or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?

post #1 of 753
Thread Starter 
So, I've been thinking about this for a while now. Obviously there is a lot of debate about Obama's policies in general, from foreign relations, to defense, to healthcare. Some like his Afghanistan and Iraq policies, some don't. Some have a problem with bowing to foreign leaders, some think it shows respect. Some think that he's treating Israel as they should be treated, some think it's outrageous. All to be expected. I have my positions, which I feel are just...and you have yours, which you feel are just. These are all reasonable disagreements.

But here's the thing: I cannot--for the life of me--understand how a reasonable, informed person can support Obama's economic policies at this point. We've quadrupled Bush's worst deficit. We've had more deficit spending in 18 months than we had in 8 years. We've passed a trillion dollar healthcare bill that we cannot pay for. Interest rates are a ticking time bomb. We teeter on losing our AAA credit rating. We've increased the money supply from $800 billion to $2 trillion in 18 months. Projections show trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. We're told to expect 10% unemployment as a new reality. We're proposing a slew of new taxes. Social Security and Medicare are not just about third-rail politics anymore...they are realistically going to be bankrupt soon. We're talking about a VAT now. The list goes on.

Say the above to an Obamatron, and you'll get this: WELL!..Bush started this with tax cuts for THE RICH! He bailed out the banks! He started TWO WARS! You cant expect Obama to clean up BUSH'S MESS right away. Give him a CHANCE! We have to do SOMETHING! We NEED healthcare reform!

I think that encompasses it.

Let's do this: Put aside Bush for a moment. Put aside blind hope. Put aside your personal dislike or affection for the President. Put aside partisanship, hatred of Republicans/Democrats, the fact that Barney Frank sounds like Elmer Fudd and that Sean Hannity is probably a GOP-created robot (I AMMM REAG-A-TRON!). Put it all aside, and consider:

-Can we survive trillion-plus dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?
-Can we print money without massive inflation? What does massive inflation do to us?
-What do high taxes on the middle-upper class and upper class do to an economy?
-What will a VAT do the economy?
-What will a Carbon Tax do to the economy?
-Do we have any chance of ever even REDUCING out debt load, much less paying it off?
-What are we going to do about Social Security and Medicare?


-Most importantly: Are we doing what's right for the country? Our children? Grandchildren?

In my opinion, a lot of Americans are feeling like me right now. That is why we see Tea Parties and Obama approval ratings approaching the high thirties. Given his actions, one wonders what the man's goals are. Does he want America to be the dominant economic and military power in the world? I don't think he does. And therein lies the problem. We have a President that doesn't want America to be great. I'm not saying he hates America---I'm not being partisan. I think he actually believes that America's success is the problem. Instead of trying to be great, we need to be more fair. Apparently, not even Obama believes that what he's doing will be good for the country. That's the whole idea...it's not about America and its self-interest...it's about being a citizen of the world to him.

Obama is, in every sense, the anti-Reagan. Reagan once stated that of all the wars he had seen in his lifetime, none started because America was too strong. Obama believes just the opposite, but not just militarily. Obama believes a weakened America is good for the world. I believe--and many Americans believe that a strong America benefits the world.

Which do you believe?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-Can we survive trillion-plus dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?

Probably not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-Can we print money without massive inflation? What does massive inflation do to us?

No. It will punish savers and the last people to get the new money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-What do high taxes on the middle-upper class and upper class do to an economy?

Minimally dampen it. Possibly destroy it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-What will a VAT do the economy?

In a previous thread the VAT came up. I am opposed to the VAT itself but would favor a consumption/sales tax as a replacement for almost all other taxes. To the degree we require government to perform certain functions and taxes to pay those, a consumption tax would be the least bad out of income, property or sales/consumption. I also had several caveats to adopting such a tax.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-What will a Carbon Tax do to the economy?

Probably ruin it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-Do we have any chance of ever even REDUCING out debt load, much less paying it off?

Probably not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-What are we going to do about Social Security and Medicare?

Watch them implode?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-Most importantly: Are we doing what's right for the country? Our children? Grandchildren?

No.


Sorry. Rather negative and cynical (but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In a previous thread the VAT came up. I am opposed to the VAT itself but would favor a consumption/sales tax as a replacement for almost all other taxes. To the degree we require government to perform certain functions and taxes to pay those, a consumption tax would be the least bad out of income, property or sales/consumption. I also had several caveats to adopting such a tax.

But VAT is not being proposed as a replacement... it's being proposed as an ADDITION to all the other taxes we already pay. In other words, a big tax increase.

SDW2001, I think you are spot-on with your assessment of BHO's goals... he is willing to sacrifice America for what HE THINKS is best for the world. Of course, that stands no chance of turning out good unless Iran, North Korea, Germany, Japan, et al... are willing to do the same thing.

As for the effects of his policies?... they have little direct impact on me personally, but only because of the choices I've made over the last 40 years.
My children, however, will have a much harder life, and many fewer freedoms because of the way the government is being run now, AND was run for the preceding 8 years.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #4 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

But VAT is not being proposed as a replacement... it's being proposed as an ADDITION to all the other taxes we already pay. In other words, a big tax increase.

Right. I know that. I was just saying that a move in that direction (as opposed to income taxes) would be a move in the right direction.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 753
Washington Monument, April 19, 2010.

A-I-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #6 of 753
Oh, that reminds me! I need to schedule a clown for the bar mitzvah.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 753
Obama doesn't have an economic policy. It's just ramp up the entitlements and kick the budget can down the road for the next guy.
post #8 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama doesn't have an economic policy. It's just ramp up the entitlements and kick the budget can down the road for the next guy.

The fact that the most punitive parts of the 'health care plan' don't kick in until, what... 2013?... exposes the fact that it is literally the most cynical sham I've ever seen promoted in the political arena. If Obama is elected to a second term, real harm to the economy will be unavoidable by then, but Obama will be a lame duck president, so he can walk away looking like a hero fighting "the corporations" for the interests of the American public. If he is not elected to a second term, it will ultimately be the problem of the next president to keep the country from economic ruin wrought by Democrats and spineless Republicans. I see nothing but bad in the not so far off future.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The fact that the most punitive parts of the 'health care plan' don't kick in until, what... 2013?... exposes the fact that it is literally the most cynical sham I've ever seen promoted in the political arena.

Yeah, it's even more shrewd than that. Stuff happens right away (2010). Stuff happens next year (2011). ahem...ummm...err...uhh...nothing happens the next year (2012). Then, as you point out, the real fun starts in 2013...but the real fun doesn't start until 2018!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Washington Monument, April 19, 2010.

A-I-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E ...

These guys just don't get how bad they look.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #11 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

These guys just don't get how bad they look.

Yeah, OMG!!! They went out and protested and look how stupid they look. Stupid, dumb looking, stupid people... Protesting!!! At the Washington Monument!!! I mean, WHO DOES THAT, REALLY!!!!???

NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #12 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

These guys just don't get how bad they look.

And how bad do they look?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And how bad do they look?

They all will look like your typical morans, of course.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #14 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

But VAT is not being proposed as a replacement... it's being proposed as an ADDITION to all the other taxes we already pay. In other words, a big tax increase.

Exactly. And I still think the kind of VAT you'd be talking about would hamper business. Some VAT's are 22%. Wow.

Quote:

SDW2001, I think you are spot-on with your assessment of BHO's goals... he is willing to sacrifice America for what HE THINKS is best for the world. Of course, that stands no chance of turning out good unless Iran, North Korea, Germany, Japan, et al... are willing to do the same thing.

It stands no chance, period. Weakness invites attack and defeat. We've seen it happen militarily, and we're seeing it economically.

Quote:

As for the effects of his policies?... they have little direct impact on me personally, but only because of the choices I've made over the last 40 years.
My children, however, will have a much harder life, and many fewer freedoms because of the way the government is being run now, AND was run for the preceding 8 years.


We part ways here. These policies will very likely impact you, me and every citizen personally. When inflation goes from 5% to 50%, it's going to affect you. When you eventually can't get more than a 50% mortgage, it's going to affect you. When gasoline is $9 a gallon, it's going to affect you.

We also disagree on the past 8 years. The deficit and debt were manageable under Bush, even if we didn't like them. The rate of increase to the debt was sustainable in relation to the growth of the economy. I would have preferred much less spending, of course. However, the preceding 8 years don't hold a candle to what is happening now. I say again: We've seen more deficit spending in 18 months than we had in 8 years. Liberals went apoplectic when we had $400 billion deficits. Now we're running $1.4 Trillion dollar deficits. We're talking a difference of black and white here.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We part ways here. These policies will very likely impact you, me and every citizen personally. When inflation goes from 5% to 50%, it's going to affect you. When you eventually can't get more than a 50% mortgage, it's going to affect you. When gasoline is $9 a gallon, it's going to affect you.

Not directly. I don't much care about mortgage rates, as I actually own my house. I also don't care about the price of gas, as i could afford to buy what i use at 9/gal. Yes, it WILL affect me, just not directly. Because I have no debt, and have saved money. It's amazing what a little self control and planning will allow one to accomplish... And how much less the "economy" matters when you aren't hampered by debt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We also disagree on the past 8 years. The deficit and debt were manageable under Bush, even if we didn't like them. The rate of increase to the debt was sustainable in relation to the growth of the economy. I would have preferred much less spending, of course. However, the preceding 8 years don't hold a candle to what is happening now. I say again: We've seen more deficit spending in 18 months than we had in 8 years. Liberals went apoplectic when we had $400 billion deficits. Now we're running $1.4 Trillion dollar deficits. We're talking a difference of black and white here.

I take issue with ANY administration that talks about reducing the debt and reducing deficit sounding, but then turns around and does just the opposite. Just because one caused a bigger deficit than the other doesn't make the smaller guy right... They're both thieves and liars. Debt (both personal and federal) is what brought these problems on to begin with... How can they possibly think that more debt will "fix" the problem???
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #16 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Not directly. I don't much care about mortgage rates, as I actually own my house. I also don't care about the price of gas, as i could afford to buy what i use at 9/gal. Yes, it WILL affect me, just not directly. Because I have no debt, and have saved money. It's amazing what a little self control and planning will allow one to accomplish... And how much less the "economy" matters when you aren't hampered by debt.

OK, I see your point. A severe economic crisis could affect you, but not significantly or directly. Fair enough. As for no debt...yeah...I'm not there. I am working on eliminating credit cards first. Getting divorced and remarried with one child will sort of do that to you. My plan is to wipe that out by the end of the year, then start working on the car payments. Mortgage will be last. Maybe by the time I'm 50.

Quote:
I take issue with ANY administration that talks about reducing the debt and reducing deficit sounding, but then turns around and does just the opposite.

Agreed.

Quote:
Just because one caused a bigger deficit than the other doesn't make the smaller guy right... They're both thieves and liars.

I disagree with this. There is a difference between borrowing within your ability to manage the debt, and borrowing with reckless abandon. I'd rather not have either, but they are not the same.

Quote:
Debt (both personal and federal) is what brought these problems on to begin with... How can they possibly think that more debt will "fix" the problem???

Agreed there. Totally.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree with this. There is a difference between borrowing within your ability to manage the debt, and borrowing with reckless abandon. I'd rather not have either, but they are not the same.

I would argue that it is a difference only in degree but not in kind. At some point fiscal conservatives need to be consistent on this issue and hold elected officials' feet to the fire. No more deficits. Ever. And "surpluses" (there can never really be a surplus as long as we have the outstanding debt) should probably be split (maybe 70/30) between debt payoff and tax cuts (with the 70 going to debt payoff.)

What about a recession when government receipts drop? Cut spending until you're back in balance!

Borrowing is simply future taxation or future inflation. These are the only ways to pay this off.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 753
Thread Starter 
Here's exactly the kind of Obama comment I'm talking about: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100418/D9F58FG01.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Ill. (AP) - Sarah Palin criticized President Barack Obama on Saturday for saying America is a military superpower "whether we like it or not," saying she was taken aback by his comment...

...."It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

I think that sums it up. The man despises the fact that we need a military and grudgingly accepts that we are the world's power. While better than openly advocating weakness, it's not that much better. One can presume that he will not pursue policies that will strengthen America.

We have a President that honestly wants America to be weaker in every sense.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Here's exactly the kind of Obama comment I'm talking about: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100418/D9F58FG01.html



I think that sums it up. The man despises the fact that we need a military and grudgingly accepts that we are the world's power. While better than openly advocating weakness, it's not that much better. One can presume that he will not pursue policies that will strengthen America.

We have a President that honestly wants America to be weaker in every sense.

Advocating peace is not advocating weakness. A telling difference in Republican v Democrat philosophy.
post #20 of 753
Quote:
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

It seems to me this statement has been widely and incorrectly interpreted. Now I do disagree with part of it. But the "whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower" part, it seems to me, has been incorrectly understood. He plainly says here "whether we like it or not" which doesn't indicate, one way or the other, his feeling on the subject. He's simply making the statement that clearly some people do like this position, some don't. That statement is correct. However he doesn't indicate his own position in that statement itself.

He's also clearly right that when we do get "pulled" into conflicts that it ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. This is obviously true.

Where I disagree is that we need to get pulled into these conflicts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 753
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #22 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Advocating peace is not advocating weakness. A telling difference in Republican v Democrat philosophy.

I don't take issue with advocating peace. I take issue with the grudging acceptance of our superpower status.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't take issue with advocating peace. I take issue with the grudging acceptance of our superpower status.

Is that what Obama did? Or did you once again put words in his mouth that weren't there?

Sounds to me like if there's any "begrudging" going on, it's "begrudging" the fact that we need to be the global policeman not because we want someone else to do it, but because it sucks that there's a need for a global policeman in the first place, regardless of who it is.

Like I said, advocating peace. Which is something you just don't get.
post #24 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Is that what Obama did? Or did you once again put words in his mouth that weren't there?

Sounds to me like if there's any "begrudging" going on, it's "begrudging" the fact that we need to be the global policeman not because we want someone else to do it, but because it sucks that there's a need for a global policeman in the first place, regardless of who it is.

Like I said, advocating peace. Which is something you just don't get.

He said

Quote:
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,"

Come on. He didn't say "whether we like it or not, we get pulled into conflicts" or "whether we like it or not, conflicts occur--and as the dominant power we get pulled in." He said what I posted. Words mean stuff. Get real.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He said
Quote:
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,"

Come on. He didn't say "whether we like it or not, we get pulled into conflicts" or "whether we like it or not, conflicts occur--and as the dominant power we get pulled in." He said what I posted. Words mean stuff. Get real.

I think you (and maybe others) are reading more into this statement than the statement itself contains. Indeed there might be an implication in it, but it may also just be your inference.

The core of the statement that you are talking about is:

Quote:
whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower

He is stating a simple fact: whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. He doesn't appear to indicate whether he likes it or not or even whether we should like it or not just that whether we like it or not, this is the situation.

Now I will go on the record and say that, for me, I'm not so sure I like the idea that we are the dominant military superpower and all the baggage that carries with it. But, as for Obama, he doesn't seem to be saying what his preference is. Frankly, I think he doesn't actually mind being the head of the dominant military superpower of the world. I'm sure it provides a certainly kingly feeling.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think you (and maybe others) are reading more into this statement than the statement itself contains. Indeed there might be an implication in it, but it may also just be your inference.

He is stating a simple fact: whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. He doesn't appear to indicate whether he likes it or not or even whether we should like it or not just that whether we like it or not, this is the situation.

Now I will go on the record and say that, for me, I'm not so sure I like the idea that we are the dominant military superpower and all the baggage that carries with it. But, as for Obama, he doesn't seem to be saying what his preference is. Frankly, I think he doesn't actually mind being the head of the dominant military superpower of the world. I'm sure it provides a certainly kingly feeling.


I just wanted to give you kudos for choosing the common-sense approach over the Republican nitpick-and-bash-Obama-at-every-opportunity approach. It's truly a breath of fresh air for this increasingly-tired forum.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #27 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I just wanted to give you kudos for choosing the common-sense approach over the Republican nitpick-and-bash-Obama-at-every-opportunity approach. It's truly a breath of fresh air for this increasingly-tired forum.

Well, he hates Obama as much as any Republican does, but he's a Libertarian, so not so quick to jump on their frothing at the mouthwagon.
post #28 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well, he hates Obama as much as any Republican does...

And, apparently, as much as some leftists to.

Yeah, in my view Obama is Bush-worse. He's doing many, if not all, of the same things Bush did, only worse and faster and with the silent consent or even open approval of many on the so-called left (because of the D next to his name). And I agree with those who say that many Republicans have little (but not no) credibility in criticizing him.

Somewhere, somehow, sometime someone successfully divided the people of this country into two camps who cannot see past the show. They have everyone rooting for and against parties and candidates and politicians like it's the Cowboys vs. the Redskins, the Packers vs. the Bears, the Broncos vs. the Raiders. No one thinks much beyond the colors and uniform they wear. "My team love it or leave it!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

but he's a Libertarian, so not so quick to jump on their frothing at the mouthwagon.

I'd like to think I've avoided all frothing at the mouth. But you'll show me where I have if I'm wrong.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 753
Thread Starter 
Back to topic: Obama is still blaming Republicans nearly 18 months after taking office. He's going for the record!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/..._economy_obama

Quote:
Obama said Republicans have "done their best to gum up the works" and said they generated much of the country's fiscal deficit that they now complain about.
"Their basic attitude has been, if Democrats lose, we win. After they drove the car in the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. They can't drive. We don't want to have to go back in the ditch," he said.


This is bordering on insane. The GOP is responsible for very little of the current deficit, and he knows it. The deficit is now 4x higher than Bush's largest deficit. And, the Democrats have been in control since early 2007. How could the GOP possibly be responsible?

And really..."their attitude is that if Democrats lose, we win?" That's just incredible. This, coming from a party that did everything in its power to prevent business getting done, and personally savaged the sitting President to boot. Kennedy said--on the floor--that "the president concocted a war for political gain." Harry Reid called the president "a loser." Please.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 753
Which ditch would you rather be in?
post #31 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Which ditch would you rather be in?

The one where the government does not spend more than it takes in.

The general populace that continues to vote these same people into office over and over again deserve to be out of work, impoverished, and bankrupt!!!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #32 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Which ditch would you rather be in?

Spending is bad. But spending on social programs is exponentially better than spending on wars and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting rich people. Unfortunately, Obama is spending on all of these. He did not end the tax cuts for the rich. He did not end the war. Fuck him. We need Kucinich!
post #33 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Spending is bad. But spending on social programs is exponentially better than spending on wars and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting rich people. Unfortunately, Obama is spending on all of these. He did not end the tax cuts for the rich. He did not end the war. Fuck him. We need Kucinich!

That is completely and utterly false.

1. Tax cuts are not spending.

2. Tax cuts for the people that pay taxes DO stimulate the economy.

3. Social Spending might make you feel good, but it's dead money. It doesn't stimulate economic activity. It doesn't create jobs in the private sector. It destroys work incentive and promotes government dependence.

4. War: Which war...Iraq? We can't just "pull out" of Iraq. We are drawing down, which is what needs to be done. I actually am OK with his Iraq policy, though I'm irritated that his administration is now taking credit for successes there. As for Afghanistan, we've got more to do there. What should we do...pull out, after spending billions of dollars and 1,000 American lives?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is completely and utterly false.

1. Tax cuts are not spending.

2. Tax cuts for the people that pay taxes DO stimulate the economy.

3. Social Spending might make you feel good, but it's dead money. It doesn't stimulate economic activity. It doesn't create jobs in the private sector. It destroys work incentive and promotes government dependence.

4. War: Which war...Iraq? We can't just "pull out" of Iraq. We are drawing down, which is what needs to be done. I actually am OK with his Iraq policy, though I'm irritated that his administration is now taking credit for successes there. As for Afghanistan, we've got more to do there. What should we do...pull out, after spending billions of dollars and 1,000 American lives?

No. I'm afraid he's right SDW. For obvious reasons. When you cut taxes you have less to pay for things.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy under sertain conditions only.

Quote:
It destroys work incentive and promotes government dependence.

Not really. But if you want show me how.

As for the war thing. I think we should have been out of Iraq on day one.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No. I'm afraid he's right SDW.

Well I'm glad that's settled. Of course, every piece of evidence over the past 50 years suggests otherwise, but hey...no worries.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I'm glad that's settled. Of course, every piece of evidence over the past 50 years suggests otherwise, but hey...no worries.

Opps! Looks like SDW pounced too soon!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No. I'm afraid he's right SDW. For obvious reasons. When you cut taxes you have less to pay for things.

Taxes cuts are not spending no matter how you cut it. To call it that is a rather Orwellian twist of semantics used by politicians. Spending is spending. Now, if you cut taxes you probably also need to cut spending as well. Good. That needs to be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not really. But if you want show me how.

Yes really. The basic thing here is that when you tax things you get less of it, when you subsidize things you get more of it. Things like welfare in effect (if not in intention) subsidize poverty. Unemployment benefits in effect (if not in intention) subsidize unemployment. Things like taxes on income will have the long term effect of reducing work. Politicians actually know this (but only apply this knowledge selectively) when they do thing like implement tax policy to discourage certain activities they find objectionable. They also know this when the purposely subsidize things they would like to see more of. What they fail to recognize is that these effects works just as much in the areas they mean to do well in (e.g., welfare, etc.)

When you get money for nothing you tend to begin relying on this. Evidence of this is all around us. This is so incredibly obvious that anyone denying can only be willfully ignorant of it or being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Opps! Looks like SDW pounced too soon!

No, it's called "jimmac edited his post after the fact." I quoted original post, which actually was more coherent than the edited version.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Taxes cuts are not spending no matter how you cut it. To call it that is a rather Orwellian twist of semantics used by politicians. Spending is spending. Now, if you cut taxes you probably also need to cut spending as well. Good. That needs to be done.



Yes really. The basic thing here is that when you tax things you get less of it, when you subsidize things you get more of it. Things like welfare in effect (if not in intention) subsidize poverty. Unemployment benefits in effect (if not in intention) subsidize unemployment. Things like taxes on income will have the long term effect of reducing work. Politicians actually know this (but only apply this knowledge selectively) when they do thing like implement tax policy to discourage certain activities they find objectionable. They also know this when the purposely subsidize things they would like to see more of. What they fail to recognize is that these effects works just as much in the areas they mean to do well in (e.g., welfare, etc.)

When you get money for nothing you tend to begin relying on this. Evidence of this is all around us. This is so incredibly obvious that anyone denying can only be willfully ignorant of it or being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.


He won't listen and will continue to be willfully ignorant. A good post, but a waste of you're time...I'm afraid.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, it's called "jimmac edited his post after the fact." I quoted original post, which actually was more coherent than the edited version.

No what really happened is SDW pounced on it seconds after I posted and decided to make a more complete answer. Look at the times.

One can just see him with his finger poised above the keyboard.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?