[Big Mac]

I'm starting to think the leftist propaganda about Bush could be proved true:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...in&oref=slogin

$1 million lost every minute due to the national debt, which has soared under Bush. I guess the bright side is that the crippling entitlements will have to be cut out sooner or later in order for the country to avoid outright bankruptcy in the coming years.

It's so sad, the United States used to be a mighty creditor nation. Now we're a mighty debtor nation. How long can we maintain our dominance with such poor financial stewardship? The leaner, hungrier, smarter countries may well eat us alive.

[nonhuman]

Are you kidding? Somehow this will be twisted into a rallying cry for more entitlements to 'fix' the poverty that Bush's policies have thrown our country into.

[Dork.]

The biggest magic trick that Republicans have pulled over the last seven years is still being able to hang Democrats with the "tax and spend" label, while they've successfully dodged the "spend and spend some more" label.

[Big Mac]

I think the biggest problem is that the American people are asleep at the switch. We could correct the problem within a couple of years if we decided as a country to change course, but our politicians don't even want to acknowledge the problem.

President Andrew Jackson may well have been one of the greatest presidents of all time because he is the only president thus far to have erased the national debt. He did it by selling off federally owned land. We could do it again, but the window of opportunity is closing rapidly as we allow the boomers to retire. The question is, where is the outrage? Where is the outrage over the fact (for one) that the richest men and women suckle from the national breast just as the poor do?

[Dork.]

Outrage takes too much effort. Besides, Kid Nation is on, you don't want to miss it because you were too busy being outraged, do you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

President Andrew Jackson may well have been one of the greatest presidents of all time because he is the only president thus far to have erased the national debt.

Oh come on. The biggest problem of American politics isn't debt, it's overreacting. What you just said is a classic example. Moderation in all things. Especially moderation in moderation.

Just what is the interest rate on the national debt anyway?

[Big Mac]

How is what you quoted an example of overreaction?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Too much debt is suboptimal, too little debt is suboptimal. Same is true of worrying about global warming or terrorism or alcoholism (ref: prohibition) or any other problem. The answer to straying from the center is not to stray just as far in the other direction.

[Big Mac]

What economic view do you base that opinion on? Economists recognize the role deficit spending plays during recessions, but as for national debts I don't think you can find any economist that supports them. I can think of no upside to maintaining any national debt. One can even argue that a small national surplus would be beneficial in order to provide for negative contingencies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

$1 million lost every minute due to the national debt, which has soared under Bush. I guess the bright side is that the crippling entitlements will have to be cut out sooner or later in order for the country to avoid outright bankruptcy in the coming years.

It's so sad, the United States used to be a mighty creditor nation. Now we're a mighty debtor nation.

Until you realise that the debt doesn't actually exist. It's just a bunch of numbers dreamt up by the bankers getting rich off fractional reserve banking and fiat currency.

[Big Mac]

Okay. . . That sounds interesting, Doofy. What do you think the real figure would be?

[Doofy]

$0,000.00 ?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just what is the interest rate on the national debt anyway?

I believe the national controller has said the within 20 years we won't be able to pay on the national debt itself, just the interest.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

$0,000.00 ?

Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the biggest problem is that the American people are asleep at the switch. We could correct the problem within a couple of years if we decided as a country to change course, but our politicians don't even want to acknowledge the problem.

This isn't true at all. It is a central tenet of the Republican party that debt doesn't matter, and that the best way of reducing the deficit is to cut taxes and increase spending. And the sky is green.

Meanwhile, our purchasing power has dropped almost 50% compared to Europeans over the last five years. What does Doofy care?

[awcopus]

Which presidential candidate should I vote for if I want the the federal government to spend less than its revenue and use the difference to start eliminating the national debt?

[tie]

awcopus, I think you want a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Congress. The opposite won't work because then you'll have lots of random wars against countries that nobody cares about, and this is very expensive. A Democratic president and a Democratic Congress might work, but only if the control is slight enough to prevent health care reform.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by awcopus 

Which presidential candidate should I vote for if I want the the federal government to spend less than its revenue and use the difference to start eliminating the national debt?

I would say Obama. Another acceptable candidate would be Kucinich. Some people would say Ron Paul, but honestly his policies will either work wonderfully like he says or completely destroy the economy. I don't really think we're in a position to be playing dramatically with our economy right now.

All the other Republican candidates support the way so they're automatically off the list.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Meanwhile, our purchasing power has dropped almost 50% compared to Europeans over the last five years. What does Doofy care?

Any ideas which country my best customers are in?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

$1 million lost every minute due to the national debt, which has soared under Bush. I guess the bright side is that the crippling entitlements will have to be cut out sooner or later in order for the country to avoid outright bankruptcy in the coming years.

So let me get this right: You think that it is a good thing to bankrupt the country on pointless wars and corruption, because at least, at some point, the social safety net will have to be dismantled because the country will have no money for productive spending?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So let me get this right: You think that it is a good thing to bankrupt the country on pointless wars and corruption, because at least, at some point, the social safety net will have to be dismantled because the country will have no money for productive spending?

I don't believe he said it was a good thing. He was, I believe, making lemonade.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

President Andrew Jackson may well have been one of the greatest presidents of all time because he is the only president thus far to have erased the national debt. He did it by selling off federally owned land.

*snort*

President Andrew Jackson was a notorious and overzealous racist who did his best to get rid of the Native American problem so that the white man could have more land.

Makes a nice hero figure by tackling that debt problem though.



greg

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the biggest problem is that the American people are asleep at the switch. We could correct the problem within a couple of years if we decided as a country to change course, but our politicians don't even want to acknowledge the problem.

President Andrew Jackson may well have been one of the greatest presidents of all time because he is the only president thus far to have erased the national debt. He did it by selling off federally owned land. We could do it again, but the window of opportunity is closing rapidly as we allow the boomers to retire. The question is, where is the outrage? Where is the outrage over the fact (for one) that the richest men and women suckle from the national breast just as the poor do?

The People don't pay attention to politics because they are tired of hearing about the ignorance and corruption of the politicians they voted for, and the politicians aren't even listening to 'the people'. Where is the 'well regulated militia' who will remove at least 535 tyrants from office?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Where is the 'well regulated militia' who will remove at least 535 tyrants from office?

Drinking beer and watching TV, I guess … 

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't mean to start up some Canada/US debate, but anyone knowledgeable know why Canada has been so fiscally successful in the past decade, even though mostly run by a Liberal party? We've been running billion-dollar surpluses for quite some time.

Is it just our higher taxes? I mean, I thought public healthcare was supposed to be so prohibitively expensive; how is it that we still seem to be chugging along fine even so?* Is the federal budget decreasing while provincial budgets are increasing?

greg

*I read a while ago that healthcare costs are steadily increasing, so who knows how far they will go...

[pooka]

Could be because you're rich and dumb neighbor makes it easy to mooch off of? What's your population? How much land/resources you got? What do you make money selling?

Honestly, I think it's an apples and giraffe comparison.

And for real, I get your point. But isn't the US your largest trading partner and biggest revenue source by a massive margin? 80+%?

[peeb]

Well, public healthcare gives huge cost savings, no stupid wars to bankrupt you, and no spend-like-sailors conservatives.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, public healthcare gives huge cost savings, no stupid wars to bankrupt you, and no spend-like-sailors conservatives.

Whether or not public healthcare is cheaper than private overall (it isn't, but that's not relevant), it certainly isn't cheaper for the government.

[peeb]

It absolutely is cheaper, and, in case you hadn't noticed, the people fund the government, so they end up paying one way or another.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I don't mean to start up some Canada/US debate, but anyone knowledgeable know why Canada has been so fiscally successful in the past decade, even though mostly run by a Liberal party? We've been running billion-dollar surpluses for quite some time.

Is it just our higher taxes? I mean, I thought public healthcare was supposed to be so prohibitively expensive; how is it that we still seem to be chugging along fine even so?* Is the federal budget decreasing while provincial budgets are increasing?

greg

*I read a while ago that healthcare costs are steadily increasing, so who knows how far they will go...

It's not like it's that hard or a big mystery how it works. The US budget was doing fine up until Bush took office, cut taxes by 2% of GDP, and increased spending by 2% of GDP. That's all it takes. It could easily get back on track by raising taxes by 2% of GDP, cutting spending by 2% of GDP, or some other combination.

[nonhuman]

It certainly isn't absolutely cheaper, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The cost per procedure per patient goes up. If the overall cost goes down, that has to do with reducing the number of procedures and/or patients (like the way the UK won't treat smokers and is considering refusing treatment to obese people).

And yes, the people end up paying one way or another. But what we're talking about here isn't consumer spending, it's government spending. Moving to public healthcare will absolutely increase government spending. There's no way around it. And that means it's that much harder to pay off the national debt and avoid incurring more debt.

[peeb]

There is no straight face argument that you can make that the US has cheaper healthcare than the UK, or any other country with a comparable level of public health. I'm interested in where you think this has been 'demonstrated time and time again', since, in fact, the converse is true.

I agree with you that moving private spending to public spending increases public spending, but that's just a truism. When the same people pay both it doesn't matter to them which it is. It's like saying we reduced our gas bill by using electric heaters this month. Well, maybe you did, but your electric bill went up, so it didn't help.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

ding. Moving to public healthcare will absolutely increase government spending. There's no way around it. And that means it's that much harder to pay off the national debt and avoid incurring more debt.

Unless the people are willing to pay more in taxes because they no longer have to pay for their own health insurance. The people don't usually think that way, but it's conceivable....

[peeb]

Whether they pay in healthcare premiums or in taxes makes no difference in the end. There is absolutely no difference for me if I pay $50/month to a private trash collector, or $50/month to the city to remove my trash.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The People don't pay attention to politics because they are tired of hearing about the ignorance and corruption of the politicians they voted for, and the politicians aren't even listening to 'the people'. Where is the 'well regulated militia' who will remove at least 535 tyrants from office?

I've been wondering lately, what would happen if 1000+ armed Americans held a peaceful protest outside the Whitehouse?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe they're just waiting for global warming to take care of things for them by raising sea levels to flood D.C.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm starting to think the leftist propaganda about Bush could be proved true:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...in&oref=slogin

$1 million lost every minute due to the national debt, which has soared under Bush. I guess the bright side is that the crippling entitlements will have to be cut out sooner or later in order for the country to avoid outright bankruptcy in the coming years.

It's so sad, the United States used to be a mighty creditor nation. Now we're a mighty debtor nation. How long can we maintain our dominance with such poor financial stewardship? The leaner, hungrier, smarter countries may well eat us alive.

It's not the "entitlements" that are crippling the nation, it's Bush's bungled policies.

You guys and your talking points. "Entitlements." It's like you guys have your own little language that you download direct from FoxNews.com. Come on, give it a rest and think for yourselves.

[nonhuman]

You're acting as though everything was completely perfect before Bush came to office and every problem we have now occurred since then. That's simply not true.

People have been complaining about entitlement policies since well before there was a Fox News. It's kinda the root of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and has been for decades.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You're acting as though everything was completely perfect before Bush came to office and every problem we have now occurred since then.

It was not perfect, but Bush has created or exacerbated nearly every serious problem facing the US.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

People have been complaining about entitlement policies since well before there was a Fox News. It's kinda the root of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and has been for decades.

Not really. The difference between the two is that one is in favor of programs that support the most vulnerable and fix market failures, the other is in favor or redirecting that money to corporate welfare and corruption.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It was not perfect, but Bush has created or exacerbated nearly every serious problem facing the US.

That may be true, but people still complained plenty prior to Bush gaining office. And as has always been the case and always will be the case, many of the problems that arose during the Bush administration were actually caused by policies put in place by previous administrations (and many of the problems caused by the Bush administration won't make themselves known until after Bush is out of office). Many of the problems we are now facing were inherited, not caused, by Bush. It's true that he's bungled the handling of may of them and made things worse in many ways, but it's also true that he can't honestly be held accountable for everything that's gone wrong while he's been in office.

Not really. The difference between the two is that one is in favor of programs that support the most vulnerable and fix market failures, the other is in favor or redirecting that money to corporate welfare and corruption.

Which is saying exactly the same thing only with the opposite political slant. Either approach has its advantages and its disadvantages, but there's no point in having a discussion about it if people aren't willing to at least try and be objective and understand the opposing point of view.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

(Bush) can't honestly be held accountable for everything that's gone wrong while he's been in office.

That's what being President means, for better or worse.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Which is saying exactly the same thing only with the opposite political slant. Either approach has its advantages and its disadvantages, but there's no point in having a discussion about it if people aren't willing to at least try and be objective and understand the opposing point of view.

Yeah, more corporate welfare is certainly a point of view I should be more open to, I suppose.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's what being President means, for better or worse.

Unfortunate, but true.

Yeah, more corporate welfare is certainly a point of view I should be more open to, I suppose.

No, what you should be more open to is the idea that the other side of the aisle isn't best represented by the worst of the people there. Both sides do bad things, both sides do good things. Yes there's a lot of corruption on side A. There's also a lot of corruption on side B. Both sides need to be criticized and held accountable when they do something wrong, and both sides should be given the credit when they do something right.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That may be true, but people still complained plenty prior to Bush gaining office. And as has always been the case and always will be the case, many of the problems that arose during the Bush administration were actually caused by policies put in place by previous administrations (and many of the problems caused by the Bush administration won't make themselves known until after Bush is out of office). Many of the problems we are now facing were inherited, not caused, by Bush. It's true that he's bungled the handling of may of them and made things worse in many ways, but it's also true that he can't honestly be held accountable for everything that's gone wrong while he's been in office.

That sounds good and fair, but I'd like to hear some specifics. Certainly terrorism didn't start when Bush took office, but this thread is about fiscal matters, and there, Bush's policies are responsible for the reversal. We had exactly the opposite trend when Bush took office.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That sounds good and fair, but I'd like to hear some specifics. Certainly terrorism didn't start when Bush took office, but this thread is about fiscal matters, and there, Bush's policies are responsible for the reversal. We had exactly the opposite trend when Bush took office.

I guess I was talking about the more general case. Fiscally, I think it's pretty incontestable that Bush has caused some major problems.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No, what you should be more open to is the idea that the other side of the aisle isn't best represented by the worst of the people there. Both sides do bad things, both sides do good things. Yes there's a lot of corruption on side A. There's also a lot of corruption on side B. Both sides need to be criticized and held accountable when they do something wrong, and both sides should be given the credit when they do something right.

Ah yes, the Fox News 'two talking heads' model of reporting. "in breaking news, lunatic number 7 says the moon is made of cheese, while a random scientist number 3 says it isn't - there's probably truth on both sides - more on this controversy later!"

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah yes, the Fox News 'two talking heads' model of reporting. "in breaking news, lunatic number 7 says the moon is made of cheese, while a random scientist number 3 says it isn't - there's probably truth on both sides - more on this controversy later!"

Yeah... The whole taking the opposing argument to an absurd extreme thing? Not very productive.

[Face Ache]

"Entitlement" always seems like an emotionally charged word to me.

[peeb]

Right, like corporations are entitled to the massive subsidy they get.