It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Originally posted by peck420
Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Are you being serious?
190% increase in debt liabilities every year for 30 years would consume the GDP before fiscal year even started.
For Christs sake Obama has only hit 45%, is there reason why you ignoring the vast and gross negligence 189% represents?
Ignoring is vastly different than understanding.
I am ignoring the 190% (and the 45%) because they are meaningless numbers. You would need to understand that debt is only a good analysis tool when you have something to compare it to. For example, if you have $10 debt and you increase that to $30 dollars debt, you have increased by 200%...which sounds terrible. If you have an income of $500, it is, all of a sudden, not very terrible at all. That is why debt needs to be compared to something. I will use the economic standard of debt to GDP.
Reagan debt to GDP at start: 32%
Reagan debt to GDP at end: 52%
Total debt growth: 20% of GDP
Both are well within what was (and still is) considered manageable.
Obama debt to GDP at start: 85%
Current debt to GDP: 106%
Total debt growth: 21% of GDP
Both are easily considered excessive. I readily admit that this is not an 'Obama problem', as he inherited and excessive debt load with massive deficits.
The thing you fail to mention (I am starting to wonder why?) is that although Reagan increased debt, he increased GDP as well...at a significantly better pace than at current, which is why his debt increase of 190% relates to a smaller difference than Obama's debt increase of 45% on a debt to GDP scale.
I am not arguing that the GDP didn't rise, it did, it is called Keynesian economics
when the government spends to stimulate economic growth in the private sector.
I take issue with the amount Ronald Reagan increased spending, getting 32% on a test
in 1962 does not mean that the score is invalid just because it is 2012. Reagan broke
all the molds and implemented the current debt model that America is a slave to.
I can make $50,000 get a cash advance for $50,000 and look like I have earned $100,000,
this is exactly what you are trying to get me to agree with.
On a side note, every single person on this thread that I have talked to has acted in bad faith.
When I was young people did not readily commit to such half truths, even if it made your
argument look soft because there was admiration for the truth. Some of you make Lawyers
look tame, so maybe you guys should think about becoming politicians.
Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
Then you never should have said this
It was irresponsible to cut rates so dramatically and apparently
be completely mathematically challenged.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The biggest problem with the entire argument here is that there an an extremely rich 1% some of whom pay no taxes hiding with the other top 9% who busted their butts and did things ethically to get there.
The original OWS movement was only about that corrupt portion of the top 1% who have cheated and stolen to get where they are.
Tonight on ABC news they said someone filling up a Ford F150 truck was paying over $14 per tank directly to wall street speculators.
Originally posted by mastahunta
When we start killing each other over our differences, i wonder if our speculation loving
friends on this thread will see how they enabled tragedy with their blind defense of the
rich?
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Originally posted by mastahunta
When we start killing each other over our differences, i wonder if our speculation loving
friends on this thread will see how they enabled tragedy with their blind defense of the
rich?
Are you kidding me? They won't be able to see over the little drink umbrellas their sipping on the back of their yachts.
Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
On a side note, every single person on this thread that I have talked to has acted in bad faith.
When I was young people did not readily commit to such half truths, even if it made your argument look soft because there was admiration for the truth. Some of you make Lawyers look tame, so maybe you guys should think about becoming politicians.
Originally posted by mastahunta
yup... That says it all.
The same people who bash Big Spending, Big Government lovers
admire the grandfather of Big Spending, Big Government. If these
people saw an R next to Obama's name, they would love him, it is
pathetic and sad because they point the finger, they are the people
who claim to be against it.
It is not like liberals create social programs and then blame the GOP
for these programs. That is the difference in issue after issue, there is
no comparable mechanism in the liberal machine that I can detect.
This is probably because conservatives seem to be against everything
that doesn't benefit the rich first and foremost.
Can any name three things the GOP has done for a large cross section
of American citizens in the last 30 years?
Originally posted by peck420
Originally posted by mastahunta
yup... That says it all.
The same people who bash Big Spending, Big Government lovers
admire the grandfather of Big Spending, Big Government. If these
people saw an R next to Obama's name, they would love him, it is
pathetic and sad because they point the finger, they are the people
who claim to be against it.
It is not like liberals create social programs and then blame the GOP
for these programs. That is the difference in issue after issue, there is
no comparable mechanism in the liberal machine that I can detect.
This is probably because conservatives seem to be against everything
that doesn't benefit the rich first and foremost.
Can any name three things the GOP has done for a large cross section
of American citizens in the last 30 years?
And what does that say about non-Americans that agree with the actions he took?
We must be Republicans!
Some of us see it for exactly what it was, a noble attempt to save a dying economy. From a purely academic stand point, Reagan (or his economic advisers) made the best decisions they could make at the time the decisions were made. They accomplished almost every goal they tried to accomplish, economically.
And don't call me naive or ignorant just because I think there's something fundamentally wrong with society because I seem to be among very few intelligent people who will even admit this fact!
What exactly is "real" money? And what constitutes "earning" it? What are you people [snip] stupid? Have you learned nothing about our past 2000 years as a civilization?
There is no "real" money and there's no such thing as "earning" it.
Economics is just as warped as politics except at least the majority of you accept that politics is rigged.
What is your tax money being spent on? Making your life experience better for you? Or sustaining the elite's control over you? The answer should be so obvious it makes you feel stupid. And if it's not, then maybe you ARE stupid! God damn this # is frustrating.
You can only become part of the solution when you realize that we have never had a fair economic system, we've never had a fair society, we've never had fair rights and we've never been free.
Originally posted by poet1b
Don't buy into the propaganda.
The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
Then you never should have said this
It was irresponsible to cut rates so dramatically and apparently
be completely mathematically challenged.
I don't see a damn thing wrong about his assertions.
I happen to love numbers, lets go at it, anytime... Tell
me how anyone can think Reagan's spending was
reasonable? It was out of fricking control
Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Kali74
Regarding the calculations you are posting or linking to: Could you simplify a little and tell us the percentage you think the top 10% earners are paying, in one short sentence? If its not 70%, what then?
With the enormous amount of posts some simplification would be appreciated.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
No sport, I was originally in a discussion with OutKast when you decided to smarmily interject with your snide sarcasm that was all about presumption of liability. You made some stupid claim that you were "with me" when you clearly had no idea what I am talking about and it is clear you remain clueless still.