Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Voodoo Economics


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Voodoo Economics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 8:39:58 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Oh, hold on now. What about the Community Reinvestment Act in the '70's? Wasn't that a big start to the housing bubble? Btw, that answer is, "yes."




I don't know about y'all (Edwynn, Hill, etc.), but I personally am tired of rebutting this shit every time a new right-winger comes on this board. It's like all those fucking "Everybody is Fake Here" threads in Off-Topic. They never listen anyway. Seriously, when is the last time you saw a rightie say "well, you might have a point. Maybe I need to revise my thinking"? Fucking pointless.


_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 8:45:13 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Let me see if I've got this straight.
We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation without mentioning the previous administration.
Dude. It's the factual economic reality of how we got here. If you want to blame Congress, go for it. But instead, you want to pretend none of it happened.
Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.


Oh, hold on now. What about the Community Reinvestment Act in the '70's? Wasn't that a big start to the housing bubble? Btw, that answer is, "yes."

Take a look at your oil price chart...do you see what happened in '06? The price plateaued and started to decline. In 2007, it started a fairly linear march upwards. Hmmm. That's odd, if you ask me. What happened in January '07.....hmmmmm...

Clinton had a Repubican (intentional misspelling) Congress force him into a box. Reagan's tax cuts didn't produce because Congress kept spending (and, yes, that's as much the Republicans fault as Democrats....if not more), which is also why Reagan had to increase taxes.

But, when push comes to shove, and you absolutely own both halls of Congress and the Presidency, you should be able to get the job done. And, the Democrats haven't been able to do that.

For all the Bush bashing that went on during his Presidency, the Democrats haven't really made too many changes. A budget is a plan for expenditures. It isn't set in stone. Yet, the D's still spent it. Then again, who is it that sets the budget? Who passed the budget? For the Democrats to rail against Bush for the 2009 budget, it's a bit disingenuous since they ruled the roost when the '08 and '09 budgets passed Bush.


Sigh. When you guys drink the left/right Kool-Aid, you drink deep.

I said it makes no sense to talk about the current administration without considering what came before. I didn't say history started with Bush. Nor did I say anywhere "it's all Bush's fault." That's the contribution of the "How can you blame Bush?" crowd.

But if you'll all be happier if I blame someone on the right, I think it started with Reagen ballooning deficits.

Even there though, when you point out the Kennedy set the stage for it, OK.

You're right. It really started with Eisenhower, who reluctantly let The Family into the White House because he felt he owed conservatives a bone after they helped him win the 1952 election.

Or are we going to talk about FDR now? Should I bring up the Hoover mess?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:07:06 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote]ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Data [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
[/quote]


Correct. There was one partial fact in the two paragraphs, and hardly more in the way of solid information. It was an 'explanation' consisting entirely of the author's selective interpretation of broad concepts concerning taxation and spending, relying primarily on assumption and conjecture.

"Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend" which is only partially true, so then cannot be considered as an absolute fact on its own.

"but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy." True only in certain circumstances, dependent on a multitude of other factors, so then far from being a fact on its own.

"Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments."
See above, but even more qualification needed. Not a fact as stated.

"Workers may ... " ; "Enterprises may ... "
Unsubstantiated conjecture, followed by unsubstantiated assumptions. No facts here.

"High taxes make market work less attractive,  " What is "market work"?  "and time off from work and work at home more attractive." This might be true in about .01% of cases. Relevance lacking.

"Over time, big governments can also create ... "
Fanciful conjecture, followed by tangential assumptions based on outlier conditions. Neither fact nor information in any proper meaning of the terms.

"The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes."
True in some select extreme cases (such as Greece, whose problem is that they were incompetent on the revenue side) not true in many more cases, this being presented as an absolute makes it a false statement.


Et seq., et al., etc.

Like the dictionary says, it must be fact or information. No mention of convenient assumption or tangential conjecture in any of the definitions.







< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 9:52:31 PM >

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:08:04 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
Big government/small government ... I want a government that fucking works!!!


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:36:52 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:37:15 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
I don't know about y'all (Edwynn, Hill, etc.), but I personally am tired of rebutting this shit every time a new right-winger comes on this board. It's like all those fucking "Everybody is Fake Here" threads in Off-Topic. They never listen anyway. Seriously, when is the last time you saw a rightie say "well, you might have a point. Maybe I need to revise my thinking"? Fucking pointless.


True dat, most of the time.

It's certainly not just here, but overall there is a tendency for the bad info and aversion to empiricism to just snowball out of control. I'm not expecting anyone to come out and say "I might revise my thinking" but that doesn't mean it might not have happened on rare occasion.

Just as if someone were to say to you (with a chemistry background if I recall) "oil and water usually mix, but big government makes the oil sink to the bottom", (and no, that is not an exaggerated analogy to the fatuousness at play here), you would have difficulty remaining silent.

Aside from that, there are others reading and observing though not participating that are actually somewhat interested in the subject who might gain something from the otherwise superficially pointless interaction. I'm of the mind that it would be beneficial overall if people thought just a bit more in terms of actual results and outcomes and just a little less in terms of pure ideology for its own sake, whatever that be.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 9:54:15 PM >

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:40:19 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?



Do you have to even ask?? Corruption. Pay-to-play. Lobbyists. Immunity of member of Congress from insider trading (I guess that would fall under corruption). The culture of "me" rather than of "society". Take your pick.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 9:43:40 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
Big government/small government ... I want a government that fucking works!!!


My study of comparative economics tells me that there are as many ways to skin the governmental/economic cat as there are countries.

There is no such thing as the perfect government, and so no shortage of things to point out that "don't work," but many well accepted measures of relative success can be found.

The problem in this country is that there are too many covering their ears and saying 'no! no!' when someone points to outside examples that conflict with ideology. 

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/14/2012 9:49:59 PM >

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 10:06:40 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?



Do you have to even ask?? Corruption. Pay-to-play. Lobbyists. Immunity of member of Congress from insider trading (I guess that would fall under corruption). The culture of "me" rather than of "society". Take your pick.



I'm saying your complaint is an incredibly broad brush.

What do you see as solutions?

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 10:08:13 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

What is apparent is that you fail to even grasp the term "data," being as that you refer to two paragraphs of writing as "data."



Data [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
 
noun

1. a plural of datum.
 
2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information
 
3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information


Comprehension is your friend. 


I'm not sure if you're aware, but it's not smarter when you post it bigger.

He's right on this one. You are looking at data that doesn't apply specifically to your claim and you're misinterpreting it at that.




(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/14/2012 11:06:15 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

True dat, most of the time.

It's certainly not just here, but overall there is a tendency for the bad info and aversion to empiricism to just snowball out of control. I'm not expecting anyone to come out and say "I might revise my thinking" but that doesn't mean it might not have happened on rare occasion.

Just as if someone were to say to you (with a chemistry background if I recall) "oil and water usually mix, but big government makes the oil sink to the bottom", (and no, that is not an exaggerated analogy to the fatuousness at play here), you would have difficulty remaining silent.

Aside from that, there are others reading and observing though not participating that are actually somewhat interested in the subject who might gain something from the otherwise superficially pointless interaction. I'm of the mind that it would be beneficial overall if people thought just a bit more in terms of actual results and outcomes and just a little less in terms of pure ideology for its own sake, whatever that be.

Yeah, chemistry. Also ex-restaurateur (so I've owned a small business) and ex-landlord (single family detached; 30068 & 30062). So I have a little experience (like, don't replace roofing in August) in several areas.

Your second paragraph makes a good point. It's easy to forget that one's audience is larger than the subset "posters". It's just frustratingly tedious to keep going to xyz.gov and posting the relevant portions of an Act, or data extracted from the census, or the IRS, or what have you. Or explaining why the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere matters. Or what Scientists mean when they use the word "theory". Or what a Gaussian distribution is. All of which to me is basic stuff. Also basic, to me, is understanding how to determine the validity of a source. I would be willing to bet that, if polled, an overwhelming majority of people would not be able to say what a primary source is, nor why an abstract from NIH via PubMed is a valid source, and a PrisonPlanet op-ed is not. In one of my Politics groups on FL, the use of Youtube vids as source material is banned, except to verify the accuracy of a quotation (did soandso really say that?).

Burn out, man.


_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 12:26:22 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

True dat, most of the time.

It's certainly not just here, but overall there is a tendency for the bad info and aversion to empiricism to just snowball out of control. I'm not expecting anyone to come out and say "I might revise my thinking" but that doesn't mean it might not have happened on rare occasion.

Just as if someone were to say to you (with a chemistry background if I recall) "oil and water usually mix, but big government makes the oil sink to the bottom", (and no, that is not an exaggerated analogy to the fatuousness at play here), you would have difficulty remaining silent.

Aside from that, there are others reading and observing though not participating that are actually somewhat interested in the subject who might gain something from the otherwise superficially pointless interaction. I'm of the mind that it would be beneficial overall if people thought just a bit more in terms of actual results and outcomes and just a little less in terms of pure ideology for its own sake, whatever that be.

Yeah, chemistry. Also ex-restaurateur (so I've owned a small business) and ex-landlord (single family detached; 30068 & 30062). So I have a little experience (like, don't replace roofing in August) in several areas.

Your second paragraph makes a good point. It's easy to forget that one's audience is larger than the subset "posters". It's just frustratingly tedious to keep going to xyz.gov and posting the relevant portions of an Act, or data extracted from the census, or the IRS, or what have you. Or explaining why the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere matters. Or what Scientists mean when they use the word "theory". Or what a Gaussian distribution is. All of which to me is basic stuff. Also basic, to me, is understanding how to determine the validity of a source. I would be willing to bet that, if polled, an overwhelming majority of people would not be able to say what a primary source is, nor why an abstract from NIH via PubMed is a valid source, and a PrisonPlanet op-ed is not. In one of my Politics groups on FL, the use of Youtube vids as source material is banned, except to verify the accuracy of a quotation (did soandso really say that?).

Burn out, man.


The whole point of posting the OP, and with it the hope that people might actually read it and take it in, is to show that the simple mantras like Big Govt = Bad or High taxes = Bad are wrong, and demonstrated to be wrong by the data. The OP points out that the important factor is not the size of the government's part of the economic pie, but how that portion is used. Thus the Swedish economy is far more successful that the US's, despite the Swede's having a far larger public sector and far higher taxes.

The success of the Scandinavian countries is invariably ignored by those who promote the Right's discredited economic mantra. Equally, another favourite Right wing mantra : private is always more efficient than public is demonstrated to be invalid and wrong by comparison of healthcare systems in the US and countries that have universal health schemes. While it's pointless to expect this to have an impact on ideologues, such facts get overlooked in the discussions here and might come as a surprise to many who are subjected to the endless repetition of the Right's bogus claims in this area.

For an informed discussion to occur, facts such as these need to be highlighted. There are surely relevant to the forthcoming elections in the US, where voters will have a choice of endorsing Obama, who seeks to raise taxes on the wealthy and promote public health, and the GOP candidate, who will most likely be repeating the discredited mantras above, and seeking to destroy healthcare access for less wealthy Americans .



_____________________________



(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 4:05:23 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?

Do you have to even ask?? Corruption. Pay-to-play. Lobbyists. Immunity of member of Congress from insider trading (I guess that would fall under corruption). The culture of "me" rather than of "society". Take your pick.


erieangel...damn nice list. I completely agree with everything, but I don't think we would define the bolded section the same way.

How do we solve the corruption issues? Obama certainly didn't solve the lobbyist issue. We are still going to have to solve those things. What is your idea to solve those things?

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 4:42:28 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, the debt held by the public will grow....


That's your evidence? A two year old speculation?




The whole quote - By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

Well, did he?

Source The Weekly Standard (Hey,,, it's NPR.org

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.


Ok, so he didn't do it in 20 months. You got me.


Not more of this obfuscation please. Bush first had to give 80% of some $4.4 trillion in tax cuts to his sponsors, (political investors) going right through projections from the same sources, of some $5.7 trillion in surplus.

True accounting requires you add his deficit to the surplus he blew on tax cuts etc. and one comes up with a total of about $9-10 trillion GONE.

Plus Obama's first deficit included Bush's TARP and caused the $1.4 trillion deficit 1st year. From 1980 to fiscal 2010, 20 years of those 30, repub borrowing ALL adding to the total debt.

Clinton reduced federal debt and federal employment. Obama, handed the worse economy in generations, bailouts everywhere, a loss of 2 million jobs before his first fiscal year is out and oh now...we have a problem.

The right, the repubs, the corporatist and the capitalist have absolutely no clothes and have not a single fiscally conservative leg to stand on.

Some estimates put it at between $10-12 trillion (tax cuts, 2 wars, drug benefits and in 2006, the largest trans. bill in history with 15,000 earmarks) is what Bush went through also resulting in the worst 2 term job creation in history.


< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/15/2012 4:56:55 AM >

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 4:51:24 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?

Do you have to even ask?? Corruption. Pay-to-play. Lobbyists. Immunity of member of Congress from insider trading (I guess that would fall under corruption). The culture of "me" rather than of "society". Take your pick.


erieangel...damn nice list. I completely agree with everything, but I don't think we would define the bolded section the same way.

How do we solve the corruption issues? Obama certainly didn't solve the lobbyist issue. We are still going to have to solve those things. What is your idea to solve those things?

There is no solution, there is no reform. Presidents want to...stay alive. Look Reagan was a conservative even if you think as I do, he left the democratic party only because of [his] high income tax rates, he still felt govt. was the problem.

Yes, I am a bipartisan cynic. It took all of 69 days to shoot his ass. Trust me, after that, he played ball...financing a defense build up with $2 trillion debt, tripling the total federal debt, adventurism everywhere.

Presidents are puppets, Bush II was just the easiest...needing fewer strings to pull their way. Oh yea, Obama too.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 8:26:49 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
So what seems to be the trouble, specifically, for you?

Do you have to even ask?? Corruption. Pay-to-play. Lobbyists. Immunity of member of Congress from insider trading (I guess that would fall under corruption). The culture of "me" rather than of "society". Take your pick.

erieangel...damn nice list. I completely agree with everything, but I don't think we would define the bolded section the same way.
How do we solve the corruption issues? Obama certainly didn't solve the lobbyist issue. We are still going to have to solve those things. What is your idea to solve those things?

There is no solution, there is no reform. Presidents want to...stay alive. Look Reagan was a conservative even if you think as I do, he left the democratic party only because of [his] high income tax rates, he still felt govt. was the problem.
Yes, I am a bipartisan cynic. It took all of 69 days to shoot his ass. Trust me, after that, he played ball...financing a defense build up with $2 trillion debt, tripling the total federal debt, adventurism everywhere.
Presidents are puppets, Bush II was just the easiest...needing fewer strings to pull their way. Oh yea, Obama too.


You have no place on this messageboard, MrRodgers. Your sick and twisted non-partisanship is anathema to almost everyone on here.

Just in case no one can tell, that was complete sarcasm.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 9:19:44 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Let me see if I've got this straight.
We're supposed to discuss the roots of the situation without mentioning the previous administration.
Dude. It's the factual economic reality of how we got here. If you want to blame Congress, go for it. But instead, you want to pretend none of it happened.
Thing is...it did happen. And here we are.


Oh, hold on now. What about the Community Reinvestment Act in the '70's? Wasn't that a big start to the housing bubble? Btw, that answer is, "yes."

Take a look at your oil price chart...do you see what happened in '06? The price plateaued and started to decline. In 2007, it started a fairly linear march upwards. Hmmm. That's odd, if you ask me. What happened in January '07.....hmmmmm...

Clinton had a Repubican (intentional misspelling) Congress force him into a box. Reagan's tax cuts didn't produce because Congress kept spending (and, yes, that's as much the Republicans fault as Democrats....if not more), which is also why Reagan had to increase taxes.

But, when push comes to shove, and you absolutely own both halls of Congress and the Presidency, you should be able to get the job done. And, the Democrats haven't been able to do that.

For all the Bush bashing that went on during his Presidency, the Democrats haven't really made too many changes. A budget is a plan for expenditures. It isn't set in stone. Yet, the D's still spent it. Then again, who is it that sets the budget? Who passed the budget? For the Democrats to rail against Bush for the 2009 budget, it's a bit disingenuous since they ruled the roost when the '08 and '09 budgets passed Bush.


Sigh. When you guys drink the left/right Kool-Aid, you drink deep.

I said it makes no sense to talk about the current administration without considering what came before. I didn't say history started with Bush. Nor did I say anywhere "it's all Bush's fault." That's the contribution of the "How can you blame Bush?" crowd.

But if you'll all be happier if I blame someone on the right, I think it started with Reagen ballooning deficits.

Even there though, when you point out the Kennedy set the stage for it, OK.

You're right. It really started with Eisenhower, who reluctantly let The Family into the White House because he felt he owed conservatives a bone after they helped him win the 1952 election.

Or are we going to talk about FDR now? Should I bring up the Hoover mess?




it started long before biblical days. of course no one will ever convince troughers there is any other way, and now the problem has become SO huge that troughers are having a very difficult time burying it in their usual business as usual bullshit.




I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

Troughers do not understand that quote for the VERY same reasons Al Capone didnt understand that his racketeering was wrong.


A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it.
Bob Hope (1903 - 2003)

Drive-in banks were established so most of the cars today could see their real owners.
E. Joseph Cossman

A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

I don't have a bank account, because I don't know my mother's maiden name.
Paula Poundstone

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.




Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_2.html#ixzz3q4WE9cKl






















_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 10:03:40 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

fr


so whats up with this shit?

any country annexed to the UK is glowing red and countries NOT annexed to the uk are in the black?

I dont see the connection? Anyone?

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

LMFAO



What's up is more BS, apparently. The graphic displays color in terms of total dollars, not % of GDP, ergo meaningless.

Not to mention none of us knew that France Germany Japan Greece et. al. were annexed to the UK.

So no, nobody sees a connection here.  Almost no one, that is.








treaties are ONLY PUBLIC evidence that some kind of agreement took place between persons, be individual or countries or nations.

There are no laws what so ever in force that persons with interests in territory need make public their private interests.

If those who have interest in someTHING happen to have armies at their disposal violation of a private contract results in war.

War results in conquest.

Conquest results in occupation ONLY ONLY ONLY Long enough to INSTALL your own government to police the people and force submission to the new laws by the new OWNER of superior right. (the sovereign)

Germany was overrun by britian hence a victim of conquest just like the united states was from the indians.

So move over and and let Jimmy take over!

The government was installed and the king moved out, the bottom tiers none the wiser.



It changes nothing in what I said.

Everything attached to the brit common weal is fucking broke. you cant have a private institution lending money into existence and charging a transaction fee for every exchange made and expect to be anything more than a fucking vassal renting the land and in the house you thought you paid for and you thought you own in allodium when in fact all you have the fee SUBJECT to the lord STATE OF xyz.

The whole ordeal is based in ancient laws (or understandings between aristocracies) brought forward and is so simple it escapes most.

People today have completely lost sight of how a feudal society is set up and most cant explain the "substantial" difference if it bit them in the ass.




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 3/15/2012 10:10:30 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 10:16:21 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Well, that is an interesting, Japan is connected to the Pendragons by which strain?   Now the once and future colonies in north africa, in india, palistinian areas, egypt, and so on would indicate that in no small measure there is not such a causal relationship.

I will point out that Scandinavians played fast and loose with the English, and not the other way 'round so you ain't gonna have that working for your non seqiturs either.  But for being totally inaccurate, and without causality or foundation,  it is pretty cute.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Voodoo Economics - 3/15/2012 10:37:20 AM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

you cant have a private institution lending money into existence and charging a transaction fee for every exchange made and expect to be anything more than a fucking vassal renting the land and in the house you thought you paid for and you thought you own.

Yeah, that's about how I see it also. Honestly, the way the monetary system works there's just this constant drain. It's like we have a huge, bloated tick siphoning off our economic health yet our leaders tell us we need that tick or else some unnamed calamity might befall us. Fundamentally, nothing can ever improve our economy as long as we continue to drain it of it's life blood. The various strategies of the left and right are mostly debates about what is the most efficient way to funnel money from the poor to the rich.

To answer MusicMystery's question earlier, so what's to be done?
I don't know. Personally I have left the country (dubious safety at best). I'm coming to realize that I didn't flee nearly far enough. I'm still sorting out if there is anything that can be done at all or whether it's going to take a serious crash... or more likely several progressively more serious crashes than the series we've had recently. I look at it this way. If Occupy is right, then inevitably the people will say "off with her head". Historically the people will need to be much more abject and desperate than they are now. All the charts seem to indicate that's the direction we're heading... increasing wealth gaps, reduced standards of living, vastly reduced upward mobility. If those trends continue there are only two outcomes. I personally put the odds at 50/50 for a peaceful revolution vs. armed insurrection.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Voodoo Economics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125