It's not just the faith in the US govt, it's faith in the US economy, that the US govt has a tax stream that can support it's operations and obligations. So far that is true.
It doesn't have to be average investors, just some major player in the bond markets changing their opinion of the risk of US securities could start it. Or dummy Trump with a tweet. When running he said we could just negotiate with bond holders to get them to accept less than full value. And if that didn't work, just borrow more and then default. He went on to say that if interest rates rise, then we could refinance the national debt. That last part helps explain how his casinos went bankrupt.
We certainly should be addressing the deficits and debt right now. We're at what, 110% of GDP now? It was significantly higher in WWII, but in the period after, the US was the manufacturing powerhouse economy in the world and much of the rest of the world was in shambles and needed everything. It's reasonable to conclude we could support a higher debt load in that environment than we can today. We're running a $1 tril deficit this year and it's a decent economy. We're overdo for a recession, what happens then? Suppose there is some totally unexpected calamity, whether a natural disaster, a war, etc? We should not be as vulnerable as we are.
It's also equally irresponsible to advise inaction, when you don't know the cost of leaving things the way they are.
You should be talking about cost-benefit estimates, but conservative politi cians concentrate on costs to the exclusion of any consideration of potenti al benefits.
he major political parties. It's not a cheap exercise, and the accuracy of the estimates isn't great.
on social services than the Republicans are. They clearly aren't prepared to spend as much as Scandinavian governments or the German government does spend,
.
Bernie Sanders is seen as more left-wing than most Democrats. He wasn't eve n a Democrat until a few years ago.
This is a well-known right-wing claim. It's total nonsense - as can be seen by looking at the history of US government spending under Democratic and R epublican administrations. You just lost any chance of being taken seriousl y.
eir life expectancies are slightly longer than the US can manage.
The current population of Sweden is 9.995 million people. The current popul ation of the USA is about 330 million people. The US has more money to spen d on pointless extravagances.
Europe now does seem to have the technological lead. The gross income inequ alities within the USA mean that there are more cashed-up entrepreneurs aro und looking for projects to finance than there are in places with a more eg alitarian income distributions. Australia has a couple of very successful s tart-ups that exploited US venture capital.
If the US educated more technologists, the US venture capitalists might not have to look outside their borders for projects to finance.
Not the US, if Syria, Irak and Chile are anything to go by.
The US does spend a lot on its "defense industries", but it doesn't seem to have the kind of weapons it needs to effortlessly impose order. Mary Kaldo r nailed the problem back in 1981.
ticians concentrate on costs to the exclusion of any consideration of poten tial benefits.
Why should I be talking about cost-benefit, when I'm not the one proposing anything, I'm not the one claiming to have the solution, I'm not the one claiming to be looking at the whatever the alleged problems are?
the major political parties. It's not a cheap exercise, and the accuracy o f the estimates isn't great.
re on social services than the Republicans are. They clearly aren't prepare d to spend as much as Scandinavian governments or the German government doe s spend,
em.
ven a Democrat until a few years ago.
He's more left wing, but not by all that much. He is mighty stupid though. The other day he came out in favor of voting rights for terrorists, rapists , murderers that are serving prison sentences. That's typical for the leftie s running for president, they are so stupid and full of themselves that they think that kind of thing is what most Americans want.
en by looking at the history of US government spending under Democratic and Republican administrations. You just lost any chance of being taken seriou sly.
Fine, then don't take me seriously. Do you deny that the libs here, including those that are running for president, think that the rich are too rich, that we need a wealth tax? I don't deny that both parties have spent too much, but it's always the libs that create whole new govt programs, that once created, can never be undone. And if they are estimated to cost X, a couple decades later they are costing 4X. We've spent trillions on the war on poverty and yet the poverty rate is the same. Imagine if that money had been left with those who earned it, to invest, save, enjoy, the benefits to the economy. Instead we encouraged single mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the teens to two thirds. Pay for something, encourage it, and you get more of it. And then the libs look at the rich and want to take more. If given the chance, they will take it and then just spend more and we'll still have the same deficits and national debt will still be piling up.
their life expectancies are slightly longer than the US can manage.
ulation of the USA is about 330 million people. The US has more money to sp end on pointless extravagances.
I see, thanks for weighing in with that opinion of our accomplishment.
According to you, of course.
The gross income inequalities within the USA mean that there are more cashe d-up entrepreneurs around looking for projects to finance than there are in places with a more egalitarian income distributions. Australia has a coupl e of very successful start-ups that exploited US venture capital.
So what?
ot have to look outside their borders for projects to finance.
Oh please. And you say I should not be taken seriously? You see some US venture capitalists in a free country decide to make some investments in AU and all of a sudden that's used as a negative against the US?
You know, maybe we should have just sat on our asses and let Russia takeover Europe and the Mideast instead of footing the lion's share of NATO for 75 years. And we still do. Maybe we should just let the world get out of control and let you Aussies handle it all. Must be nice living down under. Oh, and I would never be so presumptuous to sit here in the USA and pontificate to you about AU, it's policies, it's economy, and kangaroos.
Well, I must confess, I am a little bit off. The black out-of-wedlock birth rate at the start of the war on poverty, circa 1965, was about
20%. I had said it was in the teens. So I was off by just a tad. On the other hand, I said that it's two thirds today, when it's actually 73%! So, the increase is just as large and the point remains correct. And racist? Me? For pointing out the truth? Don Lemon cited the 73% number, is he racist too?
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 12:07:30 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wro te:
:
te:
:
ote:
ote:
rote:
y for all
ayers and
turned
0 a month
great
t.
f merit.
ers.
ll.
want
tes I'll
ogram being proposed by some unspecified Democrat?
tes
the cost of leaving things the way they are.
liticians concentrate on costs to the exclusion of any consideration of pot ential benefits.
g
Your attitude may be that ignoring problems will make them go away, but den ying that real problems actually exist isn't a way of winning elections, ev en if it can be the kind of debating pose that passes for argument here.
If you see a particular situation as a problem - as with children born out of wedlock, which you mention below - you do have to pay attention to the c osts of not dealing with the perceived problem as well as the amount of mon ey currently being spent on it.
by the major political parties. It's not a cheap exercise, and the accuracy of the estimates isn't great.
more on social services than the Republicans are. They clearly aren't prepa red to spend as much as Scandinavian governments or the German government d oes spend,
ts
them.
even a Democrat until a few years ago.
h.
ts,
ies
y
The habit of disenfranchising people with felony convictions for life seem to be confined to some US states.
formatting link
d-bars-8f110017cb2b
For some odd reason, it disenfranchises a lot more of the coloured populati on than any other identifiable group. Bernie Sanders probably wasn't lookin g for votes from terrorists, rapists and murders - there aren't enough of t hem to count - but the more minor felony convictions do cut into the people who would be likely to vote for him.
ey
.
seen by looking at the history of US government spending under Democratic a nd Republican administrations. You just lost any chance of being taken seri ously.
formatting link
makes the point that income inequality in the US is very high, and that it correlates with unfortunate social consequences (looking at correlations ac ross US states, which match the correlations across advanced industrial cou ntries).
Higher income taxes are one way of reducing income inequality. Japan seems to manage it by social expectations but getting something like that to work in the USA might be difficult.
formatting link
does argue for a wealth tax, but more to avoid the over-concentration of ca pital into too few hands.
ibs that create whole new govt programs, that once created, can never be un done.
Anything that is created by legislation can be destroyed by legislation. Yo ur problem is that the right sees a virtue in ignoring existing problems an d leaving society just the way it is, while the left is committed to making changes that should solve problems. Once you solved - or at least reduced
- a particular problem it is difficult to dismantle the solution, but it's not that it can never be undone but rather you can't generate the kind of s upport needed to let you undo it.
ing 4X.
A very specific prediction. 3% inflation over two decades will double the c ost of any program expressed in current dollars, and over 47 years will qua druple it.
The reality is that effective solutions to real problems tend to get expand ed where they work, so that more money gets spent to provide more real bene fits.
he
But the poverty threshold isn't the same. The percentage of people living b elow the current poverty line now - 12.7% - isn't much lower than it was -
19% - when the War on Poverty started (under LBJ in 1964) but they do live a lot better now.
formatting link
Healthier, better housed, better fed and better educated workers also benef it the economy. Germany spends even more on keeping the working class produ ctive, and their economy exports about four times as much per head as the U S economy does.
formatting link
That wasn't all that was going on - the US white out-of-wedlock rate went u p by a factor of ten (from about 3% to about 30%) over the same period. You are trying on the usual right-wing sleigh of hand, conflating "birth of of wedlock" with "single parent families" which doesn't happen to be correct.
Again, you have demonstated that you aren't to be taken seriously.
Where the war of poverty is waged effectively - as it is in Sweden - the ch ildren of single mothers don't seem to be disadvantaged versus the children from two-parent families, but somehow this never seems to register in the right-wing world view.
But that probably isn't what's driving out of wedlock births, much as you m ight like to to think that it is. Do you imagine that all the white unmarri ed mothers that you know, decided that they weren't going to bother marryin g their partners when they decided to get pregnant because the could rely o n the - notoriously mean - US social security system to support themselves while they raised the child?
The US collects a relatively low proportion of it's GDP as taxes - 27.1%
formatting link
Australia is only marginally better, at 27.8%, and the UK and New Zealand s it a bit higher at 34.4% and 34.5% respectively
Germany - at 44.4% collects a lot more. France and Belgium collect even mor e at 47.4% and then you come the Scandinavian countries, Sweden at 49.8%, D enmark at 50.8%, Finland at 54.2% and Norway at 54.8%.
Algeria and Timor-Leste are claimed to collect even more, but neither set o f national statistics is entirely trustworthy.
There's quite a lot of evidence that suggests that tax rates in the US shou ld be higher, and that the US should collect a whole lot more from the well
-off.
The US electoral system gives the well-off a lot more political power than they have in other advanced industrial countries - which is reflected in th e way people like you find ostensibly plausible arguments to come up with - so this probably isn't going to happen.
There's absolutely no reason why collecting a higher proportion of the GDP in taxes should lead to higher deficits - it should reduce them - or a bigg er national debt. Electing irresponsible ego-maniacs like Trump will do tha t
t their life expectancies are slightly longer than the US can manage.
opulation of the USA is about 330 million people. The US has more money to spend on pointless extravagances.
It was a giant step for mankind, but strictly a public relations exercise.
Putting satellites into orbit has been a very useful activity, but getting to the moon hasn't made anybody any money yet, give or take a few profitabl e movies.
What has the US come up with recently? ASML in the Netherlands dominates th e market for lithography machines, and there are semi-conductor fabs spread around the world. China is now graduating enough engineers to take over, i f their social system lets the engineers think far enough outside of the bo x to let them lead the competition - Japan had the same kind of problem whe n I was younger, but the blue-LED Nobel Prize demonstrates that it isn't an absolute block.
formatting link
hed-up entrepreneurs around looking for projects to finance than there are in places with a more egalitarian income distributions. Australia has a cou ple of very successful start-ups that exploited US venture capital.
not have to look outside their borders for projects to finance.
Australia has a population of 25 million, the US has a population of 330 mi llion, and US entrepreneurs have to come to Australia to find innovators to support with venture capital? Why should they even bother looking?
It's not as if the US technical community takes anything done outside the U S seriously until they can buy the product off the shelf from a supplier wi th warehouse and offices inside the US.
TO
The US sat on it's hands until 1941, and got into Europe only when it becam e obvious that the Russians were beating Germany, and would take over the w hole European landmass if the US and the UK didn't set up a second front (w hich was something the Russians really wanted - they did win WW2, but it co st them a great deal more than it cost the US and the UK).
formatting link
s-and-value
US spending is currently 22.1% of the NATO budget - substantial but not a " lions share" of the NATO budget. It's about 5% of US defense spending, and it is clearly part of the US forward defense strategy (as it always has bee n).
As if the world was ever "under control", and the US ever did anything usef ul to get it under control. US and UK activity in Iran in 1953 made the cou ntry much more accessible to US and UK oil companies for a while, but the l ong term consequences of supporting the incompetent Shah they'd installed w eren't great.
Pinochet in Chile got that country back under the sort of control that suit ed the CIA, and Chile was able to get out from under him without replacing him with a fundamentalist nut case, but it didn't win the US and brownie po ints.
Places like Australia do contribute to UN peace-keeping forces, which do se em to be less devoted to supporting US commercial interests than the US wou ld like, and do seem to have a better record in getting parts of the world "under control".
to
Of course you would, but since you don't care what happens outside of US bo rders, you aren't going to bother. You are presumptuous enough to make all sorts of silly claims about NATO (and I spent 42 years living in England an d the Netherlands, both NATO countries).
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:50:04 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrot e:
You did manage to ignore the fact the white out-of-wedlock birth rate went up by a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30% - over the same period w hich is the kind of omission that looks decidedly racist.
And you ignored the fact that "out-of-wedlock births" don't necessarily pro duce single mom families which is what what you rather explicitly implied.
Possibly. Context makes a difference. The sentence "we encouraged single mo m families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the te ens to two thirds" does imply that out-of-wedlock births necessarily create single-mother households, which certainly isn't necessarily true.
If a black career woman in her thirties decides that she is making enough m oney to able to pay for enough child support to let her pursue her career, she is entitled to have a child and raise it on her own and social secrutiy won't play any part in her decision.
There are obvious racist assumptions embedded in what you posted, even if t he facts claimed happen to be correct.
t up by a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30% - over the same period which is the kind of omission that looks decidedly racist.
roduce single mom families which is what what you rather explicitly implied .
mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from the teens to two thirds" does imply that out-of-wedlock births necessarily crea te single-mother households, which certainly isn't necessarily true.
Of course it's true. When you have a father around, then those pesky welfare folks start asking questions, like why doesn't he have a job and support the kids? On the other hand, being single and the more kids you have, the more money you get. Why is it that libs don't understand that when you provide incentives, you get more of what you're subsidizing? And when you tax things, you get less of it?
money to able to pay for enough child support to let her pursue her career , she is entitled to have a child and raise it on her own and social secrut iy won't play any part in her decision.
ROFL
That isn't what's happening, as evidenced by all the black teens involved with crime living in inner cities. They don't have nannies.
the facts claimed happen to be correct.
Sure, that's always the lib way. Play the race card.
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:18:33 PM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wro te:
:
ck
l.
k
ent up by a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30% - over the same peri od which is the kind of omission that looks decidedly racist.
produce single mom families which is what what you rather explicitly impli ed.
e mom families, the black out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage went from th e teens to two thirds" does imply that out-of-wedlock births necessarily cr eate single-mother households, which certainly isn't necessarily true.
It may be true in some cases. It's not going to be true in every case.
If the father is around, he may be perfectly happy to support the kid, and welfare wouldn't be involved at all.
They understand it just a well as you do, if not better.
What US conservatives don't seem to understand is that US welfare for singl e mothers has gone down rather than up over the past twenty years - if welf are was buying single motherhood there would be less of it now, not more.
Your problem is that you have equated "birth out of wedlock" with "single m om family". If your white friends don't bother to get married before they g et kids, you don't assume that the mother will have to go on welfare to sup port the kid, or that the father will make himself scarce.
gh money to able to pay for enough child support to let her pursue her care er, she is entitled to have a child and raise it on her own and social secu rity won't play any part in her decision.
An unspecified number of black teenagers involved in crime while living in the inner cities doesn't have any obvious connection with the equally unspe cified number of black mother who haven't married the father of their child .
Statistics on whether the parents of a child are married is easy to find - all births are registered and data on whether the parents are married is o n the birth certificate.
Statistics on the number of single mothers who are dependent on welfare see ms to be harder to find.
formatting link
if the facts claimed happen to be correct.
You make a racist assumption, you get called on it. What works when you are out drinking with your Klan buddies doesn't get the same kind of positive reception from a wider audience.
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
And they are blind to the fact that they are the ones playing the race card.
And this pissy retard also calls anyone not in his klan 'libs'.
He is a punk who got up to 350 lbs sitting in front of his computer. Squoze out even more of the tiny space he had between his ears for brains. Between the four inch thick skull, and all the fat, I would be surprised if his brain weighed more than a gram or two.
Nothing racist about it. Don Lemon at CNN cited the same statistics. In fact, I was off, I said that the black out-of-wedlock birth rate was two thirds, it's actually 73%, just ask Don. Is he racist too?
Never used to be that way. Going back 60, 70 or 80 years, the typical black family was highly moral, abstemious wrt alcohol, never touched drugs and were huge church-goers. The sad state they're in today is almost entirely due to the policies of the Democratic Party.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wro te:
It's not citing the statistic that's racist, it is the implicit assumption that any black unmarried mother is also a single mother who is going to be dependent on welfare.
The roughly three-fold increase in the proportion of black birth that are o ut-of-wedlock has to be seen in context with the fact that the proportion o f white births that are out-of-wedlock has risen by something like a factor of ten - from about 3% to about 30%.
There's no guarantee that the increase in black out-of-wedlock births repre sents a three-fold increase in the number of black single mothers who are d ependent on welfare, which is the statistic that ought to be being cited.
I'd like to be able to cite the actual figure for this, but it is curiously difficult to find. Right-wing propaganda sources like the Heritage Foundat ion are a full bottle on black out-of-wedlock births, but curiously silent on the number of black single mothers on welfare.
formatting link
looks at a limited sample of women on welfare, and makes the point that pro blems with physical and mental health (which are more common amongst poor p eople (and blacks are over-respresented amongst the poor) are assocaited wi th higher reliance on welfare.
Krw thinks that any opinion he doesn't share is wrong. It's not a useful a ssertion.
Go back 60, 70 or 80 years - to 1959, 1949 and 1939 - US black hadn't had t he benefits of the success of the Civil Right movement which got under way in the 1950's and started making life better for US blacks in the 1960's.
Any virtues that Cursitor Doom may attribute to the "typical black family" mainly represent those enforced by poverty - they couldn't afford drugs or alcohol and church-going was the only entertainment that was financially ac cessible. Individuals could do better - Louis Armstrong and Art Tatum come to mind.
Once the Civil Rights movement reduced that poverty appreciably, the black community could afford some of the vices practiced by similarly poor white families.
The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans, and can - to that extent - be blamed for the fact tha t US blacks got enough money to afford the same vices as the US white poor, but that doesn't make them responsible for the current "sadness" of the st ate of the US black population (who don't seem to be much worse off than si milarly poor whites, but at least have enough sense not to have voted for T rump).
If anybody is responsible, it's the slave merchants (English, Dutch and Ame rican) who bought their black ancestors as slaves in Africa and shipped the m to the US to be sold as slave labour to plantation owners. Poor whites go t bought and sold as "indentured labourers" in much the same way, but they weren't colour coded as "inferior" and some of them out from under.
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Here is the fact about (many) blacks. The absolute and ONLY reason that number went up is because of gangs, and the increase of females in gangs.
What happened thereafter is the 'gang mentality' and subsequent and current 'jailhouse mentality' that pervades the lower income areas. So we now have gang members raising gang members. And the chicks give it up regularly and are less likely to 'keep it to themselves'. Essentially the entire female gender took a hit as chicks started commiting crimes. The whole nation of women now have gang mentality bahaviors ingrained into their thinking in their primary school years.
But there are also very good, fine, upstanding african american members of the community, and I have personally worked with a huge number far more intelligent than I.
Sadly, many of the criminal bent minded folks know very well how to 'play' on society and 'whitey' any time they wish as civil societies are trusting and we must pay for what our ancestors did, and what a bunch of assholes supremacists are still doing. So some of them lower themselves to that level and kind folks get hurt on both sides.
Recently (the last ten years), things changed from street crimes to cybercrimes and the bit coin hunters with gang/drug money to buy some pretty fancy servers. They are trying to go low profile.
And population densities and a few other factors weigh into this and the error in the old stats as well.
Right, they were so happy that they didn't want to march in large groups to try and get equal rights. Segregation was a pleasure I'm sure, who wouldn't like to be forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from 'whites only' fountains etc.
Yes, they sure had it good! The odd lynching perhaps, but that wasn't a problem as it was always some other guy or gal - certainly not one of the house servant/slaves.
He said 60s, 70s, 80s, not 1920. Segregation was over in the early 60s. That's also when we started the war on poverty. We;ve spent trillions and what do we have to show for it? Out-of-wedlock births through the roof, families with generations on welfare, the decline of the black family. The libs subsidized it. Imagine how much better off everyone would be if that money had been left with taxpayers to spend or invest, how it would have benefited the economy, created more jobs for everyone that wanted to work.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:bcb3557f-78b0-40ef-b943- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
The jobs in this country evaporated. Americans bought foreign cars. You chumps who did / do that are idiots.
And NO, simply because they (some) get made here does not change the fact that the parent company is foreign.
This nation's decay is across all races, because it is economic. The US standard of living, particularly at the middle class level fell to nearly nil.
All while those apparently unaffected buy up things and inflate prices that make it even harder for that now pushed down into poverty lower middle class.
I watched it over a 45 year period.
While all you did all your life is get fat. That pushed even more brain matter away from your four inch thick skull cavity.
No, C.D. said going back 60, 70, or 80 YEARS - in other words the 1930s through the 60s. When blacks (and Hispanics) were fighting for their rights because regular society gave them so little chance for success. The couldn't even fight for their country in the 2nd WW in mixed companies until near the end.
Are you under the impression that when governments spend money that the money simply vanishes into thin air? That money is spent on jobs and those people pay taxes, etc. The money is somewhat shifted from those who hoard it to those who need access to it. That is the part that bothers you - you don't want to share with anyone else.
I'm not trying to say that governments can solve all problems but they can spread the wealth around so that everyone has a chance at making money, not just the Drumpfs and their friends.
Decline of the black family? Give me a break. You have been listening to too much right wing and Russian propaganda. You say that Blacks had it so much better before, they had so many job opportunities, there was not inherent racism... you must literally be a honkie to believe that.
Your own POTUS said a judge who ruled against him only did so because he was Mexican (that judge was born in the USA. like the POTUS). POTUS's family came from Germany a generation before - another immigrant obviously - better build a wall on the Atlantic seaboard.
Christians are supposedly taught by their bible to love and care for their neighbours. Caring means to help people when they are down and out
- not saying "Oh, they were better off in the past, now look at them" and then not only walk on by but not wanting anyone to do anything about it. Something about The Good Samaritan rings a bell...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.