straightUp Loc: California

It figures a conservative would defend the Rodney King l**ters. As for the 1968 Democratic Convention.... that was actually triggered by questionable police actions.

This from Wikipedia...
August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a "police r**t" took place. The title of "police r**t" came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago.[20] At approximately 3:30 pm, a young boy lowered the American f**g at a legal rally taking place at Grant Park. The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protesters.[11] The police broke through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, and chunks of concrete

Can't say I blame the protesters for that one. The lowering of the f**g was symbolic and wasn't physically harming anyone. The police were the ones that initiated the violence. BTW, that WAS an anti-Vietnam rally and I contend that wh**ever violence happened in the course of protesting the war was not planned but provoked, while the war they were protesting was an exercise in nothing less than premeditated genocide. And what exactly were we defending anyway? The North Vietnamese won that war. They chased us out and Saigon fell to the c*******ts - and yet back in America we carried on like nothing happened. It's one thing to rattle sabers and to justify military action by calling it a defense against a threat to the American way of life (which is exactly what the war hawks were saying) but when you loose and the enemy leaves you alone, it kind of takes the t***h out the sermon.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, me too... well... not really. Two reasons I can think of...

1. We are only just approaching the point where the non-sustainable system of servicing old debt with new debt is reaching its limit.

2. For many Americans the t***h can only be revealed by those they trust, so for the conservatives any challenge to the run-away spending by conservative government was met with distrust or even disinterest. But as soon as the Democrats took over, the same old news of run-away debt suddenly became trustworthy... and I'm sure, "fair and balanced". LOL

AnnMarie Loc: Madison, Wi

What a great thought-if it was going to destroy America as we know it, and we lost, and it did not, perhaps the same can be said for Obamacare. I have seen baggers compare Obamacare to s***ery..those false hyperboles will come back to haunt, just as the Vietnam war did.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Let's say you like shoes, a lot. You love to buy them. One year your shoe budget goes like this:

Jan $300
Feb $345
Mar $397
Apr $456
May $525
Jun $603
Jul $694

Then, in Aug you find some really great sales and you go hog wild

Aug $1400
Sep $1470
Oct $1544
Nov $1621
Dec $1702

So, would it be correct to say that since August you've been much more frugal with your shoe purchases, because prior to August you were increasing your purchases by 15% each month, but since then you've only been increasing them by 5%?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Or welfare reform, or the sequester.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

LOL

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

So...'a strong argument for government spending' doesn't mean it's good for the economy? What does it mean?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

I think you're ignoring the fact that I said I don't *like* military spending, I think the economy would be better off without it because it takes money from those who earn it. However, I understand it is a valid and necessary purpose of government.

Also, you're ignoring a major difference between military spending and welfare spending. When the military spends taxpayer money on a truck, they get a truck. When they spend taxpayer money on a ship, they get a ship.

When politicians spend taxpayer money on welfare, they get v**es.

Military spending results in the govt getting something of value in return, welfare spending does not.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Money is not wealth, it is a representation of wealth. You can't eat money, you can't wear it, you can't drive or ride it, you can't use it for shelter...

Wealth is everything you spend money to purchase.

straightUp Loc: California

The extreme conservatives seem to have miles of imagination when it comes to demonizing the ACA. I have sometimes wished that Obama wasn't the one to champion the cause. If it was a white conservative like Reagan or Bush, even if the ACA was word for word the exact same bill, my guess is that conservatives would have a completely different perspective and would be supporting it as if God Himself willed it.

As a matter of fact, the ACA isn't the first step a toward universal healthcare mandate. Reagan himself signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which forces companies to use insurance programs that will extend coverage to employees after leaving employment. This law also demands that hospital emergency rooms treat all patients regardless of their insurance coverage or ability to pay. The idea behind the insurance mandate was to reduce the number of "free-riders" that weigh down the healthcare industry. Since then, Republicans including Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney along with groups like the Hermitage Foundation have been talking about stronger insurance mandates while conservatives sat quietly. As soon as a Democrat picks up the cause, conservatives go berserk. It's really bizarre.

straightUp Loc: California

That's a dishonest analogy that suggests we are increasing new purchases when in fact new spending during the Obama administration is far less than it was during the Bush administration. You really can't describe the situation without introducing the credit card. So...

Jan $300
Feb $345
Mar $397
Apr $456
May $525
Jun $603
Jul $694

= $3,320 all on the credit card

Aug $500 (new purchase) + $664 (payment on debt) = $1,164
Sep $350 (new purchase) + $664 (payment on debt) = $1,014

etc...

straightUp Loc: California

I *know* you do this on purpose. ;)

I will say this clearly... Any spending is good for the economy.

A dollar bill is a dollar bill, it doesn't matter if it was earned or stolen. It's still a dollar bill and when it's traded for goods or services another t***saction is recorded and the GDP grows.

You make a case for government spending on the military (because we need to defend ourselves). Because it's spending, it's good for the economy as t***sactions roll through the military-industrial complex, eventually radiating into the consumer market. The fact that the money feeding this wave of t***sactions was forcefully taken from tax payers has no bearing on the effect. Again, a dollar bill is a dollar bill.

The only difference between your argument and an argument for any other kind of government spending is WHERE the money is initially spent. Most welfare goes directly to the consumer market, but a lot of tax money is also invested in the private sector to encourage growth in specific areas such as green technology, better healthcare and of course the military-industrial complex.

The fact that you are picking and choosing which spending programs to defend or attack puts you in a glass house with a rock in your hand when you choose to attack a spending program on an economic basis, because it's the same exact economic basis that your military spending depends on.

straightUp Loc: California

I agree that defense spending is a valid and necessary purpose of the government, but that doesn't mean we have to spend as much as we do. I don't agree that just because the system depends on tax dollars that it's bad for the economy. You say it takes money from those who earned it. Well, excuse me but what do you think all those engineers and mechanics in the defense industry are doing? You don't think they are earning the money the government is giving them? So, what... someone who flips burgers has to give some of his money to an engineer that designs radar systems for our defense and that makes it bad for the economy?


Its a superficial difference. A truck, a ship, food for a family - they are all products, all part of the economy.


You don't think politicians get v**es when they spend on the military?


Ah, so a return on investment... You want to try this angle now?
OK first all, to whom is this value being applied? The government or the people? Since our government is representative, the answer should be straight forward... the people. Are the people getting a return on the investment?

Well, let's see... what kind of return is a truck? Can I drive it? No. Can I see it? No. Will it be used to defend me? Maybe.

Huh... Well, maybe the return on the investment is more abstract, more like an insurance policy against possible attacks. Right? If that's the case the argument can also be made that welfare is an insurance policy against crime, which is what desperate people turn to when there isn't anything else.

I have to say, when I walk out the door in the morning, common criminals are much higher on my threat matrix than some Red Army or Muslim extremists. For that matter, so is poor healthcare, pollution and Republicans.

straightUp Loc: California

> a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: - dictionary.com

> an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources - merriam-webster

> a large amount of money and valuable material possessions - the free dictionary

These definitions seem to include both material possessions that have value AND money which represents value. That's because wealth is a measure of value. Whether that value is applied to a tangible item or represented by cash doesn't matter.

What economic difference does it make if you have a $50 shirt and I have $50? The value is the same and so is the wealth. I'd say the only difference outside of a barter system is I could just as easily spend that $50 on a pair of pants, where you would have to sell your shirt first to get $50 representation in legal tender so you could then buy the pants - at any time during that process your wealth, as described, is $50, whether it's in cash or clothes.

Seriously, if we assume your statement about money not being wealth, then the fastest way to loose your wealth would be to sell your products, but for some strange reason that seems to be the most popular business model for gaining wealth.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

LOL. Apparently you think payments on the credit card just started after Obama was elected?

Here is a lising of the interest payments on the national debt since 2000. As you can see, we're actually paying less interest now than during Bush's second term, because of the current artificially low interest rates.


2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36

The national debt at the end of 2000, when Bush became president was 5.629T. At the end of 2008, when Obama became president it was 9.986T. That means the national debt increased 4.357T under Bush in 8 years.

The national debt is now over 17T which means under Obama it has increased over 7T in just 5 years.

During Bush's first term total interest payments on the debt were 1.684T.
During Bush's second term total interest payments on the debt were 1.639T.
During Obama's first term total interest payments on the debt were 1.611T.

So, nice try, buy my analogy holds.