rickyp

I'll bite; who do you think is offering a better alternative than the US now?

fate

Okay, maybe you really are an idiot. Should I limit my answer to one word per line?

How about I bold the pertinent parts? Maybe that will help you? No

You don't have an answer do you?
Calling me names isn't an answer.
If you actually know of countries that offer better sovereign debt now, or for some reason in the foreseeable future... please provide. Otherwise shut up and stop calling people names just because you don't know anything.

ray

Regarding family size, I don't think anyone is arguing that the government should make the decision on how many kids one should have. That seems to me to be a basic human right above and beyond even free speech. The question of what is good for the family and what is good for the country and what is good for the planet is a fair one. Certainly tax and other policies within reason can influence the decision. But overall, I'm uncomfortable with anyone making that decision for me

.

The phenomenon of smaller family sizes occurs whenever poor people begin to improve their circumstances. Absolutely naturally. In particular when the national government doesn't interfere in women gaining access to contraception...
Please refer to Rosling's data presentation for evidence . Is true of western democracies and third world countries where the economic circumstances improve. No one forces people to make the decision to have smaller families. It just happens.

China, is the only country that has tried to legislate family size. That one instance doesn't change the veracity of rosling's data.

Fate

Mexico is "well-placed" for growth?
Sure, many countries with undeclared civil wars experience significant economic growth

Displaying your ignorance again?

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mexico/overview

Mexico, the second largest economy in Latin America, expanded at a strong pace for most of the past year but has started to show signs of slowly decelerating. The economy is exposed to fluctuations in the US economy, global financial markets, and commodity prices. However, Mexico is well positioned to respond to a global slowdown, particularly on the external and monetary fronts
Economic growth is forecasted to remain at 3.9% in 2012 and is expected to slow down next year to around 3.6%. Growth is driven by private consumption and investments (boosted by relatively stable inflation and credit growth). Oil prices could decline upon a weaker global economic growth, having an important impact on Mexico’s public finances next year. Manufacturing exports continue to have a strong performance at annual growth rates of above 10%, led by the automotive sector which accounts for over a quarter of exports.

The uncertainty in the U.S. and the global outlook represent the main risk factors. Mexico could be significantly affected by subdued economic activity in the U.S. due to the expected fiscal drag. External financing needs are manageable. This is due to a moderate current account deficit, healthy levels of international reserves, a Flexible Credit Line with the IMF, and prudent public debt management.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Mexico is "well-placed" for growth?
Sure, many countries with undeclared civil wars experience significant economic growth

Displaying your ignorance again?

You should know better, except ignorance is your middle name.

Does Mexico have internal peace?

And, the piece you cite says the Mexican economy is decelerating.

Thank you, Senor Ignorance!

rickyp wrote:rickyp

I'll bite; who do you think is offering a better alternative than the US now?

fate

Okay, maybe you really are an idiot. Should I limit my answer to one word per line?

How about I bold the pertinent parts? Maybe that will help you? No

You don't have an answer do you?

To an asinine question?

Everything I said had a future tint. Your question asks about "NOW."

Can you grasp the incongruity?

Calling me names isn't an answer.

I'm trying to get you to look at the situation in the FUTURE. We are lucky that the whole globe is tanking right now. That is not a plan.

If you actually know of countries that offer better sovereign debt now, or for some reason in the foreseeable future... please provide. Otherwise shut up and stop calling people names just because you don't know anything.

Define "foreseeable" and I'll answer your question. However, any future situation concerning a national economy is a guess . . . well, except Greece.

I'm calling you an idiot because you are comporting yourself as one.

I, in fact, said that we are a "safe" investment (or perceived so) at the moment. That you can't grasp that is the source of my frustration with you.

My question was what happens when our debt is so high, say the 125% of our GDP it looks like it will be when Obama is done destroying the economy, that other nations look like a better bet? Who is going to buy our bonds?

You act as if the US can just borrow endlessly and no one will give it a second thought.

Doctor Fate wrote: We are lucky that the whole globe is tanking right now.

Ye gods! What madness. If the globe wasn't tanking, your nation would have more markets to export to, demand leading to growth and jobs, closing the deficit and making everything more stable.

Anyway, you and Ricky can trade ineffectual blows all you like. It's less interesting to read than the reports on the real debate in DC...

fate

Define "foreseeable" and I'll answer your question.

1 to 5 years.
Go ahead, find an alternative....
And explain why the chief purchasers of sovereign debt are going to replace their appetite for US sovereign debt with your candidate...
If the window of 1 to 5 years is too constrictive, by all means set your own time frame.
Go ahead sparky ... make a case.
Despite your ability to confidently forecast the economic collapse brought on by Obama, I'll suggest that going past 5 years is a total stretch. (The good news in this is that, based only upon your track record of prognostication on these boards, the US economy should be in for a healthy rebound.)

fate

And, the piece you cite says the Mexican economy is decelerating.

Yes. from 3.9% growth to 3.6% growth.
Hardly earth shattering.
And wouldn't the US be thrilled with the kind of performance right now?

Fate

My question was what happens when our debt is so high, say the 125% of our GDP it looks like it will be when Obama is done destroying the economy, that other nations look like a better bet? Who is going to buy our bonds?

China,Saudi Arabia, Norway, and dozens of other countries, and international financial institutions... Because they perceive the US economy as a safer risk, even its current shape than most others. And because the alternatives are either volatile, OR are in small economies that don't offer the same opportunities (bond size) .
And because of that lack of competition from other bond sellers, interest rates are unlikely to rise for some time....
There's some years until the threat of inflationary pressures drives up interest rates to where it becomes a threat to attempts to balance the budget... Those pressures, different from the need to finance debt, would generally signify a growing economy ...
Interest rates aren't an immediate worry.

rickyp wrote:fate

Define "foreseeable" and I'll answer your question.

1 to 5 years.
Go ahead, find an alternative....

I can list any country I want. You can't disprove it.

Despite your ability to confidently forecast the economic collapse brought on by Obama, I'll suggest that going past 5 years is a total stretch. (The good news in this is that, based only upon your track record of prognostication on these boards, the US economy should be in for a healthy rebound.)

When it comes to the economy, I've been spot on. I said the Stimulus would fail--by the standards Obama set--and it did.

I said we would continue to borrow like a gambling addict because Obama is indifferent to the economy. We have and he is.

fate

And, the piece you cite says the Mexican economy is decelerating.

Yes. from 3.9% growth to 3.6% growth.
Hardly earth shattering.
And wouldn't the US be thrilled with the kind of performance right now?

We shouldn't be.

This is the worst recovery in history.

Deep recessions result in sharp recoveries--except for this one.

Fate

My question was what happens when our debt is so high, say the 125% of our GDP it looks like it will be when Obama is done destroying the economy, that other nations look like a better bet? Who is going to buy our bonds?

China,Saudi Arabia, Norway, and dozens of other countries, and international financial institutions... Because they perceive the US economy as a safer risk, even its current shape than most others.

That's now. It says nothing about the future. And, Mr. Glib, what you fail to consider is there is no plan, not even a whiff, of stopping. It's pedal to the metal! Obama wants unrestricted ability to borrow.

If it's so smart to pile up debt, why doesn't Canada do it?

Why is it that no American likes all the debt, but you and the Brit love it?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: We are lucky that the whole globe is tanking right now.

Ye gods! What madness. If the globe wasn't tanking, your nation would have more markets to export to, demand leading to growth and jobs, closing the deficit and making everything more stable.

Anyway, you and Ricky can trade ineffectual blows all you like. It's less interesting to read than the reports on the real debate in DC...

Haha.

Right. Like Obama would not just tax more and spend more.

Here's a summary of the current "debate."

Obama: I want more money.

Republicans: Okay.

Obama: That's not enough.

Eventually, a deal will happen. Obama will get more money, but "more" is never "enough."

And yet it's less inane than the one between ricky and yourself.

danivon wrote:And yet it's less inane than the one between ricky and yourself.

Thank you, o King of Inanity!

The personal jabs really help your case, DF.

danivon wrote:The personal jabs really help your case, DF.

And yours.

I think you're incorrect on both counts, Randy--Congress did start the process by passing the 13th Amendment by the necessary 2/3 vote which was ratified by the states in Decembet 1865. I believe the movie highlights the struggle in the House for passage in late 1864 after Lincoln was reelected. And of course The South seceded because at the very least Lincoln's opposition to extension of slavery would eventually result in the balance of political power shifting to non-slave states and eventually slavery would be outlawed. There simply was no other plausible reason for seceding, state's right provided the justification for seceding not the reason. The myth that the South did not secede because of slavery has arisen because of the discomfort Southerners feel about romanticizing a cause inextricably linked to the subjugation of fellow human beings

So in review, what did the Republicans achieve that they couldn't have gotten two weeks ago?

Neal Anderth wrote:So in review, what did the Republicans achieve that they couldn't have gotten two weeks ago?

A vote.

2 weeks ago, they would not have agreed to a deal that increases spending and the deficit.

Man, that President is a real cost-cutter, isn't he?

[/sarcasm]