SmoothedShredder Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Well, roads and shit. Literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 SmoothedShredder! Good to see ya mate .. and in your SmoothedShredder alter-ego no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 But there is no need for the government to have to pay back interest on money used for infrastructure. That is ludicrous! That should have come directly from our taxes, not borrowed from private interests! Now we pay back annually the amount initially received over a century of borrowing on compound interest! Seems like a pretty rotten deal to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 I was reading an article which stated that the governments that had the least amount of debt were those which had the larger annual growth in GDP. Furthermore the article stated that those countries with this growth in GDP had the lowest governmental budget as compared to GDP. Ireland was the country that topped the list in growth in GDP, cutting of government spending equaling LOWEST overall debt v. GDP. I'll try and find the link (it was a couple of weeks past) in the near future. Idea seemed easy enough to understand and not such a stretch to be real enough in terms of economics. FOWL I was in your camp for a long time but the easy answer seems that we are in debt because we spend more than we make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 Well obviously there are a number of interlocking factors which determine debt, but it can't be denied having currency we have to pay back with interest is completely illogical and ultimately makes no sense. However, it is totally rational that Ireland has an exploding GDP considering they have one of the lowest income tax rates in the world! Try to get your mind around that, less taxes, less debt, WILD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 I know that Ireland has a very low cost labour force, I don't know what the average living condition is in comparison with higher taxed states with lower GDPs and with a higher average wage for workers. High GDP does not necessarily translate into decent living conditions.I ask this without knowing the answer in advance -- how has low taxation but high GDP panned out for the average Irish citizen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 Deficit is when we spend more than we makedebt is how much more we've spent than made.Sometimes deficit is important.Currency debt is intirely wrong. I'm amazed that we use that system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 me too. If our debt were to other nations for real goods and services that would be one thing (I am opposed to that as well, but at least then SOMETHING is gained in return) but to be in debt to private banks for the issuance of currency is just beyond lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 My dad used to always say "how is it that every nation on Earth is in so much debt?? I don't get it, should it all cancel each other out?" It took me WAY to long to find out the answer to that question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I feel like a troll in having given out misleading information... The article itself does not even talk about debt. Go figure. I think I ended up on the link as I worked through some articles as I was looking into the subject. It however is worth a read if you into the subject of govt. spending. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/nyts_paul_krugman_sees_europe.html I would love a little feedback... CHEERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm sure you all love the cite... American Thinker. Cheers +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Thanks for posting that article! Interesting!I agree with it (aside from the mild plug for Giuliani and Thompson, YUCK!!!). It would be interesting to have seen alongside those numbers taxes collected by government as a percentage of GDP, (as it should be, but isn't congruent to government spending.) The sad thing is that the US really isn't the small government low tax nation it was created to be. Their taxation is approaching that of Canada's, it's just the money goes to military and population policing services. Very little goes to social programs that actually benefit anyone (other than corporations of course!). It's also hilarious that Bush who campaigned as a conservative out to slash government did the exact opposite, increasing govt. spending more than Clinton did! In the US in present day you get the tax and intrusion of big government, and virtually none of the benefits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 i heard on Bubba the Love Sponge this morning that when Clinton took office in 1993, gas was $1.10/gal. when he left 8 years later it was $1.30. thats an 18% increase. now almost 8 years after Bush took over, gas is $3.30. that's a 154% increase. ... some fuel for the discussion ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I am not sure that the numbers you heard are legit (plus some of the math is wrong)If the numbers are true, the increase is 253%. (3.30/1.30). But if the price has risen at the rate you suggest, that would mean that in Canada (where it is now ~$1.10/L) it would have been almost a third of that at ~$0.43/L in 1993. Was that really the case? (I don’t know)And remember that gasoline is super cheap in N. America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 FOWL Very thoughtful/on target post. It is sickening that there are not any 'popular voices' in America speaking out against our free spending 'conservative' president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Well part of that is the out of control inflation going on in the US now, (remember, the Canadian dollar, which is also inflating, just at a much slower rate) over the past few years has almost doubled in value compared to the American dollar. So I would assume that is why gas prices have not inflated as heavily in Canada compared to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Well I like Alex Jones personally as an American political commentator www.prisonplanet.comHe's not quite mainstream, but does have a radio show syndicated nationally with many massive guests. His daily show streams constantly out of his www.infowars.com website, worth a listen I think, very hardcore news show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I am not sure that the numbers you heard are legit (plus some of the math is wrong)If the numbers are true, the increase is 253%. (3.30/1.30). with respect, 3.30 is 254% of 1.30, which is a 154% increase. 1.30 is 118% of 1.10, which is a 18% increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 meow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 i heard on Bubba the Love Sponge this morning that when Clinton took office in 1993, gas was $1.10/gal. when he left 8 years later it was $1.30. thats an 18% increase. now almost 8 years after Bush took over, gas is $3.30. that's a 154% increase. And what was the price per gallon when Nancy Pelozzi became speaker of the house? (not a knock against Pelozzi, just a rhetorical way of questioning whether it it is a fair political gauge)I'm way behind. Is FOWL still with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 And what was the price per gallon when Nancy Pelozzi became speaker of the house?Minor nit: her name is spelled "Nancy Pelosi."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_pelosiAloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 Oops! Thanks for the correction - and apologies to Pelosi, if she is a lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattm Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 When I got my license in '95 gas was about $0.42 - $0.45 per liter. It was awesome.Hmmmm, I have a solution. Why don't we use our army to just destroy the private banks and then we don't have to pay them anything?More seriously, I've always wondered the same thing as fowl's dad, why are countries in debt, all of them? If it's to private companies, why do we allow it. We have a biiiiig country with lots 'o stuff in it, do we really need to borrow from private companies. Then again, I have a fancy laptop, flat screen tv with HD cable pumped into it, and lots of other fancy stuff and I'm considered (have been for the past half decade) below the poverty line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts