PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Is Taking From The Young - DUH!



GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2014, 07:04 PM
About time someone besides us normal folk speak up on this great travesty of Liberalism and big-spending:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-fiscal-chamber-20140108,0,3164214.story

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top lobbyist in Washington for American business warned in unusually stark terms on Wednesday that younger Americans will face diminished economic prospects in coming years unless the United States reins in spending on the elderly and improves its education system.

"I worry that for the first time in history, we're in a situation where America is taking from the young in order to support the old," Thomas Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a speech that laid out the powerful business group's agenda.

Donohue's remarks reflect the bitter residue of a years-long budget battle that has largely failed to tackle the nation's long-term fiscal problems, as well as a new focus on inequality in Washington.

As in other areas, the business group is likely to clash with the Obama administration on some of its efforts to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, even as it supports other approaches. The Chamber will back the administration's push to impose common academic standards on a primary education system that is largely administered at the state and local level, Donohue said.

"If our nation doesn't get damn serious about the millions of young people who drop out of school, or who graduate unable to master the most basic skills and work habits, nothing else we do or try is going to work," he said.


This on top of the debt we are going to have to pay back and the health insurance they are expecting us to pay for. Plus the freeloading idiot Liberal parent parasites have raised freeloading idiot Liberal offspring parasites who don't want to work and just want a handout like their momma and their daddies did.

Can the host organism live through this infection?
:killme:

Peter1469
01-08-2014, 07:16 PM
We can't pay the debt back; it is too big. The system will crash. We will start over.

The Xl
01-08-2014, 07:17 PM
The debt is fraudulent and should be defaulted on. The concept of America paying interest on its own fiat paper money is insane, anyhow. And the ones paying it back, through taxes and inflation? Yeah, it's the younger people that will be screwed.

F that.

The Xl
01-08-2014, 07:19 PM
We can't pay the debt back; it is too big. The system will crash. We will start over.

Good.

midcan5
01-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Egads does the whining and gnashing of teeth ever stop on the right? It would be OK if at least some small iota of truth and significance were part of the repeated staged crying the right wing entertainment society feeds them to keep them blind, but doesn't it occasionally get just a bit tiring? Boohoo would be a T shirt hit, then you'd know nothing real is under it.

For those free of the puppet master, here's a piece of info that counters lots of the wingnut machine malarkey.

'The Biggest Myths in Economics' Cullen Roche


http://pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics


"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

jillian
01-08-2014, 09:10 PM
We can't pay the debt back; it is too big. The system will crash. We will start over.

maybe we should do the soylent green thing,

Peter1469
01-08-2014, 09:17 PM
Egads does the whining and gnashing of teeth ever stop on the right? It would be OK if at least some small iota of truth and significance were part of the repeated staged crying the right wing entertainment society feeds them to keep them blind, but doesn't it occasionally get just a bit tiring? Boohoo would be a T shirt hit, then you'd know nothing real is under it.

For those free of the puppet master, here's a piece of info that counters lots of the wingnut machine malarkey.

'The Biggest Myths in Economics' Cullen Roche


http://pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics


"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

You are the only one whining and gnashing teeth. And posting incredibly hyperbolic laden opinion pieces masquerading as some sort of authority.


"becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies."

That is from a serious publication? It seems more like a cartoon.

Peter1469
01-08-2014, 09:21 PM
maybe we should do the soylent green thing,

That has nothing to do with the debt or starting over after a currency collapse. Unlike that Midcam character above, serious people understand that currency collapses are not unusual or rare nor do they represent
the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies. :wink:

GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2014, 09:36 PM
wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies."

Sounds more like global warming than an economic collapse to me.

jillian
01-08-2014, 09:40 PM
That has nothing to do with the debt or starting over after a currency collapse. Unlike that Midcam character above, serious people understand that currency collapses are not unusual or rare nor do they represent . :wink:

i'd suggest that he's quite serious. you just don't care for what he has to say.

he provided you with a link. you can agree or disagree with it.

me? you know, it's funny… but tonight i was helping my son study for an AP US History exam. they're up to the progressive era. and it seems to me that today's right is saying all of the same things they said then…

just an observation about how nothing changes.

and despite that, things move forward.

GrassrootsConservative
01-08-2014, 09:44 PM
tonight i was helping my son study for an AP US History exam. they're up to the progressive era. and it seems to me that today's right is saying all of the same things they said then…

just an observation about how nothing changes.

and despite that, things move forward.

How do you post this stuff without realizing how self-contradictory you are? How on EARTH are things moving forward yet at the same time we're repeating the same failed progressive era that your son is studying in school? So much so that the rhetoric from the other side seems to be the same?

:laugh:

It's almost like your paragraphs are all written by different people.

Peter1469
01-08-2014, 10:00 PM
The progressive era had a right wing and a left wing....

I was talking about that MidCam chap's link. I quoted from it and asked if it was a serious publication using language like that to discuss a real topic. Most of the sources he links to are more cartoon like than serious. Yesterday, he posted to a 4 year old blog entry that was titled Untitled....


i'd suggest that he's quite serious. you just don't care for what he has to say.

he provided you with a link. you can agree or disagree with it.

me? you know, it's funny… but tonight i was helping my son study for an AP US History exam. they're up to the progressive era. and it seems to me that today's right is saying all of the same things they said then…

just an observation about how nothing changes.

and despite that, things move forward.

Codename Section
01-09-2014, 12:05 AM
Egads does the whining and gnashing of teeth ever stop on the right? It would be OK if at least some small iota of truth and significance were part of the repeated staged crying the right wing entertainment society feeds them to keep them blind, but doesn't it occasionally get just a bit tiring? Boohoo would be a T shirt hit, then you'd know nothing real is under it.

For those free of the puppet master, here's a piece of info that counters lots of the wingnut machine malarkey.

'The Biggest Myths in Economics' Cullen Roche


http://pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics


"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

Did you read that article? I'm not sure how it does what you think it does.

Ivan88
01-09-2014, 01:02 AM
We are waging war on the young in other countries, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yugoslavia etc.

And, we are waging war on American kids too. Crapy schools that give them fake "education."

Domestically we have so many taxes and regulations that young people can't hardly start a money making business without some bullycrat sticking a gun in his face.

Zoning & construction regulations make the cost of having a house too high for many people.

Like the Bullycrat in San Bernardino County, California once told me, "Its better you live in your car or under a bridge than live in a house we don't approve of."

Property taxes on a 100,000 dollar house start at about 100$/month, and they keep going up at 2% compound interest.

In a lot of places they charge you 70,000 dollars just for a permit to build a house.

And so much of the economic advantages of the past are gone.

Many young folks are facing a future life as welfare recipients.

But, if you are a foreigner, the bullycrats let you do lots of things that Americans are prohibited from doing.
One example, I managed a rental property. The bullycrats told me I couldn't rent them out no matter what.
But when a Vietnamese guy bought the place they let him not only rent it out, but divide the part of the place into number of very small apartments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH1guwTilOQ

patrickt
01-09-2014, 02:56 AM
Here's a paragraph from Midcan's link:
"The national debt is often portrayed as something that must be “paid back”. As if we are all born with a bill attached to our feet that we have to pay back to the government over the course of our lives. Of course, that’s not true at all. In fact, the national debt has been expanding since the dawn of the USA and has grown as the needs of US citizens have expanded over time. There’s really no such thing as “paying back” the national debt unless you think the government should be entirely eliminated (which I think most of us would agree is a pretty unrealistic view of the world)."

No, of course not. The national debt isn't something that must be repaid. It's not something on which we have to pay interest. Oh, lordy, of course not. No debt needs to be repaid in LibWorld. Not a house mortgage, not a personal loan, and certainly not consumer credit. No, you never have to pay any debt. You just keep borrowing more and more and more. Everybody knows that. And, if you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.

As for printing money? Don't be silly. According to Midcan's puppet masters, there is no money being printed except to replace worn out money. The total volume of money is the same as it's always been.

Jillian: "
maybe we should do the soylent green thing,"
For stupid and inane, Jillian sets a new record. I understand she wants to play but non sequiturs are stupid.

And, here's another article's comment:
"For the next 2½ decades, the national debt was relatively stable, growing from $260 billion in 1945 to $366 billion in 1969.
Since the end of 1969, however, government debt has grown dramatically each decade, as shown below:

In the 1970’s, the national debt more than doubled, from $366 billion to $829 billion.
In the 1980’s, the national debt more than tripled, from $829 billion to $2.9 trillion.
In the 1990’s, the national debt almost doubled again, from $2.9 trillion to $5.6 trillion.
In the 2000’s, the national debt more than doubled again, from $5.6 trillion to over $12 trillion at the end of 2009.
Some will argue that it’s unfair to look at the national debt history in terms of raw dollars, because it doesn’t account for inflation or the growth of the economy. However, even if you look at the national debt as a percentage of our nation’s GDP (gross domestic product), the federal debt is increasing at a staggering rate. In 1969, the national debt was just 38% of GDP, but it was over 90% of GDP by the end of 2009, and is projected to be over 100% of GDP by 2011."
http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/national-debt-history/

Yep, the national debt has just always been there, always growing. In Obamaworld a national debt of $366,000,000,000 seems almost laughable. But don't worry, in LibWorld, debts don't get repaid, ever.

GrassrootsConservative
01-09-2014, 03:07 AM
Lol. The definition of debt is
something, typically money, that is owed or due. https://www.google.com/#q=Debt+definition

Anyone who says debt doesn't need to be paid back doesn't know what they're talking about.

Peter1469
01-09-2014, 06:51 AM
Did you read that article? I'm not sure how it does what you think it does.

:shocked:

Peter1469
01-09-2014, 06:53 AM
Lol. The definition of debt is

Anyone who says debt doesn't need to be paid back doesn't know what they're talking about.

The US official debt is over $17T. Where are you going to find that much money? The unofficial debt (which includes the unfunded liabilities out a specific number of years) is over $200T (out 75 years).

People who think that we can pay this don't know what they are talking about.

undine
01-09-2014, 06:55 AM
We can't break our promise to the elderly and leave them destitute and without health care. That would be unethical.

It is true, though, that we should spend more on educating the young.

The lobbyist is half right, which is pretty good for a lobbyist.

Peter1469
01-09-2014, 07:03 AM
We can't break our promise to the elderly and leave them destitute and without health care. That would be unethical.

It is true, though, that we should spend more on educating the young.

The lobbyist is half right, which is pretty good for a lobbyist.

I don't think that we will deliberately leave the old people in the lurch. They have to many votes (to sell).

Heyduke
01-09-2014, 08:07 AM
Some will argue that it’s unfair to look at the national debt history in terms of raw dollars, because it doesn’t account for inflation or the growth of the economy. However, even if you look at the national debt as a percentage of our nation’s GDP (gross domestic product), the federal debt is increasing at a staggering rate. In 1969, the national debt was just 38% of GDP, but it was over 90% of GDP by the end of 2009, and is projected to be over 100% of GDP by 2011."
http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/national-debt-history/

Yep, the national debt has just always been there, always growing. In Obamaworld a national debt of $366,000,000,000 seems almost laughable. But don't worry, in LibWorld, debts don't get repaid, ever.


I tend to look at the National Debt in raw dollars, because that's how we calculate the national interest payment on the debt. Our interest payment on the national debt in 2013 was over $415 billion. That's a hugenormous slice of the budget pie. Without paying down any principle, just making the interest payments, that's approaching 10% of our total budget.

Now, how do some other people like to look at spending? They say, wow, look Mom, the Obama reduced the deficit by 37%. He's really cut government spending, hasn't he? Well, yea, after reasonable people complained about Bush's $400 billion deficits, suddenly the Bush/Obama budget of 2009 skyrocketed to well over $1 trillion. More than $1 trillion budgets remained thru 2012. And then in 2013, for a variety of reasons, that came back down to a still ridiculously obese $680 billion.

Peter1469
01-09-2014, 09:12 AM
I tend to look at the National Debt in raw dollars, because that's how we calculate the national interest payment on the debt. Our interest payment on the national debt in 2013 was over $415 billion. That's a hugenormous slice of the budget pie. Without paying down any principle, just making the interest payments, that's approaching 10% of our total budget.

Now, how do some other people like to look at spending? They say, wow, look Mom, the Obama reduced the deficit by 37%. He's really cut government spending, hasn't he? Well, yea, after reasonable people complained about Bush's $400 billion deficits, suddenly the Bush/Obama budget of 2009 skyrocketed to well over $1 trillion. More than $1 trillion budgets remained thru 2012. And then in 2013, for a variety of reasons, that came back down to a still ridiculously obese $680 billion.



That was due to sequester (which was voted off the Island) and accounting gimmicks (pushing payments from one fiscal year to another). Wait and see what 2014 numbers are!

The Xl
01-09-2014, 12:26 PM
Lol. The definition of debt is

Anyone who says debt doesn't need to be paid back doesn't know what they're talking about.

What, specifically, did I sign up for? Why should I be taxed and the currency be inflated for something I didn't sign up for?

It's fraudulent and should be defaulted on immediately. I don't owe anything, and the same goes for many other Americans.