Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I didn't take it as picking a fight, we're good. Everything you say is reasonable. And certainly since you've been there there you have a great experience I do not have. You can tell me, but maybe we're talking about different meanings of anarchy. Anarchy can mean chaos, and anarchy can be a political structure with no recognized government.
I am referring to the latter. When I refer to anarchists, I am referring to people who want no recognized government. People are social, and most of them are followers. I have no doubt that if we eliminated a commonly recognized government, that Somalia is the inevitable destination. People will not live on farms with their family in their community in governmentless harmony as anarchists envision, they will join a fief or be destroyed.
In anarchy, we have government, but we do not have any consistency. If you've read the thread, you know I keep saying I don't want to live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandfather is born. And while the fiefs may have education, criminal justice and so forth, they are limited.
You can tell me if I misunderstood, but I took your post to mean I think anarchy is chaos. That isn't what I meant.
I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."
People have lived under government for so long that no one can comprehend how anarchy cold work or be stable, but the fact is that prior to the creation of the state farming communities existed for thousands of years without any kind of formal government. They established property rights and resolved crimes without the usual apparatus of oppression. If you want to read how it could work in a modern context then read some Hans Herman Hoppe and what he calls "the private law society."
Oh right, I forgot, in right wing world Obama was responsible since BEFORE he even won the election
January 08, 2009
The federal budget deficit will nearly triple to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.
Dubya, like ALL Prez have a F/Y budget starting Oct 1. His last F/Y budget was Oct 1, 2008 FORWARD
Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.
Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text
Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.
Weird, so NOW Dubya, like EVERY other US Prez isn't responsible for his F/Y budget? lol
If McCaion won TARP wouldn't had been needed?
TARP, which Dubya asked for, and EVERY credible economists (sorry AEI, CATO, Heritage, etc) knows SAVED US from a second GOP great depression,
Yeah, the spending by the Dems just happened starting in March, NOTHING else predated their spending spree right? lol
"Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.
Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. ""
Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?
SO THE US WOULDN'T STOPPED DEAD IN HER TRACKS SINCE DUBYA DIDN'T WANT TO PUT HIS NAME ON A BUDGET LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ? lol
You don't know what debt is if you think we compare to Revolutionary War era America
We are the wealthiest nation on earth and have the worlds largest economy. They were an agrarian economy and had borrowed to the teeth to try to get through a war
They didn't borrow anywhere near the GDP of the country, which is what Obama has done.
Critics Still Wrong on Whats Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues for todays record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half over $8 trillion of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies
Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed
You can't have it both ways, blaming Bush for the last deficit but then saying it was necessary since your guy supported it.
Needed it BECAUSE of Dubya's policies leading up to the fall of 20098, AMNESIA HUH?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Yes, it was government that did that.
Clinton threatened CEOs to lower lending standards and said he'd hound and haul them into hearings if they didn't. Then the Fed pumped them with virtually zero interest money.
W said wow, that's not a good idea. Then he kept doing it. Typical useless Republican.
People armed with government money bid up the price of housing. Hence the "bubble."
When the economy burped, massive people who shouldn't have been made loans failed to pay them, the bubble burst.
No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this.
CLINTON?
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
" No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this. "
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers competitors of Fannie and Freddie grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it.
More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.
The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
ANY OTHER FALSE NARRATIVES YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?
Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.
Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text
Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.
Weird, so NOW Dubya, like EVERY other US Prez isn't responsible for his F/Y budget? lol
Only because it was an actual special circumstance. Bush '43 signed a budget for FY 2009 that continued spending at 2008 levels, set by the Democratic House and Senate. It also only appropriated funds through the first half of 2009.
So he and Obama share the responsibility of that spending.
McCain would have passed TARP just as Obama did. And you leftists that wanted bigger government would have criticized him for expanding government.
All are wrong in my opinion, but that ship has sailed.
TARP, which Dubya asked for, and EVERY credible economists (sorry AEI, CATO, Heritage, etc) knows SAVED US from a second GOP great depression,
Yeah, the spending by the Dems just happened starting in March, NOTHING else predated their spending spree right? lol
Attributing massive government spending to Bush while also trying to create a myth about Obama being more responsible (while he endorsed the massive spending) is the issue.
"Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.
Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. ""
Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?
SO THE US WOULDN'T STOPPED DEAD IN HER TRACKS SINCE DUBYA DIDN'T WANT TO PUT HIS NAME ON A BUDGET LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ? lol
"Dubya" knew he'd lost in 2007 and worked with the Democrats to enact their lawfully gained power. Of that many things he did wrong, the peaceful transfer of power is something he did right.
I know it just sucks for you that Obama and the Democrats increased spending and that's now a negative, but that's how it actually happened. As for the promised results of all this spending?
Well that chart speaks for itself. Your side's plan didn't work.
Oh right, I forgot, in right wing world Obama was responsible since BEFORE he even won the election
January 08, 2009
The federal budget deficit will nearly triple to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.
Dubya, like ALL Prez have a F/Y budget starting Oct 1. His last F/Y budget was Oct 1, 2008 FORWARD
Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.
Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text
Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.
TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed
TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed
Basleess talking point, TARP was throwing gasoline on the fire. We needed less government oppression over our economy, not more.
Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.
Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text
Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.
Weird, so NOW Dubya, like EVERY other US Prez isn't responsible for his F/Y budget? lol
Only because it was an actual special circumstance. Bush '43 signed a budget for FY 2009 that continued spending at 2008 levels, set by the Democratic House and Senate. It also only appropriated funds through the first half of 2009.
So he and Obama share the responsibility of that spending.
McCain would have passed TARP just as Obama did. And you leftists that wanted bigger government would have criticized him for expanding government.
All are wrong in my opinion, but that ship has sailed.
TARP, which Dubya asked for, and EVERY credible economists (sorry AEI, CATO, Heritage, etc) knows SAVED US from a second GOP great depression,
Yeah, the spending by the Dems just happened starting in March, NOTHING else predated their spending spree right? lol
Attributing massive government spending to Bush while also trying to create a myth about Obama being more responsible (while he endorsed the massive spending) is the issue.
"Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.
Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. ""
Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?
SO THE US WOULDN'T STOPPED DEAD IN HER TRACKS SINCE DUBYA DIDN'T WANT TO PUT HIS NAME ON A BUDGET LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ? lol
"Dubya" knew he'd lost in 2007 and worked with the Democrats to enact their lawfully gained power. Of that many things he did wrong, the peaceful transfer of power is something he did right.
I know it just sucks for you that Obama and the Democrats increased spending and that's now a negative, but that's how it actually happened. As for the promised results of all this spending?
Well that chart speaks for itself. Your side's plan didn't work.
They didn't borrow anywhere near the GDP of the country, which is what Obama has done.
Critics Still Wrong on Whats Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues for todays record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half over $8 trillion of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies
Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
I love the static economy analyses by the "experts" that called it wrong in the first place.
Real people care about the future and your side promised some results.
Yeah, that worked out so well.
This is why you are playing defense and blaming someone who hasn't been President for a long time, to deflect from your own failed programs.
You can't have it both ways, blaming Bush for the last deficit but then saying it was necessary since your guy supported it.
Needed it BECAUSE of Dubya's policies leading up to the fall of 20098, AMNESIA HUH?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
A fall that was known when your side promised to fix things.
"We Didn't Start The Fire" is a song, not a successful view of governing. It's obvious that the amateurs in charge are good only at justifying their terrible ideas.
Yes, it was government that did that.
Clinton threatened CEOs to lower lending standards and said he'd hound and haul them into hearings if they didn't. Then the Fed pumped them with virtually zero interest money.
W said wow, that's not a good idea. Then he kept doing it. Typical useless Republican.
People armed with government money bid up the price of housing. Hence the "bubble."
When the economy burped, massive people who shouldn't have been made loans failed to pay them, the bubble burst.
No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this.
CLINTON?
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
" No, Virginia, the entire financial sector didn't independently make the same stupid decision at the same time to implode. It was government carrot and the stick, threats if they didn't do it, free $$$ if they did. It was on you homey. You did this. "
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers competitors of Fannie and Freddie grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it.
More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.
The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
ANY OTHER FALSE NARRATIVES YOU WANT DEMOLISHED BUBBA?
ALL of this was known to the current administration when they got put in charge. Why couldn't they fix it?
Weird, so NOW Dubya, like EVERY other US Prez isn't responsible for his F/Y budget? lol
Only because it was an actual special circumstance. Bush '43 signed a budget for FY 2009 that continued spending at 2008 levels, set by the Democratic House and Senate. It also only appropriated funds through the first half of 2009.
So he and Obama share the responsibility of that spending.
McCain would have passed TARP just as Obama did. And you leftists that wanted bigger government would have criticized him for expanding government.
All are wrong in my opinion, but that ship has sailed.
Attributing massive government spending to Bush while also trying to create a myth about Obama being more responsible (while he endorsed the massive spending) is the issue.
"Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.
Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. ""
Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?
SO THE US WOULDN'T STOPPED DEAD IN HER TRACKS SINCE DUBYA DIDN'T WANT TO PUT HIS NAME ON A BUDGET LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ? lol
"Dubya" knew he'd lost in 2007 and worked with the Democrats to enact their lawfully gained power. Of that many things he did wrong, the peaceful transfer of power is something he did right.
I know it just sucks for you that Obama and the Democrats increased spending and that's now a negative, but that's how it actually happened. As for the promised results of all this spending?
Well that chart speaks for itself. Your side's plan didn't work.
Obama added $7T of debt, and all we got for it was a lousy level of unemployment.
Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.
Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text
Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.
TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed
TARP was a smoke screen, the real bail out came at the discount window of the Federal Reserve. To a tune of 16.1 Trillion Dollars. Why do you continue to post this Lie?
Then they paid off TARP after borrowing from the Federal Reserve at .25%.
I've proved this many times.
Basleess talking point, TARP was throwing gasoline on the fire. We needed less government oppression over our economy, not more.
Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Yawn. All were to blame, but you only blame one side. The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham. They decided that these Banks and Investment firms would be Self Regulated. So the Regulators were put out of the loop. They then used Fractional Banking in the Commercial Sector to fund their Investments in the Markets, which was part of the Glass Steaghall Act in lessons learned by the Great Depression.
You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee. Today, we have another Bubble Machine that is ready to pop using the same dang things that crashed it last time.
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
354 Billion Dollars this year on interest on the debt. 3 months to go. This is why we need a limited Gov't.
We cannot afford the Feel Good Programs that this Gov't continues to fund. This interest payment will go higher and higher, unless we put the brakes on and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Kicking it down the road is quite Frankly TREASON.
I didn't take it as picking a fight, we're good. Everything you say is reasonable. And certainly since you've been there there you have a great experience I do not have. You can tell me, but maybe we're talking about different meanings of anarchy. Anarchy can mean chaos, and anarchy can be a political structure with no recognized government.
I am referring to the latter. When I refer to anarchists, I am referring to people who want no recognized government. People are social, and most of them are followers. I have no doubt that if we eliminated a commonly recognized government, that Somalia is the inevitable destination. People will not live on farms with their family in their community in governmentless harmony as anarchists envision, they will join a fief or be destroyed.
In anarchy, we have government, but we do not have any consistency. If you've read the thread, you know I keep saying I don't want to live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandfather is born. And while the fiefs may have education, criminal justice and so forth, they are limited.
You can tell me if I misunderstood, but I took your post to mean I think anarchy is chaos. That isn't what I meant.
I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."
People have lived under government for so long that no one can comprehend how anarchy cold work or be stable, but the fact is that prior to the creation of the state farming communities existed for thousands of years without any kind of formal government. They established property rights and resolved crimes without the usual apparatus of oppression. If you want to read how it could work in a modern context then read some Hans Herman Hoppe and what he calls "the private law society."
I gave you what has turned out to be a pretty solid definition of what government functions small government libertarians believe is necessary in government. They generally agreed with me give or take. It's in the first post. Why don't you explain how those functions can be provided without government? I refuted your road argument and you haven't followed up on that or addressed the other areas at all. I was pretty specific.
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
354 Billion Dollars this year on interest on the debt. 3 months to go. This is why we need a limited Gov't.
We cannot afford the Feel Good Programs that this Gov't continues to fund. This interest payment will go higher and higher, unless we put the brakes on and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Kicking it down the road is quite Frankly TREASON.
Weird, less interest today than 2007
DUBYA TOOK US TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS OF REVENUES!
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
