The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. For the umpteenth time I am not saying "future generations will be able to afford it" I am saying they will never have to pay it back. Yes we leave them with some debt but if they don't have to pay it back are we really leaving them anything?

You already said that they have to pay interest. I'm not really interested in the difference between repaying the principle and paying the interest in perpetuity.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You already said that they have to pay interest. I'm not really interested in the difference between repaying the principle and paying the interest in perpetuity.

Michael Jordon says he decided to retire the day he realized he was half a step slower. he didn't want people to realize he had slowed so he got out beforehand.

When I read this sort of Ty post i look back on that decision and wish I had similar maturity.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Ty@50
Michael Jordon says he decided to retire the day he realized he was half a step slower. he didn't want people to realize he had slowed so he got out beforehand.

When I read this sort of Ty post i look back on that decision and wish I had similar maturity.

Shut it, old man.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Shut it, old man.

Since Bush got elected these guys have accused the Reps of some incredible shit, and none of it ever sticks. This is already clearly a two-party scandal yet ty tries to leave it at the Rs door. fine. if he's right we started a war to increase our oil profits and we lied to do it, so this new scandal ain't shit anyway.


But I will folllow your wishes fringey I'm going to leave this board to its "high quality" its enjoyed these last few days. Bunch of subnormals arguing with Spanky. Enjoy!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You already said that they have to pay interest. I'm not really interested in the difference between repaying the principle and paying the interest in perpetuity.

If you wait long enough you don't have to pay the interest either. Considering you need to keep th debt at twenty percent GDP, then todays debt, fifty years from now, does not need to be paid back nor does the interest need to be paid back. If all you had in fifty years is todays debt, todays debt plus interest would not be enough to keep the debt at the twenty percent GDP level (I don't know what the optimum debt level is - but I am just throwing out twenty percent). As the economy grows you would actually have to borrow more money because todays debt plus interest in the long run is not enough money to keep the debt where it needs to be.

The debt from 1960 plus interest would not be enough to maintain the debt of today. That debt from 1960 plus its interest will forever remain in the national debt (and should not be paid back). So we will never have to pay back the debt prior to 1960 plus interest.

For our country, that needs to keep a certain amount of debt, with an infinite life span, and infinite growth, todays debt, if it remains in the debt long enough will never have to be paid back.

Do you get it now?

[Nut Case, Sensitive]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is this where everyone is heading next?

I assumed the leading candidate was http://www.themonkeyscribe.com/msgboards/

If Flinty gets his own site, I want mine!

Worse than when Spanky had his own board!

NUTS!

[Nut Case, Sensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you wait long enough you don't have to pay the interest either. Considering you need to keep th debt at twenty percent GDP, then todays debt, fifty years from now, does not need to be paid back nor does the interest need to be paid back. If all you had in fifty years is todays debt, todays debt plus interest would not be enough to keep the debt at the twenty percent GDP level (I don't know what the optimum debt level is - but I am just throwing out twenty percent). As the economy grows you would actually have to borrow more money because todays debt plus interest in the long run is not enough money to keep the debt where it needs to be.

The debt from 1960 plus interest would not be enough to maintain the debt of today. That debt from 1960 plus its interest will forever remain in the national debt (and should not be paid back). So we will never have to pay back the debt prior to 1960 plus interest.

For our country, that needs to keep a certain amount of debt, with an infinite life span, and infinite growth, todays debt, if it remains in the debt long enough will never have to be paid back.

Do you get it now?

Wow, so I can eat all the nuts, all of them, everywhere, and trees will still keep growing! The little nut cases will be pleased!

NutS! NUTS!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can stop right there, because I haven't advocated any "cure." Like any real conservative, I'm not a fan of deficit spending. I don't think we should be borrowing to fund tax cuts, especially not tax cuts for the wealthiest. Relative to where we were, it's robbing the lower and middle classes to help the rich.

The solution is to shrink dramatically the thing necessitating the taxes or borrowing.

I agree with you that the GOP has been appallingly hypocritical in saying it wants small govt while growing the govt.

But I don't think the solution is to start taxing us instead of borrowing. The solution is to unpopularly level with the American people and tell them the benefits they demand have to be scaled back.

If we don't have the money to pay for something, we shouldn't have it, right?

There need to be term limits imposed on all elected officials and anti-pork measures. Its obscene that Ted Stevens could defend a half billion dollar bridge to nowhere in the present economic situations.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Since Bush got elected these guys have accused the Reps of some incredible shit, and none of it ever sticks. This is already clearly a two-party scandal yet ty tries to leave it at the Rs door. fine. if he's right we started a war to increase our oil profits and we lied to do it, so this new scandal ain't shit anyway.


But I will folllow your wishes fringey I'm going to leave this board to its "high quality" its enjoyed these last few days. Bunch of subnormals arguing with Spanky. Enjoy!

Are you resigning again?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The solution is to shrink dramatically the thing necessitating the taxes or borrowing.

How do you propose to shrink the elderly dramatically?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you propose to shrink the elderly dramatically?

You have to start the pain somewhere.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you propose to shrink the elderly dramatically?

For a start, get Wilford Brimley and his "lifeline" to stop sending them "care packages"

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you propose to shrink the elderly dramatically?

I thought they pretty much did that on their own. I understand Hank's down to 6'10".

[Spanky]

Doing their utmost to insure a victory for the GOP in 2006. With the Abrahamoff scandal things are looking dicey, but with the help from these dedicated volunteers the GOP will retain control of the House.


Sacramento's Out Of Iraq Forum Rocks The Capital City
By Nancy Tronaas

On Saturday, January 7, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, author David Dionisi, 4th Congressional District candidate Charles Brown, and surprise guests--academy-award winning Sean Penn and author Norm Solomon spoke to a packed SEIU hall in Sacramento, California. With nearly 200 people inside and a large overflow crowd gathered out on the sidewalk, Sacramentans are demonstrating their impatience and frustration with U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Dave Dionisi, author of American Hiroshima and former U.S. military intelligence officer, provided insight on pre-9-11 intelligence. This information should have been utilized to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center. He also discussed U.S. foreign policy driven by the combination of controlling oil reserves in the Middle East in league with the U.S. military-industrial machine that has promoted war to support corporate profits.

The next speaker was Charles Brown, USAF Retired Lt. Colonel, and Democratic candidate for the 4th Congressional District in California. He is running against incumbent Republican John Doolittle. Charles expressed concerns about George W. Bush's efforts to erode the Constitution and the administration's usurpation of Congressional power. Brown stressed as voters, we must continue to support candidates who will effect changes in Congress in order to take back our country and restore the rule of law

Welcomed with a standing ovation, Cindy Sheehan and co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace gave a rousing talk. She stressed the need to impeach this administration as war criminals who continue to lie to the American public about pre-war Iraq intelligence. She also contends that Pres. Bush's assertions about pulling the U.S. troops out of Iraq would lead to chaos are a part of a calculated strategy to mislead the American public. Cindy reminded the audience that we all need to take responsibility for Iraq—as we elected the officials who ultimately allowed the invasion and occupation. We have the power to remove them from office. Cindy emphasized we must exit Iraq now to save precious lives. After expressing her support for a Dept. of Peace, Cindy concluded that she'd like to create a U.S. Dept. of History, with herself as the first secretary.

Actor Sean Penn added to the enthusiasm of the day by stressing that all of the nation's anti-war activism was taking hold and was starting to work—while admitting that the stress of living under the current administration was making it tough for him to quit smoking. Stating that he "was not a pacifist on the inside", he was moved to be one on the outside for the sake of his children and grandchildren's future. He said we have to fight for everything we have.

A Q & A session followed a brief summary of current pending legislation authored by Bush opponents. The invited speakers deftly fielded questions on the economics of war, the politics of foreign policy, and the power of resistance.

Perhaps the most unforgettable moment occurred when Jesse Dyen, Camp Casey's beloved sound guy and songwriter, played his guitar and sang "Sons and Daughters", the beautiful and plaintive anthem that was born in Crawford during those hot August nights. Before he sang, Jesse asked the audience which direction southeast was. He explained that when the song was sung every night at Camp Casey, they always faced Bush's ranch. The emotion in his song was reflected and magnified by the packed hall. It was aching and palpable.

The program was moderated by Bill Durston, President of the Sacramento Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Bill wrapped up the meeting by telling the audience ideas for how they can get involved in resisting the war. He encouraged everyone to take part in the National Call In Day for January 9th. We can't imagine anyone in attendance wasn't motivated to keep the energy going!

This Sacramento Out of Iraq Town Hall meeting was sponsored by the Sacramento Coalition to End the War, Sacramento for Democracy, Progressive Democrats of America and Peace in the Precincts

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
worse then selling military secrets and rocket technology to the Chinese? you really think so? btw that was rhetorical and I know you don't see why clinton selling technology was much worse- that's also why you don't see why your party is dead.

plus- isn't this on both sides?

(a) You forgot the part about selling cocaine and murdering Vince Foster.

(b) It is much more GOP than DEM both because Abramoff is a committed Republican and because the money bought access to or favors from _power_, and the Dems haven't run much in this town since 2000.

S_A_M