Gary Johnson & Virgil Goode on Va Ballot

[WRW]

From my default link: "(Another name is national insolvency, if not willful - as in, if total assets are less than total debts.)"

And,yes, I will be one of the 47% and some of the 6% left will vote for someone that has a snowballs chance in hell.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

@ ShotgunBlast; I sincerely hope that it can be accomplished in time for the next election.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

From my default link: "(Another name is national insolvency, if not willful - as in, if total assets are less than total debts.)"

And,yes, I will be one of the 47% and some of the 6% left will vote for someone that has a snowballs chance in hell.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Suggestion...don't base your entire knowledge on just wikipedia. As long as a nation can print money it can't be insolvent because it has the ability to pay; as in the asset which is the creation of money can always be greater than any liability owed. A US state can be insolvent because they lack the ability to create money. The same can be true for nations which given their monetary policy powers to another body, for example the European Union. The same is true for nations who's monetary standard is tangable asset (e.g. gold/silver) since they can't create more of it out of thin air.

However, that is all beside the point which you conviently ignored. Yes, as a scare tactic go ahead and proclaim Obama will default on our debt and Romney won't. It's BS. Both parties are just fine continuing to increase the debt and will do so more or less the same. Neither party cares about reducing the deficit, let alone the debt, enough to actually revoke the countries abilty to print money if it isn't done. In the last couple of years the Republicans have already caved several times despite the Tea Parties mid-term victory. Your original statement about Obama making this country insolvent is wrong. He is and wants to do the exact opposite by creating money, exactly as his Keynesian buddy's insist he does. Romney will do no different.

Estimates are hard to trust, but the debt under Obama in 2016 is projected to be ~$22.5T and with Paul Ryan's laughable budget "only" ~$21.7T. In other words Obama's going to add approximately $6.5T while Romney would only add $5.7T...amazing leadership you're voting for there, eh?

[gunderwood]

@ ShotgunBlast; I sincerely hope that it can be accomplished in time for the next election.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Why not do something now rather than sit around and hope other people carry your water in 2016?

[ShotgunBlast]

@ ShotgunBlast; I sincerely hope that it can be accomplished in time for the next election.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Why not do something now rather than sit around and hope other people carry your water in 2016?

Funny this mentality that comes from a Romney voter who's trying to image himself as "Mr pull yourself up by the bootstraps". Supporters for both parties really do want the same thing - for someone else to do the work!

As far as the national debt continuing to go up, you always have to pump more and more money into the Ponzi scheme unless it all comes crashing down. And they longer they keep this going, the more painful it's going to be when it does come crashing down.

[WRW]

@ ShotgunBlast; I sincerely hope that it can be accomplished in time for the next election.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Why not do something now rather than sit around and hope other people carry your water in 2016?

Funny this mentality that comes from a Romney voter who's trying to image himself as "Mr pull yourself up by the bootstraps". Supporters for both parties really do want the same thing - for someone else to do the work!

As far as the national debt continuing to go up, you always have to pump more and more money into the Ponzi scheme unless it all comes crashing down. And they longer they keep this going, the more painful it's going to be when it does come crashing down.

If that is directed at me, I would surely like It clarified.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[grumpyMSG]

I think Paul Ryan says it best here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paul ... tml?_esi=1
The question is: Do you want put the fire out and repair the house or throw gasoline on it and build a new house? Personally I want to put the fire out or at least try, everybody will have to live with their decision I am prepared to live with mine...

[gunderwood]

I think Paul Ryan says it best here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paul ... tml?_esi=1
The question is: Do you want put the fire out and repair the house or throw gasoline on it and build a new house? Personally I want to put the fire out or at least try, everybody will have to live with their decision I am prepared to live with mine...

And that's a false analogy. Paul Ryan wants to add about 90% of the debt Obama does by 2016, that's thowing gasoline on the house by either party if you're not blinded by the R next to his name. Ryan's budget is a joke if you think it does one bit of what he claims. Look at the numbers, don't take his word for it.

[gunderwood]

If that is directed at me, I would surely like It clarified.

Yes, it's like talking to a bunch of third-party welfare recipients...

It's too hard to hold a job. It's too hard to find a job because the government sent them all to China. I can't make my own job because that's too risky. The rich need to give me more free stuff. Blah, blah, blah.

Replace jobs/free stuff with a viable third party and that explains why there isn't one in 2012, probably won't be one in 2016, etc. Everyone wants someone else to carry their political water for them and give them more free stuff. It's politcal welfare and we're trying to get more people off it and working on real alternatives.

[WRW]

Sounds to me as though someone in the third party ranks has projected an image of anyone voting against Obama and we have a couple of parrots repeating it in this thread. Enough for me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

RE: debt and insolvency

15.6T is a big scary number, but our GDP is 15.09T.

This is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slighly higher than their annual income, meaning they're nowhere near broke and really could pay it off (rather quickly actually) if they had the will to do so.

The US has one of the lower debt to GDP ratios in the world believe it or not.

[dorminWS]

RE: debt and insolvency

15.6T is a big scary number, but our GDP is 15.09T.

This is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slighly higher than their annual income, meaning they're nowhere near broke and really could pay it off (rather quickly actually) if they had the will to do so.

The US has one of the lower debt to GDP ratios in the world believe it or not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, it is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slighly higher than their annual income AND PAYING OUT A DOUBLE-DIGIT PERCENTAGE OF ITS ANNUAL INCOME TO SUPPPORT OTHER FAMILIES, which puts them a whole lot closer to being broke.

[Kreutz]

No, it is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slighly higher than their annual income AND PAYING OUT A DOUBLE-DIGIT PERCENTAGE OF ITS ANNUAL INCOME TO SUPPPORT OTHER FAMILIES, which puts them a whole lot closer to being broke.

Not sure I follow, this a dig at the supposed moochers who pay no tax (despite the fact almost all Americans pay taxes), or a dig at our overt generosity in supporting other countries with our money?

[dorminWS]

@Kreutz:

Two answers; both valid:
(1) Both
(2) What does it matter?

And if you still don't understand, I can't help you.

[gunderwood]

Sounds to me as though someone in the third party ranks has projected an image of anyone voting against Obama and we have a couple of parrots repeating it in this thread. Enough for me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Typical.

[grumpyMSG]

RE: debt and insolvency

15.6T is a big scary number, but our GDP is 15.09T.

This is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slightly higher than their annual income, meaning they're nowhere near broke and really could pay it off (rather quickly actually) if they had the will to do so.

The US has one of the lower debt to GDP ratios in the world believe it or not.

I think you are choosing the wrong number to go with. The numbers you should be using is Federal revenue vs Federal debt. Which would be 2.5 versus 15.6T. I know I would never want to carry a debt to income ratio of 6 to 1. Even worse though, it will rise by one every two to three years if we continue on the path we are on. By the time I pass 60 it will be 10 times the revenue.

The choice, as some would make it seem, should we drive off the fiscal cliff at 60 miles an hour or at 80? I plan to vote for 60, with a hope to change direction before we make it to the cliff.

Another and greater fear of mine at the moment is a completely unchecked Obama. Think about it, he rules by decree (executive orders), has an Attorney General and Homeland Security Director that think they can pick and choose which laws to enforce, other cabinet secretaries that think along similar lines. He doesn't have a future election in front of him. If things remain the same in D.C. with a Democratic senate and a Republican house, who will tell him no? If he or Eric Holder decides that anything that is capable of being converted to an automatic firearm will be considered an automatic firearm and is covered by the NFA, who will tell them no? If he writes an executive order outlawing coal or stopping all offshore oil exploration, who will stop him?

[ShotgunBlast]

RE: debt and insolvency

15.6T is a big scary number, but our GDP is 15.09T.

This is roughly equivalent to a family carrying a total debt slightly higher than their annual income, meaning they're nowhere near broke and really could pay it off (rather quickly actually) if they had the will to do so.

The US has one of the lower debt to GDP ratios in the world believe it or not.

I think you are choosing the wrong number to go with. The numbers you should be using is Federal revenue vs Federal debt. Which would be 2.5 versus 15.6T. I know I would never want to carry a debt to income ratio of 6 to 1. Even worse though, it will rise by one every two to three years if we continue on the path we are on. By the time I pass 60 it will be 10 times the revenue.

Yeah, this is a more accurate comparison. Comparing debt vs GDP is like comparing my debt vs the amount of sales I bring in for my business, which does not translate to income I end up with.

Another and greater fear of mine at the moment is a completely unchecked Obama. Think about it, he rules by decree (executive orders), has an Attorney General and Homeland Security Director that think they can pick and choose which laws to enforce, other cabinet secretaries that think along similar lines.

If you look at the number of executive orders by president, you'll see that Obama is right on pace (or under) recent past presidents.

Obama: 134
W Bush: 290
Clinton: 363
HW Bush: 165
Reagan: 380
Carter: 319

Source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... ition.html

They even have it broken down by subject of the things this dictator is trying to pull over our eyes. The humanity! http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... jects.html

He doesn't have a future election in front of him. If things remain the same in D.C. with a Democratic senate and a Republican house, who will tell him no? If he or Eric Holder decides that anything that is capable of being converted to an automatic firearm will be considered an automatic firearm and is covered by the NFA, who will tell them no? If he writes an executive order outlawing coal or stopping all offshore oil exploration, who will stop him?

I remember W, Clinton, and Reagan having unchecked power in their second term as they radically shifted the landscape of our country based on their personal or party's vile agenda. Oh wait, no they didn't.

EOs are made to outline policy in the executive branch or to outline how the executive branch will act when power is delegated from an act made in the legislative branch. Here is a good example that was passed just yesterday.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s ... -contracts

You would think dictator Obama would just say that ANYONE in the United States cannot do business with counter-parties that have ties to human trafficking, but EOs don't have that kind of power. He can only say that government agencies that fall under the executive branch will not make those sales contracts. EOs cannot create new legislation (consider every weapon an automatic firearm, outlaw coal, or stop offshore oil drilling).

Let me be clear: it is OK for you to have a fear of Obama, just like some people are afraid of spiders or blood. But those people aren't afraid of spiders or blood because someone told them to be afraid of spiders or blood. Make sure you're not afraid of Obama because someone told you to be afraid of him. We've lived through 8 years of Reagan. 8 years of Clinton. 8 years of Bush. I can vote my conscience with a 3rd party because even if Obama wins we'll live through that too.

[Kreutz]

I think you are choosing the wrong number to go with. The numbers you should be using is Federal revenue vs Federal debt. Which would be 2.5 versus 15.6T.

yeah, on second thought this is a better illustration of the issue and I forgot to see the forest for the trees and should have viewed it in that light and used those numbers.

Don't need me to tell you I'm wrong....frequently!

[grumpyMSG]

Another and greater fear of mine at the moment is a completely unchecked Obama. Think about it, he rules by decree (executive orders), has an Attorney General and Homeland Security Director that think they can pick and choose which laws to enforce, other cabinet secretaries that think along similar lines.

If you look at the number of executive orders by president, you'll see that Obama is right on pace (or under) recent past presidents.

Obama: 134
W Bush: 290
Clinton: 363
HW Bush: 165
Reagan: 380
Carter: 319

Source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... ition.html

They even have it broken down by subject of the things this dictator is trying to pull over our eyes. The humanity! http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... jects.html

He doesn't have a future election in front of him. If things remain the same in D.C. with a Democratic senate and a Republican house, who will tell him no? If he or Eric Holder decides that anything that is capable of being converted to an automatic firearm will be considered an automatic firearm and is covered by the NFA, who will tell them no? If he writes an executive order outlawing coal or stopping all offshore oil exploration, who will stop him?

I remember W, Clinton, and Reagan having unchecked power in their second term as they radically shifted the landscape of our country based on their personal or party's vile agenda. Oh wait, no they didn't.

EOs are made to outline policy in the executive branch or to outline how the executive branch will act when power is delegated from an act made in the legislative branch. Here is a good example that was passed just yesterday.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s ... -contracts

You would think dictator Obama would just say that ANYONE in the United States cannot do business with counter-parties that have ties to human trafficking, but EOs don't have that kind of power. He can only say that government agencies that fall under the executive branch will not make those sales contracts. EOs cannot create new legislation (consider every weapon an automatic firearm, outlaw coal, or stop offshore oil drilling).

Let me be clear: it is OK for you to have a fear of Obama, just like some people are afraid of spiders or blood. But those people aren't afraid of spiders or blood because someone told them to be afraid of spiders or blood. Make sure you're not afraid of Obama because someone told you to be afraid of him. We've lived through 8 years of Reagan. 8 years of Clinton. 8 years of Bush. I can vote my conscience with a 3rd party because even if Obama wins we'll live through that too.

Allow me to counter your argument with a few of mine and back them up a little:
On gun control:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/obama-tal ... video.html check about 2 minutes into the video out and of course this statement:

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

fromhttp://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/ ... nder-radar
The moratorium on drilling for gas and oil in the gulf: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... e-replaced Oh look, the House and Senate have to agree to stop the implementation of this plan, we see that happen all the time . The time was up in the last few days, did the Senate act?
How about another leg of his energy policy: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/20 ... orst-enemy I will even say there is truth to part in the latter part or the article about natural gas becoming less expensive than coal, but it is the EPA policies are causing already running coal fired plants to shut down before gas fired replacements are running, driving up energy costs.
We cant forget his policy of ignoring the law concerning Immigration law: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -dot-maybe Was that an executive order?

So I believe, I am well founded in my beliefs that he will use the executive order to implement his desires. I also believe that it would take some pretty egregious acts for the Senate to act to stop him, and some senators will support him, whether it is because of the party, or that they have similar political philosophy. On a personal level I have a great deal of respect for Virgil Goode and wish I had him to vote for instead of Allen, but that ship sailed months ago.

[gunderwood]

I think you are choosing the wrong number to go with. The numbers you should be using is Federal revenue vs Federal debt. Which would be 2.5 versus 15.6T. I know I would never want to carry a debt to income ratio of 6 to 1. Even worse though, it will rise by one every two to three years if we continue on the path we are on. By the time I pass 60 it will be 10 times the revenue.

Agreed. I see Kruetz already re-evaluated, so I won't pile on.

The choice, as some would make it seem, should we drive off the fiscal cliff at 60 miles an hour or at 80? I plan to vote for 60, with a hope to change direction before we make it to the cliff.

First, I would rather do neither and not merely hope we are going to change direction. That's one reason I won't be voting for Romney or Obama. Second, I don't think this is accurate. Romney/Ryan are not going to slow things down, they are slightly going to slow down the rate at which they are increasing. The projected debt in 2016 under Obama is ~$22.5T and Romney is ~$21.7T, both are significantly higher than the current ~$16T. Neither party is talking about actually reducing the debt, at best they are talking about a slight reduction in the increase of debt. If we are heading off that cliff at 80MPH now, Obama wants to accelerate it to ~112.5MPH ($22.5T / $16T * 80MPH) and Romney wants to do it at 108.5MPH ($21.7T / $16T * 80MPH).

Neither Obama nor Romney are actually slowing us down, they are at best slowing down the rate of increase. However, both parties are assuming rosey economic situations for most of their slight reduction. If you really believe this is a financial cliff then slightly reducing the pressure on the gas pedel isn't going to do jack squat, only hitting the brakes will prevent the car from going over.