marks2065 0 #26 April 8, 2009 QuoteNeither of these citations (geocities, are you fucking kidding me?) said anything about interest payments. But you changed interest cost from 170B to 290B 5 years ago. Still, even presuming a doubling of debt to 20T, that wouldn't translate to 800B annually. There's apparently no math behind your question. The point could be valid, but this is really more partisan bitching. QuoteIn 2004 the national debt was 7.3 trillion and the interest was 290 billion. After Bush left office the national debt was over 10 trillion and it is expected to double in the next 6-10 years. The origonal numbers I used were from an interview with a congressman from (i think) virginia I heard on the radio, but since you seemed to not agree with those numbers I found it in writing from sources that considered part of the left wing media. By the end of next year the national debt WILL be at least 12 trillion dollars. When Obama say he will cut the deficit by half he is not talking about the national debt. The deficit of each year is rolled into the debt. so if Obama cuts the 1.5 trillion $ deficit by half in 4 years that means we are still adding 750 billion a year to the debt. Obama has said himself that he will run trillion $ deficits for the first 2-3 years and that means our national debt will be at least 14 trillion $ by the end of his first term. 14.5 trillion $ national debt, at 4%, will be about 580 billion $ interest payment each year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #27 April 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It IS the longest recession since before WWII. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1091072/U-S-plunges-longest-deepest-recession-World-War-II--going-worse-analysts-predict.html You are still in denial. I think anyone that thinks 16 months is the longest recession we've had since WWII is in denial. The entire stretch in the mid 70s to early 80s was brutal. Wasn't always a recession by classic definition, but when you have double digit inflation, people don't give a shit if there was minor positive growth rather than negative. There IS a reason we have definitions. If it wasn't a recession by definition, then it was NOT a recession. This IS a recession, and it IS the longest since WWII. And that's is all there is to it. So, you then agree with me from my comments about the "R-word" in definition, at the time... Nope. The recession is officially deemed to have begun in Dec. 2007. blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/12/01/nber-makes-it-official-recession-started-in-december-2007/ You were, and are, wrong. Well, that's very convenient that you can cite conflicting rules and feelings to make your point. Even NBER doesn't readily identify their "criteria" in their own FAQ...it certainly doesn't fit any "classical definition"...so which is it? Are you following the classical definition, or are you following the NBER variables that may make a point, but don't fit the mold of the classical definition. Meanwhile, don't forget to justify a continuation of the obscene spending by Congress...remember that the NY Times who's advocating it can't manage their own finances, had to take a loan from an out of country investor and is probably going to shut the Boston Globe down...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites timmyfitz 0 #28 April 8, 2009 QuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #29 April 8, 2009 Quote but since you seemed to not agree with those numbers It's not a matter of disagreeing with them, but 1) they simply don't make sense, 2) and you keep changing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #30 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions LOL. Jerry? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #31 April 8, 2009 Quote Quote OFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions Maybe you should look at the OFFICIAL source instead of Wiki.wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html Longest OFFICIAL contraction since WWII was 16 months. We have now passed that.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #32 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions LOL. Jerry? You trust Wiki?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #33 April 8, 2009 Quote You trust Wiki? I know history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #34 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote but since you seemed to not agree with those numbers It's not a matter of disagreeing with them, but 1) they simply don't make sense, 2) and you keep changing them. Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites carmenc 0 #35 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #36 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Though in this analogy, change that to smells like shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #37 April 8, 2009 Quote Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? None of it. You changed the start number, the year of the start number, and provided a handful of citations that said nothing to support your end number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #38 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? None of it. You changed the start number, the year of the start number, and provided a handful of citations that said nothing to support your end number. QuoteLike I said the first numbers were from an interview with a congressman on a radio interview. After looking up the exact numbers they got worse. you don't need to believe me read for yourself. Investigate yourself, you may come up with slightly different numbers but they will be close. beside what diference does it make between a couple billion when your dealing with trillions? What didn't make sense? that we pay a butload in interest now or that we will be paying 2 3 or 4 times the butload later? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 April 8, 2009 the current situation is bad enough without people making scare threats with numbers they cannot support. You're wasting my time with this "I heard it on the radio, but it's really even worse." Put up real information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #40 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Though in this analogy, change that to smells like shit. I take it that you are telling us that the NBER, the designated arbiter of business cycles and recessions in the USA, is wrong and that you know better. OK, just so long as we all know. That puts your other opinions into perspective. PS do you have your own personal definition of "inch" too?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #41 April 9, 2009 Quotethe current situation is bad enough without people making scare threats with numbers they cannot support. You're wasting my time with this "I heard it on the radio, but it's really even worse." Put up real information. Quote so the factual numbers in print doesn't mean anything? ignoring it doesn't make it go away Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gawain 0 #27 April 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It IS the longest recession since before WWII. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1091072/U-S-plunges-longest-deepest-recession-World-War-II--going-worse-analysts-predict.html You are still in denial. I think anyone that thinks 16 months is the longest recession we've had since WWII is in denial. The entire stretch in the mid 70s to early 80s was brutal. Wasn't always a recession by classic definition, but when you have double digit inflation, people don't give a shit if there was minor positive growth rather than negative. There IS a reason we have definitions. If it wasn't a recession by definition, then it was NOT a recession. This IS a recession, and it IS the longest since WWII. And that's is all there is to it. So, you then agree with me from my comments about the "R-word" in definition, at the time... Nope. The recession is officially deemed to have begun in Dec. 2007. blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/12/01/nber-makes-it-official-recession-started-in-december-2007/ You were, and are, wrong. Well, that's very convenient that you can cite conflicting rules and feelings to make your point. Even NBER doesn't readily identify their "criteria" in their own FAQ...it certainly doesn't fit any "classical definition"...so which is it? Are you following the classical definition, or are you following the NBER variables that may make a point, but don't fit the mold of the classical definition. Meanwhile, don't forget to justify a continuation of the obscene spending by Congress...remember that the NY Times who's advocating it can't manage their own finances, had to take a loan from an out of country investor and is probably going to shut the Boston Globe down...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #28 April 8, 2009 QuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 April 8, 2009 Quote but since you seemed to not agree with those numbers It's not a matter of disagreeing with them, but 1) they simply don't make sense, 2) and you keep changing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions LOL. Jerry? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #31 April 8, 2009 Quote Quote OFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions Maybe you should look at the OFFICIAL source instead of Wiki.wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html Longest OFFICIAL contraction since WWII was 16 months. We have now passed that.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #32 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOFFICIAL determination of recessions is made by the NBER. They determined that this recession began in December 2007. That makes it, at 16 months, the LONGEST since WWII. Not according to this. It appears that the recession of 70's and early 80's are currently longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions LOL. Jerry? You trust Wiki?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 April 8, 2009 Quote You trust Wiki? I know history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #34 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote but since you seemed to not agree with those numbers It's not a matter of disagreeing with them, but 1) they simply don't make sense, 2) and you keep changing them. Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #35 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Though in this analogy, change that to smells like shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 April 8, 2009 Quote Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? None of it. You changed the start number, the year of the start number, and provided a handful of citations that said nothing to support your end number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #38 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuote Quotethe only number I changed was the 170b a year. the rest of the numbers are actual for past and present and predicted for the future. What doesn't make sense? None of it. You changed the start number, the year of the start number, and provided a handful of citations that said nothing to support your end number. QuoteLike I said the first numbers were from an interview with a congressman on a radio interview. After looking up the exact numbers they got worse. you don't need to believe me read for yourself. Investigate yourself, you may come up with slightly different numbers but they will be close. beside what diference does it make between a couple billion when your dealing with trillions? What didn't make sense? that we pay a butload in interest now or that we will be paying 2 3 or 4 times the butload later? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 April 8, 2009 the current situation is bad enough without people making scare threats with numbers they cannot support. You're wasting my time with this "I heard it on the radio, but it's really even worse." Put up real information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #40 April 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You trust Wiki? I know history. Is the NBER wrong, then (according to you)? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Though in this analogy, change that to smells like shit. I take it that you are telling us that the NBER, the designated arbiter of business cycles and recessions in the USA, is wrong and that you know better. OK, just so long as we all know. That puts your other opinions into perspective. PS do you have your own personal definition of "inch" too?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #41 April 9, 2009 Quotethe current situation is bad enough without people making scare threats with numbers they cannot support. You're wasting my time with this "I heard it on the radio, but it's really even worse." Put up real information. Quote so the factual numbers in print doesn't mean anything? ignoring it doesn't make it go away Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
