The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Obama can't figure it out either.

Because they have the largest budgets. Just like the largest companies have the largest debt. Whay you need to suppoert you implications is the lie that all dent is bad, which is just a lie.

Because they have the largest budgets. Just like the largest companies have the largest debt

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So debt is a good thing. :lol: Liberals think that companies with a large debt like liberal ran cities is a well ran business.

Bilbo, for the last time I'll explain it. A business has to turn a profit to survive, they can't force people to pay them money like the Government can. Debt in a business means you won't be in business long.

Ah, as always, the radical delusional extremist black and white thoughts of a moron, justupid et al.

Debt is a tool. Used well it benefits a company, a family, a country, a state. Used poorly it hurts. The government creating huge debt during a period of prosperity to help your corporate buddies and war an illegitimate war as Bush did created harm. Using debt to revitalize an economy and help people is a good use of dent. Pay down debt during times of prosperity. Use debt to help economic recovering during bad economic times is a way to use debt responsibly, just the opposite of the Republican psychosis.

The question is not whether who has the highest debt, but the credit rating. The ability to pay back what is owed.

Blue State owes 5 billion with a AAA credit rating.

Red State owes 1 billion with BB credit rating.

Now who do think ain't going to get paid back???

:lol:

The question is not whether who has the highest debt, but the credit rating. The ability to pay back what is owed.

Exactly, notice Obama is the first President to ever lower the United States' credit rating? Also read this one California, about as liberal as you can get.

Texas voted for Romney by about 1.3 million votes. California voted for Obama by about 2.3 million votes. Texas is a conservative state, California dominated by liberal Americans. Both states have more minority voters than white voters.

The overriding tradition of Texas is that self-reliance rules. Most voters there don't want government telling them what to do. Therefore, they don't have a lot of entitlement social services. No state income tax in Texas. Texas had a $8.8 Billion surplus in 2012.

By contrast California owes an astounding $167 billion. And it's running an annual deficit of about $9 billion, money that can never, never be paid back. And what is California getting for all of that? High school graduation rate; 37th out of 50 states and a 10.%1 unemployment rate and the largest city to ever declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay back what is owed.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2 ... z2PLs8rKhB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed, what's important is being able to pay back what is owed, and California and most other liberal States can't do that, all the red States can.

I'm curious...

Has the federal government ever defaulted on a single penny of debt???

And when was the last time a state has defaulted on debt???

I'm curious...

Has the federal government ever defaulted on a single penny of debt???

They just take the money they need, that may be OK with you but it isn't with me, they should be held accountable for the money they spend, just as families are required to do. If a business was allowed to "take" what ever money they needed from customers they would never default on debt either. The only difference is a company wouldn't be in business if they operated in the red like out Government does.

They have almost defaulted and keep threatening to default. That's one way to destroy a company or a country.

elklindo69 wrote:I'm curious...

Has the federal government ever defaulted on a single penny of debt???

And when was the last time a state has defaulted on debt???

If the "Federal" government could not just print more money on a whim, it would be in default and you know it.

If the "Federal" government could not just print more money on a whim, it would be in default and you know it.

That's a lie.

Freedman wrote:

If the "Federal" government could not just print more money on a whim, it would be in default and you know it.

That's a lie.

HA HA HA - more of your willful and blind ignorance.

Life is higher quality in blue cities and States, there is no comparison and once the rich are forced to pay their share, the quality of life will go up even further for the citizens that live there.

Freedman wrote:Life is higher quality in blue cities and States, there is no comparison and once the rich are forced to pay their share, the quality of life will go up even further for the citizens that live there.

Tell us again about the "Higher quality of life in blue" areas - how does that work in Chicago, DC, etc... Seems to me, the areas with the most blue are also the most violent, the most down-run, the lowest value, the people with the least jobs....

RealJustme wrote:

I'm curious...

Has the federal government ever defaulted on a single penny of debt???

They just take the money they need, that may be OK with you but it isn't with me, they should be held accountable for the money they spend, just as families are required to do. If a business was allowed to "take" what ever money they needed from customers they would never default on debt either. The only difference is a company wouldn't be in business if they operated in the red like out Government does.

Do you have an understanding of how businesses operate.

Many businesses operate in the "red" as you characterize it. Do you know how many companies operate with either no or negative earnings???

But that's not the issue, a business will go under only when it's free cash flow goes negative. Anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of finance knows that. The government has steady cash flow from taxes to fund operations and pay off maturing bonds.

Many businesses operate in the "red" as you characterize it. Do you know how many companies operate with either no or negative earnings???

I run a business and anyone who thinks a business can operate in the red and negative earnings and stay open...is a socialist idiot!

RealJustme wrote:

Many businesses operate in the "red" as you characterize it. Do you know how many companies operate with either no or negative earnings???

I run a business and anyone who thinks a business can operate in the red and negative earnings and stay open...is a socialist idiot!

Perhaps your business is in bizzaro land where the accounting is opposite... :lol:

A business that has 100 dollars in expenditures and 50 dollars and income runs at a 50 dollar loss in earnings.

But if they have a 1000 dollar loan, and pay off the remaining 50 dollars every year then cash flow is positive.

As long as they can pay off the principal and interest in the future then they are good, if not, then they are bankrupt.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/060105.asp

Home Depot Corporation had it's highest stock market prices when it had it's most negative cash flow. It is a common and desired situation for a corporation. They had huge and increasing debt as they did it. It's called the growth (and speculative phase).

Yes, a stagnant entity with no possibility of future growth can not run a deficit forever. However, if you think this is the only story and this is the limit of your ability to reason then you have some real problems in understanding anything in this world. It becomes ever more obvious why you have your simplistic delusions and irrational fears.

BilboBagend wrote:Home Depot Corporation had it's highest stock market prices when it had it's most negative cash flow. It is a common and desired situation for a corporation. They had huge and increasing debt as they did it. It's called the growth (and speculative phase).

Yes, a stagnant entity with no possibility of future growth can not run a deficit forever. However, if you think this is the only story and this is the limit of your ability to reason then you have some real problems in understanding anything in this world. It becomes ever more obvious why you have your simplistic delusions and irrational fears.

Huge Debt is not a problem is there is a real expectation of being able to repay the debt.

In the case of States/Fed Gov, there is no expectation of them being able to repay the debt as long as they continue polity/programs that got them into debt to start with and as long as their cash source (tax payers) are decreasing each month/year with no real increase in sight.

I agree, as lomng as we start costly illegitimate wars around the world and pump money into the hands of the friends of government officials, as long as we subsidize large corporations to produce things we don't need like too much corn, too much oil at prices held well below free market pricing, as long as we put policies in place to rape the middle class, prevent progress into the middle class and concentration of dead capital into the hands of a few wealthy families, then we have less fo a chance to repay the debt we have accrued by doing such things. However, if we honestly regulate to create and maintain real honest free markets and real safe products, and real reduction of harm to the planet and it's people and decide to employ people and grow the middle class then we will easily repay the debt. We need to pay more attention to the real economy of people and products, rather than the artificial constructs meant to monitor the economy.

I agree, as lomng as we start costly illegitimate wars around the world and pump money into the hands of the friends of government officials,

Wars are money makers dude, they create millions of jobs and gives our military on the job training using live fire rather than pretend exercises...win, win, good stuff! It's the entitlement mentality of remaining in the Country we whipped to rebuild it better than it was before the war is where Defense money is wasted. If we go in kick ass then leave while the buildings still smolder, war is good for our economy and our military's readiness.

Most politicians don't give a damn about how much debt they run up, all they care about spending so they can get re-elected, when the balloon finally does bursts because of the debt, do you really think it'll effect Obama and his family? How about Pelosi or Reid? No, through corruption they've built riches that will carry them through the coming depression. I'm betting within 2 years of leaving office Obama will be worth more than a billion.

RealJustme wrote:

I agree, as lomng as we start costly illegitimate wars around the world and pump money into the hands of the friends of government officials,

Wars are money makers dude, they create millions of jobs and gives our military on the job training using live fire rather than pretend exercises...win, win, good stuff!

I don't think that Dildo understands the implications of those troops being in the private business sector, not earning a paycheck, not having health care. He doesn't understand economics at all - all he sees is that we're spending money on a war(s) that he is against and nothing that is part of that can have any good impact on our country, according to him.

Just imagine, if we followed what Obama wanted, we stopped the wars, pulled everyone back from outside the USA, fired them all, just imagine how great that would be for the economy.

Ever wonder why the HIV rate is highest in the southern states?

Nah, there is no reason to wonder.

liar leroy is correct when he says: "I don't think", liar leroy.

Ever wonder why the HIV rate is highest in the southern states?

I didn't know most gays live in the Southern States, you sure about that? By the way, Obama got 94% of the HIV crowds' votes since they're mostly gays and blacks.

Good job, justupid, NOT addressing the issue. Then, since you always have exactly nothing there is no surprise. Also, good reveal of your essential bigotry, not that we and any doubt.

Good job, justupid, NOT addressing the issue. Then, since you always have exactly nothing there is no surprise. Also, good reveal of your essential bigotry, not that we and any doubt.

Are you saying the issue of this thread is bigotry?

Sorry you can't read or comprehend justupid, but that is your problem.

BilboBagend wrote:Because they have the largest budgets. Just like the largest companies have the largest debt. Whay you need to suppoert you implications is the lie that all dent is bad, which is just a lie.

But, unlike the "largest companies", the States only make money off the backs of the tax payers - and, as the states increase the number of people that they care for (public assistance), the number of tax payers decreases, so the income from the tax payers decreases. In that case, a large company would hold off spending because they know that they would have limited ability to repay the loans. Economics 101.

The CEOs running the banks didn't give a rats ass to the amount that they were leveraging up, the more the better. More leverage more money, does the London Whale ring a bell?

CEOs run businesses into the ground all the time. They don't own the company. They are just hired hands. It means nothing to them if a business goes bankrupt. Bailout bank CEO clowns walked away with millions after receiving government handouts...

CEOs run businesses into the ground all the time. They don't own the company. They are just hired hands. It means nothing to them if a business goes bankrupt. Bailout bank CEO clowns walked away with millions after receiving government handouts...

You just described Obama and his hand selected administration