"Canuck57" 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!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:22:36 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



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

prevents one from stealing money...

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

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.

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.

thanks. we 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


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.

just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

you right wingers want unemployment at 25%. you want wages cut and tax
increases on the middle class while the middle class bails out your
rich buddies.

what else you got in mind? why not the right of first privilege where
the rich get to rape middle class women before they get married?


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.

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


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.

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.

On 2/15/2010 4:19 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.


I am having trouble keeping up with this thread, I thought he was
arguing with nom=de=plume

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.

"Canuck57" 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?

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

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.