I get tired of hearing this! Rant!
- Thread starter darth tang
- Start date
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
The media outlets are really starting to irritate me with one line they all keep repeating. "The Defecit is the highest it has ever been Under President Bush!".
What genius came up with this bit of news? For the last 70 years the defecit has risen steadily. So for the last 70 years it has been higher for each president than it previously was in history. The same thing they keep saying in the news could have been said for EVERY president for the last 70 years, but NOW it is an issue? I just want to strangle the reporter each time they comment on it.
In the last 100 years there have only been 3 presidents to decrease the defecit. Wilson,Harding, and Coolidge. All from 1919-1930.
Before that it was during 1879-1890 when it decreased then.
Sometimes I want to beat reporters with their cameramen. Tell me something new, not something that has been going on for 70 years and NOW it is a serious issue.
I feel better now, thanks.
The media does not understand debt in general as well as most of the Kool Aid drinkers. They listen to rants about how debt is bad...and please elect me and I will fix it.
Debt is is not bad and is even desirable, if it is successfully used to achieve income growth for current and future generations.
The money is not tossed in a pile and burned...unless someone can provide proof there is a large fire burning in the backyard.
The media outlets are really starting to irritate me with one line they all keep repeating. "The Defecit is the highest it has ever been Under President Bush!".
What genius came up with this bit of news? For the last 70 years the defecit has risen steadily. So for the last 70 years it has been higher for each president than it previously was in history. The same thing they keep saying in the news could have been said for EVERY president for the last 70 years, but NOW it is an issue? I just want to strangle the reporter each time they comment on it.
In the last 100 years there have only been 3 presidents to decrease the defecit. Wilson,Harding, and Coolidge. All from 1919-1930.
Before that it was during 1879-1890 when it decreased then.
Sometimes I want to beat reporters with their cameramen. Tell me something new, not something that has been going on for 70 years and NOW it is a serious issue.
I feel better now, thanks.
The media does not understand debt in general as well as most of the Kool Aid drinkers. They listen to rants about how debt is bad...and please elect me and I will fix it.
Debt is is not bad and is even desirable, if it is successfully used to achieve income growth for current and future generations.
The money is not tossed in a pile and burned...unless someone can provide proof there is a large fire burning in the backyard.
lovethesea
Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
i wouldn't argue with darth about political crap... he knows his stuff...
or Scuba....
I've suggested he run for President, but he declined
i wouldn't argue with darth about political crap... he knows his stuff...
or Scuba....
dogstar
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
The media outlets are really starting to irritate me with one line they all keep repeating. "The Defecit is the highest it has ever been Under President Bush!".
So, are you saying the media should not report the truth ?
Or that you feel its something the people dont need to know ?
BTW, Before and during Clinton it was still pretty high, when Clinton was Pres., the deficit was in the news just as much with Speaker Gingrich claiming the Congress had, and Clinton claiming he had, reduced it and caused the surplus in the budget.
I can still hear it now, Lock Box. ha.
When things go good everyone claims they did it and when its bad we just dont want to hear about it.
The media outlets are really starting to irritate me with one line they all keep repeating. "The Defecit is the highest it has ever been Under President Bush!".
So, are you saying the media should not report the truth ?
Or that you feel its something the people dont need to know ?
BTW, Before and during Clinton it was still pretty high, when Clinton was Pres., the deficit was in the news just as much with Speaker Gingrich claiming the Congress had, and Clinton claiming he had, reduced it and caused the surplus in the budget.
I can still hear it now, Lock Box. ha.
When things go good everyone claims they did it and when its bad we just dont want to hear about it.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
So, are you saying the media should not report the truth ?
Or that you feel its something the people dont need to know ?
Many in the media do not possess the capability of putting together an objective report on the national debt and the total economic impact .
Send one of your favorite reporters a questtion on the mutiplier effect on the economy. Ask them to explain in detail how leakage impacts the mutiplier effect. Ask them if the governemt borrows and spends 100K what is the total economic impact.
Last I checked...I don't think economics was part of a journalism college program.
No thanks, I don't need some journalists to report a number and scream the sky is falling.......they most likely can't even tell you the difference between micro and macroecenomics. Yet, many folks will line up to drink their Kool Aid.
So, are you saying the media should not report the truth ?
Or that you feel its something the people dont need to know ?
Many in the media do not possess the capability of putting together an objective report on the national debt and the total economic impact .
Send one of your favorite reporters a questtion on the mutiplier effect on the economy. Ask them to explain in detail how leakage impacts the mutiplier effect. Ask them if the governemt borrows and spends 100K what is the total economic impact.
Last I checked...I don't think economics was part of a journalism college program.
No thanks, I don't need some journalists to report a number and scream the sky is falling.......they most likely can't even tell you the difference between micro and macroecenomics. Yet, many folks will line up to drink their Kool Aid.
scubadoo
Active Member
MULTIPLIER
Shorthand for the way in which a change in spending produces an even larger change in INCOME. For instance, suppose a GOVERNMENT loosens FISCAL POLICY, increasing net PUBLIC SPENDING by pumping an extra $10 billion into education. This has an immediate effect by increasing the income of teachers and of people who sell educational supplies or build or maintain schools. These people will in turn spend some of their extra money, putting more cash into the pockets of others, who spend some of it, and so on.
In theory, this process could continue indefinitely, in which case the multiplier would have an infinite value. In practice, most people save some of their extra income rather than spend it. How much they spend will depend on their MARGINAL PROPENSITY to consume. The value of the multiplier can be calculated by this formula:
multiplier = 1 / (1 – marginal propensity to consume)
If the marginal propensity to consume is 0.5 (50 cents of an extra dollar), the multiplier is 2. In practice, it is often hard to measure the multiplier effect, or to predict how it will respond to, say, changes in MONETARY POLICY or fiscal policy.
When in doubt..assume every dollar spent will turn over seven times. If a reporter understands this concept they are qualified to tell you how tgovernment spendng/borrowing will impact the economy.
Shorthand for the way in which a change in spending produces an even larger change in INCOME. For instance, suppose a GOVERNMENT loosens FISCAL POLICY, increasing net PUBLIC SPENDING by pumping an extra $10 billion into education. This has an immediate effect by increasing the income of teachers and of people who sell educational supplies or build or maintain schools. These people will in turn spend some of their extra money, putting more cash into the pockets of others, who spend some of it, and so on.
In theory, this process could continue indefinitely, in which case the multiplier would have an infinite value. In practice, most people save some of their extra income rather than spend it. How much they spend will depend on their MARGINAL PROPENSITY to consume. The value of the multiplier can be calculated by this formula:
multiplier = 1 / (1 – marginal propensity to consume)
If the marginal propensity to consume is 0.5 (50 cents of an extra dollar), the multiplier is 2. In practice, it is often hard to measure the multiplier effect, or to predict how it will respond to, say, changes in MONETARY POLICY or fiscal policy.
When in doubt..assume every dollar spent will turn over seven times. If a reporter understands this concept they are qualified to tell you how tgovernment spendng/borrowing will impact the economy.
lovethesea
Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
MULTIPLIER
.
:scared:
MULTIPLIER
.
:scared:
1journeyman
Active Member
Let's face it.. President Bush is a scapegoat for the libs..
We were in a recession in 2001, Bush's fault (Despite the fact that Clinton started the recession).
Bush is spending too much on homeland security (Forget 9-11)
Bush is spying on my grandmother!!! (Forgetting the fact that she is making/receivng calls to a cave in Afghanistan...)
The economy is horrible! (Despite the fact that the economy is doing great)
Bush hates poor people (Despite the fact that home ownership is up, more people have health insurance, blah blah blah)
Bush isn't doing enough about Iran (Despite the fact that Iran was called part of the Axis of Evil years ago and the Libs. blasted him for it...)
And so on...
My only question is: What flavor is that Kool Aid so many people are drinking?
We were in a recession in 2001, Bush's fault (Despite the fact that Clinton started the recession).
Bush is spending too much on homeland security (Forget 9-11)
Bush is spying on my grandmother!!! (Forgetting the fact that she is making/receivng calls to a cave in Afghanistan...)
The economy is horrible! (Despite the fact that the economy is doing great)
Bush hates poor people (Despite the fact that home ownership is up, more people have health insurance, blah blah blah)
Bush isn't doing enough about Iran (Despite the fact that Iran was called part of the Axis of Evil years ago and the Libs. blasted him for it...)
And so on...
My only question is: What flavor is that Kool Aid so many people are drinking?
socal57che
Active Member
I'm much better off now than I was in the 90's and I really don't care who's to blame for that. Is anybody here doing worse financially than they were 10 years ago? I would certainly vote the same way again, if it were possible. I also voted for Perot...who better to run the "business" than a rich guy (even richer than the others)?? Presidents are not "stupid" nor are they poor businessmen. Some just get caught up in the race and get squashed. (Nixon) If industries would spend half the money they spend lobbying on feeding the poor and housing the homeless I think the deficit would turn around in less than 2 years.
My favorites are:
Fruit Punch
Black Cherry
Pink Lemonade
and Grape
My favorites are:
Fruit Punch
Black Cherry
Pink Lemonade
and Grape
aquarium1
Member
My fav koolaid is bl.cherry.
I'm a liberal democrat and proud of it.
Bush is an idiot.
War sparks the economy. Everyone knows this. Or they should. Any time the country is headed for recession, a good war somewhere other than the U.S(but with U.S. troops involved) keeps OUR economy growning. After all, military adventures are paid for by the U.S. and their taxpayers. It puts thousands of people to work, even if it is with a fairly high risk/low pay job. That leaves their jobs open for other people to have to step into while they are away.
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
:cheer:
I'm a liberal democrat and proud of it.
Bush is an idiot.
War sparks the economy. Everyone knows this. Or they should. Any time the country is headed for recession, a good war somewhere other than the U.S(but with U.S. troops involved) keeps OUR economy growning. After all, military adventures are paid for by the U.S. and their taxpayers. It puts thousands of people to work, even if it is with a fairly high risk/low pay job. That leaves their jobs open for other people to have to step into while they are away.
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
So, If its such a good thing to be 8 trillion in debt and have to borrow money just to pay the intrest on it, which is really why it riseing so quick., then why did Bush say that he wants to cut it in halve by 2009. Like he really will/could.
Let's make it simple for you. I assume you make a decent living. Yet if you could cut you heating bill in half woudn't you try? Even if you can already afford it? I know you are goijng to say we can't afford all of this, but I will explain the pieces you are missing to understand how it is we can afford this.
Here is what many do not know, and put in simpler terms that Scuba is explaining.
The most important measure of the deficit is not the size in dollars or even the size in dollars after adjusting for inflation. The most important measure is the size relative to the nation’s economic output, what economists call Gross Domestic Product or GDP. And in fact, the current projected deficit was equaled or exceeded in four years during the Reagan administration and two years in the term of Bush’s father.
The biggest deficits by far (measured as a percentage of the economy) came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close.
So please, stop feeding me your kool-aid. Anyone can look at a number and say it is high, when you only look at that number. But if you factor in all the other variables, you will see it is not truly as high as some would have you believe.
See, ignorance in this country is rampant on thgese subjects. There is little fact checking and really no easy way to explain how things work to the average Joe. So things are easily painted in a bad light for the nay sayers to highlight and exploit.
So, If its such a good thing to be 8 trillion in debt and have to borrow money just to pay the intrest on it, which is really why it riseing so quick., then why did Bush say that he wants to cut it in halve by 2009. Like he really will/could.
Let's make it simple for you. I assume you make a decent living. Yet if you could cut you heating bill in half woudn't you try? Even if you can already afford it? I know you are goijng to say we can't afford all of this, but I will explain the pieces you are missing to understand how it is we can afford this.
Here is what many do not know, and put in simpler terms that Scuba is explaining.
The most important measure of the deficit is not the size in dollars or even the size in dollars after adjusting for inflation. The most important measure is the size relative to the nation’s economic output, what economists call Gross Domestic Product or GDP. And in fact, the current projected deficit was equaled or exceeded in four years during the Reagan administration and two years in the term of Bush’s father.
The biggest deficits by far (measured as a percentage of the economy) came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close.
So please, stop feeding me your kool-aid. Anyone can look at a number and say it is high, when you only look at that number. But if you factor in all the other variables, you will see it is not truly as high as some would have you believe.
See, ignorance in this country is rampant on thgese subjects. There is little fact checking and really no easy way to explain how things work to the average Joe. So things are easily painted in a bad light for the nay sayers to highlight and exploit.
darth tang
Active Member
Oh, and those of you defending Clinton, stop freaking out, I am not attacking him solely...I pointed out a list of presidents that have reduced the national debt. Clinton was not on the list originally and I commented all the previous presidents had a national debt higher than the previous president. That is all.
It is however my fault for confusing the national debt and the budget deficit. I assume when the news mentions deficit, the mean national debt. I have been corrected. Which actually helped my arguement. Thanks guys.
It is however my fault for confusing the national debt and the budget deficit. I assume when the news mentions deficit, the mean national debt. I have been corrected. Which actually helped my arguement. Thanks guys.
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
:cheer:
What NEW enemies do we have now, that were caused by Bush that we didn't have under Clinton? I would like a list please.
As far as the "stolen" election....please explain how this was done.
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
What NEW enemies do we have now, that were caused by Bush that we didn't have under Clinton? I would like a list please.
As far as the "stolen" election....please explain how this was done.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
So, If its such a good thing to be 8 trillion in debt and have to borrow money just to pay the intrest on it, which is really why it riseing so quick., then why did Bush say that he wants to cut it in halve by 2009. Like he really will/could.
Debt is not your enemy...and growth is your friend. Focus should be on growth which will take care of the debt. Cutting the debt through growth is good...excellent approach and the only approach that will be successful.
What is the SAFEST investment and then ask yourself why.....get out of the Kool Aid line.
So, If its such a good thing to be 8 trillion in debt and have to borrow money just to pay the intrest on it, which is really why it riseing so quick., then why did Bush say that he wants to cut it in halve by 2009. Like he really will/could.
Debt is not your enemy...and growth is your friend. Focus should be on growth which will take care of the debt. Cutting the debt through growth is good...excellent approach and the only approach that will be successful.
What is the SAFEST investment and then ask yourself why.....get out of the Kool Aid line.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
My fav koolaid is bl.cherry.
I'm a liberal democrat and proud of it.
Bush is an idiot.
War sparks the economy. Everyone knows this. Or they should. Any time the country is headed for recession, a good war somewhere other than the U.S(but with U.S. troops involved) keeps OUR economy growning. After all, military adventures are paid for by the U.S. and their taxpayers. It puts thousands of people to work, even if it is with a fairly high risk/low pay job. That leaves their jobs open for other people to have to step into while they are away.
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
:cheer:
Are you talking about our good frineds in France? If a war on terror makes folks mad then they really were not our friends to begin with.
That is the problem today...we are too worried what others think and we no longer fight wars to win. Too concerned of what some polls might say.
The mission of the military is to kill people and destroy machinery, weapons and infrastructure of the enemy
If in fact some country no longer "likes" us too bad. We are not in a popularity beauty contest.
Foreign policy errors and decisions made today will haunt you tomorrow.
I do not like the concept...Governing based on international popularity.
Soon as there is trouble where we are needed we all of a sudden have best friends we didn't even know about.
My fav koolaid is bl.cherry.
I'm a liberal democrat and proud of it.
Bush is an idiot.
War sparks the economy. Everyone knows this. Or they should. Any time the country is headed for recession, a good war somewhere other than the U.S(but with U.S. troops involved) keeps OUR economy growning. After all, military adventures are paid for by the U.S. and their taxpayers. It puts thousands of people to work, even if it is with a fairly high risk/low pay job. That leaves their jobs open for other people to have to step into while they are away.
Clinton was no saint, but he understood that making enemies at every corner was NOT a good thing. Bush is no saint either.
I'll take a Clinton presidency over any alternative at this point. Bush DID steal the election!
Let the flames begin....
Are you talking about our good frineds in France? If a war on terror makes folks mad then they really were not our friends to begin with.
That is the problem today...we are too worried what others think and we no longer fight wars to win. Too concerned of what some polls might say.
The mission of the military is to kill people and destroy machinery, weapons and infrastructure of the enemy
If in fact some country no longer "likes" us too bad. We are not in a popularity beauty contest.
Foreign policy errors and decisions made today will haunt you tomorrow.
I do not like the concept...Governing based on international popularity.
Soon as there is trouble where we are needed we all of a sudden have best friends we didn't even know about.
darth tang
Active Member
But Scuba, France is not an "enemy". I am trying to figure out what new "enemies" we now have that we didn't have already.
But your other points are well put. I concur completely.
But your other points are well put. I concur completely.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
But Scuba, France is not an "enemy". I am trying to figure out what new "enemies" we now have that we didn't have already.
But your other points are well put. I concur completely.
I agree...France would not fit the definition of our enemy...but they were less than "best" friends when we were asking for support in Iraq. I assumed perhaps the poster may have been referring to the French government .
I could care less if some country no longer likes us.
Sometimes being called an ass or "bad" is not a bad thing...it all depends on who's yelling.
But Scuba, France is not an "enemy". I am trying to figure out what new "enemies" we now have that we didn't have already.
But your other points are well put. I concur completely.
I agree...France would not fit the definition of our enemy...but they were less than "best" friends when we were asking for support in Iraq. I assumed perhaps the poster may have been referring to the French government .
I could care less if some country no longer likes us.
Sometimes being called an ass or "bad" is not a bad thing...it all depends on who's yelling.