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

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by trumptman

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?

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I guess you are against people paying their fair share.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Obama: Bush was food stamp President, not me.


This freakin' guy. LOL.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I guess you are against people paying their fair share.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

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

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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?

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by BR

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by BR

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by BR

...and baptize dead atheists into Mormonism?

Originally Posted by Frank777

At best that's a sideways move.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

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.

He is nothing but a blind partisan at this stage

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

Originally Posted by ascii

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).

and what a ridiculous man with absolutely no understanding of economics

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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