A Memorial For America

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So the defense/homeland security buildup of the 2000's was unnecessary is that what you are saying by stating Obama has no such needs?

please reread to know what I was saying, you fool! Your conversation never has any direction whatsoever. You go round and round in circles having no idea what you are doing or where you are trying to go. You're just wasting time here.

Why not work for many hours on a very very concise reason to be a liberal and then tell us that reason. It would be a good exercise for you and your Mom.

Lessons From the Decades Long Upward March of Government Spending - Forbes

Ed, I think you have been reading books from folks with an agenda instead of looking at the numbers so I am trying to figure out what you mean.

Why not work for many hours on a very very concise reason to be a liberal and then tell us that reason.

 

[Trajan]

Hey, thats Reagan's debt you are bad mouthing.

Be a good cheerleader now Edward and say no bad about him!

Conservatives mostly don't mind debt that defends the last best hope for freedom, and their lives.

Also I would ask if you consider this "war on terror" to be for our freedom also? Or is it just some game the Bush's play in the sand? 9-11 seemed pretty game changing.

In other words, does defense spending now count?

Do you think Obama is letting our military spending dip to inferior levels compared to Reagan?

Sorry for the multiple questions.

I'll take a swing at that....

in the sense that he ( Obama) owes to 'forward' spending on defense yes, in that when platforms wear down and out, after say 30 years, whoever is on the hot seat has to do something about it....example- Bush made a down payment on 2 Ford class carriers, the new class of super carrier, it requires approx $5 bn up front to start forging and cutting special steel buttresses to be used later when the ship is actually on/in the dry dock skids being actively built etc..., thats why in the end, of 5 we need, he only paid for the start of 2, obama was supposed to pay forward for 2-3 more, instead we have canceled them, he has yes, 'saved' that $10 billion now, but? IF the economy doesn't come back for say another 3-4 years ( totaling a lost decade) , we are in a pickle, heres why-

Reagan was faced with a similar dilemma, he had a sick economy and aging forces and there was something of a technological revolution in aerospace, again like the 50's, so he spent ahead, and this required massive investment, now this helped greatly to push the ussr over the edge, so in one sense he spent ahead but the forward costs Clinton got to not only drop but he was able to take advantage of a 'peace dividend'...


Reagan's trick, intended or not was, he did get the economy going, softening what would have been greater deficits for defense, and in the end, the ussr fell, ipso, it paid for itself in a sense becasue, the 90s economy was helped by NOT having to either invigorate or invest in either present (90's) OR forward defense spending.


Obama has, ( and this is not a judgment, it just is) forgone the number of F-22's we need, dropped a carrier airgroup,canceled the down payments on at least the other 2 carriers and is not reinvigorating our nuclear stockpile which is long past due. WE have sunk it all into economic stimulus's etc...and without a turn around and fast, on top of the other obligations we have coming up, we will not maintain our lead.

 

[Toronado3800]

Conservatives mostly don't mind debt that defends the last best hope for freedom, and their lives.

Also I would ask if you consider this "war on terror" to be for our freedom also? Or is it just some game the Bush's play in the sand? 9-11 seemed pretty game changing.

In other words, does defense spending now count?

Do you think Obama is letting our military spending dip to inferior levels compared to Reagan?

Sorry for the multiple questions.

I'll take a swing at that....

in the sense that he ( Obama) owes to 'forward' spending on defense yes, in that when platforms wear down and out, after say 30 years, whoever is on the hot seat has to do something about it....example- Bush made a down payment on 2 Ford class carriers, the new class of super carrier, it requires approx $5 bn up front to start forging and cutting special steel buttresses to be used later when the ship is actually on/in the dry dock skids being actively built etc..., thats why in the end, of 5 we need, he only paid for the start of 2, obama was supposed to pay forward for 2-3 more, instead we have canceled them, he has yes, 'saved' that $10 billion now, but? IF the economy doesn't come back for say another 3-4 years ( totaling a lost decade) , we are in a pickle, heres why-

Reagan was faced with a similar dilemma, he had a sick economy and aging forces and there was something of a technological revolution in aerospace, again like the 50's, so he spent ahead, and this required massive investment, now this helped greatly to push the ussr over the edge, so in one sense he spent ahead but the forward costs Clinton got to not only drop but he was able to take advantage of a 'peace dividend'...


Reagan's trick, intended or not was, he did get the economy going, softening what would have been greater deficits for defense, and in the end, the ussr fell, ipso, it paid for itself in a sense becasue, the 90s economy was helped by NOT having to either invigorate or invest in either present (90's) OR forward defense spending.


Obama has, ( and this is not a judgment, it just is) forgone the number of F-22's we need, dropped a carrier airgroup,canceled the down payments on at least the other 2 carriers and is not reinvigorating our nuclear stockpile which is long past due. WE have sunk it all into economic stimulus's etc...and without a turn around and fast, on top of the other obligations we have coming up, we will not maintain our lead.

Now I am w/o real internet due to storms so I don't have the good links.

But if you go to this thread I am having a conversation with myself that I guess is too numbers based and w/o slogans.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296231-need-charts-on-yearly-military-spending.html

It appears using the adjusted dollars that Obama inherited a record amount of military spending, more than Reagan's budget adjusted, Edward just never read the correct book. Then Obama continued the trend before starting the typical wind down.

Now during the 90's our GDP outpaced military spending a bit so % of GDP wise we are a bit lower than the 80's when we built the great B1 bomber at the expense of the Stealth craft.

I do agree we need to step forward with our military, I think current spending is to fight Desert Storm and the Afgahn Freedom war again. Stealthy carriers to combat cost effective missiles are what I want butI think we are spending the money. Maybe on bomb in shoe detectors or IED fighting equipement but if them graphs no one has debated are right we are spending the money.

 

[Toronado3800]

Trajan, thanks for the polite, thoughtful reply btw. I always write too snarky. Too much talk radio maybe.

 

[eagle1462010]

Alternate U.S. Dollar Index Chart

File:US Consumer Price Index Graph.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The value of the Dollar has dramatically dropped as a result of debt, and Consumer Price Index has dramatically increased as a result of debt. These 2 VERY IMPORTANT EQUATIONS are left out of this thread throughout.

We are DESTROYING THE DOLLAR, and printing the hell out of currency via bonds a process now called Quantitative Easing. As a result OUR BUYING POWER DECREASES in direct relation to the CPI. Many Economists reference this as a TAX, aka printing more money. The Dollar is the reserve currency of the WORLD NOW. Should we lose that STATUS, or countries STOP BUYING BONDS WE ARE DONE.

One other point. We are currently spending 25% of the GDP, while the HISTORICAL AVERAGE OF TAX REVENUES SINCE WWII IS 18.1%. History shows what happens to countries that does this, and it isn't good.

So a REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SAY HIT THE BRAKES, but we don't have REASONABLE PEOPLE IN OFFICE. They have pushed the GAS PEDAL INSTEAD.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

Plenty of graphs there, pick and choose. OUR SPENDING HAS GONE THROUGH THE ROOF PERIOD.

This as our Tax Revenues are low.

Notice one thing if you choose to look. About which year did the graphs start going up. All of them. Then go look at the DOLLAR and CPI charts. Where did it really start?

Riddle me this. Who took us off the Gold Standard? Something else missing in this discussion.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/students/rodrigue/826/mcwhinnie8261.pdf

Something else not in this thread. Liquidity Trap

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

A comparison of Reaganomics versus Obamanomics.

They are OPPOSITE. Go figure. Stagflation under Carter had us in a SEVERE ECONOMIC SLUMP and it was reversed by Reagan policies.

Reagan also did the opposite and RESTRICTED THE MONETARY SUPPLY, while TODAY IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE ROOF.

 

[Trajan]

Trajan, thanks for the polite, thoughtful reply btw. I always write too snarky. Too much talk radio maybe.

no problem,

I saw your link and moved that thread to the military forum, I will get to it, promise, its interesting...

 

[eagle1462010]

“I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation

Socialism”
― Margaret Thatcher

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
― Margaret Thatcher


A Great Woman in England who SPOKE HER MIND, same as Reagan. Who understood the value of BEING CONSERVATIVE, something that is LOST TO THE RHINO'S OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Which leads me to another GREAT QUOTE OF HERS (directed to the current Reps in office)

“When I'm out of politics I'm going to run a business, it'll be called rent-a-spine”
― Margaret Thatcher

 

[eagle1462010]

Fiat Currency

Fiat Money -Lessons to Be Learned

Here in the U.S., I should say the lessons were not learned. There are many consistencies from the above-mentioned stories that led up to the eventual collapse of the currencies.

The scary thing is that the U.S. has some of these above-mentioned characteristics, the ones that lead to toilet paper money becoming just that. More on that in just a second. I would first like to give a brief look at the U.S. attempts with paper money in our short history.

The first attempt with paper money came in 1690 with the issuance of Colonial notes. The first Colonial notes were issued in Massachusetts and were redeemable for gold, silver, corn, cattle and other commodities.

The other Colonies quickly jumped on the toilet paper money bandwagon and began issuing their own paper currencies. Like a broken record, the money quickly became overissued. The lessons of John Law and others were definitely not learned. It is not good enough just to say that a currency is backed by commodities. It actually HAS to be backed by commodities. Essentially, it was still a fiat money, and in a short period of time, Colonials became as good as toilet paper.

The next experiment came during the Revolutionary War. Big surprise — the issuance of paper money was used to finance the war efforts. This time, the currency was called a continental.

The crash of the continental was spectacular, and the phrase “not worth a continental” was coined. This brought on a large distrust for paper currency, and until 1913, toilet paper money in the U.S. wasn’t used. Enter the infamous Federal Reserve and its monopoly on money and interest rates. Now we have the greenback.

Although the money was “officially” backed by a gold standard until 1971, it wasn’t a true gold standard. When the government found it inconvenient to have a gold standard, it just made it illegal for U.S. citizens to hold gold or exchange dollars for gold.

As reported on Strike-the-root.com:

“Under the infallible leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, it was made illegal to own gold. On March 11, 1933, he issued an order forbidding banks to make gold payments. On April 5, Roosevelt ordered all citizens to surrender their gold — no person could hold more than $100 in gold coins, except for collector’s coins. He also made it unlawful to export gold for payment abroad, unless done through the Treasury. The penalty for defying Roosevelt was 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.”

But the official demise of the dollar was locked into place in 1971 when “Tricky Dick” Nixon completely severed all ties between the dollar and the gold standard. During the decade that followed, the U.S. experienced some of the worst inflation in its history, only matched by today’s U.S. monetary and fiscal irresponsibility.

The U.S. of A. has all the characteristics set in place that have led to the collapse of every other fiat currency money in history.

We are currently at war, and the financing of this war is extremely inflationary. In fact, if you look back at our history, since 1914, the U.S has engaged in 16 military conflicts. We have been involved in some form of violent international accord in 44 of the past 93 years. The overwhelming majority of military conflicts result in monetary inflation.

The U.S. has a debt similar to that of Weimar Germany. All though the reasons for the debt are completely different, it appears thatthis Mount Everest of IOUs is going to be impossible to pay back. I guess the U.S. could just print 10 trillion dollar bills and hand them out, but the implications of such actions are obvious.
We are currently increasing the supply of dollars at a rate of 13% per annum. This overissuance of a currency has been the leading indicator of a currency on the brink.

So what’s in the future for the dollar?

Some, myself included, might say that the dollar has already failed. It has lost over 92% of its value since its initial issuance in 1913. After the revaluation in 1934, the dollar dropped another 41%. In my opinion, it already is toilet paper money, but for the above-mentioned characteristics, which are alarmingly similar to the circumstances that led up to the eventual collapse of the dollar’s toilet paper predecessors, I believe that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg of the dollar’s inevitable path toward becoming toilet paper money.

Until Next Time,
Nick Jones

 

[eagle1462010]

There are basically 2 OPPOSITE THEORIES AT PLAY NOW.

One side that thinks DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS,.................

And the other that believes in SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS....................

One of them worked, aka REAGAN, and......................

the other...............................to be determined and currently failing.

One more issue on SHOVEL READY JOBS AND STIMULUS SPENDING........................

Reagan SPENT MONEY on REBUILDING the military, which created SHOVEL READY JOBS. The EQUIPMENT and MATERIALS NEEDED TO BUILD IT ARE REAL. Which created JOBS. Secondly he gave TAX CUTS as Stimulus TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INVESTMENT. IT WORKED.

Obama and Bush handed out CASH LIKE CANDY. One to save the markets, OR SO THEY SAID AND SAY, and the other to create SHOVEL READY JOBS. Yet only SMALL PORTION WENT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. Most of it just being hand outs. HAD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WENT STRICTLY INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE it would have done FAR MORE GOOD. As building bridges, roads, dams, sewage systems, etc. are SHOVEL READY.

Instead we WASTED ALOT OF MONEY.

 

[Toronado3800]

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

Plenty of graphs there, pick and choose. OUR SPENDING HAS GONE THROUGH THE ROOF PERIOD.

This as our Tax Revenues are low.

Notice one thing if you choose to look. About which year did the graphs start going up. All of them. Then go look at the DOLLAR and CPI charts. Where did it really start?

Riddle me this. Who took us off the Gold Standard? Something else missing in this discussion.

Interesting charts telling a story. I may disagree with some of it as SS funds itself for example but still, I love charts.

 

[Toronado3800]

There are basically 2 OPPOSITE THEORIES AT PLAY NOW.

One side that thinks DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS,.................

And the other that believes in SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS....................

One of them worked, aka REAGAN, and......................

the other...............................to be determined and currently failing.

One more issue on SHOVEL READY JOBS AND STIMULUS SPENDING........................

Reagan SPENT MONEY on REBUILDING the military, which created SHOVEL READY JOBS. The EQUIPMENT and MATERIALS NEEDED TO BUILD IT ARE REAL. Which created JOBS. Secondly he gave TAX CUTS as Stimulus TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INVESTMENT. IT WORKED.

Obama and Bush handed out CASH LIKE CANDY. One to save the markets, OR SO THEY SAID AND SAY, and the other to create SHOVEL READY JOBS. Yet only SMALL PORTION WENT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. Most of it just being hand outs. HAD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WENT STRICTLY INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE it would have done FAR MORE GOOD. As building bridges, roads, dams, sewage systems, etc. are SHOVEL READY.

Instead we WASTED ALOT OF MONEY.

Neat topic, shovel ready. I have been disappointed with the lack of meaningful vision to the darned shovel placement. BUT, as the construction company next to us at work knows, them darned solar panels they were installing (on schools I think lol) sure are an exampke of money recirculating the economy thanks to the stimulus. Now it is to be debated if an F-22 or solar panel does more for the economy but in some way they both do.

Another feature of the econony is what drives it and here I have the following thought process. Mr Matt Mattress has a million more than the hundred million he had. He will buy a yacht. On the other hand, if 2,000 of my neighbors each have 500 more dollars my place just might sell 500 more mattresses this year noy to mention what the other 1,500 ppl go spend their money on. AND assuming Mr Mattress owns the factory we buy our oroduct from he will get more money also.

I do believe in economy of scale and the need to have a customer to sell my product to so it is a bottom up economy in my point of view.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh, and back in #31 I had a chart which indicated our debt INCREASED as a percentage of GDP under Reagan. IMO that was an indication of limited success. Perhaps the limited success of credit card tyoe economy pumping. 1987 sure felt better than 1989 but I guess 1987 was like me increasing the load on my credit card with mortgage expenses instead of investments, unless them investments somehow were not seen until the time of Bill Clinton who due to too much time spent fooling around did not sign spending bills or whatever. I certainly agree 1987 felt better than 1980 though and perception is some of the battle as Reagan learned from FDR.

Now we see Obama with a slight downturn in yearly deficits. I hope that trend continues and our GDP increases enough it can eat the interest if it ever rises.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In my opinion, it already is toilet paper money,

of course thats 100% stupid since Americans are the richest people in human history based on what they can buy with what you call toilet paper money!!

 

[eagle1462010]

In my opinion, it already is toilet paper money,

of course thats 100% stupid since Americans are the richest people in human history based on what they can buy with what you call toilet paper money!!

That was the article's opinion.

And if we keep going down this path we are on it will be toilet money. That is my opinion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

something that is LOST TO THE RHINO'S OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

they are Republicans in name only because they would lose the next election if they were not. If voting hard right conservative /libertarian was all it took to be famous and get the $175K paycheck 1000's of Americans would be lining up to run for office as real Republicans.

In short, blame the electorate, not the politicians.