Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump

[Roedy Green]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>control?

The USA spends more on the military than any other country. It spends
less on social programs than any other developed country. You are one
of the few that does not have universal medical care, for example. You
have large numbers of homeless people. Your spending problem is
clearly not social programs, it is a bloated military with sweetheart
relationships with crooked companies like Halliburton.

You also a have a MAJOR, and I mean trillions of dollars, embezzlement
problem that has so many people on the take reporting is relegated to
the back pages of the Wall Street Journal.

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >>
> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >control?
>
> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> the Bushes.
>
If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.


> Clinton's administration is the only time the
> brakes were applied.
>
There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
office.


> Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
> pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
> debt.
>
So what would you cut? Anyone who is claiming that the government should
spend less should put his cards on the table and tell us what he'd cut.
If you just want to cut the military and cut the war and things like
that, that won't do it. The problem is where the bulk of the money goes,
social spending.



> If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
> anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
> feels it's responsible.
>
To whatever extent the Republicans voted for social programmes, they are
responsible for them.



> >Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
> >What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
> >will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
> >enough o get people to buy it.
>
> Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
> from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
> you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!
>
I suspect that Mexico isn't a world power. And I've always made fun of
American made cars. I don't think that diminishes America as a world
power. The idea of free trade and floating currencies is to correct for
trade imbalances while allowing nations to compete a la individuals
compete. You can argue against that only by arguing against the
incredible decrease in the real cost of things over the last 50 years.



> >So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
> >people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
> >figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.
>
> I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
> are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
> out.
>
What "good jobs" are you referring to? If people are paid incredible
sums of money for what they know or can do, maybe they are overpaid. The
market should determine what you get for your work, not generally by the
government or by some artificial block on access to markets by those
outside. Some controls are needed, for example stop illegal aliens from
getting into the US. It's interesting the very same people who claim
that "good jobs" are being "downsized" support protecting illegal
aliens.



> >> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
> >> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
> >> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
> >> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
> >> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
> >> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
> >> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
> >> >don't speak English right.
> >>
> >> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
> >> and still preserve American wages.
> >>
> >What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?
>
> Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
> to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
> investors).
>
What do you think a DVD player would cost if it wasn't for free trade?



> That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
> for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
> supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
> what it was doing quite a long time ago.
>
The problem is that currencies aren't being allowed to float. If the US
is the dumping grounds for the world's excess industrial capacity, whose
fault is that? There's something wrong in countries like China where
people are dirt poor and can't figure out how to buy $20 DVD players.




--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:473CA713.5F21EE96@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >>
>> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >control?
>>
>> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> the Bushes.
>>
> If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.

The spending that is driving the debt is war spending.

>
>
>> Clinton's administration is the only time the
>> brakes were applied.
>>
> There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
> to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
> for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
> office.

There is a plethora of evidence that the size of the federal government
decreased under Clinton. See www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521,
specifically Figure 1 and Table 1.

Additionally, the only reductions in the military were those mandated by
legislation passed during the tenure of his predecessor.

>
>
>> Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
>> pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
>> debt.
>>
> So what would you cut? Anyone who is claiming that the government should
> spend less should put his cards on the table and tell us what he'd cut.
> If you just want to cut the military and cut the war and things like
> that, that won't do it. The problem is where the bulk of the money goes,
> social spending.
>
>
>
>> If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
>> anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
>> feels it's responsible.
>>
> To whatever extent the Republicans voted for social programmes, they are
> responsible for them.
>
>
>
>> >Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
>> >What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
>> >will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
>> >enough o get people to buy it.
>>
>> Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
>> from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
>> you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!
>>
> I suspect that Mexico isn't a world power. And I've always made fun of
> American made cars. I don't think that diminishes America as a world
> power. The idea of free trade and floating currencies is to correct for
> trade imbalances while allowing nations to compete a la individuals
> compete. You can argue against that only by arguing against the
> incredible decrease in the real cost of things over the last 50 years.
>
>
>
>> >So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
>> >people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
>> >figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.
>>
>> I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
>> are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
>> out.
>>
> What "good jobs" are you referring to? If people are paid incredible
> sums of money for what they know or can do, maybe they are overpaid. The
> market should determine what you get for your work, not generally by the
> government or by some artificial block on access to markets by those
> outside. Some controls are needed, for example stop illegal aliens from
> getting into the US. It's interesting the very same people who claim
> that "good jobs" are being "downsized" support protecting illegal
> aliens.
>
>
>
>> >> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
>> >> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
>> >> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
>> >> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond
>> >> >by
>> >> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too.
>> >> >We
>> >> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
>> >> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that
>> >> >they
>> >> >don't speak English right.
>> >>
>> >> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
>> >> and still preserve American wages.
>> >>
>> >What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?
>>
>> Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
>> to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
>> investors).
>>
> What do you think a DVD player would cost if it wasn't for free trade?
>
>
>
>> That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
>> for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
>> supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
>> what it was doing quite a long time ago.
>>
> The problem is that currencies aren't being allowed to float. If the US
> is the dumping grounds for the world's excess industrial capacity, whose
> fault is that? There's something wrong in countries like China where
> people are dirt poor and can't figure out how to buy $20 DVD players.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
>
> +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >>
>> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >control?
>>
>> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> the Bushes.
>>
>If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.


There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.

The tax cuts were Republican.

The Iraq war was Bush.



>
>
>> Clinton's administration is the only time the
>> brakes were applied.
>>
>There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
>to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
>for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
>office.


Look at the data:
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

>
>
>> Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
>> pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
>> debt.
>>
>So what would you cut? Anyone who is claiming that the government should
>spend less should put his cards on the table and tell us what he'd cut.
>If you just want to cut the military and cut the war and things like
>that, that won't do it. The problem is where the bulk of the money goes,
>social spending.
>
>
>
>> If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
>> anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
>> feels it's responsible.
>>
>To whatever extent the Republicans voted for social programmes, they are
>responsible for them.


The tax cuts.


>> >Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
>> >What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
>> >will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
>> >enough o get people to buy it.
>>
>> Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
>> from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
>> you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!
>>
>I suspect that Mexico isn't a world power. And I've always made fun of
>American made cars. I don't think that diminishes America as a world
>power. The idea of free trade and floating currencies is to correct for
>trade imbalances while allowing nations to compete a la individuals
>compete. You can argue against that only by arguing against the
>incredible decrease in the real cost of things over the last 50 years.


That was then. This is now.



>> >So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
>> >people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
>> >figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.
>>
>> I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
>> are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
>> out.
>>
>What "good jobs" are you referring to? If people are paid incredible
>sums of money for what they know or can do, maybe they are overpaid. The
>market should determine what you get for your work, not generally by the
>government or by some artificial block on access to markets by those
>outside. Some controls are needed, for example stop illegal aliens from
>getting into the US. It's interesting the very same people who claim
>that "good jobs" are being "downsized" support protecting illegal
>aliens.



In other words, you think Americans had it too good and
now they no longer do, and you're thanking Bush for that.



>> >> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
>> >> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
>> >> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
>> >> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
>> >> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
>> >> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
>> >> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
>> >> >don't speak English right.
>> >>
>> >> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
>> >> and still preserve American wages.
>> >>
>> >What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?
>>
>> Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
>> to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
>> investors).
>>
>What do you think a DVD player would cost if it wasn't for free trade?



More expensive, but one breadwinner would
be able to support his family.



>> That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
>> for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
>> supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
>> what it was doing quite a long time ago.
>>
>The problem is that currencies aren't being allowed to float. If the US
>is the dumping grounds for the world's excess industrial capacity, whose
>fault is that? There's something wrong in countries like China where
>people are dirt poor and can't figure out how to buy $20 DVD players.



The pound used to be a dollar forty, now it's two
dollars. Other exchange rates are similar.

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Lamont Cranston wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:473CA713.5F21EE96@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >>
> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >control?
> >>
> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> the Bushes.
> >>
> > If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> > trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> > the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> > spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> > and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>
> The spending that is driving the debt is war spending.
>
I think it can be objectively shown that that claim isn't correct. Note
that the total yearly budget for just the federal government is at least
2550 billion dollars.



> >> Clinton's administration is the only time the
> >> brakes were applied.
> >>
> > There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
> > to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
> > for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
> > office.
>
> There is a plethora of evidence that the size of the federal government
> decreased under Clinton. See www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521,
> specifically Figure 1 and Table 1.
>
Not if you exclude cuts to the military and the post office.




> Additionally, the only reductions in the military were those mandated by
> legislation passed during the tenure of his predecessor.
>
So he didn't even reduce the military? What did Clinton cut?




> >> Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
> >> pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
> >> debt.
> >>
> > So what would you cut? Anyone who is claiming that the government should
> > spend less should put his cards on the table and tell us what he'd cut.
> > If you just want to cut the military and cut the war and things like
> > that, that won't do it. The problem is where the bulk of the money goes,
> > social spending.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
> >> anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
> >> feels it's responsible.
> >>
> > To whatever extent the Republicans voted for social programmes, they are
> > responsible for them.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
> >> >What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
> >> >will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
> >> >enough o get people to buy it.
> >>
> >> Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
> >> from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
> >> you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!
> >>
> > I suspect that Mexico isn't a world power. And I've always made fun of
> > American made cars. I don't think that diminishes America as a world
> > power. The idea of free trade and floating currencies is to correct for
> > trade imbalances while allowing nations to compete a la individuals
> > compete. You can argue against that only by arguing against the
> > incredible decrease in the real cost of things over the last 50 years.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
> >> >people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
> >> >figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.
> >>
> >> I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
> >> are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
> >> out.
> >>
> > What "good jobs" are you referring to? If people are paid incredible
> > sums of money for what they know or can do, maybe they are overpaid. The
> > market should determine what you get for your work, not generally by the
> > government or by some artificial block on access to markets by those
> > outside. Some controls are needed, for example stop illegal aliens from
> > getting into the US. It's interesting the very same people who claim
> > that "good jobs" are being "downsized" support protecting illegal
> > aliens.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
> >> >> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
> >> >> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
> >> >> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond
> >> >> >by
> >> >> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too.
> >> >> >We
> >> >> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
> >> >> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that
> >> >> >they
> >> >> >don't speak English right.
> >> >>
> >> >> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
> >> >> and still preserve American wages.
> >> >>
> >> >What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?
> >>
> >> Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
> >> to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
> >> investors).
> >>
> > What do you think a DVD player would cost if it wasn't for free trade?
> >
> >
> >
> >> That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
> >> for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
> >> supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
> >> what it was doing quite a long time ago.
> >>
> > The problem is that currencies aren't being allowed to float. If the US
> > is the dumping grounds for the world's excess industrial capacity, whose
> > fault is that? There's something wrong in countries like China where
> > people are dirt poor and can't figure out how to buy $20 DVD players.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
> >
> > +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >>
> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >control?
> >>
> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> the Bushes.
> >>
> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>
> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>
Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.



> The tax cuts were Republican.
>
> The Iraq war was Bush.
>
Tax cuts and the war against terror are irrelevant to the debt long
term. I know you don't want to talk about social programmes, but they
are the driving of deficit and debt.



> >> Clinton's administration is the only time the
> >> brakes were applied.
> >>
> >There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
> >to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
> >for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
> >office.
>
> Look at the data:
> http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
>
I'm wondering what your point is supposed to be?




> >> Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
> >> pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
> >> debt.
> >>
> >So what would you cut? Anyone who is claiming that the government should
> >spend less should put his cards on the table and tell us what he'd cut.
> >If you just want to cut the military and cut the war and things like
> >that, that won't do it. The problem is where the bulk of the money goes,
> >social spending.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
> >> anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
> >> feels it's responsible.
> >>
> >To whatever extent the Republicans voted for social programmes, they are
> >responsible for them.
>
> The tax cuts.
>
So you want to raise taxes?



> >> >Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
> >> >What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
> >> >will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
> >> >enough o get people to buy it.
> >>
> >> Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
> >> from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
> >> you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!
> >>
> >I suspect that Mexico isn't a world power. And I've always made fun of
> >American made cars. I don't think that diminishes America as a world
> >power. The idea of free trade and floating currencies is to correct for
> >trade imbalances while allowing nations to compete a la individuals
> >compete. You can argue against that only by arguing against the
> >incredible decrease in the real cost of things over the last 50 years.
>
> That was then. This is now.
>
Things have never been cheaper. Go out and buy a DVD player for $20. If
milk is now $2.99 instead of $1.99, how much milk do you need?



> >> >So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
> >> >people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
> >> >figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.
> >>
> >> I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
> >> are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
> >> out.
> >>
> >What "good jobs" are you referring to? If people are paid incredible
> >sums of money for what they know or can do, maybe they are overpaid. The
> >market should determine what you get for your work, not generally by the
> >government or by some artificial block on access to markets by those
> >outside. Some controls are needed, for example stop illegal aliens from
> >getting into the US. It's interesting the very same people who claim
> >that "good jobs" are being "downsized" support protecting illegal
> >aliens.
>
> In other words, you think Americans had it too good and
> now they no longer do, and you're thanking Bush for that.
>
I think that anyone who is paid an insulated from the market wage is
distorting the economy. To the extent we don't want to live at Chinese
wage levels, I can accept something should be done when really needed.
What I don't accept is the fantasy that the US can't compete with China
if currencies are allowed to float.



> >> >> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
> >> >> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
> >> >> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
> >> >> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
> >> >> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
> >> >> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
> >> >> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
> >> >> >don't speak English right.
> >> >>
> >> >> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
> >> >> and still preserve American wages.
> >> >>
> >> >What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?
> >>
> >> Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
> >> to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
> >> investors).
> >>
> >What do you think a DVD player would cost if it wasn't for free trade?
>
> More expensive, but one breadwinner would
> be able to support his family.
>
What does that mean? Peoples' spending increases to whatever they get.
This is the definition of the poor and middle class. Largely it is only
the rich has so much wealth that they cut that out. So that's a good
reason for having rich people.



> >> That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
> >> for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
> >> supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
> >> what it was doing quite a long time ago.
> >>
> >The problem is that currencies aren't being allowed to float. If the US
> >is the dumping grounds for the world's excess industrial capacity, whose
> >fault is that? There's something wrong in countries like China where
> >people are dirt poor and can't figure out how to buy $20 DVD players.
>
> The pound used to be a dollar forty, now it's two
> dollars. Other exchange rates are similar.
>
What's your point? Make something and sell it to the UK. Look around at
locally produced products, see if they are making sense to you
price-wise.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >control?
>> >>
>> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> the Bushes.
>> >>
>> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>>
>> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>>
>Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.




You didn't look at the chart.

<snip>

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >> >control?
> >> >>
> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> >> the Bushes.
> >> >>
> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
> >>
> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
> >>
> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>
> You didn't look at the chart.
>
What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?




--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >> >control?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> >> the Bushes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>> >>
>> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>> >>
>> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>>
>> You didn't look at the chart.
>>
>What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
>tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
>sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?



It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >> >> >control?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> >> >> the Bushes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
> >> >>
> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
> >> >>
> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
> >>
> >> You didn't look at the chart.
> >>
> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
>
> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
>
Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
giving him some kind of credit is absurd.

Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >> >> >control?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> >> >> the Bushes.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>> >>
>> >> You didn't look at the chart.
>> >>
>> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
>> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
>> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
>>
>> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
>> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
>> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
>> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
>> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
>>
>Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
>always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
>giving him some kind of credit is absurd.



They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.


>
>Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
>it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
>medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.



I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
three Republican administrations of record deficits on
the last year or so of the Carter administration. If
that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
surprising me.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:473CB490.FE7929A1@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:473CA713.5F21EE96@yahoo.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >control?
>> >>
>> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> the Bushes.
>> >>
>> > If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> > trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> > the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore,
>> > the
>> > spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the
>> > FDR
>> > and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>>
>> The spending that is driving the debt is war spending.
>>
> I think it can be objectively shown that that claim isn't correct. Note
> that the total yearly budget for just the federal government is at least
> 2550 billion dollars.
>
>
>
>> >> Clinton's administration is the only time the
>> >> brakes were applied.
>> >>
>> > There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
>> > to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
>> > for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
>> > office.
>>
>> There is a plethora of evidence that the size of the federal government
>> decreased under Clinton. See www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521,
>> specifically Figure 1 and Table 1.
>>
> Not if you exclude cuts to the military and the post office.
>
>
>
>
>> Additionally, the only reductions in the military were those mandated by
>> legislation passed during the tenure of his predecessor.
>>
> So he didn't even reduce the military? What did Clinton cut?

Nada.

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >> >> >> >control?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
> >> >>
> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
> >> >>
> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
> >>
> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
> >>
> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
>
> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
>
I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
and new costs happened.


> >
> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
>
> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
>
The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
Americans tossed him out on his ear.


> If
> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
> surprising me.
>
What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
views.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >> >> >> >control?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
>> >> >>
>> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
>> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
>> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
>> >>
>> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
>> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
>> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
>> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
>> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
>> >>
>> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
>> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
>> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
>>
>> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
>> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
>>
>I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
>longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
>and new costs happened.
>
>
>> >
>> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
>> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
>> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
>>
>> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
>> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
>> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
>>
>The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
>Americans tossed him out on his ear.




So blaming the last three Republican administrations on
Carter's whole four years is less ridiculous??



>
>
>> If
>> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
>> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
>> surprising me.
>>
>What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
>views.

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >> >> >> >> >control?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
> >> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
> >> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
> >> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
> >> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
> >> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
> >> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
> >> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
> >> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
> >> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
> >> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
> >> >>
> >> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
> >> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
> >> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
> >>
> >> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
> >> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
> >>
> >I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
> >longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
> >and new costs happened.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
> >> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
> >> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
> >>
> >> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
> >> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
> >> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
> >>
> >The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
> >Americans tossed him out on his ear.
>
> So blaming the last three Republican administrations on
> Carter's whole four years is less ridiculous??
>
1) I explained how the debt costs from Carter and before were the
deficit later.
2) You want to blame Reagan. What did he do wrong?


> >
> >> If
> >> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
> >> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
> >> surprising me.
> >>
> >What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
> >views.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:59:51 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >control?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>> >> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>> >> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>> >> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>> >> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
>> >> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
>> >> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
>> >> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
>> >> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
>> >> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
>> >> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
>> >> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
>> >> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
>> >>
>> >> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
>> >> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
>> >>
>> >I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
>> >longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
>> >and new costs happened.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
>> >> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
>> >> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
>> >>
>> >> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
>> >> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
>> >> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
>> >>
>> >The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
>> >Americans tossed him out on his ear.
>>
>> So blaming the last three Republican administrations on
>> Carter's whole four years is less ridiculous??
>>
>1) I explained how the debt costs from Carter and before were the
>deficit later.
>2) You want to blame Reagan. What did he do wrong?


The debt in 1976 was $620 billion. In 1980 it was $907 billion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Even at 20% interest in perpetuity, the interest on Carter's addition
to the debt would be $60 billion a year, far less than was run up
every year thereafter by Reagan and the Bushes. Even interest
on the entire $907 Billion, even if all that were also at 20% in
perpetuity which it surely was not, would be $150 billion a year,
still a lot less than the Reagan and Bush annual deficits.

I don't have to know or explain what Reagan did wrong, the
numbers tell the story. I do think I know, but there's no point
getting into an argument that will just divert attention from the
numbers.

(You shouldn't say "hi ho" anymore, or the Australian secret
police will be coming after you!)



>> >> If
>> >> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
>> >> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
>> >> surprising me.
>> >>
>> >What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
>> >views.

 

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:59:51 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >control?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
> >> >> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
> >> >> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
> >> >> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
> >> >> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
> >> >> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
> >> >> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
> >> >> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
> >> >> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
> >> >> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
> >> >> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
> >> >> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
> >> >> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
> >> >> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
> >> >> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
> >> >> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
> >> >> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
> >> >>
> >> >> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
> >> >> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
> >> >>
> >> >I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
> >> >longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
> >> >and new costs happened.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
> >> >> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
> >> >> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
> >> >>
> >> >> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
> >> >> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
> >> >> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
> >> >>
> >> >The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
> >> >Americans tossed him out on his ear.
> >>
> >> So blaming the last three Republican administrations on
> >> Carter's whole four years is less ridiculous??
> >>
> >1) I explained how the debt costs from Carter and before were the
> >deficit later.
> >2) You want to blame Reagan. What did he do wrong?
>
> The debt in 1976 was $620 billion. In 1980 it was $907 billion.
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
> Even at 20% interest in perpetuity, the interest on Carter's addition
> to the debt would be $60 billion a year, far less than was run up
> every year thereafter by Reagan and the Bushes. Even interest
> on the entire $907 Billion, even if all that were also at 20% in
> perpetuity which it surely was not, would be $150 billion a year,
> still a lot less than the Reagan and Bush annual deficits.
>
I'm talking about the entire debt previously to Reagan. You can't count
before his first budget, either.




> I don't have to know or explain what Reagan did wrong, the
> numbers tell the story. I do think I know, but there's no point
> getting into an argument that will just divert attention from the
> numbers.
>
Reagan dealt with the legacy of Carter's stagflation. Why can't you
admit that?




> (You shouldn't say "hi ho" anymore, or the Australian secret
> police will be coming after you!)
>
That's pretty harsh.



> >> >> If
> >> >> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
> >> >> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
> >> >> surprising me.
> >> >>
> >> >What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
> >> >views.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:43:54 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:59:51 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:11:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >control?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the Bushes.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore, the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the FDR
>> >> >> >> >> >> >and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> There was no debt like we have now before Reagan.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Carter was running about 80 billion a year deficits. I was calculating
>> >> >> >> >> >and Reagan's deficit would've been erased had he not had to pay on he
>> >> >> >> >> >previous debt. So don't pretend that that doesn't count. Furthermore, it
>> >> >> >> >> >was only the high interest rates and stagnating economy that killed
>> >> >> >> >> >Carter's Stagflation Beast. So don't blame that on Reagan.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You didn't look at the chart.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >What are you trying to prove? The deficit went up because the economy
>> >> >> >> >tanked. The economy tanked because the Fed raised interest rates to the
>> >> >> >> >sky. Are you blaiming Reagan?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It seems way too much of a stretch to me to blame
>> >> >> >> 27 years of greatly escalating deficits, excluding the
>> >> >> >> Clinton administration, on the last year or two of
>> >> >> >> Carter's presidency, especially when Carter himself
>> >> >> >> didn't run up deficits anything approaching them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Excuse me but Clinton ran up plenty of deficits. And his actions were
>> >> >> >always to spend more against the Republicans arguing to spend less. So
>> >> >> >giving him some kind of credit is absurd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They were going DOWN as opposed to UP. You
>> >> >> didn't look at the chart, or might as well not have.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I don't need a chart to know that the deficits as the economy had a
>> >> >longer expansion period were going down. But that expansion period ended
>> >> >and new costs happened.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Carter was president when stagflation was out of control. He didn't fix
>> >> >> >it. He fought with the Fed about fixing it. Reagan accepted the painful
>> >> >> >medicine even though it allows you today to blame everything on him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I already said what I think of an attempt to blame
>> >> >> three Republican administrations of record deficits on
>> >> >> the last year or so of the Carter administration.
>> >> >>
>> >> >The last year? Carter's stagflation occurred for his entire term.
>> >> >Americans tossed him out on his ear.
>> >>
>> >> So blaming the last three Republican administrations on
>> >> Carter's whole four years is less ridiculous??
>> >>
>> >1) I explained how the debt costs from Carter and before were the
>> >deficit later.
>> >2) You want to blame Reagan. What did he do wrong?
>>
>> The debt in 1976 was $620 billion. In 1980 it was $907 billion.
>> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
>> Even at 20% interest in perpetuity, the interest on Carter's addition
>> to the debt would be $60 billion a year, far less than was run up
>> every year thereafter by Reagan and the Bushes. Even interest
>> on the entire $907 Billion, even if all that were also at 20% in
>> perpetuity which it surely was not, would be $150 billion a year,
>> still a lot less than the Reagan and Bush annual deficits.
>>
>I'm talking about the entire debt previously to Reagan. You can't count
>before his first budget, either.



You didn't look at the table. The $907B IS the
entire debt prior to Reagan. If you want to add 1981
to it, it's about $997B, and there's plenty of leeway
to accommodate that. If you want to blame 1982 on
Carter, the debt is $1.142T and the interest on that,
even at a wildly overstated 20% interest rate on the
whole debt, is $230B per year, still less than the
deficits Reagan ran up in 1984 and later.

Here's the URL again:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm


>
>
>
>
>> I don't have to know or explain what Reagan did wrong, the
>> numbers tell the story. I do think I know, but there's no point
>> getting into an argument that will just divert attention from the
>> numbers.
>>
>Reagan dealt with the legacy of Carter's stagflation. Why can't you
>admit that?



You're trying to say that stagflation 1976-1980 (or
through -82 if you want) triggered accelerating
deficits for the next 27 years, which Republicans,
so far from being able to make any headway,
couldn't keep from getting worse and worse, faster
and faster, decelerating only while a Democrat
was again in office for eight years. You can take
rhetoric instead of numbers if you want, but in that
case you'd do as well to blame it on the moon.

I guess we're done here.



>> (You shouldn't say "hi ho" anymore, or the Australian secret
>> police will be coming after you!)
>>
>That's pretty harsh.
>
>
>
>> >> >> If
>> >> >> that's what the RNC is trying to pass off these days,
>> >> >> I'd say they'd hit bottom except that they keep
>> >> >> surprising me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >What does the RNC have to do with this conversation? I'm giving my
>> >> >views.