pick and choose what you respond to. Still waiting.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
besson, do you not see that Uncle is using your own rhetorical tricks against you?
To what end? What he is trying to do and has been trying to do for weeks/months now remains unclear to me.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To what end? What he is trying to do and has been trying to do for weeks/months now remains unclear to me.
I was wondering the same about half of your posts in the last couple of years.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I was wondering the same about half of your posts in the last couple of years.

-t

And I why you seem to crave conflict.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
That's exactly my point to him, which I've made for years, and I think it hurts his feelings very deeply to be told the truth. I don't like having to reiterate it, but as you know it gets annoying to have these same go-arounds with someone who isn't remotely qualified to be debating these issues and doesn't even debate at all fairly.
Honestly, that's your fault for not having him on ignore, Mac.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Honestly, that's your fault for not having him on ignore, Mac.
Now now, when people are ignored its hard for them to ever make up and put aside the differences. I hate the Ignore feature.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,