What's new
By:

Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."

franklin said:
Can I play too?

High debt load is the problem so we should do nothing when GDP falls so the debt burden will grow & become a bigger problem so we should do nothing because debt is the problem. In fact, we should cut as many government jobs so GDP will shrink faster and the private sector will be hurt even deeper as consumer spending plummets so the debt load will go ever higher and we should do nothing because debt is the problem and everything will magically bottom out somewhere because Glenn Beck told me so. & Glenn also told me that instability & uncertainty are causing businesses to not expand & so we should cut government 5% across the board so business revenue will become more erratic but it will all magically fix itself because we bought gold like Glenn Beck told us to because he's a good spirited Christian and knows gold is the best investment ever & the Bible says not to worship golden images & Glenn says it isn't gold worship so it's okay. In fact, Glenn Beck is a good Mormon boy & the Book of Mormon warns against hording gold and burying it the ground to keep it safe but that's okay because Glenn Beck approves a good safe manufacturer so we don't have to hide it in the ground so that's okay. & government is inept at everything & we need to follow the constitution which says that banking is born from government so we need to deregulate the banks even more because everything connected to government is not efficient so it should be watched vigilantly so we should deregulate the banks because they don't need to be watched at all. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

* halfchub *
 
framer said:
I lived in Russia in 1997. It cost 2600 rubles to buy a bottle of Coke. Imagine that your promised pension payed out at 5000 rubles a month. It was a good deal in the 70's and 80's. Not such a good deal when your currency collapsed. I watched 80 year old pensioners selling onions on the street because their safety net had collapsed. Russia was a superpower. To think that that same thing cannot and will not happen here is rediculous.
Click to expand...

Russia collapsed when Yeltsin tried to follow the Reagan-Thatcher playbook without knowing the first damn thing about monetary policy, and it backfired miserably. The result was hyper-inflationary policy to combat extreme money/credit scarcity, which just so happens to be the exact same **** the conservative republicans are pushing wholesale.

I'm on SWOTI overload. Someone stick a nail through a board and smack me in the head.
 
PKM said:
I have read every post in this thread and have a slightly off-topic question from the current stream.

Why is it that both democrats and republicans (I am really not married to either, just my own set of ideals that are fairly in the middle) have held office, both make certain promises, both have comtrolled the senate and house, yet this board is completelt one-sided when it comes to republicans having an exclusive license to;

- Certain idealogical changes
- Rhetoric
- Flip flopping
- Pandering
- Catering to certain corporation/agencies
- etc.

Being serious with this .. are the above items absent from a democrat/liberal? Do they not have the same issues .. only on a different platform?
I'm sincerely curious as to what those here believe about this, because at my age and life experience, I HATE all parties. I liken the mess this country is in to that of "The Prisoner's Dilemma" as it relates to partisanship. Pisses me off, actually.
Click to expand...

Because the DNC is the party of Jesus Christ, duh! They are perfect!!
 
northeast said:
I'd say that this board leans Republican in numbers on economic issues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it does, but my question was why I see so many more (all?) hyperbolic statements towards the "overly-idealogical" republicans. Doesn't bother me because I'm my own man and support whomever I most closely align beliefs with .. just curious why the board seems to have so much more vitriol toward the right.

Edit: I ask because I expected a Utah board to be more pro-right than left ..
 
Not sure I agree with any of your premises.

Maybe it just seems this way to you, because the anti Republicans are on a hot streak and making better quality posts lately, and you really do identify more with Romney than with Obama.

The flip flopping is a minor afterthought of an issue which you are just know making a defining distinction over.

I am no fan of Obama, but personally my disappointment with him is that he has been a centrist economically, wasting most of his term trying to appease Republicans, ruining a once in a generation opportunity to try some new progressive ideas, and now these possibilities have been discredited without ever being given a chance.
I don't support the economic core beliefs of either party, but the Dems appear to me to be less bad.

As an example , he should have ditched the Bush tax structures from the start and worked for some of my ideas when he had support, instead of letting this issue linger into 2 more election seasons.
 
northeast said:
Not sure I agree with any of your premises.

Maybe it just seems this way to you, because the anti Republicans are on a hot streak and making better quality posts lately, and you really do identify more with Romney than with Obama.

The flip flopping is a minor afterthought of an issue which you are just know making a defining distinction over.

I am no fan of Obama, but personally my disappointment with him is that he has been a centrist economically, wasting most of his term trying to appease Republicans, ruining a once in a generation opportunity to try some new progressive ideas, and now these possibilities have been discredited without ever being given a chance.
I don't support the economic core beliefs of either party, but the Dems appear to me to be less bad.

As an example , he should have ditched the Bush tax structures from the start and worked for some of my ideas when he had support, instead of letting this issue linger into 2 more election seasons.
Click to expand...

That may be true. I just see a lot more generalizing the attacks .. but perhaps it's my imagination.
Whether the dems are on a roll in this thread, I don't know, maybe .. I haven't spent anytime with the partisan-type discussion, but rather policy only.

I have enjoyed most of NAOS' posts (whether I agree or not), I have enjoyed Franklin's posts, Jimmy's ..

I have thought your's and Thriller's have been mostly (though maybe not entirely) empty jabs that lack substance or even an openness to the topic at hand.
 
I thought that the on topic substance has been dominated by thriller, salty, and myself.
It's not our fault none of you could answer Naos's question. We were all biting our tongues, waiting for you to just come up with something, anything.

The problems might really be that Romney's main qualification is a lifetime of experience weaseling the government out of taxes, and his policies are just reruns of the things that have put the country in the hole time and time again in the past, including a focus on helping the ultra-rich, at exactly a time in history when the rich have already benefited enormously from an economic catastrophe that some of them caused in the first place.
 
northeast said:
I thought that the on topic substance has been dominated by thriller, salty, and myself.

The problem might really be that Romney's main qualification is a lifetime of experience weaseling the government out of taxes, and his policies are just reruns of the things that have put the country in the hole time and time again in the past, including a focus on helping the ultra-rich, at exactly a time in history when the rich have already benefited enormously from an economic catastrophe that some of them caused in the first place.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. See, I haven't been discussing Romney or Obama, at all. I've only read and responded to topics related specifically to how to fix America's economy .. and I don't believe electing ANY inidividual will do that alone (obviously).
 
framer said:
I'll answer the question (I'm a little late to the party.)

The answer to the question "what will happen if we stop spending the money we do not have." is "the same thing that will eventually happen to us if we continue to spend the money we do not have." The only difference is of time and degree.

Like many have said, borrowing can be a useful tool to creating and expanding wealth. Borrowing as a permanent policy will ALWAYS lead to disaster. Borrowing to increase capital can be good as long as allowances are made for the risks. Placing your mortgage on a Credit Card is another thing entirely. Right now we are to the point where we are using a credit card to make payments on the credit card that we are using to pay our mortgage. That is not sustainable no matter how much money you think you can print. Money only exists because people have faith it is redeemable at a stated value. If you lose that faith, currency is worthless. We are approaching that level.

I lived in Russia in 1997. It cost 2600 rubles to buy a bottle of Coke. Imagine that your promised pension payed out at 5000 rubles a month. It was a good deal in the 70's and 80's. Not such a good deal when your currency collapsed. I watched 80 year old pensioners selling onions on the street because their safety net had collapsed. Russia was a superpower. To think that that same thing cannot and will not happen here is rediculous.

So yes, we need to make some heavy changes right the Hell now. First thing we need to do is elect people that have actually balanced a budget and understand the concept at all levels of government.

Next, we need to institute a 5% accross the board spending cut on all departments. This isn't the entire answer. This is just something to do while the heavy machinery is put into place. These will be real cuts, not just a reduction of the increase in spending.

While that is happening, the tax code needs to be renovated. The tax code needs to be flat removing all deductions. The tax code needs to become a source of revenue generation, not social engineering or a way to pay back your supporters. A flat tax code eliminates most of the graft.

Meanwhile three independent firms need to audit each government agency. 25% of these agencies need to be completely removed based on the findings presented.

Social Security needs to be decoupled from the general fund. A good way to do this is to use mineral rights taxes from the new oil reserves found on public land exclusively for the social security trust fund. The money from the oil and gas reserves will go into the trust fund and not be touched. As the fund fills up, we would stop the SS tax on the youngest first untill it is eventually removed from everybody.

We see where we are at. If we are running in the black at this point, we sell federal land to make up much of the federal deficit and pass a balanced budget amendment.

Additionally no more bailouts for anybody ever. Especially stupid states like Illinios and California.

A whole lot of suck for everyone there. The current people in power contributed to a larger part of the mess, so they should be the ones to suffer a bit to fix it. Anyone who thinks it is OK pass this crap off to our children wdeserves multiple, daily kicks to the Jimmy.
Click to expand...

framer has some good ideas.
if a third of them were implemented , it would be quite an accomplishment,
note that high on the list is reducing spending, a 5 % cut...
we are currently looking at a mandatory cut in spending coming soon across the board.
I would welcome this
but some Republicans have been saying that this would be catastrophic,
scaring us into more government spending for both sides.

Apparently if we cut a few thousand dollar screwdrivers from our defense budget and make due with a few less airplanes, our country will be defeated by Venezuela overnight.
 
Last edited:
PKM said:
Gotcha. See, I haven't been discussing Romney or Obama, at all. I've only read and responded to topics related specifically to how to fix America's economy .. and I don't believe electing ANY inidividual will do that alone (obviously).
Click to expand...

Well, we've got an election coming up, so the choice of politicians has something to do with our choice of policies.

I don't see where you have given us great solutions, especially in relation to the well defined subjects outlined in the thread topics.

You are welcome to start a new thread outlining your substantive recommendations for the country. Maybe you can influence the Republican Platform Committee and get them on track for some real solutions.
 
northeast said:
Well, we've got an election coming up, so the choice of politicians has something to do with our choice of policies.

I don't see where you have given us great solutions, especially in relation to the well defined subjects outlined in the thread topics.

You are welcome to start a new thread outlining your substantive recommendations for the country. Maybe you can influence the Republican Platform Committee and get them on track for some real solutions.
Click to expand...

Check the thread title. I think my subject matter is relevant to this thread. However, you are welcome to start a thread asking which candidate we are all pulling for.
 
I don't agree with your self assessment.
Thinking about the ramifications of the government not spending money it doesn't have was a valid thread topic.
The conclusions seems to be that most of the right leaners really did not seriously want to do this even though yesterday they said they did.
I was hoping you all would give us your serious thoughts on this , rather than just saying it is a stupid question and filling 5 pages with name calling.
It is not a stupid question.

Isn't a balanced budget amendment a popular Republican cause?
A Republican should be able to talk what would happen if we did this.
 
PKM said:
Check the thread title. I think my subject matter is relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...
My impression was that your solution was that the government should spend less money, and rich people should not be taxed more, but you abandoned the proposed tool to accomplish this, which was the banning of debt financed government spending. There was no alternative plan, nor any discussion of the ramifications of a depressive policy in an economy so weak that the Fed is scared to death of deflation.
It is not clear what your plan is. I assume you believe that the government can't fix this , it is up to people to work harder and not rely on the government to help them.

If you didn't insult me so often and spent some time just answering the OP question, i would have spent more time studying your words, but i think i got the jist.
 
northeast said:
My impression was that your solution was that the government should spend less money, and rich people should not be taxed more, but you abandoned the proposed tool to accomplish this, which was the banning of debt financed government spending. There was no alternative plan, nor any discussion of the ramifications of a depressive policy in an economy so weak that the Fed is scared to death of deflation.
It is not clear what your plan is. I assume you believe that the government can't fix this , it is up to people to work harder and not rely on the government to help them.

If you didn't insult me so often and spent some time just answering the OP question, i would have spent more time studying your words, but i think i got the jist.
Click to expand...

I am insulting your reading comprehension. I stated and re-stated my position at least a dozen times and you grossly misquoted and mischaracterized my words every time. I found this thread entertaining at first, educational in spots, but now it's just a circle-jerk.
 
PKM said:
I have read every post in this thread and have a slightly off-topic question from the current stream.

Why is it that both democrats and republicans (I am really not married to either, just my own set of ideals that are fairly in the middle) have held office, both make certain promises, both have comtrolled the senate and house, yet this board is completelt one-sided when it comes to republicans having an exclusive license to;

- Certain idealogical changes
- Rhetoric
- Flip flopping
- Pandering
- Catering to certain corporation/agencies
- etc.

Being serious with this .. are the above items absent from a democrat/liberal? Do they not have the same issues .. only on a different platform?
I'm sincerely curious as to what those here believe about this, because at my age and life experience, I HATE all parties. I liken the mess this country is in to that of "The Prisoner's Dilemma" as it relates to partisanship. Pisses me off, actually.
Click to expand...

Because it's unbelieveably easy to be a mental midget & espouse the most foul characteristics of mankind like envy, laziness, & inability to learn anything a rhesus monkey could not.
 
Are you kidding me? Democrats do not have a plan in place to deal with the escalating debt and bad economy. Most Republicans don't either. The most comprehensive bipartisan plan was from the Simpson-Bowles commission and Obama trashcanned that as soon as it was finished. He didn't even give it lip service. I have met John McCain on several occasions and spoke to him about this issue. He wouldn't have spent as much as Obama, but he didn't have a clue as to what is needed to fix the problem.

The only politician currently serious about fixing this problem is Paul Ryan. He has a plan, a really detailed one. And I will guarantee that all of the people who are going to badmouth Paul Ryan have not read the plan. It's hard medicine, and it isn't enough, but its a start. It does address some of the original posters concerns while actually tackling the problems we face. There will always be reasons to not reform. But we are actually running out of time. Medicare goes bust in less than 8 years. Social Security has less than 20, and those are the conservative CBO estimates.

If Romney nominates Ryan for the veep slot, I'll believe he is serious about the issue. Until Democrats can actually get around to passing a budget in the Senate, I will treat their "economic policies" as the bad jokes they continue to be.
 
Paul Ryan is not running for President, he was not nominated.
I have heard him talk , and his ideas do not impress me.
Maybe he has got some secret gems, but I doubt it.
You give us some highlights to get us interested.

PKM and Franklin, you both think that you have been spreading precious wisdom all around, but I've read your posts, and if either of you really have any good ideas, you have buried them under a ton of BS, sarcasm, babbling, and insults. It is not my fault that you repeatedly fail to write one clear sentence that expresses your wisdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top