lifetimefanofqueen
welcome to the skint house
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Holly2003
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years?
===========
I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses.
===========
I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses.
magicalfreddiemercury
Holly2003 wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years?
===========
I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses.
===========
===========
Perhaps, but I'd bet those weapons from US businesses will have labels that read, "Made in China".
===========
I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses.
===========
===========
Perhaps, but I'd bet those weapons from US businesses will have labels that read, "Made in China".
Holly2003
Ha!
queenUSA
catqueen wrote:
I think you forgot to mention the numerous other countries that the US govt decided to put an army presence in in the past few years? Like the oil related ones? Oh oops, i mean the 'anti-terrorist' bits.
'Stopping bin Laden' as you said... hmm... he was one person. Who was killed without a trial. And i'm pretty sure the Taliban have more to replace him, particularly the more their countries get attacked and have a military presence. Its like giving them grounds for it. I mean, if i lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, i'd be pretty pissed off at america. Not that that justifies in any way or sense any kind of attack, but i do see how young guys could get pulled into it.
================
Thank you Ambassador catqueen, but I have no use for this type of foreign policy lecture from you. Throughout this very long conflict approximately 55 countries have contributed troops, resources, logistics and other support to the forces in Afghanistan, including Ireland. If you have a problem with the ways things are going, then go through proper channels
at home to report your complaints.
I think you forgot to mention the numerous other countries that the US govt decided to put an army presence in in the past few years? Like the oil related ones? Oh oops, i mean the 'anti-terrorist' bits.
'Stopping bin Laden' as you said... hmm... he was one person. Who was killed without a trial. And i'm pretty sure the Taliban have more to replace him, particularly the more their countries get attacked and have a military presence. Its like giving them grounds for it. I mean, if i lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, i'd be pretty pissed off at america. Not that that justifies in any way or sense any kind of attack, but i do see how young guys could get pulled into it.
================
Thank you Ambassador catqueen, but I have no use for this type of foreign policy lecture from you. Throughout this very long conflict approximately 55 countries have contributed troops, resources, logistics and other support to the forces in Afghanistan, including Ireland. If you have a problem with the ways things are going, then go through proper channels
at home to report your complaints.
GratefulFan
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
As for our financial situation, I think laziness on the part of Congress when it was in the hands of Democrats is an accurate way to describe it. Laziness and even arrogance. The Democrats may have believed they'd hold both houses throughout Obama's term and that they had plenty of time to make the financial changes they wanted - like eliminating the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't act. They didn't increase revenues and they didn't decrease spending. It's their inaction that created the 'shellacking' Obama mentioned after the last mid-term elections and what set the stage for the debt crisis.
=========================
I recall the tax cuts decisions differently. That ended up as the vaunted 'compromise' late last year in the lame duck session and Obama very much sought to spin it as a balanced response in the face of opponents who would rather fight. His brand, as it were. Very much wanted to be seen as the adult in the room. In reality, It was pretty weak legislation in terms of Democratic priorities at a time when they still technically controlled both houses. So I see it as a choice as much as something that just snuck up on them because of Republican pressure and time escaping them. Part of the problem was that there is no consensus on what impact they're having or not having on the economy, thus the temptation perhaps to not do anything too drastic.
As for our financial situation, I think laziness on the part of Congress when it was in the hands of Democrats is an accurate way to describe it. Laziness and even arrogance. The Democrats may have believed they'd hold both houses throughout Obama's term and that they had plenty of time to make the financial changes they wanted - like eliminating the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't act. They didn't increase revenues and they didn't decrease spending. It's their inaction that created the 'shellacking' Obama mentioned after the last mid-term elections and what set the stage for the debt crisis.
=========================
I recall the tax cuts decisions differently. That ended up as the vaunted 'compromise' late last year in the lame duck session and Obama very much sought to spin it as a balanced response in the face of opponents who would rather fight. His brand, as it were. Very much wanted to be seen as the adult in the room. In reality, It was pretty weak legislation in terms of Democratic priorities at a time when they still technically controlled both houses. So I see it as a choice as much as something that just snuck up on them because of Republican pressure and time escaping them. Part of the problem was that there is no consensus on what impact they're having or not having on the economy, thus the temptation perhaps to not do anything too drastic.
magicalfreddiemercury
GratefulFan wrote: I recall the tax cuts decisions differently. That ended up as the vaunted 'compromise' late last year in the lame duck session and Obama very much sought to spin it as a balanced response in the face of opponents who would rather fight.
========
That's exactly how it happened but my point was that it SHOULD have happened sooner.
The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election.
By the time the tax vote actually came to the table, it was, once again, running up against a hard deadline and the Republicans did the same thing then as they did now. And so the conversation and the outcome shifted in a huge way.
So Obama was correct - it WAS a compromise and balanced response. However it would have been a better response had a lazy, distracted, arrogant - whatever - Democrat-held Congress acted sooner.
========
That's exactly how it happened but my point was that it SHOULD have happened sooner.
The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election.
By the time the tax vote actually came to the table, it was, once again, running up against a hard deadline and the Republicans did the same thing then as they did now. And so the conversation and the outcome shifted in a huge way.
So Obama was correct - it WAS a compromise and balanced response. However it would have been a better response had a lazy, distracted, arrogant - whatever - Democrat-held Congress acted sooner.
The Real Wizard
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election.
===========
Very good observation. But you say that almost as if the politicians are actually allowed to choose when this legislation was to be passed..
The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians.
The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election.
===========
Very good observation. But you say that almost as if the politicians are actually allowed to choose when this legislation was to be passed..
The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians.
magicalfreddiemercury
Sir GH wrote: Very good observation. But you say that almost as if the politicians are actually allowed to choose when this legislation was to be passed..
The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians. =========
You know, I really hate it when you try to clean my rose-colored glasses.
The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians. =========
You know, I really hate it when you try to clean my rose-colored glasses.
The Real Wizard
Haha, sorry about that !
Ok, post something here and think happy thoughts .. :-)
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1279482/10-things-you-like-most.aspx
Ok, post something here and think happy thoughts .. :-)
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1279482/10-things-you-like-most.aspx
MadTheSwine73
This is why Canada is awesome.
magicalfreddiemercury
Sir GH wrote: Ok, post something here and think happy thoughts .. :-)
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1279482/10-things-you-like-most.aspx
===========
Guess what? It worked. lol. Thanks.
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1279482/10-things-you-like-most.aspx
===========
Guess what? It worked. lol. Thanks.
GratefulFan
MadTheSwine73 wrote: This is why Canada is awesome.
===============
Listen to me my young Canuck grasshopper. :) While the US has never lost it's AAA credit rating, even through this latest trial, Canada lost it three times in the early 90's because of atrocious deficits. It was the work of the Chretien government and Finance Minister Paul Martin in the years that followed that eliminated the deficit and restored the AAA rating and set the stage for Canada to effectively sail through the global recession we're experiencing now better than just about everybody. So were only awesome because at one time we were really not awesome and we got scared straight.
===============
Listen to me my young Canuck grasshopper. :) While the US has never lost it's AAA credit rating, even through this latest trial, Canada lost it three times in the early 90's because of atrocious deficits. It was the work of the Chretien government and Finance Minister Paul Martin in the years that followed that eliminated the deficit and restored the AAA rating and set the stage for Canada to effectively sail through the global recession we're experiencing now better than just about everybody. So were only awesome because at one time we were really not awesome and we got scared straight.
The Real Wizard
Who determines said ratings?
It all sounds rather dubious to me, as the US national debt is far greater than any country has ever been. How in the world can they maintain a AAA rating while borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent since the Reagan administration? It sounds like political posing rather than reality.
Canada's spending under Mulroney does not remotely compare. But you're damn right about Chretien and Martin. Harper tries to take all the credit, but anyone with any sense of historical reference knows it was Chretien and Martin's economic policies that have our country in a relatively good position at the moment.
It all sounds rather dubious to me, as the US national debt is far greater than any country has ever been. How in the world can they maintain a AAA rating while borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent since the Reagan administration? It sounds like political posing rather than reality.
Canada's spending under Mulroney does not remotely compare. But you're damn right about Chretien and Martin. Harper tries to take all the credit, but anyone with any sense of historical reference knows it was Chretien and Martin's economic policies that have our country in a relatively good position at the moment.
YourValentine
Watching all this you can really give up on mankind. We have a world where the overwhelming majority is so poor they have no clean water to drink and not enough to eat. Famine is "defined" by the United Nations - as long as not a defined number of children starve to death in an area within a certain period of time there is no famine, just imagine that.
On the other hand we have the rich industrial countries but while billions of $$ are accumulated in big international banks the people in these countries get poorer by the decade, lose jobs, social security, pensions and healthcare - all for the benefit of these banks who just have no real use for the money except for making it more - how crazy is that?
At the same time the rich countries carry wars into the poor countries in order to gather the "patriots" under some weird "flags" - because the proverbial Joe Plummer might start to think about fairness in a democracy if he were not kept in fear of the black evil enemy. Of course all this is "God's will" because if it were not God's will we would have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we could not blame it on God - how could we live with the cruelty and unfairness. If we could not shift the responsibility to God we would have to start thinking about the "patriotism" of our banks and corporate industry who manage to make profits private and losses public, we would have to start thinking about the "values" we carry into this world and it might not be so pretty. We might even have to go out and campaign for a better world and become so-called "good-doers" who are so frowned upon these days because they are stupid enough to try and make a difference instead of blogging about their sorry "emo-kid" existence.
If only one out of 10 people would bother to email their MPs "I want rich people to be taxed" and if only one out of 100 people would go to Washington (or Berlin, Paris, London) and rally for fairness and equal sharing - politicians might start to listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Unfortunately, people are so disillusioned about their role that less and less people even bother to vote.
Off to the "things you like most" thread ...
On the other hand we have the rich industrial countries but while billions of $$ are accumulated in big international banks the people in these countries get poorer by the decade, lose jobs, social security, pensions and healthcare - all for the benefit of these banks who just have no real use for the money except for making it more - how crazy is that?
At the same time the rich countries carry wars into the poor countries in order to gather the "patriots" under some weird "flags" - because the proverbial Joe Plummer might start to think about fairness in a democracy if he were not kept in fear of the black evil enemy. Of course all this is "God's will" because if it were not God's will we would have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we could not blame it on God - how could we live with the cruelty and unfairness. If we could not shift the responsibility to God we would have to start thinking about the "patriotism" of our banks and corporate industry who manage to make profits private and losses public, we would have to start thinking about the "values" we carry into this world and it might not be so pretty. We might even have to go out and campaign for a better world and become so-called "good-doers" who are so frowned upon these days because they are stupid enough to try and make a difference instead of blogging about their sorry "emo-kid" existence.
If only one out of 10 people would bother to email their MPs "I want rich people to be taxed" and if only one out of 100 people would go to Washington (or Berlin, Paris, London) and rally for fairness and equal sharing - politicians might start to listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Unfortunately, people are so disillusioned about their role that less and less people even bother to vote.
Off to the "things you like most" thread ...