history, a must read but never make the NYT

litteringand said...

It is no where near that simple you guys talk like there are societies out there that are true capitalism or socialism there isn't one. they are all hybrids. Capitalism was severly hindered after the Sherman act and anti trust laws against monopolies. In a real capitalist society it is make money or starve no unemployment, no social security, no medicare, no governemt job placements, no affirmitive action. pure unadulterated let the market do it's thing. Sounds kinda nice right except guess what people have figured out how to make the free market the invisable hand jerk them off and spooge on you. kinda like they just did.

===============================================================================================================================
Hmmmm... someone who knows his beans,....

Very true. i was going to respond to that sweeping generalization, but refrained from the dreaded double post....

You hit the nail on the head litter.

doobnVA said:

I love this! Though, according to your chart it WAS pretty close to being paid off under Clinton (closer than any other time in history, anyway). Also, this chart represents the national DEBT, which is different than the deficit. Clinton did turn the deficit into a surplus, but no, he didn't eliminate the national debt.

To the OP: You are trying to give us a history lesson, but your comment about facism/marxism/socialism presumes them to be the same thing? They are not!

Click to expand...

The first chart shows the national debt.

That second chart represents the addition to the debt which is caused by budget deficits. It is showing the budget deficits as they add to the national debt. See Clinton ran a deficit every year? You see that the national debt (first chart) never once went down the years that Clinton was president? Make sense?

CLINTON NEVER TURNED A DEFICIT INTO A SURPLUS!!! Read the link that I attached and you will see that he ran deficits EVERY YEAR THAT HE WAS PRESIDENT.

litteringand... said:

It is no where near that simple you guys talk like there are societies out there that are true capitalism or socialism there isn't one. they are all hybrids. Capitalism was severly hindered after the Sherman act and anti trust laws against monopolies. In a real capitalist society it is make money or starve no unemployment, no social security, no medicare, no governemt job placements, no affirmitive action. pure unadulterated let the market do it's thing. Sounds kinda nice right except guess what people have figured out how to make the free market the invisable hand jerk them off and spooge on you. kinda like they just did.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying there are true capitalism or socalism. Also it is very simple just people enjoy making life more complex. Seriosly junior high history with the sherman act I like it LOL. I am sorry inevitably they will tend to gravitate towards one or the other.

Greed is in the heart of men therefore socialism will never be pure.

Capitalism even with the anti trust law etc will still always gravitate towards the single entity wether that is a corporation or a gov.

CrackerJax said:

All things being relative it is far better to be poor in the USA than anywhere else.
Most poor ppl have more than the average citizen of Europe when it comes to personal assets.

No one treats you better than the good ol' USA. Until the current administration changes all that.

Click to expand...

Personal assets? Is that how you measure success? You can have a whole house full of plastic junk from Wal Mart, that doesn't mean you're any better off.

Proof positive that America has bought into the consumerism, brainwashed by a bunch of filthy rich executives who have convinced them they are "happy" or "successful" unless they have a plasma television in every room (so YOU can watch television all day long where they'll show you pretty images of how happy everyone who buys X, Y or Z products are so you rush out to buy them). Hooray! So now you have a bunch of plasma tv's (purchased on credit. Hooray again!) and you can't afford them. I fail to see how this results in a higher quality of life.

France has a much lower overall rate of poverty than the US. They have job security that we couldn't even begin to imagine, guaranteed child care for working mothers, 4 weeks vacation time...and nobody goes bankrupt trying to pay medical bills.

Sounds like a horrible place to live! They probably don't even have a Wal Mart.

tnrtinr said:

The first chart shows the national debt.

That second chart represents the addition to the debt which is caused by budget deficits. It is showing the budget deficits as they add to the national debt. See Clinton ran a deficit every year? You see that the national debt (first chart) never once went down the years that Clinton was president? Make sense?

CLINTON NEVER TURNED A DEFICIT INTO A SURPLUS!!! Read the link that I attached and you will see that he ran deficits EVERY YEAR THAT HE WAS PRESIDENT.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. I never said it didn't. He took money that would have been the "deficit" and he moved it over into the "debt" pile, thus creating the deceptive illusion of a "surplus" (according to government math, anyway, which is not exactly like actual math). He manipulated the already questionable method of calculating the deficit to make it look like there wasn't one. Sneaky? Yes, but it definitely isn't the scratchiest wool that's been pulled over our eyes.

snodegd said:

I wasn't saying there are true capitalism or socalism. Also it is very simple just people enjoy making life more complex. Seriosly junior high history with the sherman act I like it LOL. I am sorry inevitably they will tend to gravitate towards one or the other.

Greed is in the heart of men therefore socialism will never be pure.

Capitalism even with the anti trust law etc will still always gravitate towards the single entity wether that is a corporation or a gov.

Click to expand...

wow junior high was a long time ago I should get props for that Anyway, Sorry to tell you, you are oversimplifying the situation you talk about two different schools of thought which have hundreds of variations, and they can all be summed up in one sentance?
If it is that simple for you I see a new secretary or treasury.

litteringand... said:

wow junior high was a long time ago I should get props for that Anyway, Sorry to tell you, you are oversimplifying the situation you talk about two different schools of thought which have hundreds of variations, and they can all be summed up in one sentance?
If it is that simple for you I see a new secretary or treasury.

Click to expand...

Sweet I could use the gig and they would work well with my degrees(finance and economics).

I don't think I am over simplifying, simply stating the main problem with the pure form or hybrid form of those types of Gov. I do agree there are many more issues and problems within each.

"unemployment, social security, medicare, government job placements, affirmative action" I've never benefited from any of this and probably never will, but how much money has been taken out of your check to pay for all this stuff? and that list is just the tip of the iceberg! We are subsidizing home builders, ethanol, union auto makers, and the financial sector now!

Taxes is illegal, or was until they convinced ignorant people that only the rich would be taxed. Now the hamburger flipper is paying to bailout the banker who makes over $1,000,000 a year!

I'm just ranting now, but I did have a point: Everyone points the finger at everyone else when we have a meltdown like we continue to have in the financial system, and it has more to do with greed than capitalism or socialism, and the MFer's who caused this mess are still walking free, if not running things in washington! Why aren't heads rolling? Because "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here's what you don't hear on your evening news along with the unemployment numbers:

Clinton and the Republican Congress - both - led us down the prim-rose path, along with everyone associated with that regime...including the fed.

It was Clinton, who pushed for "creative lending", so that poor folks could buy homes they couldn't afford otherwise, and it was Clinton along with the republicans, who conspired with the bankers... Sandy weill, and Robert Rubin of Citigroup fame - the Same Robert Rubin who served on Clintons cabinet, and was almost appointed to a top level cabinet position by Obama. This isn't about democrat or republican so bear with me...

Robert Rubin first served as U.S. Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, then went to citigroup, then left under criticism to work as Obama's financial advisor! It's no wonder Obama feels like he can tell the biggest bank in the world, that they should scrap their plans to buy a $50 Mil jet! Citigroup is your government. GE is your government! but that's another story!

Now lets put the pieces together:

1. Clinton pushes for "creative lending" The True Story Behind The Economic Meltdown: Hud, The Clinton & Bush Administrations, And The National Homeownership Strategy link

2. Sandy Weill and Rubin convince Clinton to repeal the glass-steagall act. How Citigroup's CEO rewrote the rules so he could live richly. Link

3. Then Rubin goes to work for citigroup, then resigns, and goes to work for Obama!
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Turned Obama Adviser Was Paid Tens of Millions by Bailed-Out Citigroup Link

4. Rubin also worked at the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Sound familiar? Paulson worked for them too, and Yes they also own you.

Please explain to me, how it is, in a capitalist/socialist system - whatever you call it - how these criminals go unpunished?

GE owns most your major media, and they're in on the game too.

snodegd said:

Sweet I could use the gig and they would work well with my degrees(finance and economics).

I don't think I am over simplifying, simply stating the main problem with the pure form or hybrid form of those types of Gov. I do agree there are many more issues and problems within each.

Click to expand...

there ya go you have to not pay your taxes to get that gig too so thats another plus. By the way we agree on a lot of what you say I just mistook what you said for a sweeping generalization that I have seen a lot of on this board. I think to generalize the problems with both systems stem from people. Both systems are able to be corrupt pure socialism is just easier to do. The free market is supposed to fight monopolies on it's own and in theory it would on it's own. Monopolies generally have a higher price and a worse product cough microsoft cough. so then people would stop buying all together vot e with their dollar. but then the government intervenes and makes you buy the product like insurance. Anyhow we can go back and forth all day, but No need we mostly agree.

doobnVA said:

Personal assets? Is that how you measure success? You can have a whole house full of plastic junk from Wal Mart, that doesn't mean you're any better off.

Proof positive that America has bought into the consumerism, brainwashed by a bunch of filthy rich executives who have convinced them they are "happy" or "successful" unless they have a plasma television in every room (so YOU can watch television all day long where they'll show you pretty images of how happy everyone who buys X, Y or Z products are so you rush out to buy them). Hooray! So now you have a bunch of plasma tv's (purchased on credit. Hooray again!) and you can't afford them. I fail to see how this results in a higher quality of life.

France has a much lower overall rate of poverty than the US. They have job security that we couldn't even begin to imagine, guaranteed child care for working mothers, 4 weeks vacation time...and nobody goes bankrupt trying to pay medical bills.

Sounds like a horrible place to live! They probably don't even have a Wal Mart.

Click to expand...

Wrong again Doob..... always having to correct you. Do some research before you post. Job security? Only if you are born into it over there....

Among EU member states, the Netherlands recorded the lowest unemployment, at 3.5 percent and Spain the highest of 18.9 percent. The jobless rate in Germany, the largest economy in the EU, remained stable at 7.7 percent, while France's unemployment continued to rise, reaching 9.9 percent from 9.7 percent.

doobnVA said:

It makes perfect sense. I never said it didn't. He took money that would have been the "deficit" and he moved it over into the "debt" pile, thus creating the deceptive illusion of a "surplus" (according to government math, anyway, which is not exactly like actual math). He manipulated the already questionable method of calculating the deficit to make it look like there wasn't one. Sneaky? Yes, but it definitely isn't the scratchiest wool that's been pulled over our eyes.

Click to expand...

Exactly. A shell game. Clinton's greatest success NEVER happened in reality. Lets not pretend that the government ever had a true surplus (one where tax revenues exceeded spending). The national debt chart increases EVERY YEAR.

litteringand... said:

there ya go you have to not pay your taxes to get that gig too so thats another plus. By the way we agree on a lot of what you say I just mistook what you said for a sweeping generalization that I have seen a lot of on this board. I think to generalize the problems with both systems stem from people. Both systems are able to be corrupt pure socialism is just easier to do. The free market is supposed to fight monopolies on it's own and in theory it would on it's own. Monopolies generally have a higher price and a worse product cough microsoft cough. so then people would stop buying all together vot e with their dollar. but then the government intervenes and makes you buy the product like insurance. Anyhow we can go back and forth all day, but No need we mostly agree.

Click to expand...

LOL Cheers

yes natrone, you are right i have never been anywhere. 20 years in the military and never even had a friend go anywhere. other than....lets see.....THE WHOLE FUCKING PLANET. would like to correct one thing though, when i said we are the only place that people risk their lives to go to....that was wrong. i did have a point but that wasnt it. there are lots of countries that people go to escape tyranny. but the "mecca" of choice is the USA. twist history any way you want, europe is free because of uncle sam.

as for sweden, france, and any other european nation, lets see who you call when russia starts kicking in your front doors....AGAIN. if it wasnt for the US you would all be speaking german with a small hint of russian twang. this is what i meant by my original post, the only reason "sweden" is safe and cozy is the USA never let anyone take you over. swedes couldnt protect themselves if the beverly hillbillies mounted a coup. wake up man, pick up a book.

natrone23 said:

lol guide book for Marines, you must have been a motivator., Whats next you want me to bark out the 10 general orders.

I was in the 2nd gulf war.............I think you were in that field op they called the first gulf war.

Click to expand...

I Want to thank all those Men and Women who have given of themselves in our military. You are truly HEROES in my book.

USA forever

Doob,

He said you read the chart wrong, because you did. You said something along the lines of "I see Clinton almost paid off the National Debt/Deficit" or something like that.

The graph is showing how much the national debt INCREASED that year(s) of their term(s). So although Clinton's numbers are much smaller, the national debt continued to rise during his 2 terms in office, albeit by a much lower amount than the Republicans. That is how you misread it.

Doob,

He said you read the chart wrong, because you did. You said something along the lines of "I see Clinton almost paid off the National Debt/Deficit" or something like that.

The graph is showing how much the national debt INCREASED that year(s) of their term(s). So although Clinton's numbers are much smaller, the national debt continued to rise during his 2 terms in office, albeit by a much lower amount than the Republicans. That is how you misread it.

Click to expand...

true. i also think the point is, are you showing the chart to prove that the debt/deficit will now get better with obama? what are we up to $1.5 trillion annually for as far as the eye can see? dont remember any numbers on the chart even approaching that, dem or rep. besides, this isnt about party affiliation, its about freedom, and how ours is being taken away and the libs are cheering the whole time. there used to be a time when libs were freedom loving. now they just love "free stuff".

CrackerJax said:

Wrong again Doob..... always having to correct you. Do some research before you post. Job security? Only if you are born into it over there....

Among EU member states, the Netherlands recorded the lowest unemployment, at 3.5 percent and Spain the highest of 18.9 percent. The jobless rate in Germany, the largest economy in the EU, remained stable at 7.7 percent, while France's unemployment continued to rise, reaching 9.9 percent from 9.7 percent.

Click to expand...

Did I make any mentions of their unemployment rate? No. I said the POVERTY rate is much lower than the US. It's true, so how is it that I'm wrong?

If the unemployment rate is just as high as the US, but the poverty rate is LOWER - what does that tell you about the quality of life for the poor in France versus in the US? Just because they have fewer "personal assets", doesn't mean they are any worse off.

Quality of life is not measured by how much junk you have wasted money on.

doobnVA said:

Did I make any mentions of their unemployment rate? No. I said the POVERTY rate is much lower than the US. It's true, so how is it that I'm wrong?

If the unemployment rate is just as high as the US, but the poverty rate is LOWER - what does that tell you about the quality of life for the poor in France versus in the US? Just because they have fewer "personal assets", doesn't mean they are any worse off.

Quality of life is not measured by how much junk you have wasted money on.

Click to expand...

You assume everyone has or owns junk or shops at wal-mart
You also assume every american watches tv all day.
You assume alot which usally means you are very arrogant.

Mindmelted said:

You assume everyone has or owns junk or shops at wal-mart
You also assume every american watches tv all day.
You assume alot which usally means you are very arrogant.

Click to expand...

LOL,,,LMAO..OH well said!!!!!!!

Iron Lion Zion said:

Doob,

He said you read the chart wrong, because you did. You said something along the lines of "I see Clinton almost paid off the National Debt/Deficit" or something like that.

The graph is showing how much the national debt INCREASED that year(s) of their term(s). So although Clinton's numbers are much smaller, the national debt continued to rise during his 2 terms in office, albeit by a much lower amount than the Republicans. That is how you misread it.

Click to expand...

What I said was that it WAS pretty close, because the previous poster had said it "wasn't even close". Does the chart not show the very smallest increase was under Clinton? It's much closer to 0 than any other president managed, isn't it?

I never implied that clinton paid off the deficit (though "technically" he did, because "government math" allowed him to - when in reality all he did was MOVE the deficit to the debt).

Once you understand that the "deficit" is different than the "debt", and that the rules of government math allow this slight-of-hand to take place and create the illusion of a surplus - then you can also understand that I was NOT arguing as to the accuracy of the chart or what Clinton did or did not do to the deficit and the debt. In fact, I recall saying that I think those charts are great. I guess what I should have added was that I think they are great because they accurately show how there was, in fact, no surplus.


Geez... and all because CrackerJax always has to argue with me.

I'm FOR the charts! They're ACCURATE!