or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Karl Marx and the USA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Karl Marx and the USA - Page 2

post #41 of 113
God it must be nice to be a Republican. Nothing is EVER their fault.

I'm sure Phil Gramm and his wife is now their ultimate heroes, aren't they?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #42 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

God it must be nice to be a Republican. Nothing is EVER their fault.

I'm sure Phil Gramm and his wife is now their ultimate heroes, aren't they?

It must be great to be a Democrat. Everything is their fault.
post #43 of 113
2+2=5
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #44 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

It must be great to be a Democrat. Everything is their fault.

Forget it, it'd be pointless.
post #45 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

So yeah, all Clinton's fault, Republicans' hands are clean.

Clean? No.

If you look at the explicit context, I was responding to the tripe that "Republicans' anti-regulatory stance" led to all of this.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #46 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

So the GOP had congress, and the presidency for 6 years but still were unable to get this done...?

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #47 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.

It's a pretty cool trick to pose a hypothetical reaction on the part of liberals and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of the hypothetical. The fact is, liberals like Eliot Spitzer (when he wasn't boning hookers) saw it as banks taking advantage of consumers through predatory lending practices and tried to stop it, but the Bush administration saw their attempts as meddling government regulators and would let them. Read this editorial from 6 months ago.
post #48 of 113
Oh yeah, lets start making up scenarios now.

edit: never mind BRussell beat me too it. This is what happens when you have to make some chocolate milk for your 3yo...
post #49 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's a pretty cool trick to pose a hypothetical reaction on the part of liberals and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of the hypothetical.

I was a conservative through the early 90s. I remember "killing old people" and "elderly eating dog food" and "people die from GOP policies" and the like, not to mention the racial bullshit like the James Byrd Jr ad run in areas of the country. Hypothetical? Specifically, yes. Taken with a long history of unhinged and unfair demonization? Not out of the realm of possibility. Really, what would you guys have said at the time had the GOP seriously tightened the supply of money available to "sub-prime" borrowers? I think we both know the spin that would have been put on it.

Quote:
The fact is, liberals like Eliot Spitzer (when he wasn't boning hookers) saw it as banks taking advantage of consumers through predatory lending practices and tried to stop it, but the Bush administration saw their attempts as meddling government regulators and would let them. Read this editorial from 6 months ago.

OK, great. An article, in the Washington Toast, written by the very liberal hack that is at the center of the story. This is the world as he sees it, no doubt. But it is not necessarily objective. Spitzer, Obama, and the rest of the DNC has been planning for a year or more to pin this on Bush. This article is really no surprise.

Also, there are two issues here... Spitzer is talking about predatory lending. The posts I have made to this point have related to Fannie and Freddy, and the democrats being neck-deep in both entities, both as political supporters of a busted system, and as personal beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars. And now we're doing the exact bailout that the GOP warned us about in 2002.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #50 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations" confirming income--racist....credit history--racist ----- markets correct themselves.....governement never corrects itself....complete lack of accountability in government policies of.......FAILURE the seeds were sown and we reap the massive "rewards"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...98/15375/?ck=1
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #51 of 113
Liberals used to be big bad meanies. That's why they adore Rove.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #52 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations"

WTF?

Is that what Kentuckians really think?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #53 of 113
A: Union of Soviet America
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #54 of 113
A: Union of State Socialist Republicans
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations" confirming income--racist....credit history--racist ----- markets correct themselves.....governement never corrects itself....complete lack of accountability in government policies of.......FAILURE the seeds were sown and we reap the massive "rewards"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...98/15375/?ck=1

Glenn Beck is a ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #56 of 113
Like clockwork.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #57 of 113
see that's the problem.....read the entire article
it seems calling someone "racist" is just a ploy to avoid recognizing corruption
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #58 of 113
Um, you were the first to bring up "racist" in this thread. (I have no idea why it's in quotes, but whatever.)
post #59 of 113
I'm confused as to how racism is why the housing bubble popped?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #60 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.

You really are hittin' 'em outta the park tonite.

The article you linked to claimed Clinton made it too hard and something about penalties that weren't described if they didn't get these poor unqualified people into their own piece of the American Dream.

In came Gramm, after Clinton was out of office, and made it possible for these people who should never have gotten their pie, let alone eat it, just taste it.

Along with Bush's speech 2 years later, praising Fannie and that other guy, how the fuck is that not republicans favoring deregulation.

Deregulation goes back to Reagan and the argument that Democrats stifle free enterprise with too much regulation and let the market regulate itself.

With Gramm's slight of hand, and Bush accepting it and continuing the push to get home ownership levels among low income people higher.

How in hell can you claim, by posting a link claiming it was Clinton's fault and describing the article as the "genesis" of where the problem started.

The only problem with Clinton's initiative was the republicans fucking it up.
post #61 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I was a conservative through the early 90s. I remember "killing old people" and "elderly eating dog food" and "people die from GOP policies" and the like, not to mention the racial bullshit like the James Byrd Jr ad run in areas of the country. Hypothetical? Specifically, yes. Taken with a long history of unhinged and unfair demonization? Not out of the realm of possibility. Really, what would you guys have said at the time had the GOP seriously tightened the supply of money available to "sub-prime" borrowers? I think we both know the spin that would have been put on it.

I just don't buy it. You can whine about the mean liberals all you want (and as I'm sure you're aware it's easy enough to point out all the insane things conservatives have said about liberals over the years), but I've never heard liberals complain about trying to stop banks from scamming customers with bogus mortgages. Giving low-income first-time home-owners a subsidized rate on a 30-year mortgage? No problem. But that wasn't what caused this mess. It was rogue banks scamming borrowers and scamming each other, Enron-style. The idea that providing incentives for mortgages to minorities and the urban poor forced the unwitting innocent banks like Countrywide to scam people is truly absurd.

Quote:
OK, great. An article, in the Washington Toast, written by the very liberal hack that is at the center of the story. This is the world as he sees it, no doubt. But it is not necessarily objective. Spitzer, Obama, and the rest of the DNC has been planning for a year or more to pin this on Bush. This article is really no surprise.

Also, there are two issues here... Spitzer is talking about predatory lending. The posts I have made to this point have related to Fannie and Freddy, and the democrats being neck-deep in both entities, both as political supporters of a busted system, and as personal beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars. And now we're doing the exact bailout that the GOP warned us about in 2002.

And you have one Investor's Business Daily editorial, making an argument that I've seen nowhere else and doesn't seem consistent with any of the facts - the argument that Freddie and Fannie were somehow responsible for the mortgage crisis. They weren't the ones selling people scam loans. They weren't responsible for the housing bubble bursting. By all accounts they were and continue to be in decent financial shape, and to the extent they're having problems, it's as a result of the mortgage crisis, not a cause.
post #62 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

And that statement discloses your misunderstanding of the free market.

{Ad hom} The point was that many of those who talk glowingly of "free markets' interpret the phrase in conveniently self-serving ways, which, yes, as you felt the need to unnecessarily point out, aren't truly free markets.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #63 of 113
$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?
post #64 of 113
Conceivable the lower middle class were helped by having sub prime loans to buy houses they could not afford otherwise. Now the danger is that the small business that needs a short time loan to complete a contract and keep people working wont be able to get it because money is too tight.

The investment class took a huge hit and some of these lower rated securities should be canceled representing a total loss for the billionaires that bought them. That would be my preference.

We could spread the misery around. We'll see what's going to happen when congress stops chewing its cud.
post #65 of 113
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #66 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?

Some math:
There are ~150 Million people who file tax returns in the US. Every tax payer has to contribute ~ $4,700 to come up with 700 Billion. Of course McCain will cut taxes and simply start shitting $$.

I couldn't find numbers for how many Wallstreet brokers there are. I guess maybe 100,000.
These few "friends" generated this loss. $ 7 Million per broker using your 401K and your Money market account.

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.
post #67 of 113


In Alaska, Russia sees you!
post #68 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

...

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?
post #69 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?

Yeah, right.
post #70 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Some math:
There are ~150 Million people who file tax returns in the US. Every tax payer has to contribute ~ $4,700 to come up with 700 Billion. Of course McCain will cut taxes and simply start shitting $$.

I couldn't find numbers for how many Wallstreet brokers there are. I guess maybe 100,000.
These few "friends" generated this loss. $ 7 Million per broker using your 401K and your Money market account.

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.

In their zeal to expand predatory lending, Gramm was again enlisted,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html
Quote:
A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBSs new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

Who needs pesky rules that just might protect those that are ripe for the plucking.

And for those who might have forgotten,
Quote:
Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."
post #71 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?

Ugh, most of the detainees are suspects, deemed dangerous by opinion.

Undermining your country's financial system through greed is so American and should be excused as nothing more than largess.

Home ownership did grow, so the end justifies the means, in some weird universe.

Aiding such philanthropy should be rewarded, I suppose.
post #72 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post


Home ownership did grow,

Yeah, banks never owned so many houses before.
post #73 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Yeah, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Ugh, most of the detainees are suspects, deemed dangerous by opinion.

Undermining your country's financial system through greed is so American and should be excused as nothing more than largess.

Home ownership did grow, so the end justifies the means, in some weird universe.

Aiding such philanthropy should be rewarded, I suppose.

I'm talking about the wall street guys. They didn't kill anyone. Like the terrorists did. You know that whole 9/11 thing and KSM. Or this this Trooffer Forum?
post #74 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I'm talking about the wall street guys. They didn't kill anyone. Like the terrorists did. You know that whole 9/11 thing and KSM. Or this this Trooffer Forum?

I got that, why lump me in with Artman?

Lumping in the detainees with those that did the deed and those associated with the deed and the majority of detainees who have been detained for years without charges because of what, fear, hidden proof the accusers don't care to share?

In some circles, most of the free world, that some don't feel have the right to form an opinion because of the with us or against of mentality, is akin to the very authoritarian, dictatorial regimes your government claims are evil and practice the same excuse for their prisoners.
post #75 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?

And that's not even half of the rest of the story:

1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal bailout, public debt ceiling raised $800 billion dollars ($9.8 trillion to 10.6 trillion debt ceiling)
2) AIG bailout;

Quote:
On the evening of September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank's Board of Governors announced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had been authorized to create a 24-month credit-liquidity facility from which AIG may draw up to $85 billion.

3) The aforementioned $700 billion Bush bailout;

Quote:
It would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

4) Now go to The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It at Treasury Direct or OMB or CBO and look at the actual and projected national debt.

That brand new, soon to be raised debt ceiling of $11.3 trillion would have hit us by FY2011 anyway, but that's apparently not fast enough, so let's bump it forward two fiscal years to FY2009, because you know, the feds just love printing funny money.

Now go back to the Debt to the Penny and download the entire time series dating back to January 4, 1993, and then look at just the fiscal years that Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) submitted budgets, or had direct control over federal spending, FY2002 to the present day. Or dammit, look at the entire time series, where you will see that the total public debt virtually flat lined during the last five years of the Clinton administration.

Anyway, the Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) public debt trend line is rock solid linearly increasing (R^2 = 0.99784) at a rate of $1,542,150,345.92/day (blame Excel for all those digits) or $563 billion/year.

WHAT THE FUCK!

Now extend that trend line forward in time, and it hits the CBO and OMB future fiscal year projections extremely well, but alas, those future projections suddenly become overly conservative (those CBO and OMB projections were made before the proverbial financial shit hit the proverbial financial fan), given the $1.5 trillion rising of the debt ceiling this FY alone.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck ...

Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) certified Worst President Ever.

But wait, all is not lost, the Hoover-Bush-Hoover-Cheney-Hoover-McCain-Hoover-Palin-Hoover administrations will put Fort Knox up for sale on eBay, which will reduce the public debt by all of roughly $150 billion (or 1.3% of $11.3 trillion). Whew, if it weren't for all that gold in Fort Knox, why we'd be royally screwed.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #76 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



In Alaska, Russia sees you!

That one is a definite keeper.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And that's not even half of the rest of the story

I think you are failing to understand how these bailouts work - It is likely that they won't cost anything in the end, and the government will probably make a profit because they are doing a reverse auction to buy all this destressed debt at a discount.

Likewise, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac will probably produce a profit, and AIG already has. The only one that was a true giveaway was the $29 billion assumption of risk for Bear Sterns, and that probably won't cost anything because JP Morgan can afford to hold the debt to maturity.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #78 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think you are failing to understand how these bailouts work - It is likely that they won't cost anything in the end, and the government will probably make a profit because they are doing a reverse auction to buy all this destressed debt at a discount.

Likewise, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac will probably produce a profit, and AIG already has. The only one that was a true giveaway was the $29 billion assumption of risk for Bear Sterns, and that probably won't cost anything because JP Morgan can afford to hold the debt to maturity.

What you fail to understand is that the government isn't in this for profit, never has been, and never will be, period, end of discussion.

Also, the fact that these will immediately add to the federal deficit, and the public debt, in the short term at least, that's a known fact, otherwise why raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

If the government is going to make money then they should lower the debt ceiling. Right?

Huh? Answer that one for me will you. Huh? Huh?

Savings and loan crisis

Quote:
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. governmentthat is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1]which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 19901991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II.

Deja vu anyone?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What you fail to understand is that the government isn't in this for profit, never has been, and never will be, period, end of discussion.

Also, the fact that these will immediately add to the federal deficit, and the public debt, in the short term at least, that's a known fact, otherwise why raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

If the government is going to make money then they should lower the debt ceiling. Right?

Huh? Answer that one for me will you. Huh? Huh?

Of course it will raise the debt ceiling short term. The key there is short term - who cares about short term?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #80 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Of course it will raise the debt ceiling short term. The key there is short term - who cares about short term?

You didn't answer my question.

Also define short term.

Short term as being two months, two years, or twenty years. I'm guessing 20 years unless we happen to start a major global conflict in the meantime.

Read my reply again where I added the facts of the previous S&L crisis.

Does the addendum above sound even vaguely familiar to today's situation?

I happen to think it does, and I happen to think the same end result will occur.

I will be keeping my eye on the government financial over the next few quarters (say like 13 quarters), we'll see what really happens then now won't we?

And then I'll be back and say "It ain't so Jack."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Karl Marx and the USA