patrick.net

Debt will always be more than it has been historically.

epitaph says

Debt will always be more than it has been historically.

Not true from 1776 to 1912

indigenous says

Germany was ended by debt/inflation following WW1 and going into WW2.

Funny, I thought there was still a country in Europe named Germany.

indigenous says

What the liberal mutts fail to understand is that debt continues in perpetuity.

It WILL be the demise of this country.

Liberals want to turn the US into the next Greece. And when that happens, they will still blame Bush and demand even still higher tax rates to support their deadbeat clientele.

bob2356 says

What the heck happened in 1981?

We started importing many more things that we used to make ourselves. It's pretty much been all downhill since then.

indigenous says

What the liberal mutts fail to understand is that debt continues in perpetuity.

How to eliminate our national debt

We liberals aren't the reason the national debt is out of control.

epitaph says

Debt will always be more than it has been historically.

Unless you adopt "liberal mutt" plans like the one above.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Germany was ended by debt/inflation following WW1 and going into WW2.

Funny, I thought there was still a country in Europe named Germany.

So you mean the land is still there? The policies are not the same, they have not been in a war for quite some time...

indigenous says

So you mean the land is still there? The policies are not the same, they have not been in a war for quite some time...

No, I mean there is a country called Germany. Same as there was before WWI. How exactly did it "end"?

zzyzzx says

ndigenous says

What the liberal mutts fail to understand is that debt continues in perpetuity.

It WILL be the demise of this country.

Liberals want to turn the US into the next Greece. And when that happens, they will still blame Bush and demand even still higher tax rates to support their deadbeat clientele

We have a 100 trillion in debt if you include unfunded liabilities.

There is NO WAY we are going to repay that.

The progressives are just making noise that the conservatives then use as a feedback loop.

I was reading an article about the fall of Rome. The trouble was in their 3rd century of existence and it was caused by war that then caused inflation to the point of prices going up 1000%. When the invadors came into the country the Romans (the ones who were still there) regarded them as liberators. In that century 1 out of 26 emperors died of natural causes.

It is like deja vu all over again...

indigenous says

We have a 100 trillion in debt if you include unfunded liabilities.

An unfunded liability is NOT debt. It's not debt until the expense has been incurred.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

What the liberal mutts fail to understand is that debt continues in perpetuity.

How to eliminate our national debt

We liberals aren't the reason the national debt is out of control.

Yes but wars theoretically are not permanent. Not that I'm a Republican.

You forget the magic of compounded interest brought to us by FDR, LBJ, and now Obama. That has more to do with the debt than the wars.

indigenous says

You forget the magic of compounded interest brought to us by FDR, LBJ, and now Obama. That has more to do with the debt than the wars.

You live in an alternate universe. Take a look at who is responsible for the debt again.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

You forget the magic of compounded interest brought to us by FDR, LBJ, and now Obama. That has more to do with the debt than the wars.

You live in an alternate universe. Take a look at who is responsible for the debt again.

Tat

Putting this as kindly as I can, you don't know that you don't know. You are unaware of when, where, context, or what

FortWayne says

If you watch the news even badly lately, you'll notice a pattern. Liberals
are more concerned about gays in Russia, than about economy, well being, or
stability of an American economy.

If you watch the FOX news, yeah.

What a dumb premise; I'm surprised this thread got any action.

FortWayne says

If you watch the news even badly lately, you'll notice a pattern. Liberals are more concerned about gays in Russia, than about economy, well being, or stability of an American economy.

We've had this conversation before but I guess we're going to have it again.

The US and its constitution were created so that all people, no matter what their religion, race, sex, or sexual orientation- basically ALL of us as Americans- are entitled to the same basic human rights. Any idea or notion that these rights don't apply to all is not only UN-patriotic, but contrary to the US constitution, who's rights my relatives in multiple wars fought to maintain and honor. Enough of the nonsense.

zzyzzx says

Both of my cars are made in Michigan, one in Lansing, and one in Wayne. Were were your cars made? Clinton Signed NAFTA. No one political party is to blame for our crappy free trade agreements. Even you know that.

We now live in a global economy and most any car you drive today is made out of a combination of global components. Ironically we now export MORE Japanese cars, made right here in the US, than we import from Japan. We also export engines, transmissions, and other automotive components not only to Japan, but to Germany, the UK, and other various countries whom have their own automotive industries. My Dad's Toyota truck is a total of 89% domestically produced content and the last time I checked, Toyota Tundras were either the single "Most American" made trucks or close to the top of that list.

As of now not only do we produce cars and trucks for the Big Three, but also for BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, VW, Lexus... I think that just about covers it. So the bottom line... we produce a LOT of cars and a far greater variety of them than ever before, mainly because we are considered the most efficient and cost-effective manufacturing country in the world.

edvard2 says

We've had this conversation before but I guess we're going to have it again.

The US and its constitution were created so that all people, no matter what their religion, race, sex, or sexual orientation- basically ALL of us as Americans- are entitled to the same basic human rights. Any idea or notion that these rights don't apply to all is not only UN-patriotic, but contrary to the US constitution, who's rights my relatives in multiple wars fought to maintain and honor. Enough of the nonsense.

Preferential treatment is not equal treatment.

edvard2 says

We now live in a global economy and most any car you drive today is made out of a combination of global components. Ironically we now export MORE Japanese cars, made right here in the US, than we import from Japan

I want statistics on this. I mean, there is no such thing as a Lexus, Scion, or Mazda that is currently Made in USA. Our tiny exports don't make up for that.

zzyzzx says

Preferential treatment is not equal treatment.

Who said a damned thing about preferential treatment? Way to take something ridiculously out of context.

zzyzzx says

I want statistics on this. I mean, there is no such thing as a Lexus, Scion, or Mazda that is currently Made in USA. Our tiny exports don't make up for that.

Lexus ( Toyota motor Corp) will start producing sedans in their Kentucky plant next year. Mazda only recently pulled production from the US, but what was mainly due to their relationship with Ford and how that Ford decided to cut them loose. Scion is another Toyota brand that as you correctly pointed out isn't made in the US. It also wasn't a brand I mentioned above.

As of this writing, the Top 10 Most American-made cars in the US ( in terms of actual domestically produced content are:

10: Toyota Sienna: 75%
9: Toyota Camry: 75% ( also the best-selling car in the US)
8: Ford F-150: 75%
7: Dodge Avenger: 75%
6: Honda Crosstour: 75%
5: Honda Oddessy: 75%
4: Chevy Traverse: 77%
3: Toyota Avalob: 80%
2: Chevy Express Van: 80%
1: Ford Expedition: 80%
Source: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11968700/11/10-most-american-made-cars-of-2013.html

As seen, almost half of that list was comprised surprisingly of Japanese automakers

sbh says

The only avenue of authentic discontent is in affirmative action, and I'm sympathetic on that one, but when it comes to extending marriage rights to gay people, conservatives are just trying to find something to cry about. It's really gutless.

I agree. What's more, I find these debates that come on this and other sites to be pretty sad. Sad that we are actually having a debate about what should be very obvious and clear cut. We are talking about basic rights for a cross segment of the US population. There's very few times in a debate where there is truly only one correct answer and this happens to be one of those times.

indigenous says

Yes but wars theoretically are not permanent. Not that I'm a Republican.

You forget the magic of compounded interest brought to us by FDR, LBJ, and now Obama. That has more to do with the debt than the wars.

Unfortunately, war in the U.S. for the past 70 years has been permanent by design. The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about creates instability and war and harms U.S. security interest in order to guarantee permanent and increasing revenue streams to the war profiteering industry.

Debt is the result of not being able to pay for all these wars and their aftermath. The cost of a war does not stop with the last bullet fired. It stops no sooner than when the last veteran dies of old age. The health care costs for those veterans tend to hit maximum about fifty years after the war ends. To put that in perspective, most of the health care costs for the Vietnam War are just now being realized.

As for the "magic" of compound interest, that is taken into account by my plan. Paying off debt early is the best way to minimize its cost.

Finally, imagine how much better the entire world's economy would be if the wealth wasted in destructive enterprises like war had instead been channeled into productive enterprises like infrastructure, science, and technology. We'd have pollution-free factories, hotels on the moon, and personal maglift vehicles already.

sbh says

you just claim that their inclusion robs you of something, when absolutely nothing in your world is altered except the way you feel about it

Minority Quotas rob some people of something.

edvard2 says

As of this writing, the Top 10 Most American-made cars in the US ( in terms of actual domestically produced content are:

10: Toyota Sienna: 75%

9: Toyota Camry: 75% ( also the best-selling car in the US)

8: Ford F-150: 75%

7: Dodge Avenger: 75%

6: Honda Crosstour: 75%

5: Honda Oddessy: 75%

4: Chevy Traverse: 77%

3: Toyota Avalob: 80%

2: Chevy Express Van: 80%

1: Ford Expedition: 80%

Source: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11968700/11/10-most-american-made-cars-of-2013.html

As seen, almost half of that list was comprised surprisingly of Japanese automakers

How many of these are exported and in what quantities, and how does that compare to Japanese imports to the US? You never answered that since, presumably even you know that we import way more from Japan then we export (to anyone).

Dan8267 says

As for the "magic" of compound interest, that is taken into account by my plan. Paying off debt early is the best way to minimize its cost.

where is that?

Dan8267 says

Finally, imagine how much better the entire world's economy would be if the wealth wasted in destructive enterprises like war had instead been channeled into productive enterprises like infrastructure, science, and technology. We'd have pollution-free factories, hotels on the moon, and personal maglift vehicles already.

Agreed

except it is handy when threatened in WW2 (not that that was not contrived)

Last night on 60 minutes one of the war mongers was selling us on how much we needed the x-35 because the Russians and Chinese had something similar, which is quite cogent, not sure what the disposition should be.

Automan Empire says

FortWayne says

If you watch the news even badly lately, you'll notice a pattern. Liberals

are more concerned about gays in Russia, than about economy, well being, or

stability of an American economy.

If you watch the FOX news, yeah.

What a dumb premise; I'm surprised this thread got any action.

No, that's not Fox. That's National Barack Channel (NBC) and ABC (American Barack Channel).

Liberals are too busy distracting us all with gays in Russia and fictitious wars on women. They like to look past the problems at home, and just complain about made up problems elsewhere.

sbh says

Yeah, but that's a distinction that can never be resolved if you just want to
deny rights to other people: you just claim that their inclusion robs you of
something, when absolutely nothing in your world is altered except the way you
feel about it.

What is robbed is the liberal desire to divorce marriage from child procreation and increase dependency on government with single parent homes. The ONLY reason the State is involved in the marriage business in the first place is to help support family formation to raise the next generation of humanity and tax payers to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlements.

And got to laugh how you accuse Conservatives of being "obssessed" with gay marriage when all they are trying to do is push back against the 24/7 cultural and political pressure to expand marriage to a tiny percentage of our population who is gay, and a smaller percentage of gay couples who even want monogamous marriage, and even smaller percentage who want to adopt or try some sort of surrogate child creation.

The State should have no interest in any person's individual sexual choices unless we are talking about bringing children into the mix. And if the State is given an equal choice between a hetero and gay couple to adopt a child - I think it is a total no-brainer that the State should favor the hetero couple if all things are equal.

Just wait until the gay adovocates and Democrats starts arguing that the State (or private adoption agencies) shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay adoptive couples.

href="http://patrick.net/?p=1238457&c=1053411#comment-1053411">zzyzzx says

How many of these are exported and in what quantities, and how does that compare to Japanese imports to the US? You never answered that since, presumably even you know that we import way more from Japan then we export (to anyone).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2014/01/28/honda-exports/4956205/
There you go. That's just Honda alone and represents over 100,000 cars in one year.

Here's another link: Our exports in terms of Japanese branded cars has almost doubled in a very short time period: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/detroits-rivals-using-america-base-car-exports-f8C11266338

zzyzzx says

Minority Quotas rob some people of something.

You are seriously still trying to argue about this? FortWayne says

Liberals are too busy distracting us all with gays in Russia and fictitious wars on women. They like to look past the problems at home, and just complain about made up problems elsewhere.

WTF are you talking about.... "Made-up" problems? When one group of the population is denied the same rights as everyone else then that isn't a "Made up problem".

Let me ask you a very direct and basic question: Do you believe in the US Constitution and what it stands for?

Oh- and now I see that those who are arguing about this are trying to suggest that since the population in question is small that somehow this is less important? WEAK.

FortWayne says

No, that's not Fox. That's National Barack Channel (NBC) and ABC (American
Barack Channel).

Liberals are too busy distracting us all with gays in Russia and fictitious
wars on women.

Excuse me, but NBC and ABC do NOT say that "Liberals only care about gay marriage. Now back to you, Richard Simmons at the county recorder's office." As for the "war on Christmas," there is no example of liberals pushing for this, but just look at the comments in any article about Sandra Fluke if you want to see the Republican War against Women.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the "magic" of compound interest, that is taken into account by my plan. Paying off debt early is the best way to minimize its cost.

where is that?

Dan8267 says

we would eliminate the debt by 2072

Check the spreadsheet. It includes interest on the debt based on empirical data.

Automan Empire says

FortWayne says

No, that's not Fox. That's National Barack Channel (NBC) and ABC (American
Barack Channel).

Liberals are too busy distracting us all with gays in Russia and fictitious
wars on women.

Excuse me, but NBC and ABC do NOT say that "Liberals only care about gay marriage. Now back to you, Richard Simmons at the county recorder's office." As for the "war on Christmas," there is no example of liberals pushing for this, but just look at the comments in any article about Sandra Fluke if you want to see the Republican War against Women.

97% of alimony goes from men to women. 80% of custody of children goes to women and people are forced to pay-undert threat of jail-upto 50k a month in child support-with absolutely no say in how the children are raised and how the money is spent. A man saying he doesn't want to pay for birth control is now considered war on women. When was there a war on women?? Where is the planned parenthood equivalent for poor men??

lostand confused says

A man saying he doesn't want to pay for birth control is now considered war on
women. When was there a war on women?? Where si the planned parenthood
equivalent for poor men??

If a person dares to disagree with Liberal policy prescriptions, we are "waging war" on people and want to see people suffer and die..........to protect our profits.

Not an ounce of nuance or complex thinking with Liberals. There are only liberal solutions, everything else is raaacist or evil war mongering.

It doesn't matter if we all want largely the same goals, the fact that Conservatives believe there are different and better ways to get to the same goals is total heresy (or completely alien) with the group-think zombies on the Liberal plantation.

So folks like Dan and the other Libs on this forum REALLY BELIEVE in the very worst in Conservative motives and it becomes impossible to have a remotely intelligent exchange of ideas to solve common problems.

This isn't an issue about conservatives and liberals. Gay rights are not a liberal or conservative issue. Its a constitutional rights issue. That's it. That somehow this particular thing got politicized is beyond my understanding because there's few things that are as absolutely cut and dry as this is: As I previously mentioned the rights defined and outlined by our constitution is where the conversation revolves around and in that case there's the answer: US citizens of all backgrounds are entitled to the same status and rights. That's it. If anyone disagrees with this then they should really think about what that means and what our country was founded upon.

sbh says

The only robbery is done to your ability to deny gay people the right to sit
beside you on the bus. The rest is merely question begging and religious
intolerance. As to child procreation, both my wife and I are atheists and
childless by choice our entire lives as individuals and as a LEGAL married
couple.

First - I don't want anyone to sit on the back of the bus. You are just making shit up. I don't care at all what consenting adults do to each other if they are not harming anyone else. I think monogamy is good for all socieities as it keeps the sex ratio in balance and keeps social harmony where we don't have one sex outnumbered competing for a dwindling number of suiters like we see in violent tribal and polygamous cultures. Therefore I am all for the State to help foster monogamy in the gay community with Civil Unions to help pool their finances and protect inheritances etc.

I think marriage is different as it is primarily about the propogation of the species. There are no absolutes in life and I am sure you will provide plenty of anecdotes, but over 80% of US marriages procreate. Now what percentage of gay marriages procreate?

The ONLY reason the State is involved in the marriage business is to help support families to raise children to become future tax payers and not be a burden on our society.

Regarding gay adoption or examples of gays raising children. I have never said that I am worried that gay men will turn into pedophiles and rape their children. You are just making shit up again or confusing me for someone else. I am worried that children will be robbed of the two distinct types of biological/psychological nurturing found in the different sexes. My wife can provide my daughter emotional support and guidance based on my wife's life experiences and biology that I can't as easily. Whereas I can provide my son with support that my wife has no experience, ability or desire.

This is a big deal unless you are now going to say with all of your experience raising children that there are no inate gender difference.

I am also worried that we will continue to see a skyrocketing increase in the out of wedlock birthrate (and guaranteed poverty) in hetero couples as our culture and laws continues to divorce marriage from child creation.

edvard2 says

http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2014/01/28/honda-exports/4956205/

There you go. That's just Honda alone and represents over 100,000 cars in one year.

Here's another link: Our exports in terms of Japanese branded cars has almost doubled in a very short time period: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/detroits-rivals-using-america-base-car-exports-f8C11266338

I was able to find info on exports that are a bit more definitive:
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-car-exports-reach-record-high-73947.html

Last year’s exports numbered about 1.8 million cars and trucks and brought back $132.7 billion. Most exports go to Mexico and Canada (about 49 percent), while one in nine vehicles exported from the United States go to China, where the market has expanded nearly six times compared to 2009.

“The growing number of exports has everything to do with plant retooling and this new product onslaught, with an eye toward meeting global demand,” Mike Jackson, manager at IHS Automotive, told Detroit News.

Recent export growth is expected to drop, however, as US automakers continue to build assembly plants in Asia and South America.

http://trade.gov/wcm/groups/internet/@trade/@mas/@man/@aai/documents/web_content/auto_stats_mv_qfacts_pdf.pdf
Shows 23% (or 2.7 Million) being imports, but that does not include imports from Canada and Mexico. I have not found those statistics yet, but exports to Mexico are tiny, when compared to our imports. Exports to Canada also lag imports. I am still looking for exact numbers, but I bet they are substantial (in the millions).

zzyzzx says

I was able to find info on exports that are a bit more definitive:

Thank you for further reinforcing what I just said above.socal2 says

I think marriage is different as it is primarily about the propogation of the species.

That's a really narrow definition. There's actually very few people I know who got married distinctly just to have babies. There's wayyyy more to it then that. Like love, companionship, and many others. We are like many Americans in that we chose not to have children either. Yet we pay our taxes, work at jobs, buy things, and pretty much everything else that comes with being an American citizen. So if you take our example, we aren't any different from any other couple- gay or straight- when it comes to what our marriage has to do with this country.

edvard2 says

That's a really narrow definition. There's actually very few people I know
who got married distinctly just to have babies. There's wayyyy more to it then
that. Like love, companionship, and many others. We are like many Americans in
that we chose not to have children either. Yet we pay our taxes, work at jobs,
buy things, and pretty much everything else that comes with being an American
citizen. So if you take our example, we aren't any different from any other
couple- gay or straight- when it comes to what our marriage has to do with this
country.

Again - the vast majority of marriages in the US result in procreation.

Just because a small percentage of hetero couples can't/don't procreate and an even smaller percentage of gay couples can't procreate - doesn't mean we need to change the entire definition or meaning of marriage.

I'm sure you and your spouse feel like you are doing some heavy lifting paying taxes for services you won't use (schools etc for children). But we have no future as a country or group of people if there is no future citizens to contribute to our economy and pay taxes. Why does anyone need the government to "certify" 2 person's love for each other or living arrangements if there are no children involved where finances may need to be split up to support the children in the event of divorce?

Raising kids is hard and nearly impossible to do with just one parent who needs to earn all of the income in addition to raising the children. So it is a no brainer that most cultures recognized long before America was founded that a two parent family is ideal and that the State should offer some financial incentives to support family formation instead of dumping children on welfare or orphanages.

edvard2 says

Thank you for further reinforcing what I just said above

No I showed how imports from only 3 countries, exceed all of the exports from the USA. if you add in Canadian and Mexican imported cars to the US, it's probably more like 2-3 imported cars for every one ex export.

socal2 says

Again - the vast majority of marriages in the US result in procreation.

Just because a small percentage of hetero couples can't/don't procreate and an even smaller percentage of gay couples can't procreate - doesn't mean we need to change the entire definition or meaning of marriage.

And there is the entire problem with this side of the argument- that there is/was a set definition of marriage and that its based all on one thing: Procreation. That's a total bunch of crap. Plain and simple. NONE of that matters. Its nobody's business what goes on in any family or their marriage and its equally ridiculous to suggest that all marriages are based on one highly idealized definition. Like I said before, this is a very simple, cut and dry debate, or actually not even a debate.

But since this seems to be going down that silly "definitions" tangent, how about using some defined areas that actually have real facts attached versus a bunch of hooey? I will mention this one more time because so far NONE of those on the right have answered my assertion: This is about constitutional guarantees instilled within that document, and the rights it provides to all Americans. THATS IT.zzyzzx says

No I showed how imports from only 3 countries, exceed all of the exports from the USA. if you add in Canadian and Mexican imported cars to the US, it's probably more like 2-3 imported cars for every one ex export.

I suggest going back and re-reading my previous statement. My statement originated with the fact that we're actually exporting more Japanese cars than we import. You're making it a more generalized statement from ALL imports.

edvard2 says

Procreation. That's a total bunch of crap. Plain and simple. NONE of that
matters. Its nobody's business what goes on in any family or their marriage and
its equally ridiculous to suggest

Hey - I totally agree it is nobody's business what 2 (even 3, 4 or 5) adults want to do sexually in their private lives or if these folks want to legally pool their wealth to support each other. It only matters to our government (and our society) if these adults bring new humans into this world (via procreation) that could either be a burden or a benefit to our society in terms of being a contributor or drain to our entitlement systems.

That's why "marriage" is different than other non-procreative relationships as the majority hetero marriages are responsible for creating and raising the next generation of humanity which is absolutely vital to the continuation of our nation. There is also ample research that suggest monogamous 2 parent hetero relationships are the best at raising productive and balanced children.

I don't want to discriminate against gay, polygamous, polyamorous people who aren't hurting anyone. But there is simply no "constitutional right" that the government has to formally accept or sanction a person's sexual or co-habitation preferences.

socal2 says

But there is simply no "constitutional right" that the government has to formally accept or sanction a person's sexual or co-habitation preferences.

yes there is. 14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause.

Not allowing Gays and Lesbians to have the same rights and status as everyone else is wrong. Any and all suggestions or assertions otherwise is incorrect and out of alignment with the Constitution.

Anything else?