If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP THE SPENDING! PERIOD! Any politician who votes for greatly reduced spending votes for reduced services and thus is not reelected. It's a feedback loop that across history all democracies have fallen into. One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time. Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well. You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost. Greece takes down the Euro. UK smiles at the wisdom of not joining the Euro. Then the UK, US and pretty much everyone else fails as well. But ... Plenty of countries have had their currency fail in history. They recovered. Argentina is doing fine. It will be rough but the currency failure won't be the end. Just another cycle. The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the livestock. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the respective governments would get out of the way. What were once subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) More and more land gets dedicated to grain. Other crops are not as calorie efficient. It's why civilization started in the first place and as our population grows that same fact pushes grain even more. It will take time for the value of other crops to dominate. are now often forced to move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or international aide. That's not by accident either, because government wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. What better way could a government want as a way to control its people? Have you read the theory of "water monopolies"? That's a more effective way. Not a "better" way. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000, Elmo
wrote: On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote: On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, wrote: Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe. You really don't know much about govt, do you. You might find a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen that from you, let alone the entire Congress. Your president is lying? Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and Greece. Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the transcripts from congress, upper and lower? Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper and lower. No? What is the senate? It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the other. We keep telling you that you should stick to what you know (whatever the hell that might be), than to things you obviously know nothing about, but you just won't listen. In other words, you have no such economist. I have a fistful of them, but then I don't go through life with my eyes wide shut. Post proof or retract! Socialism is to blame - even in countries that are not socialist. Good trick - if it were true. Providing for the citizens of a country is a government's job, it has nothing to do with socialism as a political direction. No, it's not. The job of any just government is to provide for the citizens who are UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES! But the governmet should leave the rest of us alone. We can provide for ourselves. So, if they held debt obligations linked to those markets, how is it the fault of the USA and not their own greed and stupidity? They trusted the US when it kept saying that it could control things fiscally. LOL. Who exactly said that? No one needed to say it because no one saw the real estate meltdown coming. Many did, it was headlined and discussed well before it finally happened. The US kept assuring all concerned that it would be controlled. A bit like the WMDs, all bull****. Post proof or retract! That's how it goes with most financial meltdowns and recessions. To believe your case, you'd have to believe banks in Europe had exposure to real estate in the USA without knowing how fast it had gone up, how far, and that loans were being made with little or nothing down. They did, they were heavily invested. But the question remains: Why would anyone in his or her right mind invest in a security comprised of securities like that? Think about that a while before you reply. Yes, I'll have another helping of a billion dollars of those CMO's please, no need to check them out.... Are Canadian bankers that stupid that they can't figure out how secure any of their investments are? And when some of them blow up, instead of being adults and taking responsibility, do they whine about it being the US that "mislead" them? Canada has reduced its debt considerably over the past decade - the US has increased its debt. That link that the not so bright dogboy provided whilst trying to denigrate Canada had this to say. "In 1990, 38 cents of every dollar taken by Ottawa was spent just paying the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to increased tax revenues, lower interest rates and 11 straight years of debt repayment, that figure is down to 13.5 cents. Why would we want to go back?" In 2010, the U.S. spent $197 billion on interest, and generated $2,162 billion in tax revenues (in a down year) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ederal_budget). According to my math (which shouldn't be too different from the Canadian version), that equals 9.12% (or 9.12 cents), substantially less than your current rate of 13.5%. So why is your interest expense (as a percentage of revenues) STILL so much greater than ours? Canada has it "US styled" politicians too, but people are turning on them. Did you not notice our 2010 election results? At least Canada's debt is measured in billions, not trillions. We have ~ 10 times as many citizens as you do (except in January and February, when you all visit Florida), and the world's largest economy. I think that you have a problem with reality. Really? You're the one that claimed China owns all the US debt, when in fact it's 8%. I said that China holds the majority of US foreign debt, Just how stupid are you? 8% is NOT a majority. Just how stupid are you? Your own Government makes this claim. Tip: Look up the words "majority" and "plurality" in your Funk & Wagnall. that it holds more than any other nation. It does, that is indisputable. The US is in hock to China. As far as foreign countries, yes, China does hold the most. Since when is "most" not a majority? See: Above. It is pointless discussing anything with you, you contradicts yourself from one sentence to the next. It's narrowly more than that which Japan owns. It's 8% of the total debt. So what? What countries own Canada's debt? Foreign countries are lining up to buy US debt because they know that in these uncertain times, it's still one of the safest investments in the world. Bull****! They are only trying to protect initial investments. No one trusts the US currency - it is why the US credit rating has just been downgraded By one rating house! Jeez, you're one of the most ignorant, uninformed people I've ever encountered. You should move down here and become a Democrat. You'd fit right in. -- Dogman |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: Dogman wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP THE SPENDING! PERIOD! Any politician who votes for greatly reduced spending votes for reduced services and thus is not reelected. It's a feedback loop that across history all democracies have fallen into. That's because we have very few politicians who even know how to explain our situation clearly. I'm hoping the GOP comes up with someone who can do just that. One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time. Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well. You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost. Greece takes down the Euro. UK smiles at the wisdom of not joining the Euro. Then the UK, US and pretty much everyone else fails as well. But ... Plenty of countries have had their currency fail in history. They recovered. Argentina is doing fine. It will be rough but the currency failure won't be the end. Just another cycle. Yes, but people are impatient, and maybe a little soft. The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the livestock. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the respective governments would get out of the way. What were once subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) More and more land gets dedicated to grain. Other crops are not as calorie efficient. It's why civilization started in the first place and as our population grows that same fact pushes grain even more. It will take time for the value of other crops to dominate. Yes, but history always moves slowly. are now often forced to move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or international aide. That's not by accident either, because government wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. What better way could a government want as a way to control its people? Have you read the theory of "water monopolies"? That's a more effective way. Not a "better" way. Sure, but the same thing applies to water. How can there ever be a shortage of water? We have ~ 326 million trillion gallons of water! http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...uestion157.htm What's missing are better ways to desalinize, capture, store, transport, etc. water, and make it easier for us to get at it. And governments would probably prefer to keep things just the way they are. "You want some water? Go see our Water Czar, Madam Mildred Higginbothom, Esq., she'll get you what you need. And don't forget to vote for me in the next election!" Sheesh. -- Dogman |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:59:46 -0400, Patricia Martin Steward
wrote: [...] BWAH!!! TROLL. -- Dogman |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On 10/17/2011 3:21 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:19:41 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP THE SPENDING! PERIOD! One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time. Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well. You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost. The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the livestock. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the respective governments would get out of the way. What were once subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or international aide. That's not by accident either, because government wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. Do they? Why? Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory? What better way could a government want as a way to control its people? There's already no good reason for anyone on this planet to ever starve, if governments would just stay out of the way. I'd worry more about the damage done by too much food than by too little. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:28:36 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the respective governments would get out of the way. What were once subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or international aide. That's not by accident either, because government wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. Do they? Yes. Why? I told you why. Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory? See: the history of virtually any African country (start off with Zimbawe), some Southeast Asian countries, some Central and South American countries, etc. And it's no "conspiracy theory." It's just what leftist tyrants do. That's even what the Democrats do (or try to do), which is now a radical lefist party. -- Dogman |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On 18/10/2011 4:58 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000, wrote: On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote: On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, wrote: Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe. You really don't know much about govt, do you. You might find a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen that from you, let alone the entire Congress. Your president is lying? Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and Greece. Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the transcripts from congress, upper and lower? Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper and lower. No? What is the senate? It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the other. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_senate "United States Senate The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.[1] Each U.S. state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. Senators serve staggered six-year terms. The chamber of the United States Senate is located in the north wing of the Capitol, in Washington, D.C., the national capital. The House of Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building." |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On 18/10/2011 4:00 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:48:38 +1000, wrote: [...] Again, moron, you asked why the debt is increasing. It's because we keep spending more than taxes bring in. I know why it is increasing, as does anyone who is sentient and capable of reading. I just wanted you to admit it. I've been saying that from the get-go. So has everyone else. That you're just now figuring it out, well, you must be a member of Mensa too, EH? you spend huge amounts but have nothing to show for it The most powerful nation on earth has nothing to show for it? The US is no longer the most powerful nation on earth. It was for a while, but those days are gone. China is the next superpower. Producers of the most technology, Bull****. the most food, Bull****. the best health-care Laughable. system, the most medical advancements, Hilarious. the best pharmaceutical drugs, You have to be kidding. The most prolific, not the best. The best are those that work best, not those that are promoted the best. the most scientific advancements, Yeah, the Hadron Collider is under Washington - right? the best military, Yes, that's why they fire off nearly a quarter of a million rounds for every enemy hit while other countries' troops only fire a few hundred for every hit. Your own congress had a big bitch about this little fact a few years back. Much of the rest of the world, since WW2 has refereed to Yankee troops as "Ice Cream Soldiers". The only thing that the US military had was a government that would spend more money on them. The US army was usually better equipped, but never better soldiers. the best institutions of higher learning, Is that why so many Americans are semi-literate. You can always tell an American online - their poor standard of English gives them away. You haven't been following the internationals tertiary standards and subsequent debate about falling US tertiary standards, have you? one of the highest standards of living, etc. Wasn't it you who posted a link not long ago that showed several other countries, including Australia and Denmark being much higher? have nothing to show for it? Yes, you have nothing to show for all the wasted trillions. Are you from Canada, or from Pluto? Yes other than more enemies and less international respect. I think it's a pretty good exercise, actually, to be judged by the kinds of countries who hate us, and are our enemies. You mean most of the western world? Knowing that countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. hate us, well, that just brings a smile to my face. Most countries' debts are a results of spending that has given their citizens advantage. U.S citizens have had it pretty good for a long, long time, if they were willing to work hard for a living. A lot of that debt is due to providing a safety net for those who are unable or unwilling to work for a living. That is bull****, as the safety net spending is relatively recent. You were trying to catch up to other western countries who already had such things in pace. Even now you are not even close to Canada, the UK, Australia etc., with regard to basic social and medical services. And when we send you the bill for living under our nuclear umbrella all these years, your debt is going to go through the roof. Dream on, US nuclear armed or powered ships have been banned, barred access in many western ports for decades. They are neither wanted nor needed. It's really that simple, which means that you won't be able to understand it. I can understand you and there isn't much around that is simpler than you are. Well, there is one thing... Tell you what...you worry about Canada's debt, and I'll worry about America's. I am not worried about Canada's debt, Canadians, aren't governed by fiscal illiterates, Then how did you get all that debt? Canada doesn't start wars But what it does, of course, is live safely under our nuclear umbrella, for which Americans pay. By the way, we don't start wars either. But we're pretty good at finishing them. Bull**** again. You have not won any war, including the war of independence, unaided. Canada will eventually overcome it Of course you will. And so will the U.S. And it'll happen that much faster by you worrying only about YOUR problems, while we worry about ours, you pompous, arrogant, ungrateful little prick. You have it wrong, I am not worried about the US disintegration, I am amused by it. The US' Karma has finally run over its Dogma. With neighbors like you, we don't need enemies. You might not need them, but have sure go them. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Oct 17, 2:58*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000, Elmo wrote: On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote: On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, *wrote: Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe. * *You really don't know much about govt, do you. *You might find a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen that from you, let alone the entire Congress. Your president is lying? Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and Greece. Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the transcripts from congress, upper and lower? Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper and lower. No? What is the senate? It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the other. Exactly. We keep telling you that you should stick to what you know (whatever the hell that might be), than to things you obviously know nothing about, but you just won't listen. In other words, you have no such economist. I have a fistful of them, but then I don't go through life with my eyes wide shut. Post proof or retract! Clearly he has not even one such economist. Do you notice this with libs too Dogman? It's all emotion, rarely fact. And when presented with actual facts they just ignore it. Or they can't use the facts in any kind of reasonable comparison. I was listening to one particularly ignorant lib on the radio yesterday. She was trying to make the case that American companies are shifting jobs and money overseas to avoid taxes. There is certainly some truth to that. But what does she bring up as examples? Apple and Google. Unbelievable, right? It took me about 30 seconds to use Google to get the 10K on both companies. Google made like $10bil in profit and paid 21% of it in tax. Apple paid about 25%. And we both know they are classic American success stories with most of the high paying jobs here in the USA. Yet, knowing she was going to be on the radio, it was still to hell with the facts, let's just spew emotion based on lies and villify solid US companies that we should be using as role models. Socialism is to blame - even in countries that are not socialist. Good trick - if it were true. Providing for the citizens of a country is a government's job, it has nothing to do with socialism as a political direction. No, it's not. The job of any just government is to provide for the citizens who are UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES! But the governmet should leave the rest of us alone. *We can provide for ourselves. Exactly. So, if they held debt obligations linked to those markets, how is it the fault of the USA and not their own greed and stupidity? They trusted the US when it kept saying that it could control things fiscally. LOL. *Who exactly said that? *No one needed to say it because no one saw the real estate meltdown coming. Many did, it was headlined and discussed well before it finally happened. The US kept assuring all concerned that it would be controlled. A bit like the WMDs, all bull****. Post proof or retract! Exactly. Like you Dogman, I actually live here and know what went on. As with much of his nonsense, it's not even clear what he's referring to. Assurances? About exactly what? By whom, the govt? Prior to the sub-prime meltdown really hitting the fan, there was not even discussion of it being a problem, let alone assurances. That's how it goes with most financial meltdowns and recessions. *To believe your case, you'd have to believe banks in Europe had exposure to real estate in the USA without knowing how fast it had gone up, how far, and that loans were being made with little or nothing down. They did, they were heavily invested. But the question remains: *Why would anyone in his or her right mind invest in a security comprised of securities like that? Think about that a while before you reply. He has thought about it and knows there is no answer other than those that invested in those securities were just as greedy and foolish as the other parties that got burned. Yes, I'll have another helping of a billion dollars of * those CMO's please, no need to check them out.... Are Canadian bankers that stupid that they can't figure out how secure any of their investments are? And when some of them blow up, instead of being adults and taking responsibility, do they whine about it being the US that "mislead" them? Canada has reduced its debt considerably over the past decade - the US has increased its debt. That link that the not so bright dogboy provided whilst trying to denigrate Canada had this to say. "In 1990, 38 cents of every dollar taken by Ottawa was spent just paying the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to increased tax revenues, lower interest rates and 11 straight years of debt repayment, that figure is down to 13.5 cents. *Why would we want to go back?" In 2010, the U.S. spent $197 billion on interest, and generated $2,162 billion in tax revenues (in a down year) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ederal_budget). According to my math (which shouldn't be too different from the Canadian version), that equals 9.12% (or 9.12 cents), substantially less than your current rate of 13.5%. So why is your interest expense (as a percentage of revenues) STILL so much greater than ours? And why does he claim the USA is broke and can't meet it's debt obligations when our interest payments are a lower percent of tax revenue than Canada, where everything is peachy keen? Also, keep in mind that 9% is with tax receipts still being kept down by an economy barely growing. When the economy is growing at 3% again as we all know it will, that 9% will shrink dramatically. Canada has it "US styled" politicians too, but people are turning on them. Did you not notice our 2010 election results? At least Canada's debt is measured in billions, not trillions. We have ~ 10 times as many citizens as you do (except in January and February, when you all visit Florida), and the world's largest economy. Unbelievable. Just like with debt to GDP, no sense of how one fairly compares anything. I think that you have a problem with reality. Really? * You're the one that claimed China owns all the US debt, when in fact it's 8%. I said that China holds the majority of US foreign debt, Just how stupid are you? *8% is NOT a majority. Just how stupid are you? Your own Government makes this claim. Tip: Look up the words "majority" and "plurality" in your Funk & Wagnall. And he's the one bitching about the educational system in the USA? He's incapable of even using a dictionary. that it holds more than any other nation. It does, that is indisputable. The US is in hock to China. As far as foreign countries, yes, China does hold the most. Since when is "most" not a majority? See: Above. LOL +1 It is pointless discussing anything with you, you contradicts yourself from one sentence to the next. It's narrowly more than that which Japan owns. *It's 8% of the total debt. *So what? *What countries own Canada's debt? Foreign countries are lining up to buy US debt because they know that in these uncertain times, it's still one of the safest investments in the world. Bull****! They are only trying to protect initial investments. No one trusts the US currency - it is why the US credit rating has just been downgraded By one rating house! I see. The reason everyone from grandma to China is buying more US bonds is because they want to protect their investment. I wonder how that works for him in his portolio? Stock is at 50, buy some. Company is doing poorly, stock at 20, buy more to protect it. Stock at 5, buy even more. When it hits 2 cents on the pink sheets he'll have the maximum protection. A real financial genius we have here. Elsewhere in the thread, he claimed the US isn't a leader in high tech. Gee, I wonder where the Canadian Intels, Microsofts and Apples are? Why, even a kid in a college room created Dell and Facebook here in America. Oh, and how about scince? The USA has 270 Noble prize winners. Canada? 12. But unlike the troll, I'll be fair. The US has about 9 times the population. So if we had the same population as Canada we'd have 270/9, or about 30 compared to their 12. Nuff said. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On 10/17/2011 6:25 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:28:36 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the respective governments would get out of the way. What were once subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or international aide. That's not by accident either, because government wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. Do they? Yes. Why? I told you why. Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory? See: the history of virtually any African country (start off with Zimbawe), some Southeast Asian countries, some Central and South American countries, etc. And it's no "conspiracy theory." It's just what leftist tyrants do. That's even what the Democrats do (or try to do), which is now a radical lefist party. Actually governments depend on their citizens for their existence. You have it backwards. The Democrats are not radical left, you are radical right. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|