1,000,000,000,000 - Page 2

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Leaf Fan

It's not hilarious from a Nelson Munts "ha-ha" kind, but the analogy you provided vs. the one you responded to was spot on and made me laugh. I guess more of an ironic hilarious. I'm in no way making light of the economic situation, I apologize if anybody took it that way.

Note to self. Use more emoticons.

*Ratmagiclady* · 07-16-2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Just a little something to think about:

Now as I understand a "deficit" If I have a million dollars in my checking account and write a check for two million dollars I have a deficit of one million dollars. If we have a trillion dollar deficit how much did the Obama spend in total so far?

Hmmmmm...

Considering that Bush left us with a trillion dollar deficit, with a parting shot of handing over 700 billion to the big banks pretty much unconditionally... not so much?

Most of the stimulus money has yet to be actually spent, which has always been what we were told would happen.

BTW, it's *rich* people who can be in the hole for billions or millions or thousands and still enjoy their lifestyle.

Being *really poor* in this economy means that when the balance is zero, that's it. No credit, just ...zero.

That's capitalism.

But this isn't a poor nation.

You see, Graphic, the 'redistribution of wealth' that *really* happened was when the GOP took a massive surplus and converted it to a record deficit by funnelling money toward corporations, most particularly via the war and 'off-budget' expenditures, not to mention tax cuts for the rich and 'bailouts' of Big Oil companies who were enjoying record profits, not to mention then 'bailing out' a financial industry *they* had deregulated with regards to predatory lending and *usury* and *still failed.

Bush's 'spend and deny' may not have been as catchy as saying 'Tax and spend,' but all he did was spend and spend. That money went to the wealthy who took it and either hoarded it, sent it offshore, or *speculated* with it, pricing simple housing and services out of the working classes' reach.

This kind of 'bubble' always 'crashes' when the corporations look down and realize they've taken too much and they can't make *more and more* off the same stones they did last quarter.

Deregulation made it so the regular folk foot the bill.

Maybe the wealth that disappeared was just numbers to AIG and them, but it all *came* from the work of others. Real things they don't have. So, don't blame Obama for *that.*

Bush left our economy with a corporate gun to its head. and *he* was the one who gave the bailout money to the fatcats in the first place, counting on spin machines to try and blame someone else for it. Counting on Americans to have a short attention span.

Phooey.

Maybe you can understand this. Bush *left* us with huge deficits, not to mention the biggest wealth disparities in our nation's history at least since the Great Depression.

What this means is that the very-rich control more wealth than they can expect to make still-further money off of. So, instead of making the economy move, they clench up on what they do have. And cause down-spirals of lost wages, jobs, benefits, standards of living, and thusly the real estate values of homes they kick people out of but which no one can buy....

This is *why* it's time for the government to spend, and on *productive* things that will employ people here and work for us later, instead of being all about profiteering off a degrading infrastructure and profit-based speculations until there *is* nothing to spend and all the piles of money the fatcats are sitting on turn out to be not worth the keystrokes they were typed with, and kaboom.

Especially if you *want* a functioning capitalist economy, now's the time.

Frankly, if you want a functioning capitalist economy, a few 'sacred cows' of the right have to go. Profiteering off basic health care, ... has to go. You can't build small business off of workers that might get knocked out of the workforce and default on your money at any time. 'Corporate personhood,' at least for multinationals, was a *bad Republican idea that is too technical for most conservatives to have realized the implications of at the time, never mind seeing how badly it's played out for 'the little guy' ever since. Something that was billed as 'helping small business and jobs' but basically gutted most towns in the nation in favor of big box stores and agribusiness...

We need to bring the *media* back to when it was respectable in the Seventies. That means 'equal time,' and public service, and more independently-owned affiliates, even if a company doesn't want to.

Capitalism can *work.* Can work *great,* ...but like any other system, *can be abused.* Can be taken away from Mom And Pop stores and the local factory and handed to Wal-Mart. That's why it needs to be regulated. That's what government is for. 'The General welfare.' Not just the biggest profits.

(tacking onto the little lecture

See, unrestrained capitalism has a way of ending up back where it started: with feudalism. If not warlordism. Control of wealth by a few, and serfs in debt-slavery or other bad circumstances trying to eke something out of farmed-out land.

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Considering that Bush left us with a trillion dollar deficit, with a parting shot of handing over 700 billion to the big banks pretty much unconditionally... not so much?

The deficit of $1.09 trillion so far this year compares to an imbalance of $285.85 billion through the same period a year ago. The deficit for the 2008 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $454.8 billion, the current record in dollar terms.

Might want to look at the numbers again. And the ObamaChrist holds the record now for putting us over 1 trillion not Bush.

*Ratmagiclady* · 07-16-2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Might want to look at the numbers again. And the ObamaChrist holds the record now for putting us over 1 trillion not Bush.

So, he flipped the odometer that was left a string of nines, and therefore did all the driving of our country from surplus to deficit the past ten years?

(I'll reiterate: Bush/Cheney did a lot of 'war' spending 'off-budget'... Obama's budget *includes* these expenditures.)

I think not. Even if you *do* want to make a Christ out of him.

Btw, we call statements like yours... 'disingenuous.'

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

So, he flipped the odometer that was left a string of nines, and therefore did all the driving of our country from surplus to deficit the past ten years?

(I'll reiterate: Bush/Cheney did a lot of 'war' spending 'off-budget'... Obama's budget *includes* these expenditures.)

I think not. Even if you *do* want to make a Christ out of him.

Btw, we call statements like yours... 'disingenuous.'

At this point I will bow out gracefully and respect your ****superior intelligence ****

(I'm not bowing out of the thread, Just not responding to you anymore.)

*Ratmagiclady* · 07-16-2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

At this point I will bow out gracefully and respect your ****superior intelligence ****

(I'm not bowing out of the thread, Just not responding to you anymore.)

Why change strategy now.

**Damn Brit** · 07-16-2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Considering that Bush left us with a trillion dollar deficit, with a parting shot of handing over 700 billion to the big banks pretty much unconditionally... not so much?

Most of the stimulus money has yet to be actually spent, which has always been what we were told would happen.

BTW, it's *rich* people who can be in the hole for billions or millions or thousands and still enjoy their lifestyle.

Being *really poor* in this economy means that when the balance is zero, that's it. No credit, just ...zero.

That's capitalism.

But this isn't a poor nation.

You see, Graphic, the 'redistribution of wealth' that *really* happened was when the GOP took a massive surplus and converted it to a record deficit by funnelling money toward corporations, most particularly via the war and 'off-budget' expenditures, not to mention tax cuts for the rich and 'bailouts' of Big Oil companies who were enjoying record profits, not to mention then 'bailing out' a financial industry *they* had deregulated with regards to predatory lending and *usury* and *still failed.

Bush's 'spend and deny' may not have been as catchy as saying 'Tax and spend,' but all he did was spend and spend. That money went to the wealthy who took it and either hoarded it, sent it offshore, or *speculated* with it, pricing simple housing and services out of the working classes' reach.

This kind of 'bubble' always 'crashes' when the corporations look down and realize they've taken too much and they can't make *more and more* off the same stones they did last quarter.

Deregulation made it so the regular folk foot the bill.

Maybe the wealth that disappeared was just numbers to AIG and them, but it all *came* from the work of others. Real things they don't have. So, don't blame Obama for *that.*

Bush left our economy with a corporate gun to its head. and *he* was the one who gave the bailout money to the fatcats in the first place, counting on spin machines to try and blame someone else for it. Counting on Americans to have a short attention span.

Phooey.

Maybe you can understand this. Bush *left* us with huge deficits, not to mention the biggest wealth disparities in our nation's history at least since the Great Depression.

What this means is that the very-rich control more wealth than they can expect to make still-further money off of. So, instead of making the economy move, they clench up on what they do have. And cause down-spirals of lost wages, jobs, benefits, standards of living, and thusly the real estate values of homes they kick people out of but which no one can buy....

This is *why* it's time for the government to spend, and on *productive* things that will employ people here and work for us later, instead of being all about profiteering off a degrading infrastructure and profit-based speculations until there *is* nothing to spend and all the piles of money the fatcats are sitting on turn out to be not worth the keystrokes they were typed with, and kaboom.

Especially if you *want* a functioning capitalist economy, now's the time.

Frankly, if you want a functioning capitalist economy, a few 'sacred cows' of the right have to go. Profiteering off basic health care, ... has to go. You can't build small business off of workers that might get knocked out of the workforce and default on your money at any time. 'Corporate personhood,' at least for multinationals, was a *bad Republican idea that is too technical for most conservatives to have realized the implications of at the time, never mind seeing how badly it's played out for 'the little guy' ever since. Something that was billed as 'helping small business and jobs' but basically gutted most towns in the nation in favor of big box stores and agribusiness...

We need to bring the *media* back to when it was respectable in the Seventies. That means 'equal time,' and public service, and more independently-owned affiliates, even if a company doesn't want to.

Capitalism can *work.* Can work *great,* ...but like any other system, *can be abused.* Can be taken away from Mom And Pop stores and the local factory and handed to Wal-Mart. That's why it needs to be regulated. That's what government is for. 'The General welfare.' Not just the biggest profits.

(tacking onto the little lecture

See, unrestrained capitalism has a way of ending up back where it started: with feudalism. If not warlordism. Control of wealth by a few, and serfs in debt-slavery or other bad circumstances trying to eke something out of farmed-out land.

Very good and eloquent argument. I'm in total agreement with you.

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 03:21 PM

Of course you are. Your both wrong of course.

Hey Gary can you correct the thread title? Please.
For Damn Brit

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Why change strategy now.

Mostly because I want to go home. That's all.

I might be back later at home. Then again maybe not. Depends if the person I really want to see is awake or not. Sucker came into my life in May. Can't wait to see. So why am I still here?

*Ratmagiclady* · 07-16-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Of course you are. Your both wrong of course.

But of course, you're 'above arguing about it.'

You said in a thread you lamented the closure of it that this political acrimony you spout 'makes people think?'

Your turn.

(edit) Ah. I see. Just trying to scroll all this off so you can go back to whatever it is that has you obsessed with blaming 'liberals' for what your own lot did most brazenly the past ten years. ...Now you want to blame an 'ObamaChrist' for the whole thing tanking before he was ever even in office.

*graphicgr8s* · 07-16-2009, 03:37 PM

Quick reply then I must go home. If there are no corporations where does the money come from? If there are no rich where does the money come from? The "rich" use the least amount of government services yet pay the most in taxes. What you really want is to level the playing field. You want everyone poor. Don't like the situation? Start a company and make money. Become rich off your own ability. Don't have any ability? Uneducated. Screwed around in school while I worked my a$$ off to get ahead? Can't read nor write? Tha's the "rich peoples" fault? How?

That's my fault? How? I worked to get everything I have. I worked hard to get it. Why should I give it away? No, let me rephrase that. Why should I have it taken away. If I give it away it is of my choosing. What they want to do is penalize me for working hard, for studying, for having an idea, and for being smart.

And I do give a lot away and no, I am in no way "rich", I am like most of you reading this. But what I have I work for. What I want I work for. No one gives me anything. I keep my job because I make my company money. Money to pay taxes and support the loafers, the lazy, and yes some of those with inpairment. And those I gladly support. Those who CAN'T do.

Ayn Rand was right.

**Damn Brit** · 07-16-2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Of course you are. Your both wrong of course.

Hey Gary can you correct the thread title? Please.
For Damn Brit

How many zeroes do you want me to take off?

Is this me going from zero to hero in one post?

**Damn Brit** · 07-16-2009, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

If there are no corporations where does the money come from? If there are no rich where does the money come from? The "rich" use the least amount of government services yet pay the most in taxes. What you really want is to level the playing field. You want everyone poor.

Are you kidding?
No bid contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes. The government and military work primarily for those corporations and rich people. They don't get government services, they get the government.

Not the same services that are used by us poor people, we're just like the dog, waiting for any scraps that are left over. Those scraps are the services we get from the government.

*Ratmagiclady* · 07-16-2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Quick reply then I must go home. If there are no corporations where does the money come from?

No one but you said this was about 'all or nothing.'

In fact, it should be the *corporations* asking where *their* 'money' comes from.

Cause the answer is... Us.

Who taught you to think it was all or nothing?

If there are no rich where does the money come from? The "rich" use the least amount of government services yet pay the most in taxes. What you really want is to level the playing field. You want everyone poor. Don't like the situation? Start a company and make money. Become rich off your own ability. Don't have any ability? Uneducated. Screwed around in school while I worked my a$$ off to get ahead? Can't read nor write? Tha's the "rich peoples" fault? How?

No, I don't 'want everyone poor.' Who said that standards of living can only be elevated for a *few,* by some Calvinistic notion that some deserve a government that provides them with a means to maintain *excess* in the name of a 'freedom' which others have no real hope of enjoying?

That's my fault? How? I worked to get everything I have. I worked hard to get it. Why should I give it away?

Who taught you that this was the equation?

Does this impression of yours meet with the facts? Or would you rather blame Obama for things done before his tenure?

Simpler, that way, I know, but not helpful.

In my life, I have worked hard for a lot of things I *didn't* get to keep.

Cause someone 'didn't approve.'
Didn't think I was 'worthy' or 'equal' or I guess 'market viable.'

Doesn't mean I didn't *work.*

Just means there was always someone who felt their privilege was 'under attack' thinking it was 'defending' something to take the part of the greedy and self-righteous.

No, let me rephrase that. Why should I have it taken away. If I give it away it is of my choosing. What they want to do is penalize me for working hard, for studying, for having an idea, and for being smart.

If you think you're smart, then *be* smart.

Pay attention to what actually happens.

And I do give a lot away and no, I am in no way "rich", I am like most of you reading this. But what I have I work for. What I want I work for. No one gives me anything. I keep my job because I make my company money. Money to pay taxes and support the loafers, the lazy, and yes some of those with inpairment. And those I gladly support. Those who CAN'T do.

Ayn Rand was right.

Ayn Rand couldn't hack being female, actually. Much of what she said comes from there.

I have 'impairment,' yes. Your version of 'capitalism' treats me as somehow a liability if I'm not well enough to work in *certain* ways, instead of having any room for what I *can* do.

Yes, I'm smart. Very. Smart. It would be immodest to cite my IQ.

I can hardly 'work my way up from the mail room' if I can't *walk* that much, though.

My Social Security enables me to do more with my life than trashpick. And it's something my *family* and all those who came before *paid for.* With real work, and real sweat, and in good faith, in the event something bad should befall one of their kids. Or you. Or one of *your* kids, should you find you aren't quite up to the Objectivist Social Darwinism you seem to want to favor. While whining.

Social. Security. That's what it's for.

Your idea of 'ruthless capitalism' may sound nice when you think you're strong, and worried how 'ripped off' you are by having to pay to keep those who don't win at your 'game' from coming to take your stuff.

Maybe it's *easier* for you. Find someone to blame when you couldn't be bothered to see it going wrong while you were being told what you wanted to hear.

But it was never real.

Meanwhile, much of humanity is *wasted* in your Calvinistic idea that profit is a sign of righteousness.

As a Native American elder once said to a representative of Europeans: 'You waste people.'

That's what's going on. Not too much social support, but not quite enough to really make good on it.

Capitalist games really don't need any particular degree of suffering among the lower classes to ...have those games. In fact, those games go better when there's more surplus among the people fto play for... and with.

Rand, and Calvin, would claim there's some virtue in keeping people hungry and barely-functional as an 'incentive' to 'better themselves,' ... when anyone should darn well know that you can't function well when hungry.

You, Graphich8s, seem to have a problem with any 'unworthies.' *taking anything from you.*

Have you ever looked at the people you *actually write your checks to?* Or do you just take their words for it?

I mean, really. Even if you were the greediest, most selfish-poor-hating conservative in the world, and it was all about keeping what you earned, you might look at the fact that every dollar you spend on social services is *five* you *don't* have to spend on law enforcement and imprisonment. And you don't even have to file an insurance claim.

Well, that is, if you aren't on the big business of privatized prisons, which somehow just seems to be something the government spends more and more on every year....

If you *value* what Ayn Rand may have had to say, welll, temper it with this: The *bad guys* love to cry 'No Rules!' when they think they're mighty, and 'No fair!' when they aren't 'winning big.'

little laker · 07-16-2009, 05:10 PM

A little off topic, and I wish that I would have taken down the info, however the other day on the news I had heard one Big bank has not only payed back their bailout loan. But also brought in a nice profit.

I really didn't think that any financial institute would pay you guys back.
It's nice to see one making the effort.