or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 10

post #361 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think if you were both being honest, you'd realize you both just posted, explained and endorsed the Laffer curve. It is the basis of all trickle-down based economic thinking and is the foundation of most of the thinking in the Republican Party.

Good job you two!!!

Try not to harm yourselves when you realize this and if you do, please leave info where we can send flowers.

Speaking of sending flowers Go Newt!
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 #362 of 886
Yikes.

Jan 24, 2012 - Obama, SOTU:
"In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries."

Jan 26, 2012:
Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #363 of 886
The economic premise of the republicans is that we are on the right hand side of the curve. This is wrong.
post #364 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The economic premise of the republicans is that we are on the right hand side of the curve. This is wrong.

Yes, absolutely. Because we are. We as a nation are overtaxed, especially when all the state, local, sales, gas, tobacco, alcohol, tourism and other taxes and fees are added up. I did the math at one point, a found I paid something like 40% of my income to government agency.

We need lower taxes and lower spending. We need less government, not more. We need less federal regulation, not more. That's really all it's about.
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 #365 of 886
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 #366 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The economic premise of the republicans is that we are on the right hand side of the curve. This is wrong.

I would say yes and no. The economic premise of THIS Republican is that half the country is completely off the curve because they pay no taxes and those that do are close to the threshhold of what they can pay but the pending tax increases related to Obamacare, expiring tax cuts and additional tax proposals would easily push them over onto the wrong side of the curve. The rate of 35% seems quite reasonable when pondering the fact that there are still taxes at the state, county and local/city level.

California for example has a 10% upper tax rate and is pondering adding another percent to that. You add both the expiring tax and the state income tax and you are at 50% of income before paying a nickel of property, sales, Social Security, Medicare or any other tax.

That doesn't sound like a bad solution to you?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #367 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I would say yes and no. The economic premise of THIS Republican is that half the country is completely off the curve because they pay no taxes and those that do are close to the threshhold of what they can pay but the pending tax increases related to Obamacare, expiring tax cuts and additional tax proposals would easily push them over onto the wrong side of the curve. The rate of 35% seems quite reasonable when pondering the fact that there are still taxes at the state, county and local/city level.

California for example has a 10% upper tax rate and is pondering adding another percent to that. You add both the expiring tax and the state income tax and you are at 50% of income before paying a nickel of property, sales, Social Security, Medicare or any other tax.

That doesn't sound like a bad solution to you?

I guess you are against people paying their fair share.
post #368 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I guess you are against people paying their fair share.

I believe that fairness means that people whose basic needs are not being met do not deserve to be taxed, and people who have their basic needs met should be taxed.

But that's just the wacky Liberal logic I believe in talking.
post #369 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama: Bush was food stamp President, not me.


This freakin' guy. LOL.

Explain what's factually incorrect about his statement:

"First of all, I don't put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #370 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I believe that fairness means that people whose basic needs are not being met do not deserve to be taxed, and people who have their basic needs met should be taxed.

But that's just the wacky Liberal logic I believe in talking.

Everyone deserves to be taxed. A social contract is a contract for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Explain what's factually incorrect about his statement:

"First of all, I don't put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government."

The main point that is factually incorrect about it is initial expansion and ongoing use are not the same. Nor does it explain how the rapid expansion of government crowded out the private sector growth, thus denying these people jobs and creating their need for government program use.

The direct actions are Bush. The indirect actions are the fates. No direct actions are ever assigned to Obama.

BTW, since we are told that government assistance is proof of caring does this mean Republicans care for the poor, and that Obama hates the poor? He just claimed he didn't do anything to help them during a disastrous economic crash.

Let's look at this little tidbit.


Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Maybe those guys are just biased, racist assholes who hate Obama and brought this up in an election climate. How about this then?

Federal support for food stamps was boosted in early 2009 as part of the federal stimulus package. But that extra spending will expire in 2013, and extending the extra funding beyond that date would be controversial.

People who post things that aren't fact based but they want to them to be true because of their beliefs utopia fantasies, yeah, that's you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #371 of 886
I don't think it helps Obama to point out that the recession started under his predecessor. Everyone knows that, the beef is that he has had 3 years to fix it and has been unable to.

It's no mystery how to end a recession. There is one method that historically never fails. Slash taxes and regulation. Then sit back and watch things go gangbusters.

The difference this time in history is the government does not have the flexibility to do that, due to all the entitlement programs coming due. Those programs have been (over-)promised by both parties for years, so in some ways it's not only Obama's fault.

But Paul Ryan's budget, slow and gradual as it was, and not including any spending cuts, but only slower rates of increase, was some kind of genius mathematical accomplishment that somehow made everything work out, but the Democrats reflexively went partisan on it's ass, when it was the last gasp chance to save their whole big society system.
post #372 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't think it helps Obama to point out that the recession started under his predecessor. Everyone knows that, the beef is that he has had 3 years to fix it and has been unable to.

It's no mystery how to end a recession. There is one method that historically never fails. Slash taxes and regulation. Then sit back and watch things go gangbusters.

The difference this time in history is the government does not have the flexibility to do that, due to all the entitlement programs coming due. Those programs have been (over-)promised by both parties for years, so in some ways it's not only Obama's fault.

But Paul Ryan's budget, slow and gradual as it was, and not including any spending cuts, but only slower rates of increase, was some kind of genius mathematical accomplishment that somehow made everything work out, but the Democrats reflexively went partisan on it's ass, when it was the last gasp chance to save their whole big society system.

Sigh!

Most people agree that the current economic crisis was brewing years before it became obvious. That means that George Bush had 8 years to fix it and did nothing until the very end. Most of us here were saying " There's no one at the wheel " And what about our children? " during most of his time in office. This thing took years to make and Bush was in charge during most if not all of it. Bush started with a recession but also a surplus and a balanced budget. He went through that in 6 months. He left with a huge mess and a problem for someone else to take care of. We could talk about the useless war if you want.
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 #373 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I guess you are against people paying their fair share.

If you confiscated all the wealth (not just one year's worth) of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, that would be $1.5 trillion. The Federal budget defect, just for 2011, was $1.56 trillion. It has actually gone past the point, mathematically, where it is possible to tax your way out.

Obama, the greedy pig, spent $5 trillion of American taxpayers money in 1 term in office, and he has the chutzpah to say the problem is that taxes aren't high enough.
post #374 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Most people agree that the current economic crisis was brewing years before it became obvious. That means that George Bush had 8 years to fix it and did nothing until the very end. Most of us here were saying " There's no one at the wheel " And what about our children? " during most of his time in office. This thing took years to make and Bush was in charge during most if not all of it. Bush started with a recession but also a surplus and a balanced budget. He went through that in 6 months. He left with a huge mess and a problem for someone else to take care of. We could talk about the useless war if you want.

Ok, but let me ask you, how much time has to pass before the current administration owns the current economy? I would say it's reasonable to blame your predecessor for up to a year, but after that it gets a bit dubious. The economy moves very quickly these days, e.g. there was no iPad just 2 years ago but now it is everywhere.

In such a fast moving environment Obama should have been able to effect change. The problem is that he is too ideological. If you are a scientific kind of person, who just look at the historical facts, slashing regulation and taxes is the way to end a recession. But he does not look at history for solutions, he looks to his ideology, which is a big government one. Fundamentally he is not dispassionately fact-based, which is a problem in any field in my opinion.
post #375 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If you confiscated all the wealth (not just one year's worth) of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, that would be $1.5 trillion. The Federal budget defect, just for 2011, was $1.56 trillion. It has actually gone past the point, mathematically, where it is possible to tax your way out.

Obama, the greedy pig, spent $5 trillion of American taxpayers money in 1 term in office, and he has the chutzpah to say the problem is that taxes aren't high enough.

The money attributed to Obama's budget was spent (except the war spending) out of necessity caused by the worst fiscal policies we've ever witnessed. Policies that didn't belong to Obama.
post #376 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Ok, but let me ask you, how much time has to pass before the current administration owns the current economy?

It depends on the depth of the damage done by the predecessor (or series of predecessors).
Quote:
I would say it's reasonable to blame your predecessor for up to a year, but after that it gets a bit dubious. The economy moves very quickly these days, e.g. there was no iPad just 2 years ago but now it is everywhere.

And by saying so you would be completely underestimating the depth of the hole we dug ourselves into before Obama came along. A hole that's going to get deeper again if we elect Romney or Gingrich.
Quote:
In such a fast moving environment Obama should have been able to effect change. The problem is that he is too ideological. If you are a scientific kind of person, who just look at the historical facts, slashing regulation and taxes is the way to end a recession.

Only to thhe people who have rewritten history, it does. The great recession was recovered from by a combination of war SPENDING and New Deal SPENDING.
Quote:
But he does not look at history for solutions, he looks to his ideology, which is a big government one. Fundamentally he is not dispassionately fact-based, which is a problem in any field in my opinion.

Most people don't look to history for solutions. They try to manipulate history to fit the solution that is convenient for them politically.
post #377 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The money attributed to Obama's budget was spent (except the war spending) out of necessity caused by the worst fiscal policies we've ever witnessed. Policies that didn't belong to Obama.

I don't believe that he was forced to spend that money, because government spending is not what ends recessions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only to thhe people who have rewritten history, it does. The great recession was recovered from by a combination of war SPENDING and New Deal SPENDING.

Most people don't look to history for solutions. They try to manipulate history to fit the solution that is convenient for them politically.

That is just the broken window fallacy. War spending does not help anyone, building bombs and tanks is a giant waste of effort. Yes, war spending causes GDP to go up, but that just shows it up as a poor measure in my opinion.
post #378 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Ok, but let me ask you, how much time has to pass before the current administration owns the current economy? I would say it's reasonable to blame your predecessor for up to a year, but after that it gets a bit dubious. The economy moves very quickly these days, e.g. there was no iPad just 2 years ago but now it is everywhere.

In such a fast moving environment Obama should have been able to effect change. The problem is that he is too ideological. If you are a scientific kind of person, who just look at the historical facts, slashing regulation and taxes is the way to end a recession. But he does not look at history for solutions, he looks to his ideology, which is a big government one. Fundamentally he is not dispassionately fact-based, which is a problem in any field in my opinion.

Quote:
Ok, but let me ask you, how much time has to pass before the current administration owns the current economy?

Listen. Shortly after Obama was elected in November of 08' I went to a lecture given by Paul Krugman where I work. At that time the mess was stilll in it's early apparent stages. He stated at that time that it could go on as long as 2014. And guess what many are saying right now? As a matter of fact despite what many conservative types here have said the whole thing has gone pretty much like Krugman was predicting. He also Bush's economic policies for a good portion of this debacle.

So the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Instead of asking how long before we try to blame the guy who inherited this mess we should be asking why does Bush get a pass on this issue at all? I am looking at the historical facts here. Are you? Bush had the most time to deal with this brewing and did nothing. If anything he made it worse by spending us into the current hole with an unnecessary war at a time of economic strife ( sound familar SDW if you're listening? ). He acted like what the GOP usually blames Democrats for only on steriods.

As far as I'm concerned the origin of this whole thing falls more on Bush then anyone else. Given how long he had to do something to avert it. It's scope and magnitude anyone who inherited this wouldn't have solved it by now no matter what they did. Get it?
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 #379 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't believe that he was forced to spend that money, because government spending is not what ends recessions.



That is just the broken window fallacy. War spending does not help anyone, building bombs and tanks is a giant waste of effort. Yes, war spending causes GDP to go up, but that just shows it up as a poor measure in my opinion.

Quote:
I don't believe that he was forced to spend that money, because government spending is not what ends recessions.

That's funny since most see WWII putting an end to the GD. We were out of the depression but in a jobless recovery ( sound familiar? ). Are you looking at history or just reading the party line?

The real difference now is that war doesn't help like it used to because we're in a global economy. When another country you might trade with hurts you feel it also. What Obama ( and Bush at the end of his term when things were getting bad ) did was to shore up things because without that we'd really be in a world of hurt with a real depression and real bread lines. Much worse than we have now. Yeah, yeah I know you don't believe it. Thank God you're not in charge.

Here's a little something for you to chew on. I'm sure it will leave a bad taste in some mouths here as they don't like Krugman but so far he's been right on about all of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/op...rssnyt&emc=rss
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 #380 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Listen. Shortly after Obama was elected in November of 08' I went to a lecture given by Paul Krugman where I work. At that time the mess was stilll in it's early apparent stages. He stated at that time that it could go on as long as 2014. And guess what many are saying right now? As a matter of fact despite what many conservative types here have said the whole thing has gone pretty much like Krugman was predicting. He also Bush's economic policies for a good portion of this debacle.

So the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Instead of asking how long before we try to blame the guy who inherited this mess we should be asking why does Bush get a pass on this issue at all? I am looking at the historical facts here. Are you? Bush had the most time to deal with this brewing and did nothing. If anything he made it worse by spending us into the current hole with an unnecessary war at a time of economic strife ( sound familar SDW if you're listening? ). He acted like what the GOP usually blames Democrats for only on steriods.

As far as I'm concerned the origin of this whole thing falls more on Bush then anyone else. Given how long he had to do something to avert it. It's scope and magnitude anyone who inherited this wouldn't have solved it by now no matter what they did. Get it?

Bush spent almost $5 trillion in his 8 years, which was historically unprecedented, but Obama is spending at twice that rate, so Obama is like Bush on steroids would be a more accurate statement.

But don't get me wrong, I think the differences between the 2 parties are not really that great. In some ways they are both in on the greatest racket on the planet, they have their hands in the pockets of the richest population in the richest country. None of them are going to rock the boat, and none of them wants to shrink government.
post #381 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's funny since most see WWII putting an end to the GD. We were out of the depression but in a jobless recovery ( sound familiar? ). Are you looking at history or just reading the party line?

The real difference now is that war doesn't help like it used to because we're in a global economy. When another country you might trade with hurts you feel it also. What Obama ( and Bush at the end of his term when things were getting bad ) did was to shore up things because without that we'd really be in a world of hurt with a real depression and real bread lines. Much worse than we have now. Yeah, yeah I know you don't believe it. Thank God you're not in charge.

Here's a little something for you to chew on. I'm sure it will leave a bad taste in some mouths here as they don't like Krugman but so far he's been right on about all of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Well of course you can reduce unemployment by sending half the male population overseas to fight a war. And you can also raise GDP by getting everyone to build tanks and planes. But if you look past the numbers for a moment, at the people, are they really better off? Their sons are now dying overseas, and instead of making things that make life better (such as refrigerators and cars) they are now making weapons.

If you want to actually make life better for the man on the ground you want to increase the production of goods and services, and that means capitalism, which means cutting taxes and regs.

The government takes in money from taxes and borrowing, and puts it in to various programs. In other words it doesn't actually produce things, it just moves capital around. If you have an egg carton with 12 spaces and 6 eggs, no amount of shuffling the eggs is going to give you 7 eggs. The government can not get us out of a recession, and yet stupidly, people obsessively keep shuffling the eggs thinking maybe this time it will be different and we'll get 7.

Every trillion dollar stimulus amounts to the government simply moving $1 trillion from here to there. And since the market is typically more efficient at allocating capital than bureaucrats, each so called "stimulus" is actually making things worse. What a hilarious misnomer, and what a ridiculous man with absolutely no understanding of economics, is Barrack Hussein Obama (and also George W. Bush, who tried the same silly solutions).
post #382 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Bush spent almost $5 trillion in his 8 years, which was historically unprecedented, but Obama is spending at twice that rate, so Obama is like Bush on steroids would be a more accurate statement.

Citation needed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #383 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Citation needed.

Look at the year-by-year national debt figures on the Treasury website:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Bush: Sept 2008 minus Sept 2001
= $10.0 trillion - $5.8 trillion
= $4.2 trillion increase over 2 terms

Now it doesn't have a 2011 figure yet, so use current national debt from http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Obama: Now minus Sept 2008
= $15.2 trillion - $10.0 trillion
= $5.2 trillion increase over 1 term

That seems like twice the rate to me, even if we round Bush up to $5 trillion to allow for overlap.
post #384 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Citation needed.

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.
post #385 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.

If only you could fix Bush's recession by mis-allocating trillions of dollars worth of capital.

Perhaps Romney will have a solution, given his much greater business experience.
post #386 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.

The war spending cannot be attributed solely to Obama, nor can the interest on the portion of debt piled on by Bush, nor the revenue shortfalls from the Bush taxcuts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #387 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If only you could fix Bush's recession by mis-allocating trillions of dollars worth of capital.

Perhaps Romney will have a solution, given his much greater business experience.

So...lay off America, sell off the resources to foreign interests, pocket retarded sums of cash, and baptize dead atheists into Mormonism? That is his Bain Capital experience.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #388 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

...and baptize dead atheists into Mormonism?

At best that's a sideways move.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #389 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

At best that's a sideways move.

I get the joke. The practice is also pretty batshit crazy. I'm pretty sure you agree. Now, hold that lens with which we view Mormonism and now rotate it back toward yourself...that's how I see Christianity, too.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #390 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The economic premise of the republicans is that we are on the right hand side of the curve. This is wrong.

What side of the curve are you on than?
post #391 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.

A well-worn line of attack. What did bush break? How did he break it?
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 #392 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sigh!

Most people agree that the current economic crisis was brewing years before it became obvious. That means that George Bush had 8 years to fix it and did nothing until the very end. Most of us here were saying " There's no one at the wheel " And what about our children? " during most of his time in office.

It's amazing how you claim a nonexistent consensus or majority. That is a form of psychosis. MOST people gave Bush ever larger majorities in Congress during both mid-terms. MOST people choose to reelect Bush by a larger majority than his first win. MOST people tossed Democrats from the House in 2010.

Quote:
This thing took years to make and Bush was in charge during most if not all of it. Bush started with a recession but also a surplus and a balanced budget. He went through that in 6 months. He left with a huge mess and a problem for someone else to take care of. We could talk about the useless war if you want.

Funny how you minimize such things. First of all you sit there and absolve Obama because the fact that he HASN'T fixed the problem and has made it worse somehow shows the magnitude of the problem was beyond what anyone could fix. That simply isn't true. Obama made his bad bets and lost.

Bush had the entire tech bubble pop which was just as large as the housing bubble popping. On top of that when 9/11 happened it caused a TRILLION dollars worth of damage to the economy in one day. Bush didn't get to declare that these problems were too large to be solved or shovel them off on Clinton. He had to do his damn job and lead. If Obama can't get the job done, he doesn't deserve the job. Thus he doesn't deserve reelection by your own reasoning. The problems are too large for him and he cannot solve them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If you confiscated all the wealth (not just one year's worth) of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, that would be $1.5 trillion. The Federal budget defect, just for 2011, was $1.56 trillion. It has actually gone past the point, mathematically, where it is possible to tax your way out.

Obama, the greedy pig, spent $5 trillion of American taxpayers money in 1 term in office, and he has the chutzpah to say the problem is that taxes aren't high enough.

Exactly. Apple's massive cash hoard of almost $100 billion which represents the profit from all those iPhones and iPads we see in almost everyone's hands now wouldn't even last a month of government overspending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Ok, but let me ask you, how much time has to pass before the current administration owns the current economy? I would say it's reasonable to blame your predecessor for up to a year, but after that it gets a bit dubious. The economy moves very quickly these days, e.g. there was no iPad just 2 years ago but now it is everywhere.

In such a fast moving environment Obama should have been able to effect change. The problem is that he is too ideological. If you are a scientific kind of person, who just look at the historical facts, slashing regulation and taxes is the way to end a recession. But he does not look at history for solutions, he looks to his ideology, which is a big government one. Fundamentally he is not dispassionately fact-based, which is a problem in any field in my opinion.

The reality is that none of the leftists on here want to talk about Obama's record. They know it can't be defended. Obama made massive bets. He claimed that Iraq savings would pay for health improvements. He claimed a non-aggressive stance would solve problems around the world. He clearly placed massive bets on stimulus multipliers and clean energy that have all been massive duds. In short the money was spent. The claims were made and they haven't panned out. That means it is time to fire him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The money attributed to Obama's budget was spent (except the war spending) out of necessity caused by the worst fiscal policies we've ever witnessed. Policies that didn't belong to Obama.

They belong to Obama when he renews, extends or continues them. Obama RENEWED the Bush Tax cuts. They should now be called the Obama tax cuts. Obama started new wars in Afghanistan and assisted in Libya without even consulting or asking for the consent of Congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It depends on the depth of the damage done by the predecessor (or series of predecessors).

And by saying so you would be completely underestimating the depth of the hole we dug ourselves into before Obama came along. A hole that's going to get deeper again if we elect Romney or Gingrich.

Funny how instead of crawling out of the hole, things seem to be stagnating while waiting to fall even deeper into the hole.
Quote:
Only to thhe people who have rewritten history, it does. The great recession was recovered from by a combination of war SPENDING and New Deal SPENDING.

Most people don't look to history for solutions. They try to manipulate history to fit the solution that is convenient for them politically.

Rewritten history.... why does the question never seem to be answered nor even asked by yourself or others making this claim that all these GREAT DEPRESSIONS and RECESSIONS seem to stick around and last when DEMOCRATS and their policies are in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Listen. Shortly after Obama was elected in November of 08' I went to a lecture given by Paul Krugman where I work. At that time the mess was stilll in it's early apparent stages. He stated at that time that it could go on as long as 2014. And guess what many are saying right now? As a matter of fact despite what many conservative types here have said the whole thing has gone pretty much like Krugman was predicting. He also Bush's economic policies for a good portion of this debacle.

So the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Instead of asking how long before we try to blame the guy who inherited this mess we should be asking why does Bush get a pass on this issue at all? I am looking at the historical facts here. Are you? Bush had the most time to deal with this brewing and did nothing. If anything he made it worse by spending us into the current hole with an unnecessary war at a time of economic strife ( sound familar SDW if you're listening? ). He acted like what the GOP usually blames Democrats for only on steriods.

As far as I'm concerned the origin of this whole thing falls more on Bush then anyone else. Given how long he had to do something to avert it. It's scope and magnitude anyone who inherited this wouldn't have solved it by now no matter what they did. Get it?

You've had plenty of examples of the partisan nature and the claims from all sides of all issues brought to you regarding Krugman. He is nothing but a blind partisan at this stage. Citing him as proof of anything is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's funny since most see WWII putting an end to the GD. We were out of the depression but in a jobless recovery ( sound familiar? ). Are you looking at history or just reading the party line?

The real difference now is that war doesn't help like it used to because we're in a global economy. When another country you might trade with hurts you feel it also. What Obama ( and Bush at the end of his term when things were getting bad ) did was to shore up things because without that we'd really be in a world of hurt with a real depression and real bread lines. Much worse than we have now. Yeah, yeah I know you don't believe it. Thank God you're not in charge.

Here's a little something for you to chew on. I'm sure it will leave a bad taste in some mouths here as they don't like Krugman but so far he's been right on about all of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

It's recovery summer every summer until one finally shows up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.

Funny how it costs Obama $200,000 to fix the house worth $100,000 you claim Bush burned down. This is why all the spending claims are not credible. Obama is literally on pace to spend double what Bush spent. So if you come in and trash my house it might cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair. That is indeed possible. However when the house still isn't fix and you've spent double what the house cost outright, then the contractor should be fired, replaced and sued for misconduct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The war spending cannot be attributed solely to Obama, nor can the interest on the portion of debt piled on by Bush, nor the revenue shortfalls from the Bush taxcuts.

The graph you posted did not assign a cent of those to Obama. That is why they were misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So...lay off America, sell off the resources to foreign interests, pocket retarded sums of cash, and baptize dead atheists into Mormonism? That is his Bain Capital experience.

Not quite but as usual, your hyperbole is charming.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #393 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's amazing how you claim a nonexistent consensus or majority. That is a form of psychosis. MOST people gave Bush ever larger majorities in Congress during both mid-terms. MOST people choose to reelect Bush by a larger majority than his first win. MOST people tossed Democrats from the House in 2010.



Funny how you minimize such things. First of all you sit there and absolve Obama because the fact that he HASN'T fixed the problem and has made it worse somehow shows the magnitude of the problem was beyond what anyone could fix. That simply isn't true. Obama made his bad bets and lost.

Bush had the entire tech bubble pop which was just as large as the housing bubble popping. On top of that when 9/11 happened it caused a TRILLION dollars worth of damage to the economy in one day. Bush didn't get to declare that these problems were too large to be solved or shovel them off on Clinton. He had to do his damn job and lead. If Obama can't get the job done, he doesn't deserve the job. Thus he doesn't deserve reelection by your own reasoning. The problems are too large for him and he cannot solve them.



Exactly. Apple's massive cash hoard of almost $100 billion which represents the profit from all those iPhones and iPads we see in almost everyone's hands now wouldn't even last a month of government overspending.



The reality is that none of the leftists on here want to talk about Obama's record. They know it can't be defended. Obama made massive bets. He claimed that Iraq savings would pay for health improvements. He claimed a non-aggressive stance would solve problems around the world. He clearly placed massive bets on stimulus multipliers and clean energy that have all been massive duds. In short the money was spent. The claims were made and they haven't panned out. That means it is time to fire him.



They belong to Obama when he renews, extends or continues them. Obama RENEWED the Bush Tax cuts. They should now be called the Obama tax cuts. Obama started new wars in Afghanistan and assisted in Libya without even consulting or asking for the consent of Congress.



Funny how instead of crawling out of the hole, things seem to be stagnating while waiting to fall even deeper into the hole.


Rewritten history.... why does the question never seem to be answered nor even asked by yourself or others making this claim that all these GREAT DEPRESSIONS and RECESSIONS seem to stick around and last when DEMOCRATS and their policies are in place.



You've had plenty of examples of the partisan nature and the claims from all sides of all issues brought to you regarding Krugman. He is nothing but a blind partisan at this stage. Citing him as proof of anything is nonsense.



It's recovery summer every summer until one finally shows up!



Funny how it costs Obama $200,000 to fix the house worth $100,000 you claim Bush burned down. This is why all the spending claims are not credible. Obama is literally on pace to spend double what Bush spent. So if you come in and trash my house it might cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair. That is indeed possible. However when the house still isn't fix and you've spent double what the house cost outright, then the contractor should be fired, replaced and sued for misconduct.



The graph you posted did not assign a cent of those to Obama. That is why they were misleading.



Not quite but as usual, your hyperbole is charming.

Quote:
It's amazing how you claim a nonexistent consensus or majority. That is a form of psychosis. MOST people gave Bush ever larger majorities in Congress during both mid-terms. MOST people choose to reelect Bush by a larger majority than his first win. MOST people tossed Democrats from the House in 2010.

It would be really great if you could say something relevent. You're a master at saying something that sounds like it's proof of something when it's not.

And about Krugman :
Quote:
He is nothing but a blind partisan at this stage

And yet everything he's predicted about this downturn ( calling it just a recession at this stage seems really unrealistic ) has come to pass. Do you really think that if we followed the GOP or Libertarian line and just stepped back and watched things would fix themselves? If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. If there's a blind partisan here it's you and SDW.

Quote:
It's recovery summer every summer until one finally shows up!

If you had read the article you could clearly see it doesn't even come close to saying that.

The truth here is all you have is your very subjective opinion and barbs. You have nothing except your venom. Sad really.
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 #394 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well of course you can reduce unemployment by sending half the male population overseas to fight a war. And you can also raise GDP by getting everyone to build tanks and planes. But if you look past the numbers for a moment, at the people, are they really better off? Their sons are now dying overseas, and instead of making things that make life better (such as refrigerators and cars) they are now making weapons.

If you want to actually make life better for the man on the ground you want to increase the production of goods and services, and that means capitalism, which means cutting taxes and regs.

The government takes in money from taxes and borrowing, and puts it in to various programs. In other words it doesn't actually produce things, it just moves capital around. If you have an egg carton with 12 spaces and 6 eggs, no amount of shuffling the eggs is going to give you 7 eggs. The government can not get us out of a recession, and yet stupidly, people obsessively keep shuffling the eggs thinking maybe this time it will be different and we'll get 7.

Every trillion dollar stimulus amounts to the government simply moving $1 trillion from here to there. And since the market is typically more efficient at allocating capital than bureaucrats, each so called "stimulus" is actually making things worse. What a hilarious misnomer, and what a ridiculous man with absolutely no understanding of economics, is Barrack Hussein Obama (and also George W. Bush, who tried the same silly solutions).

You know I'm not suggesting we should start a war. And yet you jump to really stupid conclusions in order to shore up your nonstatement. The point is we moved in the right direction by at least trying to avert the worst of this BY DOING SOMTHING. The doing nothing had already previously been tried during most of the Bush years ( letting lending institutions run amok ) and look where it got us.
Quote:
and what a ridiculous man with absolutely no understanding of economics

Can you say the same of Krugman the Nobel Laureate who preaches the same thing only more so? If you can I'd call you ridiculous.
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 #395 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Bush spent almost $5 trillion in his 8 years, which was historically unprecedented, but Obama is spending at twice that rate, so Obama is like Bush on steroids would be a more accurate statement.

But don't get me wrong, I think the differences between the 2 parties are not really that great. In some ways they are both in on the greatest racket on the planet, they have their hands in the pockets of the richest population in the richest country. None of them are going to rock the boat, and none of them wants to shrink government.

The point is Bush during his 8 years did nothing to regulate the banks and look where we are! I think one person discribed the lending institutions during that time as the wild west.

And you're preaching that govenment do more of that?

Maybe you missed this but I used to be a Libertarian ( when I was young ) and it's for this very reason I'm not anymore. You can't depend on people just doing the right thing. Some will but some won't. That's why we regulate. Libertarianism is a nice pipe dream but it won't work in the real world.
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 #396 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not really. Obama is spending to fix some of the shit Bush broke. If I go in and trash your house, then you go in and fix it, you're the one doing the spending. Unfortunately, Obama is not doing enough to fix things. But his spending is still focused on fixing all the shit Bush broke.

This is exactly right! I'm a landlord who just had a bit of problem with my rental. The people did trash it and trust me it's not going to fix itself for free. It won't do that either if I just step back and watch! By the same token maybe some wandering homeless person ( or any other natural force of entropy ) might just do the right thing and help fix up my rental to get it ready for occupancy again huh?
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 #397 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If only you could fix Bush's recession by mis-allocating trillions of dollars worth of capital.

Perhaps Romney will have a solution, given his much greater business experience.

His experience with firing people you mean.
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 #398 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A well-worn line of attack. What did bush break? How did he break it?

Learn to read please.
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 #399 of 886
I swear I get dumber with every one of jimmac's posts I read.

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 #400 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I swear I get dumber with every one of jimmac's posts I read.

MJ1970 sighting!!!!!

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.