What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 6(...66)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
Nah, woman don't earn their incomes. I mean they do, but in a totally different way, y'understand... :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about that. For a minute there I forgot about my knuckledraggerness. And I'm sorry about apologizing. Knuckledraggers don't apologize. Ummm... Northern sucks.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Sure wish all those entrepreneurial companies would stop chitcanning their workforce, and start spending some money to get this economy moving.
Click to expand...

lower their taxes
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

It took 1.5 seconds from typing, "Northern sucks" to get huskyfan on board the debate. All right!
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
It is patently ridiculous to me that the $250,000th, millionth, and ten millionth dollar a man earns is subject to the same percentage tax.
Click to expand...

I don't know, at some point the curve has to level out, or else you reach 100% (or more - imagine paying the gov't $1.01 for every $1 earned...). But you reach the same issue even if you set the plateau lower (so your millionth dollar is taxed at 49.99%, but your 1,000,001th dollar is taxes at 49.991%).

And for a steady tax curve, you'd have to use some form of basic calculus or, at least, advanced algebraic math, to determine the tax tables. Good luck explaining that to people who struggle with basic fractions.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
Also, if we're going to say you can never evaluate past events against hypotheticals, that means every time you say "it was a good thing that the Republicans adopted A rather than B" or "it was a bad thing that the Dems adopted X rather than Y," you're blue-skying it, because according to your line of argument there is no way to compare a historical event against a non-historical idea.
Click to expand...

To add - As Bush took us to Iraq, he said "history will judge me"...so why shouldn't we judge him?
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

unofan said:
The budget for those one or two years was/were truly balanced, even including interest.
Click to expand...

Really? If it was truly balanced *including debt interest*, then those two years would not have increased the debt?

Rover said:
What the F are you talking about? The country wasn't not paying its debt interest and therefore adding it to the principle. It was balancing the books including debt servicing and paying down the highest interest debt to get it off the books. Thanks for making yourself look stupider using your own words. :D :D :D
Click to expand...

You're an ignoramus.

<code>

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

</code>

So where's the year that the debt didn't increase because we included debt interest in the budget and balanced the same?

unofan said:
And the government has paid off its debts before. Post Civil War and Post WWII saw massive decreases in federal debt as the gov't, gasp, paid off most of the war debt.
Click to expand...

Our debt decreased by $1.8b from '50 to '51. Other than that, I'm not seeing anything "massive" post WW2 save for $9b from '46 to '47 and another $6b the following year. You're absolutely correct that we paid off most of the "war debt", however.

<code>
06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33
06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99
06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67
06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93
06/30/1944 201,003,387,221.13
06/30/1943 136,696,090,329.90
06/30/1942 72,422,445,116.22
06/30/1941 48,961,443,535.71
06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68
06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11
</code>

After the early 1860's when we hit $1b in debt, we really never looked back and it'd be hard to separate "war debt" from other debt. I'm sure someone has that data, but I can't find it.

<code>

07/01/1899 1,991,927,306.92
07/01/1898 1,796,531,995.90
07/01/1897 1,817,672,665.90
07/01/1896 1,769,840,323.40
07/01/1895 1,676,120,983.25
07/01/1894 1,632,253,636.68
07/01/1893 1,545,985,686.13
07/01/1892 1,588,464,144.63
07/01/1891 1,545,996,591.61
07/01/1890 1,552,140,204.73
07/01/1889 1,619,052,922.23
07/01/1888 1,692,858,984.58
07/01/1887 1,657,602,592.63
07/01/1886 1,775,063,013.78
07/01/1885 1,863,964,873.14
07/01/1884 1,830,528,923.57
07/01/1883 1,884,171,728.07
07/01/1882 1,918,312,994.03
07/01/1881 2,069,013,569.58
07/01/1880 2,120,415,370.63
07/01/1879 2,349,567,482.04
07/01/1878 2,256,205,892.53
07/01/1877 2,205,301,392.10
07/01/1876 2,180,395,067.15
07/01/1875 2,232,284,531.95
07/01/1874 2,251,690,468.43
07/01/1873 2,234,482,993.20
07/01/1872 2,253,251,328.78
07/01/1871 2,353,211,332.32
07/01/1870 2,480,672,427.81
07/01/1869 2,588,452,213.94
07/01/1868 2,611,687,851.19
07/01/1867 2,678,126,103.87
07/01/1866 2,773,236,173.69
07/01/1865 2,680,647,869.74
07/01/1864 1,815,784,370.57
07/01/1863 1,119,772,138.63
07/01/1862 524,176,412.13
</code>
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize... uh... for what exactly? :confused: :confused: :confused: Usually this award is given for something substantial and often with some reasonable hindsight (a few years)... I know we'll get some people here to justify this... but on its face this seems completely ridiculous.

edit: it seems like the prize is "for not being bush and saying nice things"
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

dropthatpuck said:
You're an ignoramus.
Click to expand...

Good D. I was siding with Rover there for awhile, then I remembered the chart I saw was "relative to GDP". GDP hasn't boomed like it did post-WWII for quite some time because either
1) technology is over
2) overexuberant gov't regulation of industry, or
3) It's Bush's fault.

depending on your view.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

geezer said:
Good D. I was siding with Rover there for awhile, then I remembered the chart I saw was "relative to GDP". GDP hasn't boomed like it did post-WWII for quite some time because either
1) technology is over
2) overexuberant gov't regulation of industry, or
3) It's Bush's fault.

depending on your view.
Click to expand...

No Freddy Meyer option?
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Patman said:
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize... uh... for what exactly?
Click to expand...

Saw that. The reaction among the Goldarned Comeynist types is going to be really entertaining. :D

I think this was just to send the message, "thank you to the United States for rejoining the reality based community." I'm accepting on behalf of the people who voted for him. We deserve it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
Saw that. The reaction among the Goldarned Comeynist types is going to be really entertaining. :D

I think this was just to send the message, "thank you to the United States for rejoining the reality based community." I'm accepting on behalf of the people who voted for him. We deserve it.
Click to expand...
So it is a "symbolic" award?

TR won it for brokering the end of the Russia - Japan war
Jimmy won it for Middle East peace
BHO wins it for not being George Bush????????

Has the Noble committee been infiltrated by Little League parents who want to give everybody a trophy?? Forgive my while I vomit.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

joecct said:
So it is a "symbolic" award?
Click to expand...

Not at all, it was completely substantial. Taking back an arsenal representing more than half the net military might of the planet from the Neocons did more for world peace than anyone else has for the last fifty years.

The symbolism is for the awardee, not the achievement. It's really an award to the US as a whole (or at least as a 55%).
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
Not at all, it was completely substantial. Taking back an arsenal representing more than half the net military might of the planet from the Neocons did more for world peace than anyone else has for the last fifty years.

The symbolism is for the awardee, not the achievement. It's really an award to the US as a whole (or at least as a 55%).
Click to expand...

I think the White House is not happy to have this to deal with.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler said:
Not at all, it was completely substantial. Taking back an arsenal representing more than half the net military might of the planet from the Neocons did more for world peace than anyone else has for the last fifty years.

The symbolism is for the awardee, not the achievement. It's really an award to the US as a whole (or at least as a 55%).
Click to expand...

Yeah...I voted for the guy, and think it's ridiculous. His nomination was due 10 days after taking office. If they gave it to him for overcoming racial barriers, that'd be one thing (though Nelson Mandela already got that one).

But this really is just further proof that the Nobel Peace Prize is a freaking joke. (Not that that wasn't clear when Arafat won it. Yay for giving the peace prize to a lifelong terrorist!)
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

DaveStPaul said:
I think the White House is not happy to have this to deal with.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Keep in mind that the nomination deadline for the "Peace Prize" is February 1. So somewhere around inauguration day, someone had already deemed BO's administration to have been such a glorious future success, they had already been campaigning for the prize. :rolleyes:
But they probably were a little shocked that the committee actually bought it.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

unofan said:
(Not that that wasn't clear when Arafat won it. Yay for giving the peace prize to a lifelong terrorist!)
Click to expand...

Somebody said "irony died the day Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize."

I like the implicit parallelism here:

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said.

Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.

He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

It's for American Glasnost; in other words, "sorry you were temporarily insane, nice to see you get well."
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

blockski said:
i.e. it's a direct slap in the face to George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that the Nobel Prize for Medicine is a slap in the face of disease.

I'm curious about the criticism of it being "symbolic," though. What award to a politician isn't? If the NPP was really about rewarding the individual efforts of a single person, it would always go to some obscure diplomat negotiating in Eritrea. The point of the prize is to promote peace, so the giving of it is calculated to influence future peace efforts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top