or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 3

post #31 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Like Julian Assange crying about government transparency and then going to work for a government with one of the worst and most corrupt records on the subject?

Yeah, exactly like that hahah.

But actually, no.

At least the Assange news should put to bed the conspiracy theory that he's a Mossad/CIA agent though.
post #32 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

i dont get it. what's wrong with this

The difference is that household debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, the debts of parents can't be enforced against children, individuals can't be forced to take on debts they don't want, and so forth and so on.
post #33 of 5454
The collectors sure as hell try though Ataruk re going after deceased debtors' children.

But...fuck em. I hate children. They are just mini-versions of adults.

And cats, fuck them too. wink.gif
post #34 of 5454
here's a new one:

222
post #35 of 5454
M is this your official coming out party ? you're such a DINO i wanna saddle up and go hunting

424

(is that an exclusive phrase, if so is not meant in that exclusive way)
post #36 of 5454
Thread Starter 
I'm just having a conservative day. It's because Manton called me a typical Jewish lib last night.
post #37 of 5454
well for what it's worth , i think you're nothing like that at all. i actually enjoy your conservatism but i like to tickle your toes about it sometimes.

but calling out fb friends = cold[1].gif ice cold cold[1].gif

(actually these things make me want to delete my account so i don't have to see them any more -- i could fill this threak with so much gold)
post #38 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xericx View Post

277
Along those lines, although less blatantly "political"
474
post #39 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

222

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xericx View Post

here's a new one:
222

eh hem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The difference is that household debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, the debts of parents can't be enforced against children, individuals can't be forced to take on debts they don't want, and so forth and so on.

all three of your points support the main idea of the image which is that gov't debt is absurdly bad.

household debt is removed in bankruptcy -> national debt can't be -> national debt bad
children dont have to pay debts for parents -> future generations will have to pay for current national debt -> national debt bad
individual can't be forced into debt -> citizens are basically forced into debt on a national level-> national debt bad.

either my mcat verbal skills are spot on or i'm totally wrong
post #40 of 5454
George Clooney's comments are dumb, even by celebrity standards. His opinion is fine but his reasoning is just stupid.
post #41 of 5454
This just went up
post #42 of 5454
There's a future pedophile.
post #43 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xericx View Post

277

wtf??? jesse james and tiger woods were married???!!!
post #44 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereis View Post

You can look to Japan for what level of debt is sustainable for a 1st world country. American debt and Japanese debt can be thought of as interchangeable as investment grade assets, with American bonds being far more liquid and in-demand by financial institutions.
Yep, Japan is just humming along without any issues at all. Wait, what's that about "Lost Decades?"
Quote:
Economist Paul Krugman has ... explained how truly massive the asset bubble was, with a tripling of land and stock market prices during the prosperous [times]. .... The cozy relationship of corporations to banks and the implicit guarantee of a taxpayer bailout of bank deposits created a significant moral hazard problem, leading to an atmosphere of crony capitalism and reduced lending standards. He wrote: "... banks lent more, with less regard for quality of the borrower, than anyone else's. In so doing they helped inflate the bubble economy to grotesque proportions." The Bank ..... [changed] interest rates .... due in part to concerns over the bubble and [then] land and stock prices began a steep decline, within a few years reaching 60% below their peak

Now, is Krugman talking about Japan or the recent US recession? Or both? By most economists' accounts, as of today Japan is still underperforming and suffering the consequences of their crash in the 80s, and their reaction to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereis View Post

The difference between a household relying on future income and a nation relying on future tax revenue is that tax revenue is guaranteed, while our jobs (unfortunately) are not.
If no one is working, from where will government collect taxes? The recession shows unequivocally that tax revenue is NOT guaranteed at all, as job loss and investment losses contributed to a historical low for tax revenue as percentage of GDP.
post #45 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy4500 View Post

Yep, Japan is just humming along without any issues at all. Wait, what's that about "Lost Decades?"
Quote:
Economist Paul Krugman has ... explained how truly massive the asset bubble was, with a tripling of land and stock market prices during the prosperous [times]. .... The cozy relationship of corporations to banks and the implicit guarantee of a taxpayer bailout of bank deposits created a significant moral hazard problem, leading to an atmosphere of crony capitalism and reduced lending standards. He wrote: "... banks lent more, with less regard for quality of the borrower, than anyone else's. In so doing they helped inflate the bubble economy to grotesque proportions." The Bank ..... [changed] interest rates .... due in part to concerns over the bubble and [then] land and stock prices began a steep decline, within a few years reaching 60% below their peak
Now, is Krugman talking about Japan or the recent US recession? Or both? By most economists' accounts, as of today Japan is still underperforming and suffering the consequences of their crash in the 80s, and their reaction to it.
If no one is working, from where will government collect taxes? The recession shows unequivocally that tax revenue is NOT guaranteed at all, as job loss and investment losses contributed to a historical low for tax revenue as percentage of GDP.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-myth-of-japans-lost-decades/71741/

Please read... it's not a definitive characterization of Japan as an economic utopia by any stretch, but it points out (IIRC, I read it last year) that demography in Japan neutralizes stagnant or negative growth numbers that would be different for the USA (we experience large population growth and still have more workers than retirees).

Regarding the point that future tax revenue is guaranteed but future jobs for a household are not... how so? If nobody is working where will the taxes come from. At a macro level, if we can assume one, we must be able to assume the other.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.