Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 229

Thread: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

  1. #151
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Sorry but that was such a non-event, it took a lot of digging to find I bet. You are not comparing that to the House T's insistance that a default would be OK with them? I didn't not hear that from ANY Democrat. Not voting for something you know will pass anyway is not like a minority in Washington holding the country hostage until they get what they want. That is totally unprecedented and unacceptable.
    They will back out or suffer the consequences in 2014.
    Look down, your partisanship is showing.

  2. #152
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Nice try, mac. I already called Obama a hypocrite in another thread. Keep up, please. And learn to spell the president's name ffs, that's just embarrassing.
    No, this attempt to shift focus is embarrassing (for you), sticking an extra R in his name doesn't embarass me. The President is a hypocrite and this is a complete and total flop, there's no way around that.

  3. #153
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    According to the article you linked to, *every* dem (but one) voted to raise the debt limit.
    Yep, I switched horses. In the 2006 vote they voted against it...52-48. In 2009, they caved in because, well, I don't have to explain that, right?

  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,003

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Nonsense. When it comes to deficits, it;s the appropriations bills that matter, not the budget. Budgets don't authorize a single penny is spending.
    Thats what I said. However, a budget does put limits on what congress can appropriate procedurely. My point, though, was that an appropriation has nothing to do with the debt ceiling.

  5. #155
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,003

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Perhaps the White House should let the House of Representatives perform it's function, rather than issuing dictates.
    Next youll be suggesting the white house do its job of enforcing existing laws, instead of telling congress to pass new ones.

  6. #156
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You said it was Obama's creation, when in fact it was a creation by Congress. I agree that when the economy has recovered we should cut spending, and most of our wasteful spending is for the military/industrial complex.
    Talking about Obama "budgets" is a hard thing to do, since none actually get any votes in congress, but I will try.

    Total military spending is 24% of the federal budget spending, so cutting all defense spending would still leave over 1/3 of our deficit. The idea of borrow now and cut later "when things get better" is just not going to work. According to Obama, "things are better" and have been since 2011. In 2013 Obama proposes cutting about 1% from Defense, yet adding 2.5% to Education, 3.2% to Energy and so forth. The bottom line is that Obama will spend about the same thing as before, expressing increases in annual amounts of millions and decreases in "10 year" (pure BS) amounts as billions.

    Federal Budget 2013: How Obama’s budget plan affects each agency - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #157
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,335
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'


    Obama is a destructive moron.

    But hey... Parasite Nation voted for a fundamental change of America to Amerika. Enjoy the decay Komrades.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    439

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    The Clinton Surplus is a myth

    He stole money from the SS Trust Fund to pay down Public Debt. Smoke and Mirrors.

    intragovernmental holdings went up every year he was in office. So did the National Debt. Clinton's last budget left 100B in new debt. He also left Bush with a recession and a plotting/planning OBL in Afghanistan which led to 9/11. In other words, those '2 unfunded wars" that Democrats kept voting would never have been necessary had Clinton done his job as Commander in Chief.
    Mow its a myth but anytime a Republican wants to talk about the budget they say we were the ones that forced Clinton to balance the budget. Bush2 could have stopped 9/11. Clinton did not have anything to do with Iraq. The reason it was voted for was faulty info produced by Bush2 and his war mongers. Please stop with the nonsence. Republicans are the wildest spenders around period. History and facts are not on your side here.

  9. #159
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Heh. We are NOT a deadbeat nation. We believe strongly in dumping the responsibility for our current bills and spending on future generations. When the debt becomes overwhelming...screw them...we will all be long gone anyway. Besides...we can always blame it on someone else.

  10. #160
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Obama didn't spend enough money
    This is the reality. Only $114 billion in actual spending surfaced in 2009 (0.8% of GDP), $235 billion in 2010 (1.6% of GDP), and $145 billion in 2011 (0.96% of GDP).

    the Government is a better investment banker than the private sector
    Never made this argument, so please do not put words in my mouth.

    and you have had no response in regards to the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with massive Government Spending, such as rising commodity prices, which we have been seeing on the rise for 4+ years as millions upon millions of Americans slip deeper into poverty, and a devaluation of our currency in the long term. All that massive Government Spending really is, is a shifting of resources. There is no net gain. That's why the Stimulus was such a train wreck.
    Again, government spending is not likely to crowd out private investment when there are idle resources in the form of both labor and capital.

    They use the money for necessities they would have purchased anyways to stay alive had they been employed, which means there is no multiplier effect in regards to welfare spending.
    In the event a family faces an immense income strain from sustained unemployment, consumption must fall by definition. You cannot pay for goods and services with money you do not have. I am not sure what you are arguing here, but it simply does not make any sense.

    It's a wash. otherwise Spain and Greece would be the leading Economies in the world and all Obama would have to do to create utopia would be print/borrow a gazillion dollars, mint endless trillion dollar coins, and make everyone unemployed forever.
    This is a classic example of a strawman; not to mention it is rather inconsistent given the fiscal dissimilarities regarding the respective countries.

    The unemployed aren't taking their small unemployment checks and investing that money, in turn creating more opportunities for wealth creation. They don't use that money to hire people, create businesses.
    That is not the intention of unemployment insurance disbursements. They are supposed to consume goods and services with the proceeds which has a stabilizing effect on aggregate demand. Nobody is making the claim (although you are responding as such) that fiscal stabilization policy is a leading engine of economic growth. In reality, it is more of a last resort.

    Our Economy has a Productivity and Trade Problem. Not a Demand and Supply problem. This notion that we need to borrow and spend spend spend is a fantasy. Our Economy needs PRODUCTIVITY AND TRADE which means JOBS. Not endless welfare and entitlement spending.

    US trade deficit hits seven-month high as exports stay low — RT
    First and foremost, the U.S. economy is of the most productive in the world and productivity continues to grow as fast or faster than output. Secondly, a trade deficit serves as an extension to said productivity as it allows the U.S. to focus on it's comparative advantages (which is critical to being productive!).

    It's been a proven FACT that FDR's Economic Policies extended the Great Depression. New research shows that there is little if any benefit to massive Government Stimulus Spending

    In Search of the Multiplier for Federal Spending in the States During the Great Depression
    Rather odd you felt the need to bring FDR into this mix. Here is the proper source of the paper you have provided.

    From the paper you failed to read:

    It is difficult to estimate a national multiplier during the 1930s because it is hard to argue that federal spending was not rising in response to the downturn, and finding an instrument for federal spending in a national regression is difficult. Any estimate is likely to be for a balanced-budget multiplier because the deficits were very small relative to the size of the problem. Scholars have repeatedly shown that the New Deal was not a
    snip

    The per capita personal income multiplier estimates for per capita federal grants using the IV of region interactions with federal totals vary only slightly when using different estimating equations. The coefficient is 1.11 using level estimation, 1.10 in the first difference specification, and 1.13 in the growth rate specification. Under the moat/swing instrument strategy, the level specification leads to a multiplier estimate of 1.39. We do not report the difference specifications for the moat-swing instrument strategy because the instrument F-statistics are all less than 3, suggesting weak instrument bias. Although each of the estimates is greater than one, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the multiplier is equal to one. Thus, an additional dollar of federal grants may well have increased personal income by no more than the dollar of grant spending with no additional benefit in the private sector.28
    Which means that further analysis is needed to establish accuracy.

    If we apply the lessons of the New Deal to the federal fiscal stimulus today, it is important to realize that the estimates for the states are not for a national multiplier. Instead, they describe the impact within the state of additional federal funding in the state after all leakages are considered. In both periods interest rates are near the zero bound and unemployment rates are well above long run averages, although the problems of the Depression were far worse. The New Deal results suggest that federal fiscal stimulus during a modern recession would stimulate income in the states roughly dollar-for-dollar but have little impact on private nonfarm employment in the state.
    However, i do not expect you to have even the slightest understanding of econometrics, so it is rather odd you linked this paper.

    Obama's Economic Team predicted we'd be at around 5% Unemployment if we passed his failed stimulus which used every Keynesian fallacy you represent. Didn't happen.

    Unemployment Rate Projections - Business Insider
    So they were wrong. Not sure how this negates anything i have stated in regards to this subject.

    So instead of a population gainfully employed (As you pointed out happened during the Bush years. The irony is palpable) we have trillions more in new debt, and an economy that is barely keeping up with Population Growth (if even that). These are economic statistics that you have admitted to IN THIS THREAD, yet you still laughable are sitting on your house of cards. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
    Now you are getting desperate, and have resorted to making wild accusations, personal attacks, and dumping data/research that of which you lack the intellectual capacity to understand much less use as support for your position. But then again, i have come to expect nothing less from rabid partisans. Your irrelevant link dumps are of no interest to me, nor are they adding anything of substance to this discussion.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 01-15-13 at 11:12 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •