Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 229

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

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    WTF are you talking about? You see, this is the problem; it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who cannot even stay within the context of the discussion. Case in point (i will only use two examples for time sake):

    When you made a comment: (which was in disagreement)
    I've been within the context of the discussion the entire time. It's not my problem you are having difficulty following along.

    You believe nearly 6 trillion spent in 4 years wasn't enough. Obviously I disagree.

    You believe yearly trillion dollar deficits (when the government currently is receiving more than 2T annually) isn't enough spending. I disagree.

    You believe massive Keynesian Stimulus spending creates jobs, and sustained Economic Growth. I disagree. It didn't work when FDR tried it. It didn't work when Obama tried it. Both of those failures also led to enormous Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities within the private economy that prolonged both recessions when that could have easily been avoided with more prudent economic policies. These are facts that are beyond dispute.

    I responded with support for my argument:
    Except the problem is your argument was a strawman that was easily refuted/debunked. You're trying to have a conversation in a box where you set all the rules. It doesn't work that way. There are reasons why your "argument" is a house of cards that collapses under close scrutiny.

    1. As was stated in my previous post, and for some reason you completely ignore it (I sense a pattern here) the CBO also stated that the 800B was fully accounted for, meaning that the obligations for the appropriation of those funds were in place. The table was set so to speak. So your assumption is they just needed to spend more of the Stimulus for job/economic growth is a red herring, (we know that didn't happen.) which leads to point number 2.

    2. Only 400K jobs will be sustained by Stimulus spending by the end of 2013. That's about 2 million per job. Again, obviously not a very good investment of taxpayer dollars. As time goes on, each job created by the "Stimulus" becomes more costly. The spending becomes more ineffective as time goes on. There are reasons for this. One being that Government doesn't operate with the same profit motive as the private sector, so therefore it doesn't appropriate resources in the most effective and efficient ways. I really don't understand why you are trying to dispute this. It's proven Economic Theory and a lot of it is explained in Buchanan's Public Choice Theory. In other words in reality, Stimulus Spending is really just Government giving money away, except the problem is it doesn't have a firm indicator on things such price/value for the things it's handing money to.

    That's why I provided multiple examples of Obama's "failed Green Job Investments". It doesn't get any clearer than that really. Obama made those investments for Ideological reasons, base upon voting. Not sound Economic Policy. It shows that the Stimulus spending in large part was dolled out to Special Interests and the people who got Obama voted into office. Unions, Campaign Bundlers, ect. This is beyond refute. The Stimulus was infested with cronyism. There was no competition or profit motive to discipline the allocation of resources by Government within Obama's Failed Stimulus Package.

    3. The ARRA according to the WH's own projections only "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That's about 260K per saved or created job. Obviously that money would have been invested more wisely by those in the private sector who created that wealth, than the Government who by it's own admission is squandering 125B a year in "improper payments". You want everyone to believe that if we only allowed Obama to spend more money, his Keynesian Policies would have worked. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.

    To which you respond in a manner that does not AT ALL pertain to my argument:

    I never claimed anything was not spent; not one time! My point was that the stimulus package was small, which can be reflected in its representation of U.S. output for each particular year. You continue with your rant by stating NOTHING that can be even considered a minor refutation of my point; the stimulus was far too small. How can it be possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who refuses to respond with even minimal relevance?


    800B is small? 260K per "saved or created job" is small? We know where the money went. To Unions, crony campaign bundlers, Government workers, Solydra, Brightsource, A123 Systems, ect. They didn't get enough taxpayer dollars? You're doing nothing more that repeating talking points put forth by Paul Krugman. You are also forgetting TARP, which the Stimulus followed, which was another 700B. Obama inherited half those funds to spend. Obama and the Democrats also signed the Omnibus Spending bill. Another 330B. Obama's Stimulus was the most expensive Government intervention in the US Economy in it's entire History. Your only argument (which is nothing more than a Krugman talking point) is that it wasn't enough.

    Obama's Stimulus was such a failure that his Administration stopped releasing reports about during 2012, because they knew those reports could potentially be damning to his reelection chances. That's how bad it was. I can't even believe the crux of your entire argument is that it wasn't big enough. That stinks of desperation and some seriously spiked Kool-Aid. Here is Obama's own December 2011 Report. Each job cost more than 300K, but we get it, "The Stimulus wasn't big enough" Economic Growth requires good spending. Not more spending.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...inal_draft.pdf

    I go on to explain why the negative externalities/opportunity cost of large fiscal deficits are minor at best:
    Except that they aren't minor at all. Maybe in fantasyland they are minor, but only a radical ideologue would make such a claim. The innovations, investment, job growth, wealth creation by Individuals pursuing their own self interests (Instead of Government confiscated their money and redistributing it) is not something that can be easily dismissed, nor is it something that can easily be calculated. You're assuming that a Centrally Planned Authority that controlled all that money made the best possible choices, investments, and use of that Capital. Your assumptions are incorrect.

    This is the problem with massive Keynesian Stimulus Packages. They are sugar highs. Spikes, but if you look at them over the long term there is clear evidence they don't work. That's why the % of Americans of working age who are employed right now (59%) is EXACTLY the same as it was before Obama passed his Stimulus. All that money spent was a wash. There was NO NET GAIN. Obama never saw GDP reach 4% during his first term, and that was with his Omnibus Spending Bill and Stimulus Package. On the contrary Reagan saw GDP Growth as high 9% with a million jobs created on 1 month. As a matter of fact, during the same month and same year of Reagan's first term, the economy created a million jobs, where during Obama's first term ZERO jobs were created in that same month. Again, after the Stimulus was passed.

    Economy Gains No Jobs in August, Rate Holds at 9.1%


    The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession.

    It was the first time since World War II that the economy had precisely net zero jobs created for a month.
    To which you repsond:

    ??? Crowding out is the instance where government spending takes money out of capital markets to the tune where private investment is stiffeled! It is not called risk, it is called crowding out private investment. Again, how is it possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who cannot even comprehend the vocabulary associated with their own arguments?!?!?! Crowding out is THE negative externality/opportunity cost of large budgetary deficits.

    When you discover the ability to have an adult discussion, then by all means.... But what you have put forth so far is... well, rather embarrassing.
    You're all over the map here and you obviously completely misunderstood my point of contention. That much is obvious. I never claimed "crowding out" was risk, not sure why you're attempting another strawman here. You also once again conveniently ignore my main point, which is that LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding. Where I mentioned risk is in regards to WHO invests/spends the money (Public Choice Theory). It really is quite a simple economic concept, which is probably why you can't comprehend it.

    I'm sensing you really don't know what you are talking about at all here, and have been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of strawmen and red herrings while chirping away Krugman talking points you've read on his blog. Kind of a shame really. You also failed to address every point I made in my previous post, as well as numerous points made in the post before that. Clearly you are unable to offer any rebuttals. I stated previously that I wouldn't respond to you unless you addressed EVERY POINT I made in the previous post. I've gone ahead and made an exception here just once, but consider that a mulligan. From now on, if you are going to have any credibility with me beyond a Krugman Parrot, you must address EVERY POINT of contention like I have done with you.

    Have a great evening

  2. #202
    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
    translation - your post was dishonest.

    QUelle surprise
    Nice try. It wasn't dishonest, and the truth remains, Democrats have repeatedly done what they are crying about Reps doing.

  3. #203
    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
    Everyone knows history well enough to know that it was bush*, not Clinton, who invaded Iraq.

    Well, everybody but one
    That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.

  4. #204
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    even a fool would recognize that she meant he had nothing to do with invading Iraq. That was all on bush*
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.

    Moderator's Warning:
    Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'BOTH of you knock off the personal attacks.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post

    Should the debt ceiling not be raised in a timely fashion and should the nation wind up having to prioritize, no matter how those who refused to raise the debt ceiling posture, they will have put the nation into partial default. They, alone, will have pushed the nation across a threshold for which risk perceptions would be altered for an extended period of time. Their act of irresponsibility would elevate the nation's risk profile, as they would have demonstrated that the nation's meeting its obligations in a timely fashion is not a binding constraint. Elevated risk would lead to an increase in interest payments above what would otherwise have been the case. As a consequence, those policy makers, far from demonstrating fiscal responsibility, would be solely responsible for increasing the present value of the nation's long-term imbalances. They would have made a deliberate and conscious choice to increase the nation's spending and through a mechanism that provides no benefits to the nation's taxpayers.
    This is not really true. The debt ceiling being increased allows Government to borrow on the backs of tax payers (today and future). No increase in the debt ceiling will force Uncle Sam to have a budget around $2.4 trillion (probably 2.5 or 2.6 trillion in 2013), which ironically is $300 billion more then what was required based on mandatory spending ($2.1 trillion in 2012). To avoid default all the US really needs to pay is mandatory spending (which is 100% covered by law). So all the US has to do is find cuts of $1.2 trillion. Bet a few on this forum could give you a list of things they could deal without being funded.
    Last edited by austrianecon; 01-16-13 at 06:23 AM.

  6. #206
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    There are few, if any, on the right pushing for the notion of defaulting on our loans or on our mandatory spending.
    There is no either or here.. since interest payments are mandatory spending.

  7. #207
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Everyone knows history well enough to know that it was bush*, not Clinton, who invaded Iraq.

    Well, everybody but one
    It was the USA that invaded Iraq, not Bush.

  8. #208
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

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

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No, it would have to prioritize on its PAYMENTS (as the spending has already incurred) and decide which of its already in-place obligations it wishes to default on.

    You can completely shut down government and send everyone home, including the the POTUS, the SCOTUS and the COTUS, the entire military, the FBI/CIA and Border Patrol and THEN the incoming receipts would cover the obligations of the government as the discretionary spend of the US is only $1.5T

    This works in the short-run, as laying off the entire government creates its own recession and revenues dwindle.
    the u.s. is spending about 10 billion a day, and on the average it receives about 6.4 billion a day in revenue.

  9. #209
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    Today, Politico.com posted a story that mentions that Senator Toomey, and Congressmen Scalise and Webster, among others, who are oblivious to the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling.

    Default deniers scoff at debt-ceiling apocalypse - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com

    They assert that the federal government would continue to meet its obligations to its creditors, hence there would be no debt default. What they miss is the reality that the federal government has other obligations ranging from paying out Social Security benefits to the Military's salaries. Not meeting those payments on a timely basis would amount to a partial default, even if creditors are paid in full and on time. Such a partial default would have adverse macroeconomic consequences directly through a sharp reduction in government spending (one of the components of GDP, even if the above three might not realize that) and indirectly through a hit on consumption and gross private domestic investment (multiplier effect).

    Toomey, et al., believe that such an outcome would not constitute a failure on the part of the U.S. to meet its obligations. At best, they are dangerously naive. What they are suggesting would be the equivalent of a family's not paying its bills while honoring its loan/credit card/mortgage payments. The family's credit rating would be damaged. Partial default will damage the U.S. credit rating. Should a partial default take place from the nation's not raising the debt ceiling in a timely fashion, those who precipitated it--no matter their rationale--will be directly and wholly responsible for that outcome and its consequences.

    They would do much better to offer a specific and credible fiscal consolidation plan. That would require leadership in a way that recklessness does not.

  10. #210
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Today, Politico.com posted a story that mentions that Senator Toomey, and Congressmen Scalise and Webster, among others, who are oblivious to the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling.

    Default deniers scoff at debt-ceiling apocalypse - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com

    They assert that the federal government would continue to meet its obligations to its creditors, hence there would be no debt default. What they miss is the reality that the federal government has other obligations ranging from paying out Social Security benefits to the Military's salaries. Not meeting those payments on a timely basis would amount to a partial default, even if creditors are paid in full and on time. Such a partial default would have adverse macroeconomic consequences directly through a sharp reduction in government spending (one of the components of GDP, even if the above three might not realize that) and indirectly through a hit on consumption and gross private domestic investment (multiplier effect).

    Toomey, et al., believe that such an outcome would not constitute a failure on the part of the U.S. to meet its obligations. At best, they are dangerously naive. What they are suggesting would be the equivalent of a family's not paying its bills while honoring its loan/credit card/mortgage payments. The family's credit rating would be damaged. Partial default will damage the U.S. credit rating. Should a partial default take place from the nation's not raising the debt ceiling in a timely fashion, those who precipitated it--no matter their rationale--will be directly and wholly responsible for that outcome and its consequences.

    They would do much better to offer a specific and credible fiscal consolidation plan. That would require leadership in a way that recklessness does not.
    Lead by example. Offer your own plan.

Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 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
  •