toldailytopic: Will America survive Obama's presidency?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Son of Jack

New member
Okay, I've got a few more questions to add to this discussion. While I'm proud to be an American (Lee Greenwood?), I have to admit that there is much about it that I don't like.

What we are seeing, it would seem, is the glut of a rampant materialism and individualism (see kmo's comments about the dollar and corporations). Why would it be bad to see some of those things go? Wouldn't it be a good, though painful, thing to see the disillusion of the worst segments of our culture in order to bring about a healthier (in every sense of the word) America?
 

nicholsmom

New member
How EXACTLY . . . are we less free?
Debt enslaves the debtor. Our nation is destined to tax-enslavement by the debt load of the omni-spendibus "stimulus" plan. That's one. The cap&trade bill is a tax on energy that is paid out by everyone who is an energy consumer - so everyone but the Amish. Restrictions on energy-use are the opposite of freedom. The "healthcare bill" will require us to purchase - require us to purchase - require us to purchase an insurance plan that few can afford. Is this freedom?
I felt a lot less free under Bush personally . . . :idunno:
Maybe your sensors are broken.

Guantanamo still needs to go.

Go where? And why?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Debt enslaves the debtor. Our nation is destined to tax-enslavement by the debt load of the omni-spendibus "stimulus" plan. That's one. The cap&trade bill is a tax on energy that is paid out by everyone who is an energy consumer - so everyone but the Amish. Restrictions on energy-use are the opposite of freedom. The "healthcare bill" will require us to purchase - require us to purchase - require us to purchase an insurance plan that few can afford. Is this freedom?

You beat me too Alate's question, but great post.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I keep thinking that we need clarification about who, exactly, is considered to be a US citizen. If we can clear that up, we'd really be in a much better position to protect innocent life, to protect our borders, to deport illegals, to prevent corporations being treated as if they were citizens. It would solve so many problems in one fell swoop.
I don't think we need to focus on who is a citizen . . .I think we have a good handle on that. Frankly I'm disturbed by the fact you'd draw the line between citizen and legal aliens (at least it seems like you are doing this). Any human being in this country should be entitled to basic rights. Foreigners are vital to this country and anyone that is here legally should have the same rights as a citizen, save voting of course. ;)

Even for illegals, not to be abused or held without trial indefinitely, its antithetical to the very basis of our country. How many of the founding fathers were actual "citizens" at the time?

Preventing corporations being treated as people will take a totally different approach. It has nothing to do with defining citizenship.

I've never advocated for the removal or hindrance of lobbying organizations. Unions ought not to be lobbying organizations since the only government action that they need, they already have - the right to be established.
Then you're abridging their right to lobby the government over your opinion. I'm not a big fan of unions in this day and age but what you're talking about is capricious rather than consistent.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Debt enslaves the debtor.
As I said to doc, I wasn't aware that we were debt free prior to this administration. :plain:

Our nation is destined to tax-enslavement by the debt load of the omni-spendibus "stimulus" plan. That's one.
Which was started by Bush.

The cap&trade bill is a tax on energy that is paid out by everyone who is an energy consumer - so everyone but the Amish.
I knew being Amish would come in handy eventually. :D

Restrictions on energy-use are the opposite of freedom.
I won't argue that this is a restriction on our freedom, but some restrictions are good for us. Sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves.

The "healthcare bill" will require us to purchase - require us to purchase - require us to purchase an insurance plan that few can afford.
Just like car insurance. When the uninsured can be a detriment to society, mandates are reasonable.

Is this freedom?
To a degree.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Debt enslaves the debtor. Our nation is destined to tax-enslavement by the debt load of the omni-spendibus "stimulus" plan. That's one.
So . . . . 10 trillion in debt is okay but 13 trillion isn't?

Sorry, I'm just not buying that one anymore.

You realize if we'd gone into the great depression II it might have been 20 trillion?

The cap&trade bill is a tax on energy that is paid out by everyone who is an energy consumer - so everyone but the Amish.
Its a tax on certain types of energy. The Amish use energy too. ;)

Restrictions on energy-use are the opposite of freedom. The "healthcare bill" will require us to purchase - require us to purchase - require us to purchase an insurance plan that few can afford. Is this freedom?

I have to pay for your healthcare anyway. Is it wrong for me to ask you to pay for it ahead of time so it doesn't cost me as much?


Maybe your sensors are broken.
I have a feeling yours are . . . .

Go where? And why?
People either need to be tried and released. Indefinite detention is illegal and gives other countries an excuse to violate human rights.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Okay, I've got a few more questions to add to this discussion. While I'm proud to be an American (Lee Greenwood?), I have to admit that there is much about it that I don't like.
I agree.

What we are seeing, it would seem, is the glut of a rampant materialism and individualism (see kmo's comments about the dollar and corporations). Why would it be bad to see some of those things go? Wouldn't it be a good, though painful, thing to see the disillusion of the worst segments of our culture in order to bring about a healthier (in every sense of the word) America?

I think so. I just read a book called "Enough: Contentment in an Age of Excess" by Will Samson. In it he has this quote...
There is a saying in philosophy: Every ought implies a can......But in America, we seem to have turned that equation on its head: Every can implies an ought."​

I thought it was interesting. I recommend the book to any Christian. Or anyone at all, I suppose.
 

Mr. Beeks

New member
So 5 Trillion to 10 Trillion during a time of economic growth is okay.

But 10 Trillion to 13 Trillion during a time of major economic downturn is bad?

Epic logic fail.

:hammer:
I'm totally not understanding you here.

Say I have a job bringing home ~50k a year, so I buy a house for 200k. My payments will be ~2k per month.

The economy turns, and I find myself laid off for three months of the year, effectively cutting my pay by 25% (or, say my boss told me to take a 25% pay cut or get laid off permanently).

I can probably still afford the house, but why would I even consider taking on more debt in the second situation? That's ignoring the fact that my credit rating is falling because of my debt to income ratio, and I probably wouldn't be able to borrow the money in the first place (sans Barney Frank).

Color me economically stoopid here.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
So 5 Trillion to 10 Trillion during a time of economic growth is okay.

But 10 Trillion to 13 Trillion during a time of major economic downturn is bad?

Epic logic fail.

:hammer:

Your beating a dead horse dude. I never said any debt was good, even in economic prosperty as you say, which I say we have had no prosperty since 1913. So your logic fails. Sorry.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I'm totally not understanding you here.

Say I have a job bringing home ~50k a year, so I buy a house for 200k. My payments will be ~2k per month.
Government is not an individual. Government take in taxes is directly tied to economic output and growth. Taxes are what pay for government spending. If the economy tanks, government is still expected to pay the military, health care, education etc.

If you try to reduce government spending during bad economic times (or raise taxes), more people lose their jobs, the economy gets worse and your tax revenue drops even further.

Basic economic theory is, government is SUPPOSED to go into debt during bad economic times, to get the economy moving and keep it from totally tanking. It's NOT supposed to go into debt during good economic times. You're supposed to make up for your spending during bad economic times, during the good times. You can certainly tighten the government's belt during good times since the private sector should be able to take up the slack.

Bush broke those basic economic principles, Obama is following them. And for some reason everyone is upset with Obama . . . :hammer:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
How Government Debt Grows

by Ron Paul

(This is back in 2006, but still applies today...)

Today our national debt stands at $8.2 trillion, which represents about $26,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Interestingly, the legal debt limit is only $8.18 trillion, a figure that was reached a few weeks ago. This means the Treasury department must ask Congress to raise the debt limit very soon, most likely as part of a larger bill so it can be hidden from the American people.

Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Congress raised it many times over the last 15 years, despite the supposed “surpluses” of the Clinton years. Those single-year surpluses were based on accounting tricks that treated Social Security funds as general revenues. In reality the federal government ran deficits throughout the 1990s, and the federal debt rose steadily.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made it easier for Congress to obscure the extent of federal debt. He endorsed a change in the law that redefined Social Security and veterans pensions. In reality those obligations are debts, just like any other bill that must be paid in the future. But Mr. Greenspan urged renaming these obligations “intergovernment accounts,” which magically changed them from debts to “accrued liabilities.” This semantic shift frees up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing.

Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes at least 25% of the American economy and still can't balance its books is a government that vastly overspends.

I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn't matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much ultimately will destroy its own economy. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.

When government borrows money, the actual borrowers – big-spending administrations and politicians – never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.”

For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Your beating a dead horse dude. I never said any debt was good, even in economic prosperty as you say, which I say we have had no prosperty since 1913. So your logic fails. Sorry.
Funny. No economist would agree with you.

I'm just saying why do you care about debt NOW? Why not the previous 8 years? I hate government debt myself, I hate being 13 trillion dollars in debt, but I recognize who got the debt to ten trillion in the first place and it was mostly republicans.

The ones who kept telling me how they were going to reduce spending and make government smaller. :bang:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Funny. No economist would agree with you.

Funny, they are are left Keynesians, even those in the right.

I'm just saying why do you care about debt NOW? Why not the previous 8 years? I hate government debt myself, I hate being 13 trillion dollars in debt, but I recognize who got the debt to ten trillion in the first place and it was mostly republicans.

I cared then as well. Our country has lost it moorings. But when you are taught from infancy that this is good, what do you think will happen? More of the same, no?

The ones who kept telling me how they were going to reduce spending and make government smaller. :bang:



I agree, since those bozos don't know basic economics.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt.

Don't remember where this quote came from, but this is sooooo true.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Funny, they are are left Keynesians, even those in the right.
I'm saying nobody is going to say we haven't had economic growth since 1913, that's ridiculous.

I cared then as well. Our country has lost it moorings. But when you are taught from infancy that this is good, what do you think will happen? More of the same, no?
Debt isn't good. But when you were faced with another great depression I don't really see that Obama had any good options. I hope . . . as the economy recovers, he'll start to reign in spending.

I agree, since those bozos don't know basic economics.
At least the democrats do *something* when they spend. Republicans just play lip service to abortion and smaller government. Then do nothing about either and run up the debt, with no benefits at all. Because of all of that I really don't understand the fear and anger towards Obama, if anything he's a centrist, he's certainly not a leftwing nutjob.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I'm saying nobody is going to say we haven't had economic growth since 1913, that's ridiculous.

So your telling me we borrow and borrow and borrow and don't pay back the majority of it and that's economic growth?


Obama is doing nothing different then any other President. And that is ridiculous
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Okay, I've got a few more questions to add to this discussion. While I'm proud to be an American (Lee Greenwood?), I have to admit that there is much about it that I don't like.

What we are seeing, it would seem, is the glut of a rampant materialism and individualism (see kmo's comments about the dollar and corporations). Why would it be bad to see some of those things go? Wouldn't it be a good, though painful, thing to see the disillusion of the worst segments of our culture in order to bring about a healthier (in every sense of the word) America?

How about an end to a system of high-tech serfdom and a rule by a caste of unseen and unelected elites who treat we little people like disposable numbers? That might be nice, too...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top