|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 25, 2011 14:34:03 GMT -8
I responded to this, if you will go back and look: "Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable.
The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing."
I think I responded with a sufficient understanding of the meaning of that post don't you think? I started the thread. I know what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk the larger effect of job losses on an economy-any economy, not just the localities in the article. No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. Are you insane? Bush started two wars now totalling more than a trillion dollars and would not even put the $$ in the frickin' budget! Are you claiming that Bush was not a big spender? That's the problem with Republicans - they blame the dems for tax and spend and completely ignore that fact that the conservatives were responsible for increased deficits. Now that Obama inherited the mess and had to spend to save the financial system that Republicans destroyed, he's suddenly the tax and spender? C'mon. To the point of the tread, employed people, be they public or private, spend money. What's causing our system to spiral is a lack of spending - on cars, on houses and on consumer products. Better figure out a way to increase spending if you hope to have economic recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2011 14:52:48 GMT -8
No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. Are you insane? Bush started two wars now totalling more than a trillion dollars and would not even put the $$ in the frickin' budget! Are you claiming that Bush was not a big spender? That's the problem with Republicans - they blame the dems for tax and spend and completely ignore that fact that the conservatives were responsible for increased deficits. Now that Obama inherited the mess and had to spend to save the financial system that Republicans destroyed, he's suddenly the tax and spender? C'mon. To the point of the tread, employed people, be they public or private, spend money. What's causing our system to spiral is a lack of spending - on cars, on houses and on consumer products. Better figure out a way to increase spending if you hope to have economic recovery. Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 25, 2011 15:18:55 GMT -8
Are you insane? Bush started two wars now totalling more than a trillion dollars and would not even put the $$ in the frickin' budget! Are you claiming that Bush was not a big spender? That's the problem with Republicans - they blame the dems for tax and spend and completely ignore that fact that the conservatives were responsible for increased deficits. Now that Obama inherited the mess and had to spend to save the financial system that Republicans destroyed, he's suddenly the tax and spender? C'mon. To the point of the tread, employed people, be they public or private, spend money. What's causing our system to spiral is a lack of spending - on cars, on houses and on consumer products. Better figure out a way to increase spending if you hope to have economic recovery. Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him. Yeah, Booosh spent too much, no question about it. But Boooosh only started one war (Iraq). Al Qaida and the Taliban started the other one on 9/11/01, and most of the libtards back then supported the response. Now, Obama has started a third war, ostensibly, at first, to remove a tyrant who never attacked us (sound familiar?), at least not directly (Libya). I supported it, when he said "It will be a matter of days, not weeks". It's been months now, and it's costing 10 million dollars a day. Scipio Africanus he ain't. As for spending....  |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 25, 2011 15:37:27 GMT -8
Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him. You haven't got a clue what good Obama's spending has done or not done. None of us do. There was an economist on CNBC the other morning who estimated that without Obama's recovery plan, the unemployment rate would be at least 11.1%. Since the rate is 9.1% now, and since that equals13.9 million unemployed, you can calculate that at 11.1%, there would be 16,954,945 unemployed and Obama's spending has saved at least 3,054,945 jobs. I'm guessing that the only reason it was not noticeable is that yours was not one of them. I'm not actually claiming that he's saved that many jobs; that's just one estimate. As I said, none of us know how many jobs have been saved. But while you can debate his policies and whether or not some other policy might have had a greater or lesser impact, there isn't a credible economist on the planet that would make the argument that his policies have had no noticeable impact. And for the record, you not liking his policies does not make him the flawed man. And as for capable people, Bernanke is the recognized world expert on the Great Depression; who would you have appointed in 2010 in his stead? Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 25, 2011 15:46:27 GMT -8
As for spending.... Serious question: How can Obama's actual deficits possibly be so low? If you figure that each year in the chart results from the budget of the prior year, then the two highest years of deficit would both be Bush years. That makes no sense to me. With all the money that has been spent bailing out, and attempting to spur job creation, how could Obama's budgets have been falling so drastically from those figures? that is kind of a strange chart. Both OMB and the CBO publish their own projections and the ultra conservative HF has combined them in some fashion. That doesn't suggest objectivity. Indeed, the OMB and CBO estimates differ so that the OMB at least blogged about the cause of those differences. So how do you take two conflicting charts and make one credible one? Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 25, 2011 16:08:22 GMT -8
Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him. You haven't got a clue what good Obama's spending has done or not done. None of us do. There was an economist on CNBC the other morning who estimated that without Obama's recovery plan, the unemployment rate would be at least 11.1%. Since the rate is 9.1% now, and since that equals13.9 million unemployed, you can calculate that at 11.1%, there would be 16,954,945 unemployed and Obama's spending has saved at least 3,054,945 jobs. I'm guessing that the only reason it was not noticeable is that yours was not one of them. I'm not actually claiming that he's saved that many jobs; that's just one estimate. As I said, none of us know how many jobs have been saved. But while you can debate his policies and whether or not some other policy might have had a greater or lesser impact, there isn't a credible economist on the planet that would make the argument that his policies have had no noticeable impact. And for the record, you not liking his policies does not make him the flawed man. And as for capable people, Bernanke is the recognized world expert on the Great Depression; who would you have appointed in 2010 in his stead? Yoda out... . Hmmm, let's see here... Obama's "stimulus", as I recall, was just under $900 Billion. You say it "may" have saved just over 3 Million jobs. A million is one one thousandth of a billion. So, doing a little math, that means it cost nearly $300,000 per job. Does that sound like a deal? Yeah. To an insurance peddler, I suppose it does. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 25, 2011 16:22:50 GMT -8
>>>that is kind of a strange chart. Both OMB and the CBO publish their own projections and the ultra conservative HF has combined them in some fashion. That doesn't suggest objectivity. Indeed, the OMB and CBO estimates differ so that the OMB at least blogged about the cause of those differences.<<<YoYo
Do you have different charts showing a more rosy prediction?
If so, please post.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2011 16:35:54 GMT -8
Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him. You haven't got a clue what good Obama's spending has done or not done. None of us do. There was an economist on CNBC the other morning who estimated that without Obama's recovery plan, the unemployment rate would be at least 11.1%. Since the rate is 9.1% now, and since that equals13.9 million unemployed, you can calculate that at 11.1%, there would be 16,954,945 unemployed and Obama's spending has saved at least 3,054,945 jobs. I'm guessing that the only reason it was not noticeable is that yours was not one of them. I'm not actually claiming that he's saved that many jobs; that's just one estimate. As I said, none of us know how many jobs have been saved. But while you can debate his policies and whether or not some other policy might have had a greater or lesser impact, there isn't a credible economist on the planet that would make the argument that his policies have had no noticeable impact. And for the record, you not liking his policies does not make him the flawed man. And as for capable people, Bernanke is the recognized world expert on the Great Depression; who would you have appointed in 2010 in his stead? Yoda out... . Baloney! Even Obama says his projects were not as "shovel ready" as thought, but that did not stop him from dumping that money down the drain anyway. I hate to get into the habit of laughing at the CNBC source and since I did not see it, I won't. It is just I would check the credentials of anyone over there before quoting them. Bernacke may be a expert on The Depression, but he has admitted in the last couple days that he does not have a clue as to why what is happening or not happening now is keeping the economy down. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 25, 2011 19:19:01 GMT -8
"Bernacke may be a expert on The Depression, but he has admitted in the last couple days that he does not have a clue as to why what is happening or not happening now is keeping the economy down."
But you do?
And you did not respond to my point about Repubicans - It is a documented fact that the elephants have increased deficits in every administration including and subsequent to Reagan. Are you not going to own that fact?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2011 19:29:16 GMT -8
Bush was too loose with spending, but he is a piker when compared to Obama. Obama's spending has done no noticeable good to date. He is a horrible flawed man with the additional burden of being unable to appoint capable people to help and advise him. You haven't got a clue what good Obama's spending has done or not done. None of us do. There was an economist on CNBC the other morning who estimated that without Obama's recovery plan, the unemployment rate would be at least 11.1%. Since the rate is 9.1% now, and since that equals13.9 million unemployed, you can calculate that at 11.1%, there would be 16,954,945 unemployed and Obama's spending has saved at least 3,054,945 jobs. I'm guessing that the only reason it was not noticeable is that yours was not one of them. I'm not actually claiming that he's saved that many jobs; that's just one estimate. As I said, none of us know how many jobs have been saved. But while you can debate his policies and whether or not some other policy might have had a greater or lesser impact, there isn't a credible economist on the planet that would make the argument that his policies have had no noticeable impact. And for the record, you not liking his policies does not make him the flawed man. And as for capable people, Bernanke is the recognized world expert on the Great Depression; who would you have appointed in 2010 in his stead? Yoda out... . According to Weird Joe's website, 500,000 jobs. Most, if not all of those are government jobs since the lions share of the money spent has been on bailouts of various state and local agencies and nonprofits. The guy is in over his head. He's an incompetent fraud and an empty suit. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 26, 2011 6:21:35 GMT -8
I responded to this, if you will go back and look: "Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable.
The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing."
I think I responded with a sufficient understanding of the meaning of that post don't you think? I started the thread. I know what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk the larger effect of job losses on an economy-any economy, not just the localities in the article. No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. I responded to the post, Win. And, Bush was to blame. I sure didn't start the war and I sure didn't cut the taxes. He introduced the legislation to cut taxes and he signed the order to go to war. You are not the expert I would ever listen to about taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 26, 2011 7:04:30 GMT -8
"Bernacke may be a expert on The Depression, but he has admitted in the last couple days that he does not have a clue as to why what is happening or not happening now is keeping the economy down." But you do? And you did not respond to my point about Repubicans - It is a documented fact that the elephants have increased deficits in every administration including and subsequent to Reagan. Are you not going to own that fact? I have responded and agree that Republicans spend nearly like Democrats. Some times I think you never read and digest what has been said. The simple truth right now is that we are on an accelerating upward spending path that can't be sustained and that Obama is at the helm. I liken him to that monkey that was sent into space with that little helmet. He has his little helmet on and is strapped in, but has no idea what is happening.   |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 26, 2011 7:15:19 GMT -8
No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. I responded to the post, Win. And, Bush was to blame. I sure didn't start the war and I sure didn't cut the taxes. He introduced the legislation to cut taxes and he signed the order to go to war. You are not the expert I would ever listen to about taxes. Oh! Boy! Sometimes the logic of those on the dim Dem side is enough to make you laugh. Where does spending legislation originate? Here is a hint. Your fourth grade teacher told you. We spend too much! To live within your means is not a new or foreign concept. Ann Coulter might be closer to a truth when she says when the dumbest Republican converts to Democrat the average IQ on both sides of the isle increases. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 26, 2011 7:39:32 GMT -8
I responded to the post, Win. And, Bush was to blame. I sure didn't start the war and I sure didn't cut the taxes. He introduced the legislation to cut taxes and he signed the order to go to war. You are not the expert I would ever listen to about taxes. Oh! Boy! Sometimes the logic of those on the dim Dem side is enough to make you laugh. Where does spending legislation originate? Here is a hint. Your fourth grade teacher told you. We spend too much! To live within your means is not a new or foreign concept. Ann Coulter might be closer to a truth when she says when the dumbest Republican converts to Democrat the average IQ on both sides of the isle increases. dim huh? I know how the government works. I passed the CSU government knowledge requirement without taking the class. Bush initiated the legislation through one stooge or another and he signed it into law. Chief executives do that all the time. That makes our famous Dallas resident responsible. And you know what? He is responsible. Living within your means can be resolved by cutting expenses or increasing your income. I guess that concept has escaped you. We are not living within our means, because Bush cut the tax rate in 2001 and he took us to war. I have documented both of those actions on this forum previously. Ann Coulter is to I.Q. what a vacuum is to atmospheric pressure. Quoting her is not an efficacious way to get a reasonable person to listen to you |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 26, 2011 8:37:12 GMT -8
Oh! Boy! Sometimes the logic of those on the dim Dem side is enough to make you laugh. Where does spending legislation originate? Here is a hint. Your fourth grade teacher told you. We spend too much! To live within your means is not a new or foreign concept. Ann Coulter might be closer to a truth when she says when the dumbest Republican converts to Democrat the average IQ on both sides of the isle increases. dim huh? I know how the government works. I passed the CSU government knowledge requirement without taking the class. Bush initiated the legislation through one stooge or another and he signed it into law. Chief executives do that all the time. That makes our famous Dallas resident responsible. And you know what? He is responsible. Living within your means can be resolved by cutting expenses or increasing your income. I guess that concept has escaped you. We are not living within our means, because Bush cut the tax rate in 2001 and he took us to war. I have documented both of those actions on this forum previously. Ann Coulter is to I.Q. what a vacuum is to atmospheric pressure. Quoting her is not an efficacious way to get a reasonable person to listen to you What part of "I agree that Bush was a spender" or at least quilty of complicity, do you not get? What part of the concept that Obama has multiplied the problem exponentially do you not understand? What part of the idea that we have no revenue problem, but a spending problem escapes you? Obama is our current problem in Spades.  If you can not follow the time line since 9/11 to see why we are where we are, then you are both a Dem and dim. I find Coulter "over the top" but most of what she has to say is true. I suggest you read one of her books as a change of pace from what you get in the NYT. You just might learn another point of view. Naw, why burst you little liberal bubble? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 26, 2011 10:52:43 GMT -8
dim huh? I know how the government works. I passed the CSU government knowledge requirement without taking the class. Bush initiated the legislation through one stooge or another and he signed it into law. Chief executives do that all the time. That makes our famous Dallas resident responsible. And you know what? He is responsible. Living within your means can be resolved by cutting expenses or increasing your income. I guess that concept has escaped you. We are not living within our means, because Bush cut the tax rate in 2001 and he took us to war. I have documented both of those actions on this forum previously. Ann Coulter is to I.Q. what a vacuum is to atmospheric pressure. Quoting her is not an efficacious way to get a reasonable person to listen to you What part of "I agree that Bush was a spender" or at least quilty of complicity, do you not get? What part of the concept that Obama has multiplied the problem exponentially do you not understand? What part of the idea that we have no revenue problem, but a spending problem escapes you? Obama is our current problem in Spades. If you can not follow the time line since 9/11 to see why we are where we are, then you are both a Dem and dim. I find Coulter "over the top" but most of what she has to say is true. I suggest you read one of her books as a change of pace from what you get in the NYT. You just might learn another point of view. Naw, why burst you little liberal bubble? I never refer to you as dim, or slow or stupid, nor do I infer it. I respect you even if I do not agree with you. In two posts today you have accused me of stupidity, not reading what I say I read and or not understanding it. What's up? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 26, 2011 11:47:35 GMT -8
What part of "I agree that Bush was a spender" or at least guilty of complicity, do you not get? What part of the concept that Obama has multiplied the problem exponentially do you not understand? What part of the idea that we have no revenue problem, but a spending problem escapes you? Obama is our current problem in Spades. If you can not follow the time line since 9/11 to see why we are where we are, then you are both a Dem and dim. I find Coulter "over the top" but most of what she has to say is true. I suggest you read one of her books as a change of pace from what you get in the NYT. You just might learn another point of view. Naw, why burst you little liberal bubble? I never refer to you as dim, or slow or stupid, nor do I infer it. I respect you even if I do not agree with you. In two posts today you have accused me of stupidity, not reading what I say I read and or not understanding it. What's up? I should not do that for sure. I do like a continuing discussion and name calling or inferring a lack of the capacity to reason is not what I like to do or be called out on. I guess I get frustrated when the thread starter clearly points out a fact, like the Swat Team deal on the Stockton story, you claim you did not see it. This thread is more of me not wanting to give in to the idea that some kind of revenue enhancement might be called for if only to reach a compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 26, 2011 12:48:14 GMT -8
"Bernacke may be a expert on The Depression, but he has admitted in the last couple days that he does not have a clue as to why what is happening or not happening now is keeping the economy down." But you do? And you did not respond to my point about Republicans - It is a documented fact that the elephants have increased deficits in every administration including and subsequent to Reagan. Are you not going to own that fact? I have responded and agree that Republicans spend nearly like Democrats. Some times I think you never read and digest what has been said. The simple truth right now is that we are on an accelerating upward spending path that can't be sustained and that Obama is at the helm. I liken him to that monkey that was sent into space with that little helmet. He has his little helmet on and is strapped in, but has no idea what is happening. And now you go racist as well? Really nice image depiction. Look Win, I read every word you write, unfortunately. My point is that Republicans love to wear the badge of fiscal conservatism, but the reality has historically been that they are the bid spenders, usually on wars and defense industry, just as Eisenhower warned against. The reality is, if you supported George and his two wars, you can hardly paint yourself as a fiscal conservative, can you? A trillion dollars! Obama inherited the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression and you want to run him out of town? I would love to hear your argument as to how the Republicans and Wall street were not complicit in creating this disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 26, 2011 13:00:44 GMT -8
I never refer to you as dim, or slow or stupid, nor do I infer it. I respect you even if I do not agree with you. In two posts today you have accused me of stupidity, not reading what I say I read and or not understanding it. What's up? I should not do that for sure. I do like a continuing discussion and name calling or inferring a lack of the capacity to reason is not what I like to do or be called out on. I guess I get frustrated when the thread starter clearly points out a fact, like the Swat Team deal on the Stockton story, you claim you did not see it. This thread is more of me not wanting to give in to the idea that some kind of revenue enhancement might be called for if only to reach a compromise. OK I did not offer an opinion on the SWAT Team, because I did not see enough information. Television web page reports are sketchy at best and afan has a longstanding position. I wanted to know why the agency had a swat team, why they might need one, what kind of crime they were responsible for stopping and the basis for their enforcement power, among other things. I will always reserve the right not to offer an opinion when I am not sure about the facts. I seldom weigh into your discussions about California budget issues, for example. Have you ever noticed? I was honestly not sure in this case and I did not feel comfortable expressing an opinion. Our budget issues cannot be discussed with honestly unless we look at income sources. An honest discussion about taxation should not threaten anyone. If conservative leaders refuse to even discuss income they are being disingenuous or they have another agenda. I suspect them of both. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 26, 2011 16:14:11 GMT -8
I have responded and agree that Republicans spend nearly like Democrats. Some times I think you never read and digest what has been said. The simple truth right now is that we are on an accelerating upward spending path that can't be sustained and that Obama is at the helm. I liken him to that monkey that was sent into space with that little helmet. He has his little helmet on and is strapped in, but has no idea what is happening. And now you go racist as well? Really nice image depiction. Look Win, I read every word you write, unfortunately. My point is that Republicans love to wear the badge of fiscal conservatism, but the reality has historically been that they are the bid spenders, usually on wars and defense industry, just as Eisenhower warned against. The reality is, if you supported George and his two wars, you can hardly paint yourself as a fiscal conservative, can you? A trillion dollars! Obama inherited the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression and you want to run him out of town? I would love to hear your argument as to how the Republicans and Wall street were not complicit in creating this disaster. Nothing racist at all. If you can make that case, it is in your mind only. Of Course Bush and every other President spent too much on the wrong things. It is hard to see how you fail to see that with Obama trumping the big spending exponentially makes the problem near unsolvable unless we are willing to feel some real pain. |
|
