You betcha it's true. Obamao is a rogue, undermining America president

[Westside Steve]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/recent_spending

[gftChris]

 

I see that, Chris, but the projections are, imho, understated, and they will be a

whole lot higher.

 

That's my point. It's the direction we are headed in, and your own link's projections say it too.

 

The truth is more like this:

 

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/12/19/the-shocking-truth-on-entitlements

 

Those are absolute amounts. It's difficult to find exact figures, but the projections look to be growing by a fairly small amount, I wonder how it relates to GDP growth?

[calfoxwc]

Good question, heck if I know. But entitlements are a growing problem, and

GDP could be unstable, and fall. I don't think anybody sees entitlements falling.

 

Say, here is some "frightening" emotional stuff about it:

 

I have to go get to work outside, haven't read much of it....

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-27/40-frightening-facts-fall-us-economy

[gftChris]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/recent_spending

That's pretty much right - spending is, in sensible terms, in line with previous governments - as a percentage of GDP, it's around the same, and is coming back in to line moreso as we move away from the crash of 2008.

[gftChris]

Good question, heck if I know. But entitlements are a growing problem, and

GDP could be unstable, and fall. I don't think anybody sees entitlements falling.

GDP is generally stable, and will be for some time now, as investors err on the side of caution in the post-crash environment. Another 20 years and maybe things start getting carried away, but there'll be plenty more presidents to blame for the world's problems between now and then.

 

Entitlements as a whole won't fall, but the bigger problem than welfare, IMHO, is pensions. When you think about it, a pension scheme is essentially a ponzi scheme - pay the people who signed up yesterday with today's money, and get as many people to join until the money runs out. It's fine when you have an expanding population, but when it's contracting as in the developed world, you end up running out of money.

[OldBrownsFan]

Statistics can be misleading. Taking it to the bottom line, this country through higher taxes by Obama has brought in a record amount of money into the government but that has not stopped the growth of the national debt now over 18 trillion dollars. How can that not mean we don't have a spending problem?

[gftChris]

Statistics can be misleading. Taking it to the bottom line, this country through higher taxes by Obama has brought in a record amount of money into the government but that has not stopped the growth of the national debt now over 18 trillion dollars. How can that not mean we don't have a spending problem?

Suppose I get a mortgage and buy a house. Now I'm in debt, but paying it off. I now want to buy a car, which pushes me further in debt, but i'm paying it off also. Do I have a spending problem?

[OldBrownsFan]

Suppose I get a mortgage and buy a house. Now I'm in debt, but paying it off. I now want to buy a car, which pushes me further in debt, but i'm paying it off also. Do I have a spending problem?

 

If you buy a house over your financial means and a new car you can't afford the answer is yes.

[Clevfan4life]

 

I see that, Chris, but the projections are, imho, understated,

 

 

So were you an economist cal? Cause you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, which is indicative of someone who spent his professional years on the subject. Oh wait it's the other way around isn't it?

[Clevfan4life]

He's a hater. He hates everything and everybody. Cleve is like a foot fungus,

he's just nasty, ugly, rubs everybody with any sense the wrong way, and his

posts stink up the board.

 

Nasty. Cleve - a gay foot fungus liberal - who woulda thunk it?

 

more conservative emotional instability.

[OldBrownsFan]

 

So were you an economist cal? Cause you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, which is indicative of someone who spent his professional years on the subject. Oh wait it's the other way around isn't it?

 

 

So were you an economist cal? Cause you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, which is indicative of someone who spent his professional years on the subject. Oh wait it's the other way around isn't it?

I have always thought if you put 10 different economists in a room you will get 10 different theories on the economy. I am not sure anyone really has a handle on it?

[Clevfan4life]

Conservatives do have a point though on govt spending. Of course they only bring up that point when a dem is in office. And that's where they lose me. What was wrong with Clintons surplus's? I never really liked the guy but why can't we run surplus's till we have a rainy day? Why is that if the govt gets by with spending less they feel the need to start spending that surplus on the special interests that got them in office? You see how dysfunctional we are? This country ain't no family, never was. Everybody is just out for their own and in reality give a flying fuck about each other but go out on sundays and pass the basket around to make a show of it and feel better about themselves. In the end we'll just be another footnote in history. An interesting chapter in some future societies textbooks. And why? Greed . That simple.

[Clevfan4life]

The greater point is this - straight from the article that Chris didn't bother reading.

 

"Capitalism dies as a majority of Americans wind up hooked on welfare, food stamps, free healthcare and government checks like a drug addict is hooked on heroin, crack cocaine, or crystal meth. Obama is America’s drug dealer. But his drug of choice is government dependency."

 

Now, how is that only referring to the fiscal first quarter of Obamao? HOW? Chris's "responses" are EXACTLY what I

was talking about - emotional knee jerk - dissing one part of the entire article, first quarter, and ignoring/not reading the entire

article as a whole.

 

Look at our troubles - our deficit, immigration gone wild, the enormous hidden costs of obamaocare,

regulations in the thousands by this corrupt regime to complicate anything they can, including expanding,

theoretically, their control over waterways ...to ponds, ditches, low spots flooded in fields. You watch fines

start hitting farmers and landowners. The EPA has gone crazy with raising money for Obamao.

 

Think not ? Want to emotionally knee jerk about that?

 

Read on:

 

Family builds wildlife pond:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/

 

EPA claims it can garnish wages ...even if a family is only "ACCUSED", and not guilty.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/epa-claims-it-has-power-to-garnish-wages-without-court-approval/

 

The question in that case is whether he built a dam or not. Neither of us have been on that property and know enough to make an informed comment on this. But would you agree that damning a river or stream should be regulated? Cause if you let some homeowner do that, everyone's gonna do it...and who's gonna build the biggest one? Why corporations of course. Would completely alter our landscape. India and China may one day go to war over China's damning up of rivers...cause India is downstream from all of em and China could theoretically cut off their water. These are complex issues best left to people who know exactly what they're talking about.

[OldBrownsFan]

Conservatives do have a point though on govt spending. Of course they only bring up that point when a dem is in office. And that's where they lose me. What was wrong with Clintons surplus's? I never really liked the guy but why can't we run surplus's till we have a rainy day? Why is that if the govt gets by with spending less they feel the need to start spending that surplus on the special interests that got them in office? You see how dysfunctional we are? This country ain't no family, never was. Everybody is just out for their own and in reality give a flying fuck about each other but go out on sundays and pass the basket around to make a show of it and feel better about themselves. In the end we'll just be another footnote in history. An interesting chapter in some future societies textbooks. And why? Greed . That simple.

We are in new territory with the national debt over 18 trillion dollars (and growing). I have always been for a balanced budget, it just makes sense government should live within it's means.

 

Yes people are selfish. Many times we see selfishness in others and not so much in ourselves. At least on Sundays many people are striving in the Christian faith to put others ahead of themselves which is what the New Testament teaches.

[gftChris]

We are in new territory with the national debt over 18 trillion dollars (and growing). I have always been for a balanced budget, it just makes sense government should live within it's means.

 

Yes people are selfish. Many times we see selfishness in others and not so much in ourselves. At least on Sundays many people are striving in the Christian faith to put others ahead of themselves which is what the New Testament teaches.

Perhaps they should do it every other day of the week as well?

[OldBrownsFan]

Perhaps they should do it every other day of the week as well?

 

I strive to brother. Really we should, it is not just an on Sunday or Easter and Christmas faith it should be practiced daily. Humanists believe we are basically born good while the bible says otherwise, that we are born with a sin nature (that is selfish). I think if you look at human history you can easily see which view is correct.

[Clevfan4life]

 

I think if you look at human history you can easily see which view is correct.

 

Greed and selfishness exists in the realm of humanity, but it is indoctrinated from one generation to the next. Of course it's dressed up with fancy words like capitalism, free market mechanics, efficiency etc, etc. That's how each gen is brainwashed.

 

My own personal belief that after enough lives in this realm it doesn't need to be taught anymore, they are absolutely born that way cause they carry it from one life to the next....the dark side has it's minion. Which is precisely why all of us have to disavow this creation when we pass from here. Be done with it. No god we want any part of made this. Maybe at the beginning..who knows. But not now. Coming back here again and again furthers this bad story. But those are just my personal "beliefs".

 

[OldBrownsFan]

 

Greed and selfishness exists in the realm of humanity, but it is indoctrinated from one generation to the next. Of course it's dressed up with fancy words like capitalism, free market mechanics, efficiency etc, etc. That's how each gen is brainwashed.

 

My own personal belief that after enough lives in this realm it doesn't need to be taught anymore, they are absolutely born that way cause they carry it from one life to the next....the dark side has it's minion. Which is precisely why all of us have to disavow this creation when we pass from here. Be done with it. No god we want any part of made this. Maybe at the beginning..who knows. But not now. Coming back here again and again furthers this bad story. But those are just my personal "beliefs".

 

 

My wife did day care for many years. You see that selfish nature in small children. it is a part of the human condition and not something that needs to get indoctrinated or taught.

 

As a Christian I am for capitalism because it has shown it produces the highest standard of living in the world. Is it based on greed, yes. And yet I want the person who has made enough money to last hundreds of lifetimes to have a desire to make even more money, to grow a company further, add employees invest in new equipment to increase their profits. The reason is we all benefit from these people and I don't want to see them punished for success because they are the ones paying most of the taxes and building the roads and bridges. A rising tide does raise all the boats. Class warfare which the democrats play is destructive to our democracy. Why should I hate someone who is more successful than me or worked harder and smarter than me?

[Clevfan4life]

 

My wife did day care for many years. You see that selfish nature in small children. it is a part of the human condition and not something that needs to get indoctrinated or taught.

 

 

 

Not all children. Not even close. There's two things going on here, first there's some epigenetics at play for sure....but then those behaviors are also reinforced early by "some" parents. Or maybe not reinforced, but certainly left alone. "Aww that's so cute, he'll grow out of it though right?"....nope.

[Clevfan4life]

 

 

As a Christian I am for capitalism because it has shown it produces the highest standard of living in the world. Is it based on greed, yes. And yet I want the person who has made enough money to last hundreds of lifetimes to have a desire to make even more money, to grow a company further, add employees invest in new equipment to increase their profits. The reason is we all benefit from these people and I don't want to see them punished for success because they are the ones paying most of the taxes and building the roads and bridges. A rising tide does raise all the boats. Class warfare which the democrats play is destructive to our democracy. Why should I hate someone who is more successful than me or worked harder and smarter than me?

 

You intrinsically don't understand our economic structure and what it's really based on. You think that people who made more than you worked harder and were smarter, it's not true. Most of the hardest working people in this country are often the poorest. They just don't have the skillset that has been "chosen" arbitrarily. The financial movers have been chosen because they are the ones that expedite the bubble the most. And those that run our system make the most because they are able to ride the bubble in ways you couldn't even dream of. It of course is meant to suck the blood and sweat upwards with minimal "trickle down". That's a nice fabrication meant to keep people mostly unaware's of just how their labor is being usurped.

 

Most people don't really have an issue with others who make more because they may be stronger, faster smarter etc, etc. But we're well past those quaint notions of societal differences. And anybody who's been in the labor force for any real amt of time intrinsically knows this.

 

For an example of how far "our" brand of capitalism has distorted what you would call a 'true" market...look at our useless athletes and how much they make. Doctors, scientists...hell even the people who make our food without which we couldn't live...how much do they make compared to athletes? Of course that's our fault because we've come to demand what athletes do so heavily and regard them so highly that we've completely lost sight of what's important in this life. It's not the concept of capitalism I have an issue with, nor do I have an issue with socialism...because both have their places. There are areas where collective bahaviors benefit the whole the most and other areas where individual behaviors benefit the whole more. There's a time and place for market competition, but capitalists think everything benefits from being commoditized. And that's exactly why we're all going to be born with diabetes in 50 years (well not me I'm going back the mantle when I leave here). And if you think it's not a big deal that diabetes is slowly being etched into our DNA than you're further lost than I thought.

[gftChris]

There are clearly things that benefit from competition, but things that are deemed essential services should be maintained centrally by the government. By that I mean, basically, if your landlord is obliged to provide it - electricity, gas, water etc - then the government should be in charge. It's something that should be done as beneficially as possible for the people.

 

On the other hand, non-life-essential services such as post and travel *could* be tendered. I'd rather they not be as, although it's not compulsory to send letters or take public transport, most people will, at least in big cities. Though, America is probably an exception being such a big place that you can drive around most cities easily enough I guess.

 

Then, really non-essential services like hairdressing, dry cleaning, fuck it, whatever. There's an actual tangible difference between services provided, whereas whichever electricity company you go with, your end product is just electricity, on the same cables, regardless.

[Westside Steve]

There are clearly things that benefit from competition, but things that are deemed essential services should be maintained centrally by the government. By that I mean, basically, if your landlord is obliged to provide it - electricity, gas, water etc - then the government should be in charge. It's something that should be done as beneficially as possible for the people.

 

On the other hand, non-life-essential services such as post and travel *could* be tendered. I'd rather they not be as, although it's not compulsory to send letters or take public transport, most people will, at least in big cities. Though, America is probably an exception being such a big place that you can drive around most cities easily enough I guess.

 

Then, really non-essential services like hairdressing, dry cleaning, fuck it, whatever. There's an actual tangible difference between services provided, whereas whichever electricity company you go with, your end product is just electricity, on the same cables, regardless.

Because as we all know politicians and their friends who become political appointees are usually the best at making things run efficiently and profitably. you just like it cuz that's the only way you've ever lived it.

 

By your logic everything we need should be controlled by the government, that means everything. And when the government controls the means of production, well let's just say that it's been tried and hasn't worked all that well as yet.

 

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

what happened to all of our gas bills when that shit got deregulated? Prices went way up that's what. I never had any issue with my gas either. And why is that? Cause there's no competition, just like with cable. You can't have unlimited gas lines running into your house, so whoever owns those lines is essentially your gas provider even though they make a show of saying you have multiple choices. You don't. If you choose the company that didn't own the lines you still paid the transport fee so it was a wash. Complete circus show.

 

Food is the main thing that has been ruined by commoditization. Farmers competing with each other on the open mkt has made them do things to their land that wasn't never meant. Now we have so much land in this country that is literally shit. Without chemical fertilizers nothing would grow out of it because of years of improper farming practices. Not saying the govt should have run farms but farm land should have been classified a national treasure and resource and there were things you simply could not do to it even though you owned the land. And every few years you had to let some or all of your land just sit and chill. But how were farmers gonna do that when most of the time they were living on a shoestring budget? Just mismanagement all around. The people who made our food should have had the place in our society that Dr's do.

[calfoxwc]

Say, Cleve, that thing about the farmers screwing up their land - you learned that from me.

 

No need to thank me or anything. But with roundup, 24D weed everything killer but residual, etc,

artificial fertilizers are required to get anything to grow.

 

The soil ends up sterile, and the damage done to surround trees, brush, wild flowers etc, is

alarming. We used to have long fence lines of blackberries and rasberries on the neighbor's land...

now they are all gone.

 

Careless, stupidass overspray by one of the big doesn't give a sheet farmers did it.

[Clevfan4life]

Say, Cleve, that thing about the farmers screwing up their land - you learned that from me.

 

No need to thank me or anything. But with roundup, 24D weed everything killer but residual, etc,

artificial fertilizers are required to get anything to grow.

 

The soil ends up sterile, and the damage done to surround trees, brush, wild flowers etc, is

alarming. We used to have long fence lines of blackberries and rasberries on the neighbor's land...

now they are all gone.

 

Careless, stupidass overspray by one of the big doesn't give a sheet farmers did it.

 

1) I appreciate your knowledge on this subject, honestly I do. It's like your one, and only one, redeeming quality.

 

2) However, please understand I have worked on organic farms here locally and in Indiana for years. I've known about this long before I came to this board. I also read a really good book about this subject years ago, I think it's just called "Soil". In it the author made a pretty compelling argument that what precipitated the downfall of every empire was their mismanagement of farmland. Some pretty damning evidence of this in Europe still from the Roman empire. He tracked the progression of all the great civies from the Egyptians to the Greeks to the Romans etc, etc and how they all began to decline as they had to expand outward due to their loss of soil from overfarming to feed their populations that had been allowed to expand too fast.

 

The correlations to our current "empire" are obvious. I'm encouraged that at least some people get it, even people that I facepalm to almost daily such as yourself. Can I cloward piven? Sorry had to troll that. lol

[Clevfan4life]

.

 

Careless, stupidass overspray by one of the big doesn't give a sheet farmers did it.

 

If we were allowed to grow Hemp it would bring that land back in a couple years instead of decades or centuries even. You till Hemp back in every year and apparently the land comes roaring back in a vastly reduced time frame.

[gftChris]

 

If we were allowed to grow Hemp it would bring that land back in a couple years instead of decades or centuries even. You till Hemp back in every year and apparently the land comes roaring back in a vastly reduced time frame.

And if nobody wants it, just gather it up and burn it after?

[OldBrownsFan]

Liberal democrat George McGovern wrote an article about his failed hotel and restaurant business before he passed away. McGovern learned the hard way that excessive government regulations destroy businesses. He never knew because he never owned a business and then he found out. That is the problem with most legislators who have never owned and operated a business.

 

George McGovern, Small Business Owner

After his final campaign, the 1984 Democratic presidential primaries, McGovern bought the Stratford Inn in 1988. The inn not only had 150 rooms, but also a restaurant and facilities for hosting large conferences. It was his first business experience after decades in politics, academia, and the military.

 

The experience was an eye-opening one. His purchase was followed by renovations and then opening for business. But the business went bankrupt within two years, and closed by 1991.

He wrote about how, in his time in the world of actually running a small business, he got to experience firsthand the impact of all the things politicians do.

He described the negative impact of government regulations and rule-making on business. Government regulations, he said, looked different when he was the business owner than when he was the legislator.

“The concept that most often eludes legislators,” he wrote, “is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulations and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’”

As business owner, he suddenly worried over the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, excessive and outlandish litigation, and scapegoating. He came face-to-face with the reality in the private sector that “consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. . . Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone.”

After his experience in the private sector, McGovern was talking about “profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics” in ways that he never did in Washington. And that’s no surprise — he was unable to talk about those things before because he had never dealt with them firsthand.

“In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business,” McGovern concluded. “I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.”

http://www.newsmax.com/FranTarkenton/McGovern-Small-Business-Owner/2012/10/22/id/460970/

[Clevfan4life]

And if nobody wants it, just gather it up and burn it after?

 

Hemp is not weed. Hemp is the male plant, has no THC...or very minute amounts. But "of course" you'd go through the fields and pick out the female plants first before you plowed it in. Goes without saying.

 

 

[Clevfan4life]

Liberal democrat George McGovern wrote an article about his failed hotel and restaurant business before he passed away. McGovern learned the hard way that excessive government regulations destroy businesses. He never knew because he never owned a business and then he found out. That is the problem with most legislators who have never owned and operated a business.

 

George McGovern, Small Business Owner

After his final campaign, the 1984 Democratic presidential primaries, McGovern bought the Stratford Inn in 1988. The inn not only had 150 rooms, but also a restaurant and facilities for hosting large conferences. It was his first business experience after decades in politics, academia, and the military.

 

The experience was an eye-opening one. His purchase was followed by renovations and then opening for business. But the business went bankrupt within two years, and closed by 1991.

He wrote about how, in his time in the world of actually running a small business, he got to experience firsthand the impact of all the things politicians do.

He described the negative impact of government regulations and rule-making on business. Government regulations, he said, looked different when he was the business owner than when he was the legislator.

“The concept that most often eludes legislators,” he wrote, “is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulations and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’”

As business owner, he suddenly worried over the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, excessive and outlandish litigation, and scapegoating. He came face-to-face with the reality in the private sector that “consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. . . Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone.”

After his experience in the private sector, McGovern was talking about “profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics” in ways that he never did in Washington. And that’s no surprise — he was unable to talk about those things before because he had never dealt with them firsthand.

“In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business,” McGovern concluded. “I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.”

http://www.newsmax.com/FranTarkenton/McGovern-Small-Business-Owner/2012/10/22/id/460970/

 

^^Exhibit A as to why we have govt regulations "regulating" business's like restaurants. And even with them this shit still happens. I suspect McGovern couldn't run a tight ship.