thankyouOB
Well-known member
the last sentence is incomprehensible.
as one example, should we have an air force?
the Constitution mentions only the establishment of an Army and a Navy.
Are there really that many haters?
- Thread starter adric22
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
the last sentence is incomprehensible.
as one example, should we have an air force?
the Constitution mentions only the establishment of an Army and a Navy.
TomT
Well-known member
Sorry, but this type of comment just makes me shake my head and walk way...
LTLFTcomposite said:
Herm
Well-known member
Bush was not that popular with conservatives either, many called him a RINO.. same as many liberals are not happy with Obama. Conservatives are conflicted because it lowers our dependence on foreign oil but they are very unhappy with all the BEV rebates and credits being offered to wealthy individuals and corporations. Thank god its a tax credit so at least you must pay some taxes in the first place.
I would happily double the tax credit if in exchange we could get rid of the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, but good luck with that, gov spending programs are immortal.
"The further we stray from the constitution the worse things get, but nobody can figure out why."
Its sad that you guys cant understand what this means, and yes USAF is in the constitution.
I would happily double the tax credit if in exchange we could get rid of the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, but good luck with that, gov spending programs are immortal.
"The further we stray from the constitution the worse things get, but nobody can figure out why."
Its sad that you guys cant understand what this means, and yes USAF is in the constitution.
AndyH
Well-known member
Show me.Herm said:
thankyouOB
Well-known member
Name a Conservative other than Ron Paul who publicly spoke against anything bush 2 dud as president.
Short post with lots of pix but few facts.
Short post with lots of pix but few facts.
DarkStar
Well-known member
hodad66
Well-known member
thankyouOB said:
They all fought hard to protest any attack on their fair haired, ex-drunk,
failure of a spoiled brat. Now he's no good along with Eisenhower (his
warning against the MIC). amnesia is the GOP's best friend and 40% of
the nation is highly susceptible it seems.....
TomT
Well-known member
I wonder if this was Freudian... :lol:
thankyouOB said:
mitch672
Well-known member
While this debate is amusing, there is a single theme to politicians lately; that is largely ignorned.
None of them, democrats or republicans (they are really the same thing, in reality) want to face the fact the the United States of American is technically, legally and morally bankrupt.
We have no more money, we've financed away our future, and our childrens futures as well. Government only has discrentionary control of 60 cents of every dollar (right now). Their solution is to just print more and more money, telling all of those who loaned us money "hell ya we're gonna pay you back, in vastly deflated dollars"
As they keep printing money, eventually interest rates will have to go up, and that spells massive future disaster for the US debt, most of which is financed over only 4-5 years, it means we will control less and less of each dollar comming into the treasury of income. What if you could only control 6o cents of each dollar you brought home, you'de be pretty upset I bet. eventually you'd have to declare bankruptcy. We're not far from that, except government has the power to just "conjure" more money, only trouble, it just isn't working (lookup "Quantative Easing 2" and "Quantative Easing 3")
thats not a great message to be sending, but its being sent strongly now. Why do you think gold is nearly $1900 and Silver over $43? The USD and other fiat currencies are near collapse, and most intelligent people realize it, and are heading for the exits. Gold and Silver are not suddenly worth more; the USD is worth far less than ever, and dropping every day.
Government has to be drasticlly cut, socially security and medicare have to be cut to the bone and reformed. None of them have the politcal gonads to do it, so we keep heading toward the inevtible...
There are no easy solutions, and none of the "middle" class (is there even one any more?) wants to hear "well, all of those promises we made you? we can't keep any of them, and there is not going to be any money for your retirement in the social security trust fund"
I have to laugh when I hear the pols where saying during the crisis, "maybe we won't pay social security", guess what? half of the "I owe Yous" in our debt are owed to the social security trust fund, the one organization that can FORCE the treasury to pay them is the SS trust fund, it just shows how ignorant most of them are.
there are no easy solutions, but without real reform, the 2nd american revolution isn't far away.
None of them, democrats or republicans (they are really the same thing, in reality) want to face the fact the the United States of American is technically, legally and morally bankrupt.
We have no more money, we've financed away our future, and our childrens futures as well. Government only has discrentionary control of 60 cents of every dollar (right now). Their solution is to just print more and more money, telling all of those who loaned us money "hell ya we're gonna pay you back, in vastly deflated dollars"
As they keep printing money, eventually interest rates will have to go up, and that spells massive future disaster for the US debt, most of which is financed over only 4-5 years, it means we will control less and less of each dollar comming into the treasury of income. What if you could only control 6o cents of each dollar you brought home, you'de be pretty upset I bet. eventually you'd have to declare bankruptcy. We're not far from that, except government has the power to just "conjure" more money, only trouble, it just isn't working (lookup "Quantative Easing 2" and "Quantative Easing 3")
thats not a great message to be sending, but its being sent strongly now. Why do you think gold is nearly $1900 and Silver over $43? The USD and other fiat currencies are near collapse, and most intelligent people realize it, and are heading for the exits. Gold and Silver are not suddenly worth more; the USD is worth far less than ever, and dropping every day.
Government has to be drasticlly cut, socially security and medicare have to be cut to the bone and reformed. None of them have the politcal gonads to do it, so we keep heading toward the inevtible...
There are no easy solutions, and none of the "middle" class (is there even one any more?) wants to hear "well, all of those promises we made you? we can't keep any of them, and there is not going to be any money for your retirement in the social security trust fund"
I have to laugh when I hear the pols where saying during the crisis, "maybe we won't pay social security", guess what? half of the "I owe Yous" in our debt are owed to the social security trust fund, the one organization that can FORCE the treasury to pay them is the SS trust fund, it just shows how ignorant most of them are.
there are no easy solutions, but without real reform, the 2nd american revolution isn't far away.
adric22
Well-known member
mitch672 said:
However, I believe that we haven't hit rock bottom yet. It is still possible to pull us out of this mess if the lawmakers could agree to do some massive budget cuts and start paying down the debt instead of piling more of it on. Yes, it would hurt. Nobody would like it, but it is certainly possible.
thankyouOB
Well-known member
the trouble with that long analysis on the preceding page is that ignores the evidence.
For example, the bond market for ALL US Treasuries are at all-time lows.
If the bond market believed otherwise, and accepted your idea about paying back with vastly inflated dollars, you would see the opposite happening.
For example, the bond market for ALL US Treasuries are at all-time lows.
If the bond market believed otherwise, and accepted your idea about paying back with vastly inflated dollars, you would see the opposite happening.
AndyH
Well-known member
I'll agree with some of what you've said, Mitch, but cannot agree with others.
Debt... Yes, we have it. We've had it since our own revolution and the money we owed the French for helping us out. But the federal accounts are NOT like Joe Public's credit union account regardless of how the Senate wants to try to dumb it down to score political points.
There is good debt and bad debt. Bad debt buys a liability. Good debt buys an asset that returns more than the value of the debt and interest. Most Americans with their cars and big screen TVs own bad debts - there's no way these things will ever increase our net worth. Businesses tend to invest in equipment - and when they borrow for a new piece of infrastructure, they fully expect it to pay back more than it costs. Modern governments should have larger gross domestic products and also larger levels of debt - and this can be seen in this graphic: http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock Hey - Ivory Coast's debt is falling - do we really think we want to 'go there'?! (As an aside - it's debt VS. GDP - and since we're in a recession (depression?!) the GDP side of things falls off - making the ratio look worse than it will when we recover.)
Look at TARP and other recent bailouts. Some of those paid back more than they cost us - they brought a direct profit. Good debt, those. Others like GM (sorry GM) haven't yet paid for themselves. And yet - even if GM's bailout account hasn't shown a profit (and may not), what is the effect on the economy by keeping the company alive? How much tax income would we have lost had GM and all of the chain of suppliers fallen off-line? And how much larger would unemployment and welfare liabilities have become? Maybe it returned a net profit after all.
Another difference between the Federal government and Joe Public is what happens when we each spend a dollar. If we listen to politicians and politician wanna-bees, we might get the message that if we tax $1 from a business ("take $1 out of the economy") and then give it to another business or to Josephine Public, that it's a net wash - $1 out plus $1 in = 0 gain. That applies to us - yes, take $1 from Mom and give it to Sonny the household's net worth is the same. But this is NOT what happens with the government.
When the Fed releases $100 into the money supply, or when the government sends out a $100 in stimulus payments, it multiplies thru the system - and it returns MUCH MORE than $100 to the Federal Government in taxes - and increases the GDP across the board.
In addition, Joesephus Public cannot assemble their debt and SELL IT to other entities the way governments and businesses can.
The Federal Reserve banking system is independent of the politicians and is tasked with stabilizing the national economy and helping us achieve full employment. The president and congress are also supposed to be stabilizing the nation, providing for the common good, and stabilizing us on full employment. But as we've seen, the Fed can't move the economy by itself when part of Congress is pulling the other way.
We can fix our problem by cutting, as long as we think it's ok to start hacking and slashing during a recession/depression. [Look ma - our debt levels are lower! Yay us! Um, Sonny - who's left to spend/buy us out of the depression now?] We can also work to increase income. That means putting people to work. Jobs means a salary which means spending and tax payments and that will bubble thru the entire economy. Supply-side isn't working because no business in their right mind is going to spend or hire until we're pulling out of the recession and people start spending again. And massive amounts of unemployed people don't have the cash. Supply side will drive us more deeply into recession, while demand side will pull us out.
The far right has one self-proclaimed goal - to make President Obama a one-term president. Many have also signed a 'no new taxes' pledge concocted by a Republican strategist. As far as I'm concerned, those that have signed the pledge have taken an oath that directly conflicts with their 'other' oath - the one that requires them to support and defend the Constitution and people of this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I'll suggest that if they were subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice they'd be guilty of treason. Good thing they're not, I guess. Regardless - those in DC that are working in opposition to the betterment of the nation as a whole should be required to forfeit all pay and allowances, their tax-payer subsidized insurance and retirement program, and summarily run out of town (or dragged to, say, central Illinois by at least two large horses). (Of course, I mean this in the nicest sort of way...
)
I resisted economics for a very long time...but can highly recommend a semester of college macro econ. Toss in a US politics/US government course for good measure. I promise you that it's just like buying a large industrial size barrel of "Put the Smoke and Mirrors Away, Silly Politician and Sillier Wanna-Bee" and spraying it over DC from the belly of a B52. :lol:
Debt... Yes, we have it. We've had it since our own revolution and the money we owed the French for helping us out. But the federal accounts are NOT like Joe Public's credit union account regardless of how the Senate wants to try to dumb it down to score political points.
There is good debt and bad debt. Bad debt buys a liability. Good debt buys an asset that returns more than the value of the debt and interest. Most Americans with their cars and big screen TVs own bad debts - there's no way these things will ever increase our net worth. Businesses tend to invest in equipment - and when they borrow for a new piece of infrastructure, they fully expect it to pay back more than it costs. Modern governments should have larger gross domestic products and also larger levels of debt - and this can be seen in this graphic: http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock Hey - Ivory Coast's debt is falling - do we really think we want to 'go there'?! (As an aside - it's debt VS. GDP - and since we're in a recession (depression?!) the GDP side of things falls off - making the ratio look worse than it will when we recover.)
Look at TARP and other recent bailouts. Some of those paid back more than they cost us - they brought a direct profit. Good debt, those. Others like GM (sorry GM) haven't yet paid for themselves. And yet - even if GM's bailout account hasn't shown a profit (and may not), what is the effect on the economy by keeping the company alive? How much tax income would we have lost had GM and all of the chain of suppliers fallen off-line? And how much larger would unemployment and welfare liabilities have become? Maybe it returned a net profit after all.
Another difference between the Federal government and Joe Public is what happens when we each spend a dollar. If we listen to politicians and politician wanna-bees, we might get the message that if we tax $1 from a business ("take $1 out of the economy") and then give it to another business or to Josephine Public, that it's a net wash - $1 out plus $1 in = 0 gain. That applies to us - yes, take $1 from Mom and give it to Sonny the household's net worth is the same. But this is NOT what happens with the government.
When the Fed releases $100 into the money supply, or when the government sends out a $100 in stimulus payments, it multiplies thru the system - and it returns MUCH MORE than $100 to the Federal Government in taxes - and increases the GDP across the board.
In addition, Joesephus Public cannot assemble their debt and SELL IT to other entities the way governments and businesses can.
The Federal Reserve banking system is independent of the politicians and is tasked with stabilizing the national economy and helping us achieve full employment. The president and congress are also supposed to be stabilizing the nation, providing for the common good, and stabilizing us on full employment. But as we've seen, the Fed can't move the economy by itself when part of Congress is pulling the other way.
We can fix our problem by cutting, as long as we think it's ok to start hacking and slashing during a recession/depression. [Look ma - our debt levels are lower! Yay us! Um, Sonny - who's left to spend/buy us out of the depression now?] We can also work to increase income. That means putting people to work. Jobs means a salary which means spending and tax payments and that will bubble thru the entire economy. Supply-side isn't working because no business in their right mind is going to spend or hire until we're pulling out of the recession and people start spending again. And massive amounts of unemployed people don't have the cash. Supply side will drive us more deeply into recession, while demand side will pull us out.
The far right has one self-proclaimed goal - to make President Obama a one-term president. Many have also signed a 'no new taxes' pledge concocted by a Republican strategist. As far as I'm concerned, those that have signed the pledge have taken an oath that directly conflicts with their 'other' oath - the one that requires them to support and defend the Constitution and people of this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I'll suggest that if they were subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice they'd be guilty of treason. Good thing they're not, I guess. Regardless - those in DC that are working in opposition to the betterment of the nation as a whole should be required to forfeit all pay and allowances, their tax-payer subsidized insurance and retirement program, and summarily run out of town (or dragged to, say, central Illinois by at least two large horses). (Of course, I mean this in the nicest sort of way...
)I resisted economics for a very long time...but can highly recommend a semester of college macro econ. Toss in a US politics/US government course for good measure. I promise you that it's just like buying a large industrial size barrel of "Put the Smoke and Mirrors Away, Silly Politician and Sillier Wanna-Bee" and spraying it over DC from the belly of a B52. :lol:
AndyH
Well-known member
Bond demand is up in spite of our Tea-party downgrade. But it's not about bonds or debt, anyway, it's about return. Why should I buy treasuries when I can get almost 6% from Altria, 4.5% from Merck, 4.3% from Center Point energy, and more than 3% from McDonalds dividends?thankyouOB said:
Nekota
Well-known member
Well back on topic about EV haters - I have run into quite a few of them and they are neither republican nor democrat - just very outspoken and full of bad information. I get a few articles and emails from 'family' relations about failure modes, efficiency rebuttals and so on - but then I've been on early adopter status most of my life so maybe they are just checking out the rumors. Most of the more virulent types remind me of anti-nukes with FUD agendas, diarrhea of the mouth and constipated brains. Mostly they like the sound of their own voice and when one very irritating chap asked what am I going to do with the toxic battery, I made a comment that lithium is a suitable non-toxic medication for hysteria. The bad thing is other folks were interested about the LEAF but the attacks and interruptions completely derailed the conversations.
The bad thing is other folks were interested about the LEAF but the attacks and interruptions completely derailed the conversations.
walterbays
Well-known member
Yes! On topic. Thank you.Nekota said:
Plenty of liberals want to free the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil suppliers who hate us; and plenty of conservatives want to conserve the environment for future generations. And plenty of both can figure out that 2.5 cents per mile is less than 20 cents per mile.
planet4ever
Well-known member
Well, all I can say is, skimming through three+ pages of mostly hate talk on this thread has convinced me that, yes, there really are that many haters. I don't care whether you hate Obama or Ron Paul or the Tea party, whether you hate gun buffs or pacifists, it's still hate.
Lighten up, folks!
Ray
Lighten up, folks!
Ray
klapauzius
Well-known member
AndyH said:I'll agree with some of what you've said, Mitch, but cannot agree with others.
Debt... Yes, we have it. We've had it since our own revolution and the money we owed the French for helping us out. But the federal accounts are NOT like Joe Public's credit union account regardless of how the Senate wants to try to dumb it down to score political points.
There is good debt and bad debt. Bad debt buys a liability. Good debt buys an asset that returns more than the value of the debt and interest. Most Americans with their cars and big screen TVs own bad debts - there's no way these things will ever increase our net worth. Businesses tend to invest in equipment - and when they borrow for a new piece of infrastructure, they fully expect it to pay back more than it costs. Modern governments should have larger gross domestic products and also larger levels of debt - and this can be seen in this graphic: http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock Hey - Ivory Coast's debt is falling - do we really think we want to 'go there'?! (As an aside - it's debt VS. GDP - and since we're in a recession (depression?!) the GDP side of things falls off - making the ratio look worse than it will when we recover.)
Look at TARP and other recent bailouts. Some of those paid back more than they cost us - they brought a direct profit. Good debt, those. Others like GM (sorry GM) haven't yet paid for themselves. And yet - even if GM's bailout account hasn't shown a profit (and may not), what is the effect on the economy by keeping the company alive? How much tax income would we have lost had GM and all of the chain of suppliers fallen off-line? And how much larger would unemployment and welfare liabilities have become? Maybe it returned a net profit after all.
Another difference between the Federal government and Joe Public is what happens when we each spend a dollar. If we listen to politicians and politician wanna-bees, we might get the message that if we tax $1 from a business ("take $1 out of the economy") and then give it to another business or to Josephine Public, that it's a net wash - $1 out plus $1 in = 0 gain. That applies to us - yes, take $1 from Mom and give it to Sonny the household's net worth is the same. But this is NOT what happens with the government.
When the Fed releases $100 into the money supply, or when the government sends out a $100 in stimulus payments, it multiplies thru the system - and it returns MUCH MORE than $100 to the Federal Government in taxes - and increases the GDP across the board.
In addition, Joesephus Public cannot assemble their debt and SELL IT to other entities the way governments and businesses can.
The Federal Reserve banking system is independent of the politicians and is tasked with stabilizing the national economy and helping us achieve full employment. The president and congress are also supposed to be stabilizing the nation, providing for the common good, and stabilizing us on full employment. But as we've seen, the Fed can't move the economy by itself when part of Congress is pulling the other way.
We can fix our problem by cutting, as long as we think it's ok to start hacking and slashing during a recession/depression. [Look ma - our debt levels are lower! Yay us! Um, Sonny - who's left to spend/buy us out of the depression now?] We can also work to increase income. That means putting people to work. Jobs means a salary which means spending and tax payments and that will bubble thru the entire economy. Supply-side isn't working because no business in their right mind is going to spend or hire until we're pulling out of the recession and people start spending again. And massive amounts of unemployed people don't have the cash. Supply side will drive us more deeply into recession, while demand side will pull us out.
The far right has one self-proclaimed goal - to make President Obama a one-term president. Many have also signed a 'no new taxes' pledge concocted by a Republican strategist. As far as I'm concerned, those that have signed the pledge have taken an oath that directly conflicts with their 'other' oath - the one that requires them to support and defend the Constitution and people of this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I'll suggest that if they were subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice they'd be guilty of treason. Good thing they're not, I guess. Regardless - those in DC that are working in opposition to the betterment of the nation as a whole should be required to forfeit all pay and allowances, their tax-payer subsidized insurance and retirement program, and summarily run out of town (or dragged to, say, central Illinois by at least two large horses). (Of course, I mean this in the nicest sort of way...
I resisted economics for a very long time...but can highly recommend a semester of college macro econ. Toss in a US politics/US government course for good measure. I promise you that it's just like buying a large industrial size barrel of "Put the Smoke and Mirrors Away, Silly Politician and Sillier Wanna-Bee" and spraying it over DC from the belly of a B52. :lol:
I totally agree. Its sad that so many voters have no clue about basic macro economics.
Another thing to add is this:
While an individual will eventually grow old (and thus loose its ability to generate income (unless you sit on a huge trustfund)) and will have to bring its finances in order eventually, a government "lives" potentially forever and if anything, its income increases over time. That is the reason why deficits (if they dont get too big) are totally sustainable and the absolute amount of debt, which has stirred such a ruckus lately, is almost meaningless (again in stark contrast to individuals). The only thing that really matters is the ratio of deficit to GDP.
In the end, there is an easy way out of the current situation: Raising taxes, which will bring the deficit back under control. If taxes here were as high as they are in Europe, there would be no deficit.
smkettner
Well-known member
It will get far worse before it gets better.
mitch672
Well-known member
smkettner said:It will get far worse before it gets better.
unfortunatley, that's true. I hope we can survive it. There is only so far you can tax the younger workforce, before they revolt (hence my comment about the 2nd American revoltion), they are going to realize there's nothing going to be left tfor them. Starting over might be the way out though, time will tell. whats the saying, oh yeah, "we have the best government money can buy" (unfortunatley its corporations buying it)
I mentioned all of the above as, its not all about "ev hatred" and goverment handouts, we have far more serious problems.
