Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Totally out of control!

Discussion in 'Round Table' started by GunnyGene, Feb 10, 2018.

  1. JohnDeere

    JohnDeere Deplorable

    Trump admits it’s more spending, to get the funding for the military he wanted he allowed the spending for dem votes.
    Is that really the deal IDK, daca wasn’t included so there’s that.
  2. Jarhead5811

    Jarhead5811 Rational Anarchist MSGO Supporter

    I’ve been trying to understand why we haven’t already seen really high inflation after the massive “quantitative easing” and these are the reasons, I think most likely:

    1. The velocity of the dollar has been low and, that being the case, the excessive dollars haven’t moving around enough for their presence to be felt in the economy. This could change quickly...

    2. Other nations have been doing an even worse job of managing their money supply. So, many nations, and corporations, are holding US dollars because it has been relatively stable, in the past. If enough people started dumping the dollar, all at once, it could trigger a sell off that drops the value of the enough to start a chain reaction.

    3. The Petro-dollar, oil in most of the world is only sold in dollars. I believe the reason the deep-state wants to antagonize Russia is because they are one of several large nations that see the harm (to themselves) this causes and are trying to move away from it.

    The bottom line, as I see it, is that enough investors see the dollar as stable and that belief, more than anything else, keeps it stable. If when ANYTHING puts a crack in that belief the house of cards will fall and I think it is inevitable that we will see that happen, eventually. Anyone trying to predict when, is just guessing. There are too many moving parts to make a reliable prediction, as to when.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
    maxhush, Blondie70, NRA_guy and 3 others like this.

  3. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy Distinguished Poster

    Debt.JPG I stuck the US debt numbers from my post above in Excel and generated a curve fit and extrapolated it out to 2030. The debt is in billions of dollars.

    94LEVERFAN Distinguished Poster

    Try to, I do vote.
    Blondie70 likes this.

    94LEVERFAN Distinguished Poster

    Should go back to what it used to be. Landowner and taxpayer in order to be eligible to vote.
  6. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy Distinguished Poster

    "That's racist." :)

    How about this theory: "A person's vote should be weighted in proportion to the dollars he paid in taxes in the prior year."

    I.e., the more tax you pay, the more your vote counts. That would be easy to do with computers nowadays.
  7. rigrat

    rigrat Semper Fi

    You would be quickly out weighed by the sports players, hollywierdo's, politicians and the rich.
    bucmeister and Jarhead5811 like this.
  8. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy Distinguished Poster

    Good point.

    They make lots of money, but do they pay lots of tax?
  9. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Distinguished Poster

    It's kinda like that already. Only it's called PAC donations. :rolleyes:
    NRA_guy and Jarhead5811 like this.
  10. Blondie70

    Blondie70 Distinguished Poster MSGO Supporter

    I think that's why the ACLU, etc...etc.....have so much money...the lib sports, actors, etc...making huge donations to them and getting tax write offs.
    Ain't getting any of my money either way...ha ha ha
    94LEVERFAN, Jarhead5811 and JohnDeere like this.
  11. rigrat

    rigrat Semper Fi

    I'm sure they do even if they pay half what we do they would still out weigh us.
    94LEVERFAN and Jarhead5811 like this.
  12. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy Distinguished Poster

    Well, the Trump Budget Director has seen the future . . . and plans to do nothing about it:

    Budget Director Mulvaney: No Balanced Budget for at Least a Decade - Breitbart

    Like all presidents before him, Trump's plan is to kick the can further down the road 10 years (past his presidency) so some other president gets saddled with the inevitable recession/depression.

    And like all the others, he can blame it on Congress.

    But not to worry, economics has a way of taking control with or without a government's permission.

    Budget Director Mulvaney: No Balanced Budget for at Least a Decade

    Budget Director Mick Mulvaney admitted during a Monday evening White House press briefing that the administration’s proposed budget does not balance within ten years, pointing rather to a turn in the “tide.”
    Asked about whether the budget balances ever again, Mulvaney said there was a “philosophical conversation” about not projecting past the decade timeline. He said projecting out much farther would “undermine the credibility of the numbers.” He put an emphasis on giving the American people and Congress “real numbers.”

    Mulvaney said that there are increased deficits for the first five years of the ten-year projection, attributing that to a decrease in revenues following the tax cut bill that passed last December.

    The budget director recalled for reporters that in 2017 he had declared that without major changes, the budget would not balance within a ten-year window. Of $54 billion in proposed savings his office sent up to the Hill last year, Congress took up only $5 billion, according to Mulvaney.

    “We knew last year that we’d be facing this,” he said.

    Mulvaney admitted to the press that he “probably could have made it balance, but you all would have rightly just absolutely excoriated us for using funny numbers because it would have taken funny numbers to do it.” He added, speaking of the OMB budget numbers, that “these are real numbers.” He said that there were a lot fewer plugged numbers in this budget than in the budget he released last year, “because we have better data.”

    “I hope there is some value in being honest with people about what the fiscal situation is,” said Mulvaney. He said while the budget does not balance in ten years, it does “turn the tide … especially when you measure GDP — our debt as a percentage of GDP, we peak about 80 percent here in ’20, ’21, ’22 and we get it down the other way.”

    “We’re not condemned to trillion dollar deficits forever. There is a way out of this,” he added, “but we have to take the spending side extraordinarily seriously.”

    The budget represents three trillion dollars in savings over the course of the ten years,” he said. “It’s the second largest proposed reduction in spending ever. Second only to last years’ budget.”

    A reporter pressed Mulvaney on whether it was hypocritical for him to present a budget that doesn’t balance as someone who considers himself a “deficit hawk.” Mulvaney put the responsibility back on Congress as the body that determines appropriations. “We sent up $54 billion of reductions last year, they took five and pounded the hell out of me while they were doing it,” said Mulvaney, adding that he knows what the attitude is on the Hill. “That’s why we wanted to send both of these budgets,” he said, speaking of the adjusted fiscal year 2018 and new fiscal year 2019 proposed budgets. “We’d love to see them spend less.”

    Mulvaney then referenced a weekend tweet from the President before stating that they “had to accept a bunch of additional non-defense discretionary spending in order to get the defense spending we wanted. [The President] said we had to accept a bunch of waste and extra spending in order to get that. That’s not ideal.”
  13. Jarhead5811

    Jarhead5811 Rational Anarchist MSGO Supporter

    There’s too much momentum. This is a one way street. The best we can hope for is a delaying of the inevitable.
  14. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy Distinguished Poster

  15. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Distinguished Poster

    This illustrates a deeper reality that is usually not recognized by the left. That is that nature (including people) is fundamentally governed by competition. The left - socialists - hate competition, which is why they constantly try to eliminate it via a long list of programs and laws across the board. Almost every social welfare program you can think of is fundamentally anti-competition.

    Competition, including violent competition, is essential to life and progress. Without it there is simply stagnation and death. Yes, competition means some do not survive. But without competition everything dies.
  16. Leonidas

    Leonidas The Beast MSGO Supporter

  17. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Distinguished Poster

    Yea, verily. 'tis I. ;)
  18. 94LEVERFAN

    94LEVERFAN Distinguished Poster

    LVR, according to my wife, it is OUR $MONEY. And anytime I cash a check for over $500 she asks "Did you buy another effin gun?" No Baby. She's gonna be pissed when the Bass Pro bill comes in later. Nice little Ruger Single 10 in stainless followed me home.
  19. bucmeister

    bucmeister Distinguished Poster

    Do firmly believe they would pay more in order to be able to control the rest of us. All they would have to do is pay a lot more the year before a major election, get candidates elected that would gut the Constitution to their collective liking, change the judiciary to their liking, then pay virtually no taxes for 3 years only to rinse and repeat again as needed. Yep, believe that could go south in a hurry. Under that system we could easily end up with someone like Rob Riener as President or Chief Justice of SCOTUS.
    Jarhead5811 likes this.
  20. 94LEVERFAN

    94LEVERFAN Distinguished Poster

    That would eliminate at least half of the voter rolls. Dems would be PISSED. And, replaced.