Will you be a patriot?

[JWBooth]

If purchasing bonds to further fund the leviathan state beyond what it takes from us in taxes, fees, and inflated/devalued currency is what is required to be a patriot, then count me out.

 

[Ernie S.]

You know this thread actually has illuminated a pretty important point.

If you get taxed to do the right thing (pay off debt) it's evil.
If you buy bonds of your own free will to do the right thing (pay off debt) suddenly it's ok.

I guess we Americans just dont like to be forced to do anything. Damn colonial streak.

The crazy thing is...it would be highly progressive as the poor would buy less and the rich buy more.

Yup and then the poor would bitch that the government is giving all that interest to the rich and would demand free bonds. it would only turn into another welfare scheme.

 

[rightwinger]

No

I will continue to invest my money where it will receive the highest rate of return while minimizing risk

The Government is free to tax that money

 

[Dr.Drock]

Being a patriotic conservative, I would invest in my country's debt by buying bonds. Even if I lost money on them.

Well you aren't a fiscal conservative, fiscal conservatives invest their money to get the best return.

 

[uscitizen]

Aside from the military and the federal governments operating expenses the vast majority of tax+ debt dollars is distributed back to the states.

So is this a federal or state issue?

 

[mdn2000]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

To compare the sense of unity of purpose of WWII and our reaction to the events of 9/11 it is an exercise that has a half life of about five minutes. The harder one looks at it the values, comparison get embarrassing. WWII was an actual war. We were attacked by an actual sovereign enemy with the other components of the Axis waiting in the wings. Our choice was clear at the moment of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Fight or perish. As hard as Bush, Cheney and the black traitor that gave the song and dance at the UN with the stick figure evidence of WMD's tried to whip us into a war mentality and as violent and senseless the attacks were we had no country to declare war on. They were in fact crimes. Terrorist absolutely on a scale not yet seen on that level. There was no need for an invasion. We could have cleaned up Al Kaida with special ops and good intelligence. We had the whole world on our side for that moment and co operation would have been forthcoming.

That said asking the American people to rally up and spend good money after bad and categorize it as "patriotic" is insulting.

Our way of life and survival is not and never was on the line. If you ask me Haliburton should have paid for the wars as the cost of doing business.

This shows us how ignorant you are. We did use Special Ops to attack Al Quduh (or however you wish to spell the name). Of course you make it sound like Obama Bin Laden was sitting in an easy chair sipping Camel's milk and eating SHMEN.

If you get this simple fact of history wrong is it fair to say your wrong about everything else as well.

No matter, Clinton and the Democrats brought the war upon us, Kerry through Clinton's term called for war, Pelosi called for war during Clinton's term, Barbra Boxer called for war during Clinton's term, hell, Clinton was launching missiles at people you state simply committed another crime. Gee, they committed a crime and without a trial the Liberal's launch missiles. Sounds more like a Marxist response, found guilty before the trial.

Can we assume then, that if Liberals gain 100% control of the governent we can look forward to being arrested, for the Liberals show again and again that Liberals determine guilt before any trial and Liberals based on the assumption of guilt will shoot a missile at the guilty.

We can thus expect a Liberal who found us guilty without a trial to drop bomb on our house in the middle of the night. (the smilie is the contribution of my four year old)

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The government does not need to turn to the public to buy debt nor need to use patriotic catchphrases to hypothetically market bonds to the public to finance debt. Why? Because government already is using some of the public's money to already finance debt. It's called taxes!

That's an odd way of looking at it. The reason the government sells bonds is to borrow the money it needs that taxes aren't enough to cover.

 

[California Girl]

Being a patriotic conservative, I would invest in my country's debt by buying bonds. Even if I lost money on them.

Well you aren't a fiscal conservative, fiscal conservatives invest their money to get the best return.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Please don't decide what I am. It is for me to decide. And you decide for you. That's how our country works.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Being a patriotic conservative, I would invest in my country's debt by buying bonds. Even if I lost money on them.

Well you aren't a fiscal conservative, fiscal conservatives invest their money to get the best return.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Please don't decide what I am. It is for me to decide. And you decide for you. That's how our country works.

I think the best thing I can do for my country and myself is to make every financial decision in a capitalistic manner.

I'm not saying you're morally wrong or anything, just saying that doesn't sound like a fiscally conservative approach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So buying bonds is patriotic??

But to sell more bonds the US has to be able to go deeper in debt, and the tea party 'patriots' among others don't want to raise the debt ceiling...

...so not only do they themselves not want to be 'patriotic', they want to deny you that opportunity as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

Would "debt bonds to get us out from under China's thumb" be a more appropriate title?

How's about "bonds to clean up the mess Bush Jr. left"?

Either one is true.

Or they could be called "The democrat controlled Congress since 2006 till 2011 and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage to people who couldn't pay them back Bonds"

Control of Congress means a majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate. Didn't happen in 2006, 2008 or 2010.

 

[California Girl]

Well you aren't a fiscal conservative, fiscal conservatives invest their money to get the best return.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Please don't decide what I am. It is for me to decide. And you decide for you. That's how our country works.

I think the best thing I can do for my country and myself is to make every financial decision in a capitalistic manner.

I'm not saying you're morally wrong or anything, just saying that doesn't sound like a fiscally conservative approach.

I don't care what it 'sounds like'. I would certainly invest in the United States of America... because I believe it's a solid investment. If they offered bonds to help pay down the debt, I would most certainly give it very serious consideration to invest in. I would, of course, want to see the fine print. I don't trust the government to use my investment for the purpose of paying the debt so I'd need to see a solid ringfence for the money.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Would "debt bonds to get us out from under China's thumb" be a more appropriate title?

How's about "bonds to clean up the mess Bush Jr. left"?

Either one is true.

Or they could be called "The democrat controlled Congress since 2006 till 2011 and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage to people who couldn't pay them back Bonds"

Control of Congress means a majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate. Didn't happen in 2006, 2008 or 2010.

However, if Palin and Bachmann keep dividing the GOP with their tea party bullshit, it could end up being a Democratic majority in 2012, with a Democratic President yet again.

The teabaggers and the GOP stated that their first priority is jobs. They've done everything but so far.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Please don't decide what I am. It is for me to decide. And you decide for you. That's how our country works.

I think the best thing I can do for my country and myself is to make every financial decision in a capitalistic manner.

I'm not saying you're morally wrong or anything, just saying that doesn't sound like a fiscally conservative approach.

I don't care what it 'sounds like'. I would certainly invest in the United States of America... because I believe it's a solid investment. If they offered bonds to help pay down the debt, I would most certainly give it very serious consideration to invest in. I would, of course, want to see the fine print. I don't trust the government to use my investment for the purpose of paying the debt so I'd need to see a solid ringfence for the money.

Well this is where you and I differ, you have faith government will spend the money on what they tell you they'll spend it on and stay within the parameters of what they have, I don't.

Personally I never know how people get to a point of having that kind of faith in gov't, but to each their own.

 

[JBeukema]

No

I will continue to invest my money where it will receive the highest rate of return while minimizing risk

The Government is free to tax that money

So you won't willingly give, but they're free to take by force?

 

[WillowTree]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

Would "debt bonds to get us out from under China's thumb" be a more appropriate title?

How's about "bonds to clean up the mess Bush Jr. left"?

Either one is true.

Or they could be called "The democrat controlled Congress since 2006 till 2011 and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage to people who couldn't pay them back Bonds"

shorten that up a bit just call em DUmbonds!

 

[WillowTree]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Please don't decide what I am. It is for me to decide. And you decide for you. That's how our country works.

I think the best thing I can do for my country and myself is to make every financial decision in a capitalistic manner.

I'm not saying you're morally wrong or anything, just saying that doesn't sound like a fiscally conservative approach.

I don't care what it 'sounds like'. I would certainly invest in the United States of America... because I believe it's a solid investment. If they offered bonds to help pay down the debt, I would most certainly give it very serious consideration to invest in. I would, of course, want to see the fine print. I don't trust the government to use my investment for the purpose of paying the debt so I'd need to see a solid ringfence for the money.

Most of us who remain debt free know that throwing money at a money problem never fixes the money problem..

 

[uscitizen]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

These are the same "experts" that got blindsided by the finiancial fall?

Actually, Libsky (IMF), Siglitz (WB) and Roubini (IMF) foresaw the collapse. Roubini actually had the timing correct. Rajan, rarely makes such predictions. Clinton had to have seen it coming.

Links for when they first started warning about the fall?

all I heard before it started down was some what people called left wing nuts.
Including me

 

[HUGGY]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

To compare the sense of unity of purpose of WWII and our reaction to the events of 9/11 it is an exercise that has a half life of about five minutes. The harder one looks at it the values, comparison get embarrassing. WWII was an actual war. We were attacked by an actual sovereign enemy with the other components of the Axis waiting in the wings. Our choice was clear at the moment of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Fight or perish. As hard as Bush, Cheney and the black traitor that gave the song and dance at the UN with the stick figure evidence of WMD's tried to whip us into a war mentality and as violent and senseless the attacks were we had no country to declare war on. They were in fact crimes. Terrorist absolutely on a scale not yet seen on that level. There was no need for an invasion. We could have cleaned up Al Kaida with special ops and good intelligence. We had the whole world on our side for that moment and co operation would have been forthcoming.

That said asking the American people to rally up and spend good money after bad and categorize it as "patriotic" is insulting.

Our way of life and survival is not and never was on the line. If you ask me Haliburton should have paid for the wars as the cost of doing business.

This shows us how ignorant you are. We did use Special Ops to attack Al Quduh (or however you wish to spell the name). Of course you make it sound like Obama Bin Laden was sitting in an easy chair sipping Camel's milk and eating SHMEN.

If you get this simple fact of history wrong is it fair to say your wrong about everything else as well.

No matter, Clinton and the Democrats brought the war upon us, Kerry through Clinton's term called for war, Pelosi called for war during Clinton's term, Barbra Boxer called for war during Clinton's term, hell, Clinton was launching missiles at people you state simply committed another crime. Gee, they committed a crime and without a trial the Liberal's launch missiles. Sounds more like a Marxist response, found guilty before the trial.

Can we assume then, that if Liberals gain 100% control of the governent we can look forward to being arrested, for the Liberals show again and again that Liberals determine guilt before any trial and Liberals based on the assumption of guilt will shoot a missile at the guilty.

We can thus expect a Liberal who found us guilty without a trial to drop bomb on our house in the middle of the night. (the smilie is the contribution of my four year old)

You call me ignorant then go off on a rant against the dreaded "liberals"?

I would usually ignore such a stupid post.

Not today Sparky.

At the time of 9/11 Bin Laden was in command of about 3,000 followers. He was well inside the borders of Afghanistan. We could have easily dropped in 10,000 rangers marines and other special ops and surrounded him. Ya it probably would have been a bloody fight. We might have lost up to 2,500. Probably realistically less than a thousand. We do have ground attack fighters and air to air refueling. It would have taken less than a month to totally destroy that rag tag Al Kaida.

YES!.. it was a crime. Declaring "war" on a terrorist group is stupid. I don't give a rat's ass if you agree with me. You are one of those willfully ignorant assholes. I couldn't care less what the dems suggested in 01. They were not in charge. I voted for Bush, moron. He was the one that fucked everything up and I will never forgive him for it as I will never forgive what you asshole Christians have done to my party and our country.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I get the sense that you are one of those stupid Fascist Christian Fundamentalists. If you ask me...you morons are a bigger danger to the United States of America than ten Al Kaidas.

Here is a plan for ya Sport...Get the fuck out of my republican party and save your stupid fantasy shit for your fellow Christians in your stupid Christian Churches. You halfwits have made every possible ignorant decision ever since you have stolen my party.

You don't agree? I don't care..Go Fuck Yourself and the BeJeeezzzuusss you rode in on.

Just sayin...

 

[California Girl]

These are the same "experts" that got blindsided by the finiancial fall?

Actually, Libsky (IMF), Siglitz (WB) and Roubini (IMF) foresaw the collapse. Roubini actually had the timing correct. Rajan, rarely makes such predictions. Clinton had to have seen it coming.

Links for when they first started warning about the fall?

all I heard before it started down was some what people called left wing nuts.
Including me

Can you never find information for yourself? Seriously. All you need do is read the research produced by any of the above.... along with a wealth of other global economists. And.... most of them are apolitical. They are neither left wing nor right wing... they're just economists. Not everyone is as stupid as you are about politics.