(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:24 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 01:17 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What if your income doesn't steadily climb, but inflation continues on and your family keeps growing?

Of course you're still thinking the problem is debt, and you're wrong. Debt could eventually be a problem, but it's not the problem today. Keep trying, sport. Maybe you'll luck up and get something right one of these days.

Debt isn't the problem today? Really? What a relief!

No, it's not. Debt is not a short-term problem for us, it is a long-term problem. And it is a problem that will be greatly exacerbated it don't cure the short-term problems which are unemployment and slugglish growth. Smaug, you seem like a good-hearted person, but you don't know shite about economics. Educate yourself a little so the politicans won't be able to pull your strings whenever they want.

With all due respect, I don't know what your economics bona fides are, but you have not convinced me that you're the expert you'd have me believe you are.

So, if the short-term problems are increasingly exacerbated by the long-term problems, why not nip the long-term problem in the bud at every available opportunity, instead of making it worse?

Cut spending. Do it in good times. Do it in bad times. Be a lean, responsible government, better prepared to meet any crisis that arises, rather than be hamstrung by your own avarice anytime you find yourself in a bind.

You got it perfectly backwards. The long-term problems (debt) are exacerbated by the short-term problems (sluggish growth and unemployment). If you want to close a huge chunk of the deficit and handle a decent handle the long-term issues, all you have to do is get the economy moving a healthy pace again, end the useless wars and bring military spending back down, and let the Bush tax cuts expire.

In terms of cutting spending, you constrain spending during times of good economic growth and you raise spending during times of economic downturns. That's classic Keynesian economics. Clinton followed that during his administration and brought the publicly-held debt from around 49% of GDP to about 35% of GDP while the economy boomed. Bush then decided to blow a hole in all that and drove the economy off a cliff. The jury is still out on President Obama.

I thought congress did the spending.

(07-22-2011 07:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:24 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Debt isn't the problem today? Really? What a relief!

No, it's not. Debt is not a short-term problem for us, it is a long-term problem. And it is a problem that will be greatly exacerbated it don't cure the short-term problems which are unemployment and slugglish growth. Smaug, you seem like a good-hearted person, but you don't know shite about economics. Educate yourself a little so the politicans won't be able to pull your strings whenever they want.

With all due respect, I don't know what your economics bona fides are, but you have not convinced me that you're the expert you'd have me believe you are.

So, if the short-term problems are increasingly exacerbated by the long-term problems, why not nip the long-term problem in the bud at every available opportunity, instead of making it worse?

Cut spending. Do it in good times. Do it in bad times. Be a lean, responsible government, better prepared to meet any crisis that arises, rather than be hamstrung by your own avarice anytime you find yourself in a bind.

You got it perfectly backwards. The long-term problems (debt) are exacerbated by the short-term problems (sluggish growth and unemployment). If you want to close a huge chunk of the deficit and handle a decent handle the long-term issues, all you have to do is get the economy moving a healthy pace again, end the useless wars and bring military spending back down, and let the Bush tax cuts expire.

In terms of cutting spending, you constrain spending during times of good economic growth and you raise spending during times of economic downturns. That's classic Keynesian economics. Clinton followed that during his administration and brought the publicly-held debt from around 49% of GDP to about 35% of GDP while the economy boomed. Bush then decided to blow a hole in all that and drove the economy off a cliff. The jury is still out on President Obama.

I thought congress did the spending.

Not really. The beginning of the budget process is the president sending a proposed budget to the House. The final budget usually bear a lot of similarities to whatever the president proposes. You'll notice that you rarely see big changes in spending when the House flips from one party to another, but you do see changes when the presidency changes.

(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The jury is still out on President Obama.

(07-22-2011 08:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The jury is still out on President Obama.

What are you worried about, Paul? They'll convict him. Nice picture though

You do realize that House Republicans have an approval rating in the 20% range, right?

(07-22-2011 08:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 08:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The jury is still out on President Obama.

What are you worried about, Paul? They'll convict him. Nice picture though

Idiots let a woman get away with killing her child. Why should I be confident idiots wont let Obama get away with killing America?

(07-22-2011 09:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 08:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 08:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The jury is still out on President Obama.

What are you worried about, Paul? They'll convict him. Nice picture though

Idiots let a woman get away with killing her child. Why should I be confident idiots wont let Obama get away with killing America?

lol good one. Polls show that Barry's approval of his handling of the debt ceiling crisis is around 25%, yet the same polls give him a 47% job approval rating proving one thing... 47% of Americans are idiots.

(07-22-2011 12:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 12:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  They are fighting over 1.5 to 4.0 trillion over 10 years spending cuts. This gets us no where near a balanced budget or entitlement reform or tax reform, or why we are in 3 wars or the devastation that ObabbaCare will shackle the debt of our children, great grandchildren, great, great grandchildren, great, great, great....... grandchildren. Clearly the future is bleak.

It almost make one hope this mess makes our demise come swiftly. Then we can pick up the pieces and evolve ahead...learning from our mistakes. I really have no optimism for the future of our children today.

I hate to disappoint you guys but If they get a deal approaching 4 trillion in cuts the United States has positioned itself for economic growth the likes of which haven't been experienced in decades

Do you want to bet that happens? I hope you are right...but...I'll give you pretty good odd it won't.

(07-22-2011 04:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 12:24 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Of course....the GOP has had zero contribution to any of this current mess.

The GOP now controls just 1/2 of 1/3 of the Government and they have held it less than a year.

The fact that Obama and the Dems have unleashed spending unlike any the world has known (amounts that could make Nero blush) is not in any way ameliorated by the bad practices of Bush and the GOP Congress (2000-2006).

There are three typical responses to a recession (and let's not even pretend like this recession was anything like a normal recession). The first is to cut interest rates. Interest rates were already at or near zero when President Obama took over. The second is to cut taxes. Taxes are already at historic lows. The third is to increase spending. That's the only option left on the table and even that is somewhat constrained given the way GOPers have run up our debt over the last three decades. So don't pretend like the GOP doesn't have anything to do with our current situation. They are a major cause of our current situation.

Im fine with the amount spent but not what or how it was spent.

If you want to spend 1 trillion replacing the oldest and most costly bridges, schools, power stations, and other old infrastructure then by all means do it!

If you want to spend the huge majority of that trillion baling out teachers unions in states that fail to balance their own budgets? not so much.

I'm not happy with the amount or the purpose. I'm also pissed because I never consented to being responsible for a damn penny of it.

(07-22-2011 07:48 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Increase/decrease in debt/GDP (in percentage points) by Presidential term:

Carter - -3.3%
Reagan (1st term) - +11.3%
Reagan (2nd term) - +9.3%
Bush - +13.0%
Clinton (1st term) - -0.7%
Clinton (2nd term) - -9.0%
Bush (1st term) - +7.1%
Bush (2nd term) - +20.7%
Obama - +9.0%

Obviously Obama doesn't fit with Carter or Clinton.

(07-22-2011 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Increase/decrease in debt/GDP (in percentage points) by Presidential term:

Carter - -3.3%
Reagan (1st term) - +11.3%
Reagan (2nd term) - +9.3%
Bush - +13.0%
Clinton (1st term) - -0.7%
Clinton (2nd term) - -9.0%
Bush (1st term) - +7.1%
Bush (2nd term) - +20.7%
Obama - +9.0%

Obviously Obama doesn't fit with Carter or Clinton.

Yeah, he's a bit too conservative.

(07-22-2011 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Increase/decrease in debt/GDP (in percentage points) by Presidential term:

Carter - -3.3%
Reagan (1st term) - +11.3%
Reagan (2nd term) - +9.3%
Bush - +13.0%
Clinton (1st term) - -0.7%
Clinton (2nd term) - -9.0%
Bush (1st term) - +7.1%
Bush (2nd term) - +20.7%
Obama - +9.0%

Obviously Obama doesn't fit with Carter or Clinton.

Bush made sure there were no easy economic tools left to use against the painful recession, and he kicked in a flailing financial sector and a broken housing market to boot. So don't act like an idiot who thinks Obama is spending just for heck of it.

Obama's outyear budget projections show deficits in excess of half a trillion dollars in years where growth was projected to be 4%. That is spending for the heck of it.

And disagreeing with your leftist slant does not make anyone an idiot.

(07-22-2011 11:56 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 07:48 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Increase/decrease in debt/GDP (in percentage points) by Presidential term:

Carter - -3.3%
Reagan (1st term) - +11.3%
Reagan (2nd term) - +9.3%
Bush - +13.0%
Clinton (1st term) - -0.7%
Clinton (2nd term) - -9.0%
Bush (1st term) - +7.1%
Bush (2nd term) - +20.7%
Obama - +9.0%

Obviously Obama doesn't fit with Carter or Clinton.

Bush made sure there were no easy economic tools left to use against the painful recession, and he kicked in a flailing financial sector and a broken housing market to boot. So don't act like an idiot who thinks Obama is spending just for heck of it.

When is the Professional left going to realize that blaming Bush for everything with threads of enormous conspiracies does not fix the any problem.

(07-23-2011 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And disagreeing with your leftist slant does not make anyone an idiot.

No, but the lying by the right certainly does.

(07-23-2011 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And disagreeing with your leftist slant does not make anyone an idiot.

No, but the lying by the right certainly does.

You mean like the left does when they promise to cut spending?

(07-23-2011 07:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And disagreeing with your leftist slant does not make anyone an idiot.

No, but the lying by the right certainly does.

You mean like the left does when they promise to cut spending?

The right raised spending countless times during the Dubya, Bush the elder, and Reagan years. I guess they're liars in your estimation.

(07-23-2011 08:09 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 07:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(07-23-2011 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And disagreeing with your leftist slant does not make anyone an idiot.

No, but the lying by the right certainly does.

You mean like the left does when they promise to cut spending?

The right raised spending countless times during the Dubya, Bush the elder, and Reagan years. I guess they're liars in your estimation.

Yep. Which is why I reiterate that I'll believe they're (the collective "they) are serious about cutting spending when spending is cut.