67?
Attachments:

'
Attachments:

If you are a Republican, like McCain, you were too old to hold office seven years ago at age 71. But if you are a Democrat, like Clinton, you are a spry 69 in 2016.

Sad how the rightards are attacking Hillary for her age and looks while their candidates are sitting in the corner amazed by fire and stone tools. Another lockup for a democratic president for the next 8yrs.

Hillary is too old. With the pressures of the job she will be lucky to last 4 years let alone 8 so choose wisley because a vote for Cliton is a vote for the VP candidate. It never ceases to amaze me why the electorate is willing to vote for your parents pollitions. Your parents time is done. They are retiring to Florida and Arizona to amble out the last parts of their lives. With the older candidates all they are really focused on is social security the elderly and geriatrics. Even young women will vote for Hillary due to the novilty of having the first woman president foregoing the issues of the day that affect the younger generation of 20-45 year olds that need to set up their futures and take our country into the future. Is it that they are afraid to take the bull by the horns? Too lazy. Scared and sitting in the corner sucking thier thumbs. Wake up young people the future is yours. Please don't waste it on the status quo. We have had Clintons and Bushes to the point of exhustion. Run someone from your generation and lets move forward.

We need to look at candidates like Paul and Gindel as we did with Obama. Someone 40ish, not to old to understand the needs of the up and coming and not so young they are push overs. Unfortunately the Obama years have failed miserably because he didn't have the back bone necessary to stand up to the rest of the world. Hillary is done and she needs to stop being selfish and ride off into the sunset. Unfortunately the sheeple will probably vote her into office and have to deal with the mess that creates.

Americans are stupid.

Stupid you R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary is too old. With the pressures of the job
> she will be lucky to last 4 years let alone 8 so
> choose wisley because a vote for Cliton is a vote
> for the VP candidate. It never ceases to amaze me
> why the electorate is willing to vote for your
> parents pollitions. Your parents time is done.
> They are retiring to Florida and Arizona to amble
> out the last parts of their lives. With the older
> candidates all they are really focused on is
> social security the elderly and geriatrics. Even
> young women will vote for Hillary due to the
> novilty of having the first woman president
> foregoing the issues of the day that affect the
> younger generation of 20-45 year olds that need to
> set up their futures and take our country into the
> future. Is it that they are afraid to take the
> bull by the horns? Too lazy. Scared and sitting in
> the corner sucking thier thumbs. Wake up young
> people the future is yours. Please don't waste it
> on the status quo. We have had Clintons and Bushes
> to the point of exhustion. Run someone from your
> generation and lets move forward.
>
> We need to look at candidates like Paul and Gindel
> as we did with Obama. Someone 40ish, not to old to
> understand the needs of the up and coming and not
> so young they are push overs. Unfortunately the
> Obama years have failed miserably because he
> didn't have the back bone necessary to stand up to
> the rest of the world. Hillary is done and she
> needs to stop being selfish and ride off into the
> sunset. Unfortunately the sheeple will probably
> vote her into office and have to deal with the
> mess that creates.
>
> Americans are stupid.

Yes let's look at someone who's age fits your profile. btw- by all measures Bill Clinton's legacy was considered a success so your "legacy" argument is lame (at best). And Obama's unwillingness to plunge us into another multi-trillion dollar protracted war is not a sign of weakness as opposed to his predecessor.

You rightards need to evolve, but I am ok with you dipshits learning it the hardway too. Obviously, you all do too.

FACT:

Hillary has not driven a car since the early 90's!

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Attachments:

and that's revelant because NASCAR skills are a required skill for president.

Same sort of shit from the GOP. No major policy faults so let's attack anything and everything else (age, driving record, golf game, can't dunk, etc.)

sad really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and that's revelant because NASCAR skills are a
> required skill for president.
>
> Same sort of shit from the GOP. No major policy
> faults so let's attack anything and everything
> else (age, driving record, golf game, can't dunk,
> etc.)


So a demented old bat who travels in limos to $250K speeches is a good leader for America?

You're on mushrooms, no?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

The democrats are all old racists and hippies. They'll all be dead soon with their backwards ass ideas of racism, intolerance, regulations and monarchy.

It's nice to see the majority of young people are conservative.

trolf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stupid you R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hillary is too old. With the pressures of the
> job
> > she will be lucky to last 4 years let alone 8
> so
> > choose wisley because a vote for Cliton is a
> vote
> > for the VP candidate. It never ceases to amaze
> me
> > why the electorate is willing to vote for your
> > parents pollitions. Your parents time is done.
> > They are retiring to Florida and Arizona to
> amble
> > out the last parts of their lives. With the
> older
> > candidates all they are really focused on is
> > social security the elderly and geriatrics.
> Even
> > young women will vote for Hillary due to the
> > novilty of having the first woman president
> > foregoing the issues of the day that affect the
> > younger generation of 20-45 year olds that need
> to
> > set up their futures and take our country into
> the
> > future. Is it that they are afraid to take the
> > bull by the horns? Too lazy. Scared and sitting
> in
> > the corner sucking thier thumbs. Wake up young
> > people the future is yours. Please don't waste
> it
> > on the status quo. We have had Clintons and
> Bushes
> > to the point of exhustion. Run someone from
> your
> > generation and lets move forward.
> >
> > We need to look at candidates like Paul and
> Gindel
> > as we did with Obama. Someone 40ish, not to old
> to
> > understand the needs of the up and coming and
> not
> > so young they are push overs. Unfortunately the
> > Obama years have failed miserably because he
> > didn't have the back bone necessary to stand up
> to
> > the rest of the world. Hillary is done and she
> > needs to stop being selfish and ride off into
> the
> > sunset. Unfortunately the sheeple will probably
> > vote her into office and have to deal with the
> > mess that creates.
> >
> > Americans are stupid.
>
> Yes let's look at someone who's age fits your
> profile. btw- by all measures Bill Clinton's
> legacy was considered a success so your "legacy"
> argument is lame (at best). And Obama's
> unwillingness to plunge us into another
> multi-trillion dollar protracted war is not a sign
> of weakness as opposed to his predecessor.
>
> You rightards need to evolve, but I am ok with you
> dipshits learning it the hardway too. Obviously,
> you all do too.


I think you might be missing the point pilgram. I'm only saying instead of reliving the past it's time for the younger generation to take over. Whats the matter you scared? Chances are greater than not that the old bag will die while in office, then what you going to do? Wish you made a different choice? Come on kids time to grow up and leave the nest. Us moms and dads can't carry you forever. I'm a dem BTW but dem of republican the candidates need to get younger not older. Older is where we've been younger is where we are going. See you are stupid.

Nip

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sad really Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > and that's revelant because NASCAR skills are a
> > required skill for president.
> >
> > Same sort of shit from the GOP. No major
> policy
> > faults so let's attack anything and everything
> > else (age, driving record, golf game, can't
> dunk,
> > etc.)
>
>
> So a demented old bat who travels in limos to
> $250K speeches is a good leader for America?
>
> You're on mushrooms, no?

So now you're against capitalism rightard?

NipNotSignedIn/Stupid you R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think you might be missing the point pilgram.
> I'm only saying instead of reliving the past it's
> time for the younger generation to take over.
> Whats the matter you scared? Chances are greater
> than not that the old bag will die while in
> office, then what you going to do? Wish you made a
> different choice? Come on kids time to grow up and
> leave the nest. Us moms and dads can't carry you
> forever. I'm a dem BTW but dem of republican the
> candidates need to get younger not older. Older is
> where we've been younger is where we are going.
> See you are stupid.
>
> Nip

I don't care if you're the second coming. If your comments are stupid, then you are stupid by extension. If you disagree with her policies then fine, but if you're just measuring age, then you're an idiot.

"I don't care if you're the second coming. If your comments are stupid, then you are stupid by extension. If you disagree with her policies then fine, but if you're just measuring age, then you're an idiot."

What part of she is too old don't you get? Her policies will be outdated as they will be an extension of Bill's OLD policies. You don't think so??? Go ahead and elect her and see what you get. Arguing for the sake of arguing is whats stupid.


Nip

NipNotSignedIn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I don't care if you're the second coming. If your
> comments are stupid, then you are stupid by
> extension. If you disagree with her policies then
> fine, but if you're just measuring age, then
> you're an idiot."
>
> What part of she is too old don't you get? Her
> policies will be outdated as they will be an
> extension of Bill's OLD policies. You don't think
> so??? Go ahead and elect her and see what you get.
> Arguing for the sake of arguing is whats stupid.
>
>
> Nip

Actually, arguing without facts to back it up is stupid. As proven here.

Hillary saw "Top Gun" on Betamax.

I thought she was in her late forties maybe early fifties.

67 is olds.

sad really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sad how the rightards are attacking Hillary for
> her age and looks while their candidates are
> sitting in the corner amazed by fire and stone
> tools. Another lockup for a democratic president
> for the next 8yrs.

+1

Ain't it the truth!

Probably older based on physical appearance.

Nobody knows for sure.

We don't have good records for people born that far back.

sad really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sad how the rightards are attacking Hillary for
> her age and looks while their candidates are
> sitting in the corner amazed by fire and stone
> tools. Another lockup for a democratic president
> for the next 8yrs.


Team O’Malley: "We’re Not Old Like Hillary"

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/27/o-malley-pac-we-aren-t-old-like-hillary.html

Stupid you R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary is too old. With the pressures of the job
> she will be lucky to last 4 years let alone 8 so
> choose wisley because a vote for Cliton is a vote
> for the VP candidate. It never ceases to amaze me
> why the electorate is willing to vote for your
> parents pollitions. Your parents time is done.
> They are retiring to Florida and Arizona to amble
> out the last parts of their lives. With the older
> candidates all they are really focused on is
> social security the elderly and geriatrics. Even
> young women will vote for Hillary due to the
> novilty of having the first woman president
> foregoing the issues of the day that affect the
> younger generation of 20-45 year olds that need to
> set up their futures and take our country into the
> future. Is it that they are afraid to take the
> bull by the horns? Too lazy. Scared and sitting in
> the corner sucking thier thumbs. Wake up young
> people the future is yours. Please don't waste it
> on the status quo. We have had Clintons and Bushes
> to the point of exhustion. Run someone from your
> generation and lets move forward.

Believe it or not, people in their sixties are not 'ambling' off to a condo in Florida where they wait for sweet death. You are clueless.

> We need to look at candidates like Paul and Gindel
> as we did with Obama.

You can't even spell his name, moron.

> Someone 40ish, not to old to
> understand the needs of the up and coming and not
> so young they are push overs. Unfortunately the
> Obama years have failed miserably because he
> didn't have the back bone necessary to stand up to
> the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Obama didn't have the backbone to stand up to the right wing. Fixed it for you.

> Hillary is done and she
> needs to stop being selfish and ride off into the
> sunset. Unfortunately the sheeple will probably
> vote her into office and have to deal with the
> mess that creates.

Do you realize that Hillary is the same age as Mitt Romney? I don't remember your side saying that he was too old to run.

> Americans are stupid.

At least one of them is. You completely miss the irony - you want a young president to implement the tired failed ideas of the right, accompanied by the requisite sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and general hatred of people who aren't like you.

that's a rough 67. I don't even consider 67 that old by today's standards. She looks 100, if not a day.

>
> At least one of them is. You completely miss the
> irony - you want a young president to implement
> the tired failed ideas of the right, accompanied
> by the requisite sexism, racism, xenophobia,
> homophobia, and general hatred of people who
> aren't like you.


No. I want the younger generation to take the reigns with policies that fit todays needs. Maybe I didn't articulate that in my earlier posts. Be him/her republicn or democrat, gay / strait, jew / christian. The only thing I would like to see is that he/she have the backbone needed to implent real change for the good of the country. Personally I like Rand Paul because of his circle the wagons bring jobs home leanings. I don't want to be the worlds police force or see my childrens children killed in unwinnable wars that never end but rather see them be able to support themselves with manufacturing jobs like when I was coming up. What we need is higher education and healthcare paid for with taxes. A flat tax across ALL income levels and a revamping of the welfare system. Blue collar jobs are the base that built this country and we need them back. What we don't need is more of the ststus quo pandering to lobbiests and kissing the ass of big corperate America. To big to fail my left nut. If thats right wing retoric then meet me at starbucks and I'll kiss your ass. I've voted republican and democrat and neither have lowered my taxes or dealt with the issues that are killing our country. We need new leadership. Thats all I'm saying. Spin it how you'd like...

Nip

^^^

And yes I do realize that Hillary is the same as Romney, McCain, that other old dude that's running on the Dem ticket Trump all are outdated and old in thier idioms. Thats what I've been trying to say. WE need new blood.

Nip

HaggardMaggard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's a rough 67. I don't even consider 67 that
> old by today's standards. She looks 100, if not a
> day.


No shit. She looks horrible for her age.

Just wait until she tries to start to prove that she's in shape by jogging or sailboarding or something like they all do. LMAO!

NipNotSignedIn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want the younger generation to take the
> reigns with policies that fit todays needs.

Which are...

> The only thing I would like to see is
> that he/she have the backbone needed to implent
> real change for the good of the country.

Which means...

> I don't want to be the worlds police force or see
> my childrens children killed in unwinnable wars
> that never end

Isolationism.

> Personally I like Rand Paul because of his circle
> the wagons bring jobs home leanings. Blue collar
> jobs are the base that built this country and we
> need them back.

Protectionism.

> What we need is higher education and healthcare
> paid for with taxes.

Socialism.

> A flat tax across ALL income levels and a revamping
> of the welfare system.

Breaking the backs of the poor.

> What we don't need is more of the ststus quo
> pandering to lobbiests and kissing the ass of
> big corperate America. To big to fail my left
> nut.

Economic illiteracy.

> If thats right wing retoric then meet me at
> starbucks and I'll kiss your ass.

Whoa! And an internet tough guy, too! lol.

> I've voted republican and democrat and neither
> have lowered my taxes or dealt with the issues
> that are killing our country.

Your taxes are too low as it is. That's why the national debt continues to grow.

What, exactly, are the issues that are killing our country? What are the solutions?

Nip: Your taxes are too low now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your taxes are too low as it is. That's why the
> national debt continues to grow.
>

Yeah, spending has nothing to do with it. lol

You realize that we could confiscate basically ALL of the money earned by "the rich" and everyone else and it still wouldn't cover the debt right?

7HxWj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, spending has nothing to do with it. lol
>
> You realize that we could confiscate basically ALL
> of the money earned by "the rich" and everyone
> else and it still wouldn't cover the debt right?



And most of the debt is owed to ourselves. And the debt is used to increase money supply and liquidity, blah blah.

>Your taxes are too low as it is. That's why the national debt continues to grow.

This is good thinking. Raise taxes and create more unemployment. You can just keep raising taxes to make up the difference. Do you know why corporations file offshore? Because it's cheaper to incorporate overseas and hire a gaggle of lawyers and accountants than to simply pay US taxes. And your solution is to raise taxes? Why? To create jobs for lawyers and accountants?

>What, exactly, are the issues that are killing our country? What are the solutions?

Whatever the solutions are, Hillary doesn't represent new ideas. She is old guard, official party lines.

boif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 7HxWj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, spending has nothing to do with it. lol
> >
> > You realize that we could confiscate basically
> ALL
> > of the money earned by "the rich" and everyone
> > else and it still wouldn't cover the debt
> right?
>
> src="http://keepingitbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/
> 2014/04/RedHerringBlurb.png"/>
>
> And most of the debt is owed to ourselves. And
> the debt is used to increase money supply and
> liquidity, blah blah.


Talk about trying to distract... blah, blah, blah indeed.

The debt does not continue to grow because taxes are too low. That's idiotic. Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever. Debt growth still easily out-paces it. You could raise rates to confiscatory levels and it still would continue to grow. It matters not who we owe it to when we have to start making good on obligations we've made and the costs to service that debt are significant (to say the least). Take some time and read or listen to some of Doug Elmendorf's (or his recent replacement Keith Hall's who says the same) presentations on what that means for us and the impact on other budget areas in the near future.

ECtTX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boif Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 7HxWj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yeah, spending has nothing to do with it. lol
> > >
> > > You realize that we could confiscate
> basically
> > ALL
> > > of the money earned by "the rich" and
> everyone
> > > else and it still wouldn't cover the debt
> > right?
> >
> > >
> src="http://keepingitbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/
>
> > 2014/04/RedHerringBlurb.png"/>
> >
> > And most of the debt is owed to ourselves. And
> > the debt is used to increase money supply and
> > liquidity, blah blah.
>
>
> Talk about trying to distract... blah, blah, blah
> indeed.
>
> The debt does not continue to grow because taxes
> are too low. That's idiotic. Tax revenues are at
> the highest levels ever. Debt growth still easily
> out-paces it. You could raise rates to
> confiscatory levels and it still would continue to
> grow. It matters not who we owe it to when we
> have to start making good on obligations we've
> made and the costs to service that debt are
> significant (to say the least). Take some time
> and read or listen to some of Doug Elmendorf's (or
> his recent replacement Keith Hall's who says the
> same) presentations on what that means for us and
> the impact on other budget areas in the near
> future.

If we owe the money to ourselves the obligation is wiped when the bond matures (repaid). If we don't reissue another bond to continue the "debt" then the debt is retired and off the balance sheets. Our debt is more elastic then what it appears and all the crap about China owning us (is was Japan in the 90's) is all FUD.

We will continue to carry debt and that's fine so long as our economy grows. That's all that matters.

7HxWj Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> You realize that we could confiscate basically ALL
> of the money earned by "the rich" and everyone
> else and it still wouldn't cover the debt right?

Yep, that why I didn't suggest it. See how that works?

Still, you don't pay enough in taxes.

Nip: Your taxes are too low now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NipNotSignedIn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I want the younger generation to take the
> > reigns with policies that fit todays needs.
>
> Which are... >
Fix the rates that colleges can charge students and fix the student loan issues. Bring jobs home and make it affordable to manufacture goods from raw materials here in the US for starters. This would go a long way toward making the cost of living come down.

> > The only thing I would like to see is
> > that he/she have the backbone needed to implent
> > real change for the good of the country.
>
> Which means...See above.
>
> > I don't want to be the worlds police force or
> see
> > my childrens children killed in unwinnable wars
> > that never end
>
> Isolationism. +1 for this fuck Israel the middle east and europe.
>
> > Personally I like Rand Paul because of his
> circle
> > the wagons bring jobs home leanings. Blue
> collar
> > jobs are the base that built this country and
> we
> > need them back.
>
> Protectionism.

Yes lets support our selves and fuck the rest of the world. This can be done by cutting taxes on corporations and giving incentives to bring jobs back from off shore sweat houses.
>
> > What we need is higher education and healthcare
> > paid for with taxes.
>
> Socialism.

Better than the system the money hungry cocksucker lobbiests have in place now.
>
> > A flat tax across ALL income levels and a
> revamping
> > of the welfare system.
>
> Breaking the backs of the poor.

Fuck them they can go to work or starve.
>
> > What we don't need is more of the ststus quo
> > pandering to lobbiests and kissing the ass of
> > big corperate America. To big to fail my left
> > nut.
>
> Economic illiteracy.

Bullshit If this is the way you think and the majority thinks then things will never change for the better. The US will eventually become Greece. Try to think outside the box and do something positive. How about getting rid of trade unions for a start. No trade unions works great in China and they are fucking commies.
>
> > If thats right wing retoric then meet me at
> > starbucks and I'll kiss your ass.
>
> Whoa! And an internet tough guy, too! lol.

Not an internet tough guy. Just not a libreal or conservitive as I have been branded in this thread. How could my kissing your ass possibly be construde as "tough guy" of anything?
>
> > I've voted republican and democrat and neither
> > have lowered my taxes or dealt with the issues
> > that are killing our country.
>
> Your taxes are too low as it is. That's why the
> national debt continues to grow.

The national debt is growing because we are selling out to China at every turn and groping for the fastest buck that comes with the least amount of effort. Not producing goods for export and waging unnecessary wars that go on for decades and pouring Billions of dollars into countries like Iraq and Afganistan.
>
> What, exactly, are the issues that are killing our
> country? What are the solutions?

See above.

All these things add to the problem that our children will have to pay for. All of our taxes are to high for the amount of return we see. How can you not agree with that. Are you Carl Rove? Dick Cheney? For Christ's sake man!

Nip

VWxFL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > What, exactly, are the issues that are killing
> > our country? What are the solutions?
>
> Whatever the solutions are, Hillary doesn't
> represent new ideas. She is old guard, official
> party lines.

Oh, so not only do you not know what issues are killing our country, but you also don't have any solutions.

That's great!

You don't pay enough in taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 7HxWj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > You realize that we could confiscate basically
> ALL
> > of the money earned by "the rich" and everyone
> > else and it still wouldn't cover the debt
> right?
>
> Yep, that why I didn't suggest it. See how that
> works?
>

Yeah, you suggested a far smaller level which would have a trivial if any effect. See how that works? lol


> Still, you don't pay enough in taxes.


Right. Never enough.

Ignore the other side of the equation. See how that works out. Oh wait... that's what we've been doing...


New CBO Director Renews Warning on Long-Term Debt

BY ERIC PIANIN,
The Fiscal Times

June 16, 2015

In its latest warning the country is headed for a long-term debt crisis without a major spending course correction, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that the debt would surge to over 100 percent of the total Gross Domestic Product by 2040 or a lot higher if current optimistic economic assumptions prove wrong.

The gloomy message from CBO’s new director, Keith Hall, varied little from repeated warnings from his predecessor Doug Elmendorf that the administration and lawmakers must avoid complacency during the current surge in the economy and declining annual budget deficits

ECtTX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The debt does not continue to grow because taxes
> are too low. That's idiotic.

Idiotic, eh? Do tell, Mr. economic genius. What are the two levers that cause the debt to grow (or shrink, as the case may be)?

> Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.

No, they're not. In fact, the current federal tax burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask google. I'll wait.

> You could raise rates to confiscatory levels
> and it still would continue to grow.

Our current deficit is about $600 billion. How much would rates need to rise to generate that much more tax revenue? (Hint: It's would not be to 'confiscatory levels'.)

> It matters not who we owe it to

Of course it matters!

PS - Our national debt is not a threat to our economy in the long- or short-term.

boif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we owe the money to ourselves the obligation is
> wiped when the bond matures (repaid). If we don't
> reissue another bond to continue the "debt" then
> the debt is retired and off the balance sheets.
> Our debt is more elastic then what it appears and
> all the crap about China owning us (is was Japan
> in the 90's) is all FUD.
>
> We will continue to carry debt and that's fine so
> long as our economy grows. That's all that
> matters.


"We" still have to pay the interest on the bonds, even to ourselves. Otherwise, we are in default. You seem to think that the dollar exists in a vacuum. It does not. While it is still the world's currency, that is quickly being torn down by China, Russia, and Iran (even the EU to some degree). Once the dollar becomes just another currency, our debt will force interest rates to rise, regardless of what the Fed wants to do.

And just so you know, the only reason our economy is 'growing' is because of unprecedented near-zero interest rates and massive government intervention. That is the last two bullets that we have to fight recession/depression. We're out of ammo. If anything happens to cause a true slowdown, we're screwed. We've been on these two pain killers for 7 years now. That can't last forever and a real economic recovery hasn't happened yet.

Sorry, your view of the state of the US economy and the dollar an inch wide and an inch deep.

Idiotic, eh? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ECtTX Wrote:
the debt to grow (or
> shrink, as the case may be)?
>
> > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
>
> No, they're not. In fact, the current federal tax
> burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask google.
> I'll wait.
>

Come on, you can't be that dense. Tax revenue and tax burden are NOT the same thing.

Idiotic, eh? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ECtTX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The debt does not continue to grow because
> taxes
> > are too low. That's idiotic.
>
> Idiotic, eh? Do tell, Mr. economic genius. What
> are the two levers that cause the debt to grow (or
> shrink, as the case may be)?

The most significant is the one that you desperately attempt to ignore - spending. Ask CBO.

>
> > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
>
> No, they're not. In fact, the current federal tax
> burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask google.
> I'll wait.
>

Yes, they are.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


> > You could raise rates to confiscatory levels
> > and it still would continue to grow.
>
> Our current deficit is about $600 billion. How
> much would rates need to rise to generate that
> much more tax revenue? (Hint: It's would not be to
> 'confiscatory levels'.)


That's not the only source of DEBT obligations (not the deficit).

CBO says that to keep the debt to the same 74% of GDP level that it is now, you'd have to increase taxes at 6%/year every year through 2040. You think that's realistic?

>
> > It matters not who we owe it to
>
> Of course it matters!
>
> PS - Our national debt is not a threat to our
> economy in the long- or short-term.

Because Krugman told you so? lol

Thanks, I'll stick with CBO and virtually every other objective source who have looked at the issue and say otherwise.

Old Yellen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boif Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If we owe the money to ourselves the obligation
> is
> > wiped when the bond matures (repaid). If we
> don't
> > reissue another bond to continue the "debt"
> then
> > the debt is retired and off the balance sheets.
>
> > Our debt is more elastic then what it appears
> and
> > all the crap about China owning us (is was
> Japan
> > in the 90's) is all FUD.
> >
> > We will continue to carry debt and that's fine
> so
> > long as our economy grows. That's all that
> > matters.
>
>
> "We" still have to pay the interest on the bonds,
> even to ourselves. Otherwise, we are in default.
> You seem to think that the dollar exists in a
> vacuum. It does not. While it is still the
> world's currency, that is quickly being torn down
> by China, Russia, and Iran (even the EU to some
> degree). Once the dollar becomes just another
> currency, our debt will force interest rates to
> rise, regardless of what the Fed wants to do.
>
> And just so you know, the only reason our economy
> is 'growing' is because of unprecedented near-zero
> interest rates and massive government
> intervention. That is the last two bullets that
> we have to fight recession/depression. We're out
> of ammo. If anything happens to cause a true
> slowdown, we're screwed. We've been on these two
> pain killers for 7 years now. That can't last
> forever and a real economic recovery hasn't
> happened yet.
>
> Sorry, your view of the state of the US economy
> and the dollar an inch wide and an inch deep.

The dollar won't be replaced. We're still the safest place to keep your money and people/Nations do. You might want to travel a bit to realize how many places recognize the USD and, arguably even more important, speak English!

We can grow the money supply and we can shrink it. Again, it all matters what the economy does. And that CBO article you touted (or whoever), it pertains more to economic growth then debt (in that, if the economy doesn't grow, we're fucked). I think we both agree on that (though you present it more with Hubris).

I just laugh when people start talking about our country's debt as some big bad thing when they really don't understand it at all.

Even Older Yellen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiotic, eh? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ECtTX Wrote:
> the debt to grow (or
> > shrink, as the case may be)?
> >
> > > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
> >
> > No, they're not. In fact, the current federal
> tax
> > burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask
> google.
> > I'll wait.
> >
>
> Come on, you can't be that dense. Tax revenue and
> tax burden are NOT the same thing.


Pardon his brain farts.

He's just parroting talking points that he's been fed.

boif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old Yellen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > boif Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If we owe the money to ourselves the
> obligation
> > is
> > > wiped when the bond matures (repaid). If we
> > don't
> > > reissue another bond to continue the "debt"
> > then
> > > the debt is retired and off the balance
> sheets.
> >
> > > Our debt is more elastic then what it appears
> > and
> > > all the crap about China owning us (is was
> > Japan
> > > in the 90's) is all FUD.
> > >
> > > We will continue to carry debt and that's
> fine
> > so
> > > long as our economy grows. That's all that
> > > matters.
> >
> >
> > "We" still have to pay the interest on the
> bonds,
> > even to ourselves. Otherwise, we are in
> default.
> > You seem to think that the dollar exists in a
> > vacuum. It does not. While it is still the
> > world's currency, that is quickly being torn
> down
> > by China, Russia, and Iran (even the EU to some
> > degree). Once the dollar becomes just another
> > currency, our debt will force interest rates to
> > rise, regardless of what the Fed wants to do.
> >
> > And just so you know, the only reason our
> economy
> > is 'growing' is because of unprecedented
> near-zero
> > interest rates and massive government
> > intervention. That is the last two bullets
> that
> > we have to fight recession/depression. We're
> out
> > of ammo. If anything happens to cause a true
> > slowdown, we're screwed. We've been on these
> two
> > pain killers for 7 years now. That can't last
> > forever and a real economic recovery hasn't
> > happened yet.
> >
> > Sorry, your view of the state of the US economy
> > and the dollar an inch wide and an inch deep.
>
> The dollar won't be replaced. We're still the
> safest place to keep your money and people/Nations
> do. You might want to travel a bit to realize how
> many places recognize the USD and, arguably even
> more important, speak English!
>
> We can grow the money supply and we can shrink it.
> Again, it all matters what the economy does. And
> that CBO article you touted (or whoever), it
> pertains more to economic growth then debt (in
> that, if the economy doesn't grow, we're fucked).
> I think we both agree on that (though you present
> it more with Hubris).


No dummy that's not all that matters.

And that's under CBO's rather positive case assumptions. If the economy grows at the projected rate without doing something about spending, then we're still fucked.


> I just laugh when people start talking about our
> country's debt as some big bad thing when they
> really don't understand it at all.

As you obviously don't

mXWwC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
> >
> > No, they're not.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
> ct.cfm?Docid=200

Discussing tax revenues as raw numbers is worse than useless. After Bush's disasterous rate cuts, tax receipts as a% of GDP are very near historic lows (Chart below).

> CBO says that to keep the debt to the same 74% of
> GDP level that it is now, you'd have to increase
> taxes at 6%/year every year through 2040.

Ah, so here you want to talk about % of GDP...cute.

Attachments:

eP4cU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No dummy that's not all that matters.
>
> And that's under CBO's rather positive case
> assumptions. If the economy grows at the
> projected rate without doing something about
> spending, then we're still fucked.
>

Actually it does. If GDP jumps to 40T/yr then your (borrowed) argument (from CBO) is moot.

>
> > I just laugh when people start talking about
> our
> > country's debt as some big bad thing when they
> > really don't understand it at all.
>
> As you obviously don't

Ditto.

Raw #s are worse than useless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Bush's disasterous rate cuts,
> tax receipts as a% of GDP are very near historic
> lows.

And yet, the budget deficit continues to shrink.

Hmmm... What does that mean?

Forbes: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

boif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old Yellen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > boif Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If we owe the money to ourselves the
> obligation
> > is
> > > wiped when the bond matures (repaid). If we
> > don't
> > > reissue another bond to continue the "debt"
> > then
> > > the debt is retired and off the balance
> sheets.
> >
> > > Our debt is more elastic then what it appears
> > and
> > > all the crap about China owning us (is was
> > Japan
> > > in the 90's) is all FUD.
> > >
> > > We will continue to carry debt and that's
> fine
> > so
> > > long as our economy grows. That's all that
> > > matters.
> >
> >
> > "We" still have to pay the interest on the
> bonds,
> > even to ourselves. Otherwise, we are in
> default.
> > You seem to think that the dollar exists in a
> > vacuum. It does not. While it is still the
> > world's currency, that is quickly being torn
> down
> > by China, Russia, and Iran (even the EU to some
> > degree). Once the dollar becomes just another
> > currency, our debt will force interest rates to
> > rise, regardless of what the Fed wants to do.
> >
> > And just so you know, the only reason our
> economy
> > is 'growing' is because of unprecedented
> near-zero
> > interest rates and massive government
> > intervention. That is the last two bullets
> that
> > we have to fight recession/depression. We're
> out
> > of ammo. If anything happens to cause a true
> > slowdown, we're screwed. We've been on these
> two
> > pain killers for 7 years now. That can't last
> > forever and a real economic recovery hasn't
> > happened yet.
> >
> > Sorry, your view of the state of the US economy
> > and the dollar an inch wide and an inch deep.
>
> The dollar won't be replaced. We're still the
> safest place to keep your money and people/Nations
> do. You might want to travel a bit to realize how
> many places recognize the USD and, arguably even
> more important, speak English!
>
> We can grow the money supply and we can shrink it.
> Again, it all matters what the economy does. And
> that CBO article you touted (or whoever), it
> pertains more to economic growth then debt (in
> that, if the economy doesn't grow, we're fucked).
> I think we both agree on that (though you present
> it more with Hubris).
>
> I just laugh when people start talking about our
> country's debt as some big bad thing when they
> really don't understand it at all.


Again, you demonstrate a lack of depth of your knowledge. Growing the money supply just means printing more dollars and putting them in circulation. The reason most of the debt belongs to 'us' is because we have monetized the debt. 'We' are printing money and using it to buy our own debt. This ALWAYS results in one thing, inflation. At some point, the piper will have to be paid. Just because you are OK with hoping it's on the backs of the Millennials and not on yours doesn't make it right. Hoping that the days of 7% economic growth are coming again is like hoping you win the lottery. Might happen, but doubtful. The US no longer makes much of anything. We invent a lot of things, but we don't make them. That we outsource to slave labor countries. We have massive disconnects in our economy, exacerbated by a very short-sighted monetary policy. Hope and cross-fingers is no way to run an economy.

mXWwC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiotic, eh? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ECtTX Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The debt does not continue to grow because
> > taxes
> > > are too low. That's idiotic.
> >
> > Idiotic, eh? Do tell, Mr. economic genius.
> What
> > are the two levers that cause the debt to grow
> (or
> > shrink, as the case may be)?
>
> The most significant is the one that you
> desperately attempt to ignore - spending. Ask
> CBO.
>
> >
> > > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
> >
> > No, they're not. In fact, the current federal
> tax
> > burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask
> google.
> > I'll wait.
> >
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
> ct.cfm?Docid=200
>
>
> > > You could raise rates to confiscatory levels
> > > and it still would continue to grow.
> >
> > Our current deficit is about $600 billion. How
> > much would rates need to rise to generate that
> > much more tax revenue? (Hint: It's would not be
> to
> > 'confiscatory levels'.)
>
>
> That's not the only source of DEBT obligations
> (not the deficit).
>
> CBO says that to keep the debt to the same 74% of
> GDP level that it is now, you'd have to increase
> taxes at 6%/year every year through 2040. You
> think that's realistic?
>
> >
> > > It matters not who we owe it to
> >
> > Of course it matters!
> >
> > PS - Our national debt is not a threat to our
> > economy in the long- or short-term.
>
> Because Krugman told you so? lol
>
> Thanks, I'll stick with CBO and virtually every
> other objective source who have looked at the
> issue and say otherwise.


The debt is now over 100% of the estimated US GDP of $17.9 Trillion.

boig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eP4cU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> >
> > No dummy that's not all that matters.
> >
> > And that's under CBO's rather positive case
> > assumptions. If the economy grows at the
> > projected rate without doing something about
> > spending, then we're still fucked.
> >
>
> Actually it does. If GDP jumps to 40T/yr then
> your (borrowed) argument (from CBO) is moot.


And if monkey's fly out of your ass and start handing you $100 dollar bills you'll be rich.

Which nobody projects vs CBO's more reasonable and realistic projections.


>
> >
> > > I just laugh when people start talking about
> > our
> > > country's debt as some big bad thing when
> they
> > > really don't understand it at all.
> >
> > As you obviously don't
>
> Ditto.

You're (yet another) clueless ideologue.

Try reading less Krugman and Think Progress, more CBO and The Economist.

Learn Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The debt is now over 100% of the estimated US GDP
> of $17.9 Trillion.

So what?

Learn Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mXWwC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Idiotic, eh? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ECtTX Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The debt does not continue to grow because
> > > taxes
> > > > are too low. That's idiotic.
> > >
> > > Idiotic, eh? Do tell, Mr. economic genius.
> > What
> > > are the two levers that cause the debt to
> grow
> > (or
> > > shrink, as the case may be)?
> >
> > The most significant is the one that you
> > desperately attempt to ignore - spending. Ask
> > CBO.
> >
> > >
> > > > Tax revenues are at the highest levels
> ever.
> > >
> > > No, they're not. In fact, the current federal
> > tax
> > > burden is the lowest in 60 years. Go ask
> > google.
> > > I'll wait.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they are.
> >
> >
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
>
> > ct.cfm?Docid=200
> >
> >
> > > > You could raise rates to confiscatory
> levels
> > > > and it still would continue to grow.
> > >
> > > Our current deficit is about $600 billion.
> How
> > > much would rates need to rise to generate
> that
> > > much more tax revenue? (Hint: It's would not
> be
> > to
> > > 'confiscatory levels'.)
> >
> >
> > That's not the only source of DEBT obligations
> > (not the deficit).
> >
> > CBO says that to keep the debt to the same 74%
> of
> > GDP level that it is now, you'd have to
> increase
> > taxes at 6%/year every year through 2040. You
> > think that's realistic?
> >
> > >
> > > > It matters not who we owe it to
> > >
> > > Of course it matters!
> > >
> > > PS - Our national debt is not a threat to our
> > > economy in the long- or short-term.
> >
> > Because Krugman told you so? lol
> >
> > Thanks, I'll stick with CBO and virtually every
> > other objective source who have looked at the
> > issue and say otherwise.
>
>
> The debt is now over 100% of the estimated US GDP
> of $17.9 Trillion.


Debt held by the public. Which is CBO's basis and preffered metric.

Yellen Belly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Learn Chinese Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The debt is now over 100% of the estimated US
> GDP
> > of $17.9 Trillion.
>
> So what?


Think of it as a sign in the road that is telling us the bridge ahead is out. Signs such as these can tell us whether or not we are in recovery or continuing to languish. This is an 'continuing to languish' sign.

Raw #s are worse than useless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mXWwC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Tax revenues are at the highest levels ever.
> > >
> > > No, they're not.
> >
> > Yes, they are.
> >
> >
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
>
> > ct.cfm?Docid=200
>
> Discussing tax revenues as raw numbers is worse
> than useless. After Bush's disasterous rate cuts,
> tax receipts as a% of GDP are very near historic
> lows (Chart below).
>
> > CBO says that to keep the debt to the same 74%
> of
> > GDP level that it is now, you'd have to
> increase
> > taxes at 6%/year every year through 2040.
>
> Ah, so here you want to talk about % of
> GDP...cute.
>


No, it's not useless. No more so than looking at it on any other basis depending on what you want to compare.

But if you want to talk relative to GDP we can do that too.



Spending still is expected to greatly out-pace revenues under CBO's baseline case. Under no scenario are we realistically able to reduce the gap by simply increasing taxes.

BTW, your chart stops 5 years ago. If you'd looked in the TPI data, you'd see that even using your own GDP basis it's 17.5% for 2014 which is a relatively mid-range number historically.

And of course you bring your real expertise - stupid partisan bullshit. /smh

Bought and Paid for by Wall St. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of it as a sign in the road that is telling
> us the bridge ahead is out. Signs such as these
> can tell us whether or not we are in recovery or
> continuing to languish. This is an 'continuing to
> languish' sign.

The debt has grown constantly over the past 35 years, regardless the state of the economy. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

vN3TK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spending still is expected to greatly out-pace
> revenues under CBO's baseline case. Under no
> scenario are we realistically able to reduce the
> gap by simply increasing taxes.

Increasing taxes (revenues) has to be part of the solution, as does reducing costs (spending). It cannot be either/or, it must be both.

Not either/or, but both Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vN3TK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Spending still is expected to greatly out-pace
> > revenues under CBO's baseline case. Under no
> > scenario are we realistically able to reduce
> the
> > gap by simply increasing taxes.
>
> Increasing taxes (revenues) has to be part of the
> solution, as does reducing costs (spending). It
> cannot be either/or, it must be both.


True to some extent but you don't seem to understand what's driving most of our debt. Once again, we cannot in any realistic way reduce the coming debt wave and associated debt service costs by raising taxes. We can't even realistically cut discretionary spending to do so. At least without major effects. That's over and above what debt service costs are going to force.

But at least you appear to be making some progress in recognizing that it's not just about raising taxes.

uCYuc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True to some extent but you don't seem to
> understand what's driving most of our debt.

Oh, but I do. Lots of shoulda/coulda/wouldas about how we got here. but you can't change the past, so...

> Once again, we cannot in any realistic way reduce the
> coming debt wave and associated debt service costs
> by raising taxes. We can't even realistically cut
> discretionary spending to do so. At least without
> major effects. That's over and above what debt
> service costs are going to force.

So what's your solution?

> But at least you appear to be making some progress
> in recognizing that it's not just about raising
> taxes.

While it appears that you need to make more progress in recognizing that it's not just about reducing spending.

Great read. Very informative.

Nip

Not just about reducing spending Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uCYuc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True to some extent but you don't seem to
> > understand what's driving most of our debt.
>
> Oh, but I do. Lots of shoulda/coulda/wouldas about
> how we got here. but you can't change the past,
> so...

Uh, no. It has very little to do with any political bs. It's primarily a question of demographics and related costs and required spending.

Actually, check that. It does have something to do with politics in that neither party has the political will to actually do anything about the root of the problem. Which is why, as always, nothing will be done until there is a crisis and it's too late.

>
> > Once again, we cannot in any realistic way
> reduce the
> > coming debt wave and associated debt service
> costs
> > by raising taxes. We can't even realistically
> cut
> > discretionary spending to do so. At least
> without
> > major effects. That's over and above what debt
> > service costs are going to force.
>
> So what's your solution?

I have no solution. I'm not sure that there is a real good solution at this point. Everyone with any real understanding of the issue knows what needs to be done. Nobody will ever do it.

>
> > But at least you appear to be making some
> progress
> > in recognizing that it's not just about raising
> > taxes.
>
> While it appears that you need to make more
> progress in recognizing that it's not just about
> reducing spending.


I never said that it was. I responded to your simplistic "we just need to raise taxes" and "debt doesn't matter" talking point nonsense. But, that said, largely the issue is much more related to spending/cost vs simply any shortage of annual tax receipts. As I said, you can take everyone's money. You could cut all of Defense. The problem still would be there.

She has almost reached mandatory retirement age in every occupation -- except politics.