stevenash

Smitty,  Now that it is common knowledge( as though it wasn't previously)that the debt is approaching 18 trillion, we are now being told that it is not too important and what matters is the deficit.

Big Girl- Do you believe that the government is competent at running businesses or dictating how they should be operated?  IF so, why are FedEx and UPS vibrant, well managed businesses not in danger of going broke and, at the same time, the U.S. Postal service recently defaulted on some of its debt?  One major difference- the government is involved in one of those and it isn't in the other two.  The government guaranteed 535 million of debt taken on by Solyndra who subsequently went bankrupt.  Was that a good idea or could the private market have prevented such a loss from taking place?

Big GIrl, now that you have finally acknowledged the the debt is in excess of 17 trillion, lets go back to what was originally being discussed about said debt and see how you feel.   When Mr. Obama was campaigning prior to being elected, he criticized Mr. Bush for the amount of debt the country had accumulated (around 10 trillion at the end of the Bush presidency)  Mr. Obama stated, in a campaign speech( easily verified) that what Mr. Bush had done was mortgage the future of our children.  He further stated that to accumulate that much debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic.  In another campaign speech, Mr. Obama promised that, by the end of his first term, the debt would be cut in half.  We are mid way through the second term and the debt is 70% higher since he began his presidency rather than 50% lower.  Does that suggest that Mr. Obama simply lied or that he doesn't understand ( in your "friends" words) macroeconomics?  P.S.  I would prefer your opinion rather than that of a relative or friend.

Its closer to 18 trillion now.  As for your other comment, you are simply saying that, if you earn 100,000 per year and have a debt of 100,800 that isn't very important.  Let me know why your "friend" believes it is ok to have a debt larger than your income.

Your statement was the FOX News said so.  Once again, if all they do is lie, then they were lying about that as well. 

Vets not getting help?  That may be because they are dying before they get in to see the doctor.  Did you notice that some are getting vouchers to see doctors outside of the VA?  That is simply an admission that, once again, the government is terribly inefficient at nearly all business enterprises.

How does he feel about all of the senseless killings in Chicago every day of the year?

You are just gonna have to find another avenue instead of the race card.  Its overplayed, worn out, and losing credibility.

Don't have to take my word for it - the nation is 17 TRILLION IN DEBT, REGARDLESS of who your friend it, what education he has, and whether or not the deficit is declining.  You PERSIST in trying to disavow the debt and it wont work.  If your friend doesn't know what the debt is , then you and he are about the only ones that don't know.  One more thing, it doesn't matter if one understands microeconomics or macroeconomics or both, the debt is STILL in excess of 17 TRILLION ( note my prior posts showing Wikipedia and usgovtdebt.org which shows the total this morning to be $17,804,109,507,000 regardless of what your friend thinks/guesses.

I don't understand the first thing about Quantum physics ( same applies to many others on this board but I will go ahead and admit same)  However, that has zero, zilch, nada relevance to the oft discussed topic of the competence and integrity of the current administration

TXHOOPS-  Smittys biggest concern seems to be about whether or not our country is following the constitution.  I would have thought an individual in your position would have a high degree of appreciation for that concern.

:)

:P :P :P

She is going to tell you that he meant something else and those of us who do not have MBAs in finance simply cant understand him.  If that's the case, the fault lies with the incompetence of the communicator who bears the responsibility to make sure everyone can grasp the "depth" of his message.   Otherwise, he is simply not a competent communicator/leader.

One of Big Girls favorite tactics is to try to alter the subject matter by playing games with definitions.  Smitty suggested that both socialism and communism thrive/depend on heavy taxation or confiscation.  When Big GIrl is unable to dispute that, she plays games with semantics.  No different than when I wouldn't let her denial of the 17 trillion dollar continue, she attempted to change the name of the game to the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics, neither of which will alter the sum of the current national debt.

I am going to go out on a limb and try to speak for Smitty.  My guess is that he believes the President frequently disregards the constitution.  Another guess is that Smitty believes that raising taxes and increasing regulations in the middle of a very weak economy is counter productive.  I would further guess that he believes that having only half of all wage earners be net payers of federal income tax is bad policy.  I am very sure he believes it is wrong for the leader of a country to stand up and say, unequivocally, "If you like your doctor/healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD"  That ought to tide you over until Smitty responds.

Big Girl, you apparently have a lot of admiration for TxHoops by virtue of your appreciation of his comments and your conclusion that nobody can win a debate against him.  SInce you hold him in such high esteem, please ask him if the national debt currently exceeds 17 trillion or is, as your "friend in finance" ( who has a better understanding of macroeconomics) somewhere "around 16 trillion".

PamFAm- I, like you, am disenchanted with the majority of all politicians, regardless of party affiliation.  If they are so disappointing and so unproductive, doesn't it make sense to reduce their reach into our lives rather than increasing it?

Big Girl- There are people in the Whitehouse with MBAs in finance, so don't get too overly impressed with having an MBA in finance.  Once again, have your friend get on this board without you running as the go-between and distorting what each of us has to say.  If he has an MBA in finance and says the debt is "around 16 trillion" he is simply out of touch or not telling the truth.  Neither is OK.  If he says I don't know what I am talking about, why don't you point out the fallacy in my comment?  By the way, throwing words like macroeconomics and microeconomics is not very impressive particularly when the one who utters them hasn't the faintest idea what she is uttering.  So you want to know what the debt was under Bush?  You already know this- if not by your own research you certainly got it from your friend who has his MBA and is a macro expert.  But I don't mind walking into the trap.  When Bush left office the debt was around 10.8 trillion.  When Mr. Obama campaigned, he told us that at the end of his first term, the debt would be cut in half.   Instead of being cut in half, its up by about 70%.  You cant change it.  Your friend cant change it.  It simply is what it is.  I know I have said all of this before but I have repeated it because I know how badly you and "your finance friend" need the statements from me in your attempt to discredit them.  While you are busy doing so I will contact the former drummer in my high school rock group who is now a professor of Finance and International Business at the Stern Business School within New York University and seek his advice on how to respond to your "friends" questions.  I have a lot of faith in him as he has been a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the World Bank and is the author of fifteen books dealing with finance.  I have learned quite a bit from him and find him to be a great ally in such situations.

My remark was about not giving up and being determined to succeed without government assistance but I can certainly understand your interpretation of the statement based upon my choice of words.  For not being more clear, I will apologize..  But I will add in that compassion, without limits, has a price and someone must be concerned about that price although many will claim that the compassion is more noble than the concern for the cost.  Sometimes , though, people discover that the price of compassion can ultimately harm everyone, including those who were the recipients of the compassion.  I think Greece is a wonderful example of it.

She isn't going to accept that Smitty.  Its all going to come down to the standard racism accusation before this is all over.  We have defaulted to that one since its far too late to keep blaming Bush.

Your friend that works in finance?  Is that the one who had his car repossessed?  And so now you want to create this little game where I say something, then you call your "finance friend" and he comes up with a question for you to ask me?  I have a better idea, have him get an identity and jump on this board with the rest of us.  I will be more than happy to exchange thoughts with him.   I already know he is not sufficiently familiar with the debt.  It's over 17 trillion and you cant alter that and neither can he.  Wikipedia states that the current debt is 17.6 trillion.  US govtdebt.com has it pegged at $17,799,568,001  I believe I will accept those calculations  over your friend in finance.  Furthermore, you aren't skipping out on your denial of our debt.  I'm not going to let you.  I saved the original post and all the attempted camouflage will be a failure.    But, by all means, start a new thread on whether or not the debt or deficit is more important, and we will discuss it.  Its much better to do that than to let you think you are going to get away with the $17 trillion denial by changing the subject.

Does this mean you are one of those who is not proud to be an American?  How long has it been since "your people" became free?

You must be a "teabagger" and that will get you in a lot of trouble on this board because what you described above is what the left calls "extremist"

I think I could secure those numbers if I wanted to but don't want to go to that much trouble.  But I would be willing to go to that much trouble just as soon as you DOCUMENT your allegation that the $17 trillion dollar debt does not exist.  I will give you one interesting little tidbit- When George Bush took office, he inherited a recession from his predecessor ( not blaming Clinton just describing the circumstances).  In 2003, when the recession recovery began, GDP for the nation that year was 4.3%.  GDP for 2013 came it at 1.9%..  And there were no 2.9% quarterly GDP contractions during the Bush Administration.