It's coming...

[OcelotZ3]

Yes, but the original statement was "government bad, unfettered capitalism good".

Anyone remember Enron, and how they manipulated the system after deregulation, which was supposed to free capitalism to provide optimal energy costs? That pesky government regulation was just preventing them from doing good, dontcha know...

 

[Gunner3456]

Yes, but the original statement was "government bad, unfettered capitalism good".

Anyone remember Enron, and how they manipulated the system after deregulation, which was supposed to free capitalism to provide optimal energy costs? That pesky government regulation was just preventing them from doing good, dontcha know...

I agree. However, asking for more business laws is like asking for more gun laws to stop criminals.

We have laws for both. They just don't get enforced.

Asking for government control of business operations is like asking for government control of how you use your guns. Everyone loses precious freedom, but still the criminals don't obey the law.

By the way, government control of private businesses is call Fascism. The Nazis were Fascists. Government ownership of businesses is called socialism. Under both systems everyone is poor, every time, everywhere either has been tried. Everyone of course excludes the few elites.

Freedom is called freedom but each must be accountable for his actions.

 

[PeakResources]

We don't live in a capitalist society as was set up during the creation of our country. We live in a socialist / mercantilist system, where the corporations and elite use the force of law to make us conform.

As for Enron, see Ron Paul's article on it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul499.html

I long for the day we return to capitalism, get rid of the nanny state, and reduce the power the elite & businesses have over our everyday lives.

 

[Gunner3456]

We don't live in a capitalist society as was set up during the creation of our country. We live in a socialist / mercantilist system, where the corporations and elite use the force of law to make us conform.

As for Enron, see Ron Paul's article on it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul499.html

I long for the day we return to capitalism, get rid of the nanny state, and reduce the power the elite & businesses have over our everyday lives.

This why we must get rid of lobbyists and entrenched congressmen. Congress becomes beholden to lobbyists and big campaign donors.

We'll not see a constitutional amendment for term limits because that has to be first started by congress, LOL. We have to do it at the ballot box - kick em all out and start over. We have the ballot box power of term limits and everyone thinks it's a good idea except for their own congressmen who they like.

 

[OcelotZ3]

I agree. However, asking for more business laws is like asking for more gun laws to stop criminals.

We have laws for both. They just don't get enforced.

The problem with enforcing business laws is that we hire guys from Goldman Sachs to enforce rules against... Goldman Sachs. Or hire people from large banks to do the same.

It just doesn't seem to work. And both sides of the political spectrum are complicit.

I don't want the overseers to interfere with legitimate business, however they were giving them so much leeway we got things like Enron, Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Scott Rothstein, etc.

You seem to think I'm advocating fascism, but I'm just saying that the businesses cannot run unfettered. So do you believe that energy regulation, as in California, was fascism, and that deregulation with the existing amount of oversight was the way to go?

 

[Gunner3456]

The problem with enforcing business laws is that we hire guys from Goldman Sachs to enforce rules against... Goldman Sachs. Or hire people from large banks to do the same.

It just doesn't seem to work. And both sides of the political spectrum are complicit.

I don't want the overseers to interfere with legitimate business, however they were giving them so much leeway we got things like Enron, Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Scott Rothstein, etc.

You seem to think I'm advocating fascism, but I'm just saying that the businesses cannot run unfettered. So do you believe that energy regulation, as in California, was fascism, and that deregulation with the existing amount of oversight was the way to go?

I can't tell if we totally agree, or if we have a completely different set of beliefs, LOL.

I'm saying that we have plenty of laws but they have been wildly broken and people haven't been punished. I'm saying the laws we have should be enforced. I agree that the big business (and big union and special interest) lobbies have too much influence in DC and even at the state level and the government and many businesses are corrupt to the core. They are all guilty.

Big business, the unions and special interests have invaded the government with big money and corruption. MORE government isn't the answer when it's already corrupt. NEW leaders - a complete turnover in government - who aren't beholden to these special interests are needed.

We don't need new laws; not even to control corrupt government. We need to enforce the laws we have.

It is corruption in government that is allowing the corruption in the business sector. More laws just give more power to an already corrupt government. We need to throw the bums out and start over.

 

[Randini]

I dont know if these numbers have been put out yet but some have been saying that soon no one will be willing to take our Treasury securities, our debt will be looked at as toxic,

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government said Tuesday that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities fell by the largest amount on record in December with China reducing its holdings by $34.2 billion.

The reductions in holdings, if they continue, could force the government to make higher interest payments at a time that it is running record federal deficits.

The Treasury Department reported that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities fell by $53 billion in December, surpassing the previous record of a $44.5 billion drop in April 2009.

The big drop in China's holdings meant that it lost the top spot in terms of foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries, dropping to second place behind Japan.

Japan also reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, cutting them by $11.5 billion to $768.8 billion in December, but that amount was still more than China's December total of $755.4 billion.

The $53 billion decline in holdings of Treasury securities came primarily from a drop in official government holdings, which fell by $52.3 billion. The holdings of foreign private investors fell by $700 million during the month of December."

<broken link removed>

 

[Gunner3456]

I dont know if these numbers have been put out yet but some have been saying that soon no one will be willing to take our Treasury securities, our debt will be looked at as toxic,

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government said Tuesday that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities fell by the largest amount on record in December with China reducing its holdings by $34.2 billion.

The reductions in holdings, if they continue, could force the government to make higher interest payments at a time that it is running record federal deficits.

The Treasury Department reported that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities fell by $53 billion in December, surpassing the previous record of a $44.5 billion drop in April 2009.

The big drop in China's holdings meant that it lost the top spot in terms of foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries, dropping to second place behind Japan.

Japan also reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, cutting them by $11.5 billion to $768.8 billion in December, but that amount was still more than China's December total of $755.4 billion.

The $53 billion decline in holdings of Treasury securities came primarily from a drop in official government holdings, which fell by $52.3 billion. The holdings of foreign private investors fell by $700 million during the month of December."

<broken link removed>

Yep. As investors begin to see that we are borrowing more money than we can ever repay, they will stop lending us money. That will leave us two options and both are bad. We can pay a lot higher interest rate to entice investors to take the risk, or we can run the printing presses and make our own new money.

The first is a budget buster (as if it isn't already "busted,") and the second is highly inflationary as a glut of new printed money dilutes the value of dollars.

Our leaders are completely nuts and I don't even know if it's too late to stop this train wreck even with a total turnover in DC.

 

[Randini]

Here is one other news story that sums up were we are heading, I dont think things look good at all.

"US debt will keep growing even with recovery"

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's bad enough that Greece's debt problems have rattled global financial markets. In the world's largest economic and military power, there's a far more serious debt dilemma.

For the U.S., the crushing weight of its debt threatens to overwhelm everything the federal government does, even in the short-term, best-case financial scenario -- a full recovery and a return to prerecession employment levels.

The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding "mandatory" programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained.


<broken link removed>

 

[Gunner3456]

Here is one other news story that sums up were we are heading, I dont think things look good at all.

"US debt will keep growing even with recovery"

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's bad enough that Greece's debt problems have rattled global financial markets. In the world's largest economic and military power, there's a far more serious debt dilemma.

For the U.S., the crushing weight of its debt threatens to overwhelm everything the federal government does, even in the short-term, best-case financial scenario -- a full recovery and a return to prerecession employment levels.

The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding "mandatory" programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained.


<broken link removed>

Yep. But there won't be a recovery. We've exported too many of our manufacturing jobs and that's a snowball which won't stop. Why should manufacturer's put up with all of our regulations and taxes?

I'm preparing for a second dip - the real crash.

 

[zeezee]

Ha! That's a good one! Thanks for making me laugh!

You do realize that Bush is the one that signed off on the $700B Wall Street Bailout, right? And in Bush's last year in office he raised the national debt over 1 trillion dollars! Try thinking in less partisan terms... I agree that this is a major problem, but it's not a Republican or Democrat problem. Rather, BOTH of the parties are the problem. They both spend like crazy and it's gonna screw us in the end.

I gotta say though, and I see it a lot on this board, too many are consumed with labeling things as progressive/liberal or conservative. Most conservatives in government work toward the same end goals as liberals, they just don't push it as quickly or blatantly...

Just my 2 cents...

Yeah Bush was in for 8 long years and he pushed the debt ceiling to 1 trillion and this fool wasn't in office a year and now it's over 21 TRILLION? Open your eyes!!! They said GWB spent money like a drunken sailor, well then bho has spent like 21 drunken sailors and the sob is still spending. At this rate in 4 years he is going to spend how much? Bull crap, that man isn't fit to wash windows! Throw the whole lot out of office and tar & feather them. I wouldn't hire any member of this administration, much less bho to clean my septic tank.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

As a formerly drunken sailor - I resent that comparison.

 

[zeezee]

As a formerly drunken sailor - I resent that comparison.

You mean, your resemble that remark.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

Maybe a little. But using drunken sailors in the same statement as BHO is going to give drunken sailors a bad name...

 

[8ball]

Yeah Bush was in for 8 long years and he pushed the debt ceiling to 1 trillion and this fool wasn't in office a year and now it's over 21 TRILLION?

Not true.

June 28, 2002 Increased the debt limit to 6,400.0
May 27, 2003 Increased the debt limit to 7,384.0
November 19, 2004 Increased the debt limit to 8,184.0
March 20, 2006 Increased the debt limit to 8,965.0
September 29, 2007Increased the debt limit to 9,815.0
July 30, 2008 Increased the debt limit to 10,615.0
October 3, 2008 Increased the debt limit to 11,315.0

February 17, 2009 Increased the debt limit to 12,104.0

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

Bush nearly doubled the debt ceiling from 6.4 trillion to 11.3 trillion over six years. Obama increased it to 12.1 trillion.

 

[powersbj]

I tend to subscribe to the theory that our politicians are 99.9&#37; the same, the .1% difference that we all squabble over is really pointless. The level of governance, leadership and fiscal policy change that is truly required to keep this economic train from running off the cliff is well beyond either party, and current or former president.

My hope is that this country still has enough left in it to hold it together, take our lumps and work through it. The alternative is selling our soul and looking to be saved.

 

[hefftuck]

I tend to subscribe to the theory that our politicians are 99.9% the same, the .1% difference that we all squabble over is really pointless. The level of governance, leadership and fiscal policy change that is truly required to keep this economic train from running off the cliff is well beyond either party, and current or former president.

My hope is that this country still has enough left in it to hold it together, take our lumps and work through it. The alternative is selling our soul and looking to be saved.

the sad truth

 

[MikeE]

Not true.

June 28, 2002 Increased the debt limit to 6,400.0
May 27, 2003 Increased the debt limit to 7,384.0
November 19, 2004 Increased the debt limit to 8,184.0
March 20, 2006 Increased the debt limit to 8,965.0
September 29, 2007Increased the debt limit to 9,815.0
July 30, 2008 Increased the debt limit to 10,615.0
October 3, 2008 Increased the debt limit to 11,315.0

February 17, 2009 Increased the debt limit to 12,104.0

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

Bush nearly doubled the debt ceiling from 6.4 trillion to 11.3 trillion over six years. Obama increased it to 12.1 trillion.

What are you trying to do, ruin this discussion by quoting sourced, fact-based information? Actually, thank you for that bit of research. I think the February 09 debt ceiling was raised to cover the last budget passed under the GW Bush administration (passed in 2008 for 2009). Of course, now that things didn't turn out so well, W is no longer a conservative...

 

[parallax]

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

I found this info at the treasury dept. site. this is the national debt chart for the last 9 years. I like that pie chart someone posted earlier. make you wonder where the 17&#37; descretionary money is going?.Since china pretty much owns us,, guess its time to go out and buy the rosetta stone chinese language software..

 

[Gunner3456]

What are you trying to do, ruin this discussion by quoting sourced, fact-based information? Actually, thank you for that bit of research. I think the February 09 debt ceiling was raised to cover the last budget passed under the GW Bush administration (passed in 2008 for 2009). Of course, now that things didn't turn out so well, W is no longer a conservative...

You need to get your facts straight. You guys are killing me here.

Again, let's start with the clear fact that I didn't and don't like Bush and I don't defend him as the great leader. I just think that the way our finances are being run since the Dems and Obama took over are far worse by comparison.

We already established that congress makes the budgets, not the POTUS. The POTUS signs them if he's willing, but he can veto them too.

The Dems have had congress for three years, making up (in 2007 the 2008,) 2009, 2010 and now the 2011 budgets.

Bush didn't sign the 2009 budget. He wouldn't sign it. Congress passed that budget in 2008 and then waited until Obama was inaugurated in Jan. 2009 to have him sign it. That budget was not "passed in 2008 for 2009." It was passed by the democrat's congress in 2008 and held until 2009 for Obama to sign, which completed its passage.

Almost immediately after that, they passed the Porkulus bill which has now tacked on more than another $800 bil to that budget.

However, feel free to continue pooling your ignorance here...