GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Spending was increased and funded in a similar way for WW2...that was before "Nixon". So was that a mistake too? Exactly HOW were the Afghan and Iraq wars "FUNDED"? WWII was funded with HIGH TAXES and a population willing to "do without" and give of themselves to fuel a countrys WAR EFFORT like women doing whatever their men were doing before the men went of to war... Ever hear of HISTORY? It exists and can't be "made up"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Exactly HOW were the Afghan and Iraq wars "FUNDED"? With Congressional DOD appropriations, just like any other. WWII was funded with HIGH TAXES and a population willing to "do without" and give of themselves to fuel a countrys WAR EFFORT like women doing whatever their men were doing before the men went of to war... Ever hear of HISTORY? It exists and can't be "made up"... US income and consumption taxes were lowered after WW2 despite remaining debt. War bonds still floated plenty of war debt. The US nearly went broke over WW2, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 There's a couple of things you may want to remember when posting to me: 1. Address WHOLE POSTS - which was - No...you don't make the rules here...no matter how "smart" you think you are. 2. When it's a comment or reply to someone else's post that I've simply agreed with, why not comment on that post rather than mine? Because all posts are fair game....in time, you will learn this...newbie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Exactly HOW were the Afghan and Iraq wars "FUNDED"? WWII was funded with HIGH TAXES and a population willing to "do without" and give of themselves to fuel a countrys WAR EFFORT like women doing whatever their men were doing before the men went of to war... Ever hear of HISTORY? It exists and can't be "made up"... Yeah heres a graph that shows tax rates... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png Highest tax rates in US history. Contrast that with modern elective wars like Iraq and Afghanistan... taxes were actually lowered, and the entire thing was paid for by defecit finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Highest tax rates in US history. Very incomplete context without income thresholds....already discussed in previous threads. Contrast that with modern elective wars like Iraq and Afghanistan... taxes were actually lowered, and the entire thing was paid for by defecit finance. Correct....taxes were lowered for Clinton's recession! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 With Congressional DOD appropriations, just like any other. US income and consumption taxes were lowered after WW2 despite remaining debt. War bonds still floated plenty of war debt. The US nearly went broke over WW2, not Iraq or Afghanistan. You mean not yet... When did Bush, or even Obama, issue the Iraq/Afghanistan "war bonds"? Sonny, "appropriations" ain't funding or money... It's where money goes... That money has to come from somewhere to be funded, like Taxes, bonds, or in this case borrowed from China... As incidentally, are every Tax cut Bush made or Obama makes... Guess you didn't know that, eh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 The US nearly went broke over WW2, not Iraq or Afghanistan. The US CANT go broke now by your definition. If you run out of money just print more!. Thats the difference. When the US declared bankrtuptcy in the 70's is radically changed the rules of the game. If the rules were the same as the post WW2 rules the US absolutely would have gone broke recently. All you need to see that is a calculator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) The US CANT go broke now by your definition. If you run out of money just print more!. Thats the difference. When the US declared bankrtuptcy in the 70's is radically changed the rules of the game. If the rules were the same as the post WW2 rules the US absolutely would have gone broke recently. All you need to see that is a calculator. You are having a conversation with yourself...the US did not declare bankruptcy in the 1970's. Gold is just a metal. Edited January 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) You are having a conversation with yourself...the US did not declare bankruptcy in the 1970's. Gold is just a metal. You only make that claim because you dont understand what a national bankruptcy is. All it means is that you change the rules of the game to get protection from creditors. It is simply a failure to live up to the terms of an agreement with your creditors. Both of Americans national bankruptcies are actually listed in the wiki definition of national bankruptcy. The restructuring of US debt in 1971 is really no different that what happened to Equador, Argentina, or Greece. A failure of a nation to meet bond repayments has been seen on many occasions. In 1557 Philip II of Spain, defaulted on debt several times, had to declare four national bankruptcies - in 1557, 1560, 1575 and 1596 - becoming the first sovereign nation in history to declare bankruptcy, due to rising military costs as it had become increasingly dependent on the revenues flowing in from its mercantile empire in the Americas.[1][2] This state bankruptcy threw the German banking houses into chaos and ended the reign of the Fuggers as Spanish financiers. Genoese bankers provided the unwieldy Habsburg system with fluid credit and a dependably regular income. In return the less dependable shipments of American silver were rapidly transferred from Seville to Genoa, to provide capital for further ventures.In the 1820s, several Latin American countries which had recently entered the bond market in London defaulted. These same countries frequently defaulted during the nineteenth century, but the situation was typically rapidly resolved with a renegotiation of loans, including the writing off of some debts.[3] A failure to meet payments became common again in the late 1920s and 1930s; as protectionism rose and international trade fell, countries with debts denominated in other currencies found it increasingly difficult to meet terms agreed under more favourable economic conditions. For example, in 1932, Chile's scheduled repayments exceeded the nation's total exports.[3] United States 1933 confiscation of gold in private hands (Executive Order 6102) to be later revalued from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. United States again with the 1971 repudiation of the dollar-gold convertibility (the Nixon Shock) considered by many a de facto national bankruptcy. Russia 1998 Russian financial crisis Argentina Argentine economic crisis (19992002) Zimbabwe Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe Ecuador defaulted 2008 on one of its bonds[4] Edited January 29, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 You mean not yet... When did Bush, or even Obama, issue the Iraq/Afghanistan "war bonds"? Sonny, "appropriations" ain't funding or money... It's where money goes... That money has to come from somewhere to be funded, like Taxes, bonds, or in this case borrowed from China... As incidentally, are every Tax cut Bush made or Obama makes... Guess you didn't know that, eh... US treasuries are consistently sold at auction because they are the safest investment instruments....never a default. Your own nation (Canada) came closer to the abyss during the 1990's...I specifically remember the "Northern Peso". If....when...yet...these are all the terms of those who have been proven wrong time and time again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 You only make that claim because you dont understand what a national bankruptcy is. All it means is that you change the rules of the game to get protection from creditors. It is simply a failure to live up to the terms of an agreement with your creditors. Both of Americans national bankruptcies are actually listed in the wiki definition of national bankruptcy. Then you surely must list all the other "bankruptcies" when nations have temporarily or permanently retreated from gold backed notes. Does this mean that Canada is bankrupt too? The restructuring of US debt in 1971 is really no different that what happened to Equador, Argentina, or Greece. This is laughable....your agenda is obvious...and misguided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 US treasuries are consistently sold at auction because they are the safest investment instruments....never a default. Your own nation (Canada) came closer to the abyss during the 1990's...I specifically remember the "Northern Peso". If....when...yet...these are all the terms of those who have been proven wrong time and time again. US treasuries are consistently sold at auction because they are the safest investment instruments....never a default. Not really true. If you look at who the major foreign holders of US debt are they are countries that have huge trade suprluses with the US. China, Japan, and oil exporting nations. They arent buying US bonds because theyre an excellent investment, they are buying US bonds to prop up the US dollar because they know that if the dollars falls too low American consumers will no longer be able to affort to import their products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Not really true. If you look at who the major foreign holders of US debt are they are countries that have huge trade suprluses with the US. China, Japan, and oil exporting nations. They arent buying US bonds because theyre an excellent investment, they are buying US bonds to prop up the US dollar because they know that if the dollars falls too low American consumers will no longer be able to affort to import their products. You are parsing a much longer continuum wherein American treasuries were purchased for a variety of solid reasons. Even today, investors are fleeing to the US dollar and notes as the Middle East teeters on revolution. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency despite your claims of "bankruptcy". Edited January 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Then you surely must list all the other "bankruptcies" when nations have temporarily or permanently retreated from gold backed notes. Does this mean that Canada is bankrupt too? This is laughable....your agenda is obvious...and misguided. No it isnt. These are all classic national bankruptcies in every sense of the word. If youd take the time to learn what that word means youd understand. And this isnt my "agenda". This is a mainstream believe held by the macro economics community. You need to stop thinking of bankruptcy in terms of fire-sale bankruptcy in which an entity gets disolved and its assets auctioned off. National bankruptcy is simply what happens when a nation restructures its debt because it cannot live up the terms under the existing deal it has with creditors. Then you surely must list all the other "bankruptcies" when nations have temporarily or permanently retreated from gold backed notes. Does this mean that Canada is bankrupt too? That entirely depends on the circumstance. Theres nothing saying a country cant back its currency with whatever arrangement they please. But if Canada or any other country made an agreement with its creditors to pay their debts in gold, and then they refuse to do so then yes... thats an act of bankrupcty. Its a really easy concept to understand so I dont know why you have such a hard time with it. Lets say you and I make a deal and the result of that deal is that I owe you ten ounces of gold, but when my payment to you becomes due I dont have any gold to give you. So I get out my handy dandy printer, and print you out a bunch of "dre certificates", and give those to you instead. Thats an act of bankrupcty because I was unable to live up to the terms of our agreement, and I needed to restructure the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) That entirely depends on the circumstance. Theres nothing saying a country cant back its currency with whatever arrangement they please. But if Canada or any other country made an agreement with its creditors to pay their debts in gold, and then they refuse to do so then yes... thats an act of bankrupcty. Then many other nations are also bankrupt....including the UK. If nations can agree to back their currencies in gold, then surely they can agree not to. It's not complicated, and has been done many times. I don't know why you have a singular focus on the American form of currency. Its a really easy concept to understand so I dont know why you have such a hard time with it. Lets say you and I make a deal and the result of that deal is that I owe you ten ounces of gold, but when my payment to you becomes due I dont have any gold to give you. So I get out my handy dandy printer, and print you out a bunch of "dre certificates", and give those to you instead. Thats an act of bankrupcty because I was unable to live up to the terms of our agreement, and I needed to restructure the deal. No...you do not understand the difference between currency and money. This horse has already been beaten to death by myself and others. Why do you always double post quotes? It wastes time and bandwidth. Edited January 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) The last thing you want is a leader that doggedly sticks to campaign promises even when he finds out the facts on the ground call for a change of course. This is one of the worst leadership qualities imaginable... the inability to adjust, and ditch some of your hubris when it becomes necessary. It has caused families, companies, and nations to make great mistakes. That why the whole "flip flop" slogan is so moronic. It is unfortunate that campaign promises are made without any understanding of how they are to be kept. What you are saying is politicians may promise all things to all people without any commitment to their actualization and the central authority is justified in continuing the sham that political leadership is today. The voter cannot understand by words upon which they are so often duped. They should realize the emptiness of slogans and vague euphimisms, such as "hope and change" or "fundamentally transform" or "keep Democracy safe", or "winning the future" they are obfuscatory and meaningless generalities of demogogeury. We know socialism doesn't work. We know fiat paper currencies give unlimited spending powers to govenrment that will eventually bankrupt a nation. Britain remained a dominant economic force in the world because it never abandoned it's commodity backed currency. Something the French never understood under their monarchy. They expected that the British pound was a piece of paper and decided they too could be wealthy introducing their own piece of paper backed by nothing resulting in the "assignat" reaching zero rapidly and inviting the socialist French Revolution with open arms and the eventual usurption of power by the dictatorial, authoritarianism of Napoleon - whom the people wer willing to follow to the death. Someone on this thread did say history counts. Let's make it so. Do we want people to understand politics or do we wish to keep the voter in a perpetual fog? If politicians understood what their role was and not include in the definition "social engineer" or "source of benevolence and entitlement" we might have more rational approach to society. Edited January 30, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 It is unfortunate that cmapaign promises are made without any understanding of how they are to be kept. What you are saying is politicians may promise all things to all people without any commitment to their actualization and the central authority is justified in continuing the sham that political leadership is today..... Yes...but not unfortunate at all. The purpose of the campaign phase is to garner support and raise money. Only the most naive expect otherwise. Campaigning for office is not the same as governing, but in the USA, a federal election campaign is a grueling trial period to see who has the right stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 It is unfortunate that cmapaign promises are made without any understanding of how they are to be kept. What you are saying is politicians may promise all things to all people without any commitment to their actualization and the central authority is justified in continuing the sham that political leadership is today. The voter cannot understand by words upon which they are so often duped. They should realize the emptiness of slogans and vague euphimisms, such as "hope and change" or "fundamentally transform" or "keep Democracy safe", or "winning the future" they are obfuscatory and meaningless generalities of demogogeury. We know socialism doesn't work. We know fiat paper currencies give unlimited spending powers to govenrment that will eventually bankrupt a nation. Britain remained a dominant economic force in the world because it never abandoned it's commodity backed currency. Something the French never understood under their monarchy. They expected that the British pound was a piece of paper and decided they too could be wealthy introducing their own piece of paper backed by nothing resulting in the "assignat" reaching zero rapidly and inviting the socialist French Revolution with open arms and the eventual usurption of power by the dictatorial, authoritarianism of Napoleon - whom the people wer willing to follow to the death. Do we want people to understand politics or do we wish to keep the voter in a perpetual fog? If politicians understood what their role was and not include in the defition "social engineer" or source of benevolence we might have more rational approach to society. It is unfortunate that cmapaign promises are made without any understanding of how they are to be kept. What you are saying is politicians may promise all things to all people without any commitment to their actualization and the central authority is justified in continuing the sham that political leadership is today. Politicians make campaign promises based mostly on principles and ideals. The problem is that once they are actually in charge and have access to all the information related to the job, theyre going to find that some of their ideas wont work and cant happen. The voter cannot understand by words upon which they are so often duped. They should realize the emptiness of slogans and vague euphimisms, such as "hope and change" or "fundamentally transform" or "keep Democracy safe", or "winning the future" they are obfuscatory and meaningless generalities of demogogeury. You are radically overestimating voters. Selling them political policy is really no different than selling them automobiles or shoes. You establish focus groups, do market research, and craft an effective platform complete with slogans based on those things. We know socialism doesn't work. With all due respect youve demostrated that you either dont know what that word means, or you assign to it such a broad scope it covers every civilization in human history. Pure socialism may not work, but limited socialism has worked all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 US treasuries are consistently sold at auction because they are the safest investment instruments....never a default. Your own nation (Canada) came closer to the abyss during the 1990's...I specifically remember the "Northern Peso". If....when...yet...these are all the terms of those who have been proven wrong time and time again. Wow, my whole post, good on you... You're learning... Ain't been wrong yet... Every currency around the world is constantly being bought and sold that's how a currency's "value" against another country's currency is established... In this case China has been buying up loads of US dollars which is how the US became so indebted to them while the US dollar has dropped like a rock... Japan did the same thing back in the '80s which is why they OWNED so much of the US and made you scream for tarriffs on them... However, some time ago, during WWII in fact, some "wise men" established something called the IMF and decided that the US dollar, rather than the "Gold Standard" (although still relevent) would be used as the measuring stick for fiat money so when the US dollar drops it only shows up in the value of the currency it's up against... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Oh the irony...one has to prove he is an American...the other desperately tries to prove he is not. Interesting, so Ignatief IS an American !?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Campaign promises are always empty because policy overrides promises. All the damn time, all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 With all due respect youve demostrated that you either dont know what that word means, or you assign to it such a broad scope it covers every civilization in human history. Pure socialism may not work, but limited socialism has worked all over the world. Socialism is a process to achieve the totalitarian socialist state. Under your concept you must never call anyone a fascist, but it is done. Do those calling Bush and Cheney fascists demonstrate their ignorance of fascism? Not according to the far left. A little knowledge of ideology means people do understand when socialist or fascist concepts are introduced or proposed. The left attempts to deny anything that is a part of socialist ideology is in the least bit socialist and the right tries to hide anything appearing fascist as having anything to do with fascism. As we march progressively towards the totalitarian state. And you haven't explained how Sweden is at all socialist by your definition yet it is hailed as the crown jewel of socialist success. Your statement that the people must own the means of production for it to be socialist doesn't ring true in most of what is coisdered today's socialist countries. Oh, fooled again! Sweden isn't really socialist. It's more the third way than socialist. Socialism is always trying to hide it's ugly face. Today it has donned the mask of the Environmentalist among many of it's chameleon forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Interesting, so Ignatief IS an American !?? He said so in a commencement speech at an American college: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0pR0BFOxqE&NR=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Politicians make campaign promises based mostly on principles and ideals. The problem is that once they are actually in charge and have access to all the information related to the job, theyre going to find that some of their ideas wont work and cant happen. Correct. ie Chretien killing the GST... Martin convinced Chretien that reducing the national debt, balanced budgets, and a surplus rather than deficit economy were more important... Much as I hate the GST because of it's unfairness and harder impact on society, Martin was right... You are radically overestimating voters. Selling them political policy is really no different than selling them automobiles or shoes. You establish focus groups, do market research, and craft an effective platform complete with slogans based on those things. Absolutely correct... With all due respect youve demostrated that you either dont know what that word means, or you assign to it such a broad scope it covers every civilization in human history. Pure socialism may not work, but limited socialism has worked all over the world. Socialism and Communism have been wrongly termed the same thing for a long, long time now... They are quite different in reality... However, even the dreaded Communism seems to be working when mixed with Socialism AND Capitalism (Hong Cong) when it comes to China... One has to do some mixing if one wants to make a cake or to make a Just Society... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 He said so in a commencement speech at an American college: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0pR0BFOxqE&NR=1 Anyone here ever mis-speak? I know I have... I'm kinda glad he's human rather than an unfeeling and uncaring automatron like Harper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.