Ouch.... [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

NormanPride

4/28/2009, 10:40 AM

****, I don't know. I'm a ****ing computer consultant. People go to decades of schooling for that. What I know, however, is that the national debt has increased since President Obama has taken office. Whether or not that impacts the economy positively in the long run is up for debate by smarter and better-informed people than I, but it sure as hell doesn't make people feel better. That, I think, is the point of the graph, despite the idiotic picture in the background.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 10:44 AM

the national debt has increased since President Obama has taken office

I could be wrong, but I think the national debt has increased under every president since at least Reagan. The debt increased more during the past eight years than ever before, and where were the "budget hawk" right-wingers then?

NormanPride

4/28/2009, 10:55 AM

I could be wrong, but I think the national debt has increased under every president since at least Reagan. The debt increased more during the past eight years than ever before, and where were the "budget hawk" right-wingers then?

Jerking off to "Bombs over Baghdad"? Look, alls I'm sayin' is that Pres. Obama borrowed a crapload of money to help the economy out, and it's hurt the bottom line on our national debt crisis. He's still got another 4 years minus 100 days to prove he can at least put a dent in it.

Sooner02

4/28/2009, 10:58 AM

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/02/debtgnp_80ba7.gif

C&CDean

4/28/2009, 11:30 AM

So, what you're saying is that we need Nixon and Ford back?

JLEW1818

4/28/2009, 11:34 AM

So, what you're saying is that we need Nixon and Ford back?

SO YOUR SAYING THERES A CHANCE!!!!!!

:D

yermom

4/28/2009, 11:43 AM

i thought we were just trying to devalue our currency so that our debt to China wouldn't be worth anything

jaux

4/28/2009, 11:51 AM

You young hard working folks are royally screwed which is really ironic since BHO got most of your votes.

Turd_Ferguson

4/28/2009, 12:00 PM

young hard working folks.Isn't that an oxymoron?:D

StoopTroup

4/28/2009, 12:12 PM

Once we have control of 90% of the World's Herion Columbia's Chavez will realise he's got the #2 product.

Right now he thinks his crack rock trumps our China White. Boy is he wrong.

;)

Opium and Heroin can really help when it comes to selling off debt.

Okieflyer

4/28/2009, 12:17 PM

How would you deal with the recession?

Let the companies fail and file bankrupcy. Take the hit now and come out of it for the better. The problem gets to be we prop up these companies and they never fix the problems that caused the problems in the first place.

What do you think mdklatt? You seem to argue a point pretty well. I know we disagree about politics and don't mind the opposite veiw point given in a well thought out way. Do you think this is the way to go?

swardboy

4/28/2009, 12:32 PM

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/02/debtgnp_80ba7.gif

That's a strong cup and handle formation.....only term limits can save us. The mad greed of power will not allow for meaningful reduction in government.

KC//CRIMSON

4/28/2009, 01:14 PM

KC//CRIMSON

4/28/2009, 01:15 PM

You young hard working folks are royally screwed which is really ironic since BHO got most of your votes.

This offends me, how do I give you a yellow card?

C&CDean

4/28/2009, 01:31 PM

There. I gave you one just so you could give one to jaux. You're due for one anyhow with all your Tubaesque crapola from the far left wing anyhow.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 01:57 PM

Let the companies fail and file bankrupcy. Take the hit now and come out of it for the better. The problem gets to be we prop up these companies and they never fix the problems that caused the problems in the first place.

From what I understand, that was the Hoover administration's plan. Determining the success of that plan is left as an exercise for the reader. :cool:

What do you think mdklatt? You seem to argue a point pretty well. I know we disagree about politics and don't mind the opposite veiw point given in a well thought out way. Do you think this is the way to go?

I'm no economist, but based on past experience the smart money is on doing the opposite of whatever the Republicans want to do on any given issue. Do the Republicans even have a plan? Oh wait...it's lower taxes, right--their solution to any economic situation. Budget surplus? Lower taxes! Budget deficit? Lower taxes! Booming economy? Lower taxes! Looming depression? Lower taxes!

The economy depends on the circulation of money, so how does giving more money to the people who already have money fix anything? I know, lower taxes means investment blah blah blah. Capital investment is not the problem right now. The problem is that not enough people are buying the **** that companies are selling. You can give Business Owner Bob all the tax breaks you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental problem that people aren't buying his ****. He's not going to increase his payroll just because he can.

The post-Depression years prove that government spending can stimulate the economy, however, we have to be prepared for lower spending and higher taxes in the future once things are moving forward again. That's not a concept Americans are very good at.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 02:02 PM

Look, alls I'm sayin' is that Pres. Obama borrowed a crapload of money to help the economy out, and it's hurt the bottom line on our national debt crisis.

You act like this is something new. I'll take tax and spend Democrats over borrow and spend Republicans any time.

NormanPride

4/28/2009, 02:41 PM

You act like this is something new. I'll take tax and spend Democrats over borrow and spend Republicans any time.

The problem is that neither do us any help. Republicans borrow, and the Democrats spend their money on government programs that never seem to go away.

I still say we need to make government office like a prison, so that nobody but the truly dedicated want to work there.

soonerhubs

4/28/2009, 04:04 PM

You act like this is something new. I'll take tax and spend Democrats over borrow and spend Republicans any time.

This is so true, and this is one of the reasons I'm disgusted with Big Government republicans.

I personally have to disagree with the mantra exclusively against low taxes. However, I suggest that "W" and the Republican majority in congress from the 90s up till 2 years ago lost their way somewhere midstream. Mdklatt's point really hits home and it is so right, as I suggest the republicans missed the opportunity to truly lead the country when they decided to keep spending high while pimping lower taxes. This does NOT work!

I also suggest that many of the problems that got us into this mess involved the elimination of regulations and the promotion of a global market that doesn't play be even half of the rules by which the United States is required to play.

Great post mdklatt! I just wish the Republican party would pull their heads out of the sand and listen up.

Also, I'm wishing we had more of a balanced government. Is there a reason we switch from extreme right to extreme left? What happened checks and balances? I'm against either party having a majority because I believe both have proven to be not trustworthy in such circumstances.

NP that's sounds like a suggestion made by Gerry Spence, right?

JLEW1818

4/28/2009, 04:10 PM

The average college kid wants to be different, they want to feel the power. They think its cool taxing the so called wealthy, or people making over 250,000. Even though the wealthy are the people with the money, aka the people who own companies aka the people WHO GIVE JOBS TO AMERICANS. What is an owner going to do when he/she gets taxed more? Cut liabilities. aka YOU,ME,HIM,HER.

Howzit

4/28/2009, 04:12 PM

You act like this is something new. I'll take tax and spend Democrats over borrow and spend Republicans any time.

Yes, but where do you come down on the new generation tax AND borrow and spend Democrats?

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 05:06 PM

When was that time, again when we soaked the wealthy with tax increases and it revived the economy. Oh, yeah, that's right it's never happened.

Anytime someone's ready, go ahead and answer this...

When was the last time that the top 5 percent earners in the U.S. were struggling (for any reason) and the middle 70 percent were thriving at the same time.

Ponder that as hard and long as you can.

A kick in the nuts to them, is an even bigger kick in the nuts to us. If you can't understand that, you're a ****ing moron.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 05:36 PM

Yes, but where do you come down on the new generation tax AND borrow and spend Democrats?

You all make it sound like we're not in the middle of a huge economic cluster**** right now. Racking up more government debt is bad, but letting the economy completely go down the tubes is worse.

NormanPride

4/28/2009, 05:40 PM

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 05:41 PM

When was that time, again when we soaked the wealthy with tax increases and it revived the economy. Oh, yeah, that's right it's never happened.

Oh for ****'s sake. A 3% increase on the marginal rate above $250,000 is soaking the rich? If you make $300,000, that's only a $125/month increase in taxes.

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 05:59 PM

Has the top 5% ever really struggled?

Sure they have. Just ask a yacht salesman. Charities, 5 star hotels, employees, Saks 5A, etc...

Jumping on the media driven anti-corporation/wealthy/successful bandwagon is akin to aggies hating Sooners. It's counterproductive, sophomoric and sad.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 06:06 PM

Sure they have. Just ask a yacht salesman. Charities, 5 star hotels, employees, Saks 5A, etc...

What's more important to the economy, yacht brokers and Nieman Marcus or Target and Wal-Mart?

(Interestingly, Nieman Marcus is seeing a drop in "aspirational shoppers", but no change in its core customer base.)

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 06:07 PM

Oh for ****'s sake. A 3% increase on the marginal rate above $250,000 is soaking the rich? If you make $300,000, that's only a $125/month increase in taxes.

and back to the real world for a moment...

Let's say a guy that sales widgets is humming right along at about 30 to 40% decrease in sales compared to 2007. He's fighting to stay alive right now and even a small tax increase matters.

Hope this helps.

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 06:12 PM

and back to the real world for a moment...

Let's say a guy that sales widgets is humming right along at about 30 to 40% decrease in sales compared to 2007. He's fighting to stay alive right now and even a small tax increase matters.

Hope this helps.

If you are netting $300,000 as a business owner, and a 0.5% increase in taxes is going to cause you to close up shop, ur doin it rong.

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 06:16 PM

What's more important to the economy, yacht brokers and Nieman Marcus or Target and Wal-Mart?

(Interestingly, Nieman Marcus is seeing a drop in "aspirational shoppers", but no change in its core customer base.)

I guess you didn't see the employees that I slipped in there.

btw, you don't really follow this stuff do you

Luxury retailers in particular suffered, with high-end department store chains Neiman Marcus Inc., Nordstrom Inc. and Saks Inc. all posting double-digit declines.

Neiman Marcus is reducing inventory and marking down prices after suffering a staggering 26.8% sales decline, Chief Executive Burton M. Tansky said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/07/business/fi-econ7

soonerscuba

4/28/2009, 06:19 PM

I'm sad we made this far without a "300k/y isn't rich" post yet.

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 06:21 PM

If you are netting $300,000 as a business owner, and a 0.5% increase in taxes is going to cause you to close up shop, ur doin it rong.

300K isn't as much to someone who used to net 500K with a 20K/month nut.

If you don't understand what that means, then we should probably just stop here.

StoopTroup

4/28/2009, 06:22 PM

I'm sad we made this far without a "300k/y isn't rich" post yet.

NSFW

CDkCE7WqxOE

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 06:32 PM

I guess you didn't see the employees that I slipped in there.

Okay, so who employs more people? Luxury outlets or mainstream retail? Putting money in the hands of Wal-Mart shoppers is more important right now than keeping money in the hands of Neiman Marcus shoppers. In other words, the rich aren't going to stay rich by only doing business amongst themselves.

btw, you don't really follow this stuff do you

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/07/business/fi-econ7

How does that contradict anything I said? NM sales are down because the aspirational shoppers are going back to Target. Their core customers haven't changed their spending habits much. That's according to some NM muckety-muck quoted in the Dallas Morning News a week or two ago (but I can't find the article online for some reason).

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 06:36 PM

300K isn't as much to someone who used to net 500K with a 20K/month nut.

That's 300K more than they'd be making if they shutter their business, so I don't see your point.

XingTheRubicon

4/28/2009, 06:39 PM

It's obvious you don't

mdklatt

4/28/2009, 06:48 PM

It's obvious you don't

Then I guess you need to explain it better. If I own a business netting $300,000/year (because gross business receipts aren't taxed, right?), how is an added $1500/year in taxes going to put me under? If I'm an individual making $300,000/year, how is an extra $1500/year going to put me in the poor house?

theresonly1OU

4/28/2009, 07:01 PM

Okay, so who employs more people? Luxury outlets or mainstream retail? Putting money in the hands of the Russian middle class is more important right now than keeping money in the hands of the Russian aristocrats. In other words, the rich aren't going to stay rich by only doing business amongst themselves.

fixed.

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 07:07 PM

Heh, actually you're right. Fixed. But I doubt you know why.

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 07:14 PM

But, ultimately, as far as it goes guys, this whole meme with rich people employing everyone and how they are going to employ less people if you tax them at high rates?

Why don't you go take a look at the post-WWII period, the employment levels, the growth of the middle class, and the tax rates.

Then, if you aren't completely disingenuous, you'll go "Wait, why doesn't the data match my assertion?".

And you Republicans whining about the budget deficit that voted for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? Go add up how much of the current national debt was rolled up under those three. This time I won't bother telling you to down a nice big cup of STFU, because if you're complaining about the debt and you voted for those three, I already know you're a monumental hypocrite.

theresonly1OU

4/28/2009, 07:18 PM

Heh, actually you're right. Fixed. But I doubt you know why.

Because you have the market cornered on intelligent posts?

KC//CRIMSON

4/28/2009, 07:20 PM

Because you have the market cornered on intelligent posts?

I bet he knows how to spell "softmore" correctly....

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 07:21 PM

Because you have the market cornered on intelligent posts?

Nah. Because if you knew why, you would have picked a better example to illustrate your point.

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 07:23 PM

But basically, if the wealth and political power in Russia pre-1917 had been distributed a little more equally instead of being concentrated in the hands of the upper-class, the Russian Revolution likely wouldn't have been sparked, and we wouldn't have had that 70-odd year cluster**** of an experiment known as the USSR.

theresonly1OU

4/28/2009, 07:40 PM

Nah. Because if you knew why, you would have picked a better example to illustrate your point.

Or maybe I just felt like changing a few words.

But thanks for your ASSumption.

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 07:46 PM

And you Republicans whining about the budget deficit that voted for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? Go add up how much of the current national debt was rolled up under those three.

Here, I'll make it real simple for you guys, since I already did this back in February:

Ronald Reagan would have dug you in. In fact, he did. Over his 2 terms, Reagan almost trebled the debt.

I mean, you do realize that the last three republican administrations are responsible for 85% of the total national debt, right? About 80% if you include this bill.

Obama would have to spend over $15 trillion over the next 8 years to match the rate at which Reagan grew the debt.

So you Republicans complaining about the debt? Feel free to start voting for a President who actually cares about the debt. I won't hold my breath, because unless you voted for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, you haven't actually done it since Ford.

(And FWIW, by "spend $15 trillion", I meant "accumulate $15 trillion of additional debt." My bad.)

bluedogok

4/28/2009, 07:51 PM

Then I guess you need to explain it better. If I own a business netting $300,000/year (because gross business receipts aren't taxed, right?), how is an added $1500/year in taxes going to put me under? If I'm an individual making $300,000/year, how is an extra $1500/year going to put me in the poor house?
Business taxes are ultimately paid by the consumers, those taxes are passed onto all of us and if some businesses try to raise their prices to cover the increase in taxes it might cause their sales to go down. Ultimately ALL taxes are paid by the general populace and not by the top 5% no matter how you try to tax them or their businesses.

Vaevictis

4/28/2009, 08:02 PM

There is some truth to the notion that businesses will past on cost to their consumers, but it's limited by "where they can".

If the government raises the top marginal rate high enough that the effective rate on top executives is 90%, I doubt you're going to see a 10x increase in their salary. In fact, I think that if you go look at the data from the past 30 years or so, you're going to see the opposite relation.

One of the things you guys need to realize is that high income tax rates turn businesses into an incredibly attractive tax shelter, essentially encouraging reinvestment in the business instead of profit taking -- this is, in part, why the argument falls apart when you look at the post-WWII period.

Boards couldn't justify to their shareholders paying an executive an additional dollar that would be taxed at 90% when they could buy production that yields both an increase in revenue/profits and a deduction, or a dividend payout to their less-wealthy shareholders that got taxed at a much lower rate.

bluedogok

4/28/2009, 08:06 PM

Raise the taxes high enough and corporations and management will start moving to low tax havens and try to cut the IRS out as much as possible...even more than they do now. there has to be a balance between how much is too much and not enough. The problem is that line varies from person to person.

Howzit

4/29/2009, 09:07 AM

You all make it sound like we're not in the middle of a huge economic cluster**** right now. Racking up more government debt is bad, but letting the economy completely go down the tubes is worse.

I would say that you make it sound that way. What do you do when you are financially strapped? If you have to borrow to dig out of a hole, do you also increase your spending on other stuff you always had wet dreams about doing? I don't. I wait until I dig out and can afford it.

mdklatt

4/29/2009, 09:13 AM

Business taxes are ultimately paid by the consumers, those taxes are passed onto all of us and if some businesses try to raise their prices to cover the increase in taxes it might cause their sales to go down.

If my hypothetical $300k business owner really wants to stick his customers with higher prices at a time when everyone is losing business, well good luck with that. Or he can suck it up like everybody else and eat that additional 0.5% hit to his income.

This is not an argument about whether or not taxes are evil. This is about the tax increase actually being proposed as opposed to some imaginary 99.9% tax on anybody making more than $10,000/year that Republitards like Limbaugh and Hannity are no doubt using to whip their listeners into a froth. The tax increase actually being proposed will have a minimal impact on the people being asked to pay it.

mdklatt

4/29/2009, 09:14 AM

I would say that you make it sound that way. What do you do when you are financially strapped? If you have to borrow to dig out of a hole, do you also increase your spending on other stuff you always had wet dreams about doing? I don't. I wait until I dig out and can afford it.

You can't compare government spending to individual spending.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 09:30 AM

All i know is it took Bush 8 years to double the debt (much of it with the donks in control of congress mind you).

And its taken Oblunder about 8 weeks to double the debt.

And we haven't even started talking about socialized healthcare, trying to save planet urf, nationalizing the rest of industrial America, etc...

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 09:35 AM

The tax increase actually being proposed will have a minimal impact on the people being asked to pay it.

Remember when raising taxes during an economic downturn was considered a sound economic policy????

Yeah, me neither.

Turd_Ferguson

4/29/2009, 09:43 AM

You can't compare government spending to individual spending.why.

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 09:44 AM

All i know is it took Bush 8 years to double the debt (much of it with the donks in control of congress mind you).

And its taken Oblunder about 8 weeks to double the debt.

The word you're looking for here is "deficit." 75-80 percent of the outstanding debt of the USA was still accumulated under Reagan, GH Bush and GHW Bush.

BornandBred

4/29/2009, 09:46 AM

You can't compare government spending to individual spending.

I agree to a point, but only because it seems that at this point there seems to be no penalty for the massive debt we're building. At some point taxes will have to go up to pay for it, and I think most moderately intelligent people realize that. But slightly increasing taxes while greatly increasing spending is not gaining much. At some point spending has to go down. I don't see that happening with the current administration. I think socialized health care could be the worst thing to happen to the country in a long time.

I think it's unfortunate that all republicans are lumped into the same category as W and the like. I'm a republican because I'm a financial conservative, the party seems to have lost that base. Social conservatism seems to be the order of the day. Hopefully the party will return to fiscal conservatism.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 09:57 AM

The word you're looking for here is "deficit." 75-80 percent of the outstanding debt of the USA was still accumulated under Reagan, GH Bush and GHW Bush.

Not now it isn't.

The Squanderer in Chief & the rest of your liberal superheros have spent or planned as much as all those previous administrations COMBINED!!!

All that in 100 days no less.

Any idea of the US ever having a balanced budget or being debt free is gone now, forever.

There is no way in hell we can pay this all back with the damage done by liberals in such a short amount of time.

And again, we aren't even talking about what socialized health care and highspeed trains are going to cost us, YET!

Maybe he will apologize to us and our children for this massive new debt burden and the sky high taxes us working slobs will now have to endure, you know, like he does our enemies??

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 10:00 AM

Really, let's cut the bull**** folks. The past 30 or so years has proven that the Republican party doesn't mind deficit spending, so long as it's spending on the programs they find appealing.

They'll deficit spend on the military or to enable tax cuts, and they won't blink an eye to do it. It doesn't bother them a whit. The proof is in the data; like I've said, 75-80% of all of the US's debt was accumulated under the last three Republican presidents.

The last Republican president to preside over an inflation-adjusted reduction was Ford. Bill Clinton left at about the same debt level he entered office with, and Carter left with a lower one. We haven't had a president from the Democratic party that left with an appreciably higher inflation-adjusted debt since FDR. Even LBJ left it better than he found it, despite the War of Poverty. (I will admit that Obama looks to be changing that pattern.)

So seriously, Republicans, quit your whining about the deficit. Your voting patterns have proven time and again that it just doesn't matter to you. The only objection most of you have is what it's spent on, not that it's spent.

Seriously, the last time you guys voted for a Republican president that reduced the deficit (by any metric) was in the 70's. Bob Stoops was still in high school, that's how long it's been. You guys haven't seriously carried the banner of fiscal conservatism in my lifetime.

So quit your crying. Everyone on the planet knows they're crocodile tears.

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 10:03 AM

Not now it isn't.

Actually, yeah, it still is. It was 85% before Obama took office. I adjusted for spending to date.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:07 AM

It was 85% before Obama took office.

Thanks for confirming what I just said.

Funny how Obama can out-do the spending of 20+ years of republican spending in just 100 days.

At least the GOP got something out of that spending besides handing our car companies to the UAW and handing out bonuses to AIG, Freddie and Fannie executives.

BornandBred

4/29/2009, 10:07 AM

If anything positive comes from all of this, I hope it's the creation of a third political party. Pelosi on the left, Limbaugh on the right, and somebody else NOT bat****crazy in the middle. There HAS to be a push for more fiscal conservatism. And don't talk to me about Libertarians, I think they take the idea too far.

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 10:16 AM

Thanks for confirming what I just said.

Funny how Obama can out-do the spending of 20+ years of republican spending in just 100 days.

At least the GOP got something out of that spending besides handing our car companies to the UAW and handing out bonuses to AIG, Freddie and Fannie executives.

Actually, I just redid the numbers.

$9,795,784,941,729 was accumulated under Reagan, Bush, and Bush II. (3.357, 1.540, 4.899 trillion respectively.) Bill Clinton was -0.163 trillion. Obama thus far is +0.563 trillion.

Total debt is 11.189 trillion.

Run the numbers. Reagan, 30%. Bush, 13.7%. Bush II, 43.8%. Obama, 5%.

Sum of Reagan, Bush, Bush II: 87.54%

(Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 1993 to Present, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms 1981-1993.)

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:19 AM

There HAS to be a push for more fiscal conservatism.
There will be.

What else do you think will happen Once the squanderer spends all our children's money and he then cannot afford to pay the Chinese their interest payment????

Insolvency is coming. Its only a matter of time now.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:22 AM

Obama thus far is +0.563 trillion.
Surprise Surprise, your numbers are wrong, like your facts usually are.

The porkulus was more than that number you just gave, just by itself.

And his budget for the year is 3 Trillion.

That doesn't even include the bailouts, nationalizations, tarp 2, photo-ops on scareforce 1, etc.

Nice try Vae, but you aren't even close man.

NormanPride

4/29/2009, 10:22 AM

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 10:25 AM

Surprise Surprise, your numbers are wrong, like your facts usually are.

Actually, I'm just quoting the Treasury on what's been borrowed to date. Unless the Treasury is wrong, and I doubt they are, my numbers are correct.

Check the sources, that's why I put them in the post.

Pricetag

4/29/2009, 10:27 AM

I bet they pick on Wikipedia and ignore the other.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:27 AM

I love how nothing was said by the republicans about this during the "War" but now that we're trying to save our own economy the right wingers here are flipping their lids over it. It just confirms what Vaevictis said, really.

I wonder which was more expensive, The attacks or 9/11 or the war???

That's the reason I didn't bitch about it. I knew the cost of not fighting our enemies was much higher than costs of being attacked again and again.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:32 AM

Actually, I'm just quoting the Treasury on what's been borrowed to date. Unless the Treasury is wrong, and I doubt they are, my numbers are correct.

Check the sources, that's why I put them in the post.

ahh, so your just counting what they have written a check for so far.

Nice to know you are ignoring all the planned spending that has passed.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night i guess.

NormanPride

4/29/2009, 10:33 AM

I wonder which was more expensive, The attacks or 9/11 or the war???

That's the reason I didn't bitch about it. I knew the cost of not fighting our enemies was much higher than costs of being attacked again and again.

And you bitch now because we're trying to save our way of life in a different way. Terrorist attacks affected hundreds of thousands of people, and potential further attacks would have affected hundreds of thousands more. An economic collapse would affect everyone across the globe. Even if the spending just slows the hurt and keeps us afloat in the long run, don't you think it's worth it to avoid a potentially global catastrophe?

Also, the Chinese don't even have the most interest in our debt. It's the Japanese with about double the amount the Chinese have. And, it's about .4 trillion compared to the whole of the national debt. Sucks, but it's a relative drop the bucket to this mess.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:33 AM

They have this on Wikipedia???
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/TARP449.jpg

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 10:34 AM

Hey, I'm happy to revisit this in a month, 6 months, a year, or three months before election time.

I just tend to have this surprisingly conservative tendency not to count debt as debt until it's actually acquired. You can plan on all the spending and inflows you want, but until they actually happen -- well, they haven't actually happened.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 10:37 AM

And you bitch now because we're trying to save our way of life in a different way.

I would maybe bitch less if spending sprees such as the one we have now actually worked.

Its never worked unfortunately.

NormanPride

4/29/2009, 10:46 AM

I would maybe bitch less if spending sprees such as the one we have now actually worked.

Its never worked unfortunately.

Well, it seems to have prevented a total economic meltdown, at least temporarily.

Howzit

4/29/2009, 10:53 AM

You can't compare government spending to individual spending.

I'll take that as a no.

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 11:17 AM

You can plan on all the spending and inflows you want, but until they actually happen -- well, they haven't actually happened.

Never balanced a check book in your life, have you???

OklahomaTuba

4/29/2009, 11:18 AM

Well, it seems to have prevented a total economic meltdown, at least temporarily.

Yeah, its done wonders so far. :rolleyes:

soonerscuba

4/29/2009, 11:31 AM

Tuba's got a pretty simple world view, if it's Republican it's good and necessary, if it's Democrat it's the road to insolvency. There wasn't this talk during the Bush admin, in fact he accused those at odds with the president of treason, a lot.

He's already brought up 9/11, I'll wait patiently for the Chamberlain reference.

soonerscuba

4/29/2009, 11:34 AM

Never balanced a check book in your life, have you???Classic.

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 12:25 PM

Never balanced a check book in your life, have you???

Nope, never have. We've got these newfangled things called "computers" and "accounting applications" where you log your assets and liabilities, and they do the heavy lifting for you.

You write a check, you make an entry, and boom, you're done.

yermom

4/29/2009, 12:47 PM

you write checks?

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 12:49 PM

Maybe 15 a year.

yermom

4/29/2009, 12:50 PM

i'm somewhere around 1-2

i hate checks

NormanPride

4/29/2009, 12:54 PM

I get those carbon-copy checks so I can have the little paper things for my records.

I never use them, though.

SoonerAtKU

4/29/2009, 01:29 PM

Tuba, if you wouldn't mind just limiting your posts to "Republican = Good, Democrat = Bad" from now on, we'd all appreciate it.

We get it, man. You've made your point as eloquently as you're going to.

Pricetag

4/29/2009, 01:29 PM

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2009/1/yaoming-visa.jpg
Can I write check?

A Sooner in Texas

4/29/2009, 06:48 PM

Seriously, the last time you guys voted for a Republican president that reduced the deficit (by any metric) was in the 70's. Bob Stoops was still in high school, that's how long it's been. You guys haven't seriously carried the banner of fiscal conservatism in my lifetime.
So quit your crying. Everyone on the planet knows they're crocodile tears.

My favorite part of this post was the fact that you managed to put a Sooner spin on it. :D

bluedogok

4/29/2009, 07:22 PM

Really, let's cut the bull**** folks. The past 30 or so years has proven that the Republican party doesn't mind deficit spending, so long as it's spending on the programs they find appealing.
Well, that's pretty much true of any government no matter which party is in charge. The role of gov't is to grow gov't, some may have called what was touted as "reduction of gov't" as getting smaller but all it really is/was corporate welfare. Moving a function of gov't to donors of the party in control for money, in most cases the "privatization" ends up costing taxpayers more.

Vaevictis

4/29/2009, 08:05 PM

My favorite part of this post was the fact that you managed to put a Sooner spin on it. :D

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/photos/2001-03-07-inside-sims.jpg

BOOMER!@#

BudSooner

4/29/2009, 08:58 PM

Ya know, i'm no fan of Obama but Tuba.....this **** gets tiresome after awhile.

def_lazer_fc

4/30/2009, 12:46 AM

im convinced tuba and rlimc are jokes at this point. elaborate personalities made up by some clever ****er somewhere. and my worst fear is that this person responsible for their creation is laughing his *** off somewhere. but then again, they could be real people. and if that was the case, i feel kinda sad for the two of em. maybe someday, they will know what its like to have an original thought.

Curly Bill

4/30/2009, 12:49 AM

Did the same person come up with the persona for a couple of the loony lefties on here? I won't even name them, but I bet you can figure out who they are.

Crucifax Autumn

4/30/2009, 01:09 AM

The furthest of the furthest on both sides do nothing more than make EVERYONE miserable.

And their arguments would lead to doom if followed to the end result.

Let's all use some friggin' common sense and meet at that healthy lookin' tree in the middle of the pasture. The ones growing out of the ****-piles on the corners pretty much mess crap up and dirty our shoes.