# So let's suppose...



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

https://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/civil-rights/hate-crimes

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...fusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=people+prosecuted+for+hate+crimes&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

> And that whole stunt with flag burning is most definitely an attempt to destroy free speech.





> Nebraska Man Convicted of Hate Crime for Burning Lesbian Couple’s Gay Pride Flag:


Oh, okay.....


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

I agree with the government not being able to sensor burning the flag. Not the governments business. 

But I support the citizens "right to whip your ass if you burn the flag act". Try that crap in downtown Marble Falls or Llano, TX and the friendly folks here will get mean in a hurry and let them find out how to make whole meals into slurpees and probably how to use a wheel chair.


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

Jaws said:


> I agree with the government not being able to sensor burning the flag. Not the governments business.
> 
> But I support the citizens "right to whip your ass if you burn the flag act". Try that crap in downtown Marble Falls or Llano, TX and the friendly folks here will get mean in a hurry and let them find out how to make whole meals into slurpees and probably how to use a wheel chair.




I agree, to me burning the flag is a huge disrespect to all the people that fought and died for this country and our freedoms. However I also believe that yes in a weird way it is free speech and if the government regulates that, then what else will they regulate? Personally I support the right to whip your ass act as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Then why isn't burning the LGBT flag free speech. It offends a lot less people than burning the American flag. A symbol of the country.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

> And that whole stunt with flag burning is most definitely an attempt to destroy free speech.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Leo G said:


> ..... I do enjoy paying the low price for fuel. But I know it is a fluke by means of greed....
> We all knew it couldn't last, greed always prevails....


"fluke"? huh?

"greed"? huh?

Shifting to domestic shale oil and natural gas DOES change demand pricing. Shifting to wind/solar affects demand pricing. Increasing per unit consumption efficiency affects demand pricing.

Once the radical changes are in place for a period of time, then prices will again normalize, reflecting that costs always factor out to a ratio of production. ie, it's the same argument given for why there shouldn't be a min wage law, and min wage should never be increased, because all it does over a long enough period of time is cause inflation.

Which is true.

And for gawd's sakes, you use the term "greed" like its always "those other people". Ain't nobody doing what you ain't doing brother. Excepting, when you do it - it's "the right thing to do".

Has no relevance. Humans do what they do - it's neither good nor bad like some quantifying term such as "greed".

sheesh!


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Leo G said:


> Then why isn't burning the LGBT flag free speech. It offends a lot less people than burning the American flag. A symbol of the country.


Therein could lie the answer... one is a symbol of everyone in the country, one is a symbol of a group and the actions are targeted at that group...

But then it does bring the confederate flag more into focus... :whistling



It's interesting to watch the effect of the expectations of what Trump is proposing and how he is effectively working and it's realization on the country and the world community... I think there is the observation of the "oh sh*t" moment for politicians in that he actually means to DO stuff... if he actually does it, that will set a precedent going forward that politicians may not be too comfortable with... keep in mind, a lot of these things are items the politicians have TALKED about for DECADES...

IMHO, forget about the Dem's, COUNT on opposition in the REP party... they like their gravy train as well... 

Personally, IMHO, just like in real life, MOVEMENT is going to have a cumulative effect to the benefit of small business and the economy...


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> "fluke"? huh?
> 
> "greed"? huh?
> 
> ...


Agreed for the most part... Interesting... was epipen greed/bad? 

If you want to make $75-100K/year and another guy is happy to make $50K/year, does that make the first guy greedy and the second nobel? If you keep the coming tax break for companies, instead of reinvesting it are you greedy? Life circumstances play a large role in all of this...

IMHO, greed, as opposed to profiting, comes into play when you are forced or have little choice to buy a product in a market that is out of consumer control... 

We give up a lot of buying power because we don't know how to use it to our advantage...


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

KAP said:


> Agreed for the most part... Interesting... was epipen greed/bad?
> 
> If you want to make $75-100K/year and another guy is happy to make $50K/year, does that make the first guy greedy and the second nobel? If you keep the coming tax break for companies, instead of reinvesting it are you greedy? Life circumstances play a large role in all of this...
> 
> ...




Personally i think greed would fall into the epipen argument when you have a life saving drug that many need but cannot afford while the top executives at the company are paid millions in compensation while some unfortunate people that require their products are struggling to feed their family a healthy meal 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Windycity said:


> Personally i think greed would fall into the epipen argument when you have a life saving drug that many need but cannot afford while the top executives at the company are paid millions in compensation while some unfortunate people that require their products are struggling to feed their family a healthy meal
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, but there is an alternative with the same dose/medicine just a different delivery system... the same people can CHOOSE not to use their product and IMHO the alternative that is a 1/5th the cost missed a HUGE opportunity to promote that and steal market share... keep in mind the epipen itself is one product among many in that company that pay's those execs... it's not the deciding factor...

One the top exec's paid millions? I don't have a problem with talent getting what they can, like I don't have one construction worker getting 2-5 times what the average construction worker gets because he produces and he can... I do however, have a problem with a corporate culture that will take bonuses from workers or cut jobs while GIVING bonuses to exec's... 

Only alternative to that is government deciding who gets paid what... and that works so well with minimum wage... no thanks... :no:

The expected government getting out of the way is leading to headlines like this... 


*NFIB survey finds surge in hiring plans.... *http://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-trump-jobs-rally-1480595290


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

SmallTownGuy said:


> "fluke"? huh?
> 
> "greed"? huh?
> 
> ...


Greed, as in the Saudi's attempt to put the shale oil company out of business by selling the oil at below pricing. Making it unprofitable for the shale drillers to produce and pay wages and pay loans essentially bankrupting them and putting them off the charts. Then the Saudi's would have put the price back to profitable and not have to worry about American production. That was the plan. The shale drillers for the most part held out long enough to put the Saudi's in one big hurt economically.

Greed.


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

KAP said:


> Yeah, but there is an alternative with the same dose/medicine just a different delivery system... the same people can CHOOSE not to use their product and IMHO the alternative that is a 1/5th the cost missed a HUGE opportunity to promote that and steal market share... keep in mind the epipen itself is one product among many in that company that pay's those execs... it's not the deciding factor...
> 
> One the top exec's paid millions? I don't have a problem with talent getting what they can, like I don't have one construction worker getting 2-5 times what the average construction worker gets because he produces and he can... I do however, have a problem with a corporate culture that will take bonuses from workers or cut jobs while GIVING bonuses to exec's...
> 
> ...




The alternative for the epipen is not practical for a young child that are out and about playing with friends. If they become suddenly incapacitated a stranger can just shove the pen and administer a dose...not practical for younger children or even adults than need help administering the medicine.

The alternative method is fine if you are an adult and know what you are doing with administering a shot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Leo G said:


> https://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/civil-rights/hate-crimes
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...fusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html
> 
> https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=people+prosecuted+for+hate+crimes&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35


You're pro hate crime then?

So in the election Trumps infamous tape comes out. Lets call it the pussy tape for quick reference. In the debate he dismissed it as 'just words people, theyre just words'.

A politicians function is to communicate and their primary tool is words. Its the way they influence and lead people. 

Fascism prior to and during the second world war used the hatred of groups to justify violence and theft. In Hitlers germany hatred of jews,, gays, gypsys and others was started by calling them names. Then physically labeling them. Then physically quarantining them in ghettos. And continued and intensified until they were genocidally slaughtered and they were stripped of all rights and property. 

Only a hundred years ago their were white riots where hundreds black people werre killed. Lynchings, injustice before the law and deep prejudice were pervasive. This nation could return to that quickly and it will start with just words. 

The etymology of the word ****** comes from the Romans. A bundle of sticks around an axe. When some one was accused of being gay they would burn them alive. Hence the name ******. Its inherently violent. And its just a word.

So historically speaking modern tolerance is based on the fact that society is more stable, safer and prosperous through acceptance of diverse groups than through a policy of exclusion and hate. 

I understand that being gay is strange to some groups. But we should be tolerant of one another. I think christians are pretty strange but I still do business with them. And if a lesbian bakery refused to bake a cake because someone was a christian I think they should be sued and fined as well. Christianity isnt THE religion of America, and WHITE isnt the race of a true american. A true american is anyone who is a citizen.

Trumps whole candidacy was based on this argument that 'hey we had it so good but somebody fd it up. Not us white people, somebody else. You know who else? Muslims, mexicans, the chinese etc'

But the propserity we had from the 50s through the 70s was due to one thing. It wasnt that we made great cars or great clothes and the world loved our products and chose them over our competitors products. It was the fact that after world war 2 all of europe, russia china and japan were fn obliterated and we had no competition. It took about twenty five years for Japan to come on line, fifty for china. And the rest of the world is catching up too.

America still consumes and enjoys more resources than just about any other country. We have it really really good. We are spoiled. We are soft. And rather than listening to a leader who says we need to adapt and compete and produce better faster cheaper products, in the last election we listened to the guy who just blamed all the challeges we face on groups of other people.

And there in lies the danger.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Windycity said:


> The alternative for the epipen is not practical for a young child that are out and about playing with friends. If they become suddenly incapacitated a stranger can just shove the pen and administer a dose...not practical for younger children or even adults than need help administering the medicine.
> 
> The alternative method is fine if you are an adult and know what you are doing with administering a shot
> 
> ...


They both use auto-injectors...


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

The most hate I've seen in a long, long (long) time is coming from liberals who are writing "inclusiveness and diversity" on their baseball bats and rocks.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

> So in the election Trumps infamous tape comes out. Lets call it the pussy tape for quick reference. In the debate he dismissed it as 'just words people, theyre just words'.


Did you rag on this "just words"?

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."

Jake Tapper has the exchange:

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> You're pro hate crime then?


I guess the question is how can burning an LGBT flag be considered a hate crime but not an American or Confederate flag?



Metro M & L said:


> Trumps whole candidacy was based on this argument that 'hey we had it so good but somebody fd it up. Not us white people, somebody else. You know who else? Muslims, mexicans, the chinese etc'


That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? As I recall, the Clinton's were white, the Dem's & Rep's he focused on were white who got us in NAFTA & wars, etc.

His comments as it relates to muslims, mexicans and chinese were pretty specific... he said on many occasions he was against the people breaking the laws not against all the people... as it relates to muslims, and the existing immigration problem, he said he was for imposing a ban on immigrants from areas of the muslim world that posed a threat (there are muslims in all countries) until they could come up with a system to vet them (how is that in any way unreasonable as we set the terms of immigration as a country?) The Chinese, he was against their governments manipulation of the currency and unfair trade practices, conditions exacerbated by the trade deals put in by politicians who by their identification were white (as if THAT's the issue)...




Metro M & L said:


> But the propserity we had from the 50s through the 70s was due to one thing. It wasnt that we made great cars or great clothes and the world loved our products and chose them over our competitors products. It was the fact that after world war 2 all of europe, russia china and japan were fn obliterated and we had no competition. It took about twenty five years for Japan to come on line, fifty for china. And the rest of the world is catching up too.


If that's true, and I disagree that it is, if they are interested in a level playing field and are catching up, then they don't have much to worry about, correct?

If Trump follows through with what he has projected, it's going to be good for business and all Americans... and if that happens, I don't think the vast majority of people will give a crap about what color he is... 




Metro M & L said:


> America still consumes and enjoys more resources than just about any other country. We have it really really good. We are spoiled. We are soft. And rather than listening to a leader who says we need to adapt and compete and produce better faster cheaper products, in the last election we listened to the guy who just blamed all the challeges we face on groups of other people.
> 
> And there in lies the danger.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


I agree with the first half and disagree with the last half...


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Funny to see all the Libs suddenly become worried about the debt! (Spiritual awakening) Where were they during the second 10 trillion? :laughing:


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Californiadecks said:


> Funny to see all the Libs suddenly become worried about the debt! (Spiritual awakening) Where were they during the second 10 trillion? :laughing:


I think the same can be said for conservatives who were against stimulus infrastructure spending but are now on board... :whistling


IMHO, if Trump can change the course of things, by doing many of the things he said he will do, including DEBT (not just deficit) reduction, increase tax revenues through growth as Reagan did (and was squandered away under debt reductions agreed to not implemented) it will show that it CAN be done... and will benefit a lot of people, but it's also a threat to the power structure as it will show how full of it politicians from both sides were...

So, we'll see...


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Windycity said:


> You cant simply look at the dollar amount. When you say that he spent more than all of the other presidents are you comparing dollar for dollar based on inflation? There is no way obamas federal spending was more that Roosevelts administration did during ww2...
> 
> If that the case then yes he "spent" more than all the other presidents just like i spent more money than my grandparents
> 
> ...



Inflation isn't really there from Bush to now. Bush raised the debt 4.9 trillion Barry 10 trillion. It would take a hell of a run on inflation to justify that!

I'm not going to compare Trump with anything yet! In going to give him a chance.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Californiadecks said:


> I was talking about the democrat voters and their sudden outrage, not the Administrations.
> 
> I'm against all federal spending regardless of party. Except these 8 things which are required by the constitution. That's it, everything thing else should be left to the states and local governments.
> 
> ...




I stand by this.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

The POTUS only signs the budget... Congress holds the purse strings...


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

> Second, THESE ARE PRESIDENTS! THEY DO NOT CONTROL FISCAL POLICY!
> 
> Sure, they have input. They propose budgets that congress then throws out, or edits to their liking, but at the end of the day the House and the Senate write up, and vote on our spending and taxing bills. The President does not have the power to cut or increase either spending levels or taxes on his own. That’s the job of congress. They have what is called the “Power of the Purse.”
> 
> ...


http://socawlege.com/adds-debt-republicans-democrats/


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

That Ahole obonehead said it was unpatriotic to run up the debt then went ahead and pissed away so much money, never held to account for one dime of it.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Rio said:


> That Ahole obonehead said it was unpatriotic to run up the debt then went ahead and pissed away so much money, never held to account for one dime of it.


Ah yes...memories...


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

One of the main reasons so much debt is a bad thing is it sucks oxygen from the private sector... add to it the wet blanket of over-regulation, and mandates and it's going to have an affect... as will it's removal...

Where it will help us as business owners and employees trying to get ahead is it will help to grease the economic wheel... the whole wheel turns, not just part of it...

So when you get the expected increase in tax savings, it comes down to what changes you will make...


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> So when the cost to service that debt is more than our GDP then what do we do? That day is coming.
> 
> _________


Naw. 
Cost of servicing remains lower that principal plus interest from world debtors - its dandy.

The world debtors go belly up - still no problem. Now we just stop making our payments. A reset. 

And that's why nobody does it. The time to have worried about this**** was back in 2009 - and guess what - nobody made a damned move - would be stupid. Everybody owes everybody - just like in your own personal world.

As long as everybody has something to lose - nobody does anything stupid.

We owe 18 or 20 trillion dollars and Model T's used to cost 600 bucks. It's all relative.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Naw.
> Cost of servicing remains lower that principal plus interest from world debtors - its dandy.
> 
> The world debtors go belly up - still no problem. Now we just stop making our payments. A reset.
> ...


Yep nothing to see here! Debt is great it means we get to spend money we don't have! Yepeeee! I assume you run your business and home the same way? Or that's different? 

_________


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Let's borrow money and loan it to other countries! Makes perfect sense to me! 

_________


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> The numbers don't lie! Even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Barry raised the debt more than twice as much as Bush. Bush increased the debt by 4.9 trillion Barry 10 trillion.
> 
> That comparison is absolutely relevant because it includes modern times. It includes everything before Barry. Perfectly relevant.
> 
> _________


Think about it in relative terms, Barry doubled the debt, Reagan almost tripled it. Is Barry still bigger spender than Reagan?


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Yeah, let me throw you another curve. Every so often I get to go to a confab with Oakland County Executive board, some other business types and University of Michigan's economic prognosticators.
> 
> Back when the "national debt" was about 18.5 trillion, I asked one of the guys about that. He said "it has little relevance. What is not accounted for here, is that the rest of the world owes the US approx 14.3 trillion. In addition, no consideration is given for interest rates on these monies."
> 
> ...


Hence why I compared it to percent GDP.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Naw.
> Cost of servicing remains lower that principal plus interest from world debtors - its dandy.
> 
> The world debtors go belly up - still no problem. Now we just stop making our payments. A reset.
> ...


Yeah, it's all relative. It's all relative that the interest we're paying on this debt, over $500 billion dollars a year, is largely going to finance China's military, first time in the history of the world that one nation not only finances their own defense but that of a potential mortal enemy. 

Imagine what we could be doing for our infrastructure or whatever spending that amount of money here, every year, rather than on interest.

It's not going to be all relative when the interest rates go back up to their historical levels. If they did that we'd be bankrupt, all of the money coming in wouldn't service the debt.

The amount of difference between a billion and trillion is staggering, something like, a million seconds is . A million seconds is about 12 days, a billion seconds is 31 years, a trillion seconds is 31,688 years! We have truly screwed our children and ourselves by the insanity of allowing ourselves to go this far into debt.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> Let's borrow money and loan it to other countries! Makes perfect sense to me!
> 
> _________


*Yes! That's what the banks do.*

Ifn it comes to a brawl between you, Bank of America or Chase (where I have some coin) I'm betting o the banks.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> *Yes! That's what the banks do.*
> 
> Ifn it comes to a brawl between you, Bank of America or Chase (where I have some coin) I'm betting o the banks.


It doesn't make sense if we never pay down the principal and the interest is not only compounded but we have to keep borrowing to pay OUR interest only to pay interest on THAT as well... that interest is NOT passed down to the one who borrowed from us... so no, that's not how the banks do it...


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Rio said:


> ...
> It's not going to be all relative when the interest rates go back up to their historical levels. If they did that we'd be bankrupt, all of the money coming in wouldn't service the debt.
> ....


"if" The big *IF*. And historical levels. WTF does that mean anyway. 

England/Great Britain reached its industrial peak, and by your accounting, its "historical levels" of growth, GDP, debt/income ratio at the turn of the last century. They went from "ruling the waves" to making payments - same as the rest of the world. It was a damned good thing their anarchist offspring didn't mind taking care of the old Aunt & Uncle.

I don't see that those pipe dreams of 3.5% GDP growth ever happening (again). We have now passed our peak industrial growth. Every country does it.

We got lucky - post WWII, the whole free world owed us bucket loads of money and we lived pretty high off that interest for 50 years. Party is over. 

*PS: Infrastructure has sucked since the 80s, when all the interstates started aging out, and the rail lines too. And nothing has been done of substance in nearly 40 years. This ain't no new phenomenon.*


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

KAP said:


> It doesn't make sense if we never pay down the principal and the interest is not only compounded but we have to keep borrowing to pay OUR interest only to pay interest on THAT as well... that interest is NOT passed down to the one who borrowed from us... so no, that's not how the banks do it...


I said what the banks do. Now you play "if".

"if' So were's the document that say this very thing is happening? Even a wikipedia page will do.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Robie said:


> https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124


https://www.reference.com/government-politics/much-other-countries-owe-america-9facf9abfc9c8871

Q:
How much do other countries owe America?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
The world owes America just over $15 trillion as of May 2015, which is only $3 trillion under the United States national debt, according to First Post Magazine. Due to the amount of money owed to the United States, the national debt is not as problematic since both debts are almost equal in size.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> Think about it in relative terms, Barry doubled the debt, Reagan almost tripled it. Is Barry still bigger spender than Reagan?


You owe 3 pennies and triple it. Now you owe 9 pennies. I owe 1000 pennies and double it. I now owe 2000 pennies. That means I've out spent you by 991 pennies. How much I make doesn't change what I spent. 

_________


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Reagan wiped out the Soviet Union. Our Military and Nuclear arsenal has DRASTICALLY decreased. I'd say Reagan save us billions. 

_________


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> "if" The big *IF*. And historical levels. WTF does that mean anyway.
> 
> England/Great Britain reached its industrial peak, and by your accounting, its "historical levels" of growth, GDP, debt/income ratio at the turn of the last century. They went from "ruling the waves" to making payments - same as the rest of the world. It was a damned good thing their anarchist offspring didn't mind taking care of the old Aunt & Uncle.
> 
> ...


Growth rates of 3-4% are eminently possible here. With our educated people, affordable energy (God bless fracking, the only reason we're at 1% growth today), and the creativity of the American people and business class, with proper incentives and more reasonable regulation we could see that much and actually grow our way out of our problem IF we will reign in the growth of entitlements and curb this tumor of a federal government that is sucking more and more of the lifeblood of this country daily.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Inner10 said:


> Think about it in relative terms, Barry doubled the debt, Reagan almost tripled it. Is Barry still bigger spender than Reagan?


This is why actual numbers are so important. For example a recent headline here in San Diego, 'HATE CRIMES DOUBLED IN THE LAST YEAR UP 100%!!!!'.

Yes, the hate crimes doubled, from 4 to 8 in an area with 4 million people.

Reagan might have done what you said to the debt but it's orders of magnitude less than what the current president encouraged to happen under his watch, managing to wrack up more debt than all of the other presidents before him combined.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Rio said:


> Growth rates of 3-4% are eminently possible here. With our educated people, affordable energy (God bless fracking, the only reason we're at 1% growth today), and the creativity of the American people and business class, with proper incentives and more reasonable regulation we could see that much and actually grow our way out of our problem *IF* we will reign in the growth of entitlements and curb this tumor of a federal government that is sucking more and more of the lifeblood of this country daily.


There's that "if" again.

"IF" I win the lottery, I won't have to work.

"IF" I go into debt on a new car and home and lose my job, I could lose everything.

There is "IF" and there's what one sees when one is not smoking herb.

Wait a minute - I got a better one "You can sh:t in one hand and wish in the other".

The advantage of long-term, slow but stable growth is the very thing a country should wish for. Boring, but much easier to manage.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> You owe 3 pennies and triple it. Now you owe 9 pennies. I owe 1000 pennies and double it. I now owe 2000 pennies. That means I've out spent you by 991 pennies. How much I make doesn't change what I spent.
> 
> _________


In 1984 dollars compared to current dollars inflation alone accounts for over 3x. So Obama's debt is more like 4.2 Trillion and Reagans is more like 4.4 Trillion.

Again I didn't adjust for GDP growth or any other factors, I just adjusted for inflation.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Rio said:


> This is why actual numbers are so important. For example a recent headline here in San Diego, 'HATE CRIMES DOUBLED IN THE LAST YEAR UP 100%!!!!'.
> 
> Yes, the hate crimes doubled, from 4 to 8 in an area with 4 million people.
> 
> Reagan might have done what you said to the debt but it's orders of magnitude less than what the current president encouraged to happen under his watch, managing to wrack up more debt than all of the other presidents before him combined.


It's not, just adjust for inflation...then we can talk percent GDP.

Again I'm not arguing the point that Obama wasn't a splurger, he absolutely was. But you can't argue that Republicans are more fiscally responsible, because historically it's just the opposite.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Rio said:


> This is why actual numbers are so important. For example a recent headline here in San Diego, 'HATE CRIMES DOUBLED IN THE LAST YEAR UP 100%!!!!'.
> 
> Yes, the hate crimes doubled, from 4 to 8 in an area with 4 million people.
> 
> Reagan might have done what you said to the debt but it's orders of magnitude less than what the current president encouraged to happen under his watch, managing to wrack up more debt than all of the other presidents before him combined.


And like I said earlier, I'm working with actual numbers, aka real dollars, not nominal dollars.

Money isn't real, it's a made up value, what is real is it's buying power.

So yes I agree real numbers are very important, but go find the real numbers and tell me I'm wrong again.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> In 1984 dollars compared to current dollars inflation alone accounts for over 3x. So Obama's debt is more like 4.2 Trillion and Reagans is more like 4.4 Trillion.
> 
> Again I didn't adjust for GDP growth or any other factors, I just adjusted for inflation.




Inflation from Bush to now warranted/justified an extra 5 trillion more by Barry than Bush? That's a some crazy inflation. I wonder why bread isn't 250 bucks a loaf.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Inflation from Bush to now warranted/justified an extra 5 trillion more by Barry than Bush? That's a some crazy inflation. I wonder why bread isn't 250 bucks a loaf.


I didn't say Bush, read again, check the year.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> There's that "if" again.
> 
> 
> The advantage of long-term, slow but stable growth is the very thing a country should wish for. Boring, but much easier to manage.


This is the first post war presidency to not have at least one year of 3% growth.

What they were really good at was stifling the economy through so many layers of regulations.

Dodd-Frank has seen the elimination of over 25% of the small banks in the country.

He's practiced the exact opposite of what he's preached and him, along with his cohorts, have NEVER been held accountable for one thing they lied about time after time.

Regarding the 'what's the historical interest rate', it's been about 4%. At 4% all the money coming in is going to service the debt, but that's relative, who cares?

Even if it stays the same the rate of the growth in entitlements will consume every dime coming in to the treasury within 10 years, but that's relative, so who cares?

For all of the BS Bush did, to his credit he did try to craft a deal to restructure Social Security but the dems would have nothing to do with it, put their interests of seeing him suffer a defeat trump the long term interests of the country, danced in the aisles of the Congress when it was defeated.

As for sh!tiing in one hand and wishing in the other, that sounds like a personal problem, one I'm fortunately not afflicted with.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Inner10 said:


> In 1984 dollars compared to current dollars inflation alone accounts for over 3x. So Obama's debt is more like 4.2 Trillion and Reagans is more like 4.4 Trillion.
> 
> Again I didn't adjust for GDP growth or any other factors, I just adjusted for inflation.


Don't believe that for one second, you got some skewed statistics...........


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> I didn't say Bush, read again, check the year.




The better more accurate comparison is the most recent. Then you don't need to adjust for inflation or anything.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Rio said:


> Don't believe that for one second, you got some skewed statistics...........




That's why I don't trust his numbers and used Bush as the benchmark. It's a better comparison.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Inflation from Bush to now warranted/justified an extra 5 trillion more by Barry than Bush? That's a some crazy inflation. *I wonder why bread isn't 250 bucks a loaf.*


evidently the price of decks has made up for it....:whistling:laughing:


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Rio said:


> Don't believe that for one second, you got some skewed statistics...........




Actually in 1985 1000 dollars had the same buying power as 2200 in 2016. So it's not over three times it's 2.2 times. That's a big difference.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Rio said:


> Don't believe that for one second, you got some skewed statistics...........


Do the math.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Actually in 1985 1000 dollars had the same buying power as 2200 in 2016. So it's not over three times it's 2.2 times. That's a big difference.


Your right, it would be over 3x from 1980, from 1984 would be 2.3x.

Reagans debt 1.9 Trillion in 2016 dollars is 4.4 Trillion. 

Obama's 10 Trillion is 4.3 Trillion.

Now I'm rounding and averaging to mid term...but still I'm not far off.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> The better more accurate comparison is the most recent. Then you don't need to adjust for inflation or anything.


You always need to adjust for inflation, if you didn't you would be buying a bottle of coke for a nickle. Did you built decks for the same price 10 years ago?


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> You always need to adjust for inflation, if you didn't you would be buying a bottle of coke for a nickle. Did you built decks for the same price 10 years ago?




There hasn't been any inflation to speak of since Bush. AND certainly not 5 trillion.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Inner10 said:


> Your right, it would be over 3x from 1980, from 1984 would be 2.3x.
> 
> Reagans debt 1.9 Trillion in 2016 dollars is 4.4 Trillion.
> 
> ...


You don't adjust both of them. You either adjust Reagan's up to meet 2016 dollars or you adjust down to meet 1984 dollars.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> There hasn't been any inflation to speak of since Bush. AND certainly not 5 trillion.


There has, 1.7 percent per annum.

Again I didn't draw a comparison to Bush, I just said Obama followed in his fiscal footsteps.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> There has, 1.7 percent per annum.
> 
> Again I didn't draw a comparison to Bush, I just said Obama followed in his fiscal footsteps.




1000 dollars in 2008 had the same buying power as 1100 in 2015. And Obama out spent Bush by over 4 trillion, that's being generous and giving him 1 trillion for inflation. That's my point. He didn't follow in his fiscal footsteps. Not even close.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> 1000 dollars in 2008 had the same buying power as 1100 in 2015. And Obama out spent Bush by over 4 trillion, that's being generous and giving him 1 trillion for inflation. That's my point. He didn't follow in his fiscal footsteps. Not even close.


No it didn't have the same buying power. 

I know you don't believe in inflation, but it's there, I really don't know how I can convince you of it... Heck ask your wife she's a teacher maybe she can explain inflation to you.

Again you're not reading what I type, I said Bush Jr out spent Obama in terms of percent GDP.

Reagan out spend Obama in real dollars.

Obama slightly outspent Reagan in percent GDP.

Look at the debt trend when Bush took office, Obama followed the same path.

The fact is if you look at the change in debt as a percent of GDP the Democrats have a staggeringly better track record.


----------



## EricBrancard (Jun 8, 2012)

Inner10 said:


> The fact is if you look at the change in debt as a percent of GDP the Democrats have a staggeringly better track record.


As in Democrats in the Executive branch or Democrats in Exec + Legislative? Because we can all cherry pick data to make points, shift blame or give credit where credit is not due.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

EricBrancard said:


> As in Democrats in the Executive branch or Democrats in Exec + Legislative? Because we can all cherry pick data to make points, shift blame or give credit where credit is not due.


Oh valid point, the majority of Reagans rein he had a Republican Senate. Does the president not have final say over budgetary decisions regardless?

Is it those damn Dems is Congress blowing all the Republican dollars?


----------



## EricBrancard (Jun 8, 2012)

Inner10 said:


> Oh valid point, the majority of Reagans rein he had a Republican Senate. Does the president not have final say over budgetary decisions regardless?
> 
> Is it those damn Dems is Congress blowing all the Republican dollars?


In the United States we have 3 separate but equal branches of government.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> No it didn't have the same buying power.
> 
> I know you don't believe in inflation, but it's there, I really don't know how I can convince you of it... Heck ask your wife she's a teacher maybe she can explain inflation to you.
> 
> ...




I said a 1000 bucks had the same buying power as 1100. That would mean I said there was inflation.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> Oh valid point, the majority of Reagans rein he had a Republican Senate. Does the president not have final say over budgetary decisions regardless?
> 
> Is it those damn Dems is Congress blowing all the Republican dollars?




The house holds the purse strings.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> No it didn't have the same buying power.
> 
> I know you don't believe in inflation, but it's there, I really don't know how I can convince you of it... Heck ask your wife she's a teacher maybe she can explain inflation to you.
> 
> ...


From the department of labor statistics. You need to learn to read. What I said was accurate.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Californiadecks said:


> 1000 dollars in 2008 had the same buying power as 1100 in 2015. And Obama out spent Bush by over 4 trillion, that's being generous and giving him 1 trillion for inflation. That's my point. He didn't follow in his fiscal footsteps. Not even close.




Here it is again.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> I said a 1000 bucks had the same buying power as 1100. That would mean I said there was inflation.


Sorry I read it as 1000. My mistake.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Here it is again.


I know I'm sorry I misread.

My point of following in his footsteps was that bush walked into office and left with doubling the debt. Barry walked into office and walked out with double the debt.


----------



## CPMKW (Apr 28, 2014)

You also have recognize the economic situation of each term. Good governance would mean spending through recessions and 'saving' during prosperity.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-will-trump-voters-realize-theyve-been-had-2016-12-02

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

CPMKW said:


> You also have recognize the economic situation of each term. Good governance would mean spending through recessions and 'saving' during prosperity.




I agree with this however i don't understand why when times are good the government doesn't save at all. Looking at the deficit/debt there was never a time that the nation ever saved even though the economy was booming.

Looking at the job report released today, 7 years of job creation and the stock market at an all time high...thanks obama


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-will-trump-voters-realize-theyve-been-had-2016-12-02
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


While that's quite a skewed article... Just out of curiosity, who do you think he should nominate for those positions?


According to the BLS, if you look at the Labor Participation Rate (actual employment) when Obama took office, it was at 65.7 and as he is leaving office, it is 62.7 a REDUCTION of 3 points... IOW, LESS jobs...

In contrast, when Reagan took office, it was 64 (1.7 LESS than Obama) and when he left office it was 66.5 an INCREASE of 2.5 (and ABOVE where even Obama started)... IOW, MORE jobs...

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet​
Keep in mind that Reagan entered office with inflation at 13.7% and left office with it at 4.1%... IOW, went down DRAMATICALLY... Obama entered office at 0%, and inflation stands at 1.6%... IOW, it went up while wages are pretty much flat...

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/​
The larger irony is not only was the average income slightly higher during Reagan in today's dollars, but as we all know from family/friends, many of the "jobs" that are being created are less than 30 hours to avoid paying the mandated insurance... 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189068/bls-unemployment-seasonally-adjusted.aspx​From the site...

_*"...the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks. Similarly, the BLS does not count someone as unemployed if he or she is, for instance, an out-of-work engineer, construction worker or retail manager who performs a minimum of one hour of work a week and receives at least $20 in compensation."​
*_


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-rates-hits-nine-year-low-of-46-in-november-2016-12-02

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Windycity said:


> I agree with this however i don't understand why when times are good the government doesn't save at all. Looking at the deficit/debt there was never a time that the nation ever saved even though the economy was booming.
> 
> Looking at the job report released today, 7 years of job creation and the stock market at an all time high...thanks obama
> 
> ...


7 years of pathetic job creation. The touting of 'We're below 5% unemployed in the work force' leaves out the fact that the only reason that is is because so many have given up looking for work. With those sorts of statistics if no one was looking for work we'd have '0% unemployement rate!! Woohoo!!". 

The actual unemployment number is 10%, something the government and the media will never report while it's a dem in power but once it's a pub, watch out!


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

So a couple things kap.

Im okay with bankers and corporate officers and generals being appointed to cabinet posts. They are highly skilled professionals. I would rather be led by people with knowledge than those without. My point is that Trump is not to be trusted and everything he said about 'draining the swamp' has been thrown out the door before hes even in office. 

Second on employment rates. Often the most important time to judge a president isnt by where the economy stands when he starts, but where it is when he leaves. His legacy. After bush recession and crash. At the end of Obama dow at 19k from a low of 6600 or roughly triple. Employment the lowest since the height of the last boom and Obama didnt have to fight a trillion dollar war to get there. I much prefer democratic slow and steady to republican boom bust.

Third, on inflation. Deflation, or negative inflation is terrible for an economy. Falling cost of goods leads to reductions in labor force and an end of investment. Look at oil prices and what happened in north dakota. But too much inflation isnt great either. It destroys the value of those who hold debt and the incomes of those who live off fixed government subsidies. It redistributes wealth to borrowers and workers and disincentivizes saving and investment because if you dont spend that dollar today it will be worth 50 cents tomorrow. Venezuela is a good example of out control inflation.

So whats to be done regarding inflation? Strike a balance. The fed target is 2.5 or 2.6 percent and that is very close to the results the obama adminstration is seeing.

There are forces outside of the us that are outside of the us control. Most notably the industrial revolution that occurred in china over the last twenty years. Did you know that from 2000 to 2010 the chinese used more concrete than the us did in the entire 20th century?!!! That demand is largely gone as the chinese industrial expansion begins to level off. And that is whats caused the deflationary pressure in industrial commodities like oil copper etc.. its a hell of a head wind to stave off. I think the democrats did a hell of a job digging us out of the mess that bush created as well as dealing with the larger global economic issues.

Lastly, Id like to point out that calidecks did an excellent job of diverting the discussion from treating all americans with dignity to money and that the republican components of this discussion followed right along. Its imperative we have repsect for each other regardless of money. If we lose sight of that our enemies will eat us alive. The principles of rule of law, free speech, democracy areout greatest asset. Far more valuable than money.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

CPMKW said:


> You also have recognize the economic situation of each term. Good governance would mean spending through recessions and 'saving' during prosperity.


That was the conclusion I was going to draw down too, how little of an effect the actual president has on the economic outcome. I just wanted to get the red heads all riled up.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Metro M & L said:


> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-will-trump-voters-realize-theyve-been-had-2016-12-02
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

"The average family will see their premiums drop by $2500 per year"


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

Rio said:


> 7 years of pathetic job creation. The touting of 'We're below 5% unemployed in the work force' leaves out the fact that the only reason that is is because so many have given up looking for work. With those sorts of statistics if no one was looking for work we'd have '0% unemployement rate!! Woohoo!!".
> 
> 
> 
> The actual unemployment number is 10%, something the government and the media will never report while it's a dem in power but once it's a pub, watch out!




Ok so here's the thing....republicans tout tax cuts so the job "creators" can hire, however the high stock prices indicate all of the major corporations are doing well....extremely well profit wise. So whats the problem? Where are the good paying jobs? The companies are making money, but it apparently is not "trickling" down to the workers. 

Currently the gap between the CEOs and the average workers pay is the greatest that it has ever been. So there is money but they are not shared it with the workers. 

I look at all of the new businesses and all I really see is service sector/retail jobs that are being created....i have no idea what any politician can do to improve how much they are willing to pay their workers... plain and simple the good paying jobs are gone and only chit jobs are left... 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Rio said:


> This is the first post war presidency to not have at least one year of 3% growth.
> 
> What they were really good at was stifling the economy through so many layers of regulations.
> 
> ...


That finger must be muscle bound - all the pointing it does - and the pointing is worthless.

I say ya'll got nothing to ***** about just a bunch of old ladies looking to find an explanation for why their panties are always in a bundle.

Not just you - all of ya'll. Hungry and panhandling on the streets are ya?

Well, with just a little bit of luck, this next rosebud will find a way to deep-six the economy - and then we ALL will have something real to worry about.

Let's see now, what was the big deal in 2009? Yeah fixing SS was more important I guess.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Windycity said:


> Ok so here's the thing....republicans tout tax cuts so the job "creators" can hire, however the high stock prices indicate all of the major corporations are doing well....extremely well profit wise. So whats the problem? Where are the good paying jobs? The companies are making money, but it apparently is not "trickling" down to the workers.
> 
> Currently the gap between the CEOs and the average workers pay is the greatest that it has ever been. So there is money but they are not shared it with the workers.
> 
> ...


It's part of the industrial evolution process. You replace 12 middle class jobs with a machine. You now create higher level jobs for engineers, designer and service techs, then the manufacturing of it is done overseas. The profits increase earning the directors and shareholders more.

So your left with high level jobs and low level jobs no one wants, the gap widens.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> That was the conclusion I was going to draw down too, how little of an effect the actual president has on the economic outcome. I just wanted to get the red heads all riled up.




So if Trump only increases the debt to 39 trillion he did better than Obama, using your criteria that doubling the debt is the benchmark? I don't think so! The fact is doubling 10 trillion is far worse than doubling 5 trillion even with inflation.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> I know I'm sorry I misread.
> 
> My point of following in his footsteps was that bush walked into office and left with doubling the debt. Barry walked into office and walked out with double the debt.




This little gem here is useless as far as the numbers go. If Bush tripled the debt and the spending was less than Buckwheats spending at just doubling the debt, Bush was still more disciplined.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> So if Trump only increases the debt to 39 trillion he did better than Obama, using your criteria that doubling the debt is the benchmark? I don't think so! The fact is doubling 10 trillion is far worse than doubling 5 trillion even with inflation.


Agreed, that's why I originally compared it relative to GDP, which I think gives a more accurate representation. Relative to GDP Obama was the second worst, he increased the debt 20% (Debt/GDP), but when you compare that it Bush it wasn't as bad as his 27%.

When you look at Obama's financial history he fits right in with the righties.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> Agreed, that's why I originally compared it relative to GDP, which I think gives a more accurate representation. Relative to GDP Obama was the second worst, he increased the debt 20% (Debt/GDP), but when you compare that it Bush it wasn't as bad as his 27%.
> 
> When you look at Obama's financial history he fits right in with the righties.




Because I make more doesn't justify more wasteful spending. That's what you're saying! It's about total wasteful spending the gdp isn't a good reason for that.


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

Inner10 said:


> It's part of the industrial evolution process. You replace 12 middle class jobs with a machine. You now create higher level jobs for engineers, designer and service techs, then the manufacturing of it is done overseas. The profits increase earning the directors and shareholders more.
> 
> So your left with high level jobs and low level jobs no one wants, the gap widens.




Exactly, at some point there is simply not enough "good" jobs left for the amount of people that need jobs. We can all say that they need to learn a new skill or better themselves however when 7 out of 10 jobs is a retail/service job then what is everyone supposed to goto school or learn a new skill for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

Inner10 said:


> Agreed, that's why I originally compared it relative to GDP, which I think gives a more accurate representation. Relative to GDP Obama was the second worst, he increased the debt 20% (Debt/GDP), but when you compare that it Bush it wasn't as bad as his 27%.
> 
> When you look at Obama's financial history he fits right in with the righties.




GDP is probably the best way to gauge it. It is difficult to compare apples to apples when you look at just raw numbers due to changes in inflation/intrest etc.

Plus something else that hasn't been mentioned is the population is constantly growing by 2.5 million people a year so that is another factor. If we are comparing 2, 8 years term presidents (16 years) that is an additional 40 million people from the start of bush to the end of Obamas term. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CPMKW (Apr 28, 2014)

Californiadecks said:


> Because I make more doesn't justify more wasteful spending. That's what you're saying! It's about total wasteful spending the gdp isn't a good reason for that.


1. Wasteful spending is subjective. 

2. Making more money does mean more frivolous spending. Personal household or federal government. Once the basics are covered at home (Food, Shelter), then everything after that could be considered frivolous. 

Tropical plants and the water on them for instance.  Something you may not choose to do if your income was reduced drastically.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Windycity said:


> Exactly, at some point there is simply not enough "good" jobs left for the amount of people that need jobs. We can all say that they need to learn a new skill or better themselves however when 7 out of 10 jobs is a retail/service job then what is everyone supposed to goto school or learn a new skill for?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The more people there are, the more stuff that's needed, translates into more jobs needed. But if you keep sending the jobs overseas then you run out. 

How many people in China and Taiwan are employed because of the US? What if all those jobs were brought back here and the people actually worked them instead of saying they were to good to do that type of work?


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

Leo G said:


> The more people there are, the more stuff that's needed, translates into more jobs needed. But if you keep sending the jobs overseas then you run out.
> 
> How many people in China and Taiwan are employed because of the US? What if all those jobs were brought back here and the people actually worked them instead of saying they were to good to do that type of work?




Yes the more people there are= more consumers, however this is where technology and efficiency is taking over. Look at farming, the machines are so efficient now a combine is controlled with a gps to minimize movement and waste to most effectively farm a field. The damm thing doesn't even slow down to unload anymore, the truck drives next to unload. Almost all production is automated and yes there is people that are needed to "fix" the machines however it is vastly less workers than before. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

CPMKW said:


> 1. Wasteful spending is subjective.
> 
> 2. Making more money does mean more frivolous spending. Personal household or federal government. Once the basics are covered at home (Food, Shelter), then everything after that could be considered frivolous.
> 
> Tropical plants and the water on them for instance.  Something you may not choose to do if your income was reduced drastically.


If the government has extra money then I'm paying too much. They need to return the money not buy more stuff. It would be like Mickey D's charging me more for my lunch just because there's more money in my wallet. It's not their money!

No it's not subjective. The constitution makes it quite clear what the Fed's are to spend on. 

I'm against all federal spending regardless of party. Except these 8 things which are required by the constitution. That's it, everything else should be left to the states and local governments.

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.


----------



## EricBrancard (Jun 8, 2012)

People overlook the fact that we have outsourced industries vital to national security and defense of our nation to countries that can be considered rival peer states.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Because I make more doesn't justify more wasteful spending. That's what you're saying! It's about total wasteful spending the gdp isn't a good reason for that.


So you would rather reduce government spending and issue more US Treasury bonds to China and go further into debt than the government stimulate the economy and come out on top?

I'm a libertarian at heart, but I don't want to see Canada's pants speaking nothing but Chinese either.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> If the government has extra money then I'm paying too much. They need to return the money not buy more stuff. It would be like Mickey D's charging me more for my lunch just because there's more money in my wallet. It's not their money!
> 
> No it's not subjective. The constitution makes it quite clear what the Fed's are to spend on.
> 
> ...


It's not the time to return the money, it's not the time to cut your taxes, your country needs to pay down it's debt first.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

You need to mind your own countries problems and stop complaining about ours.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> So you would rather reduce government spending and issue more US Treasury bonds to China and go further into debt than the government stimulate the economy and come out on top?
> 
> I'm a libertarian at heart, but I don't want to see Canada's pants speaking nothing but Chinese either.


Government at it's core is wasteful enterprise which is why it doesn't stimulate the economy in the way the private sector does which is why the money is ALWAYS better off in the taxpayers pocket...

It's one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers warned against it and why the Federal government was to be of limited enumerated powers.

NO-ONE knows how to waste money better than government, and the irony is if the SAME actions were taken in business or by taxpayers, people would be fired or in jail...


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> It's not the time to return the money, it's not the time to cut your taxes, your country needs to pay down it's debt first.




It first needs to stop spending money and only spend on the constitutional requirements so we can pay down our debt. You're country needs to become less dependant on oil. Oil prices in the world market can sink you. It's what happens when the only thing you produce is oil!


----------



## CPMKW (Apr 28, 2014)

If you think Canada only produces oil you haven't been paying attention.

Why would you restrict spending to a document that is no longer reflective of society? You only want Post roads built?


----------



## CPMKW (Apr 28, 2014)

Leo G said:


> You need to mind your own countries problems and stop complaining about ours.


The US default on its loans just might have a small impact on Canada, and therefore be a matter of concern.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Since you have no control over it, why keep complaining. You obviously don't know the inner workings of how things roll in our govt. You are to socialist to know how to respond to our type of govt.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

CPMKW said:


> If you think Canada only produces oil you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Why would you restrict spending to a document that is no longer reflective of society? You only want Post roads built?



That was one of 8. That document still stands. There's a way to change it. It obvious hasn't been the will of our people to do so as it pertains to federal spending. If you knew anything about our document you would know about federal limitations set by our founders. 

You really shouldn't make comments on something you clearly know nothing about. 

The Tenth Amendment, or Amendment X of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that basically says that any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Maybe you should get your leaders to get Canada off our nipple if we have that much control on your liiitle insignificant ice cube. Don't attach yourself on our hip them complain about the attachment! Makes zero sense at all!


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> It first needs to stop spending money and only spend on the constitutional requirements so we can pay down our debt. You're country needs to become less dependant on oil. Oil prices in the world market can sink you. It's what happens when the only thing you produce is oil!


I agree with the former, but you gotta pay down the debt before you start cutting taxes or else you will never get out of the hole.

Canada is very oil reliant, Alberta took a huge blow when the price of crude dropped because the extraction from the oil sands isn't cost effective at that price point. We have guys in Ontario sanding drywall because all the work out west dried up. Still it's less than 20% of exports, lumber is catching up.



Leo G said:


> You need to mind your own countries problems and stop complaining about ours.


75% of our trade is with the US, as is 50 billion in debt. The majority of the products my business purchases are from the US.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

News flash.

We will NEVER get out of the hole. It's just not possible. A default and reset is the only way that deficit will go away.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> I agree with the former, but you gotta pay down the debt before you start cutting taxes or else you will never get out of the hole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called making our country appealing to businesses. We stand more to gain by being competitive and creating millions of taxpayers. The way to do that is get rid of regulations that are choking our economy and cut business taxes. You can't tax your way into prosperity!


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> It's called making our country appealing to businesses. We stand more to gain by being competitive and creating millions of taxpayers. The way to do that is get rid of regulations that are choking our economy and cut business taxes. You can't tax your way into prosperity!


Yep, I like that. But you don't want to sacrifice defense spending eh? Small government, big military. It's unfortunate that military budget over extensions have really buried the country in debt. Too bad they can't follow in Singapore's footsteps, little regulation on business, small government, very fiscally successful without being rich in natural resources. Too bad that doesn't fit the bill for a larger country...or does it...


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> Yep, I like that. But you don't want to sacrifice defense spending eh? Small government, big military. It's unfortunate that military budget over extensions have really buried the country in debt. Too bad they can't follow in Singapore's footsteps, little regulation on business, small government, very fiscally successful without being rich in natural resources. Too bad that doesn't fit the bill for a larger country...or does it...




I don't want too sacrifice any one of the required constitutional duties of the federal government. If we kept it to those eight things we'd be money up. It was when the federal gov decided to be Santa Claus to all people is when we got in trouble. Let's gett Santa back to the states where balanced budgets are required by law.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> Yep, I like that. But you don't want to sacrifice defense spending eh? Small government, big military. It's unfortunate that military budget over extensions have really buried the country in debt. Too bad they can't follow in Singapore's footsteps, little regulation on business, small government, very fiscally successful without being rich in natural resources. Too bad that doesn't fit the bill for a larger country...or does it...


Military spending is one of the things we're SUPPOSED to spend money on (as has been the case from the beginning) as opposed to the PLETHORA of things we're not but do... while I am for cuts or better use of resources across the board, including in the military, the challenge is spending money on the military for other countries without being reimbursed... 

There's a lot more of that type of spending than we'd find in cuts, but I'm quite sure those who benefit from it (i.e. - totalitarian, socialist, communist alike) wouldn't like that gravy train to end... Personally, I'm not necessarily an isolationist, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to be reimbursed... ESPECIALLY if we have to borrow the money to assist...


----------



## CPMKW (Apr 28, 2014)

Californiadecks said:


> Maybe you should get your leaders to get Canada off our nipple if we have that much control on your liiitle insignificant ice cube. Don't attach yourself on our hip them complain about the attachment! Makes zero sense at all!


I don't think your anger is needed nor does it add to the conversation. 

I don't recall complaining... only that you shouldn't view the US debt situation as only being relevant to the US.

I will also apologize for questioning your commitment to the Constitution as written. I certainly do not have the same attachment (emotional or otherwise) to it that a US citizen would.

And yes I do have a working knowledge of the Federal and State responsibilities. To be honest, it isn't alien to the way in which our Federal and Provincial governments operate. 

So, let's remove the Federal spending that isn't within the constitutional requirements and download it to the state. California is $500 billion dollars in debt. What is the path back? 

And yes Leo I agree. There is no way the debt gets paid back. I can say the same thing about my provincial and federal debt here. 

I have always heard that a major difference between bankrupt countries like Greece and the US is that Americans pay their taxes. It was always thought that the US could tax their way back. I don't see that being realistic any longer.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

CPMKW said:


> I don't think your anger is needed nor does it add to the conversation.
> 
> I don't recall complaining... only that you shouldn't view the US debt situation as only being relevant to the US.
> 
> ...


Judging by your minimizing the federal duties to "postal roads" to make your point. You clearly don't know what our document stands for or means. No anger here. Just to the point. 

Proposition 58, or the California Balanced Budget Act, was on the statewide California primary ballot on March 2, 2004 as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was convincingly approved. Proposition 58 requires state legislators to pass a balanced budget every year.

The debt you are referring to is bonds that were passed by the citizens of California. The citizens can raise their taxes if they choose. Or borrow money, that is voted in. However if California screws up I don't think any other state should pay a dime for it. 

_________


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Maybe you should get your leaders to get Canada off our nipple if we have that much control on your liiitle insignificant ice cube. Don't attach yourself on our hip them complain about the attachment! Makes zero sense at all!


You realize that we export the majority of our resources to the US which you process then sell abroad? As well, the majority of our imports are from the US?

You realize that Canada owns 50 billion is US Treasury. 

It's a symbiotic relationship, the US is in no way a nipple, it's more like a 69, and it's in your best interest to keep sucking if you want us to reciprocate.

If either country fails it's a huge blow to the other. Imagine Canada gets obliterated and you have to defend the entire 49th parallel.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

50 billion, it govt terms here, is peanuts. In 12 days our govt goes through 50 billion.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Leo G said:


> 50 billion, it govt terms here, is peanuts. In 12 days our govt goes through 50 billion.


True but for a peanut country like Canada that smidgen is 3 or 4 percent of GDP.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> You realize that we export the majority of our resources to the US which you process then sell abroad? As well, the majority of our imports are from the US?
> 
> You realize that Canada owns 50 billion is US Treasury.
> 
> ...




We don't need you to survive. You are basically insignificant as far as world security is concerned. If you disappeared tomorrow we would have to scramble for the short term to secure the territory, but we'd get it done. If we disappeared tomorrow you'd be speaking Russian by Monday.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Californiadecks said:


> We don't need you to survive. You are basically insignificant as far as world security is concerned. If you disappeared tomorrow we would have to scramble for the short term to secure the territory, but we'd get it done. If we disappeared tomorrow you'd be speaking Russian by Monday.


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> We don't need you to survive. You are basically insignificant as far as world security is concerned. If you disappeared tomorrow we would have to scramble for the short term to secure the territory, but we'd get it done. If we disappeared tomorrow you'd be speaking Russian by Monday.


I'd think Chinese.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

The chinese are a much bigger problem. There 150 million russians. Their population is aging and actually shrinking. Theres 1.3 billion chinese and they lifted their one child policy two years ago. Having the best weapons is good, but having production capacity has won all great power wars since the american civil war.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> The chinese are a much bigger problem. There 150 million russians. Their population is aging and actually shrinking. Theres 1.3 billion chinese and they lifted their one child policy two years ago. Having the best weapons is good, but having production capacity has won all great power wars since the american civil war.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk




Man power isn't what wins wars anymore!


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

The People’s Liberation Army Ground Forces (China)

China’s Army—officially the People’s Liberation Army Ground Forces (PLAGF)— is the largest army in Asia. Numbering 1.6 million active duty troops, the PLAGF is charged with securing China’s borders, providing a capability to project land power in China’s neighborhood and increasingly, on a global scale.

The 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which the United States and its coalition allies made short work of a larger Iraqi Army shocked the PLAGF leadership. The Chinese Army’s traditional reliance on manpower had clearly been negated by advances in technology.

As a result, the Chinese Army has undergone significant changes in the past two decades. Active manpower has been slashed by several million troops. The number of field armies and combat divisions has been dramatically cut. At the same time, China’s rapid economic growth has allowed it to rapidly increase defense spending, funding high-tech upgrades.

Although the PLAGF lags behind China’s naval and air forces in priority, it has introduced a number of modern weapons systems. The Type 99 series of tanks has undergone several major revisions in the past decade, as the Chinese Army seeks to deploy a tank on par with the American M1 Abrams. The WZ-10, China’s first real attack helicopter, has begun to enter service. Despite the influx of new equipment, the PLAGF still counts vast amounts of obsolete equipment, such as Type 59 tanks in its active-duty inventories. Full modernization will take at least another decade, and possibly two, as the Chinese economy slows.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

The germans and the japanese thought that superior equipment and tactics would win the war. The both had superior tech, tanks and aircraft at the out set. But american production, and russian cannon fodder was their undoing. 

But my most important observation is that wars are not started to take from the enemy. The enemy is created so that a countrys leaders can weild absolute power indefinitely.

Please read this quote from Herman Goring.

http://www.elise.com/quotes/hermann...ways_be_brought_to_the_bidding_of_the_leaders


Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1393155

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

http://www.azquotes.com/author/5626-Joseph_Goebbels

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Ao the true danger that the world faces now is that there are three fascist dictators controlling the three most powerful nations. Russia, china and america.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Its inherently unstable. And the leader we just elected has seemingly no comprension of the balance of power and what happens when it is disrupted.

Read kissingers On Diplomacy if youd like to catch my drift.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> Ao the true danger that the world faces now is that there are three fascist dictators controlling the three most powerful nations. Russia, china and america.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

The Russian T-34 tank is widely regarded as one the best all around tanks in WWII.

*A landmark in tank history*

The T-34 was and remains a legend. It is not only the most produced tank of the WWII-era, with 84,000 built (compared to the 48,966 Shermans of all versions) but also one of the longest-serving tanks ever built. Many are still stored in depots in Asia and Africa, and some served actively during the 90’s (such as during the 1991-99 Yugoslavian war). They formed the backbone of countless armored forces around the globe from the fifties to the eighties. The basic design was drawn for the first time in 1938 with the A-32, in turn partially derived from the BT-7M, a late evolution of the US-born Christie tank.
The first version of the T-34/76 came as a nasty surprise for the overconfident German troops in the fall of 1941, when it was first committed en masse. Not only were they able to cope with the mud and snow with their large tracks, but they came with a perfect combination of thick and highly sloped armor, efficient gun, good speed, autonomy and, above all, extreme sturdiness, reliability, ease of manufacturing and maintenance. A perfect winner for an industrial war and a significant leap in tank design. While the T-34 did have a number of deficiencies, the T-34’s influence on the future designs and the concept of the main battle tank is unquestionable.

The sloped armor was a good solution to deflect most hits while not relying on excessive thickness. First encounters in July 1941 proved that no German tank was able to reliably score a penetration. To the disappointment of the enemy officers, their shots simply bounced off these well-armored machines. The need for a more powerful gun, with very high velocity, was the origin of the Panther design (Panzer V).


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> The germans and the japanese thought that superior equipment and tactics would win the war. The both had superior tech, tanks and aircraft at the out set. But american production, and russian cannon fodder was their undoing.
> 
> But my most important observation is that wars are not started to take from the enemy. The enemy is created so that a countrys leaders can weild absolute power indefinitely.
> 
> ...




How'd that tech end for Japan?


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Fighting robots and AI tied together, bots trained to fight alone and in wolf packs, with adaptability capabilities, is the brave new world of future wars, listened to a fascinating and chilling account of what to expect in the next few decades.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Rio said:


> Fighting robots and AI tied together, bots trained to fight alone and in wolf packs, with adaptability capabilities, is the brave new world of future wars, listened to a fascinating and chilling account of what to expect in the next few decades.




Yep the future of fighting is not going to be large armies of human's.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> How'd that tech end for Japan?



"Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology."

It works so well on you.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

The Germans never developed a 4 engine bomber.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> How'd that tech end for Japan?


Thats my whole point. Technology is good for initial conditions. But production becomes more important due to attrition of equipment and personnel.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

Rio said:


> Fighting robots and AI tied together, bots trained to fight alone and in wolf packs, with adaptability capabilities, is the brave new world of future wars, listened to a fascinating and chilling account of what to expect in the next few decades.


Totally agree. When the systems of warfare change it incentivizes rapid development and implementation. Ie an arms race.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Metro M & L said:


> The germans and the japanese thought that superior equipment and tactics would win the war. The both had superior tech, tanks and aircraft at the out set. But american production, and russian cannon fodder was their undoing.


Actually it was technology that took out Japan and would've eventually ended the war in Germany as well if the Russians hadn't entered the war.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Rio said:


> The Germans never developed a 4 engine bomber.


They were focused on diving bombers, but they still had 4 engine bombers. 

FW200 had 4, the HE177 could support 4 but they only put on 2 so it would be capable of dive bombing. JU290 was going a passenger 4 engine that was going to be used as a bomber but never was outfitted fully. 

They had big plans for a bomber that could reach the US but they never materialized. The JU390 didn't get to see action but it had 6 engines. AR234 was a jet bomber with 4. A number of other prototypes were built and planned but they didn't materialize in time.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Actually it was technology that took out Japan and would've eventually ended the war in Germany as well if the Russians hadn't entered the war.


If the Russians hadn't entered the war against Germany it's very likely Germany would have won the war but they really didn't have a choice as it was Hitler who violated their vile pact and launched Operation Barbarossa which, it it hadn't been for Hitler butting in so much and had the weather been more cooperative, might have been a success. 

The West was very fortunate to prevail against the Axis powers, notably Germany, which say what one will about, was and is an amazing industrial power.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Inner10 said:


> They were focused on diving bombers, but they still had 4 engine bombers.
> 
> FW200 had 4, the HE177 could support 4 but they only put on 2 so it would be capable of dive bombing. JU290 was going a passenger 4 engine that was going to be used as a bomber but never was outfitted fully.
> 
> They had big plans for a bomber that could reach the US but they never materialized. The JU390 didn't get to see action but it had 6 engines. AR234 was a jet bomber with 4. A number of other prototypes were built and planned but they didn't materialize in time.


They might have built a few but not to the extent to make any difference I believe. They were certainly innovative, coming up with various designs for planes along with the V-1, The V-2 and had plans for the V-3 to target the United States which would have been the first ICBM. 

Fortunately for us they'd killed or run off all of their Jewish scientists which could have been a big help with their heavy water research and their facilities on that were also decimated by bombing or they might have had nukes to stick on the V-3.

If they'd put more effort into developing their jets, which they had operational as early as 1942 I think, it could have been really bad for our bombers and fighters.


----------

