Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Free]

i am afraid we have gotten away from the traditional values of thrift and savings. It used to be that we would take on debt in tough times to prime the pump and then pay it off in better times when we had surpluses. We did that throughout most of the 20th century. then sometime after Vietnam, our government decided that it wanted "guns and butter" because heck, and we started taking on debt.  Well, debt not a bad thing if its used to increase productivity (build factories, improve transportation infrastructure, education etc.), but when its used to finance consumer consumption, it takes us down the path we are on today.  i personally think that our elected officials are mostly the same (republican vs. Democrats). Republicans tend to borrow and spend and democrats tended to tax and spend, but either way, they all wanted "guns and butter" - they all wanted everything - because frankly, most people vote for someone who gives them something (war, entitlements, education - whatever you care about).  And as the government started spending with reckless abandon, wall street was more than eager to make money on the borrowing and spending. I dont necessarily blame wall street and all their greed but our government for encouraging this reckless behaviour (mainly by keeping interest rates so low and creating agencies to lend money to people for homes).  I agree with Jerry on the moral hazard we are creating as well as the amount of money its going to cost us and our kids.  Whatever the politicians say, you may as well multiply by 10. They were wrong with what it costs us in Vietnam by an order of magnitude, they were wrong on Iraq and they will be wrong on how much it will cost us to bail out these reckless companies. Its also not fair to those that have pulled back and not taken the excessive risk that these bad companies took.

JMO

Free

[SPIDERMAN]

I said this on another thread awhile back. It would seem that the folks in charge of managing the Fed as well as the world bank are not concerned with the USA being somewhere around 4 or 5 Trillion in debt. So I ask myself why should I ?

B B

[Fired00d]

How is it different than unemployment tax that goes to mostly (probably over 95%) lazy a$$es that don't wanna work?

 

You have to have worked and lost your job to collect unemployment tax, and employers pay into that fund.

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Free]

I said this on another thread awhile back. It would seem that the folks in charge of managing the Fed as well as the world bank are not concerned with the USA being somewhere around 4 or 5 Trillion in debt. So I ask myself why should I ?

B B

because frankly you are smarter than them and dont have any conflicts of interest.

free

[Free]

by the way, based on what i have heard from many members of this forum, i suspect the combined wisdom of the members here are smarter than all the politicians and wall street executives.

Free

[Twolanerider]

I said this on another thread awhile back. It would seem that the folks in charge of managing the Fed as well as the world bank are not concerned with the USA being somewhere around 4 or 5 Trillion in debt. So I ask myself why should I ?

B B

Four to five $T?  Current legislated debit limit is $10.6T and part of the new bill that will be pending next week will be a raise to that limit of $11.3T or more.

[Screamin]

$11,300,000,000,000.00

 

[SPIDERMAN]

Four to five $T?  Current legislated debit limit is $10.6T and part of the new bill that will be pending next week will be a raise to that limit of $11.3T or more.

Sorry
       I guess I was just adding up the spending spree that started with fiscal year 08

Of course I knew one of you would correct me. I'm what they refer to in show business as the "set-up guy "

Bada Boom

B B

[Sean M Cary]

Sorry
       I guess I was just adding up the spending spree that started with fiscal year 08

Of course I knew one of you would correct me. I'm what they refer to in show business as the "set-up guy "

Bada Boom

B B

and yet still OIF/GWOT is less then 5% of the total US GDP...  WWII was 45%, Korea 30%, Vietnam 15%, Desert Storm 10%...

So love the folks who blame the war for dragging us into debt.

[DCFIREMANN]

Actually DC   Bush the elder was responsible for NAFTA,  Slick Willie climbed aboard that bus which is how the two of them became cordial enough to work together for Katrina relief.

B B

Actually Brian Mr Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement into law!!!!! I think Mr. Clinton also made the statement that everyone should own a house. I think we are getting ready to pay for that one also.


Be Safe


THE DAWG

[DavidB]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[grc]

Actually Brian Mr Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement into law!!!!! I think Mr. Clinton also made the statement that everyone should own a house. I think we are getting ready to pay for that one also.


Be Safe


THE DAWG

Confusion comes from the fact that Bush signed the treaty, and Clinton signed the actual bill.  Following from wikipedia:

NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC.

Jerry

[SPIDERMAN]

Confusion comes from the fact that Bush signed the treaty, and Clinton signed the actual bill.  Following from wikipedia:

NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC.

Jerry

You may respectfully retract previous eronious statements on a one time free pass DC 

B B

[Hoist!]

3 days away, and it ain't about chocolate pudding no more. Great! Don't have to look anymore now! 1 less thing to keep up with!

Hoist!

[DCFIREMANN]

You may respectfully retract previous erroneous statements on a one time free pass DC 

B B

BB I want to save the free pass for later as I may need it.

But Mr. Clinton did sign it into law!!!!!!

Thanks Jerry for setting the record straight.

Be Safe

THE DAWG