this has become a BS conversation and Joey, you’re right to say that most of your predictions may not occur, precisly for the very reason that you have predicted them. Just have a look at the past 12 months to see the accuracy and reliability of predictions. I’m starting to sound like Taleb. I need to go and lie down now.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a solution to all your problems: stop being > the world’s policeman. Stop trying to interfere in > others’ affairs. Build your own home. Sit down > with people you have disagreements with and > resolve and compromise. Stop bullying other > nations. > > As someone who has traveled around quite a bit, I > can tell you this honestly and sincerely that it > baffles me how clueless Americans are. Our > concepts of terrorism, democracy and freedom are > created by us, for our convenience. Its not just > the economy thats a bubble. We live in a bubble > society. I agree with what you are saying. It might be worth discussing in a different thread though …
Scary stuff indeed… Although, let’s keep in mind that throughout our history we’ve faced many challenges and each time we’ve been fortunate to have the right president to face down those threats. Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Reagan, were all elected under time of great unrest – some less severe than what we face today, others significantly more dangerous – and all were able to guide our country through the turmoil and lead us to a better place. Whether it is Obama or McCain, let’s hope this tradition continues.
Hmm… Well the counterpoint to “… and each time we’ve been fortunate to have the right president to face down those threats” is Grant and, perhaps, Carter.
and Bush. And… guys your presidents SUCK!
Except Bush inherited a Gov’t surplus, more or less peace in the world, the US standing strong as the lone global superpower, a strong economy, etc… And he screwed it up starting with something that was really working. GWB has been a global disaster.
Bleeck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and Bush. And… guys your presidents SUCK! And what country are you from?
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except Bush inherited a Gov’t surplus, more or > less peace in the world, the US standing strong as > the lone global superpower, a strong economy, > etc… And he screwed it up starting with something > that was really working. GWB has been a global > disaster. The most recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman would second that.
maratikus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Except Bush inherited a Gov’t surplus, more or > > less peace in the world, the US standing strong > as > > the lone global superpower, a strong economy, > > etc… And he screwed it up starting with > something > > that was really working. GWB has been a global > > disaster. > > The most recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman > would second that. Not that I disagree with the feeling here. However, Nobel was long ago politicized and therefore tainted.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except Bush inherited a Gov’t surplus, surely you jest, US administrations have been profligate since a long time. Clinton’s surplus is a myth.Just a little accounting trick.you probably are already familiar with this: http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
As much as I want to criticize Bush, every time I start thinking about this notion that the presidential policy ramifications take about 8 years to unfold. Under this theory, Clinton’s years of prosperity were actually Reagan’s (a notion I can totally buy), and Bush’s problems were sowed by the Clinton era. Thus, its a scary thought how Bush’s legacy will unfold in the next 8 years.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- GWB has been a global disaster. And people let this happen…in two elections!!! :o Agreed, Americans living in a bubble, asleep, hooked up to TV & Big Mac life support.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Except Bush inherited a Gov’t surplus, > > surely you jest, US administrations have been > profligate since a long time. > Clinton’s surplus is a myth.Just a little > accounting trick.you probably are already familiar > with this: http://www.letxa.com/articles/16 Gee, let me think…On the brink of recession we are suggesting that Clinton didn’t really run a surplus because all those social security payments the govt was taking in are really savings and savings don’t count. Sigh. I’ll let the next president claim a surplus if he revs up the economy so much that social security runs a massive surplus.
borrowing from social security is not the same as fiscal prudence displayed by cutting down on unwanted expenses. social security itself is a long term unfunded liability.its not like ss loaned money that was left over after taking care of the liabilities. SS is broke . are you trying to say that clinton was fiscally prudent and cut down on spending?.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > borrowing from social security is not the same as > fiscal prudence displayed by cutting down on > unwanted expenses. Yeah… > social security itself is a > long term unfunded liability.its not like ss > loaned money that was left over after taking care > of the liabilities. actually, that’s exactly what happened > SS is broke . are you trying > to say that clinton was fiscally prudent and cut > down on spending?. Suppose the government takes in $1 in SS taxes beyond what it pays out in claims. SS takes that money and hands it to Treasury who hands them a bond, essentially a receipt, for the $1. If the Treasury then uses that $1 to buy a bond back from me, the national debt is unaffected but the public debt goes down by $1. If they only buy back 0.80 worth of bonds but spend the remaining 0.20 on cruise missiles, the national debt goes up but the public debt goes down. That’s about the situation of the Clinton Administration. The question is does this represent deficit spending or surplus revenue? Almost everyone except the guy who wrote the website thinks that it represents a surplus because the money is fungible and the govt took in more than it spent. The only way that it represents a deficit is if you believe in the “raiding the SS trust fund” argument that the $1 doesn’t represent gov’t revenue but is money held in trust for future SS recipients. That stuff above about “SS is broke” and “unfunded liability” suggest that you don’t believe those arguments (I don’t either). Clinton ran a surplus. He did it with the help of lots of SS revenue by newly affluent people. It would be a nice world to have it again. Edit: BTW if you believe in the stuff on that website, there is a much scarier calculation you can do. Just like in CFA studies you would never say that the pension obligation went up by the amount of unspent money invested by the fund, you shouldn’t count SS obligations by the bonds that went to SS. You should do a PBO-type calculation. Since during the Clinton years people earned more and got healthier even as the population grew older we accumulated lots of obligations under the current SS plan. That means that if you believe that we will pay out all the SS obligations theoretically owed, Clinton and everyone else have been running massive deficits. Most of us believe that SS is essentially insolvent and our benefits will just start going away so it is not really an obligation.
Joey, I definitely agree with you that much of what you say won’t come true, especially the part about Carolina winning 3 or 4 national championships and coach K getting the blame for much of the world’s problems. Coach K is getting a little long in the tooth and could be like Dean Smith in his declining years, but Carolina won’t win 3 or 4 more NCs in the next 6 years and Duke will still be in the top 3 of the ACC year in and year out. With Wachovia and BOA hurting now, the “recruiting budget” for Carolina will take an enormous hit and will leave places like Kansas outrecruiting 'ole Roy.
I think the reason this conversation has become so pointless stems back to the fact that you guys seem to have forgotten to lace your comments with mindless illustrations involving Joe Sixpack and Joe Plumber.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice writeup. I am also very concerned about the > rise of Islamic Fundamentalism. It has been, for > the most part, ignored. Especially in Europe, > where talking about this is considered racist. (I > don’t really know which race muslims are, but > please let me know when you find out.) > > I def. see increasing problems in Pakistan and > Afghanistan. Iraq… don’t get me started. We > should’ve just been in Afghanistan the whole time > and put more pressure on Pakistan. I wouldn’t put the islamic label on it, there’s always been ‘terrorist’ assh*les the only thing that changes are the ideologies that drive them. It’s easier for groups of malcontents to recruit the naive to their cause if they have an ideology or religion to justify their cause. that being said it was anarchist terrorists that started WW1 by killing arch duke ferdinand, so there could be trouble ahead. terrorism itself does not worry me its the (over)reaction to it and the instability that causes that worries me.
"Vietnam had divided the nation and we lost our first war. " JDV, you are mistaken. Canada beat the USA once before…in fact…I believe we burned down the white house. Willy
Well, I am a little ticked about the White House thing. I have usually blamed the Brits, but if the Canadians want to take the blame I’m okay with that. The War of 1812 was pretty much a draw. Of course, I notice that nobody burned down Buckingham Palace or something so maybe we got the short end of the stick. Anyway, I demand reparations, Canuck slime.