Obama Won, So What

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Obama's been reelected, I could care less. No matter who is in office whether we overcome our current situation or not does not hinge on the man in the White House alone.

Everybody panic the country's going to IMPLODE!!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!

 

Already (or still), a war is raging over how Obama is going to kill or save the country.

The ammunition :

First there is the deficit. When Obama took office from what information on the issue I could find out debt was at 10 trillion and so far it has hit a claimed 15.

Let's compare it to the last time we were this screwed in current US dollars we were 3.6 at the end of the depression and it took 11 years just to get our debt to there. 13.4 trillion (again in current US dollars) in debt towards the middle of WWII. Which took a mere 2 years to get too. There were further debt spikes in the along the way, but for now anyway I'm not too interested in converting every single one of them to current dollars as it took a good deal of research just to get the data to convert the years provided. Should be noted that they didn't have credit cards and no down payment loans to add into that total. Or multiple natural disasters resulting in tens of billions of dollars of damage, nor did they have the govt funded relief organizations we have now for that matter. Nor were there nearly as many people drawing welfare, unemployment, medicare or social security insurance as there are now or will be in the near future.

 

Govt. social programs:

First of let's get one thing straight. EVERY dollar the govt. spends on social programs is either borrowed or received from taxes and fees.

 

There are folks crying about failing programs and massive national debt while at the same time crying that they might have to pay more taxes. What they need to understand is either you can have lower taxes and little or no social security, Medicare, public education, welfare, a military, unemployment insurance and at some point no deficit. Or you can pay higher taxes to properly fund the govt. so it can provide all of these programs without it having to borrow to fund them and as well pay down the deficit. It can't be had both ways, it is a one or the other proposition. With what one gets linked very closely with what they are willing to put in.

 

i'm not going to got into the religious folks arguments about drugs, abortion, gays (or policies created to protect and grant them equality) etc. because, quite frankly church and state are separate for a reason, To protect the religious freedom of all American citizens not just the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists, but all Americans.

 

I'm tempted to ask if as a nation we have really sunk this far? Have we really become this uneducated? Have we really abandoned all accountability for our own involvement in creating this mess or for that matter for where our own lives and actions have taken us as individuals? Unfortunately looking at the writing scribbled on the wall, I fear I need not ask as there will be few that will even understand the questions.

Anybody feel like putting their two cents on the table? (let's try to be civil)

Edited November 8, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Dangit! I hate when I remember things late.

 

Also to be included in the comparison of our economy then and now. A longer and much more expensive war with ongoing activity overseas. Also a drastic reduction in the production of export goods with an increase in the amount of imported goods which has further devalued the dollar globally keeping wages here from being able to catch up to inflation. As a nation we were producing more goods than we were importing the last time around, with our largely based service economy recovery will be a much more difficult road this time.

Edited November 8, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Chewbalka]

i'm not going to got into the religious folks arguments about drugs, abortion, gays (or policies created to protect and grant them equality) etc. because, quite frankly church and state are separate for a reason, To protect the religious freedom of all American citizens not just the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists, but all Americans.

 

What exactly do you mean by religious freedoms of all americans? Oh and by the way Judaism is the correct term as well as homosexual, your terms are kinda racist... I am not a follower of Judaism i am an atheist,as well as I am straight and married to a woman lol just incase you were thinking these are defensive statements. So to get back to the point? What religions are you speaking of that are denied their rights?

 

And as for your decrease in exports there only seems to be a decrease in vehicles and parts.

 

http://globalreach.blogs.census.gov/

 

Even with drought conditions on farming, the exporting has been slightly higher then usual

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought-2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx

 

Here is a more realistic approch to why the American dollar is going through a rough patch...

 

http://dollarcollapse.com/dollarcollapse-faqs/

 

This all seems more of a rant then a thought out perspective... It does not really bother me who the president of the United States of America is... Just as it does not bother you about who the Canadian's elect as prime minister. Of course elected officials can not always do what they promise, its near impossible everyone wants more, but are unwilling to pay for it... Its the same here in Canada... And I totally agree on that opinion you stated previously on the topic of promises related to debt.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Chewbalka

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Jewish people are and do call themselves Jews. A single Jewish person is a Jew more than one Jews. They say " I am a Jew". the term in and of itself id only derogatory if used as such.

Would you consider this wiki derogatory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews How about this page http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ or this one http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/.

 

As far as "gays" yeah homosexuals sounds better but in and of itself "gay" is not a derogatory term, just as "gay" is either a legitimate descriptor of one's sexual preference as in "I am gay", or "gay and lesbian friendly establishment" or in it's original use the "It was a gay affair with balloons, music and dancing".

 

 

It should be noted that "gays" is frequently used on the evening news and in blogs and websites run by homosexuals or gay and lesbian organizations, and very frequently comes up on LOGO tv in homosexual oriented programming.

 

As far as religious freedom, every citizen here has the right to choose their faith and not be persecuted for it by the Govt. or the people. With separation of church and state as mandated by our law the govt. is not supposed to deprive any person of faith of their right to follow their faith or force any person to follow a faith that is not their own.... It's tough to explain, the best advice I can offer is for you to read our "Bill of Rights" and our "Constitution".

 

I'll have to dig into the export thing later....much to do and the weather looks like it's getting ready to not cooperate.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

and yes it came out a little rough that's why it's in the Test Forum...it will either, become something useful as a reference (not likely) a space for folks to post their view of the current situation (much more likely) or die and disappear into the ether where all the other dead test threads go, all with little or no help from the Admins. Nobody posts for a while (a month I think) it just vanishes.

 

EDIT: Jews For Jesus are a fun lot to hang with. Ran into them at the last bike rally here, got all sorts of interesting literature from them, drank many beers, sang many songs that I have no clue what the words mean, but had a lot of fun. I'm a Catholic of sorts...but they didn't seem to mind...Still in contact through our respective club sites and looking forward to the return of warmer weather so we can get together and ride.

 

Edit: Edit: We have a couple gay M/C clubs here too, have joined a few of their rides as well, again had a great time and am in contact with some of the members on a fairly regular basis, nice folks.

I hang with all sorts of M/C clubs, all that tends to matter to any of them is that you ride.

 

Funny how similar interests can cause one to set aside differences of opinion.

Edited November 9, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Chewbalka]

To protect the religious freedom of all American citizens not just the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists, but all Americans

 

Jewish people are and do call themselves Jews. A single Jewish person is a Jew more than one Jews. They say " I am a Jew". the term in and of itself id only derogatory if used as such.

Would you consider this wiki derogatory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews How about this page http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ or this one http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/.

o

I agree but when your reference is in relation to religion then the jewish people practice Judaism... They don't practice jews.... It just sounds ridiculous... I think I explained it well enough this time around. I thought it was self explanatory the first time, my bad I will be more descriptive in the future, being vague is obvious in a sense that it will go mis understood.

 

As far as "gays" yeah homosexuals sounds better but in and of itself "gay" is not a derogatory term, just as "gay" is either a legitimate descriptor of one's sexual preference as in "I am gay", or "gay and lesbian friendly establishment" or in it's original use the "It was a gay affair with balloons, music and dancing".

 

Looked this up on wiki and it appears the terms gay and lesbien are more acceptable then homosexual. I have never refered to people by there sexual orientation to them or about them. It would sound funny if i said i was hanging out with my heterosexual friends yesterday... Heres the wiki link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality

 

As far as religious freedom, every citizen here has the right to choose their faith and not be persecuted for it by the Govt. or the people. With separation of church and state as mandated by our law the govt. is not supposed to deprive any person of faith of their right to follow their faith or force any person to follow a faith that is not their own.... It's tough to explain, the best advice I can offer is for you to read our "Bill of Rights" and our "Constitution".

 

I understand what the bill of rights is I have read through it after watching a documentary on tv about it...

My question was guided more along the lines of what religion or religions were you refering to? As in what religions are being prosecuted or denied there rights? For instance if someone says they worship dirt and everyone prosecutes them on it i would agree that it is wrong why should it matter what peoples religious beliefs are? I am just curious to which religion you refer to as prosecuted or denied.

 

Funny how similar interests can cause one to set aside differences of opinion.

 

I agree in some cases on this but as a metal head I have been segregated by the masses on multiple occasions. It seems as though I am more acceptantant of diverse differences then the other way around. For instance I have been asked multiple times why am I at a bar that listens to pop music...(i was invited by friends that listen to this type of music) I have been ignored and viewed as a criminal because of the way I dress. (Mostly the elderly or parents of children not related to me do this, cops dont automatically do this how odd lol).

 

Hopefully my point was explained better this time around. I should really stop assuming people understand what I am trying to say lol.

 

Ps lol i just realized Muslim is isIamic .(edit)

Edited November 9, 2012 by Chewbalka

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

D.d.-i'm not going to got into the religious folks arguments about drugs, abortion, gays (or policies created to protect and grant them equality) etc. because, quite frankly church and state are separate for a reason, To protect the religious freedom of all American citizens not just the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists, but all Americans.<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

Chewbalka- I agree but when your reference is in relation to religion then the jewish people practice Judaism... They don't practice jews.... It just sounds ridiculous... I think I explained it well enough this time around. I thought it was self explanatory the first time, my bad I will be more descriptive in the future, being vague is obvious in a sense that it will go mis understood.

I was referring to the persons practicing the religions not the religions themselves, hence using the terms for the people rather then their faith. It is not their faith that is protected it is their right to practice it. And as far as who is being persecuted right now off the top of my head Muslims are still having things a bit rough here. But freedom of religion also is supposed to protect people from being discriminated against by employers and the like.

 

As far as persecuted for your appearance and musical tastes, what can I say, people can be stupid. Should try being a metalhead that also loves bluegrass, jazz, country, techno, experimental and classical. Add to that being a biker and lookin' the part. believe me I know where you're coming from.

[CraigD]

First there is the deficit. When Obama took office from what information on the issue I could find out debt was at 10 trillion and so far it has hit a claimed 15.

I started this post over 6 years ago, updating it after 10/1 of every year to keep it current. It shows the US Treasury data on the total national debt in both raw and Labor department Consumer Price Index adjusted year 2000 dollars, and is handy for checking claims about the national debt, providing a historic perspective, and keeping a couple of handy links to convenient US government websites for the data it shows.

 

From these (specifically, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway) we can confirm that the debt was 10 trillion, or precisely $10,626,877,048,913.08, when Obama took office on 20 Jan 2009, and note that 15 trillion understates the current, 9 Nov 2012, debt of $16,245,318,820,569.34.

 

2008-2009 saw the greatest increase in US national debt in non-adjusted and CPI-adjusted dollars in history (1,885,104,106,599.26 non-adjusted), and the greatest percentage increases of both kinds (19.2% non-adjusted) since 1944-1945.

 

Let's compare it to the last time we were this screwed in current US dollars we were 3.6 at the end of the depression and it took 11 years just to get our debt to there. 13.4 trillion (again in current US dollars) in debt towards the middle of WWII. Which took a mere 2 years to get too.

This doesn’t look correct to me. The US national debt peaked at the end of WWII, in 1946, at $269,422,099,173.26, which CPI adjusts to 2,379,204,383,468.48 in 2000 dollars, about 2.4 trillion. At the end of the Great Depression, 1941, the debt was $ 48,961,443,535.71, CPI-adjusted to 573,548,338,561.17, less than half a trillion year 2000 dollars.

 

Though I think getting facts and figures straight when talking about the US’s (or any person or enterprise’s) finances is important, I think it’s more important to understand what the US debt means in terms of the flow of money from and to the financial entities involved.

 

Like most entities, the US is able to borrow money by promising to repay at some specified future date a greater amount than it obtains - the venerable “principle+interest” financial principle.

 

Entities able and willing to lend money are those who have more of it on hand than they expect to need for the future of the loan. Though a emotionally loaded term, I think it’s accurate and useful to term these entities rich. These entities may be individuals and companies (perhaps 50% of the current debt – precise debt ownership is difficult to research), or foreign nations (about 30%), or departments within the US government that happen to be currently receiving more money than they are spending, such as the Social Security Administration (about 30%)

 

Entities unable or unwilling to lend money to the US government fall into 2 main classes:

• Individuals and companies that don’t pay taxes to it. I’ll call these entities uninvolved
  
• Individuals and companies that do. I’ll call them poor.
  

Thus, the interest on the US national debt, which was about $251,000,000,000 (6% of total spending) for 2011, is paid by the poor to the rich.

 

I’m very worried that this flow of money has become so entrenched in the US economy that, even if the political will to begin reducing the debt, eventually to nearly nothing, can be mustered, efforts to do so will either be so strongly opposed by the rich that they fail, or if they succeed, many rich individuals will suffer financial hardship.

 

I’m such an individual though I’m not “rich” in the stereotypical sense most associate with the term, having a single small house with an outstanding mortgage, one aged (2000) car, and a modest collection of personal valuables, over half of the income I depend on for a comfortable retirement comes from managed investments in US treasury bills and bonds, which make money via interest on the US national debt. I am therefore, as I define it above one of the entities constituting the rich in the money flow produced by the debt.

 

(Sources: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/usbudget/BUDGET-2013-BUD.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget)

[lawcat]

The financial system, which is the blood of the economy, went bankrupt. There was no cash flow.

So someone had to induce cash flow to keep things going, and the gov't did it. I am not worried in the least bit.

When Obama said in the last election, or anyone else, I believe in the inventiveness and hard work of the American people, it's not an empty phrase. That declaration has a lot of weight to it. It goes to the heart of the solution.

Money is labor, everything costs money because of people's labor; without people nothing would be on the market. US has 300 million people, many put in their labor daily earning the money. They will pay for everything and get the country out of the crisis--if there is stability and comfort here and abroad.

The bigger concern is what is happening abroad. Insecurity looms.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

CraigD- This doesn’t look correct to me. The US national debt peaked at the end of WWII, in 1946, at $269,422,099,173.26, which CPI adjusts to 2,379,204,383,468.48 in 2000 dollars, about 2.4 trillion. At the end of the Great Depression, 1941, the debt was $ 48,961,443,535.71, CPI-adjusted to 573,548,338,561.17, less than half a trillion year 2000 dollars.

My numbers were based on taking the average household income at the end of the depression multiplied by the difference between then and 2012 average income which yielded roughly 50 times increase from then to now. I used that 50 times and several sites to determine the debt the first number being the peak debt during the depression the second being 1942 (or 1943. People are tying up my connection so I'll have to provide a definite on that later) which until the fifties was the highest debt spike in that era and also a similar time frame with similar events to the present recession/depression (why this time doesn't fully qualify as a depression is a matter of public morale and political issue I'd imagine).

I don't know how the experts on this matter get their numbers but my method seems reasonably sound as i'm only of by about 1.2trillion which may be merely a result of you having differing starting numbers. I'll have to check out your link for comparison.

 

EDIT: It was 1943 according to your chart. My resources had it at $72422445116.22 for 1939 instead of $48961443535.71 so odds are this is where the discrepancy comes from but I'll have to double check. ESPECIALLY as the same sources were about a trillion off on our current debt.

EDIT: Using your $48961443535 X 50 (what I figured inflation to be as described above) equals $2,448,072,176,750 so I'm pretty close to the $2,379,204,383,468.48 you posted (well close enough obviously whoever prepped your number used a different but close number for the difference in the dollar then and now or different income averages). $63,091 average household income 8/2012 in the depression era $1260 both figures vary from source to source. but these were the ones used. Any good links for this?

EDIT: Crap, somethings still wonky here!

Edited November 10, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Quite frankly, the numbers are only for a comparison of then to now in an attempt to show that while we are in a bit more trouble than last time thanks to numerous factors we are pretty much on a similar course for how long it will take to get back to normalcy.

With both eras sharing similar world events and even similar causes for the financial situation. In any case the argument/belief that we should have been back to normal in one four year term is ridiculous especially when compared to the Great Depression / WWII era which I believe to be a good timeline for gauging our current progress or lack thereof.

I'd still like for someone to help me sort out just what is wonky in my math for the sake of maintaining/establishing a reasonably accurate set of numbers so a proper comparison can be established.

Edited November 10, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[CraigD]

Quite frankly, the numbers are only for a comparison of then to now in an attempt to show that while we are in a bit more trouble than last time thanks to numerous factors we are pretty much on a similar course for how long it will take to get back to normalcy.

With both eras sharing similar world events and even similar causes for the financial situation. In any case the argument/belief that we should have been back to normal in one four year term is ridiculous especially when compared to the Great Depression / WWII era which I believe to be a good timeline for gauging our current progress or lack thereof.

There are certainly some similarities between the Great Depression of 1929-1941 and the “Great Recession” of 2008-????. Interestingly, IMHO, looking just at increase in the US national debt, there are striking similarities between the 1941 WWII and the 2003 Iraq war. CPI-adjusted, the debt increased by about $1.9 and $1.8 billion during these US warring in. 1941-1945 war spending was widely accepted to account for the debt increase. Although cost accounting of 2003-2008 war spending was and remains controversial and a subject much argued as a tool to win elections and political power, it’s reasonable to conclude that most of the increased debt was due to it.

 

There are also some profound differences between the US finances of 1929-1941 and 2008+, so I’m not sure too much prediction of the future 10 years of so can be based on 1930s history.

 

More critically, I’m wary of the whole “find historical examples” planning approach. Better, I think, to work from the most fundamental principles – though doing this, or even knowing these principles, is much easier said than done!

 

I'd still like for someone to help me sort out just what is wonky in my math for the sake of maintaining/establishing a reasonably accurate set of numbers so a proper comparison can be established.

Fortunately, there’s so much good quality data available on the internet, that with a bit of laborious but simple calculating, this should be doable. What, specifically, is wonky and wrong with your numbers, DD?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

CraigD-Great Depression, 1941, the debt was $ 48,961,443,535.71, CPI-adjusted to 573,548,338,561.17, less than half a trillion year 2000 dollars.

D.d-$48961443535 X 50 (what I figured inflation to be as described above) equals $2,448,072,176,750 so I'm pretty close to the $2,379,204,383,468.48 you posted

Is this difference because you are basing on 2000 era dollars?

My amounts seem to fail to correspond with yours, I'm a little less concerned that the amounts for the years do not correspond exactly as they're close (though it would be nice if they were right on). But that things do not line up is cause for concern that somewhere I am mixing thing up. Example:

CraigD- $269,422,099,173.26, which CPI adjusts to 2,379,204,383,468.48 in 2000 dollars, about 2.4 trillion.

But I get the $2.4T from $48961443535. one or both of us is off (very likely me) and if I wish to continue the assertion that both eras while not exactly alike are comparable and that at a minimum the timeline for recovery this time will take at least as long as the last this needs to be resolved.

CraigD- There are also some profound differences between the US finances of 1929-1941 and 2008+, so I’m not sure too much prediction of the future 10 years of so can be based on 1930s history. <br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

More critically, I’m wary of the whole “find historical examples” planning approach. Better, I think, to work from the most fundamental principles – though doing this, or even knowing these principles, is much easier said than done!

I don't know about "planning" based on historical comparisons but I do believe past events are a sound guide for expectation of what is reasonable to expect for a current similar situation (man that sounds stupid, there has to be a better way of "wording"it). Would I count on it being an entirely accurate/correct guide? No, that would rely on unpredictable data such as what path is chosen by those "in charge" and what roll "the masses" will play.