Randi Rhodes' Rant Reminds Re: Radio

The reality of the situation is most Republicans currently holding office anywhere in the country aren't conservatives. I don't concern myself too much with the Democrats because as a party they favor abortion rights and big government tax & spend schemes.

Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

ziggy wrote:Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

With the Fed constantly printing money out of thin air, does it really matter any more?

Lately I've been trying to figure out why the Fed doesn't just print more money to buy bullets and bombs and body bags rather than borrowing money from China. I mean, if you're going to treat the US currency like Monopoly money what's the difference?

ziggy wrote:Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

Probably tax and spend is mor debilitating. With borrow and spend, at least you have money in the hands of citizens as opposed to government (which the current stimolous package proves works better) and at some point, someone, somewhere will shut the government down (as Newt did in the mid 90's) and reduce spending, even if for a short time. But if you let democrats have their say, they'll just keep raising taxes and raising taxes and spending and spending with no end in sight.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

Probably tax and spend is mor debilitating. With borrow and spend, at least you have money in the hands of citizens as opposed to government (which the current stimolous package proves works better) and at some point, someone, somewhere will shut the government down (as Newt did in the mid 90's) and reduce spending, even if for a short time.

Maybe if you studied up a bit on compoundied interest you could talk about it with some knowledge base. The ever-increasing interest on the national debt is not an insignificant expenditure.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

Probably tax and spend is mor debilitating. With borrow and spend, at least you have money in the hands of citizens as opposed to government (which the current stimolous package proves works better) and at some point, someone, somewhere will shut the government down (as Newt did in the mid 90's) and reduce spending, even if for a short time.

Maybe if you studied up a bit on compoundied interest you could talk about it with some knowledge base. The ever-increasing interest on the national debt is not an insignificant expenditure.

You ask a question. I answered it. At no point did you talk about compounded interest. If you want to discuss that, say so and we'll discuss it.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Which is most debilitating- "big government tax and spend schemes", or big government borrow and spend schemes?

Probably tax and spend is mor debilitating. With borrow and spend, at least you have money in the hands of citizens as opposed to government (which the current stimolous package proves works better) and at some point, someone, somewhere will shut the government down (as Newt did in the mid 90's) and reduce spending, even if for a short time.

Maybe if you studied up a bit on compoundied interest you could talk about it with some knowledge base. The ever-increasing interest on the national debt is not an insignificant expenditure.

You ask a question. I answered it. At no point did you talk about compounded interest. If you want to discuss that, say so and we'll discuss it.

Well, you can't answer a question about borrowing without considering the effects of interest. That are part & parcel to one another.

LOL Apparently Aaron thinks the communist Chinese government has been loaning us all that money interest free!

ziggy wrote:

Well, you can't answer a question about borrowing without considering the effects of interest. That are part & parcel to one another.

Sure you can. I just did.

Now if you want to talk specifics and consider interest, then you have to take into account tax rates caused from increased democratic spending as well.

Which directly affects the American TODAY. Compounded interest that has to be paid back later or a 40% tax rate taken from them RIGHT now?

For all your whining about Bush's tax cut's, I personally get back more money with them then I would without his tax cuts. Right now, that 10 to 12% less in taxes benefits me more then the 2 to 4% interest rate that has to be paid back later on loans does.

Stephanie wrote:LOL Apparently Aaron thinks the communist Chinese government has been loaning us all that money interest free!

So you believe in democratic tax increases to pay for socialist programs, huh.

I've read a lot of BULLSH!T in this forum and its predecessor but this probably takes the cake.

We don't need massive tax increases, nor do we need to sell our future generations to enemy states. For crying out loud let's try injecting a bit of sanity into the discussion!

We need to live within our means, and within the framework of our Constitution. That means no more preemptive, unnecessary, undeclared wars. It also means ending things like aid to foreign nations. We need to make cuts in these entitlement programs, some need to be eliminated. We also need to get the Federal Reserve, a private bank, out of our currency.

Use your head for more than a hat rack.

The greatest myth of all is that of the spendthrift Republicans. National debt and discretionary spending skyrocketing? The largest entitlements in U.S. History? Give me a break.

Aaron, they've spent your money and your grandkids' money. The difference is the GOP doesn't have the balls to be honest about it to your face. If this war were financed with YOUR real dollars, it would have ended before it began. That's what taxes do; make it "real" pain for the citizens.

I know what they've done Craig. But that wasn't the question. The question was, which was worse of two evils. To me the choice is clear. Either way, the fed's going to spend. I might as well have some money in my pocket as opposed to giving it to Sister Nan, dingy Harry and the rest to blow on UNCONSTITUTIONAL entitlement programs. That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Stephanie is right. Both sides spend way too much. In her fantasy land, it can all end tomorrow if only the politicians have the resolve. Here in the real world we know better which is why I will vote for McCain over either Oboma or sexy Hillary. I shutter at the thought of the taxes needed to cover thier unconstitutional entitlement programs.

Aaron wrote:For all your whining about Bush's tax cut's,

I have not whined about "Bush's tax cuts". But I have and do complain about defecit spending.

I personally get back more money with them then I would without his tax cuts. Right now, that 10 to 12% less in taxes benefits me more then the 2 to 4% interest rate that has to be paid back later on loans does.

Like I said, you don't know anything about interest on compounded debt.

ziggy wrote:
Like I said, you don't know anything about interest on compounded debt.

So you have to run a business and NOT pay yourself a living wage to understand interest on compounded debt, huh Zig.

Whatever dude...

How exactly did George HW Bush vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act when he wasn't elected until 1966?

SheikBen wrote:How exactly did George HW Bush vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act when he wasn't elected until 1966?

I stand corrected; He ran on a platform of opposing the act, losing to Ralph Yarborough (who was the only Southern Senator to vote for it).

Aaron wrote:That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Here in the real world we know better which is why I will vote for McCain over either Oboma or sexy Hillary. I shutter at the thought of the taxes needed to cover thier unconstitutional entitlement programs.

You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Like I said, you don't know anything about interest on compounded debt.

So you have to run a business and NOT pay yourself a living wage to understand interest on compounded debt, huh Zig.

Whatever dude...

I don't owe anyone a dime- other than as an American who shares and whose children and grandchildren share some part of the national debt.

Don't blame me for your own fiscal ignorance.

For example, how much interest has the U.S. paid or borrowed more money to pay on the interest on the national debt incurred during the 1980s? It's a hell of a lot more than "2 to 4 percent".

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Here in the real world we know better which is why I will vote for McCain over either Oboma or sexy Hillary. I shutter at the thought of the taxes needed to cover thier unconstitutional entitlement programs.

You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

Newt dude…
‘
Nuff said’

Aaron wrote:I know what they've done Craig. But that wasn't the question. The question was, which was worse of two evils. To me the choice is clear. Either way, the fed's going to spend. I might as well have some money in my pocket as opposed to giving it to Sister Nan, dingy Harry and the rest to blow on UNCONSTITUTIONAL entitlement programs. That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Bush didn't give you that money. All he did was con you into stealing it off your grandchildren- along with the compounded interest on it.

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Here in the real world we know better which is why I will vote for McCain over either Oboma or sexy Hillary. I shutter at the thought of the taxes needed to cover thier unconstitutional entitlement programs.

You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

Newt dude…
‘
Nuff said’

How does Newt justify a vote for the fiscally irresponsible Bush? Reagan raised the debt to 4 trillion. Repugnicans are anything but low-spenders.

Ah, I live in a fantasy land. Hmmm.........that's interesting.

I am not the one who refuses to face realities. Most Arab Muslims hate American intervention. They hate our culture, they hate our government and they hate us. That region of the world has an especially bloody history and they will never accept our interference or our presence. Being willing to acknowlege these things I want our troops to come home. I want to stop meddling in their affairs. I want to stop the chaos and the violence and the loss of American lives.

GWB, McCain, and Aaron in Poca think we can "fix" Iraq.

I realize we can't keep making promises to people we can't keep. I want to reign in entitlement spending. I want to stop paying social security benefits to seniors who don't need that safety net after they have received everything they've paid into with interest. I'm fighting tooth and nail against socialize medicine.

I want to eliminate unConstitutional, wasteful, and unnecessary federal agencies.....resource sponges like the DOE, bureaucratic nightmares like DHS...I could go on.

I am also willing to recognize that a currency backed by nothing, that is printed out of thin air every time the banks face a credit crunch, isn't worth a whole lot. The idea that a private bank controls the US currency and prints billions of $ whenever they like is just plain stupid.

Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama and Aaron don't think we need to worry about our currency.

Yeah, I'm the one in a fantasy land.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote: I personally get back more money with them then I would without his tax cuts. Right now, that 10 to 12% less in taxes benefits me more then the 2 to 4% interest rate that has to be paid back later on loans does.

ziggy wrote:Like I said, you don't know anything about interest on compounded debt.

So you have to run a business and NOT pay yourself a living wage to understand interest on compounded debt, huh Zig.

Whatever dude...

I don't owe anyone a dime- other than as an American who shares and whose children and grandchildren share some part of the national debt.

Don't blame me for your own fiscal ignorance.

For example, how much interest has the U.S. paid or borrowed more money to pay on the interest on the national debt incurred during the 1980s? It's a hell of a lot more than "2 to 4 percent".

Fiscal ignorance abounds when people don't have any frigging idea what they are talking about. And the current "home mortgage" issue is proof of that.

The interest rate paid on the "borrowed money" is irrelevant when discussing the "total payback" of two (2) different loans. The loans in the 1980 vrs. the 1990's vrs. the 2000's.

The "total payback" is determined when the loan contract is "approved", ...... after that the "interest rate" doesn't mean shidt ......... (unless said contract stipulates a potential "restatement" of said interest rate).

Me thinks the "interest payback" on a 1980's $1 Billion Government loan is a lot less than the "interest payback" on a 2000's $14 billion Government loan.

But anyway, geeeze Aaron, Ziggy got ya, ...... he cited the Carter years.

January 25, 1981
When Jimmy Carter was inaugurated just four years ago, 8 1/4 percent Treasury bonds due 2005 earned about 7.6 percent and long-term bonds were a popular investment. By the time Mr. Carter left office last week, however, the same bond yielded about 12 percent, meaning its value had fallen by more than a third. And investors were avoiding long-term bonds like the plague. Rightly or wrongly, the financial community lays much of the blame for the troubled bond market on Mr. Carter, claiming that h...
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?s=oldest&

Published: February 9, 2006
The first auction of 30-year Treasury bonds in more than four years attracted surprisingly strong demand this afternoon, allowing the federal government to borrow $14 billion at a yield of up to 4.53 percent, almost a percentage point lower than it paid at the previous auction in 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/business/09cnd-bond.html

Posted on Sun, Apr. 6, 2008
For example, Dan Pederson, president of the Savings Bond Informer, a fee-based bond-consulting firm, noted that recent EE savings bonds have been paying only 3 percent interest because inflation has been relatively low. During a time of high inflation in the 1980s, he said, EE bonds paid 8.5 percent - which helped to provide the interest needed to pay for the rising cost of living.

Given inflation concerns, he said, people should be cautious about investing in EE savings bonds now.

Instead, he suggests investors choose Series I bonds because the interest rate on them changes every six months to compensate for the effect of inflation. The current interest rate is 4.28 percent. But it will not stay that way. With I bonds, the interest rate can go higher or lower, depending on inflation.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20080406_Don_t_worry__Treasury_will_honor_bonds.html

SFCraig wrote:

SheikBen wrote:How exactly did George HW Bush vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act when he wasn't elected until 1966?

I stand corrected; He ran on a platform of opposing the act, losing to Ralph Yarborough (who was the only Southern Senator to vote for it).

The point stays the same. Calling Republicans the party of the racists is simply unfair, your history blunder aside. The subset of Americans who are avowed racists is very small, and if a majority of them happen to support the Republican Party, it's grossly unfair to blame the Republicans for that reality. I reckon that members of NAMBLA favor the Democrats in San Francisco over the Republicans, do you want to say that the Democratic Party has a trouble with pedophilia?

I think it's possible, believe it or not, to oppose affirmative action based on race and still not be a racist.