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

Redskin in Canada wrote:ANYBODY will be called a "liberal" by you, even if you have recognised in this thread the misuse of the term

You spelled recognised wrong. Just teasing. I love going to Canada, even Quebec. Though I'll deny the Quebec part if you quote me.

I call people "liberal" who live under the delusion that government is the solution to their problems. Unfortunately in the US that includes most people. Republicans want "free" retirement and health care, hate big oil, cringe over corporate greed, believe supporting teacher unions is pro-education, believe being pro-union protects American jobs, hate the rich bastards who earn more money then they do and have bought the Democrats delusion we can oppose all energy policies including buying oil from bad governments and still have cheap, government provided gasoline while cutting our usage to reduce greenhouse gasses as long as lawyers in Washington call the shots. The same lawyers even Republicans want to "run" our economy.

Dude, I'm not the one who's tripping.

RIC wrote:We are good brother. No problem.

We were never not good unless you weren't. I was always good with my position and our debate. I enjoy debating.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I call people "liberal" who live under the delusion that government is the solution to their problems. Unfortunately in the US that includes most people. Republicans want ...

You call EVERYBODY "lberal" . It is a misrepresentation of the term. But, even by your very personal definition as discussed in the context of your posts in this thread, is such a broad, over-simplified generalisation that it takes away all of its semantic value.

It is a broad over-simplified generalisation because "most people" do not advocate the causes that you ascribe to them above. Republicans do not advocate the causes that you argue above. You are putting words in their mouths out of frustration about your disagreements with them.

Your failure to recognise shades of gray in politics permeates throughout your opinions and adjectives to such extent that most people who do not agree with your views find them unpersuasive or even not even thoughtful.

If all arguments against anybody end up in giving somebody a "liberal" adjective, who have you persuaded? Whose logic and reasoning is worth investigating in order to modify their thoughts and beliefs?

Answer: Absolutely NOBODY.

What information have you brought to the table with that statement?

Answer: maybe only sentiments of frustration and alienation.

You can preach to your own fellow converted "true" libertarians and conservatives about -every- single belief you have and argument you make but as long as any one of them is not accepted even by them, your favourite adjective will come out. Because your "brand" of libertarianism is THE only brand of libertarianism. Because your "brand" of conservatism is THE only way to be truly conservative.

It is a very LONELY and ALIENATED political world for you out there. But I do not feel that you can work out of it UNLESS you begin to have a different ATTITUDE to differentiate shades of gray from the over-simplistic black and white with which you appreciate reality. You can keep your political views while appreciating different shades of gray.

Sure, the world would be much simpler to understand if reality was coloured only in black and white. But it would be poorer too. Much poorer. Happily, reality offers us great challenges to learn and try to understand the full range of the spectrum of political options and be able to determine not only good and bad, but also BETTER from WORSE.

I enjoy debating.

That you might. But you seem to fail to grasp the most important aspects of its goals in 1) substance and 2) form, namely, 1) the value of the premises and the validity of the logic employed in the construction of arguments, and 2) the persuasive value of the discourse.

The value of your premises:

a) deficits do not matter as long as they are small relative to GDP
b) the term liberal is synonymous with ugly and bad things
c) the term liberal applies to everybody but you.
d) all Democrats and Republicans are bad.
e) Clinton and Bush are equally bad.
f) the US interest in Iraq and the Middle East is only oil driven.
g) Military strategies implemented by Democrats and Conservatives are "liberal"
h) Most Americans love big government to solve all their problems
i) only liberals bash America
j) the objective of a politician is not to advance the national interests of its State but watch over the perfect ideological purity of its actions.
k) Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and GW are not "true" conservatives.

is WRONG on all counts.

From wrong premises, it is rather difficult to articulate ANY logic reasoning that will reach a valid conclusion. But you tried. You gave us an example of your accumulated wealth. You gave us the recipe and told us that you are not worried about you debt -relative- to your assets and income.

We wished you a happy time (even if you do not manage to avoid bankruptcy and jail) but found the logic somehow inapplicable to the current US and GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS.

As far as the form is concerned, your approach to disqualify -any- opponent in this board by way of your favourite dirty word has been, well, MEANINGLESS. The word "liberal" lost its semantic value in your posts and nobody can feel that its use alone is a persuasive argument to sway a debate one way or another.

You also portrayed your wealth as a form of persuasive argument of the value of your ideas. I suspect that wealth can be -sometimes- a good indicator of -character- but not always and sometimes not even often. I know a lot of people without great amounts of wealth far more valuable as individuals than many wealthy people. Wealth is not a warranty for the value of ideas of anybody, nor it is a warranty about their lack of value either. It is a MEANINGLESS indicator when it comes down to the value of ideas.

Ouch!!!

Wall Street starts with a thud
Dow down 400 points as U.S. joins global market swoon on recession fears.

By CNNMoney.com staff
Last Updated: October 24, 2008: 9:38 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. stocks joined a worldwide selloff at Friday's open, with the Dow down about 400 points, as a wave of anxiety about a global recession sent investors heading for the exits.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) fell 4.5%. The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index tumbled 5.2% and the Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 5.3%.

Stocks followed the lead of plunging markets worldwide, with Japan's Nikkei index ending down 9.6%. European markets down almost as sharply, with major indexes down 8% in France and Germany and 7% in London.

Markets were down 14% in Moscow when the exchange there suspended trading until Tuesday.

"Today might be the day where everybody throws in the towel," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners. "People are saying 'I've had it, I can't take it anymore, I'm selling everything.'"

Markets were so jittery early Friday that the New York Stock Exchange felt it was necessary to post a statement on its blog confirming that trading would open as normal at 9:30 a.m. ET, saying it felt it was necessary to answer widespread rumors that the open would be delayed.

The NYSE also posted updated details of so-called circuit breakers, which would halt trading for certain periods of time if the Dow Jones industrial average falls 1,100 points during the trading day. It said it was posting that information with "the fervent hope we won't need them."

Futures trading limits were imposed before 7 a.m. ET, when Dow Jones industrial average futures were down 548 points. The futures for the S&P 500 were down 60 and Nasdaq 100 futures were down 84. Futures measure current index values against the perceived future performance and can indicate how markets open when trading begins in New York.

Economists said that even commodities were selling off, including a $18 drop in gold and a 6% decline in copper, with oil trading below $65 a barrel. The dollar rose against the euro and the British pound, but plunged against the yen.

"It's across-the-board global liquidation of stocks," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/markets ... 2008102406

Redskin in Canada wrote:Your failure to recognise shades of gray in politics permeates throughout your opinions and adjectives to such extent that

I always love liberals. You've argued nothing but complete and utter International Left/US Democratic party straight line politics and anyone who doesn't agree with you fails to see shades of gray. Same ole, same ole.

RIC wrote:most people

First of all speak for yourself. Second, why are you so insecure you need the approval of others? Third of all quite a few people have posted I've at least made them consider what I'm saying, all I ever ask. But why do you desperately crave others agreeing with you for you to feel right? What in history has ever lead you to believe that "agreement" among the masses meant "right?" I'm pointing out the dead moose on the table and no one wants to hear it.



Oh Lord, thank you thank you for giving us LAWYERS. Lawyers to chain us to government thereby solving our problems. Lawyers who can solve energy without high prices or pain and reduce the use of fossil fuels at the same time. Lawyers who deeply understand economics and can run our economy for us, control companies, turn our corporations and tax COLLECTION into welfare programs. Lawyers, God's gift to mankind to tuck us in at night, and all we have do do is elect them and they will do all this for us. No pain is necessary for incredible gain, just vote for them and our problems are solved. Driven by Democrats/International Left, accepted by Republicans/So called "conservatives."

You can say over and over how a whole cluck of liberals agree with you on every issue, but that doesn't make you right or me wrong. You have the advantage you are promising what only the stupid would believe, GOVERNMENT can solve EVERYTHING, and the people ARE stupid and accept that despite the reality GOVERNMENT can solve NOTHING. People are gullible, intellectually lazy sheep who believe your ideology's lies because it's easy and they want to. But unclench, dude, you won. We are electing Obama, it's in the bag. People bought the lies, accepted the liberal religion. Why are you still so angry?

RIC wrote:who do not agree with your views find them unpersuasive or even not even thoughtful

True, it's not liberal. I don't agree with liberals on every issue which proves I'm not an independent thinker. Which makes them clearly unpersuasive and not thoughtful. You're not the first liberal to tell me that. In fact EVERY liberal tells me that. Liberals of course being independent thinkers who agree on every issue.

RIC wrote:If all arguments against anybody end up in giving somebody a "liberal" adjective, who have you persuaded?

No matter how many time I've said it it hasn't stuck, so I'll try rote.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.
Your beloved liberalism has won, people will be slaves to government, I give up, I am trying to convince no one.

Any processing? I didn't think so, I did it to make myself feel better. Giving up doesn't make me a liberal on every issue, which means I'm not able to think independently.

RIC wrote:Answer: Absolutely NOBODY

Thanks! I didn't realize all the times I told you I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything I WASN'T CONVINCING ANYONE OF ANYTHING. Your are THE MAN! I GET IT NOW! No one could make me grasp what I keep saying until you explained it to me. Thank you oh thank you.

RIC wrote:Answer: maybe only sentiments of frustration and alienation.

Alienation, again the LIBERAL need to have a cluck of lawyer worshipers agree with you on every issue. To a liberal, to be disagreed with by liberals would be alienation. I'm not a liberal, I don't feel "alienated."

RIC wrote:You can preach to your own fellow converted "true" libertarians and conservatives about -every- single belief you have and argument you make but as long as any one of them is not accepted even by them, your favourite adjective will come out. Because your "brand" of libertarianism is THE only brand of libertarianism. Because your "brand" of conservatism is THE only way to be truly conservative.

AGAIN, I have to convince no one of anything, I expressed my view on a message board, SO SUE ME!

RIC wrote:It is a very LONELY and ALIENATED political world for you out there. But I do not feel that you can work out of it UNLESS you begin to have a different ATTITUDE to differentiate shades of gray from the over-simplistic black and white with which you appreciate reality. You can keep your political views while appreciating different shades of gray.

Lord, please let me except the inherent truth of the religion of liberalism and the sacred lawyers at it's helm so I will no longer be lonely and alienated from the liberal community. Please oh Lord, help me reject that all empirical evidence proves that government is inept and corrupt and accept and believe.

You know who you sound like? My wife, mother and grandmother, conservative Christians talking about the CHURCH! I am alone and alienated unless I believe their religion, and you tell me the same about yours.

RIC wrote:deficits do not matter as long as they are small relative to GDP

That's not what I said. This is such a perfect example of the lies of liberalism. If I were wrong, you would FOCUS on EXACTLY what I say and prove it wrong. But you must constantll CHANGE what I said and argue what I didn't say. Classic tactic of those with the facts against them. Which is why it's constantly employed by liberals. There is NO factual basis in the religion of liberalism and the holy, all seeing liberal lawyers at the helm, so liberals CONSTANTLY change points and argue what wasn't said. I'm not going on with the rest of your list of nonsense saying, that's not what I said, that's not what I said, that's not what I said and your debates against what I didn't say.

BTW, side to FIOS, does this post seem a little long to you? Sorry, I am still rambling for myself. Please ignore.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RIC wrote:deficits do not matter as long as they are small relative to GDP

That's not what I said. This is such a perfect example of the lies of liberalism. If I were wrong, you would FOCUS on EXACTLY what I say and prove it wrong. But you must constantll CHANGE what I said and argue what I didn't say. Classic tactic of those with the facts against them. Which is why it's constantly employed by liberals. There is NO factual basis in the religion of liberalism and the holy, all seeing liberal lawyers at the helm, so liberals CONSTANTLY change points and argue what wasn't said. I'm not going on with the rest of your list of nonsense saying, that's not what I said, that's not what I said, that's not what I said and your debates against what I didn't say.

Really?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:33 am

And yet since the deficit is not out of line with historical averages in the only meaningful measure as a percent of GDP, why is it staggering?

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:31 pm

OK, you DON'T understand deficits as a percent of GDP. While you object to my having asked you that, you proved me right.

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:58 pm

You're still not grooving with the GDP thing, are you?

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:08 pm

Our deficits have been running in the 2-3 percent range, maybe they'll go up to 4 percent this year. In real dollars, which economists measure deficits as a percent of GDP,

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am

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.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:07 pm

I disagree that the GDP isn't a "good" measure, it is a very good measure. It is not a "perfect" measure though. Economists think it's good, I'm an MBA, I've studied economics, I agree with them.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:37 pm

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.

You are in denial man. But look at the bright side, your number of posts increased.

By the way, I am not a lawyer. But my advice is often sought by some good international lawyers in your country and abroad.

International OUCH!!!

Global stocks suffer again
Hong Kong shares plunge 13% as fears of global recession sweep markets. Nikkei closes at 26-year low. European stocks trading lower

By CNNMoney.com staff
Last Updated: October 27, 2008: 8:04 AM ET

LONDON (CNNMoney.com) -- Stock around the world took another heavy beating Monday, with shares in Japan falling to their lowest level in 26 years, as fears of a global recession continued to sweep markets.

U.S. futures, which offer an indication of how Wall Street may open when trading begins in New York, were sharply lower.

European shares tumbled. Britain's FTSE 100 down 3.7%. The CAC-40 in Paris was down 5.6% and Germany's DAX fell 3.3%

In Asia, Japan's benchmark Nikkei index finished the session 6.4% lower - its worst closing level since October 1982. Hong Kong shares were pummeled, with the Hang Seng index plunging 12.7%.

Tokyo shares were hit hard as the yen fluctuated near a record high against the dollar. A rising yen makes Japanese exports relatively more expensive.

The yen's appreciation spurred financial ministers and central bank presidents of the world's seven leading industrialized nations to issue a statement Monday expressing their worries about the situation.

"We are concerned about the recent excessive volatility in the exchange rate of the yen and its possible adverse implications for economic and financial stability," the Group of Seven said in a statement.

Elsewhere in Asia, the KOSPI in Seoul, South Korea, was the lone bright spot, closing up nearly 1%.

The index rallied after South Korea's central bank slashed its key interest rate Monday by three-quarters of a percentage point - its largest cut ever - in an effort to fend off the global financial turmoil.

The world's leading nations have taken unprecedented coordinated actions in the past month to help out battered financial markets.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve has tried to get credit flowing by announcing plans to lend perhaps $1 trillion or more to major businesses through the use of commercial paper, the primary form of borrowing large companies use to fund their day-to-day operations.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/27/markets ... /index.htm

Interestingly ...

The world economy
Capitalism at bay

Oct 16th 2008
From The Economist print edition
What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not

ONE hundred and sixty five years ago, a Scottish businessman set out his plans for a newspaper. James Wilson’s starting point was “a melancholy reflection”: “while wealth and capital have been rapidly increasing” and science and art “working the most surprising miracles”, all classes of people were marked “by characters of uncertainty and insecurity”. Wilson’s solution was freedom. He committed his venture to the struggle not just against the protectionist corn laws but against attempts to raise up “barriers to intercourse, jealousies, animosities and heartburnings between individuals and classes in this country, and again between this country and all others”. Ever since, The Economist has been on the side of economic liberty.

Now economic liberty is under attack and capitalism, the system which embodies it, is at bay. This week Britain, the birthplace of modern privatisation, nationalised much of its banking industry; meanwhile, amid talk of the end of the Thatcher-Reagan era, the American government has promised to put $250 billion into its banks. Other governments are re-regulating their financial systems. Asians point out that the West appears to be moving towards their more dirigiste model: “The teachers have some problems,” a Chinese leader recently said. Interventionists are in full cry: “Self-regulation is finished,” claims France’s Nicolas Sarkozy. “Laissez-faire is finished.” Not all criticisms are that unsubtle (the more pointed ones focus on increasing the state’s role only in finance), but all the signs are pointing in the same direction: a larger role for the state, and a smaller and more constrained private sector.

This newspaper hopes profoundly that this will not happen. Over the past century and a half capitalism has proved its worth for billions of people. The parts of the world where it has flourished have prospered; the parts where it has shrivelled have suffered. Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will. The world should use the latest one, devastating though it is, to learn how to manage it better.
Extreme measures in the defence of liberty

In the short term defending capitalism means, paradoxically, state intervention. There is a justifiable sense of outrage among voters and business people (and indeed economic liberals) that $2.5 trillion of taxpayers' money now has to be spent on a highly rewarded industry. But the global bail-out is pragmatic, not ideological. When François Mitterrand nationalised France’s banks in 1981 he did so because he thought the state would run them better. This time governments are buying banks (or shares in them) because they believe, rightly, that public capital is needed to keep credit flowing.

...

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=12429544

In the short term defending capitalism means, paradoxically, state intervention.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Jim Rogers is the MAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMqYgKlJJw

(No offense, Kazoo—he doesn't blame this one on "liberals".)

How this Bear Market Compares (graphic)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... RKETS.html

Irn-Bru wrote:Jim Rogers is the MAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMqYgKlJJw

BRUTALLY CORRECT AND SENSIBLE.

Does anybody pay attention ???

Irn-Bru wrote:How this Bear Market Compares (graphic)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... RKETS.html

Scary. Very scary.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RIC wrote:deficits do not matter as long as they are small relative to GDP

That's not what I said

Really?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:33 am

And yet since the deficit is not out of line with historical averages in the only meaningful measure as a percent of GDP, why is it staggering?

Let's see if I have this straight, my choices are they are "staggering" or they "don't matter?" Where did you get the power to make those my choices? My point is that the deficits are in line with historical averages as a portion of the size of our economy. That means they are "normal." Have you read ANY of my posts? You think I think the current level of government is "OK?" My objection as I've said like 20 times is your portrayal the current deficits are out of line. Typical liberal speak for we need Democrats to tax the life out of our economy. I want to stop what is the hysterical, completely self serving overreaction of the Left and deal with deficits as an ongoing problem of too much government.

Kaz wrote:Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:31 pm

OK, you DON'T understand deficits as a percent of GDP. While you object to my having asked you that, you proved me right.

How does my saying you don't understand deficits as a percent of GDP mean say I think deficits "don't matter?"

Kaz wrote:Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:58 pm

You're still not grooving with the GDP thing, are you?

See the last comment

Kaz wrote:Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:08 pm

Our deficits have been running in the 2-3 percent range, maybe they'll go up to 4 percent this year. In real dollars, which economists measure deficits as a percent of GDP

Not seeing where I say deficits "don't matter" here, can you show me that?

Kaz wrote:Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am

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.

My saying that deficits staying in proportional to the national debt if they stay in line with GDP says they "don't matter?"

Kaz wrote:Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:07 pm

I disagree that the GDP isn't a "good" measure, it is a very good measure. It is not a "perfect" measure though. Economists think it's good, I'm an MBA, I've studied economics, I agree with them.

Again, I think the best measure of deficits is to measure against GDP. WHERE does that say they "don't matter?"

Kaz wrote:Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:37 pm
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.

Again, where is the deficits "don't matter" part?

RIC wrote:You are in denial man.

You mean because of your laundry list of posts, none of which show me saying what you said I did?

RIC wrote:But look at the bright side, your number of posts increased.

Hypocrisy can be so funny. This would be an example.

RIC wrote:By the way, I am not a lawyer

Good thing.

RIC wrote:But my advice is often sought by some good international lawyers in your country and abroad.

Really? I tell lawyers what to do, in my country, not yours.

Your post is EXACTLY what I said, thanks for proving me right. It's liberal nonsense. To a liberal, you pick a side and every statement that supports it no matter how false is "fact" and every statement no matter how true that contradicts it is "lie." Your post is the assumption that I operate by the same standards. When I say it's nonsense that current deficits are a "record" in any meaningful sense, two things happen.

1) It's a lie because no matter how true it is it doesn't support the liberal contention that deficits are a record.

2) There's the assumption that I must be FOR current deficits because if I were a liberal every statement I made would support one and only one side. So you "prove" me wrong by showing me statements that were on a side. I must of course believe every statement on the side I picked as a liberal would even though none of them actually say in any way what you said I did.

Fascinating, but since I'm not a liberal I can in fact believe deficits are not a meaningful "record," and at the same time, how cool is this, they "matter!" Does that blow your mind or what? Two statements that are not on the same side of the argument and I think they are both true. Wow! To a liberal that's like watching David Copperfield make an elephant disappear.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Again, I think the best measure of deficits is to measure against GDP.

A structural deficit is bad by any measure. Measuring the deficit vis-a-vis the GDP is a poor indicator of this structural failure.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:WHERE does that say they "don't matter?"

If they are sustained and growing structural deficits, they matter. They matter A LOT regardless of the index by which they are measured:

The U.S. trade deficit is an American problem. It is the result of insufficient savings at home and a widening budget deficit. In structural terms, the U.S. trade deficit shows that the productive capacity of the U.S. economy is too small relative to spending. Foreign financing allows the government to expand its expenditures without putting too large a burden on the taxpayer. This way funds are set free for private consumption.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Does that blow your mind or what? Wow!

Impressive indeed.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Again, I think the best measure of deficits is to measure against GDP.

A structural deficit is bad by any measure. Measuring the deficit vis-a-vis the GDP is a poor indicator of this structural failure.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:WHERE does that say they "don't matter?"

If they are sustained and growing structural deficits, they matter. They matter A LOT regardless of the index by which they are measured:

The U.S. trade deficit is an American problem. It is the result of insufficient savings at home and a widening budget deficit. In structural terms, the U.S. trade deficit shows that the productive capacity of the U.S. economy is too small relative to spending. Foreign financing allows the government to expand its expenditures without putting too large a burden on the taxpayer. This way funds are set free for private consumption.

None of this makes the statement the deficits are "records" meaningful, which was my point. So on deficits, what's your solution? I know what mine is, I know what Irn-Bru's is. Irn-Bru supports the nuclear bomb of fiscal conservatism, the Gold Standard. I'd be for that, but massive cuts in our rapidly expanding socialism, massive cuts in our defense to actually protect the US instead of engaging in foreign follies, eliminating the dead wood of collecting taxes by going to the fair tax and lowering tax rates so people stop avoiding paying them would push us to massive surpluses we could use to pay off the debt and get the US Government out of controlling interest rates would do wonders. And whether or not we actually go to the gold standard, I'm with Irn-Bru on blowing up the Fed. Other then hyperbole (which is what calling deficits records is since it eliminates context), what's YOUR proposal?

RIC wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Does that blow your mind or what? Wow!

Impressive indeed.

Dude, your sarcasm detector's busted. I'd get that fixed if you're going to post on The Hogs. Seriously.

The invention of the Federal Reserve was one of the biggest crimes that has ever been perpetrated on the American people. If you control the money supply, you control the economy. The vast majority of Americans do not realize that the Fed is a private corporation, not owned by the government, but still licenced to control US currency.

JSPB22 wrote:The invention of the Federal Reserve was one of the biggest crimes that has ever been perpetrated on the American people. If you control the money supply, you control the economy. The vast majority of Americans do not realize that the Fed is a private corporation, not owned by the government, but still licenced to control US currency.

Yes...



Thank you, Mr Wilson. (sarcasm intended)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:what's YOUR proposal?

Well, I have an opinion. The next administration will need a Proposal to be approved by Congress.

My view is that the USA needs an urgent Economic Recovery Plan based on solid market principles in order to address and correct systematically its STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.

I do not feel that it is realistic to expect a return to the Gold Standard.

I do not feel that the US can ignore risks to its national security and those of its friends and allies.

I do not feel that any radical changes to social security or health care in the US can be realistically expected.

BUT I am sure that a hell of a lot can be made to improve efficiency and avoid waste. I am sure that the economic recovery will be solid if inefficient and corrupt financial institutions are not rewarded and rescued by your government.

The next few months will be very challenging and the risk of high inflation looms over the horizon.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:what's YOUR proposal?

Well, I have an opinion. The next administration will need a Proposal to be approved by Congress.

My view is that the USA needs an urgent Economic Recovery Plan based on solid market principles in order to address and correct systematically its STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.

I do not feel that it is realistic to expect a return to the Gold Standard.

I do not feel that the US can ignore risks to its national security and those of its friends and allies.

I do not feel that any radical changes to social security or health care in the US can be realistically expected.

BUT I am sure that a hell of a lot can be made to improve efficiency and avoid waste. I am sure that the economic recovery will be solid if inefficient and corrupt financial institutions are not rewarded and rescued by your government.

The next few months will be very challenging and the risk of high inflation looms over the horizon.

In other words, you have no idea how to cut the deficit?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:what's YOUR proposal?

Well, I have an opinion. The next administration will need a Proposal to be approved by Congress.

My view is that the USA needs an urgent Economic Recovery Plan based on solid market principles in order to address and correct systematically its STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.

I do not feel that it is realistic to expect a return to the Gold Standard.

I do not feel that the US can ignore risks to its national security and those of its friends and allies.

I do not feel that any radical changes to social security or health care in the US can be realistically expected.

BUT I am sure that a hell of a lot can be made to improve efficiency and avoid waste. I am sure that the economic recovery will be solid if inefficient and corrupt financial institutions are not rewarded and rescued by your government.

The next few months will be very challenging and the risk of high inflation looms over the horizon.

In other words, you have no idea how to cut the deficit?

Stop giving BILLIONS of aide to people when we can't pay our own mortgage. Give the same priciples of intelligent budgeting of yesteryear(when the normal consumer financed only a few things in their life, not everything from their Starbucks to their vacations), PAY FOR WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD and if you can't afford it, you don't need it or you save for it until you CAN afford it.

Bring back domestic products with incentives and tax imports.

JSPB22 wrote:The invention of the Federal Reserve was one of the biggest crimes that has ever been perpetrated on the American people. If you control the money supply, you control the economy. The vast majority of Americans do not realize that the Fed is a private corporation, not owned by the government, but still licenced to control US currency.

FYI, the Federal Reserve System is not private, it's quasi-public like the United States Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.

These member banks must maintain fractional reserves either as vault cash or on account at its Reserve Bank; member banks earn no interest on either of these. The dividends paid by the Federal Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for the lack of interest paid on the required reserves. All profit after expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks (and since shares in ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks are redeemable only at par, the nominal "owners" do not benefit from this surplus capital); the Federal Reserve system contributed over $29 billion to the Treasury in 2006.

Most notably, the Board is appointed by the President.

The seven-member Board of Governors is the main governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is charged with overseeing the 12 District Reserve Banks and with helping implement national monetary policy. Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate

The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit.

Maybe not a profit for itself, but it was put in place to make a profit for certain folks in the financial industry.

The plan adopted in the original Federal Reserve Act called for the creation of a System that contained both private and public entities. There were to be 8 to 12 private regional Federal reserve banks (12 were established) each with its own branches, board of directors and district boundaries (Sections 2, 3, and 4) and the System was to be headed by a seven member Federal Reserve Board made up of public officials appointed by the President (strengthened and renamed in 1935 as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency dropped from the Board - Section 10). Also created as part of the Federal Reserve System was a 12 member Federal Advisory Committee (Section 12) and a single new United States currency, the Federal Reserve Note (Section 16).

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Mostly private with some public oversight.

You can't call State-corporatism "private." Italy under Mussolini was not "private." If you go by the book definition—the one written by the government—what Italy had was a 'mostly private with some public oversight' system. But it's far better to call a spade a spade.

Any organization that enjoys special monopoly privileges, protection from the government, the power to do things that would rightly be called fraud if anyone else did them, AND whose leadership is selected by government officials cannot be "private" in any meaningful sense.

Irn-Bru wrote:You can't call State-corporatism "private." Italy under Mussolini was not "private." If you go by the book definition—the one written by the government—what Italy had was a 'mostly private with some public oversight' system. But it's far better to call a spade a spade.

OK, OK, the fed is a fascist organization. Is that better?

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:You can't call State-corporatism "private." Italy under Mussolini was not "private." If you go by the book definition—the one written by the government—what Italy had was a 'mostly private with some public oversight' system. But it's far better to call a spade a spade.

OK, OK, the fed is a fascist organization. Is that better?