New slavery coming for many Americans
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
Did you become a mage first, then ascend, or did the ascension come first and then you achieved magedom (or is it magehood?)
smurph, Tenzing may have a point. For instance, he clearly knows how to refute points of an argument and answer questions. I submit "Exhibit A", where he clearly proved that point in retort to my questions:
Learn from the Texan, comrade...:violin:
Learn from the Texan, comrade...:violin:
In looking at some of the recent essays by the sage, the Presidential comment from our current Texan commander comes to mind...
"Reading is the basics for all learning."
"Reading is the basics for all learning."
wow
wow
You guys have very deep-seated issues.
You are the ones making claims. I pointed out a little fact, 45+ years of continuous Democrat control of congress after the end of WWII, you can verify it yourself anywhere you'd like. It shows you aren't really interested in your point, but rather want to blame Large companies for not being a part of your politics.
Why don't you do a little research into Goldman Sachs, see how many of their board of governors, and corporate types are Republicans, compared to non-Republicans.
Jabber, you seem like a nice guy, as do you Chad, but seriously, how about a little decorum and some basic decency to both, stay on-topic in each thread (which is why we have threads, and not a huge jumbled mess) and to refrain from personal attacks?
Oh and to Spy, who exactly does the US owe all those trillions of dollars to? If they have 21 trillion dollars why don't they just buy the whole country rather than lending us money?? Let's do just a little critical thinking here. The US owes no body nothing. If we did, tho, which we don't, could renig on the debt, and they would sue the US in which court again?
wow
You guys have very deep-seated issues.
You are the ones making claims. I pointed out a little fact, 45+ years of continuous Democrat control of congress after the end of WWII, you can verify it yourself anywhere you'd like. It shows you aren't really interested in your point, but rather want to blame Large companies for not being a part of your politics.
Why don't you do a little research into Goldman Sachs, see how many of their board of governors, and corporate types are Republicans, compared to non-Republicans.
Jabber, you seem like a nice guy, as do you Chad, but seriously, how about a little decorum and some basic decency to both, stay on-topic in each thread (which is why we have threads, and not a huge jumbled mess) and to refrain from personal attacks?
Oh and to Spy, who exactly does the US owe all those trillions of dollars to? If they have 21 trillion dollars why don't they just buy the whole country rather than lending us money?? Let's do just a little critical thinking here. The US owes no body nothing. If we did, tho, which we don't, could renig on the debt, and they would sue the US in which court again?
Last edited:
Ok, I'll play a little. During the 45+ democratically controlled legislation (haven't checked that, but don't need to for this)years since WW2, was the economy horrible, or even bad, the entire time? Was it ever good during those times? And if they are at fault for all the bad times (plenty to dispute this, by the way, but I digress), then they certainly have to get some credit for the good times, too. I mean, if they were the majority the whole time, and all...
Wondering aloud why Americans seemed so happy having a majority of democrats representing them for 45 years? I guess because things were so bad all that time? I have to say, thanks for pointing out how strongly Americans preferred the democrats for so many years. I think that says a lot - really.
Wondering aloud why Americans seemed so happy having a majority of democrats representing them for 45 years? I guess because things were so bad all that time? I have to say, thanks for pointing out how strongly Americans preferred the democrats for so many years. I think that says a lot - really.
We had a post-war boom, but most of those years showed no more than expected growth, and no worse than expected slowdowns (all of which are directed by humans, the stock markets don't buy and seel stuff on thier own, all those automated buying selling scripts are human-written). Almost all Democrats saw some sort of "resession" for most of thier terms, and most Reblicans saw most of the terms provide an upturn. The largest upturns in Post-Civil war era have been under Republicans, and all the biggest downturns, under Democrats.
Oh, and btw, good for the Dems 45+ years is quite a feat, esp when you accomplish nothing, and whine about how Republican administrations don't give you what you yourself were unwilling to give.
America's gross influx of immigrants is higher than the rest of the world's, combined. We create more post-graduates than any other country on earth. Our financial stability is a cumulative longer period than any other nation on earth, by a period of over 100 years, and more of our population is above "poverty" level than all but a few oil-rich nations, and countries that inflate their currencies, so as to provide false stats.
Oh, and btw, good for the Dems 45+ years is quite a feat, esp when you accomplish nothing, and whine about how Republican administrations don't give you what you yourself were unwilling to give.
America's gross influx of immigrants is higher than the rest of the world's, combined. We create more post-graduates than any other country on earth. Our financial stability is a cumulative longer period than any other nation on earth, by a period of over 100 years, and more of our population is above "poverty" level than all but a few oil-rich nations, and countries that inflate their currencies, so as to provide false stats.
Last edited:
That took about 2 minutes - heres a quickie from Time Magazine:
February 8, 2008 12:38
New column: Do presidents matter to the economy?
Posted by Justin Fox
I have a column in the new Time with Hillary C. and Barry O. on the cover and online here. It begins: For decades, scholars have been churning out studies on the impact the economy has on presidential elections. The not-very-surprising message of most of them: economic trouble is bad news for the party that occupies the White House.
The seemingly far more important question of what impact Presidents have on the economy has been studied less, with far less conclusive results. See, it's not just journalists who obsess over campaign horse races and neglect issues. It's economists and political scientists too.
The reason is that separating cause and effect on Presidents and the economy is hard. Yes, over the past half-century, Democratic administrations have seen faster economic growth--and better stock-market performance--than Republican ones. But the sample size is so small that you really can't rule out luck.
A perhaps more solid result, because it jibes with the parties' priorities, is Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels' finding that income inequality increases more under Republicans than under Democrats. But a case can also be made that it doesn't matter who's in charge. A study of political leadership and economic growth around the world by economists Ben Jones of Northwestern University and Ben Olken of Harvard found that changes at the top made a big difference--but only in dictatorships. Read more.
The Larry Bartels study can be downloaded here and the Jones-Olken study here. The best-known studies of the impact of the economy on presidential elections are those of Yale's Ray Fair, which you can read all about here. Fair even has a calculator that lets you type in your guesses about inflation and GDP growth leading up to the November election and generate your very own election forecast.
As for my contention that "over the past half-century, Democratic administrations have seen faster economic growth--and better stock-market performance--than Republican ones," it was actually supposed to be changed to "since World War II," but that got lost in the shuffle. I'm pretty sure it's true over both time periods, though. The evidence for the former comes from the book Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy by Alberto Alesina, Nouriel Roubini and Gerald Cohen. There's also a review of the matter in this paper by Allan Drazen. On stock market performance, there's "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market," by Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov. Another recent paper by Erik Snowberg, Justin Wolfers, and Eric Zitzewitz finds that the stock market's immediate reaction to Republican election victories is strongly positive, but they don't know if that's because investors are deluded or because they know something about future Republican vs. Democratic policies that no economist can quantify.
On economic growth, I'm willing to buy that, up through the 1970s, there might have been a clear cause-and-effect relationship, given that Republican administrations were more likely to push for balanced budgets and other austerity measures that would slow growth in the short term. But the GOP discovered the joys of deficit spending in the early 1980s, and I really think the dramatic economic outperformance by the one Democratic administration since then was more a matter of lucky timing than anything else. I do think the Clintonistas did a good job of adapting their policies to the economic environment, which hasn't been so much the case for Bush 2. But that environment wasn't Bill Clinton's creation.
February 8, 2008 12:38
New column: Do presidents matter to the economy?
Posted by Justin Fox
I have a column in the new Time with Hillary C. and Barry O. on the cover and online here. It begins: For decades, scholars have been churning out studies on the impact the economy has on presidential elections. The not-very-surprising message of most of them: economic trouble is bad news for the party that occupies the White House.
The seemingly far more important question of what impact Presidents have on the economy has been studied less, with far less conclusive results. See, it's not just journalists who obsess over campaign horse races and neglect issues. It's economists and political scientists too.
The reason is that separating cause and effect on Presidents and the economy is hard. Yes, over the past half-century, Democratic administrations have seen faster economic growth--and better stock-market performance--than Republican ones. But the sample size is so small that you really can't rule out luck.
A perhaps more solid result, because it jibes with the parties' priorities, is Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels' finding that income inequality increases more under Republicans than under Democrats. But a case can also be made that it doesn't matter who's in charge. A study of political leadership and economic growth around the world by economists Ben Jones of Northwestern University and Ben Olken of Harvard found that changes at the top made a big difference--but only in dictatorships. Read more.
The Larry Bartels study can be downloaded here and the Jones-Olken study here. The best-known studies of the impact of the economy on presidential elections are those of Yale's Ray Fair, which you can read all about here. Fair even has a calculator that lets you type in your guesses about inflation and GDP growth leading up to the November election and generate your very own election forecast.
As for my contention that "over the past half-century, Democratic administrations have seen faster economic growth--and better stock-market performance--than Republican ones," it was actually supposed to be changed to "since World War II," but that got lost in the shuffle. I'm pretty sure it's true over both time periods, though. The evidence for the former comes from the book Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy by Alberto Alesina, Nouriel Roubini and Gerald Cohen. There's also a review of the matter in this paper by Allan Drazen. On stock market performance, there's "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market," by Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov. Another recent paper by Erik Snowberg, Justin Wolfers, and Eric Zitzewitz finds that the stock market's immediate reaction to Republican election victories is strongly positive, but they don't know if that's because investors are deluded or because they know something about future Republican vs. Democratic policies that no economist can quantify.
On economic growth, I'm willing to buy that, up through the 1970s, there might have been a clear cause-and-effect relationship, given that Republican administrations were more likely to push for balanced budgets and other austerity measures that would slow growth in the short term. But the GOP discovered the joys of deficit spending in the early 1980s, and I really think the dramatic economic outperformance by the one Democratic administration since then was more a matter of lucky timing than anything else. I do think the Clintonistas did a good job of adapting their policies to the economic environment, which hasn't been so much the case for Bush 2. But that environment wasn't Bill Clinton's creation.
um..
um..
Wherein a refutation of what I wrote is contained where, again...?
MORE ****ING OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT REFUTE A POINT MADE EARLIER IN THE THREAD.
There are no "facts" in that link, just a lot of "lost in the shuffle" and "I'm pretty sure..."
:mfpost
um..
Wherein a refutation of what I wrote is contained where, again...?
MORE ****ING OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT REFUTE A POINT MADE EARLIER IN THE THREAD.
There are no "facts" in that link, just a lot of "lost in the shuffle" and "I'm pretty sure..."
:mfpost
My, God...this is unbelievable. I just don't know what to say. I posted a direct essay on republican and democratic administrations and the economy during them. Your point was republican administrations were always better than democratic ones in economic terms.
If this is off point, then I don't know what to tell you.
But I do know, I'd like to have some of what you are either drinking, or smoking, this afternoon...:toast:
If this is off point, then I don't know what to tell you.
But I do know, I'd like to have some of what you are either drinking, or smoking, this afternoon...:toast:
Chad, the two "links" "sources", whatever both have phraseology that indicates that the source writer is not 100% sure that what was posted is factualy accurate. Go back and read what you posted to refute my claims in these threads, they ALL have errors, and self-acknowledged indications that maybe it wasn't as the writer thought they were.
Your sources, bro, better sure about them, BEFORE you post.
And, also, you haven't shown anything I wrote to be factually wrong.
But Kosar was kind enuf to note that Hussein did give over $27k to Wright.
You know, your lack of knowledge on these topics, and wildly off-topic postings are belligerent, which you do all time. Don't be surprised that I have a boiling point.
I'm not saying what I posted was irrefutable evidence of anything, just noting a different opinion from someone who has studied the situation - I'd guess a heck of a lot more than you have. Don't worry, I will post factual info and links to disprove your OPINION - still unproven and not backed up by anything other than your words (which have been proven wrong in the other thread - embarrassingly so).
You don't have to prove you comments/opinions with any facts or links. No worries. I'll be satisfied proving your opinions wrong with them...and I know that you can't prove them. Nothing is as black and white as you try to maintain...especially with the economy. The economy has always been a rollercoaster, and rarely has any administration had much to do with it. Most economists maintain that - but I guess not the ones that helped you formulate your "facts".
You don't have to prove you comments/opinions with any facts or links. No worries. I'll be satisfied proving your opinions wrong with them...and I know that you can't prove them. Nothing is as black and white as you try to maintain...especially with the economy. The economy has always been a rollercoaster, and rarely has any administration had much to do with it. Most economists maintain that - but I guess not the ones that helped you formulate your "facts".
Which is more likely, the economy (I'll help you out here; "economy" is a thought-word that describes nothng tangible) directs itself, or is directed by humans??
So, if I say your point is right, or more likely, then if I show proof of the economy improving under a democratic administration, then they were responsible?
Not sure what you mean, sorry. edit By that I mean, never said the opposite of what you claim you can show, was true....
Which is more likely, a human driven economic system, including stock, futures, derivatives, etc, or one in which random decisions are made without so much as a thought by a single human? Obviously, Human created the "economy" (qv: Goldman Sachs), and they designed and built the computers that do the grunt work.
Last edited:
:grins: That's what smuph does.
Regarding the mod, be advised that he has confessed himself a bit of a commie-leaner, FWIW
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
United States public debt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States total public debt, commonly called the national debt, or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. debt instruments. Debt held by the public is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held for Social Security. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.[1]
As of March 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.4 trillion[2], about $79,000 in average for each American taxpayer. Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion.[4] In 2007 the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP ranking 65th in the world.[5]
It is important to differentiate between public debt and external debt. The former is the amount owed by the government to its creditors, whether they are nationals or foreigners. The latter is the debt of all sectors of the economy (public and private), owed to foreigners. In the U.S., foreign ownership of the public debt is a significant part of the nation's external debt. The Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the United States Department of the Treasury, calculates the amount of money owed by the national government on a daily basis.
Don't wanna hear crap from you too, Florida!
By the way, what is more "commie" - starting an enterprising website that gets income from sponsors and allows an open forum of discussion on all sorts of topics - OR - banning the economic activity that essentially generates said income and supports the forum?
By my count, Republicans are far and away the communist of the two parties. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
By the way, what is more "commie" - starting an enterprising website that gets income from sponsors and allows an open forum of discussion on all sorts of topics - OR - banning the economic activity that essentially generates said income and supports the forum?
By my count, Republicans are far and away the communist of the two parties. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
If you say so, Finland. Aren't we prejudiced and labeling, huh? So undemocratic censoring (shock). And you're one of the good ones.
And, yes, you are probably right about repubs. Taking us on the same neo-sociliast road 'cept in the middle lane 'stead of the left lane. Nanny state, Nanny state. Thought that had ended after Catherine the Great :shrug:
Chill, man, the Jackson-meister don't need "protectors from evil" :142smilie Pretty sure he can handle himself and actually got the jist of the remark.
Man, you pseudo-commies are really on edge lately :SIB :SIB :mj07:..... Be patient, there is still HOPE for CHANGE. :00hour
............ sorry... progressive thinking indivuduals interested in the overall good for mankind.
Last edited:
