On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:11:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 2:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700,
wrote:


how can the govt run out of cash? you yourself have been crapping your
diaper over mounting govt debt. so what you just said is that the
depression was caused by the govt NOT going into debt.


Government can manufacture as much cash as it wants. True, the
government can create as much as it wants to. Create a billion dollar
bill if you want one.

But if no one wants it, it is as good as toilet paper if it wipes good
enough. I could legally print the CanuckBuck. If people want it, it
has value. If they don't, it is worthless. And the more you create,
the less it is worth.

so you're wrong about the govt running out of money

thanks. i already knew that.


and why not check he

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2008.html

to see how govt debt REALLY was. govt debt went to 120% of GDP during
ww2

we're still here, moron

Yep, and you have to show it on a log scale to look half normal. Go
find a non-log chart and weap. USA is already well along to currency
valuation colapse.

sorry sport. it doesnt matter what SCALE you use if the burden is not
as high today as it was under roosevelt

in 1943 debt was 120% of GDP. aint that high today. sorry.


Remember, inflation is the opposit of currency deflation.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to
spend to have an economy based on fiat currency.

uh...govt debt was 120% of GDP when the depression ended.

And most people were dirt poor.

as they are today under the rich folks like yourself who want
unemployment to triple


just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

Get off your ass and work for it.

yep like i said, he's rich so he thinks the middle class is lazy.

got that everyone? only the rich work hard. the rest of us are lazy.


[ sillyness snip ]

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

gee. tell it to the USA in 1943, OK?

Back then, governemtn borrowed money, they didn't create it ponzi style.
See "War bonds". 3% rate in low inflation was considered a good return.

and inflation today? about 2.5% and the govt is borrowing money...and
spending it

YOU said above that the govt COULDNT borrow money back in 29. NOW you
admit that was horsehit. they just DIDNT borrow money and unemployment
went to 25%

but that's ok with you rich guys. 'cuz average wages dropped 43%
during the depression

and you're loving it. cuz the middle class keeps getting screwed


Today it is all risk and not worht the gas to get a t-bill.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.

he's not picking on banks HARD enough THAT'S the problem.

as to the screw up, he hasn't been president for 9 years, regardless
of what you morons say.

The converstations went sort of this way:

Obama: Screw you banks, you are evil!

and the rich complain that the middle class STILL has money, the
*******s! so drive up unemployment MORE!!

so how did coddling the banks work out for the middle class?

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days
you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about
without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in
English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?


You're at the physiological level. I get it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 5:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government
can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they
mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see
any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value.
Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will
force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you
choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it
adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is
bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably
too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts -
certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from
going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.

And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt be it
government, the company you work for or your own finances. For example, I
liquidates to cash all banks, mutuals, mortgage funds, bonds, etc between
2005 and 2007. Just because the interest rates inverted on inlfation. So
when 2008 went bad, my losses were small. Right out of some old time
investment books and congress chose to ignore.

Debt and credit have a whole lot to do with economics.


You equated liberalism with economics. Take a class.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 5:26 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend
out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend
to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is.
Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with
debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist
or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.

I can assure you neither of us is going to change history.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Can't get Rush, wish I could. Government censored up here.
Did you know Canadians can't get real Coco Puffs up her as they contain
real and uncracked coco?

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such
as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade,
protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

You always know when you have won an arguement with a liberal loser. They
always degrade into some crap statement like that.

But then again, pretty sure you are a debtor.


You're the guy who can't get enough Rush.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:49:17 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:




You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt

like all fundamentalists he's unable to see the situatoin for what it
is.

fundamentalists are like that.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:23:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on
a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney,
a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters,
especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to
I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your
mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe
wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple others
won't agree but that's to be expected.


Never said he was unknowledgeable, crazy, or uncaring. He does seem to jump
to conclusions based on minimal observations, which is what he said.

Richard always makes a point of saying "I don't give a ****" so why
"caring" has leaked into the discussion is a mystery. Donald Duck has
blessed Eisboch with character qualities that simply don't exist.

In my second-hand experience of reading his recountings, he's a
self-absorbed, sour headed curmudgeon. Don't try to sell him anything
unless you're a famous musician or suffer from low-self esteem.
Otherwise, he'll bite your head off for sport.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:33:51 -0500, Bruce wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

Clearly. That's why she calls herself Em.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:24:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days
you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about
without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in
English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?


You're at the physiological level. I get it.

You should ask him if he's referring to Abraham or Elliott. My guess
is that he's an admirer of Lost.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:33:51 -0500, Bruce wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

Clearly. That's why she calls herself Em.


Well, it's "Bruce" who's making the claim.
--
Nom=de=Plume

D.Duck wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that
statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the
type of current political animosity that has divided this
country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently.
There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always
obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion
either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with
Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin
with either. The first step to getting this country back on track
is to be intellectually honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without
cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful",
"vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a
patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to
those posters, especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple
others won't agree but that's to be expected.

Yup. Richard is too good for this group. And too much a gentleman.
He should stay away.
You are also a gentleman, so you should butt out.
Just saying it like it is.
Leave the group to those of us who know how to handle the lib scum.
These times of national crisis are not the times for reasonable men.
The tree of Freedom sometimes needs the watering of the blood of patriots.

***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***