# Obama seeks $1.2 trillion debt limit rise



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

WINA AM 1070 
*Obama seeks $1.2 trillion debt limit rise*
Reuters - ‎1 hour ago‎

By David Lawder | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama formally notified Congress on Thursday that he plans a $1.2 trillion increase in the US debt limit, prompting Republicans to level election-year charges that deficits are out of control.

Spend Spend Spend


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Worst. President. Ever.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Reserve him as worst President thus far. Never know what the future will bring. After all people thought Carter was the Worst POSUS ever. Some people even thought it was Bush jr.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2012)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Worst. President. Ever.


I truly never thought I would see anyone worse than Jimmy Carter, but this guy blows him away. At least Carter loved America (former Naval officer), unlike the Marxist currently in the White House.

But, just remember.....Carter got us Reagan.


----------



## cousteau (Oct 31, 2011)

A title does not make him a president. He obviously is not a president. The incarnation of all things unamerican, maybe. Put obama's face on that monkey clip paratrooper uses. See if you can tell who looks smarter.


----------



## tsunami (Aug 12, 2009)

1.2 Trillions That's not enough!!!....hey homeboy Tim geithner print some more of that worthless papers...


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2012)

How many more members of his family is he trying to put on welfare and low cost housing now? Do they all drink and drive too?


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/20/change-obama-bush-debt/

*Obama (3+ years) has now surpassed Bush (8 years) in national debt increase.....Imagine what Obama will do with 5 more years?.......*


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

Delta784 said:


> I truly never thought I would see anyone worse than Jimmy Carter, but this guy blows him away. At least Carter loved America (former Naval officer), unlike the Marxist currently in the White House.
> 
> But, just remember.....Carter got us Reagan.


There is no Reagan this time around. All the Republicans had to do was find _someone_ (fucking anyone) that isn't a joke and they *couldn't *do it.

This race should have been over a long time ago.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2012)

Herrdoktor said:


> There is no Reagan this time around. All the Republicans had to do was find _someone_ (fucking anyone) that isn't a joke and they *couldn't *do it.
> 
> This race should have been over a long time ago.


The exact same things being said about Romney now (not conservative enough, can't beat the incumbent) were being said about Reagan in 1980.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

Delta784 said:


> The exact same things being said about Romney now (not conservative enough, can't beat the incumbent) were being said about Reagan in 1980.


*Romney (if he wins nomination) better put on his "Reagan face" and become a conservative if this country wants a future. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office* (info from Michelle Malkin's web site). *Anyone that doesn't think this is a BIG DEAL just doesn't get it (or wants to the USA to self-destruct).....*


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2012)

SgtAndySipowicz said:


> *Romney (if he wins nomination) better put on his "Reagan face" and become a conservative if this country wants a future. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office* (info from Michelle Malkin's web site). *Anyone that doesn't think this is a BIG DEAL just doesn't get it (or wants to the USA to self-destruct).....*


If anyone is ready, willing, and able to take a hatchet to the federal budget in all the right places, it's the guy who founded Bain Capital. He made his millions by restructuring failing corporations, which is exactly what the United States of America is right now.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

Cuts? Sure, all the cuts will be in defense and anything helpful towards the middle class. No one will touch the sacred cash cow of welfare, universal health and handouts to other nations. No one gives a flying fuck about the middle class. The same thing happened some time ago in Italy.. We are the current Roman Empire...


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2012)

Deuce said:


> Cuts? Sure, all the cuts will be in defense and anything helpful towards the middle class. No one will touch the sacred cash cow of welfare, universal health and handouts to other nations. No one gives a flying fuck about the middle class. The same thing happened some time ago in Italy.. We are the current Roman Empire...


Listen to the candidates....Obama wants to tax our way to prosperity (impossible) while Romney wants to cut federal spending while strengthening the military (one of his central themes).


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1

*"Real" federal deficit last year was 5 TRILLION DOLLARS. Interesting read......*


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

Love Her


----------



## honor12900 (May 9, 2006)

SgtAndySipowicz said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1
> 
> *"Real" federal deficit last year was 5 TRILLION DOLLARS. Interesting read......*


5 trillion huh?! That's nothing. I'll work a couple details and pay that off.  Maybe if we keep this ass clown in office we can shoot for a quadrillion.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

Or maybe he will ask for..........."One Million Dollars"


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

BRION24 said:


> Love Her


Conservatives have the best-looking women, hands-down.

Monica Crowley









Ann Coulter









Laura Ingraham









Sarah Palin









Elisabeth Hasselbeck


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/BGOVTOP-BNALL-BNSTAFF-BNTEAMS/2012/06/12/id/442098

*Deficit still growing under Obama at unprecendented rate, despite more tax revenue coming in. Doesn't this prove (once again) that higher taxes doesn't fix the problem, the government just spends more......*


----------



## GARDA (Dec 30, 2003)

An elderly lady was walking on the golf course on the island of Martha's Vineyard. She slipped and fell.

Obama who was behind her by chance, helped her to get up promptly. She thanked him and he answered,

"It was a pleasure to help you. Don't you recognize me? I am your president. Are you going to vote for me in the next election?"

The elderly woman laughed and replied:

''You know ... I fell on my ass ... not on my head.... "


----------



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)




----------



## Meat Eater (Jan 27, 2012)

It's time to make some tough cuts to almost everything. Welfare needs to be changed to workfare. Make them work 8 hours for the city or state every week for the first month 6 months. If they don't show up and work cut their checks by 20%. After 6 months make them work two 8 hours days every week. Keep doing this and you will get rid of the shitbags and cheats. No one should be getting welfare for more than two years.


----------



## cousteau (Oct 31, 2011)

Funny bumper sticker I saw today. If its old I apologize. New to me. "In Poland they tell Obama jokes.' How appropriate.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

Meat Eater said:


> It's time to make some tough cuts to almost everything. Welfare needs to be changed to workfare. Make them work 8 hours for the city or state every week for the first month 6 months. If they don't show up and work cut their checks by 20%. After 6 months make them work two 8 hours days every week. Keep doing this and you will get rid of the shitbags and cheats. No one should be getting welfare for more than two years.


None of this actually addresses the fact that there are not that many sustainable jobs in our economy right now.

Cutting welfare is only going to do one thing. Make poor people more poor. Say your theory works and states cut their aid in half. Where do you think that money is going to go? The tax rates on the middle class are not going to be lowered so what you are going to have is a surplus spent on other shit.

The counter argument is that other 'shit' will be things like infrastructure and services that will improve the lives of the middle class, but I'll believe that when I see it.

What I am guessing will happen is the money will be pissed down the drain.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

GARDA said:


> An elderly lady was walking on the golf course on the island of Martha's Vineyard. She slipped and fell.
> 
> Obama who was behind her by chance, helped her to get up promptly. She thanked him and he answered,
> 
> ...


President Obama ditched his Secret Service detail and went for a swim on a private beach. He suddenly got caught in a riptide, and was struggling to stay afloat, when 3 young men who were swim team members swam out and saved him.

After he caught his breath, Obama said "In thanks for what you guys did for me, I will do anything I can for you within my Presidential power. What can I do?"

The first guy said "It's been my lifetime dream to attend West Point".

"It's done, you're receiving a Presidential appointment immediately".

The second guy said "I'm going off to college in the Fall, and I'd really like to have some experience on my resume".

"You'll have a summer internship with any federal agency you wish".

The third guy said "Even though I'm not joining the military, I'd like to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery".

Obama looked at the young man and said "If that's what you really want, I'll issue an executive order immediately, but I have to say that's a very strange request for someone so young. Why do you want that, of all things?"

The third guy said "Because my father is going to kill me when he finds out who I saved from drowning".


----------



## Meat Eater (Jan 27, 2012)

It's time to make some tough cuts to everything. The money save has to be used to pay down our debt! There is not going to be any middle class left unless someone has the balls to make the cuts! Every goverment agency has to be audited to find out where the money is going. There are billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars being waisted by a goverment that is to large.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

The government shouldn't be handing out EBT cards, sect 8, welfare etc etc period. It is un-American to the core. It is socialism that has creeped in over the years. Our fore fathers wouldn't approve of this current nonsense. Even social security shouldn't exist, it's not sustainable. If people want to help others they can (and many many of us will/would). But it should be up to us what we do with our hard earned money, not the Obama liberal types/government. When government redistributes our earnings to someone who hasn't earned it, that my friends is socialism. To say that the USA is not already a socialist state would be nuts. There is a need for some taxes (national defense, schools, police, fire, etc). However, when I work a 10 hour detail in 95 degree heat flapping my arms, why the fuck does a 3rd of that money or more go to people who walk by me on that detail holding a brown paper bag (with booze in it)? We really need to continue electing Tea Party types into office if we are to save America..


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

SgtAndySipowicz said:


> The government shouldn't be handing out EBT cards, sect 8, welfare etc etc period. It is un-American to the core. It is socialism that has creeped in over the years. Our fore fathers wouldn't approve of this current nonsense. Even social security shouldn't exist, it's not sustainable. If people want to help others they can (and many many of us will/would). But it should be up to us what we do with our hard earned money, not the Obama liberal types/government. When government redistributes our earnings to someone who hasn't earned it, that my friends is socialism. To say that the USA is not already a socialist state would be nuts. There is a need for some taxes (national defense, schools, police, fire, etc). However, when I work a 10 hour detail in 95 degree heat flapping my arms, why the fuck does a 3rd of that money or more go to people who walk by me on that detail holding a brown paper bag (with booze in it)? We really need to continue electing Tea Party types into office if we are to save America..


Again that's all well and good but the surplus of money is not going to go back to us.

Unless there is a massive overhaul in the way our government works whatever money is left over will simply go to other projects.

We can't even get the super wealthy to pay a tax rate consistent with the middle class. Let's start there and then work our way down imo.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Herrdoktor said:


> Again that's all well and good but the surplus of money is not going to go back to us.
> 
> Unless there is a massive overhaul in the way our government works whatever money is left over will simply go to other projects.
> 
> We can't even get the super wealthy to pay a tax rate consistent with the middle class. Let's start there and then work our way down imo.


Where is this surplus you speak of? If we cut spending, it's not going to give us a surplus at this point. All cutting spending is going to do is get the government a little closer to spending within its means. If you have to borrow money to pay your current debt obligations and bills; then, cutting your spending only means you have to borrow less money to pay those prior debts & bills. You're thinking like a politician when you say the "surplus" will go elsewhere. Look at it like this, you use a credit card to pay your bills, buy new stuff, buy name brand clothing and name brand groceries. You start with a zero balance, but quickly max out. So, you open another card and keep spending. You max that card out, so now you're at the point where you take out an equity line to pay the minimum balances on those credit cards and continue spending. Eventually you start running out of available credit and the bank isn't going to give you any more. You are now in the position of having to cut spending. You can't buy new stuff, you only buy clothes when the ones you already own are thread bare, and you buy store brand groceries so that you can live within your paycheck and pay your other debts. You've cut a whole bunch of spending, but all you have succeeded in doing is living within a budget like the rest of us. That is what the government has to do.

My last job was as a credit account manager for a very large company. When my customers maxed out their lines of credit I didn't give them more just because they asked. They had to be financially sound and have the assets to warrant giving them more credit. If they couldn't get a higher line and many couldn't; then, they had to come up with a payment large enough to cover what they were looking to purchase. Politics aside, if obama was president of XYZ Corp and came to me looking for a higher credit line he would not get it based on the current financial status of the company he is running.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

HistoryHound said:


> Where is this surplus you speak of? If we cut spending, it's not going to give us a surplus at this point. All cutting spending is going to do is get the government a little closer to spending within its means. If you have to borrow money to pay your current debt obligations and bills; then, cutting your spending only means you have to borrow less money to pay those prior debts & bills. You're thinking like a politician when you say the "surplus" will go elsewhere. Look at it like this, you use a credit card to pay your bills, buy new stuff, buy name brand clothing and name brand groceries. You start with a zero balance, but quickly max out. So, you open another card and keep spending. You max that card out, so now you're at the point where you take out an equity line to pay the minimum balances on those credit cards and continue spending. Eventually you start running out of available credit and the bank isn't going to give you any more. You are now in the position of having to cut spending. You can't buy new stuff, you only buy clothes when the ones you already own are thread bare, and you buy store brand groceries so that you can live within your paycheck and pay your other debts. You've cut a whole bunch of spending, but all you have succeeded in doing is living within a budget like the rest of us. That is what the government has to do.
> 
> My last job was as a credit account manager for a very large company. When my customers maxed out their lines of credit I didn't give them more just because they asked. They had to be financially sound and have the assets to warrant giving them more credit. If they couldn't get a higher line and many couldn't; then, they had to come up with a payment large enough to cover what they were looking to purchase. Politics aside, if obama was president of XYZ Corp and came to me looking for a higher credit line he would not get it based on the current financial status of the company he is running.


The government is not a business, nor is it a single individual which is why your analogies do not work. The surplus in macroeconomics I am referring to is the idea that when the government spends less money on x (in this case welfare) it will then instead spend that same money on y (insert whatever). What you are not going to see is that money going back to the citizens. Our tax rates will not get any lower, which is the real burden most Americans bear right now.

It's also surprising that people at a police forum are so eager to see a cut in government spending when we all know our jobs are on the line. Fiscal austerity is only one solution to a much larger problem. It's very easy to scapegoat the welfare state when in reality every American will start to feel the pinch when it comes to the government cracking down on spending. The less money that is flowing means that it stalls our economy.

This is issue facing both political parties and I don't think either candidate has a solid solution to the problems we all face. Romney/GOP is too busy giving a shit about large corporations (capital gains tax rates, etc.) and Obama is well...Obama.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

That is the problem with the economy. The government does not operate as a business, nor does it operate within the constraints of a budget the way the rest of us do. My analogies actually make a lot of sense if you take a minute and think about what I wrote. No entity, be it a person, a company or government, can survive if it continuously spends more than it takes in. It's basic math. The more money the government spends in excess of it's revenues, the more unstable our economy becomes. So just like any individual or business it is fiscally irresponsible for the government to not cut spending and to not evaluate every expenditure and determine if it is a necessary expense or a discretionary expense. I would be willing to bet that a review of the line items in the budget would show that there is an awful lot of discretionary spending that could easily be reduced or eliminated without having an impact on government services or social programs.

Since your focused on the comments about social programs, let's take a look at those for a moment. Welfare and government subsidies were intended to be a helping hand to get someone back on their feet not a lifestyle. People fall on hard times, things happen, job loss, death of a spouse, serious illness/disability,etc. Social welfare was intended for people who find themselves in need of help because of circumstances that prevent them from helping themselves temporarily. Social Security disability was never intended to cover people who decide they can't work because their back hurts, they have a case of the nerves, ADD or any of the myriad of conditions that now "prevent" people from working. Welfare was never intended for people who indiscriminately breed having child after child even though they can not afford the kids they already have. Yet, that is what the system has become and we are reaching a tipping point in this country where there will be more people receiving public assistance than there are paying taxes to pay for those programs. Overhaul the welfare and SSDI systems and eliminate "tax refunds" for people who don't pay taxes or pay little in taxes (still can't get someone to explain how that makes sense) and you will see a substantial savings.

Then let's overhaul the whole system of putting things out to bid. Yes, there are certain things that should go out to bid like government contracts for infrastructure and heavy military equipment for example. There is no need to put out to bid for normal every day use items that can be purchased retail for less than the lowest bidder is willing to sell them to the government.

Next, let's look at government staffing. How many czars does obama have and at what cost? How many staffers do the members of the house and senate really need? How many agencies are bloated and over staffed? Think there might be a savings here?

You're very anti-Romney and his views on businesses. What you fail to see is that small businesses benefit from business tax breaks too and those are the folks who hire Americans and don't ship jobs over seas. I had one customer in particular, the owner of a small company that manufactured something (I'm not at liberty to say what). He was constantly behind in his payments so we talked a lot. He and many like him are getting slaughtered by taxes and government regulations. Instead of bailing out the companies that are "too big to fail", who by the way also sent a lot of jobs out of the country, maybe the government should have looked into giving the poor slobs who are killing themselves to make payroll and keep their companies afloat so they can stay in business employing Americans. Now I'm not saying that big businesses don't take advantage of the system much the way the welfare class does. In fact, part of the reason why my smaller companies were struggling was because the larger corporations that they sold to weren't paying them in a timely fashion and they couldn't afford to hire people like me to collect their money. You want to change the corporate tax structure, do it right. Any company that makes money in the US, but outsources its jobs pays higher taxes on the money they make in the US. Make it more expensive for these companies to ship their jobs overseas and those jobs will come back here. Thus, creating jobs that will put more Americans to work allowing those people to be productive tax paying members of society. But, don't screw with the tax breaks that the little guy is using to stay in business.

The way things are going this country is going to end up in the same situation that Western Europe was in after WWI. We have high unemployment, our industrial capacity has been decimated, we're scaling back our military (always a big mistake), our currency is becoming worthless, and we have a president who is hell bent on redistribution of wealth. If things continue the way they have been we are doomed as a democratic society. The same conditions that allowed for the rise of fascism, socialism and ultimately nazism are present. If we don't do something to reign in government spending and the increasing dependence of people on the government; then, after more than 200 years the American experiment is doomed to fail.


----------



## Meat Eater (Jan 27, 2012)

The problem with goverment is they run the welfare system like a business and they're good at it! They spend tens of millions of dollars advertising free goverment programs. The more people they can put on the dole the more people they can hire. The problem is we are paying for everything! Most people on a police forum see goverment waist every day and we don't even have to leave the station. Some days we have more guys working inside not doing police work than we have on the streets.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

HistoryHound said:


> That is the problem with the economy. The government does not operate as a business, nor does it operate within the constraints of a budget the way the rest of us do. My analogies actually make a lot of sense if you take a minute and think about what I wrote. No entity, be it a person, a company or government, can survive if it continuously spends more than it takes in. It's basic math. The more money the government spends in excess of it's revenues, the more unstable our economy becomes. So just like any individual or business it is fiscally irresponsible for the government to not cut spending and to not evaluate every expenditure and determine if it is a necessary expense or a discretionary expense. I would be willing to bet that a review of the line items in the budget would show that there is an awful lot of discretionary spending that could easily be reduced or eliminated without having an impact on government services or social programs.


I agree, but when such austerity measures are put in to place politics gets involved and it becomes a huge shitshow.



> Since your focused on the comments about social programs, let's take a look at those for a moment. Welfare and government subsidies were intended to be a helping hand to get someone back on their feet not a lifestyle. People fall on hard times, things happen, job loss, death of a spouse, serious illness/disability,etc. Social welfare was intended for people who find themselves in need of help because of circumstances that prevent them from helping themselves temporarily. Social Security disability was never intended to cover people who decide they can't work because their back hurts, they have a case of the nerves, ADD or any of the myriad of conditions that now "prevent" people from working. Welfare was never intended for people who indiscriminately breed having child after child even though they can not afford the kids they already have. Yet, that is what the system has become and we are reaching a tipping point in this country where there will be more people receiving public assistance than there are paying taxes to pay for those programs. Overhaul the welfare and SSDI systems and eliminate "tax refunds" for people who don't pay taxes or pay little in taxes (still can't get someone to explain how that makes sense) and you will see a substantial savings.


While I agree that we need to overlook such services we need to be cautious of simply turning off the taps. If we are not careful we will see a similar situation to what Europe is facing when they cut their social programs: Massive social upheaval and civil unrest.



> Then let's overhaul the whole system of putting things out to bid. Yes, there are certain things that should go out to bid like government contracts for infrastructure and heavy military equipment for example. There is no need to put out to bid for normal every day use items that can be purchased retail for less than the lowest bidder is willing to sell them to the government.


I agree, but politics will not allow such a system to occur. Too many people make too much money doing it ass backwards.



> Next, let's look at government staffing. How many czars does obama have and at what cost? How many staffers do the members of the house and senate really need? How many agencies are bloated and over staffed? Think there might be a savings here?


See above answer: People like making money. Good luck stopping them.



> You're very anti-Romney and his views on businesses. What you fail to see is that small businesses benefit from business tax breaks too and those are the folks who hire Americans and don't ship jobs over seas. I had one customer in particular, the owner of a small company that manufactured something (I'm not at liberty to say what). He was constantly behind in his payments so we talked a lot. He and many like him are getting slaughtered by taxes and government regulations. Instead of bailing out the companies that are "too big to fail", who by the way also sent a lot of jobs out of the country, maybe the government should have looked into giving the poor slobs who are killing themselves to make payroll and keep their companies afloat so they can stay in business employing Americans.


Small companies are not the reason this country's economy fell apart and I have no problem giving them whatever benefits we can to ensure their success. Of course this comes with limitations.



> Now I'm not saying that big businesses don't take advantage of the system much the way the welfare class does. In fact, part of the reason why my smaller companies were struggling was because the larger corporations that they sold to weren't paying them in a timely fashion and they couldn't afford to hire people like me to collect their money. You want to change the corporate tax structure, do it right. Any company that makes money in the US, but outsources its jobs pays higher taxes on the money they make in the US. Make it more expensive for these companies to ship their jobs overseas and those jobs will come back here. Thus, creating jobs that will put more Americans to work allowing those people to be productive tax paying members of society. But, don't screw with the tax breaks that the little guy is using to stay in business.


This is financial insanity and would only lead to more problems. The United States is no longer a manufacturing economy. The sooner people realize this the sooner we can get over the nostalgia of factories producing American goods. The last thing you want to do is penalize a company for shipping 'jobs' overseas when our economy is transiting away from those jobs anyway. Looks at the major US corporations right now. They are almost all exclusively service based. Anyone who has kids in high school or younger needs to explain to them that if they are going to the college route and want to succeed in the US right now and in the near future they need to get into medicine, technology and or research for further technologies. The internet completely changed our way of life (in a good way) and will continue to do so for years to come. Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. do not manufacture shit in the US, but what they do is print money and employ a ton of SKILLED Americans.

This of course does not mean everyone needs to go the white collar route. Our society needs those guys who want to get their hands dirty and last time I checked, every guy I know who is a contractor, plumber, etc. makes ridiculous money and that isn't going to change. What HAS already changed is the traditional 'blue collar' factory worker. They are a dying breed in the US and for good reason. Americans like cheap goods. You cannot produce cheap goods in the US. It's bad business. There will be plenty of better paying jobs in the service industry.

[quote[ The way things are going this country is going to end up in the same situation that Western Europe was in after WWI. We have high unemployment, our industrial capacity has been decimated, we're scaling back our military (always a big mistake), our currency is becoming worthless, and we have a president who is hell bent on redistribution of wealth. If things continue the way they have been we are doomed as a democratic society. The same conditions that allowed for the rise of fascism, socialism and ultimately nazism are present. If we don't do something to reign in government spending and the increasing dependence of people on the government; then, after more than 200 years the American experiment is doomed to fail.[/quote]

This is all hyperbole and has almost no base in reality. The Americans service economy is still in its nascent period and will only continue to grow into the next generation. There is a reason why skilled workers in technology are doing whatever they can to come to the US. We dominate Japan and Western Europe in all technology research for a reason.

It's going to take years, but shit will slowly start to turn around. Until then we need our government to cut fat while at the same time ensuring that the corporations and cartoonishly wealthy (fuck the 1%, how about the .01%ers) that are benefiting the most from our society are giving back their share.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

HistoryHound said:


> The way things are going this country is going to end up in the same situation that Western Europe was in after WWI. We have high unemployment, our industrial capacity has been decimated, we're scaling back our military (always a big mistake), our currency is becoming worthless, and we have a president who is hell bent on redistribution of wealth. If things continue the way they have been we are doomed as a democratic society. The same conditions that allowed for the rise of fascism, socialism and ultimately nazism are present. If we don't do something to reign in government spending and the increasing dependence of people on the government; then, after more than 200 years the American experiment is doomed to fail.





Herrdoktor said:


> This is all hyperbole and has almost no base in reality.


My statement is actually based in historical fact. There are a number of points in your response that need to be rebutted; however, I only have a few minutes this morning and just don't have sufficient time to type out a full argument. So this is what I'm going to do, I'm not only going to respond to your points and explain why I think you're wrong, I'm also going to dig out the most recent Western Civilization History text that I have and I will try to explain to you why my comments are based in indisputable facts. Although I think you already know that since you used the qualifier "almost".


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

HistoryHound said:


> My statement is actually based in historical fact. There are a number of points in your response that need to be rebutted; however, I only have a few minutes this morning and just don't have sufficient time to type out a full argument. So this is what I'm going to do, I'm not only going to respond to your points and explain why I think you're wrong, I'm also going to dig out the most recent Western Civilization History text that I have and I will try to explain to you why my comments are based in indisputable facts. Although I think you already know that since you used the qualifier "almost".


The hyperbole statement is not aimed at anything that has to do with the US post WW1/Great Depression era. The hyperbole is that you feel that the modern day US can be compared to that time period.

-The US industrial capacity is not decimated, it has transitioned away from factories Why build *whatever* at a loss when you can employ more skilled workers doing other jobs.

-The military is being scaled back because of advancement in technology, not because of a lack of funding. Personally I would much rather see drones dropping shit on people than have to worry about more of my family members getting killed over more 'wars.' Also I'm sure politicians will do what they do best and stir up stupid people with the next scapegoat and find whatever funding they need to pay off their military/government contractor constituents. (cough, cough the TSA)

- The US dollar is not becoming 'worthless.' I don't really think an explanation is needed for that statement.

- One area you did not address in reference to the post WW1 era is that the disproportion of wealth between the social classes is larger now than it was then. So when you talk about the 'redistribution of wealth' I'm hoping you are not talking about the President's plan to raise the capital gains tax and raise the tax rate on the 0.01%ers. If taxing people for making money off of making money (financial service industry for example) is 'socialism' than oh well I guess. I know plenty of guys here want to hold the torch of capitalism and that redistributing wealth is the devil, but you know what? While we hump our fucking asses off doing our profession there are people making billions off the blood, sweat and tears of others. The second the banks and the financial service industry decimated our economy I stopped giving a fuck if they get taxed too much.

- The last point you made was about the rise in fascism and Nazism/we are doomed to fail is pretty hyperbolic imo, but the closest case you can find imo is what happened in the mid west. It's now good politics to crush unionization and shit on public servants. That's a scary prospect and hopefully is only a passing blurp in a time when American politics are as fanatical as ever.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

Herrdoktor said:


> It's also surprising that people at a police forum are so eager to see a cut in government spending when we all know our jobs are on the line.


*I am not against taxes. They serve a purpose (public works, Police, Fire, Military etc). I just* *don't want my hard earned wages paying for section 8, welfare, EBT cards etc. I don't mind paying for a service in return. When my money goes to redistribution programs like the ones I just mentioned, that is what pisses me off. Again, I want taxes to pay for services, but definitely not social programs/socialism etc. I understand we are paid by people paying taxes. In my view social programs should all be cut before you see 1 hardworking cop or firefighter laid off. At some point the country will be bankrupt if we keep the redistribution programs going........*


----------



## Meat Eater (Jan 27, 2012)

I keep hearing, Tax the rich. The so called rich are paying taxes. You could take every dime they make and all their assets and not make a dent in our debt! When a business has it's profits cut they make cuts too. That means more people out of work and more businesses closing. I don't know what point Herrdoktor is making. Is he saying don't change anything because it won't help? Or is he saying vote for Barack and he will save us all from the evil Mitt?


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

My favorite, Andrea Tantaros









Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DEI8 (Jan 20, 2006)

Hush said:


> My favorite, Andrea Tantaros
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me likey, She is always wearing the "fuck me" spike heels.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Ok, here goes. I apologize in advance for the length, but I'm hoping I finally get the point across. My original posts are in black, herrdoktor's are in red and my response is in blue. I think I hit all the major points (while trying to keep it short-ish), but I'm sure he'll let me know if I didn't.

That is the problem with the economy. The government does not operate as a business, nor does it operate within the constraints of a budget the way the rest of us do. My analogies actually make a lot of sense if you take a minute and think about what I wrote. No entity, be it a person, a company or government, can survive if it continuously spends more than it takes in. It's basic math. The more money the government spends in excess of its revenues, the more unstable our economy becomes. So just like any individual or business it is fiscally irresponsible for the government to not cut spending and to not evaluate every expenditure and determine if it is a necessary expense or a discretionary expense. I would be willing to bet that a review of the line items in the budget would show that there is an awful lot of discretionary spending that could easily be reduced or eliminated without having an impact on government services or social programs.

I agree, but when such austerity measures are put in to place politics gets involved and it becomes a huge shitshow.

So, what you're saying is that because no one has the balls or common sense to get it done, it shouldn't be done? If our elected leaders don't have what it takes to make the tough decisions; then, we need to elect new leaders. It's that simple, when you're in a position of power and responsibility for the wellbeing of others and in this case an entire country; then, you have to have the strength and wisdom to make the tough choices. And if these same elected leaders can't put their own personal agendas aside for the better of the country; then, I say again we need to elect new leaders.
----------
Since your focused on the comments about social programs, let's take a look at those for a moment. Welfare and government subsidies were intended to be a helping hand to get someone back on their feet not a lifestyle. People fall on hard times, things happen, job loss, death of a spouse, serious illness/disability, etc. Social welfare was intended for people who find themselves in need of help because of circumstances that prevent them from helping themselves temporarily. Social Security disability was never intended to cover people who decide they can't work because their back hurts, they have a case of the nerves, ADD or any of the myriad of conditions that now "prevent" people from working. Welfare was never intended for people who indiscriminately breed having child after child even though they can not afford the kids they already have. Yet, that is what the system has become and we are reaching a tipping point in this country where there will be more people receiving public assistance than there are paying taxes to pay for those programs. Overhaul the welfare and SSDI systems and eliminate "tax refunds" for people who don't pay taxes or pay little in taxes (still can't get someone to explain how that makes sense) and you will see a substantial savings.

While I agree that we need to overlook such services we need to be cautious of simply turning off the taps. If we are not careful we will see a similar situation to what Europe is facing when they cut their social programs: Massive social upheaval and civil unrest. 

That is because the government has created an entire class of people dependent upon it for their survival. Most, not all, of the folks receiving benefits under these programs have not been held accountable for their actions and have not been given the means to support themselves. You want to gradually phase people off of these programs fine. Let's start with no extra benefits for having more kids. If anyone of us decided we wanted another child that we couldn't afford and went in and asked for a raise, we would get laughed out of the bosses office. While we're on the topic of irresponsible breeding, which is what having more kids than you can afford is, how about no benefits if you can't name the baby daddy. Sorry, but if you're whoring around and have no idea who the daddy is, you're on your own. Although I don't really believe that a lot of these women don't know who the baby daddy is, they just know that they get more if he's "not around." Let's try holding people accountable for a start because we all know if I went into a detailed plan this post would be even more insanely long than it already is.
-------------------
Then let's overhaul the whole system of putting things out to bid. Yes, there are certain things that should go out to bid like government contracts for infrastructure and heavy military equipment for example. There is no need to put out to bid for normal every day use items that can be purchased retail for less than the lowest bidder is willing to sell them to the government.

I agree, but politics will not allow such a system to occur. Too many people make too much money doing it ass backwards.

So, it's ok to keep doing things ass backwards because people like making money? That's a logical argument. The current system is broken and you seem to think that allowing it to remain broken is ok because a lot of people are making a lot of money. In the meantime, we continue to borrow money to overpay for things because that's the way things are done even though it is fiscally irresponsible and makes absolutely no sense. It's not the way things have to work and anyone with a little common sense can see that.
--------
Next, let's look at government staffing. How many czars does obama have and at what cost? How many staffers do the members of the house and senate really need? How many agencies are bloated and over staffed? Think there might be a savings here?

See above answer: People like making money. Good luck stopping them.

Again, it's ok to keep doing things that make absolutely no sense because people like making money? There is no reason for obama to have a czar for just about everything under the sun. But, hey it's the way it's been done so why rock the boat right? As I wrote previously, if the elected leaders don't have the courage and intelligence to fix a broken system; then, it's time to elect new ones.
----------
You're very anti-Romney and his views on businesses. What you fail to see is that small businesses benefit from business tax breaks too and those are the folks who hire Americans and don't ship jobs overseas. I had one customer in particular, the owner of a small company that manufactured something (I'm not at liberty to say what). He was constantly behind in his payments so we talked a lot. He and many like him are getting slaughtered by taxes and government regulations. Instead of bailing out the companies that are "too big to fail", who by the way also sent a lot of jobs out of the country, maybe the government should have looked into giving the poor slobs who are killing themselves to make payroll and keep their companies afloat so they can stay in business employing Americans.

Small companies are not the reason this country's economy fell apart and I have no problem giving them whatever benefits we can to ensure their success. Of course this comes with limitations. 

Well that's one thing we can agree on, small businesses are not the cause of our economic woes. But, our economic problems are certainly killing them. They're getting screwed by the government with taxes and regulations and they're getting screwed by the big companies who are not paying them in a timely manner.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Now I'm not saying that big businesses don't take advantage of the system much the way the welfare class does. In fact, part of the reason why my smaller companies were struggling was because the larger corporations that they sold to weren't paying them in a timely fashion and they couldn't afford to hire people like me to collect their money. You want to change the corporate tax structure, do it right. Any company that makes money in the US, but outsources its jobs pays higher taxes on the money they make in the US. Make it more expensive for these companies to ship their jobs overseas and those jobs will come back here. Thus, creating jobs that will put more Americans to work allowing those people to be productive tax paying members of society. But, don't screw with the tax breaks that the little guy is using to stay in business.

This is financial insanity and would only lead to more problems. The United States is no longer a manufacturing economy. The sooner people realize this the sooner we can get over the nostalgia of factories producing American goods. The last thing you want to do is penalize a company for shipping 'jobs' overseas when our economy is transiting away from those jobs anyway. Looks at the major US corporations right now. They are almost all exclusively service based. Anyone who has kids in high school or younger needs to explain to them that if they are going to the college route and want to succeed in the US right now and in the near future they need to get into medicine, technology and or research for further technologies. The internet completely changed our way of life (in a good way) and will continue to do so for years to come. Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. do not manufacture shit in the US, but what they do is print money and employ a ton of SKILLED Americans.

You really don't get it do you. One of the biggest contributors to our economic problems and the reason the US doesn't have much of a manufacturing component in the economy is the elimination of manufacturing jobs due to them being shipped overseas. And to be honest, your comment that tech companies employ a ton of "SKILLED" Americans is just insulting to those skilled workers who used to hold the manufacturing jobs that have been shipped out of this country. Now maybe you don't think it takes a lot of skill to make a pair of jeans, sneakers or electronic equipment because all you see is cheap products manufactured overseas. Have you noticed in recent years that things don't last as long as they used to? I'll give you an example, I used to buy Levi's exclusively and I could wear them for years before they wore out. Well a couple of years ago, I bought 3 pairs all the same style and size and it was like the story of the 3 bears. One pair fit, one pair was too big and the other was too small. But that wasn't the only problem, of the 2 pairs that fit they only lasted about 6 months before the button rivet snapped. My husband had the same problem. When we looked at the labels we noticed something interesting, unlike the previous well fitting, quality jeans we had in our closets that were made in the US the new inferior jeans were made overseas and they weren't any cheaper. Or how about this, remember when you could buy an appliance and have it last 20 years? You know how long you can expect to get out of the average appliance now? Ten if your lucky. My 3-year-old washing machine (which was replaced once so technically the one I have is 2-years-old) has required twice as many service calls as the 20-year-old machine it replaced. Now maybe I'm crazy, but I would think a $1,200 washer should be able to go more than a few months without being replaced.

Did it ever occur to you that a strong economy is similar to a strong investment portfolio? To base our economy entirely on one thing like technology and minimize or eliminate other aspects like manufacturing and farming is absolutely ridiculous. We have everything in this country to be self-sustaining. Now that doesn't mean isolationist. We can still be concerned with our global neighbors, but we shouldn't be dependent on them.

This of course does not mean everyone needs to go the white collar route. Our society needs those guys who want to get their hands dirty and last time I checked, every guy I know who is a contractor, plumber, etc. makes ridiculous money and that isn't going to change. What HAS already changed is the traditional 'blue collar' factory worker. They are a dying breed in the US and for good reason. Americans like cheap goods. You cannot produce cheap goods in the US. It's bad business. There will be plenty of better paying jobs in the service industry.

Cost is relative. People buy what they can afford and when you have a population of working people who are being taxed to death and are fearful of losing their jobs or have lost their jobs; then, you're going to have a population looking for the cheapest goods they can buy. However, if you have a population of people that are secure in the knowledge that their income will continue, their houses will retain their value, they will be able to provide for their retirements and kids educations; then, those people will be willing to pay a little more for better quality products because they can afford it. By the way if you think Americans like cheap goods, take a ride through your nearest section 8 housing development. You'll probably see a lot of things you wouldn't see in a working middle class neighborhood like mine. Odds are you'll see new cars, but not just any new cars, luxury cars. You'll very likely see people wearing designer clothes, $200-300 sneakers, and carrying designer bags. You know why you'll probably see those things in the "poor part" of town and not in a neighborhood like mine? Because the welfare class knows they have a steady income, they don't have to worry about paying for food, housing, medical, education for their children. They know that all of those things are covered, while the rest of us know that tomorrow is uncertain at best. You're lucky because you know your job can't be outsourced, but anyone who works behind the scenes not in face to face contact with customers (and that includes your revered SKILLED technology workers) knows that their employer can ship their jobs overseas tomorrow and there's nothing they can do about it.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

[quote[ The way things are going this country is going to end up in the same situation that Western Europe was in after WWI. We have high unemployment, our industrial capacity has been decimated, we're scaling back our military (always a big mistake), our currency is becoming worthless, and we have a president who is hell bent on redistribution of wealth. If things continue the way they have been we are doomed as a democratic society. The same conditions that allowed for the rise of fascism, socialism and ultimately nazism are present. If we don't do something to reign in government spending and the increasing dependence of people on the government; then, after more than 200 years the American experiment is doomed to fail.[/quote]

This is all hyperbole and has almost no base in reality. The Americans service economy is still in its nascent period and will only continue to grow into the next generation. There is a reason why skilled workers in technology are doing whatever they can to come to the US. We dominate Japan and Western Europe in all technology research for a reason.

You really think we're dominating Japan in technology? Have you seen some of the technological innovations coming of Japan? Granted a lot of the ones you see on the news seem a bit comical, but they are making advances in robotics and other areas. Japanese students are kicking our kids' asses when it comes to things like math and science. The way things are going it won't be long before they surge past us and our "technological superiority."

It's going to take years, but shit will slowly start to turn around. Until then we need our government to cut fat while at the same time ensuring that the corporations and cartoonishly wealthy (fuck the 1%, how about the .01%ers) that are benefiting the most from our society are giving back their share.

We don't have years. Our economy is circling the drain as we argue this. What happens if China decides they don't want to give us any more money? Then what? What will the government do if they can no longer borrow money to keep spending on things that they just can't afford? Because of our dependence on imported goods (goods that were once manufactured here by the way), foreign oil (because we wouldn't want to drill for our own), and the fact that our economy is completely entangled with foreign economies that we are now completely dependent upon the success of their economies because their failure would bring down our own our current position in the world is similar to Western Europe's position nearly a century ago.

The hyperbole statement is not aimed at anything that has to do with the US post WW1/Great Depression era. The hyperbole is that you feel that the modern day US can be compared to that time period.

Well let's just take a look at your points below and see about that.

-The US industrial capacity is not decimated, it has transitioned away from factories Why build *whatever* at a loss when you can employ more skilled workers doing other jobs.

Actually, the US industrial capacity has been decimated. Maybe not by war and revolution, but it has been decimated none-the-less. Once productive and thriving factories have closed not because there weren't enough skilled workers to staff them, but because taxes and government regulation made it more appealing for large companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas. Now I understand that you seem to think that the only skilled workers in this country are in the technology field, but you're failing to recognize the highly skilled workers who lost their jobs when those factories shut their doors who can't find jobs now because people like you can't see the value in their work and there are no longer jobs that require those skills.

-The military is being scaled back because of advancement in technology, not because of a lack of funding. Personally I would much rather see drones dropping shit on people than have to worry about more of my family members getting killed over more 'wars.' Also I'm sure politicians will do what they do best and stir up stupid people with the next scapegoat and find whatever funding they need to pay off their military/government contractor constituents. (cough, cough the TSA)

Scaling back the military is never a good idea, but an especially bad idea in a world with such political and economic instability as the one we find ourselves in. If the military is being scaled back due to advances in technology and not a lack of funding; then, it's just a big coincidence that the military funding has been cut. Not to mention you do need real live human beings to operate all that technology, so you will always need American military personnel on the ground who will be in harm's way even if every aspect of combat was technology based because the enemy will still target the people running the operations, sending up the drones, and remotely "dropping shit on people." Or do you plan on outsourcing that? I'm sure you really don't want to start down the path of the government stirring up stupid people with the next scapegoat. Or would you like to discuss the role of government leaders stirring up the masses against scapegoats in the years between WWI and WWII?

- The US dollar is not becoming 'worthless.' I don't really think an explanation is needed for that statement.

Have you not noticed the value of the dollar compared to other currencies? It wasn't long ago where you could go to another country and have a wonderful vacation for a song because the dollar was king and worth more than the currency of whatever country you were in.

- One area you did not address in reference to the post WW1 era is that the disproportion of wealth between the social classes is larger now than it was then. So when you talk about the 'redistribution of wealth' I'm hoping you are not talking about the President's plan to raise the capital gains tax and raise the tax rate on the 0.01%ers. If taxing people for making money off of making money (financial service industry for example) is 'socialism' than oh well I guess. I know plenty of guys here want to hold the torch of capitalism and that redistributing wealth is the devil, but you know what? While we hump our fucking asses off doing our profession there are people making billions off the blood, sweat and tears of others. The second the banks and the financial service industry decimated our economy I stopped giving a fuck if they get taxed too much.

Throughout history there has always been a large disparity between the wealthiest citizens and the poorest citizens. The difference is in the way we measure it today. Today we talk about it terms of money (rich vs. poor). In other parts of the world and in other times throughout history it was measured in land (people who owned it vs. people who didn't). Historically, redistribution came when governments outlawed private land ownership and instead went to a system of communal or government land ownership. Governments that take from those who have to redistribute to those who don't have a history of not getting it right. Maybe you'd like to discuss the Soviet 5 year plan. Now when I talk about redistribution in terms of the US economy, I'm talking about taking from people who have earned their wealth (however large or small it may be) and giving it to those who have not earned it. I'm talking about taxing people to the point that they can't afford to live the lifestyle they earned and giving a substantial portion of that to people who live a far better lifestyle than they've worked for.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

- The last point you made was about the rise in fascism and Nazism/we are doomed to fail is pretty hyperbolic imo, but the closest case you can find imo is what happened in the mid west. It's now good politics to crush unionization and shit on public servants. That's a scary prospect and hopefully is only a passing blurp in a time when American politics are as fanatical as ever.

Actually what I said was "The same conditions that allowed for the rise of fascism, socialism and ultimately nazism are present. If we don't do something to reign in government spending and the increasing dependence of people on the government; then, after more than 200 years the American experiment is doomed to fail." Let's see we have a president who has shown that he doesn't like to work within the framework of the constitution. Every time he makes an executive decision doing an end run around congress, he weakens our democracy. Every time congress ignores the will of the people they were elected to represent, they weaken our democracy. Weak democratic governments in Germany and Italy gave way to the fascist regimes that took over.

Prior to WWI, western Europe was the economic, financial and industrial leader of the world. Following the war the US became the economic, financial and industrial leader of the world. The Great Depression caused widespread problems throughout Europe and Japan. This strengthened the position of anti-democratic parties. It also contributed to Japanese aggression on mainland Asia because Japan needed to gain access to resources to keep them self-sufficient so they no longer had to depend on foreign economies for their survival. Now fast forward to today, the US is no longer the industrial leader of the world. We have plenty of resources, but produce very little and are no longer self-sufficient. We are also no longer the economic and financial leader of the world. Considering our debt with China, I'd say that they are replacing the US as the economic and financial leader of the world. The way things are going, if the Chinese economy takes a dive; then, we will see a global depression that makes the problems caused by the economic problems of Europe look like a minor blip.

We have an entire class of people totally dependent on the government. You said it yourself, reforming social programs would cause "massive social upheaval and civil unrest". If that's the case then we're a lot closer to being a socialist state than anyone who believes in American democracy should be comfortable with.

Sorry again about the length, but hopefully this finally makes sense to some people.


----------

