The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Yeah, but there's a difference between saying "it has some key problems" and "it's not perfect," so we don't actually agree if I'm reading this right.

It's basically difference between me and a Democrat. I'd say the government has some "key problems" (i.e., systemic, fatal flaws) and they'd say that it's "not perfect" (i.e., but still pretty good in general).

Irn-Bru wrote:Yeah, but there's a difference between saying "it has some key problems" and "it's not perfect," so we don't actually agree if I'm reading this right.

It's basically difference between me and a Democrat. I'd say the government has some "key problems" (i.e., systemic, fatal flaws) and they'd say that it's "not perfect" (i.e., but still pretty good in general).

I like the analogy. OK, to be precise, here is what I am saying on the specific issue of budget deficits. For the GDP, if it's "not perfect" or "has some key problems" it depends on the discussion, for some it's one and some it's the other. On this discussion, I'll let you decide with my clarification of my view.

- If: you have a TRUE measure of the budget deficit, then it's "not perfect"

- If: you use the so called budget deficit that's reported as fact because of lies by both parties, then it's got some "key problems."

You may mean the latter, but you just keep saying it's got key problems. If the reason for that is that we measure it with lies I agree with you. The biggest ongoing lie is the answer to the question JSPB22 keeps dodging. For any accountants reading this, when I say the biggest lie I mean the biggest lie assuming we are using cash and not accrual accounting. The biggest lie of course overall IS that we are using cash and not accrual accounting.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Kaz wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I understood your point, but I don't think you got mine. Yes the ratio of deficit to GDP has remained steady, but the national debt has not. That is the credit card account where this deficit spending ends up. We are not paying down the principal, and eventually the bank is going to send the repo man around to collect our stuff.

OK, fair enough. Actually, if you think about it logically in an accurate accounting, the national debt WOULD in fact remain proportional to GDP if deficits are remaining proportional. There is actually a very specific reason it's not and it's because politicians of both parties are liars and using bogus accounting. This is totally not a "Democrats are worse then Republicans" issue. This is a they are BOTH liars issue. Care to take a stab at what it is?

What about responding to this. There is a clear answer to this question, and it's proof positive the REPUBICANS and Democrats are liars.

The answer may be clear to you, but I don't understand the question. I've never been bashful about saying that both parties are liars and are the same. Each would die without the other. But I think you fail to see the bigger picture, which is that they are playing opposite sides for the benefit of a privileged few, rather than for the benefit of their constituents. And the corporate media is all part of the same fixed game.

There is a constant power-grab going on. When Republicans are in charge, they do the things only Republicans can get away with. When Democrats are in, they do the things only a Democrat can do.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Actually, if you think about it logically in an accurate accounting, the national debt WOULD in fact remain proportional to GDP if deficits are remaining proportional. There is actually a very specific reason it's not and it's because politicians of both parties are liars and using bogus accounting. This is totally not a "Democrats are worse then Republicans" issue. This is a they are BOTH liars issue. Care to take a stab at what it is?

The answer may be clear to you, but I don't understand the question

OK, my point was that since the GDP is essentially the "national income" if true deficits stay in line as percent of the national income, then of course the National Debt would as well because whatever's happening to interest and inflation they would have had to have adjusted for it to keep the deficits a comperable ratio. My point is that the stated budget deficit is not the REAL budget deficit and here's the huge/ongoing reason why:

- Social Security/Medicare: Here's how it's accounted for. So called "surpluses" (receipts minus payments) are subtracted from the deficit. HOWEVER, the "surplus" money is "invested" in T-Bills. So, if we have a 600B deficit in spending, but a 400B "surplus" in social security, then they tell us we had a $200B deficit only. However, $200B in new net debt was issued to the market and $400B in bills given to the SSA, which means our national debt went up by $600B while they told us we had a $200B deficit. This is why the National Debt went up by hundreds of billions every year Bill Clinton had budget "surpluses." The issue is not that you can only measure deficits by GDP and not national debt, the issue is our deficits are LIES. Our national debt is growing far faster.

- Second, Congress is more repeatedly relying on "off budget" funding. This means that for like the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, bailouts that are done off budget, that funding is added to the national debt without being reported as a deficit.

- The biggest I referred to is our use of cash and not accrual accounting. Every time you see on the news company "profits" it's based on accrual accounting, though if you read their annual reports you'll see their cashflow statements (cash accounting). Here's the difference. As a comparison to personal, suppose you consider your own food and automobile budgets. You buy a $30,000 car every 3 years starting and including 2000 and you spend $10,000 every year on groceries, let's compare your spending in cash and accrual basis. This is simplistic, there are more rules, but this is the principle.

2000:
Cash: 40K
Accrual: 20K

2001:
Cash: 10K
Accrual: 20K

2002:
Cash: 10K
Accrual: 20K

2003:
Cash: 40K
Accrual: 20K

2004:
Cash: 10K
Accrual: 20K

2005:
Cash: 10K
Accrual: 20K

Note what's going on, cash just measures cashflow in and out. Accrual captures that while you buy a car every year, you use it for 3 so it spreasds out your costs. That may not matter to you, but it matters hugely to a business. Or to the government, who's going around promising people future benefits it has no savings for. While the government REQUIRES public companies to report profits on an accrual basis, it reports it's own budget on a strickly CASH basis which greatly understates the true accrual outlays they promised in the future they didn't fund.

Yes, I understand the difference in the accounting practices. What's your point? Are you agreeing with me that politicians, from both sides of the aisle, do not have your best interests at heart? If so, then ask yourself "Whose interests do they have?"

Edit: I'm signing off for the weekend, so if I don't respond to further posts, I'm not ducking the questions; I'll answer when I get back.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think you know very much about RiC's views. I don't blame you, because he's only hinted at positive views on THN and mostly (whenever he contributes to political threads) criticizes.

But here's a hint. . .he's not a 'mainstream Canadian', which is what you seem to suspect.

You can't keep a secret, can you?.

My Mission is to witness the Economic Fall of the American Empire.

JSPB22 wrote:Yes, I understand the difference in the accounting practices. What's your point?

Well that WASN'T my point. That was a follow on thought. My point was why deficits are lies even in cash accounting. Try re-reading when you have more time.

JSPB22 wrote:Are you agreeing with me that politicians, from both sides of the aisle, do not have your best interests at heart? If so, then ask yourself "Whose interests do they have?"

Their own, I say that over and over and over. NO ONE should trust politicians ever for anything and you should trust them the least for what's the most important to you. In other words, conservatives should most emphatically insist government stay out of morality and liberals that government should stay out of charity. Somehow you missed in my libertarianism I'm not a Republican? Liberals usually do. I criticize liberals, so I'm a Republican. Sadly for the left that's as deep as it goes.

JSPB22 wrote:Edit: I'm signing off for the weekend, so if I don't respond to further posts, I'm not ducking the questions; I'll answer when I get back.

I said you were ducking the question after you'd responded to a bunch of other points after the one I said you were ducking. Not responding at all would be a pretty good indication you're not there.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think you know very much about RiC's views. I don't blame you, because he's only hinted at positive views on THN and mostly (whenever he contributes to political threads) criticizes.

But here's a hint. . .he's not a 'mainstream Canadian', which is what you seem to suspect.

You can't keep a secret, can you?.

My Mission is to witness the Economic Fall of the American Empire.

He hasn't told me anything except there may be more to your views then you told us, which doesn't really change anything. So far all you've offered is Left agenda points. If you decide to go beyond that it would be more interesting, we already have the monolithic left view blanketed. If you chose not to, it doesn't make any difference in our discussion of what else you may think. I can only react to what you present, I don't care about what's alluded to and not presented. But if you're not monolithic left, all you've offered so far, I'd look at the lengthy list of liberals who already have that covered and ask you to explore something else to make the discussion more interesting. If you prefer to just quack, it's your choice.

Just to make it clear, I myself don't know too much about RiC's views. But anyone who quotes Mises approvingly is OK in my book, so what little I do know seems positive to me.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Yes, you and welch are obviously very, very concerned about unemployed people coming on the site in their free time and pumping capitalism and blasting socialism. See my point that to a liberal any statement no matter how ludicrous that supports a liberal position is "truth" no matter how absurd and no point no matter how true when countering liberal arguments are lies.

But to you and welch, while I appreciate your great concern for my employment status, all I can say is don't worry about it. I'm fine. But seriously, I'm supposed to be offended at your remarks I'm probably an unemployed capitalism pumper?



You guys really need to work on your insults. I CAN'T GET A JOB SO I'M on the internet PUMPING CAPITALISM!

First, I am -sure- no insult was intended by Welch and it was certainly not intended by myself either. What you seem to fail to appreciate is the -true- concern that we have for the economic well-being of many in the middle of a developing financial crisis, Redskins fans included. No sarcasm intended at all.

Second, I hope you do not make a business observing and truly reading people because you would make an awful detective. Welch ia a patriotic and a hard-working pro-private industry American with a very sound common sense. He is not blinded by ideological dogmas. You can try to label him as much as you want but in the end, it means and proves nothing.

In your obsession to advance your views, every single argument is reduced to assigning a liberal label to anything or anyone you disagree with. Quite frankly, it adds very little to the Libertarian cause to become an attractive political option to many others. That is why it has become a fringe political movement and it has very little prospect to move on to the mainstream. Paradoxically, the advances of the Right in Europe and America have been instead more along State control policies whether of a ultra-nationalist character, e.g. Austria, or religious/military, e.g., US. The outcome of this financial crisis fares even worse for your cause with greater intervention by the State in the economies of the World. Just take a pick at the Front Cover of Newsweek and the leading article that followed:

The implosion of America's most storied investment banks. The vanishing of more than a trillion dollars in stock-market wealth in a day. A $700 billion tab for U.S. taxpayers. The scale of the Wall Street crackup could scarcely be more gargantuan. Yet even as Americans ask why they're having to pay such mind-bending sums to prevent the economy from imploding, few are discussing a more intangible, yet potentially much greater cost to the United States—the damage that the financial meltdown is doing to America's "brand."

Ideas are one of our most important exports, and two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world.

The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America's power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our "soft power."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401

Third, I am now convinced that your knowledge of financial issues is probably competent but your knowledge of the philosophy of capitalism and the free market definitely does not match it at all.

Redskin in Canada wrote:First, I am -sure- no insult was intended by Welch and it was certainly not intended by myself either. What you seem to fail to appreciate is the -true- concern that we have for the economic well-being of many in the middle of a developing financial crisis, Redskins fans included. No sarcasm intended at all.

Please, read your quote. Read welch's quote. They were mildly insulting at best, and I say the same sorts of things. I didn't bring them up because they stood out for their intensity but for their illogic. So case in point, crazyhorse advocates socialism and "claims" he's only thinking of others. But he receives "benefits" from his own proposal so I tease him about wanting it for himself. Now how much of his desire for government handouts for all is for himself and how much is for others I don't know, but my saying it's for himself is logical, he receives retirement, medical and other benefits from his system. Then he "wants" to portray it as concern for "others." I don't let him off the hook. For you guys it made no sense. I pump CAPITALISM and blast socialism, that's my whole gig. I'm unemployed/going to file for bankruptcy and I'm BLASTING the system that would BENEFIT me? No one is not working in this country for very long unless they are LAZY. You can't not work for very long if you want to work and you put any effort into it in this country and recessions are no different. That's what I'm mocking the two of you for saying, not for insulting me.

As for me, I'm an avid investor, broadly diversified and have a considerable portion of my portfolio out side the US. I'm in my 40s and could retire if I wanted to. Not in the style I'd like to live, but well enough. I do consulting which pays well and am established and don't need to work all year to keep the net cash flow positive. In fact I'm trying to get OUT of my current gig in Boston, not into one. Tired of the travel.

It's about delayed gratification and I owe a debt of gratitude to Jack Welch. When I was working at GE in the 80s, he said the smartest thing you could do is keep your "resume up to date." I knew so many people tied to their Pensions who were worried about the endless layoffs. I swore never to be in that position and saved in and outside my 401K like a demon and invested aggressively. I have earned a GE Pension. When I'm Sixty I'll start getting about 15K a year. but I don't count that or Social Security in my retirement planning so it's gravy.

For anyone young, you don't have to live like a monk, but you do have to live below your means and pay yourself first. I max 401K every year and then save a percent of my income to a brokerage account. I don't save up money and deposit it, I write myself a monthly check like any other bill. Then invest broadly and not too conservatively and think long term. Seriously, that's all it takes.

RIC wrote:Second, I hope you do not make a business observing and truly reading people because you would make an awful detective. Welch ia a patriotic and a hard-working pro-private industry American with a very sound common sense. He is not blinded by ideological dogmas. You can try to label him as much as you want but in the end, it means and proves nothing.

Ditto on the reading people. welch chooses to post left wing serving posts. What he believes beyond that, I don't know. I am saying what he posts. None of that has to do with patriotism, hard working or private industry stuff. It has to do with what I said, he chooses to post only left serving posts. More left nonsense. When you call a leftie a leftie, it's a personal attack.

RIC wrote:In your obsession to advance your views, every single argument is reduced to assigning a liberal label to anything or anyone you disagree with. Quite frankly, it adds very little to the Libertarian cause to become an attractive political option to many others. That is why it has become a fringe political movement and it has very little prospect to move on to the mainstream. Paradoxically, the advances of the Right in Europe and America have been instead more along State control policies whether of a ultra-nationalist character, e.g. Austria, or religious/military, e.g., US. The outcome of this financial crisis fares even worse for your cause with greater intervention by the State in the economies of the World.

Case in point on your own lack of detective work. I repeatedly say and mean that I've given up completely, this country is on the path to being Euro Socialists. I am trying to advance NOTHING. Social Security and Medicare are the the most insidiously evil programs to freedom and liberty devised by this country and the REPUBLICAN'S completely support it. The Republicans I know all talk about Corporate Greed , Government Oversight , Big Oil and all the other liberal media talking points. None of them are advocating less government, only slowing down the growth a little. I say all these things repeatedly. What you need to process is I call almost everyone a liberal because almost everyone IS a liberal. Everyone is accepting turning over our lives to government and the question is only how fast. If nothing else, through liberal eyes you need to recognize that at least to me everyone is a liberal.

RIC wrote:Just take a pick at the Front Cover of Newsweek and the leading article that followed:

The implosion of America's most storied investment banks. The vanishing of more than a trillion dollars in stock-market wealth in a day. A $700 billion tab for U.S. taxpayers. The scale of the Wall Street crackup could scarcely be more gargantuan. Yet even as Americans ask why they're having to pay such mind-bending sums to prevent the economy from imploding, few are discussing a more intangible, yet potentially much greater cost to the United States—the damage that the financial meltdown is doing to America's "brand."

Ideas are one of our most important exports, and two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world.

The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America's power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our "soft power."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401

Third, I am now convinced that your knowledge of financial issues is probably competent but your knowledge of the philosophy of capitalism and the free market definitely does not match it at all.

Our wall street meltdown is the DIRECT consequence of government and socialism in this country, not capitalism. But we've been through that argument enough unless you have some new point other then that while government was underwriting 90% of mortgages and 55% of the mortgages they wrote were not sellable on the open market it was a failure of "capitalism." Sure. The solution is easy. Get government OUT of the mess, let the bad companies fail and STOP the government from interferring in the free markets. Instead this is More Of Same. Socialism failed and the solution of both liberal parties is MORE GOVERNMENT!

And on a lighter but VERY wise note:

Best Subprime Crisis Analysis

Enjoy. I did immensely.

Saw that a few months ago, RiC, and loved it (then and now!).

Irn-Bru wrote::lol: Saw that a few months ago, RiC, and loved it (then and now!).

Wow, a no value add stereotype. Do you like blacks eat watermelon and fried chicken jokes too? I never get liberal humor because to liberals humor is a skit where they act out what they spend all day saying, like this clip. To me, humor is questioning your own assumptions and trying to look at things from a different angle or perspective. Not just, hey, all day I said what a bunch of dufuses wall street guys are. Here's a skit where they just say dufus, stereotype things, ha, ha! If I wrote a skit with pure stereotypical government bureaucrats screwed things up, period, end of skit, I don't think that would be very funny either.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote::lol: Saw that a few months ago, RiC, and loved it (then and now!).

Wow, a no value add stereotype ... If I wrote a skit with pure stereotypical government bureaucrats screwed things up, period, end of skit, I don't think that would be very funny either.

No, it wouldn't.

If you cannot see the sense of humour in this clip by John Bird and John Fortune, two broadly recognised English comedians across political lines, and in the process, you give them the dirtiest (but most widely used) word in your lexicon: Liberals (horror). I am sure they are concerned, so concerned that they will lose some sleep over it .

It must be a very lonely world out there in your alienated cloud man. I suppose that accumulated frustration and resentment can drive people to desperately isolated political positions but I will give you my pragmatic view:

I care a lot about what political leaders think, i.e., their principles and political philosophy. I pay a lot of attention about what they say (failed promises and all ... ). But I even care far more about what they DO

I have seen, met and even worked with people with whom I may sympathise ideologically but they happen to become hopelessly ineffective and incompetent. I have also seen, met and worked with people I truly distrust and disagree from a philosophical and ideological perspective but happen to become tremendously effective and competent political and philosophical leaders.

The ideal combination of right philosophy and competent leadership only comes around every hundredth blue moon. All I ask for these days is the best among the practical choices. I do not have the time to ride from a high horse and shout Sinners! or Liberals! against everybody that does not agree with my ethical or philosophical principles.

For somebody who claims to advocate conservative fiscal policies, you have put together a dismal record arguing in favour of the irrelevance of this econometric deficit statistic. Why would Congress worry about this deficit if you are right? You just happen to be making their case in support of the bailout and irresponsible fiscal policies.

Deficits are -relative- you see? As long as this deficit is only a small fraction and percentage of the GDP, everything will be fine. Sure.

And if -you- are correct, then you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to criticise Congress. Every time you call them that tired dirty word in your lexicon, we will remind you that all deficits are -relative-. There is no such thing as a bad deficit as long as they are -relatively- small even if they are sustained red-bleeding giants.

I am glad to know your GE pension is not needed. You won't be getting much of it. I hope others are just as lucky.

I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

You see. You are a LIBERAL indeed. But he is not. That is the whole point. A Libertarian is a whole different animal.

A true philosophical LIBERAL believes in no economic intervention by the State. But it includes STRONG State regulations which ensure the application of law and freedom in the market. Justice in the sense of avoiding fraudulent trade and illegal practices, and freedom in the sense that those who are productive survive and those who are inefficient perish.

A Libertarian is the right-wing analogy to an Anarchist in the Left. No government is the best government for them in both cases. The only difference among them is common-property versus private property.

I believe in government. I believe that good government is a government that ensures and remains vigilant about the individual and social freedoms of the people and the application of justice for all.

I believe in government. I believe that good government is a good government with national and international policies which ensure the existence of individual and social freedoms of the people and the application of justice for all inside and out of their national jurisdiction.

No government equals no national or international laws and policies. No government equals no leadership and no vision. No government equals chaos.

A Libertarian is no LIBERAL. They may have stolen some elements of the LIBERAL economic philosophy but they are a very different political animal. A LIBERAL is inclusive. A Libertarian is exclusive. A Libertarian is no LIBERAL. Far from it.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

You should be ashamed of yourself, using that kind of language in the Lounge.

Irn-Bru wrote:Since you typically posit liberal and conservative (and yes, I mean that and not Republicans) as polar opposites, this should appear like a curious contradiction. But what I'm further positing is that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are species of a genus, and that genus is what is truly benefiting from 99.9% of media reporting and analysis.

Can you guess what that genus is, from my perspective?

No hope. It comes down to this point.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

What has this definition of liberal got to do with the American "left?" It says for example, "A society in which liberal principles are put into effect is usually called a capitalist society." The American liberals no longer advocate capitalist anything. Just an example, I didn't read it all, but I read a bunch of it and I didn't see anything that had to do with the American left in any way other then name.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

You see. You are a LIBERAL indeed. But he is not. That is the whole point. A Libertarian is a whole different animal.

A true philosophical LIBERAL believes in no economic intervention by the State. But it includes STRONG State regulations which ensure the application of law and freedom in the market. Justice in the sense of avoiding fraudulent trade and illegal practices, and freedom in the sense that those who are productive survive and those who are inefficient perish.

A Libertarian is the right-wing analogy to an Anarchist in the Left. No government is the best government for them in both cases. The only difference among them is common-property versus private property.

I believe in government. I believe that good government is a government that ensures and remains vigilant about the individual and social freedoms of the people and the application of justice for all.

I believe in government. I believe that good government is a good government with national and international policies which ensure the existence of individual and social freedoms of the people and the application of justice for all inside and out of their national jurisdiction.

No government equals no national or international laws and policies. No government equals no leadership and no vision. No government equals chaos.

A Libertarian is no LIBERAL. They may have stolen some elements of the LIBERAL economic philosophy but they are a very different political animal. A LIBERAL is inclusive. A Libertarian is exclusive. A Libertarian is no LIBERAL. Far from it.

Government IS the greatest transgressor of freedom in this country. Libertarians believe in competition. Your statement about protection against fraud is bilch, you don't know what you're talking about. And your definition of liberal sounds nice but has no corrolation with the Democratic party who are clearly advocating MASSIVE government CONTROL, not regulation of things like retirement, medical care, energy, pharmiceuticals. They are destroying capitalism with our tax structure and endless socialism enacted THROUGH corporations like unions, government "certifications," minimum wage. Name any Democrat who remotely advocates your definition of liberal.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If you cannot see the sense of humour in this clip by John Bird and John Fortune, two broadly recognised English comedians across political lines, and in the process, you give them the dirtiest (but most widely used) word in your lexicon: Liberals (horror). I am sure they are concerned, so concerned that they will lose some sleep over it .

It must be a very lonely world out there in your alienated cloud man. I suppose that accumulated frustration and resentment can drive people to desperately isolated political positions but I will give you my pragmatic view:

I care a lot about what political leaders think, i.e., their principles and political philosophy. I pay a lot of attention about what they say (failed promises and all ... ). But I even care far more about what they DO

I have seen, met and even worked with people with whom I may sympathise ideologically but they happen to become hopelessly ineffective and incompetent. I have also seen, met and worked with people I truly distrust and disagree from a philosophical and ideological perspective but happen to become tremendously effective and competent political and philosophical leaders.

The ideal combination of right philosophy and competent leadership only comes around every hundredth blue moon. All I ask for these days is the best among the practical choices. I do not have the time to ride from a high horse and shout Sinners! or Liberals! against everybody that does not agree with my ethical or philosophical principles.

For somebody who claims to advocate conservative fiscal policies, you have put together a dismal record arguing in favour of the irrelevance of this econometric deficit statistic. Why would Congress worry about this deficit if you are right? You just happen to be making their case in support of the bailout and irresponsible fiscal policies.

Deficits are -relative- you see? As long as this deficit is only a small fraction and percentage of the GDP, everything will be fine. Sure.

And if -you- are correct, then you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to criticise Congress. Every time you call them that tired dirty word in your lexicon, we will remind you that all deficits are -relative-. There is no such thing as a bad deficit as long as they are -relatively- small even if they are sustained red-bleeding giants.

I am glad to know your GE pension is not needed. You won't be getting much of it. I hope others are just as lucky.

What a moronic post. I say it's a no value add skit because it's pure "stereotype." Wow, I was losing it. And you blow it up into all this nonsense and hysterical overreaction. I think you've shown where the real frustration is building. Chill out dude, you're going to win. Obama's in. You can let up on the anger now, not that I've ever observed any liberal ever letting up on the anger, but give it a try.

And as for the stuff on debating your deficit stats, once again, I pointed out your stats are bogus and told you why, they are NOMINAL values. I did not defend deficits, in fact if you've read anything I've ever written and NOT applied the liberal 1% against me then you're 100% against me rule then you will realize I am against deficit spending, so for the one million two hundred sixty seven thousandth, two hundred and sixty ninth time, I believe when I'm right RELEVANT FACTS are a better argument than completely and utterly irrelevant ones, like using nominal values over hundreds of years. And no matter how many times you employ the duh, I don't get it, why are you OK with deficits duh, dar argument I will still argue that using bogus facts is no way to conduct an argument. Got it? I didn't think so, go ahead and ask me why I'm OK with deficits again. Don't forget the "duh, dar" this time.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't even see why liberal is a dirty word. I use it almost more frequently than any other to describe myself. That's right: I am a liberal.

What has this definition of liberal got to do with the American "left?" It says for example, "A society in which liberal principles are put into effect is usually called a capitalist society." The American liberals no longer advocate capitalist anything.

You don't know much about liberals.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:And your definition of liberal sounds nice but has no corrolation with the Democratic party

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Give that man a cigar! You FINALLY got it, Kaz. Good for you.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:... And your definition of liberal sounds nice but has no corrolation with the Democratic party who are clearly advocating MASSIVE government CONTROL, not regulation of things like retirement, medical care, energy, pharmiceuticals.

You are right. My definition of LIBERAL has no "correlation" with the Democratic Party ... or the Republican Party either.

The philosophical points driven by Irn Bru and myself just do not click, do they?

Let me try to help you out here: semanticsin economic philosophy is quite a bit different when it comes down to the term LIBERAL than the semanticsof the term LIBERAL in American Politics.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:They are destroying capitalism with our tax structure and endless socialism enacted THROUGH corporations like unions, government "certifications," minimum wage. Name any Democrat who remotely advocates your definition of liberal.

Following your own thoughts, the Republicans are just as bad and George W is probably the worst of the lot, Right?