Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 226
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...Page 10 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Ah yes more hatred and insults from jo..

As I said earlier...

"but, one would have to be ... not merely trolling..."

And when the wealthy leave the country with all their wealth... who next?

Seriously... MORE "bumper sticker logic"...?!? How about something that isn't erroneous, something that isn't a logical fallacy, for a change, something that shows a little more thought than "what channel is FOX on around here ?"...

Ya know, if you consider my pointing out your errors to be "hatred and insults" then perhaps posting obvious errors in thought and logic is the wrong way to go... Posting valid points rather than obvious errors and illogic would solve that problem very quickly...

maybe not but it is interesting and unlike your posts adds a different perspective on the subject...

I guess... if one considers erroneous points and illogic to be "a different perspective" worth listening to...

The rich make most of their money off of stocks not employment. Raise the "Capital Gains" rate Congress.

From what I've read the Capital Gains rate is going up... but only to 20% (25-30% would be better but it's a start)... The big issue is getting the cutbacks started and paring defense is the first place to start... Increasing revenues is only part of the solution, it won't work on it's own..
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 227
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 11:04:08 AM
...And when the wealthy leave the country with all their wealth... who next?

No one is next, because that statement fails both logic and understanding.


Seriously... MORE "bumper sticker logic"...?!? How about something that isn't erroneous, something that isn't a logical fallacy, for a change, something that shows a little more thought than "what channel is FOX on around here ?"...


"America’s rich are renouncing their citizenship at record levels — just to get richer.
Startling new data from Uncle Sam show that defections by Americans are expected to double this year, largely to avoid any stiff tax bills resulting from the proposed 55 percent hike on the rich — as well as the likely expiration on Dec. 31 of the Bush era tax cuts.

As many as 8,000 US citizens are projected by immigration officials to renounce in 2012, or about 154 a week, versus 3,805 in 2011, or about 73 per week."

NY Post.. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/more_citizens_vote_with_their_feet_CTshpQumBXMZmUXsfw6OTM

or how about...

"While such a move is drastic, it's also becoming increasingly common. In fact, so many people are eager to renounce their U.S. citizenship for tax reasons, that in some U.S. embassies there's a waiting list to escape from the clutches of Uncle Sam."
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/20/more-rich-americans-renounce-u-s-citizenship-for-lower-taxes/

Again I accept your apologies...
Come on guys the information is easy to find just look.



If it is prudent to raise the minimum wage to the point of shutting down small business and all the jobs that they create then wouldn't it be more prudent to just distribute $1,000,000 dollars all those who don't already have a million dollars?

No that would be beyond stupid as it clearly demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

Really can you please explain why?
How is it any different than an artificially created minimum wage?
I say cut out the middle man!
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 228
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 11:43:37 AM

As many as 8,000 US citizens are projected by immigration officials to renounce in 2012, or about 154 a week, versus 3,805 in 2011, or about 73 per week."

Look up what the word "projected" means and get back to us.




..."While such a move is drastic, it's also becoming increasingly common. In fact, so many people are eager to renounce their U.S. citizenship for tax reasons, that in some U.S. embassies there's a waiting list to escape from the clutches of Uncle Sam."

Ironically those same clutches that let them build their wealth.

So the solution is easy, let the douche bags go and let new money take over and there will be little to no effect as billionaires have been turning their backs on the hands that feed them for some time now.





Really can you please explain why?

Based on your posts, not in terms you would be able to understand.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 229
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 11:53:34 AM
Come on guys the information is easy to find just look.

ROFLMAO

More of the utterly disingenuous "bumper sticker" sloganeering... You didn't seriously think you were going to get away with THAT bit of tripe, did you...?

Your examples are largely, and almost exclusively, about people who already live outside the US, who also hold US citizenship along with foreign citizenship/residency giving up their US citizenship to avoid being DOUBLE TAXED by both the US and the countries where they now live (the US is rather unique in this regard compared to other countries)... It is NOT specifically about "the rich fleeing the US for foreign shores" as you so dishonestly try to portray it...

Even if they were talking only about people leaving the US (which they aren't), 8,000 people is 0.0026% of the population (or a mere 0.26% of the "1 percent", a quarter of a percent)...

This is just another example of that disingenuous and intellectually dishonest "bumper sticker sloganeering" you keep getting caught out on...

You keep running your household the same as the US Gov... see you in Greece.

Apparently, you still don't see the error in that comparison... Allow me to edumacate you a bit...

National debt is not measured against revenues, it is measured against GDP (debt exceeding GDP is not a sign of imminent bankruptcy, Japan has a debt equal to 225% of GDP and they aren't going bankrupt) and the Nation's "gross worth" (gross national wealth, which is something like $57 trillion for the US)... National debt is not a "credit card"; it is not serviced the same way as credit card/personal debt, it only requires interest payments as it's "minimum payment", not pay-down of the principle like personal debt, and it is subject to vastly lower interest rates than your "credit card debt" example (the US is currently enjoying a 'net negative interest' on it's debt right now, something that typically doesn't happen in personal debt outside of debt acquired through real estate/investment loans)...

If anything in personal finances compares to the National Debt, it is a mortgage (and even that is a big stretch)... It is NORMAL to take on mortgage debt which vastly exceeds annual income, it happens almost every time a mortgage is made... No-one imagines that they are mere months from financial collapse just because their mortgage debt exceeds their annual income... It is only when annual income is insufficient to service the mortgage debt (meaning can't make the payments) that the issue of collapse arises (and the fastest way to solve this is to increase your revenues)... In National Debt terms this is the "interest bomb" which detonates when debt interest sufficiently exceeds revenues (and can be 'defused' by raising revenues)... The US is quite some time away from the interest bomb (unlike your imaginary person in the example, this person would have been 'killed' by his "interest bomb" years before you even proposed the example)...

Really can you please explain why?
How is it any different than an artificially created minimum wage?
I say cut out the middle man!

A minimum wage isn't going to give everyone a million dollars... It would likely take an entire 40-50 year worklife to exceed $1 million... Yet you attempt to make it sound as if "minimum wage" laws do the equivalent of paying that in one lump sum... More intellectual dishonesty...
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 230
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 12:27:00 PM
Hmmm...a tad over the top.

#231 "And when the wealthy leave the country with all their wealth... who next?"

That seems a bit over the top, but wait:

"to avoid any stiff tax bills resulting from the proposed 55% hike on the rich"

Please explain where you get a 55% number? No matter whether you're talking total rate, increase in marginal rates, changes in capital gains, or any other combination, there is no 55%!

As for leaving the country, you do know that more and more foreign wealthy are relocating here in droves? This of course belies the point that the wealthy here, have had 30 YEARS, of favorable rates, due mainly to republican efforts. Please spare us the horseshit you're spinning...in those 30 years, they have reformed and reduced public assistance programs, while simultaneously increasing the amount spent on defense. This at a time, when the world's militaries who could attack us, were greatly reduced.

What happened was in effect, forgetting our own citizens, at the same time increasing the abilities of our world police force, to support corporate interests world wide...

Your premise of the rich fleeing, is as bogus as your pre-election nonsense you spouted before the election. ou act as though, those rich relocating to foreign shores would NOT be subject to taxation, in some form. Most of the modern countries, with amenities that the rich would desire, have similar tax structures to our own. Unless of course they want to relocate to Somolia where no tax structure exists, only they would need a private army to insure their safety...which btw, would not be tax deductable, since there are no taxes there!

The best times in our country, including what is called the "gilded age" (1865-1900) of economic progress in this country, and the rise of individual fortunes(Rockefeller, Gould, Carnegie, etc) also produced the creation and rise of unions.

Because today's government, has become a rubber stamp for the rich, and the pendulum is beginning to swing back, to a more normal thought. The rich want to act like petulant children with their rattle($$$) being taken away, is hardly reason to indulge their fantasies. No one has proposed(as you alledged) a raping of the rich. Merely a small increase, which seems to bother them. They had no problem with all the decreases in their tax rates, nor the increase in their share of assets owned...but now that the party is over, mainly caused by their own greed, they want to balk.

The idea of no minimum wage is ludicrous. It is the last bastion of the lower and middle class these guys have not been able to breach...So in your imaginary world of economics, a person who worked 35 hours at micky d's should make $1.20 an hour and be happy?

If that's the case...WTF cares who john gault is?
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 231
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 2:09:20 PM
You guys are getting better... the insults have been drastically reduced... good job!
A few still need to work on it however.
You know who you are.

As for the rhetoric and blind obedience well i guess it is to be expected...




As many as 8,000 US citizens are projected by immigration officials to renounce in 2012, or about 154 a week, versus 3,805 in 2011, or about 73 per week."

Look up what the word "projected" means and get back to us.

Yes and so are budgets! and fiscal cliffs for that matter.
73 millionaires a week leaving the country is not a minor thing.
It's not only their money... It's the brain drain also. they create jobs.
Some high paying and some minimum wage.




..."While such a move is drastic, it's also becoming increasingly common. In fact, so many people are eager to renounce their U.S. citizenship for tax reasons, that in some U.S. embassies there's a waiting list to escape from the clutches of Uncle Sam."

Ironically those same clutches that let them build their wealth.

Ah yes the "all the wealthy are crooks" argument.
Does that include Obama?
Remember he claims to be in the Top 1%.
So you have a crook in the White House!
We certainly know how the Kennedy's made their money.
Maybe it's just the rich Dems who are the crooks?



So the solution is easy, let the douche bags go and let new money take over and there will be little to no effect as billionaires have been turning their backs on the hands that feed them for some time now.

Now they are "douche bags"
Jealousy will get you know where.
"Jealousy is, I think, the worst of all faults because it makes a victim of both parties."
Gene Tierney




Really can you please explain why?

Based on your posts, not in terms you would be able to understand.

But I already know the answer thats why i proposed it.
Kinda like a $24 minimum wage.
Hey Igor help your friend out here.




Even if they were talking only about people leaving the US (which they aren't), 8,000 people is 0.0026% of the population (or a mere 0.26% of the "1 percent", a quarter of a percent)...

I didn't claim, it those publications did.
I just posted two here there are many more who report the millionaires fleeing the US so take it up with them.



This is just another example of that disingenuous and intellectually dishonest "bumper sticker sloganeering" you keep getting caught out on...

What bumper sticker sloganeering?
Facts are facts!
If you disagree take it up with the New York Post.

Yes of course when out of argument insult.




National debt is not measured against revenues, it is measured against GDP (debt exceeding GDP is not a sign of imminent bankruptcy, Japan has a debt equal to 225% of GDP and they aren't going bankrupt) and the Nation's "gross worth" (gross national wealth, which is something like $57 trillion for the US)... National debt is not a "credit card"; it is not serviced the same way as credit card/personal debt, it only requires interest payments as it's "minimum payment", not pay-down of the principle like personal debt, and it is subject to vastly lower interest rates than your "credit card debt" example (the US is currently enjoying a 'net negative interest' on it's debt right now, something that typically doesn't happen in personal debt outside of debt acquired through real estate/investment loans)...

Ah yes you want to bring it back to the debt/GDP ratio.
Which is exactly as I posted several pages ago.
At least we agree...
Greece Debt/GDP Ratio... 170%
Spain Debt/GDP Ratio...85%

US Debt/GDP Ratio... 70%
Earlier this year it hit 100%
Do you want to be like Greece and Spain. Check out their economies and the turmoil there.
Remember new entitlement spending in 2013 and 2014 will swell this number. See Obamacare.



If anything in personal finances compares to the National Debt, it is a mortgage (and even that is a big stretch)... It is NORMAL to take on mortgage debt which vastly exceeds annual income, it happens almost every time a mortgage is made... No-one imagines that they are mere months from financial collapse just because their mortgage debt exceeds their annual income... It is only when annual income is insufficient to service the mortgage debt (meaning can't make the payments) that the issue of collapse arises (and the fastest way to solve this is to increase your revenues)... In National Debt terms this is the "interest bomb" which detonates when debt interest sufficiently exceeds revenues (and can be 'defused' by raising revenues)... The US is quite some time away from the interest bomb (unlike your imaginary person in the example, this person would have been 'killed' by his "interest bomb" years before you even proposed the example)...


Yes and the "sub prime mortgage crisis" was the initial cause of the last recession.
Foreclosures in the US are still high so tis there another bubble coming?
Check out Obama's involvement in "Sub Prime Mortgages".




A minimum wage isn't going to give everyone a million dollars... It would likely take an entire 40-50 year worklife to exceed $1 million... Yet you attempt to make it sound as if "minimum wage" laws do the equivalent of paying that in one lump sum... More intellectual dishonesty...

Again please someone help him out here...




Because today's government, has become a rubber stamp for the rich, and the pendulum is beginning to swing back, to a more normal thought. The rich want to act like petulant children with their rattle($$$) being taken away, is hardly reason to indulge their fantasies. No one has proposed(as you alledged) a raping of the rich. Merely a small increase, which seems to bother them. They had no problem with all the decreases in their tax rates, nor the increase in their share of assets owned...but now that the party is over, mainly caused by their own greed, they want to balk.

Remember it was the Dems who started decreasing the tax rates on the rich. (See Kennedy/Johnson budget of 64)
And what about growing expenditure... are they under control?
The way to stop the rubber stamp is to change it.
So change it... start with the tax code!



The idea of no minimum wage is ludicrous. It is the last bastion of the lower and middle class these guys have not been able to breach...So in your imaginary world of economics, a person who worked 35 hours at micky d's should make $1.20 an hour and be happy?

Who said no minimum wage?
Minimum wage is not a bastion of the middle-class and nor should it be.
It's entry level only.
Anything more and it costs revenues in lost jobs.

The bottom line is these tax increases are not the end.
Obama today promised more increases.
Yet no mention of expenditure reduction.
And so on and so on...

Who is John Galt?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 232
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 3:16:49 PM

Even if they were talking only about people leaving the US (which they aren't), 8,000 people is 0.0026% of the population (or a mere 0.26% of the "1 percent", a quarter of a percent)...

I didn't claim, it those publications did.
I just posted two here...

Yes, you posted it... as support to make an intellectually dishonest point... You made disingenuous use of misleading information... Or is that a plea of ignorance, that you simply didn't understand the article you posted...? It has to be one or the other, either intentionaly misleading or ignorance of what the numbers in the articles meant... Claiming that someone else wrote them first doesn't change that...


This is just another example of that disingenuous and intellectually dishonest "bumper sticker sloganeering" you keep getting caught out on...


What bumper sticker sloganeering?
Facts are facts!

But you didn't simply present facts... You presented an interpretation of those facts that was intellectually dishonest and misleading... And you used facts which weren't actually the "fact" you claimed them to be in the point that was so poorly made (most disingenuous points are poorly made, few have the skill to make them well)...

Greece Debt/GDP Ratio... 170%
Spain Debt/GDP Ratio...85%

US Debt/GDP Ratio... 70%
Earlier this year it hit 100%
Do you want to be like Greece and Spain. Check out their economies and the turmoil there.

More intellectual dishonesty at it's not so finest... Here's why:

japan 238.441
canada 84.163
Germany 81.896
singapore 90.062

Do you want to be like Japan, Canada, Germany and Singapore...

Or more to the point:

liberia 14.520
algeria 10.709
ethiopia 34.071
haiti 18.969

Do you want to be like Liberia, Algeria, Ethiopia and Haiti...

In short, your point was utterly meaningless beyond attempting to foist of another intellectually dishonest comparison...

Yes and the "sub prime mortgage crisis" was the initial cause of the last recession.
Foreclosures in the US are still high so tis there another bubble coming?
Check out Obama's involvement in "Sub Prime Mortgages".

More dishonesty and disingenuousness... and irrelevant to boot... Your "point" (or rather lack thereof) has no bearing on the point you were pretending to answer... Nothing but a red herring to distract attention from having the original point shot down...
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 233
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 4:15:33 PM
More intellectual dishonesty at it's not so finest... Here's why:

japan 238.441
canada 84.163
Germany 81.896
singapore 90.062

Do you want to be like Japan, Canada, Germany and Singapore...


No I don't want to be like Japan as they are in their 5th recession in the last 15 years due to there inability to manage debt.
Actually as of Oct 5 2012 Canada's(I Am Canadian) federal debt/GDP ratio was 33.8 %
Taken right from Department of Finance Canada.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

I could point out your made up number for Canada but hey whatever floats your boat.
None of those country's are enviable Jo, the point is a high debt/GDP ratio is a drag on an economy .
It's one reason your economy is in the doldrums and is teetering on the brink of another recession.
The interest on the US debt is one of the top line items of the US budget.
"Kind of a Drag"!


Yes and the "sub prime mortgage crisis" was the initial cause of the last recession.
Foreclosures in the US are still high so tis there another bubble coming?
Check out Obama's involvement in "Sub Prime Mortgages".

More dishonesty and disingenuousness... and irrelevant to boot... Your "point" (or rather lack thereof) has no bearing on the point you were pretending to answer... Nothing but a red herring to distract attention from having the original point shot down...


And here Jo I thought we were making progress...
Be specific Jo... What in that statement is dishonest?
Do you disagree that Sub Prime mortgages were the initial cause of the last recession or that Obama played a hand in said mortgages?
Which is it Jo... be specific.

As for Obama in 1995 he led a class action lawsuit on behalf of 186 plaintiffs which led Citibank to change their lending policies... i.e. Sub Prime Mortgages.
More than 50% of those plaintiffs have since gone bankrupt or had there homes foreclosed.

Now to be clear Jo... Obama did not cause the Sub Prime Mortgage crisis which led to the recession however he did play a part and it was that ideology and liberal groupthink that led to the crisis.

*** "Bumper Sticker Alert" ***
"Can't afford a mortgage... foget about it"!
It's also reported that Obama made a fortune off the suit... guess it's just another case of the rich ripping off the poor.
Damn those evil rich Democrats!

*** "Bumper Sticker Alert #2"***
"Money For Nothing"

Now see Jo that is how you present specifics.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 234
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 4:47:15 PM

Actually as of Oct 5 2012 Canada's(I Am Canadian) federal debt/GDP ratio was 33.8 %
Taken right from Department of Finance Canada.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp



Ummm...is this the Canadian federal debt only...don't ya'll have to inculde provincial debt to arrive at the total debt???


Per capita debt is highest in Quebec and Ontario, where it has hit $38,725 and $35,550 respectively, and lowest in Alberta and the Yukon, where it has reached $14,700 and $14,900.

But according to Chris Ragan, an expert in monetary policy at McGill University, when it comes to government debt, "It is misleading to look at the total amount."

Much more relevant to Canada's fiscal well-being, says Ragan, is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which he describes as "fairly low."




"If you look at debt as a fraction of GDP, what you're doing is you're scaling it to the size of the economy," he says. "GDP is basically the tax base of governments. So if you look at debt as a fraction of GDP you're getting an indication of the government’s ability to service that debt."

Despite rising levels of government debt, Canada's combined federal and provincial debt-to-GDP ratio was 57.9 per cent in 2010-2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/03/canada-debt-cfib-road-to-greece_n_992480.html
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 235
view profile
History
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 5:11:17 PM
Okay, from what I can find, the Obama class action lawsuit wasn't what caused Citicorp or any other bank to make bad loans, then repackage those bad loans into derivatives, resell them again and again, pretending they were sound investments. Obama's lawsuit was (an unfortunatly mistaken) effort to make the banks who were already lending badly, to do the same for all citizens on his area, regardless of race or location. Therefore pretending that Obama therefore caused the economy to slide, is a gross distortion of the facts. That most of the people who thought that they benefited from it at the time, have now slid into disastrous financial straights, is a measure of how reckless and callous the loans industry was and is, and how irresponsibly they went about making loans.

By the way, rumblings are afoot that House Republicans might STILL send us "over the cliff," so stay tuned.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 236
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 5:18:13 PM
Actually as of Oct 5 2012 Canada's(I Am Canadian) federal debt/GDP ratio was 33.8 %
Taken right from Department of Finance Canada.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

Again you are being dishonest and disingenuous and misquoting numbers out of context...

The figure you have quoted is the "net debt" (this is actual debt minus assets held by the gov't, like crown corporations, etc) and NOT "gross debt" (the total actual debt)... Canada's "gross debt" (that's the same debt we are talking about for the US and every other country) is projected to be around 84% of GDP...

Once again you are dishonestly trying to compare 'apples to oranges' by comparing "net debt" in Canada to "gross debt" elsewhere... This is utterly dishonest... Seriously, are you not capable of EVER making an honest argument...? Can your points not be made without distorting the information to the point of creating falsehoods...?

I could point out your made up number for Canada...

You could TRY... but you would be wrong yet again... The only way you can come up with a substantially different number is by talking about something else entirely... Just like you did above...

What in that statement is dishonest?

I've already said what was dishonest about it but, to help you since you seem to have missed it, I'll repeat it...

"More dishonesty and disingenuousness... and irrelevant to boot... Your "point" (or rather lack thereof) has no bearing on the point you were pretending to answer... Nothing but a red herring to distract attention from having the original point shot down..."

Is that more understandable... I don't think I can explain it any more simply than that...

Ummm...is this the Canadian federal debt only...

No it isn't that... The poster is just not able to post his numbers in an honest way... It's always something completely different than what he pretends to be talking about... I've pointed out the correct answer above it's just that some can't seem to argue from reality...
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 237
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 6:46:07 PM
Actually as of Oct 5 2012 Canada's(I Am Canadian) federal debt/GDP ratio was 33.8 %
Taken right from Department of Finance Canada.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

Ummm...is this the Canadian federal debt only...don't ya'll have to inculde provincial debt to arrive at the total debt???

Yes as I stated Canada's Federal debt and the US figure was also based solely on federal numbers. If you include the states, the ratio is much worse.



Much more relevant to Canada's fiscal well-being, says Ragan, is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which he describes as "fairly low."

Good point Irish - Its actually the lowest of the G-7 nations.



Okay, from what I can find, the Obama class action lawsuit wasn't what caused Citicorp or any other bank to make bad loans, then repackage those bad loans into derivatives, resell them again and again, pretending they were sound investments. Obama's lawsuit was (an unfortunatly mistaken) effort to make the banks who were already lending badly, to do the same for all citizens on his area, regardless of race or location. Therefore pretending that Obama therefore caused the economy to slide, is a gross distortion of the facts. That most of the people who thought that they benefited from it at the time, have now slid into disastrous financial straights, is a measure of how reckless and callous the loans industry was and is, and how irresponsibly they went about making loans.


I clearly stated Obama was not directly responsible but certainly played a part.
Also it was the mindset that people deserve a house/mortgage regardless of ability to afford.


By the way, rumblings are afoot that House Republicans might STILL send us "over the cliff," so stay tuned.

And what would be the repercussion?
Nothing the Dems will then propose tax cuts that will restore the Bush tax cuts for 99%.
The bet is the Repubs could not possibly oppose such tax cuts.
Advantage Obama and that is why he offered no cuts.
He has the Repubs in a corner and he is playing it for every political advantage.
However according to the non-partison Congressional Budget Office this bill passed by the Senate will add almost $4 trillion to the debt over 10 years time.

This is why Rebubs will vote against.
H.R. 8, American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/American%20Taxpayer%20Relief%20Act.pdf



Actually as of Oct 5 2012 Canada's(I Am Canadian) federal debt/GDP ratio was 33.8 %
Taken right from Department of Finance Canada.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

The figure you have quoted is the "net debt" (this is actual debt minus assets held by the gov't, like crown corporations, etc) and NOT "gross debt" (the total actual debt)... Canada's "gross debt" (that's the same debt we are talking about for the US and every other country) is projected to be around 84% of GDP...


Sorry Jo what can I say the numbers are net as taken directly from the Canadian gov web site.
The US figures are also net.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

Even projections to 2017 show Canadian debt/GDP Ratio at under 80% so not sure where you get your number of 84%?
Perhaps you could show us where to view this number?



Once again you are dishonestly trying to compare 'apples to oranges' by comparing "net debt" in Canada to "gross debt" elsewhere... This is utterly dishonest... Seriously, are you not capable of EVER making an honest argument...? Can your points not be made without distorting the information to the point of creating falsehoods...?

Apples to apples joe do some research for your self I gave you the links.



You could TRY... but you would be wrong yet again... The only way you can come up with a substantially different number is by talking about something else entirely... Just like you did above...

What in that statement is dishonest?

I've already said what was dishonest about it but, to help you since you seem to have missed it, I'll repeat it...

"More dishonesty and disingenuousness... and irrelevant to boot... Your "point" (or rather lack thereof) has no bearing on the point you were pretending to answer... Nothing but a red herring to distract attention from having the original point shot down..."

Is that more understandable... I don't think I can explain it any more simply than that...


No not at all, you have said nothing different and offered no constructive opposition.
You have attempted to distort and smear my posts but offer no alternative.


Ummm...is this the Canadian federal debt only...

No it isn't that... The poster is just not able to post his numbers in an honest way... It's always something completely different than what he pretends to be talking about... I've pointed out the correct answer above it's just that some can't seem to argue from reality...


Where did you get your numbers, my numbers come directly from the Canadian Federal Gov.

Your attempts to smear fall flat again.

"Who is John Galt?"
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 238
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 8:06:54 PM
The US figures are also net.
....
Even projections to 2017 show Canadian debt/GDP Ratio at under 80% so not sure where you get your number of 84%?
Perhaps you could show us where to view this number?

Sorry dude, but you are about as wrong as you can get... The US number of 100% is gross, not net... The US net debt is a much more reasonable number...

Here is the US net number for 2011:

67.8% of GDP (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 38
62.9% of GDP (2010 est.)
note: data cover only what the United States Treasury denotes as "Debt Held by the Public," which includes all debt instruments issued by the Treasury that are owned by non-US Government entities; the data include Treasury debt held by foreign entities; the data exclude debt issued by individual US states, as well as intra-governmental debt; intra-governmental debt consists of Treasury borrowings from surpluses in the trusts for Federal Social Security, Federal Employees, Hospital Insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), Disability and Unemployment, and several other smaller trusts; if data for intra-government debt were added, "Gross Debt" would increase by about one-third of GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Note that says 67.8%, NOT 99%, NOT 100%, not even 80%... Notice that last little bolded bit about "if... added, would increase...one-third of GDP"...

Now, you're the math wizard... What is 67.8% plus 33%...? Why, it's 100.8%, imagine that...

As to the Canadian number for 2011, there is this, for one...

87.4% of GDP (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 18
85.1% of GDP (2010 est.)
note: figures are for gross general government debt, as opposed to net federal debt; gross general government debt includes both intragovernmental debt and the debt of public entities at the sub-national level

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html

Gee, going by the numbers here, it is actually worse (though not substantially) than I stated... It sure as hell ain't no thirty-some percent... But those are the 2011 numbers, I used 2012 numbers from the IMF for the 84%...

Here is the link... I'm going to break it into sections so it doesn't mess up the page boundries, just paste back together (without any spaces) when you copy it... I would rather not have to do that but some just can't tell when they've shot themselves in the foot no matter how many times you point out the blood...

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2016&scsm=1

&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=54&pr1.y=8&c=156%2C111

&s=GGXWDN_NGDP%2CGGXWDG_NGDP&grp=0&a=


Apples to apples joe do some research for your self I gave you the links.

No 'apples to oranges' as I just proved (with links... snicker...)

You didn't REALLY think I couldn't post the numbers to back myself up did you...?!?

Where did you get your numbers, my numbers come directly from the Canadian Federal Gov.

Your attempts to smear fall flat again.

No, my continual insistance that you were making dishonest comparisons and distorting the meaning of stats has been proven right... Again... it isn't like I haven't pointed out the flaws many times already...
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 239
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 9:00:45 PM
Jo your anger exceeds your understanding...
I am dumbfounded...
You have taken a discussion on Federal Debt and arbitrarily changed the parameters to meet your argument and still your numbers are wacko...

If you wanted to discuss Federal plus State/Provincial debt 9as your link suggests) why didn't just say so...
And then you accuse me of being mis leading.
This is exasperating.
Lesson learned to me.


I have no response other than ...

US Federal Net Debt/GDP Ratio 80%
Canada Federal Debt/GDP Ratio 37.8%

Apples to Apples...

Net Debt and the Federal Debt at March 31, 2012
..........................................................($ billions) (% of GDP)
Total liabilities ........................................967.7....56.2 %...
Less: Financial assets..................................317.6.....18.5...

Net debt ...........................................650.1....37.8 %..
Less: Non-financial assets ....................68.0.....3.9....

Federal debt (accumulated deficit).......... 582.2.....33.8....

Again the source is the Canadian Government website.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp

The reason you don't include the financial assets is because they cannot be sold off to finance the debt.
Either way 56.2% it is no where near the 84% you claim.

But Jo if you think that the US Debt to GDP ratio is just fine then so be it. You are the only one(even Obama disagrees with you as he just stated in his speech) who believes it but hey, Whatever floats your debt ceiling!

Anyway it has been a good discussion I am done with the Debt/GDP discussion for obvious reasons I am proud of you all for greatly reducing the insults wether to each other or to the great people who serve in our Governments.
Not easy jobs.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 240
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/1/2013 9:31:57 PM
If you wanted to discuss Federal plus State/Provincial debt 9as your link suggests) why didn't just say so...

Once again, you have NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to national debt... This is NOT simply a discussion of "federal debt portions"... It is a discussion of NATIONAL debt... Could you possibly more dishonest than this...? Now you are going to try to weasel out of being wrong by trying to make a dishonest distinction (which no-one else, by the way, is making because it is dishonest and disingenuous)...

US debt NEVER includes State gov't debt because, in the US, State gov't debt is State gov't debt NOT national debt, the Feds are responsible for Federal debt... In Canada, ALL gov't debt, whether provincial or federal is 'crown debt' and 'the crown' is responsible for all of it... it ALL counts towards the national debt (or did you forget about that little "Constitutional Monarchy" part)...

Seriously dude, does admitting you were wrong realy stick in your craw THAT much...? So much so that now you have to start playing games with definitions again...?

But Jo if you think that the US Debt to GDP ratio is just fine then so be it.

Once again you have to be completely dishonest... Now you are inventing flasehoods about what I've said or think... Realy, do you have NO shame what so ever...?
 Dcmotz1
Joined: 7/10/2012
Msg: 241
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 6:02:37 AM
Does anyone in here really believe that the bill passed is going to reduce our debt? Obama got his tax hike without spending cuts. How is this a good thing? The CBO says we just added 4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years because of this deal...do you really think that is good?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 242
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 7:40:12 AM

The CBO says we just added 4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years because of this deal...do you really think that is good?

Nope, I think that you do not understand that the CBO's projection that you are quoting assumes that all sequestration cuts take effect and all tax rates go back to 2000 levels which clearly is not the case.

As it does not add to the deficit, but rather it would reduce the monies taken in by 4trillion "If" all tax rates have been re-set to 2000 levels.
 Dcmotz1
Joined: 7/10/2012
Msg: 243
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 10:30:48 AM
Now that taxes are going up for everyone {payroll tax}...Maybe now the senate will pass a budget for the first time in 3 years. Don't hold you breath...
 PGL7
Joined: 8/7/2010
Msg: 244
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 1:25:58 PM
Great Post Dc...

Highlites... er ...lowlites of the US fiscal Cliff deal;

Bottom line 77% of Americans just got an increase.
Looks like the 1% grew pretty quickly!

On a brighter note NASCAR and Hollywood got tax breaks.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 245
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 1:58:10 PM
Well, the Teapubliucans couldn't get it together to actually approve a deal that would include budget cuts...so, we're left with the income part of the budget without the cutting part...

Is Boner going to resign as speaker tonight???
 Dcmotz1
Joined: 7/10/2012
Msg: 246
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 3:41:33 PM
I do not know if the speaker of the house will retire. Will Harry Reid and all the democrats in the senate who refused to pass a budget for the last 3 years retire?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 247
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 5:06:56 PM
Is Boner going to resign as speaker tonight???

Doubtful... but, I bet he gets more than a few Repub "present" votes (non-votes) when it comes up...

Of course, Boner isn't a very happy camper these days... From the sounds of this he may very well move right back into full-blown Teabagger mode (obstructionism, for those who are wondering what that is)...

"House Speaker John Boehner couldn't hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday. ... 'Go f— yourself,' Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present."

Chris Cillizza, who writes The Fix for The Washington Post, wonders if that will be "the abiding phrase of the fiscal cliff deal."

Way to stay classy there...
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 248
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 5:19:57 PM

Of course, Boner isn't a very happy camper these days... From the sounds of this he may very well move right back into full-blown Teabagger mode (obstructionist, for those who are wondering what that it)...


Boner has proven to be such an ineffectual leader of the House it's probably better that he stays as Speaker...though, this does not bode well for debt ceiling negotiations and the next mini cliff...the Teapuglicants will jazz up the debt ceiling so that Moody's and other credit rating agencies will lower the nations credit rating...it does indicate that the repuglicants will have serious problems come 2014...

I know that "some" have such short memories...but wasn't it just last week that Boner and President Obama almost reached a budget deal cutting $1tillion in expenses and raising $1trillion in revenue (over 10 years)...the problem was that Boner couldn't get his own party on board...so, now budget cutting is pushed off into the future.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 249
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 5:44:45 PM

the problem was that Boner couldn't get his own party on board...so, now budget cutting is pushed off into the future.

It must have really sucked for him when his own party members single-handedly put the Dems "in the driver's seat" on this... Maybe Boner and the Repubs should take some lessons from Canadian political parties, if any Conservatives here had pulled a stunt like that in Parliament they would have been given "the bum's rush" right out of the party and likely would never hold another Parliamentary seat as a Conservative again...

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the teabagger Repubs started trying to demand tax rollbacks as part of any deal on cuts now... They don't seem to be the "best and brightest" given how they keep shooting themselves in the collective foot...
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 250
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 1/2/2013 5:45:54 PM
Funny isn't it? How really duplicitious the republicants are!! Even the ones on here who want to have these inhuman slime's backs...

First we have pork city attached to the bill that passed. Now who benefitted? Well Alaska got some dough for salmon, Nascar got some bucks, Hollywood or the film industry garnered a few. BUT did they take up the Sandy victims money? Oh hell no!

That they put off, going to take it in 2 chunks, 9 Billion soon, then 51 billion "maybe" on the 15th of january...BUT they are looking for cuts to offset the expenditure!

Gee, when it was the red states clamouring for MORE money, beyond what they normally get since they all get much more money spent on them, than the revenue they contribute year after year, when they had hurricane disasters? Almost EVERY year there was a disaster...there they were, hat in hand asking for help....

But one of the few times a hurricane does substantial damage in the northeast, traditionally an area that gives more than it gets...they need to cut spending!

Freakin parasites....
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...