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.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:39:23 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

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.

gee. hows' the US doing today under the chicago school? Middle class
doing alright? unemployment at 4%?



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

guess you dont know how keynesian economics works. and guess who blew
greece's economy?

wall street. it was goldman sachs who advised them on debt
restructuring


Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

keynesianism has zip to do with socialism. more paranoia from the
ultra far right.


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

japan had a variety of mercantilism. again you don't know what
keynesianism.

so far you've accused wall street, socialists etc of being
keynesians....

which would come as a shock to keynes

so tell us...how's the US economy doing under your socialism for the
rich?


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.

it's working now. unemployment? dropped 10% in the last year. guess
you right whiners don't pay attention to the news.


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.

nothing of value?

you'd prefer 25% unemployment? i guess you right wingers dont consider
middle class workers to be of value.

and what did george bush get us for HIS 3.4% of GDP spent on tax cuts
for the rich?

it got us where we are today.


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.

too late sport. your wall street buddies already destroyed the
economy. your only bitch is that they didn't steal ALL the money from
teh middle class

that's why you want unemployment at 25%....drain every last drop from
the middle class




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.

ROFLMAO!! it doesnt matter who you blame

THEN you blame obama??? do you realize you contrradicted yourself in
teh same PARAGRAPH?


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.

fine. what you gonna cut? why not mothball all US aircraft carriers?
shut down the US marines? tell old people not to bother about
healthcare

that what you got in mind?



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.

i love it. liberal borrowing...when right wingers have had control of
the US govt for 22 of the last 30 years...when the biiggest spenders
in history were ronald reagan and george bush who spent a trillion
dollars on a useless war.

you right wingers just dont understand history OR economics, do you?

you guys think obama's been president for 30 years.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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


So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for
the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.


Quoting from Wiki:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional
statement
of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.. committed various and significant violations of International
Law,
2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed
following the Gulf War and
3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild
an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee
you
he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"

Bush lied?

yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton

and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's
in iraq.

clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq.

you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe:

-obama's been president for 9 years
-clinton invaded iraq

amazing what you'll believe


*I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out
of the sand
and get a eyeful of reality.

Obama is.

Eisboch



Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep
trying.


I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US
policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just
happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and
signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Eisboch



Your intent was pretty clear. The fact that Clinton was concerned about Iraq
in no way justified Bush's illegal and immoral actions.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where
where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




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.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch



Which is the point. Bush let it, actually forced it out of control with the
invasion. Obama is attempting to put the pieces back together. Feel free to
skedaddle from the conversation.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2010 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2010 2:56 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:53:20 -0700,
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:30:11 -0500, John H
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk

actually he's not.

US troops are entering an area where terrorists are hiding behind
civilians

and no one killed more civilians than bush.

look at the hundreds of thousands dead in iraq


So is it OK that Obama does it because he is black or is it democrat?

LMAO...liberals are pathetic at rationalization.

and right wingers are great at cowardice. they murder hundreds of
thousands in a useless war

then complain about a president who IS trying to protect america.

figures

I would say if I was Osama Bin Laden, I would put the quiet word out to
leave Obama alone, he is doing the work of Islam by taking down the
affluent infidels of America. He is doing more damage than we could
ever
do.

Obama's economic advice is obviously tainted by a toxic liberal-statism
big government. Quite predictable actually. With a study of Obama, the
fast track boy appealed to democrat, liberal statists and shot to the
top
without ever having been to a baseball game before the age of 12.

Yet people fail to see correlations in the corruption and mesiah
madness.
The same crap Adolph Hitler pulled in the earlier years, Obama is doing
today. Good at deflecting blame for alterior motives. But if I was an
American, I would seriously question the deterioration of values of the
US
government itself.

Go ahead, be a good little sheeple and follow Obama to hell. The road
to
hell is paved with good intentions and you will have lots of company.
Because as much as I don't like the idea, I can't see this depression
ending soon and even if it abates for a bit, it will not last long.

Bad debtors always go down, the only question is how many good people it
takes with it.


You just love the terrorists don't you. Why not just say it. It'll make
you
feel better.

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.


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

See previous.


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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:57:16 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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


So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.


Quoting from Wiki:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement
of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed
following the Gulf War and
3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you
he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"

Bush lied?

yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton

and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's
in iraq.

clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq.

you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe:

-obama's been president for 9 years
-clinton invaded iraq

amazing what you'll believe

You just gotta love 'negative evidence'!


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

John H

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:45:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




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.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch


You, sir, are a fast learner.
--
***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

John H

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




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.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch

It sure has! Herring does NOTHING here anymore but post political right
wing extreme bull****.