Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Originally Posted by Milkman

Things have not been good in the U.S. since the late 1970s.

Lots of people in the US don't agree with this opinion.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's not pedantic at all.

Yes it is.

It may seem pedantic, if you know nought about economics...

I just finished my MicroEconomics course last semester.Intresting subject.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Milkman

Things have not been good in the U.S. since the late 1970s.

Lots of people in the US don't agree with this opinion.

Of course a lot of people don't agree.

This is the field of economics.

Ask for 3 opinions and you'll get six answers.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Ask for 3 opinions and you'll get six answers.

I hear your boy Warren Buffet is very high on Israel. Guess he's investing quite a fw billion $$$ over there.

The answer to panic about America's debt:

"The second mistake was pointed out, as best I recall from my high school researches, by Daniel Webster c. 1832. Then as now, there were vocal worries about foreigners owning too much of America. Webster pointed out that foreign investment meant, not that they had our stuff, but that we had their money. If push came to shove, if foreign governments tried to pressure the U.S. by threatening to withdraw their citizens' investments, we could keep it-refuse to pay back the debt. Their capital, after all, in the form of canals and the first railroads, was immovably located under our jurisidiction."

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2...-v-daniel.html

President Bush's Successful Deficit Reduction

Yet another "read it and weep, liberals" piece:

Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early. Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal '06 than in any other such period over the past 25 years — except for last year's 15.5% jump.
The 2006 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion at this time last year. Spending is up $130 billion, or 7.9%.
The CBO forecast in May that the 2006 deficit could fall as low as $300 billion. Michael Englund, chief economist of Action Economics, has long expected a deficit of about $270 billion this year. Now he thinks there's a chance the "remarkable strength in receipts" will push the deficit even lower.
With the economy topping $13 trillion this year, a $270 billion deficit would equal less than 2.1% of GDP, easily beating the president's 2.25% goal. Bush made his vow when the White House had a dour 2004 deficit forecast of 4.5% of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual '04 deficit came in at $412 billion, or 3.5% of GDP, before falling to $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, in 2005.
A CBO analysis last week noted that withheld individual income and payroll taxes are up 7.6% from a year ago, with the gains picking up in recent months.
"Those gains suggest solid growth in wages and salaries in the national economy," CBO said.
While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well.
Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes...

^ I see you're in a cut-and-past mood today.

That's OK. They've been good recently.

SK,

This is short-term not long term. Tax reciepts fluctuate a lot. Budget makers do NOT view tax reciepts in the mid and long term.

You have got to look at the big picture.

Have you seen the independent projections for the deficit in the year 2010?

As for liberals, liberals do not want increased deficits.

The few liberals left in government want the opposite.

In 1990, the U.S. government - bipartisan - adopted the "pay as you go" policy.

This worked from 1990 to 2001.

George W. Bush agandoned that, obviously.

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ I see you're in a cut-and-past mood today.

I also try to keep the cut and paste in the threads I started beore. That way posters can just look and say, "Oh look ... it's a SK thread and it's popped again. Nah, I don't wanna read his garbage" ...

^ Cut and pastes can be helpful, but they do get boring.

I want to hear you angle just as much, and actually more.

How you agree or disagree about a particular article.

and of course state your reasons, why.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I want to hear you angle just as much, and actually more.

I wouldn't want to bore you with the ramblings of a lowly enlisted man subjected to brainwashed symbolisms and jingoisms after 27 years of propoganda.

^ A person's rank, and job, is unimportant to me.

A person's ideas and integrity, are.

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ A person's rank, and job, is unimportant to me.

A person's ideas and integrity, are.

You make a habit if being incongruent sometimes with your conflicting statements.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ A person's rank, and job, is unimportant to me.

A person's ideas and integrity, are.

You make a habit if being incongruent sometimes with your conflicting statements.

Care to be specific?

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ A person's rank, and job, is unimportant to me.

A person's ideas and integrity, are.

You make a habit if being incongruent sometimes with your conflicting statements.

Care to be specific?

All you have to do is look at your comments right in this thread in the last 10 posts. First you categorize a comment identifying a specific category (enlisted) ... and then you say you don't care about rank.

(Hasn't taken us long to get right back to where we were before we were ignoring each other)

It may be hard for you to understand, SK, but outside the military people don't equate someone's rank and job with the validity of their ideas nor their integrity.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

MM:
Care to be specific?

SK:

All you have to do is look at your comments right in this thread in the last 10 posts. First you categorize a comment identifying a specific category (enlisted) ... and then you say you don't care about rank.

I just read my last 10 posts in this thread.

I do not see what you are referring to. I don't even see references to rank.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I do not see what you are referring to. I don't even see references to rank.

My bust ... wrong thread. But I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. Stop playing the fool.

Stroller: You're not a fountain of wisdom. Don't waste what precious little you have.

^
That's a classic:
when cornered, it's a mix of "oh you know what I mean anyway" and off-topic personal attack.

storekeeper reminds me of JonhL, but at least SK doesn't pretend to be anything more than he is. You have to at least give him that.

Well, he claims to be an 'officer', but I don't think the US navy would allow people so obviously lacking education and common courtesy to join their ranks.

Maybe I'm wrong.

The US super power like all super powers in history (The Greeks,Romans,British Empire) is certain to fall.A huge trade deficit,housing bubble ready to go pop,a very expensive war in Iraq.Ford,GM all losing lots money.And what happens if the Chinese decide to start putting their money somewhere else.I'm not saying The US is going to become a third world country,but the days of being the worlds super power are numbered.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Milkman

I do not see what you are referring to. I don't even see references to rank.

My bust ... wrong thread. But I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. Stop playing the fool.

OK,

So on what thread. I have not made any disparaging remarks with regard to enlisted men, any more than any other segment of the U.S. population.

And I have not made any negative references towards you or your job or position.

I don't judge people on their professions/jobs/fields.

Perhaps you are referring to my comments about the interview with the young guys and then the interviews with their families in their living rooms.

If this is what you mean, go back and read them, and you won't find any specfic negativity directed toward them.