So I got this email today

[Rum Runner]

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine and he started spewing some crap that was beyond belief. I asked him to back it up and he sent this:

YouTube - What They Won't Tell You about the National Debt

Economics are not my thing so I am unsure of how to intelligently respond and figured this was a good place to ask for help.

So...WTF? I see that they have like converted things into "2000 dollars". Is there something wrong/biased there?

 

[Fisherman777]

Pure horses**t.

I know that doesn't help. Sorry.

 

[West Texas]

pretty much...

 

[Texan2]

This guy is an idiot.....he tries to oversimplify and it comes across as condecending. Go back and teach at your jr. college dude. Leave the heavy lifting to those of us in the real world.....

 

[M. Sage]

This guy is an idiot.....he tries to oversimplify and it comes across as condecending. Go back and teach at your jr. college dude. Leave the heavy lifting to those of us in the real world.....

This. Very much this. Some of the notes I took during the video (I left these almost verbatim as a comment):

He's ignoring a few facts on purpose. The budget originates in the House, not the Oval office or the Senate. The House in the Reagan years was controlled by the.... I'll let you guess which party wrote the budget.

The debt under Clinton fell after the (fill in the blank) _____ party took control of the House in the 1994 elections. Plus, Clinton was in office during boom years, not hard to keep debt down when everybody's making bank.

You do not "buy" tax cuts, no matter who they are for. That was a cheap appeal to emotion, and a play on class envy. Very cheap. (Ran out of room on Youtube about here. Feel free to borrow if you want to comment on his video.) He should be ashamed of himself for playing the class envy card. It's the chosen weapon of weak minds like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Guevara, Obama... you get the point.

He doesn't even attempt to rationalize Obama's calls for increased budgets and spending.

Oh, and then he tells that tired lie about WWII and government spending dragging us out of the great depression. Bullshit. The government spent and spent and spent during the depression. Guess what happened? It made things worse. People saw no reason to go out and start new enterprise when they could lap up money from the dole. Enterprise failed regularly anyway largely because of government "fairness" regulations that reduced competition. Without competition, you have stagnation, and that's not a good thing when you're trying to get out of a depression.

Government spending does not increase the wealth of a nation. Why? Because a government does not create wealth. Governments spending money they don't have is nothing more than them spreading worthless paper around. The economy didn't grow during WWII. There wasn't really an economy to speak of in WWII! All that was going on was war production for the most part. There was some creation of wealth going on surrounding those industries, but it was tiny compared to what they're claiming went on. The real boom? The post-war years.

Hmm... The post-war years. What could cause us to have a huge economic boom during those years. Let's see, during WWII, England had a lot of manufacturing capabilities bombed to shit. So did Germany, the USSR, Italy, Japan... Umm... Wait, the industrialized world was pretty much forcibly de-industrialized? Oh, except for... the United States! Our industry never got carpet bombed (or in the case of Japan, nuked). Our cities never got firebombed, nuked, carpet bombed, shelled or razed. So we were in a prime position to rebuild the world. We had the manufacturing capability to build what they needed. We had manpower to spare to go overseas and work on construction projects.

The '50s were a time of huge prosperity in the US and we all know that fact. But think. How often do you hear about it being a decade of GLOBAL prosperity? No, it's known as a decade of American prosperity for a good reason.

 

[Fisherman777]

This. Very much this. Some of the notes I took during the video (I left these almost verbatim as a comment):

He's ignoring a few facts on purpose. The budget originates in the House, not the Oval office or the Senate. The House in the Reagan years was controlled by the.... I'll let you guess which party wrote the budget.

The debt under Clinton fell after the (fill in the blank) _____ party took control of the House in the 1994 elections. Plus, Clinton was in office during boom years, not hard to keep debt down when everybody's making bank.

You do not "buy" tax cuts, no matter who they are for. That was a cheap appeal to emotion, and a play on class envy. Very cheap. (Ran out of room on Youtube about here. Feel free to borrow if you want to comment on his video.) He should be ashamed of himself for playing the class envy card. It's the chosen weapon of weak minds like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Guevara, Obama... you get the point.

He doesn't even attempt to rationalize Obama's calls for increased budgets and spending.

Oh, and then he tells that tired lie about WWII and government spending dragging us out of the great depression. Bullshit. The government spent and spent and spent during the depression. Guess what happened? It made things worse. People saw no reason to go out and start new enterprise when they could lap up money from the dole. Enterprise failed regularly anyway largely because of government "fairness" regulations that reduced competition. Without competition, you have stagnation, and that's not a good thing when you're trying to get out of a depression.

Government spending does not increase the wealth of a nation. Why? Because a government does not create wealth. Governments spending money they don't have is nothing more than them spreading worthless paper around. The economy didn't grow during WWII. There wasn't really an economy to speak of in WWII! All that was going on was war production for the most part. There was some creation of wealth going on surrounding those industries, but it was tiny compared to what they're claiming went on. The real boom? The post-war years.

Hmm... The post-war years. What could cause us to have a huge economic boom during those years. Let's see, during WWII, England had a lot of manufacturing capabilities bombed to shit. So did Germany, the USSR, Italy, Japan... Umm... Wait, the industrialized world was pretty much forcibly de-industrialized? Oh, except for... the United States! Our industry never got carpet bombed (or in the case of Japan, nuked). Our cities never got firebombed, nuked, carpet bombed, shelled or razed. So we were in a prime position to rebuild the world. We had the manufacturing capability to build what they needed. We had manpower to spare to go overseas and work on construction projects.

The '50s were a time of huge prosperity in the US and we all know that fact. But think. How often do you hear about it being a decade of GLOBAL prosperity? No, it's known as a decade of American prosperity for a good reason.

Good post. You should just put up a page somewhere and put the link on a comment for them to read.

 

[West Texas]

This. Very much this. Some of the notes I took during the video (I left these almost verbatim as a comment):

He's ignoring a few facts on purpose. The budget originates in the House, not the Oval office or the Senate. The House in the Reagan years was controlled by the.... I'll let you guess which party wrote the budget.

The debt under Clinton fell after the (fill in the blank) _____ party took control of the House in the 1994 elections. Plus, Clinton was in office during boom years, not hard to keep debt down when everybody's making bank.

You do not "buy" tax cuts, no matter who they are for. That was a cheap appeal to emotion, and a play on class envy. Very cheap. (Ran out of room on Youtube about here. Feel free to borrow if you want to comment on his video.) He should be ashamed of himself for playing the class envy card. It's the chosen weapon of weak minds like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Guevara, Obama... you get the point.

He doesn't even attempt to rationalize Obama's calls for increased budgets and spending.

Oh, and then he tells that tired lie about WWII and government spending dragging us out of the great depression. Bullshit. The government spent and spent and spent during the depression. Guess what happened? It made things worse. People saw no reason to go out and start new enterprise when they could lap up money from the dole. Enterprise failed regularly anyway largely because of government "fairness" regulations that reduced competition. Without competition, you have stagnation, and that's not a good thing when you're trying to get out of a depression.

Government spending does not increase the wealth of a nation. Why? Because a government does not create wealth. Governments spending money they don't have is nothing more than them spreading worthless paper around. The economy didn't grow during WWII. There wasn't really an economy to speak of in WWII! All that was going on was war production for the most part. There was some creation of wealth going on surrounding those industries, but it was tiny compared to what they're claiming went on. The real boom? The post-war years.

Hmm... The post-war years. What could cause us to have a huge economic boom during those years. Let's see, during WWII, England had a lot of manufacturing capabilities bombed to shit. So did Germany, the USSR, Italy, Japan... Umm... Wait, the industrialized world was pretty much forcibly de-industrialized? Oh, except for... the United States! Our industry never got carpet bombed (or in the case of Japan, nuked). Our cities never got firebombed, nuked, carpet bombed, shelled or razed. So we were in a prime position to rebuild the world. We had the manufacturing capability to build what they needed. We had manpower to spare to go overseas and work on construction projects.

The '50s were a time of huge prosperity in the US and we all know that fact. But think. How often do you hear about it being a decade of GLOBAL prosperity? No, it's known as a decade of American prosperity for a good reason.

VERY well put!

One thing I'd like to add was that WWII ALSO brought people to WORK, for a fair wage. That was the byproduct of war that brought an end to the depression, and because we now had jobs, and those jobs continued just with a shift in products once the war ended, we now had money in the hands of the people, who bought those products, and homes, and made babies to repeat the process.

It was when we started to re-implement and expand the "social programs" that encouraged people NOT to work, but to wallow in thier own self pitty of being a "minority" that we started seeing the roots of what has now grown into a a whole class of people and programs at odds with the foundation of our country.

 

[Rum Runner]

Thanks M. Sage!

 

[M. Sage]

VERY well put!

One thing I'd like to add was that WWII ALSO brought people to WORK, for a fair wage. That was the byproduct of war that brought an end to the depression, and because we now had jobs, and those jobs continued just with a shift in products once the war ended, we now had money in the hands of the people, who bought those products, and homes, and made babies to repeat the process.

It was when we started to re-implement and expand the "social programs" that encouraged people NOT to work, but to wallow in thier own self pitty of being a "minority" that we started seeing the roots of what has now grown into a a whole class of people and programs at odds with the foundation of our country.

The war effort did amount to a surge in skilled laborers, that's for sure. Folks like that aren't exactly going to sit around all day wishing they had a job when there's so much to do.

Our workers also had a serious (and well-earned) reputation for being able to do the impossible after the war. We could produce a B-24 Liberator heavy bomber every single hour around the clock per factory. We could produce cargo ships called "Liberty Ships" in only 24 hours each from the laying of the keel to floating it. The things our workers and industrialists managed to do was amazing, and after the war we just turned those efforts and skills elsewhere.

 

[Texan2]

They were truly the "Greatest Generation"

 

[West Texas]

The war effort did amount to a surge in skilled laborers, that's for sure. Folks like that aren't exactly going to sit around all day wishing they had a job when there's so much to do.

Our workers also had a serious (and well-earned) reputation for being able to do the impossible after the war. We could produce a B-24 Liberator heavy bomber every single hour around the clock per factory. We could produce cargo ships called "Liberty Ships" in only 24 hours each from the laying of the keel to floating it. The things our workers and industrialists managed to do was amazing, and after the war we just turned those efforts and skills elsewhere.

They were truly the "Greatest Generation"

+1 to BOTH of these....then we got greedy....employers and employees...and that brought the biggest union push the nation had seen to that point. Now it's the UNIONS who are greedy, and killing production by not sitting down with the management and coming to a resolution that allows the company to pull together and make a great product at a competitive price where everyone makes money and allows enough left over for R&D to stay ahead of the rest of the world.

We did it once...I don't have any ideaa we can, or will, ever do it again....at least not without a total collapse and reboot of the system.

 

[M. Sage]

We did it once...I don't have any ideaa we can, or will, ever do it again....at least not without a total collapse and reboot of the system.

What do you suppose the Great Depression was?

 

[West Texas]

What do you suppose the Great Depression was?

exactly....I'm afraid the next one will be bloody though...

 

[M. Sage]

exactly....I'm afraid the next one will be bloody though...

There are some angry people looking for payback, on both sides. Just that one side has guns...

I can guarantee that there will be reprisals against people who voted for a certain president if things go sour.