happy birthday America

[moose]

this week we will reach yet another great milestone :
happy 16,000,000,000,000.00 birthday.
it took every president prior to Ronald Regan to equal what our Gov. has added to the national debt in the last year and a half.
(which is actually about 57,...,...,...,... ...) , please write the gov. a check for your share of 181,500. thanks. uncle Sam.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[layoutshooter]

Barry killed 'Uncle Sam' and is responsible for this mess.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Obama's Budget Continues Unprecedented Deficits

And he did it in ONLY 19 months...

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov

 

[Pilgrim]

Unfortunately, most people read these numbers in the billions and trillions and have no concept of how much money a trillion dollars really is. Just to put it in an individual's perspective: suppose someone borrowed one trillion dollars tomorrow and agreed that they and the future generations of their family would repay it in monthly installments with no interest. It would take them 2000 years to repay that debt with payments of $41,666,667 per month. Remember that 2012 will be the 4th CONSECUTIVE YEAR of TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS under Obama. Our future generations will be paying on this economic largesse and economic engineering by our commited Socialist in Chief for their entire lives, and if interest rates get back to normal there's no end in sight.

 

[chefdennis]

The USA is bankrupt...we can't even pay the interest on our debt.....But hey, those that warned of what barry was were told we needed to give him a chance...he couldn't do any worse then Bush...Re-elect him and hold on to your butt, cause its not getting better...

How has the "hope and change" worked out for all you that supported barry???

 

[OntarioVanMan]

after reading some of the links and some reading....appears war is very good for the US...the Johnson/Nixon years...were pretty good considering Nam and the expenses...also the most disrespected president, up till now that is, Clinton almost had a negative deficit...

 

[paullud]

after reading some of the links and some reading....appears war is very good for the US...the Johnson/Nixon years...were pretty good considering Nam and the expenses...also the most disrespected president, up till now that is, Clinton almost had a negative deficit...

You really need to look into Clinton's deficit and what it actually was. He was cooking the books and gave us things like NAFTA and EIC which are bankrupting the country.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[OntarioVanMan]

You really need to look into Clinton's deficit and what it actually was. He was cooking the books and gave us things like NAFTA and EIC which are bankrupting the country.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

I disagree about NAFTA....they just didn't go far enough to eliminate the broker system to streamline the movement of goods between the 3 countries...if companies can't move their product swiftly and economically they'll relocate elsewhere...as evident to what has happened in the past...The world is too small for a stand lone country like the US to isolate itself...in the olden days it worked, not in todays business world...

 

[paullud]

I disagree about NAFTA....they just didn't go far enough to eliminate the broker system to streamline the movement of goods between the 3 countries...if companies can't move their product swiftly and economically they'll relocate elsewhere...as evident to what has happened in the past...The world is too small for a stand lone country like the US to isolate itself...in the olden days it worked, not in todays business world...

If a company can't move it's goods swiftly and economically between the US, Canadian, and Mexican borders then the company would stay in the US. Ford and GM wouldn't say that it is to difficult and just stop selling in the US, but when it is really easy to move freight around they move production and assembly jobs. We already have seen the dash for the border by many companies taking the jobs with them, we already have plenty of proof.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If a company can't move it's goods swiftly and economically between the US, Canadian, and Mexican borders then the company would stay in the US. Ford and GM wouldn't say that it is to difficult and just stop selling in the US, but when it is really easy to move freight around they move production and assembly jobs. We already have seen the dash for the border by many companies taking the jobs with them, we already have plenty of proof.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

many reasons they move from the US..right now i'd say it is the corporate taxes....operating costs as labour as well....some companies are actually shifting production back here as costs elsewhere have increased to the point it makes no sense to ship them so far....there are many more jobs in the parts aspect then the actual assembly process......

GM is moving the Impala from Canada to the old Saturn plant...over 2500 jobs will return....notice i said "return" not be created....as the government will probably say...

 

[paullud]

many reasons they move from the US..right now i'd say it is the corporate taxes....operating costs as labour as well....some companies are actually shifting production back here as costs elsewhere have increased to the point it makes no sense to ship them so far....there are many more jobs in the parts aspect then the actual assembly process......

The government does seem to find a way to get in the way of jobs but they never create any. We can see how taxes impact a company's decision to do business in a certain place by looking at NY and why companies leave or won't move there.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The government does seem to find a way to get in the way of jobs but they never create any. We can see how taxes impact a company's decision to do business in a certain place by looking at NY and why companies leave or won't move there.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

The low cost of labour was really IMO the deciding factor in the GM deal.....the Canadian unions did not take the wage cuts their US counterparts did.....$14 bucks an hour as compared to $28....thats a whack of money right there PLUS benefits...

 

[muttly]

The USA is bankrupt...we can't even pay the interest on our debt.....But hey, those that warned of what barry was were told we needed to give him a chance...he couldn't do any worse then Bush...Re-elect him and hold on to your butt, cause its not getting better...

How has the "hope and change" worked out for all you that supported barry???

That question deserves a Palin replay.

 

[Humble2drive]

You really need to look into Clinton's deficit and what it actually was. He was cooking the books and gave us things like NAFTA and EIC which are bankrupting the country.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

This is one of those posts that makes you go Huh??
Giving Clinton credit for NAFTA might make more than a few Republicans say Huh?
NAFTA was initiated by the Republicans in the 80s. It was negotiated, drawn up and the signing ceremony took place under the George H.W. Bush administration. As time ranout the ratification and actual passing in to law was done under Clinton who added the clause to protect U.S. workers.
The house Dems were against it but it was finally passed due to majority Republican support.
As for blaming NAFTA for anything remotely causing anything resembling bankrupcy, how can you do that when the debate is still on going regarding it's success or failure.
At last check on procon.org Romney was Pro Nafta and Obama was Con Nafta.
As far as EIC goes, I don't know what that is? (earned income credt, employee identification code)?

 

[xiggi]

This is one of those posts that makes you go Huh??
Giving Clinton credit for NAFTA might make more than a few Republicans say Huh?
NAFTA was initiated by the Republicans in the 80s. It was negotiated, drawn up and the signing ceremony took place under the George H.W. Bush administration. As time ranout the ratification and actual passing in to law was done under Clinton who added the clause to protect U.S. workers.
The house Dems were against it but it was finally passed due to majority Republican support.
As for blaming NAFTA for anything remotely causing anything resembling bankrupcy, how can you do that when the debate is still on going regarding it's success or failure.
At last check on procon.org Romney was Pro Nafta and Obama was Con Nafta.
As far as EIC goes, I don't know what that is? (earned income credt, employee identification code)?

It passed with pretty bipartisan support. Yes the majority vote in both house was replica but a large number of des also voted for it. Obama claimed while running to be anti nafta but has done nothing to prove that while in office. Unions are attempting to go global which may explain his absence on the subject.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

 

[paullud]

This is one of those posts that makes you go Huh??
Giving Clinton credit for NAFTA might make more than a few Republicans say Huh?
NAFTA was initiated by the Republicans in the 80s. It was negotiated, drawn up and the signing ceremony took place under the George H.W. Bush administration. As time ranout the ratification and actual passing in to law was done under Clinton who added the clause to protect U.S. workers.
The house Dems were against it but it was finally passed due to majority Republican support.
As for blaming NAFTA for anything remotely causing anything resembling bankrupcy, how can you do that when the debate is still on going regarding it's success or failure.
At last check on procon.org Romney was Pro Nafta and Obama was Con Nafta.
As far as EIC goes, I don't know what that is? (earned income credt, employee identification code)?

Are you joking? You act like I was wrong in saying Clinton was the one to sign NAFTA into law. NAFTA passed through congress in 1993(not under Bush) with pretty much equal support from both sides(not just Republicans) and was then signed by Clinton(not Bush). Bush liked the idea as many Republicans did but the blame falls squarely on the one responsible. I'm not sure why this simple idea would make you go huh. You might want to look around at the jobs that left and the jobs that never showed up along with stagnant wages to point to the huge failure NAFTA is, the debate is over. You might want to ask yourself if Obama is anti-NAFTA why has he not stopped it. EIC is Earned Income Credit, another bad idea supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Are you joking? You act like I was wrong in saying Clinton was the one to sign NAFTA into law. NAFTA passed through congress in 1993(not under Bush) with pretty much equal support from both sides(not just Republicans) and was then signed by Clinton(not Bush). Bush liked the idea as many Republicans did but the blame falls squarely on the one responsible. I'm not sure why this simple idea would make you go huh. You might want to look around at the jobs that left and the jobs that never showed up along with stagnant wages to point to the huge failure NAFTA is, the debate is over. You might want to ask yourself if Obama is anti-NAFTA why has he not stopped it. EIC is Earned Income Credit, another bad idea supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Bean counters would love you Paul....imagine tariffs on every nut and bolt leaving and entering the country...that would really help everyone... Nafta was a replacement for the old Auto Pact between Canada and the US....Nafta isn't hurting this country as bad as High taxes, high wages and failure years ago to modernize aging plants...companies taking the profits out and not re-investing.

 

[xiggi]

Bean counters would love you Paul....imagine tariffs on every nut and bolt leaving and entering the country...that would really help everyone... Nafta was a replacement for the old Auto Pact between Canada and the US....Nafta isn't hurting this country as bad as High taxes, high wages and failure years ago to modernize aging plants...companies taking the profits out and not re-investing.

Nafta has played its share there is no doubt about it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

 

[paullud]

Bean counters would love you Paul....imagine tariffs on every nut and bolt leaving and entering the country...that would really help everyone... Nafta was a replacement for the old Auto Pact between Canada and the US....Nafta isn't hurting this country as bad as High taxes, high wages and failure years ago to modernize aging plants...companies taking the profits out and not re-investing.

There would be more manufacturing in the US so the tariffs wouldn't be as big of an issue. The tax issue is a problem but it is a much bigger issue when the company can move to a place with lower taxes, no union, and fewer worker's rights.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[Humble2drive]

Are you joking? You act like I was wrong in saying Clinton was the one to sign NAFTA into law. NAFTA passed through congress in 1993(not under Bush) with pretty much equal support from both sides(not just Republicans) and was then signed by Clinton(not Bush). Bush liked the idea as many Republicans did but the blame falls squarely on the one responsible. I'm not sure why this simple idea would make you go huh.

Of course I am not joking, why would you ask that? The huh was regarding two aspects of your post and not meant to offend but to promote further discussion:

1) That Clinton gave us NAFTA. I explained exactly why I said “huh” since there were many proponents and supporters of the issue including the majority of independent “Free Market” economists.
You have now clarified that it is your belief that the President who placed the Final signature and passed it into law is responsible for it’s failures and/or successes. That makes sense whether we agree or not.

2) That NAFTA and EIC were bankrupting the country. Assuming that the country could go bankrupt it seemed to me that blaming two small players in a bigger picture was strange. I believe most economist would place blame on the bigger picture starting with the move from the Gold Standard to a Fiat currency during the Nixon administration. The excessive printing of useless paper money, the acceptance of large deficits, the “over” deregulation of the financial industry etc. etc.

You might want to look around at the jobs that left and the jobs that never showed up along with stagnant wages to point to the huge failure NAFTA is, the debate is over.

The debate is not even close to over.

Here is just one of the many presentations regarding that aspect: I chose a presentation by the National Association of Manufacturers since manufacturing is a key aspect of the debate.

http://www.nam.org/~/media/F8ED5AFF9F8F46088CE785EBF2E7DD8D/NAFTA_Overview.pdf

Although it is not necessary, I will mention that I am neither Pro nor Con. I am just looking at both sides as an interested student of free market economics.

You might want to ask yourself if Obama is anti-NAFTA why has he not stopped it. EIC is Earned Income Credit, another bad idea supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Obama as not only “not stopped it”, he is expanding it and it is my belief that the reasons are mostly political.