Karl Marx Was Right...

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
OK,I already said I'm no defender of the rich. They bear their share of the blame. But the fact that 50% of our yearly budget gores to fund social programs is the main cause of our national debt...you are so to the extreme...please have tolerance for those of uws who are less emotional and more rational...now to "The Thing"...and some roast chicken and wine...
dude, if social programs were the "main cause" of our debt, then it logically follows that the debt should start ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

however, it is not the case that the debt started ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

thus, social programs are demonstrably not the "main cause" of our debt.

it's pretty easy, simple logic.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
nice to see you back, wileycoyote.

perhaps if you did what i did, and put forth a substantive counter argument instead of just saying "it's stupid", we could have a debate on this.

as it stands, you are not doing that. you have gone from "it's stupid" to "you're stupid" now.

just rebut me for fuck sake.
Disturbing question: was there a previous butting? cn
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
He was right about our tendency to vote for candidates who give money in return for votes. If you don't see that, then you're the idiot here. Not me, you dumb stupid fuck.

Just google "US National Debt Clock", and you might begin to understand.

You must be on welfare...OK, I'll send you a few bucks...
If you think I'm on Welfare, you obviously ain't been around these parts too long dumb-ass.

Fucking Commie.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
dude, maybe try to rebut what i said and the facts i put forth instead of making lame attempts at insulting me and we can have an honest debate.
Oh please...

He accurately described you Buck. You are a miserable human being that trolls the internet for his shits and giggles... I havent seen you have an honest debate in all the time I have posted here.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
dude, if social programs were the "main cause" of our debt, then it logically follows that the debt should start ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.
No, in this country we just push that debt down the road a bit and call it "unfunded liabilities."

The early investors of any Ponzi scheme always seem to do well, it's those at the end that don't fare so well.

Current unfunded liabilities just a smidge over $119 trillion and rising. All of it social programs...every damn penny. About $1,047,633.00 per taxpayer. The good news is it's only up $14 trillion in the last 3 years.

So, we got that going for us, which is nice.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
lol, china owns us?

partisan hackery detected. trap sprung. tell me how much of our debt china owns. i'll await reply.

remember how those "blood sucking social programs" were around since before WWII? i do. never ballooned the debt on their own.

what ballooned the debt is when certain people realized, like you said, that they could vote themselves more of the treasury.

who are these certain people? well, to identify them, let's look where the money has gone since the debt started ballooning in the early 80's.

has it gone to the middle class and working poor? certainly not. their incomes have remained stagnant. have we massively ballooned those "blood sucking social programs" called the social safety net? nope, those have been just the same. in fact, welfare has been reformed, COL increases have been reduced, etc.

that leaves one place where the money has gone: straight to the top. it is demonstrable that this has happened, just take a look at the income inequality gap, which has ballooned right along with the debt.





and along with the rising income inequality, ballooning debt:



the change that corresponds with ballooning debt has absolutely jack and shit to do with social programs, that theory is partisan hackery bologna.

the change that corresponds with ballooning debt is shipping all the money to the top and naively expecting that it will "trickle down". it doesn't.

class dismissed.
Yawn, a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. Are you sure it wasn't the fact that gold was demonetized in 1971? It fits those graphs and numbers much better than "Democracy" does.
 

beenthere

New Member
lol, china owns us?

partisan hackery detected. trap sprung. tell me how much of our debt china owns. i'll await reply. I, like everyone else took Bonnies claim as a metaphor, even though China is the largest foreign creditor, they're not the only foreign creditor. But the fact is, we owe a third of our entire debt to foreign creditors and that's a larger sum than Germany, Great Briton and China's total economy combined.

remember how those "blood sucking social programs" were around since before WWII? i do. never ballooned the debt on their own. Then you better read up on FDR's new Deal in 1933 and the depression that followed in 1937 and how it prolonged the recovery from great depression by more than 15 years.

what ballooned the debt is when certain people realized, like you said, that they could vote themselves more of the treasury.

who are these certain people? well, to identify them, let's look where the money has gone since the debt started ballooning in the early 80's.

has it gone to the middle class and working poor? certainly not. their incomes have remained stagnant. have we massively ballooned those "blood sucking social programs" called the social safety net? nope, those have been just the same. in fact, welfare has been reformed, COL increases have been reduced, etc.

that leaves one place where the money has gone: straight to the top. it is demonstrable that this has happened, just take a look at the income inequality gap, which has ballooned right along with the debt. You're all over the place Bucky, the OP was not talking about income disparity, it was referring to our national debt. Back to class for you Bucky.
The federal debt is how much the American people owe collectively (federal government) When you change the debate to income disparity, what you fail to realize is, that money is in private circulation which has absolutely nothing to do with our national debt,
absolutely nothing. Even if your charts were relevant to the OP, they're not adjusted for inflation, are they? LOL


the change that corresponds with ballooning debt has absolutely jack and shit to do with social programs, that theory is partisan hackery bologna.

the change that corresponds with ballooning debt is shipping all the money to the top and naively expecting that it will "trickle down". it doesn't.

class dismissed.

Class is just beginning for you my friend, you need to understand that money in private circulation is not used to fund our government Bucky, only the revenues collected in the form of taxes are used for this.

The US government gets 99% of it's money from tax revenue or printing money we do not have, thereby inflating our economy, we all will agree that this is irrefutable.

Like all of us, the only possible way the government (or our family) gets itself into debt, is spending more money than it takes in, again, this is irrefutable.

So with that said, please explain how spending money we do not have on more social programs is not putting us further into debt??????????

In the real world there are only two solutions and only one of them is viable.

Solution #1. Raising taxes: According to the IRS, there are a total of 70million America tax payers. As our annual deficit sits today, every single one of those tax payers would have to pay an EXTRA $21,000 each year just to satisfy the yearly deficit, that's if increased spending stopped today! And before you bleat the same worn out mantra to increase taxes on the "rich" do a little research, you find that the total number of Americans making over $1million annually is only 0.1% of all tax payers. Raising taxes on the rich will only increase federal revenues by $60-$80billion per year, take note that our interest alone is $225billion per year, we'd still be a $145 billion in the hole each year.


Solution #2. Any ideas? LOL

BTW, Bonnie was dead on about one thing, you are well skilled at the name calling game, especially when your arguments fall flat on their ass, but then again, so was my little sister when we were growing up.

Now, do you want an honest debate, or to act like an immature child and resort to name calling?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
hey been there, the 1937 prolonging of the depression was caused by austerity.

i stopped reading after that.
 

beenthere

New Member
hey been there, the 1937 prolonging of the depression was caused by austerity.

i stopped reading after that.
You'd never heard of the word "austerity" until a couple of years ago, try thinking on your own for a change.
Try to find a new source outside of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post.

Here's a few for you to study, you just might learn something. One of them is from UCLA, so don't come back with the usual conservative website BS.

And after I said, this is all you have to debate? LOL

"Why wasn’t the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.

So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.''http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2009/02/04/why-did-the-great-depression-last-so-long/
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/1930s-labor-wages-business-ohanian.html

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
 

BillyBonnie

New Member
dude, if social programs were the "main cause" of our debt, then it logically follows that the debt should start ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

however, it is not the case that the debt started ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

thus, social programs are demonstrably not the "main cause" of our debt.

it's pretty easy, simple logic.
OK Buck, I would be very interested to hear your opinion of the reason for our tremendous and dangerous national debt.
 

BillyBonnie

New Member
BTW, Bonnie was dead on about one thing, you are well skilled at the name calling game, especially when your arguments fall flat on their ass, but then again, so was my little sister when we were growing up.

Now, do you want an honest debate, or to act like an immature child and resort to name calling?
Yeah, what he said...
 

BillyBonnie

New Member
dude, if social programs were the "main cause" of our debt, then it logically follows that the debt should start ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

however, it is not the case that the debt started ballooning upon implementation of said social programs.

thus, social programs are demonstrably not the "main cause" of our debt.

it's pretty easy, simple logic.
When social programs are implemented on a per-person basis, doesn't it make sense that the main problems in funding them would occur when the population balloons? As it has in the past 30 years...

And yes, the funding of unexpected wars certainly contributed...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
When social programs are implemented on a per-person basis, doesn't it make sense that the main problems in funding them would occur when the population balloons? As it has in the past 30 years...

And yes, the funding of unexpected wars certainly contributed...
the population has not ballooned along with the debt over the last 30 years.

i love ya, wiley, but ya gotta cut it with the whole stating falsehoods as fact thing.

 

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
the simple fact is that the corruption that always coincides with centralization of power is destroying what was a relatively fair model. the problem is that we give powers to the institutions which they ought not have. decentralize responsibilities of the government and you will improve efficiency and fiscal responsibility, it is not until we dismantle the oligarchy we have allowed to develop and reinstate localized power that we will "fix" our issues.
 

feff f

Active Member
Yawn, a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. Are you sure it wasn't the fact that gold was demonetized in 1971? It fits those graphs and numbers much better than "Democracy" does.
exactly what i was trying to say.

his charts are like saying, since the invention of the modern toaster, people eating toast has skyrocketed while the people riding horses to work has plummetted. completely unrelated.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
the population has not ballooned along with the debt over the last 30 years.

i love ya, wiley, but ya gotta cut it with the whole stating falsehoods as fact thing.
The Chart Master strikes again! Everytime you post a chart, god kills another black cock. Think of all the cocks!
 
Top