(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He's right. So obviously that's going to hurt him with the GOP base.

Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.

Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He's right. So obviously that's going to hurt him with the GOP base.

Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.
Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

(02-22-2012 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.
Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

Except that these guys (Rob, Max, Atlantic) apparently think that even when the unmitigated disaster comes, like it has in Greece, you should STILL keep borrowing and spending.

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He's right. So obviously that's going to hurt him with the GOP base.

Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.

Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

(02-22-2012 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

Not cutting spending is like believing you'll get out of debt by charging more because it means a higher Cash Back bonus.

(02-23-2012 07:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

Not cutting spending is like believing you'll get out of debt by charging more because it means a higher Cash Back bonus.

I was able to buy everyone's Christmas presents this year using my reward points from my Chase Sapphire card.

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.

Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.

Here's the quote:

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

(02-22-2012 07:00 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.
Here's the quote:
Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

Except that these guys (Rob, Max, Atlantic) apparently think that even when the unmitigated disaster comes, like it has in Greece, you should STILL keep borrowing and spending.

That's not the case at all. I know we can't keep increasing the debt at substantial levels. I am, however, willing to acknowledge the economic damage that straight budget cuts will create in the short term. We have to wean ourselves off debt, not go cold turkey.

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

A.) regurgitating bad info makes him inept

B.) Yes. Romney was wrong. See Torch's comment.

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

Not as wrong as Obama. And in our current situation, any improvement, no matter how small, is good.

(02-23-2012 09:11 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

A.) regurgitating bad info makes him inept

B.) Yes. Romney was wrong. See Torch's comment.

(02-23-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:11 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

A.) regurgitating bad info makes him inept

B.) Yes. Romney was wrong. See Torch's comment.

Laugh all you want. But the evidence is right in front of you with Detroit, Greece, and California. All three are Liberal Utopia's and all three are bankrupt. Only a fool would think our outcome could be any different.

(02-23-2012 10:38 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:11 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

A.) regurgitating bad info makes him inept

B.) Yes. Romney was wrong. See Torch's comment.

Laugh all you want. But the evidence is right in front of you with Detroit, Greece, and California. All three are Liberal Utopia's and all three are bankrupt. Only a fool would think our outcome could be any different.

Only a fool would try to oversimplify a complex problem. There has to be a combination of short-term and long-term strategies. Most of all, there has to be enough political courage to make real change happen. I don't see that from Obama, nor do I see it from Romney/Santorum/Gingrich. I'll concede that Paul is the only one talking about real change, but he ignores the short term strategies that would be required for the long term strategies to be feasible.

2013 Paul takes office. Let's assume that he's allowed to do what he wants

2014 Paul's cuts hack 4% of GDP in one year. Economy collapses due to market panic and a spike in unemployment. US economy will theoretically be reborn stronger than ever with a long term viability that it never had before

2015 congress, under pressure from citizens, tries to undo everything RP has done, creates a standoff between the executive and legislative branches. Since Paul has vowed that a weak executive branch is the way to go, he's powerless to stop congress

2016 RP loses to any candidate that pledges to spend the most to get the short-term economy back. Any support of budget cuts is crushed for the next 20 years.

Maybe I'm being too creative here, but I'm not sure I'm too far off. It's a good long term strategy in theory, but it will never get the short term buy-in to take root.

(02-23-2012 10:47 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:38 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:11 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

A.) regurgitating bad info makes him inept

B.) Yes. Romney was wrong. See Torch's comment.

Laugh all you want. But the evidence is right in front of you with Detroit, Greece, and California. All three are Liberal Utopia's and all three are bankrupt. Only a fool would think our outcome could be any different.

Only a fool would try to oversimplify a complex problem. There has to be a combination of short-term and long-term strategies. Most of all, there has to be enough political courage to make real change happen. I don't see that from Obama, nor do I see it from Romney/Santorum/Gingrich. I'll concede that Paul is the only one talking about real change, but he ignores the short term strategies that would be required for the long term strategies to be feasible.

2013 Paul takes office. Let's assume that he's allowed to do what he wants

2014 Paul's cuts hack 4% of GDP in one year. Economy collapses due to market panic and a spike in unemployment. US economy will theoretically be reborn stronger than ever with a long term viability that it never had before

2015 congress, under pressure from citizens, tries to undo everything RP has done, creates a standoff between the executive and legislative branches. Since Paul has vowed that a weak executive branch is the way to go, he's powerless to stop congress

2016 RP loses to any candidate that pledges to spend the most to get the short-term economy back. Any support of budget cuts is crushed for the next 20 years.

Maybe I'm being too creative here, but I'm not sure I'm too far off. It's a good long term strategy in theory, but it will never get the short term buy-in to take root.

You got all that from a magic eight ball? Mine just says..."Yes" or "No" or "Maybe".

you've lost your mind.

Quote:And how would more gov't spending be paid for? More debt. Surely you don't think the entire national debt can be paid off with tax hikes (?). And by openly pining for currency devaluation, you can no longer keep up the masquerade of being a crusader for the poor.

More government spending could be paid for with tax hikes. I never said anything about paying off the entire national debt. I prefer raising taxes to currency devaluation, but I prefer currency devaluation to massive austerity measures which hurts the poor FAR worse.

Quote:You must be the first person in the world to call the EU policies "conservative." BTW, currency devaluation sure worked wonders for Belarus last year.

It is conservative. Taking away a country's tool to manage its debt and economy so that it has a constricted money supply and will be forced to make cuts is basically what Ron Paul wants to do with the gold standard.

Hyperinflation is a possibility if you're not smart about it. It has to be measured and accompanied by tax hikes and maybe even cuts. I'm not saying Greece should have just ran the printing press in one day to cover the entire debt because that would cause a panic and runaway inflation. Measured inflation though is healthy--today's dollar is worth 5 cents in 1910 dollars, and I think it's fair to say we've had a strong century over that period.

Quote:What, in your opinion, is causing the problems in Greece?

The worldwide recession for one, and the fact tourism and shipping are major industries in Greece and those industries were particularly hit hard by the recession. And corruption. Greek officials were hiding the real debt numbers and paying off Goldman Sachs to do it for political reasons. So when the correct numbers were revealed it hit them like an avalanche. The best response is to balance currency devaluation with raising tax rates. You cut spending last if you really have to because it has the most sudden and immediate impact on demand.

Quote:Well, you're already taxing their source of income when it is earned by the donors, why not tax it again!?!?!?

Money being taxed twice? Oh noes! As if that's' not happening already on every purchase you make. I'd let them deduct for their charity work (money spent actually helping the poor), but everything they do doesn't deserve tax exemption.

Quote:Except that these guys (Rob, Max, Atlantic) apparently think that even when the unmitigated disaster comes, like it has in Greece, you should STILL keep borrowing and spending.

Because the unmitigated disaster isn't happening in a vacuum. In Greece's case it was caused by the recession (caused by American banks) and that recession will come to an end so long as they don't #### it up. Borrowing and spending buys them more time until the economy picks up again and the tourism and shipping come back to normal levels, and then tax revenue will grow naturally. In the meantime a little currency devaluation to hit the people holding the cash (by and large the rich, though of course it hurts the poor too) buys precious time so that later on you can address deficit reduction with an economy that isn't fragile and you can raise tax rates in without growth taking such a hit.

If Greece defaults it can drag the world economy back into a recession, which isn't good for anybody. If Greece makes austerity cuts like they have, they kill their own economy (shrank by 8% last year) and tax revenues along with it (unemployment is soaring), and when the world economy recovers they're lagging far behind and need to rebuild.

Quote:Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

Everybody was underestimating the depth of the recession at the time; Obama was as "woefully inept" as everyone else.

Quote:Not cutting spending is like believing you'll get out of debt by charging more because it means a higher Cash Back bonus.

Because an individual and world economic superpower are the same thing, essentially. The goal shouldn't be to get out of debt, especially when the interest you're paying isn't substantially outpacing inflation, and when that money can be put to more productive use.

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

No I don't know exact numbers, asking for them is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Yes Romney was wrong, cutting is not going to kill you if you cut smart and over time..

(02-23-2012 12:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:00 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:56 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Really? Obama and his team promised "pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go over 8.5 percent" and you give him a pass but expect me yo give you hard numbers on a Bulletin board conversation..

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Take it however you want. Obama is either a liar or woefully inept. Which one works best for you?

He didn't know what he was talking about. Probably was given that number by someone on his staff and he regurgitated it. It was theoretical and he was wrong.

Edit: Also, introducing Obama was an attempt to distract from the actual discussion of this thread: Was Romney wrong?

No I don't know exact numbers, asking for them is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Yes Romney was wrong, cutting is not going to kill you if you cut smart and over time..

Do you even know how GDP is calculated?

(02-23-2012 10:47 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  2014 Paul's cuts hack 4% of GDP in one year. Economy collapses due to market panic and a spike in unemployment. US economy will theoretically be reborn stronger than ever with a long term viability that it never had before

Show your work or you are full of crap..