DOW drops 500 points today

[Deleted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQyLOhhVO8
@50 sec.
They know NOTHING, They know NOTHING!
Atleast someone in the media can get angry at the big bears.. This is from 2008 but i bet he's just as angry atm..

[Chyrch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQyLOhhVO8
@50 sec.
They know NOTHING, They know NOTHING!
Atleast someone in the media can get angry at the big bears.. This is from 2008 but i bet he's just as angry atm..

lol. I didn't pay Jim Cramer any attention whatsoever until this:



Stock markets are ridiculously hard to predict, no matter how much of an "expert" you are. FAR too many people and companies have been relying on stocks for their profits.

[steveyboy]

The terroists that hit the Twin Towers in NY have actually won

Fighting a war in both Iraq & Afghanistan has drained the US of valuable monatary resources
due to its war effort in trying to fight terroisim

Conversely its just not just Overseas engagements which have cost billions to run.

But also internally with new billion dollar departments (like Heartland security) to monitor potential internal threats

This is just crap

American government staged the terrorist attacks not some people from the middle east

The US got themselves in this mess

[Merkava]

You seriously have to start making an attempt to read what I'm writing. Perhaps even try to understand it as well. There's one crucial point you're missing with your first argument. What I quoted does not simply say "the national debt was reduced by $363 billion" as you bolded. The quote is actually "Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion". Clinton's administration did not only last 3 years. He took office working with a massive yearly deficit, but he left office working with a small yearly surplus. So your numbers of him accruing debt over his 8 years, and my numbers of him leaving office working with a surplus are BOTH right.

Also, I know it's cool to hate on Wikipedia, but that's really only true for people who don't look for the sources. Those graphs and numbers I was point you toward can be found on the Congressional Budget Office website here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766
as well as the White House website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Both sites offer files to download for viewing.

I don't see how there was a surplus. And I don't see the debt getting paid down. Go here http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway put in the dates for FY 1998 - FY 2000. It shows an increase of over 280 billion. Why is that?

[Chyrch]

I don't see how there was a surplus. And I don't see the debt getting paid down. Go here http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway put in the dates for FY 1998 - FY 2000. It shows an increase of over 280 billion. Why is that?

I don't know man. I'm not really sure how each organization makes their calculations. Perhaps the treasury is calculating it with interest while the Congressional Budget Office doesn't? I don't know. And really, it doesn't matter.

[GennGreymane]

what u need to do is

cut

and

raise taxes

its not one or the other.

thats the simple answer

now we must close loop holes for "job creators" increase taxes, lower on the middle class so tehre is actually a demand now since no one is really spending >.> yeeep

not just cut, reform, fix how we do welfare, cut back on the military, some stuff is 100% not wanted by the pentagon, bu they are forced to make it any way and it costs hundreds of millions.

[Merkava]

I don't know man. I'm not really sure how each organization makes their calculations. Perhaps the treasury is calculating it with interest while the Congressional Budget Office doesn't? I don't know. And really, it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. It forms the basis of your entire point, that democrats created a surplus that republicans wasted. You said the debt would have been paid down by now, had it not been for Bush. I'm arguing that there never was a surplus, and therefore no trend to continue, and hence, no elimination of the debt. I thought from your post that you would know exactly how and why democrats claim to have created a surplus under clinton (even though republicans controlled the house) when the debt went up for that last 3 year period of Clinton's presidency.

I don't know. And if you don't know either, then we can drop it, but I was at least hoping to get the Clinton surplus myth cleared up. Thanks for the discussion and good luck.

[Chyrch]

Of course it matters. It forms the basis of your entire point, that democrats created a surplus that republicans wasted. You said the debt would have been paid down by now, had it not been for Bush. I'm arguing that there never was a surplus, and therefore no trend to continue, and hence, no elimination of the debt. I thought from your post that you would know exactly how and why democrats claim to have created a surplus under clinton (even though republicans controlled the house) when the debt went up for that last 3 year period of Clinton's presidency.

I don't know. And if you don't know either, then we can drop it, but I was at least hoping to get the Clinton surplus myth cleared up. Thanks for the discussion and good luck.

It wasn't anywhere close to being the basis of my entire point.

I said:

But the worst part is that Obama can't even undo the damage of the Bush administration, since the Republican's have been acting like little stubborn children who don't like the thought of anyone else being right. They took their "Starve the Beast" tactic, and used it to the absolute extreme, damaged the country, and then shifted the blame from Bush to Obama, even though it's Bush and his administration that took a surplus, and instead doubled the debt.

If I change that to:

But the worst part is that Obama can't even undo the damage of the Bush administration, since the Republican's have been acting like little stubborn children who don't like the thought of anyone else being right. They took their "Starve the Beast" tactic, and used it to the absolute extreme, damaged the country, and then shifted the blame from Bush to Obama, even though it's Bush and his administration that took office with a nearly balanced budget, and instead doubled the debt.

Is my point any more or less valid?

[Merkava]

It wasn't anywhere close to being the basis of my entire point.

I said:


If I change that to:


Is my point any more or less valid?

Sure it's less valid. How could it not be? In addition your facts being wrong too, of course. The original argument is Clinton good, Bush bad. Because of your facts being wrong, the argument is now, Clinton bad, Bush worse.

[namelessone]

Taxes are fine, no need to touch them, we do need to stop Obama from spending like he is, we've already used up 60% of the increase, in only 2 days, but yet no Democrat will dare think of not spending or cutting because they are morons, bigger morons than the average Washington critter

You don't make money by cutting spending, you SAVE money. If you have no profit - you will be going down no matter how much you save. And the only way to create profit is through taxes, which aren't "fine" by the way, they are at the record low for some bizzare reason.

[Pfeff]

84% of Americans think that the economy is bad... what the fuck are the other 16% doing?

I'm buying while it's low, personally.

If you have the cash right now it's a very good time

[Deleted]

The bottom of your ship is letting in water, everyone knows this, and it has been happening for several years. Suddenly a new captain emerges and says "Stay calm everyone, I know how we will fix this, now the other captains, they knew nothing of how to fix it, but I do. Drill more holes into the bottom of the ship! While most would think that will make things worse, just remember, I'm the captain, I know better than you."

And the ships crew scream in unison "YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN..."

Yeah sure, more like they have the plugs to fill the holes but the first mate is not about to give those to the captain becasue he thinks he should be captain and they fight over it till the ship sinks.

[Deleted]

You don't make money by cutting spending, you SAVE money. If you have no profit - you will be going down no matter how much you save. And the only way to create profit is through taxes, which aren't "fine" by the way, they are at the record low for some bizzare reason.

Actually by cutting costs you make profits. Revenue is ~2.5 trillion, cut costs to under 2.5 trillion are you will make profits. If you raise taxes to attempt to raise revenue to current spending levels, it will never work because of Hauser's Law. The current spending levels are simply so huge that the US as a nation cannot support it.