If they're so confident that we're a small contingent, they can continue to release broken games, and I'll continue to buy games from other companies that don't limit the number of times we're allowed to install the games we paid for with (non-trivial amounts of) money.
[...]I say you don't understand becuase(sic) you openly demonstrate as much with your point about collecting on US debt. You seem to think that they can just call it in and get paid, while you totally ignore that doing so would massively devalue the dollar,[...]
and You know very well what would happen if China tried to unload any real amount of US debt (which they can't simply collect on, as it's not that kind of debt).
You'll have to enlighten me.
How will severely reducing the monetary supply send the US into a hyper-inflationary period? How will selling bonds send the US into a hyper-inflationary period?
Stating that Clinton didn't balance the budget is stating a truth denying the greater truth that whether he hit the 0 or not, the graph shows clearly that Carter and Clinton reduced the rate of change of debt substantially and even if he never hit it, he approached 0, whereas Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have more or less linear rate of change in inflation adjusted debt, and that rate is about twice as much as the democratic presidents.
Yes, but these tactics, becoming instead of a conquering army, a "liberating" army, is straight out of the Soviet Union's playbook. Stalin would be proud.
He'd also be proud of the excellent way we've begun to seize the means of production, but that's neither here nor there.
Nixon reduced the debt. Ford increased the debt more than Nixon reduced it.
Nixon unfortunately reduced the debt by destroying the dollar. Breaking away from the last vestiges of the breton woods system kicked inflation into hyperdrive, effectively reducing the debt's value.
I didn't realise what you meant until I saw this post a couple times, and finally realised that we're so well off, it's pretty hard to hate on any of the parties, given how bad it is down south.
I'm not saying that, but I AM saying that the Republicans have a fundamentally flawed fiscal and economic policy. They think they can cut taxes when they're already not getting enough money to pay the bills, then cut taxes some more, then cut taxes some MORE, then act like it's not their fault that the deficit grows like weeds under their watch.
That's what I'm saying. It's not that one is evil or one is good. It's that the Republicans have a fucking stupid set of policies which have a 25 year track record of resulting in massive increases in spending and massive massive increases in debt.
Given the present orgy of spending, who cares if Clinton balanced the budget or simply came close to balancing the budget?
I know it's a hard concept, but why not ignore rhetoric for a moment and actually look at the numbers like a scientist? Every debt metric you can think of shows that the Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years were years nearly indistinguishable thanks to constant massive rate of debt accumulation and budget increases. By contrast, Carter and Clinton show reductions in the rate of change of debt and budget(Though in Carter's case, that's more because Ford was an idiot who ran up the debt and budget).
Things are about to get insanely difficult for America. The American family has seen the same insane spiral. First, debts are taken out for spending. Then, debts are taken out to pay for debts. Finally, debts are dried up and the family goes bankrupt.
For the past several years, debt maintenance has been slightly less than the new debt taken out. We're in the phase where we're unwittingly using debt to make payments on old debts.
The next phase is the collapse of this house of cards.
Poor and middle-class people are an integral part of the economy. Who do you think generates the revenues at Wal-mart? Do you think it's Paris Hilton buying up millions of pairs of cheap blue-jeans and cheap electronics?
Henry Ford paid his workers well so they could buy his products. It seems that since then, America has forgotten who buys the things the rich make and market.
Fine then, the proof is in the pudding. Adjusting for inflation, every single Republican president since Gerald Ford has had a higher rate of increase of debt and federal spending than every single democratic president since Jimmy Carter.
Of course, don't worry. You're not buying anything! You're just another American who likes stealing 3 billion dollars a day from future generations.
No need for evidence, because destroying the surplus is the stated goal of the Republicans.
The Republican mantra is "We're being overtaxed, lower taxes", even when the budget isn't balanced. The budget had just barely become balanced, then they gave out a trillion dollars in tax cuts.
I know this is Slashdot, so it's too much to expect you to understand the laws of cause and effect, but basically the idea is that if you cut taxes when the budget is barely balanced, then you increase spending, then the budget will fly into massive deficit.
CURSE YOU, CLINTON! THE LAWS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT WERE PASSED UNDER A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS AND PRESIDENCY!!!
Debt Maintenance takes up 10% of the federal budget at today's historically low interest rates. If those interest rates rise to levels seen in the '80s, we're boned in a very special way.
Democrats have consistently spent much less than republicans. The budget will always grow because inflation will force it to grow, but accounting for inflation, Democrats have consistently increased the size of the federal budget at HALF the rate of the Republicans since the end of WWII.
Today, we're not looking at simply "democrat vs. republican" pissing matches, we're looking at a fundamental difference between the parties in their way of looking at economics. Republicans don't believe the debt is a problem, because they'll be dead before it has to be paid back. Ford started it with a huge increase in the federal debt, but Reagan decided to turn running up the debt into an election platform! Today, it's "We'll cut your taxes even if the budget isn't balanced, and we won't increase spending either!".
In my country, we had a choice. Pay down the debt, or go broke. Interest rates were up, and that meant good things for savers, but it meant terrible things for lenders.
I never voted for any of the bums who spent the money, but I'm going to spend the next 50 years paying it back.
And I'll like it, because at least my great grandkids won't have to deal with this crap.
Whether we win or lose, the only way to win is to not play the game. That said, comrade stalin would be very proud of how we've taken a war against a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't any plans to attack us, hadn't threatened to attack us, and turn it into a war people would get behind.
I spent way more than 20 hours with an instructor. When the time came for me to learn to drive, I already had an education and a good job, so I couldn't take a high school program. I hired a certified Young Drivers instructor at 20 bucks an hour for probably 100 hours over the course of several months. He grilled me with everything I'd need to know to be a good driver and pass the test. It seems to have done the trick. I've got my license, no tickets, no at-fault accidents, and hour after hour of stress-free driving.
You know, every shitty driver in the world thinks they're smarter than the system. I've just watched 3 seasons of "Canada's worst driver", a TV show up here. Every person on the show thinks they don't have to pay attention to the rules, that the rules don't apply to them, and that when they get into an accident, that it's not their fault. The result? Many of them have dozens of accidents. One of them had a steel plate in her leg and couldn't even get down to change a tire.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it's their business.
If they're so confident that we're a small contingent, they can continue to release broken games, and I'll continue to buy games from other companies that don't limit the number of times we're allowed to install the games we paid for with (non-trivial amounts of) money.
[...]I say you don't understand becuase(sic) you openly demonstrate as much with your point about collecting on US debt. You seem to think that they can just call it in and get paid, while you totally ignore that doing so would massively devalue the dollar,[...]
and
You know very well what would happen if China tried to unload any real amount of US debt (which they can't simply collect on, as it's not that kind of debt).
You'll have to enlighten me.
How will severely reducing the monetary supply send the US into a hyper-inflationary period? How will selling bonds send the US into a hyper-inflationary period?
I state facts, full facts, and nothing but facts.
Stating that Clinton didn't balance the budget is stating a truth denying the greater truth that whether he hit the 0 or not, the graph shows clearly that Carter and Clinton reduced the rate of change of debt substantially and even if he never hit it, he approached 0, whereas Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have more or less linear rate of change in inflation adjusted debt, and that rate is about twice as much as the democratic presidents.
Yes, but these tactics, becoming instead of a conquering army, a "liberating" army, is straight out of the Soviet Union's playbook. Stalin would be proud.
He'd also be proud of the excellent way we've begun to seize the means of production, but that's neither here nor there.
Nixon reduced the debt. Ford increased the debt more than Nixon reduced it.
Nixon unfortunately reduced the debt by destroying the dollar. Breaking away from the last vestiges of the breton woods system kicked inflation into hyperdrive, effectively reducing the debt's value.
I didn't realise what you meant until I saw this post a couple times, and finally realised that we're so well off, it's pretty hard to hate on any of the parties, given how bad it is down south.
I'm not saying that, but I AM saying that the Republicans have a fundamentally flawed fiscal and economic policy. They think they can cut taxes when they're already not getting enough money to pay the bills, then cut taxes some more, then cut taxes some MORE, then act like it's not their fault that the deficit grows like weeds under their watch.
That's what I'm saying. It's not that one is evil or one is good. It's that the Republicans have a fucking stupid set of policies which have a 25 year track record of resulting in massive increases in spending and massive massive increases in debt.
Listen BUDDY, Pi is 3, and if you don't legislate it, I won't tell you how to square a circle.
Given the present orgy of spending, who cares if Clinton balanced the budget or simply came close to balancing the budget?
I know it's a hard concept, but why not ignore rhetoric for a moment and actually look at the numbers like a scientist? Every debt metric you can think of shows that the Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years were years nearly indistinguishable thanks to constant massive rate of debt accumulation and budget increases. By contrast, Carter and Clinton show reductions in the rate of change of debt and budget(Though in Carter's case, that's more because Ford was an idiot who ran up the debt and budget).
Things are about to get insanely difficult for America. The American family has seen the same insane spiral. First, debts are taken out for spending. Then, debts are taken out to pay for debts. Finally, debts are dried up and the family goes bankrupt.
For the past several years, debt maintenance has been slightly less than the new debt taken out. We're in the phase where we're unwittingly using debt to make payments on old debts.
The next phase is the collapse of this house of cards.
Just for the record:
Poor and middle-class people are an integral part of the economy. Who do you think generates the revenues at Wal-mart? Do you think it's Paris Hilton buying up millions of pairs of cheap blue-jeans and cheap electronics?
Henry Ford paid his workers well so they could buy his products. It seems that since then, America has forgotten who buys the things the rich make and market.
This 35% was just federal taxes. You've still got state and local taxes taken off. Doesn't mean you're comparing apples to apple trees?
Fine then, the proof is in the pudding. Adjusting for inflation, every single Republican president since Gerald Ford has had a higher rate of increase of debt and federal spending than every single democratic president since Jimmy Carter.
Of course, don't worry. You're not buying anything! You're just another American who likes stealing 3 billion dollars a day from future generations.
No need for evidence, because destroying the surplus is the stated goal of the Republicans.
The Republican mantra is "We're being overtaxed, lower taxes", even when the budget isn't balanced. The budget had just barely become balanced, then they gave out a trillion dollars in tax cuts.
I know this is Slashdot, so it's too much to expect you to understand the laws of cause and effect, but basically the idea is that if you cut taxes when the budget is barely balanced, then you increase spending, then the budget will fly into massive deficit.
CURSE YOU, CLINTON! THE LAWS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT WERE PASSED UNDER A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS AND PRESIDENCY!!!
If by wealthiest you mean "so broke the government is inventing money to give to banks just so the whole pyramid scheme doesn't collapse"
You'll have to enlighten me.
How will severely reducing the monetary supply send the US into a hyper-inflationary period?
Debt Maintenance takes up 10% of the federal budget at today's historically low interest rates. If those interest rates rise to levels seen in the '80s, we're boned in a very special way.
Talk is cheap. Actions are what counts.
Democrats have consistently spent much less than republicans. The budget will always grow because inflation will force it to grow, but accounting for inflation, Democrats have consistently increased the size of the federal budget at HALF the rate of the Republicans since the end of WWII.
Today, we're not looking at simply "democrat vs. republican" pissing matches, we're looking at a fundamental difference between the parties in their way of looking at economics. Republicans don't believe the debt is a problem, because they'll be dead before it has to be paid back. Ford started it with a huge increase in the federal debt, but Reagan decided to turn running up the debt into an election platform! Today, it's "We'll cut your taxes even if the budget isn't balanced, and we won't increase spending either!".
In my country, we had a choice. Pay down the debt, or go broke. Interest rates were up, and that meant good things for savers, but it meant terrible things for lenders.
I never voted for any of the bums who spent the money, but I'm going to spend the next 50 years paying it back.
And I'll like it, because at least my great grandkids won't have to deal with this crap.
That would be true, except Bush exercises signing statements and line item vetos.
The constimutution is real difficult-like, so it's best to just ignore it.
To your first concern,
I love puppies, and hate terrorism. Tee hee!
To your second concern,
Whether we win or lose, the only way to win is to not play the game. That said, comrade stalin would be very proud of how we've taken a war against a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't any plans to attack us, hadn't threatened to attack us, and turn it into a war people would get behind.
If you think the Republicans have anything even remotely resembling fiscal conservatism, you're simply stupid.
They spend more and run up the debt more than any other government on the face of the earth.
Well, after considering your question, I think the answer is simple.
I hate terrorists, and love puppies and America.
Tee hee.
I spent way more than 20 hours with an instructor. When the time came for me to learn to drive, I already had an education and a good job, so I couldn't take a high school program. I hired a certified Young Drivers instructor at 20 bucks an hour for probably 100 hours over the course of several months. He grilled me with everything I'd need to know to be a good driver and pass the test. It seems to have done the trick. I've got my license, no tickets, no at-fault accidents, and hour after hour of stress-free driving.
You know, every shitty driver in the world thinks they're smarter than the system. I've just watched 3 seasons of "Canada's worst driver", a TV show up here. Every person on the show thinks they don't have to pay attention to the rules, that the rules don't apply to them, and that when they get into an accident, that it's not their fault. The result? Many of them have dozens of accidents. One of them had a steel plate in her leg and couldn't even get down to change a tire.
Perhaps it's because you're a neckbeard unix geek that you've never been in a situation where watching a video is an active, social situation.
Speak for yourself. Drinking beer and watching some WFC videos is a good time for most men.