TomAiello 26 #26 July 30, 2009 Just for a minute let's say your interpretation is correct. If that's the case, then you've convinced him of the rightness of your position, and he's converted to your cause. So, why on earth are you harshing on him now? Just because you can't get out of your bitterly partisan worldview? Or is there some secret reason to attack people who've become converts to your point of view, and I just fail to understand your masterful tactics?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #27 July 30, 2009 QuoteNot having 2 hours right now, I'll have to watch it later. Cool I'll be interested in your review. QuoteWould you say that this (from the wikipedia summary) is a fair single sentence summary of it's thesis? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the film suggests society is manipulated into economic slavery through debt-based monetary policies by requiring individuals to submit for employment in order to pay off their debt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because if that's, in a nutshell, their point, I'm most likely to respond with "well, duh, we knew that already." Pretty much, but the 'how' part is more interesting than the 'why' part. We all know humans are greedy!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #28 July 31, 2009 Quote Quote - that does the job too It is such a shame that the dems would scoff at that representation though.AND STILL defend their messiah. I'd rather defend the guy who is spending money on investments this country should be making (EG, healthcare, education, etc) rather than blowing it on an unnecessary war. Right now I still think time needs to be spent to give the guy a chance and see where he's going with all of this, and then I'll pass judgment.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #29 July 31, 2009 Quote I'd rather defend the guy who is spending money on investments this country should be making (EG, healthcare, education, etc) rather than blowing it on an unnecessary war. Investment? Hardly. I'd prefer to defend the guy that's spending responsibly and not pissing away money on their own pet projects. It's unfortunate that there are so few of these people in Washington. Quote Right now I still think time needs to be spent to give the guy a chance and see where he's going with all of this, and then I'll pass judgment. My judgment was made somewhere shortly after "spread the wealth around". It was confirmed when a cop arresting a guy whom appeared to be breaking into a house became a "racial issue worthy of the president's attention" and 3 members of the black panther party patrolling polling places with weapons and making racial comments towards voters isn't one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #30 July 31, 2009 Quote Quote Quote - that does the job too It is such a shame that the dems would scoff at that representation though.AND STILL defend their messiah. I'd rather defend the guy who is spending money on investments this country should be making (EG, healthcare, education, etc) rather than blowing it on an unnecessary war. Right now I still think time needs to be spent to give the guy a chance and see where he's going with all of this, and then I'll pass judgment. Money we don't have is still money we don't have, regardless of what it's spent on. According to nationalpriorities.com, the total cost of both wars since 2001 combined is roughly $900B. Some of the latest estimates put Obama's healthcare reform at roughly double that. Healthcare is better than war, obviously. But again, money we don't have is money we don't have. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #31 July 31, 2009 QuoteJust for a minute let's say your interpretation is correct. If that's the case, then you've convinced him of the rightness of your position, and he's converted to your cause. Tom, you know perfectly well I didn't convince him of anything, Obama's election did. It's just another convenient stick to beat Obama with. All the while Bush was in office we heard nary a peep out of the right about Bush's borrowing. On Jan 20 2009 borrowing suddenly became a deadly sin.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #32 July 31, 2009 Quote Healthcare is better than war, obviously. +1 Quote But again, money we don't have is money we don't have. +1 Of course, had we not wasted so much on war, we'd have more money.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #33 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuote Healthcare is better than war, obviously. +1 Quote But again, money we don't have is money we don't have. +1 Of course, had we not wasted so much on war, we'd have more money. But still nowhere enough. Bush may have some saving graces, but thinking is not one of them. Unfortunately, Obama's genius lies not in Finance, but in getting elected. Neither of them have the faintest idea of how to get us out of this financial catastrophe or, failing that, to limit the damage. You see people pointing fingers back and forth, trying to identify the "culprit." Obama will ruin us! Bush started a war that is both unwinnable and unaffordable! Clinton gave away the ranch to the Chinese! Reagan was numerically illiterate! Johnson took us off the gold standard and Nixon sealed the deal to give us fiat currency! In this case, blamestorming does no good. This economic disaster has been four decades in the making (ten if you go back to the formation of the Federal Reserve), and no one individual or agency alone could have screwed things up this badly. You don't like Obama? Fine, be glad he was elected and will preside over the worst economic collapse the world has ever seen. Not to worry, there is precisely zero chance that McCain (or anyone else that was running) could have done much about it, either. What is a trillion, you ask? Here's an easy way to get a handle on it - figure 100 million people who actually pay real taxes, and a trillion amounts to $10,000 for each and every one of us. Thus, the 11 trillion the government has spend on our behalf amounts to $110,000 that each and every one of us owe (with nothing to show for it) above and beyond mortgages, car loans, credit cards and what have you. IIRC, the foreign debt is something like 14 trillion. Since this is not tax based, you can figure $40,000 of debt for every infant, geezer, wino, welfare queen, CEO and mechanic in this fair land. Throw one more thing into the equation and things get interesting. We burn something like 20 million barrels of oil a day in this country. We produce around 5 million barrels a day. When (not if) the people who are supplying the 15 million barrels a day we need to achieve stasis ask for something other than the government-printed IOUs we call money to pay for it, we're screwed. Not just a little screwed, we're royally screwed. The US of A is now a net importer of food. The food we do produce is heavily dependent on oil for its generation, transportation and processing. If overnight we can only operate 1/4 of our fishing fleet, tractors and combines, have 1/4 as much petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers and have 1/4 of the capacity to truck it to your store, we are going to go on a nationwide diet. Think Somalia with 300,000,000 people. In any event, if you think any one person can provide "change we can believe in" that will avert the consequences of 40 years of dedicated economic mismanagement on an unprecedented scale, I have news for you - that is not physically possible. Arguing about whether Republicans are better than Democrats or vice versa is like trying to say arsenic is better than cyanide. There may be superficial differences between the two, but at the end of the day the results are the same. We are in the death throes of the way of life we had grown to enjoy. Have fun while it lasts - such as it does. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #34 July 31, 2009 QuoteInvestment? Hardly. I'd prefer to defend the guy that's spending responsibly and not pissing away money on their own pet projects. It's unfortunate that there are so few of these people in Washington. Totally agree. With both parts.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 July 31, 2009 QuoteAll the while Bush was in office we heard nary a peep out of the right about Bush's borrowing. Perhaps you "heard nary a peep." Have you ever thought you might be suffering from selective hearing? For example, here's a Cato Institute piece from 2003. Unless you've decided that Cato is on the left? I admit I have trouble with your definitions of who is "right" and who "left" as well as who is the "GOP" or the "Republicans." The only constant I've noticed there is that people you disagree with are always "right" or "Republicans." Or, famously, there was John McCain (remember him? I think he's a Republican) voting against tax cuts because they had no corresponding spending cuts (and would thus increase the debt). If I recall correctly, this vote was thrown back at him on the campaign trail. Was he not on the "right" either?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 July 31, 2009 I'm sorry. You have posted something logical, reasonable and non-partisan. That's not allowed in Speakers' Corner. I'm going to have to ban you for 14 days. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #37 July 31, 2009 QuoteThrow one more thing into the equation and things get interesting. We burn something like 20 million barrels of oil a day in this country. We produce around 5 million barrels a day. When (not if) the people who are supplying the 15 million barrels a day we need to achieve stasis ask for something other than the government-printed IOUs we call money to pay for it, we're screwed. Not just a little screwed, we're royally screwed. There actually is a way to avoid that collapse, and I'm fearful that we might see it happen. If the US had simply claimed ownership of all the Iraqi oil, instead of trying to build a nation there, then gone on to invade and conquer Iran (and appropriate their oil), and so forth until we had enough oil at our national disposal, we could maintain the system. It would just require ruthless enforcement of our collective will upon our newly enslaved peoples in the middle east. And it could keep our system going for another few decades. After which the people of the earth would rise up, and Americans would be hunted to extinction. The US really does have the military power to do that. And if it comes to tens of millions of starving children here, I could see a scenario where someone like Dick Cheney could push that plan and have the public follow along. Of course, we'd have to create a police state here to stifle dissent, but hey, no worries, if the majority wants it, the majority rules, right?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #38 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteAll the while Bush was in office we heard nary a peep out of the right about Bush's borrowing. Perhaps you "heard nary a peep." Have you ever thought you might be suffering from selective hearing? For example, here's a Cato Institute piece from 2003. Unless you've decided that Cato is on the left? I admit I have trouble with your definitions of who is "right" and who "left" as well as who is the "GOP" or the "Republicans." The only constant I've noticed there is that people you disagree with are always "right" or "Republicans." Or, famously, there was John McCain (remember him? I think he's a Republican) voting against tax cuts because they had no corresponding spending cuts (and would thus increase the debt). If I recall correctly, this vote was thrown back at him on the campaign trail. Was he not on the "right" either? John McCain posts on Speakers Corner? Fancy that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #39 July 31, 2009 Quote What is a trillion, you ask? Here's an easy way to get a handle on it - figure 100 million people who actually pay real taxes, and a trillion amounts to $10,000 for each and every one of us. Thus, the 11 trillion the government has spend on our behalf amounts to $110,000 that each and every one of us owe (with nothing to show for it) above and beyond mortgages, car loans, credit cards and what have you. A stack of $1 bills equal in value to the US National Debt would reach far beyond the orbit of the Moon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #40 July 31, 2009 Your view of American politics is only shaped by Speakers' Corner? Ah, now I understand where you're coming from. Carry on, then.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 July 31, 2009 QuoteThere actually is a way to avoid that collapse, and I'm fearful that we might see it happen. If the US had simply claimed ownership of all the Iraqi oil, instead of trying to build a nation there, then gone on to invade and conquer Iran (and appropriate their oil), and so forth until we had enough oil at our national disposal, we could maintain the system. It would just require ruthless enforcement of our collective will upon our newly enslaved peoples in the middle east. And it could keep our system going for another few decades. After which the people of the earth would rise up, and Americans would be hunted to extinction. The US really does have the military power to do that. Except you won't have any money to pay the soldiers. Ask the Russians how well that works. Secondly, don't you think the Chinese may have something to say about this as well? Or, are you just that confident that the Chinese military would be a non-issue for the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #42 July 31, 2009 QuoteExcept you won't have any money to pay the soldiers. Ask the Russians how well that works. Sure you will. You just print some up. Plus, you give the soldiers (and their families) extra food when the rationing starts. Nothing like feeding a starving child to make the parents loyal. QuoteSecondly, don't you think the Chinese may have something to say about this as well? Or, are you just that confident that the Chinese military would be a non-issue for the US? They don't seem to have stopped us in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'd bet we could reach an agreement with them.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #43 July 31, 2009 Here's an interesting graph: Previous 12 Months Volume for Government Securities http://www.dtcc.com/products/cs/gsd_volumegraphs.php The netted transactions each month are about equal to our outstanding government debt.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
