• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
^I'll add that during the process of crafting the ACA, the Democrats controlled both the whitehouse and both houses of congress. The democrats had an open window to pass the single payer option into the final bill, but they were split and it was defeated. Had the Democratic (I believe it was a "super", even") majority voted strongly in favor of the single payer option our current healthcare system would look quite different than it does now.

The same is applied to Wall Street regulation. Just a couple examples of how the Democrats are constantly getting in their own way even if the Republicans aren't.

We can blame red state Democrats for failing us with single payer. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) comes to mind as an example. They were so concerned about not supporting the public option in an appeal to their conservative constituencies and yet they still lost. We would have been much better off had they voted their consciences.
 
An article from MarketWatch that was written in 2012? Totally an unbiased, credible and relevant source of information.
One year later...

How bad must our debt situation really be if in order to rationalize it you have to post an article that compare's a PRIVATE debt trend from 2009 through 2012 to a debt trend that took place right after a major World War? World War II to be precise, the most expensive war in US history.


Relevant articles:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/60-trillion-of-world-debt-in-one-visualization/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...its-new-record-high-nearly-60-trillion-dollar
https://www.rt.com/usa/166352-us-total-debt-sixty-trillion/

publicly held debt =/= privately held debt. I don't really know how to explain this in more basic language?

I was answering your comment on national debt growth rate, which has indeed been slowing compared to decades passed. Find me a publication that says otherwise. Private debt on the other hand, is exploding, thanks to student debt, which has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in history. It's a bit unfair to go back and change your original argument from national debt to privately held debt. Unless you don't know what "national debt" means, then I'll give you a pass.
 
publicly held debt =/= privately held debt. I don't really know how to explain this in more basic language?

I was answering your comment on national debt growth rate, which has indeed been slowing compared to decades passed. Find me a publication that says otherwise. Private debt on the other hand, is exploding, thanks to student debt, which has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in history. It's a bit unfair to go back and change your original argument from national debt to privately held debt. Unless you don't know what "national debt" means, then I'll give you a pass.

LOL, The irony.

You're obviously a laymen when it comes to Economics. You're the one who replied to me with an article about a private debt trend that took place after the recession. Did you even read the article you first posted or did you just read the title? Which was very misleading by the way.

Private does not equal public debt, 2 very distinct forms of debt by the way. That was a cute reply though. You get one gold star for trying.
 
heh

The article draws the distinction between privately held debt (which you referred to as national debt) and how it is on the rise vs publicly held debt, debt that is owned by the state and federal governments.

Again, show me any piece of information that shows the rate of growth of national debt growing faster than even ten years ago.



publicly held debt =/= privately held debt. I don't really know how to explain this in more basic language?

Private does not equal public debt, 2 very distinct forms of debt by the way.

Yes, you're welcome for that explanation ;)
 
heh

The article draws the distinction between privately held debt (which you referred to as national debt) and how it is on the rise vs publicly held debt, debt that is owned by the state and federal governments.

Again, show me any piece of information that shows the rate of growth of national debt growing faster than even ten years ago.







Yes, you're welcome for that explanation ;)

heh
(which you referred to as national debt)
I did NO SUCH THING. Now you're just making shit up.

I made a comment about our out of control debt, that's it period. I said nothing about rate of growth nor did I go into the finer economic details, e.g making the distinction between private and public debt.

You then responded, (only because you thought I was "insulting" Obama, which I did, but not in the way you think, I wasn't it implying that it was all his fault or anything like that, just that he played a key role) with an article from 2012 that compares a private debt trend that occurred between the periods of 2009 and 2012 to a debt trend that took place after World War 2. The article stated that the economy was "deleveraging". The reason why, private debt fell between those years because we were hit by a recession and it was trendy to cut up credit cards. Public debt between those years stayed relatively the same if not increased. I then responded to this article with an article from 2013. This article shed light on the whole "deleveraging period" and how it was short and sweet and gone.

At what point did I ever refer to private debt as national debt? It was YOU who made that suggestion, not me.

Then you responded to me with another article from Forbes that said "don't worry, our debt rate right now only ranks third on the list fo our worst debt disasters, second to before we went into a recession".

Also, what the hell does "how fast the debt level is rising" have to do with anything? When did I ever mention or state that the debt level is rising faster than ever before? Never.

That is something YOU brought into the conversation not me.

By the way, the only thing that really matters is that our debt level is at RECORD highs, the likes of which no country in the history of the world has ever seen. Period.
 
You want to lower the debt. Defund quite a few projects for the military we do not need. Second stop the war on drugs, and release incarcerated peoples that could be working. Also, we should close at least a few of the tax loopholes and finally say that corporations are not people. They are corporations. Its not like your inviting a corporation to your block party. We should heavily tax any transfer of private income/capital gains that is wired to a tax haven. Lastly, instead of paying farmers subsidies not to grow crops we should have them grow them, pay them for the crops and ship them worldwide. Also NO MORE WRITING OFF DONATIONS! You do it out of a philanthropic ideal, not to get a tax incentive.

Thats it bardeaux....you are running for president, I am going to be your vice president. We are going to run on the platform that the US will no longer be the worlds police, and we are going to stop spending so much money on the military...We don't care how much armaments lobbyists(bribers) pay us. We cannot be bought! Secondly we will stop spending so much money on the failed drug war and place the money we save in rehabilitation for people that want it. White collar crime will be treated as treason to the american people, and punishable the same way having a small amount of marijuana in your car is punished; civil asset forfeiture (but on a grand scale)....and taco night will now no longer be on tuesday, but will be moved up to wednesday so to not have beef two nights in row, as monday is meatloaf night.
 
Last edited:
You want to lower the debt. Defund quite a few projects for the military we do not need. Second stop the war on drugs, and release incarcerated peoples that could be working. Also, we should close at least a few of the tax loopholes and finally say that corporations are not people. They are corporations. Its not like your inviting a corporation to your block party. We should heavily tax any transfer of private income/capital gains that is wired to a tax haven. Lastly, instead of paying farmers subsidies not to grow crops we should have them grow them, pay them for the crops and ship them worldwide. Also NO MORE WRITING OFF DONATIONS! You do it out of a philanthropic ideal, not to get a tax incentive.
.
Yes yes and yes. But talk is just that talk, the likelihood of these things happening in a timely and efficient manner are well, you know.
 
I did NO SUCH THING. Now you're just making shit up.

It's there for everyone to read man, I don't know you're arguing otherwise instead of acknowledging making a mistake.

And don't even get me started on Mr. "Hope and drone strike" Obuma. Where to begin, lies, lies, more lies, Tpp, NSA, Nearly Doubled the national debt(a whopping 10 trillion dollars

^I didn't make this up.

A response that the national debt growth is slowing is a perfectly valid response. Instead of insulting my intelligence, take a look at what you've written and then read it over.

I made a comment about our out of control debt, that's it period. I said nothing about rate of growth nor did I go into the finer economic details, e.g making the distinction between private and public debt.

You did, by using the word national debt. Again, correcting this was entirely valid. Call me a layman, call me an economic dunce, but I know the difference between national debt and personal debt. Something I can't quite get across here. National debt = publicly held debt by a nation-state. A macro-econ 101 course isn't going to make this point any simpler.

I made a comment about our out of control debt, that's it period. I said nothing about rate of growth nor did I go into the finer economic details, e.g making the distinction between private and public debt.

Nope, I did.

You then responded, (only because you thought I was "insulting" Obama, which I did, but not in the way you think, I wasn't it implying that it was all his fault or anything like that, just that he played a key role)

I don't care either way, tbh.

At what point did I ever refer to private debt as national debt? It was YOU who made that suggestion, not me.

I'm not going to repeat myself within the same post.

Also, what the hell does "how fast the debt level is rising" have to do with anything? When did I ever mention or state that the debt level is rising faster than ever before? Never.

It has to do with your condemnation of how the "national debt has doubled". That is what started this, and why I drew the distinction between federal and personal debt. Do his credit, Obama hasn't raised the debt ratio as quickly as his predecessor, for example. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how slowing the rate of national debt accumulation is a bad thing?

That is something YOU brought into the conversation not me.

indeed.

By the way, the only thing that really matters is that our debt level is at RECORD highs, the likes of which no country in the history of the world has ever seen. Period.

In terms of the sheer size of our aggregate numbers, sure. But not in terms of debt to GDP, there are many countries who have it far worse than we do. We've even seen it much worse in our own country.
 
Last edited:
It's there for everyone to read man, I don't know you're arguing otherwise instead of acknowledging making a mistake.



^I didn't make this up.

A response that the national debt growth is slowing is a perfectly valid response. Instead of insulting my intelligence, take a look at what you've written and then read it over.



You did, by using the word national debt. Again, correcting this was entirely valid. Call me a layman, call me an economic dunce, but I know the difference between national debt and personal debt. Something I can't quite get across here. National debt = publicly held debt by a nation-state. A macro-econ 101 course isn't going to make this point any simpler.



Nope, I did.



I don't care either way, tbh.



I'm not going to repeat myself within the same post.



It has to do with your condemnation of how the "national debt has doubled". That is what started this, and why I drew the distinction between federal and personal debt. Do his credit, Obama hasn't raised the debt ratio as quickly as his predecessor, for example. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how slowing the rate of national debt accumulation is a bad thing?



indeed.



In terms of the sheer size of our aggregate numbers, sure. But not in terms of debt to GDP, there are many countries who have it far worse than we do. We've even seen it much worse in our own country.

This is cute, LOL. DO you take lessons from Eric Cartman? Even though you know my words and what REALLY happened is right here for everyone to read and see for themselves. YOU STILL won't admit that you are the one in the wrong. You even go to the lengths of bending my words trying to make connections that just don't fit.

If you would Please go re-read that article That YOU first posted, the article that talks about the deleveraging period of private debt, and then read the article that I replied with, ONE year later..., And please read them thoroughly and try to understand them. Both of those articles are about PRIVATE DEBT. Something YOU BROUGHT INTO THE CONVERSATION. NOT ME.



EDit:

Also, I wanted to address something really quick. Right now, we have so MUCH debt it is literally coming out of our asses, are you seriously telling me your only concern is how fast it's coming out? Shouldn't the concern be that we have debt coming out of our asses in the first place? LOL That's a hell of a way to look at the glass half full Bardeaux


Here's a video I just stumbled across on Youtube, again the only reason why I'm posting this is because of YOU, I'm not some Obama hater, you goaded me into posting this.
 
Last edited:
You're turning a mole hill into mount fucking everest.

  • Obama didn't create the public debt, in fact he slowed it's growth.
  • Private debt isn't the same as public debt. I brought private debt into the conversation (with article A) because you were convoluting it with national (ie- state) debt. Which was incorrect.


That is all. Get over it, you were wrong. Remove the word "national" and replace it with "aggregate" in your sentence and you would have been more correct.

Instead of ad homs and strawmen you could try engaging my points with a counter points. Thats how debate works. If you want to play these stupid games I'm not interested.
 
Last edited:
Remove the word "national" and replace it with "aggregate" in your sentence and you would have been more correct.

.

LOL

Tell that to Mr. Obama.


I was quoting him after all. Wow I totally get what got lost in translation now. Then again maybe not. I'm still not sure you know what National debt means.
 
Donald Trump is the only candidate that is not a treasonous vehicle for the diabolical plans of world bankers and other elites.

If Trump is not elected they will put their plots of global enslavent into the final stages. Everyone but the elites will live under martial law in prison like communist mega slums while they play golf and worship satan in the countryside.

Everyone will in the end be hunted down for microchip inplants. Refuse, this gives you soul to the devil.

Jesus Christ will return soon on the day of wreckoning.

In the meantime,
Make America Great Again
 
he wants to round up certain u.s. citizens and make them wear badges. i do not recall which part of the u.s. constitution says that's ok?

It's worse than that. He wants to keep them out of the country all together. So what does everyone think will be the effect of his latest logomania? Do you think the party will find a way to force him out of the race and run as an independent? Or if he does end up being the nominee how do you think he will fare against Hillary? (I'm voting for Bernie in the primary but we all know it's going to be Hillary)
 
Donald Trump is the only candidate that is not a treasonous vehicle for the diabolical plans of world bankers and other elites.

If Trump is not elected they will put their plots of global enslavent into the final stages. Everyone but the elites will live under martial law in prison like communist mega slums while they play golf and worship satan in the countryside.

Everyone will in the end be hunted down for microchip inplants. Refuse, this gives you soul to the devil.

Jesus Christ will return soon on the day of wreckoning.

In the meantime,
Make America Great Again

I see you continue to be the perfect example of Americus Neanderthalensis. Nothing new here. Good luck with that and the "wreckoning" (sic).

(I'm voting for Bernie in the primary but we all know it's going to be Hillary)

No more of that defeatist talk. Bernie will be POTUS. The same surge that put Obama in office in '08 will assert itself in force, and this time, it's the real deal, not a fake-liberal-really-moderate-establishment-puppet.

Edit: Don't make the mistake of thinking the republicans stand any chance. They don't. Their supporters are a vast minority when the entire American population is taken into account. The problem is that they are over-represented in the media and their supporters are loud and provocative, making them appear viable. They are not. On the republican side, Jeb will get the republican nomination via voter fraud abetted by the establishment (just like his broseph), but will lose the main fight. Because BERNIE. Mark my words.
 
Last edited:
publicly held debt =/= privately held debt. I don't really know how to explain this in more basic language?

I was answering your comment on national debt growth rate, which has indeed been slowing compared to decades passed. Find me a publication that says otherwise. Private debt on the other hand, is exploding, thanks to student debt, which has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in history. It's a bit unfair to go back and change your original argument from national debt to privately held debt. Unless you don't know what "national debt" means, then I'll give you a pass.

That article doesn't say that debt is slowing compared to previous decades, only that it is slowing relative to the period 2008-13, which was the third fastest expansion in recent history. Also, the previous article you posted is I think what is causing the confusion between national debt and private debt. Here's the relevant bit from that article:

In fact, since the recession ended in June 2009, total U.S. debt has risen at the slowest pace since they began keeping records in the early 1950s. While Washington has taken on a lot of debt since then, the private sector has paid off, written off or dumped on the government almost as much.

I think it's clear G&L's original post was about the federal deficit, not private debt (considering that he called it national debt and was talking about Obama). The article you posted was attempting to mitigate the large increase in federal debt by showing that other types of debt had decreased to offset the overall debt of the nation:

In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt has risen to 89% from 56%.

That said, I don't think a focus on reducing the deficit is a good idea. The better idea is to focus on the economy and let the rate of debt to GDP to decline over time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top