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

iguanaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Look down, your partisanship is showing.

Khayembii Communique said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sangha said:

According to the article you linked to, *every* dem (but one) voted to raise the debt limit.

Click to expand...

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?

sangha said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Perhaps the White House should let the House of Representatives perform it's function, rather than issuing dictates.

Click to expand...

Next youll be suggesting the white house do its job of enforcing existing laws, instead of telling congress to pass new ones.

Catawba said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Obama is a destructive moron.

But hey... Parasite Nation voted for a fundamental change of America to Amerika. Enjoy the decay Komrades.

Bronson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Bronson said:

Obama didn't spend enough money

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

From Fitch Credit Ratings:

In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline. It does not prevent tax and spending decisions that will incur debt issuance in excess of the ceiling while the sanction of not raising the ceiling risks a sovereign default and renders such a threat incredible.

The statutory limitation on federal debt is a long-standing feature of the U.S. fiscal framework and applies to nearly all Treasury debt, whether held by the public or in government accounts. Protracted debate prior to increasing the debt ceiling is not an exceptional event, but against the backdrop of unprecedentedly large peacetime budget deficits and outstanding debt, any delay in raising the limit would pose ever increasing risks to the ability of the federal government to honour its obligations in a timely fashion. The last time Congress approved an increase in the debt ceiling in August 2011, the federal government came perilously close to being in a situation where, in the words of the Treasury Secretary, it would be unable "to meet our commitments securely"...

In the absence of an agreed and credible medium-term deficit reduction plan that would be consistent with sustaining the economic recovery and restoring confidence in the long-run sustainability of U.S. public finances, the current Negative Outlook on the 'AAA' rating is likely to be resolved with a downgrade later this year even if another debt ceiling crisis is averted.

Fitch Ratings - Dedicated to providing value beyond the rating

It has now been two weeks since the fiscal cliff issue was resolved. Neither the Congress nor the President have opened negotiations on a fiscal consolidation program, much less offered any concrete fiscal consolidation plans. As a substitute for fiscal responsiblity, some Members of the House appear willing to drive the nation into partial default. However, some responsible political leaders are starting to push back and are rejecting efforts to play politics with the debt ceiling.

donsutherland1 said:

From Fitch Credit Ratings:

In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline. It does not prevent tax and spending decisions that will incur debt issuance in excess of the ceiling while the sanction of not raising the ceiling risks a sovereign default and renders such a threat incredible.

The statutory limitation on federal debt is a long-standing feature of the U.S. fiscal framework and applies to nearly all Treasury debt, whether held by the public or in government accounts. Protracted debate prior to increasing the debt ceiling is not an exceptional event, but against the backdrop of unprecedentedly large peacetime budget deficits and outstanding debt, any delay in raising the limit would pose ever increasing risks to the ability of the federal government to honour its obligations in a timely fashion. The last time Congress approved an increase in the debt ceiling in August 2011, the federal government came perilously close to being in a situation where, in the words of the Treasury Secretary, it would be unable "to meet our commitments securely"...

In the absence of an agreed and credible medium-term deficit reduction plan that would be consistent with sustaining the economic recovery and restoring confidence in the long-run sustainability of U.S. public finances, the current Negative Outlook on the 'AAA' rating is likely to be resolved with a downgrade later this year even if another debt ceiling crisis is averted.

Fitch Ratings - Dedicated to providing value beyond the rating

It has now been two weeks since the fiscal cliff issue was resolved. Neither the Congress nor the President have opened negotiations on a fiscal consolidation program, much less offered any concrete fiscal consolidation plans. As a substitute for fiscal responsiblity, some Members of the House appear willing to drive the nation into partial default. However, some responsible political leaders are starting to push back and are rejecting efforts to play politics with the debt ceiling.

Click to expand...

Fitches opinion is just as wrong as anyone else. Whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, the US should lose its credit rating. This whole mess proves that the US is not a good fiscal risk. When I borrow more money my credit rating goes down. So should the US.

Kushinator said:

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).

Click to expand...

Your link is a year old and the premise is misleading. The money you claim "wasn't spent" was still already tied up in projects, contracts, obligations, and subsidies. Even the AP reported in early 2011 that only 7billion of the 800B stimulus hadn't been accounted for. The CBO has also said by the end of Q4 2013, only 400K jobs will be sustained by the Stimulus. That's a cost of more than 2 million per job.

Obama Advisor: Stimulus Will Impact the Economy Immediately - ABC News

All over the country you’re going to see shovels in the ground. You’re going to see construction projects under way.

Click to expand...

Obama "Not as shovel ready as expected"

Obama: Shovel-Ready Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected - YouTube

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/No_such_thing_as_shovel_ready_WP1118.pdf

Never made this argument, so please do not put words in my mouth.

Click to expand...

Sure you did. You do every time you insist the Stimulus wasn't big enough.

Obama set aside a massive amount of Stimulus Funds for "Green Jobs". He basically acted like an Investment Banker in an effort to create an entirely new market of electric cars and Green Energy. It didn't work

Whoops

Not only that but there was no real net gain in economic activity because again, people who went and bought cars, were for the most part, people who were going to buy cars anyways.

A123 Systems sold at a loss to the taxpayer - Chinese acquisition of A123 assets spurs debate on US support of clean energy - Business - The Boston Globe

Obama touting A123 as a "Stimulus Success" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPWLaw0i86s

Fisker - Fisker failure hurts Delaware taxpayers twice | Times 247

Delaware taxpayers appear to be getting soaked twice ... The company has yet to produce a car in Delaware, and taxpayers are footing the electric bill for the idle plant

Click to expand...

Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News

The reality is: that business model isn’t there yet,” said Brett Smith, co-director of manufacturing, engineering and technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “It isn’t there yet for volume. It isn’t there yet for reaching the mass consumer. And it probably isn’t going to be there for a while

Click to expand...

GM?s vaunted Volt is on the road to nowhere fast - Washington Post

No matter how you slice it, the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions. The basic theory of the Obama push for electric vehicles — if you build them, customers will come — was a myth. And an expensive one, at that.

Click to expand...

Review & Outlook: The Solyndra Memorial Tax Break - WSJ.com

Perhaps you thought the Solyndra scandal amounted to a $535 million government loan that will never be repaid. No such luck. In the latest twist, Solyndra's investors could be rewarded for their failure, thanks to a tax benefit the Administration handed out in a bid to evade political accountability.

Click to expand...

Again, government spending is not likely to crowd out private investment when there are idle resources in the form of both labor and capital.

Click to expand...

Government Spending is taking money out of the hands of private investors who would have otherwise invested that Capital more wisely than Government. It's called Risk. Nobody claimed private investment is being "crowded out". It's being taken away. Clearly you don't understand what Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities even are. When you have a Fed that admits it's wasting 125B a year on "improper payments", then there is a problem with your rhetoric. We KNOW that 125B could have been put to much better use by someone other than the Feds. Now calculate the rest of the billions wasted on projects like Solyndra, Brightsource, ect.

Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed? | Mercatus

Labor actually WAS crowded out with Stimulus money

Hiring isn’t the same as net job creation. In our survey, just 42.1 percent of the workers hired at ARRA-receiving organizations after January 31, 2009, were unemployed at the time they were hired (Appendix C). More were hired directly from other organizations(47.3 percent of post-ARRA workers), while a handful came from school (6.5%) or from outside the labor force (4.1%) (Figure 2). Thus, there was an almost even split between“job creating” and “job switching.” This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy: even in a weak economy, organizations hired the employed about as often as the unemployed

Click to expand...

There is also organizational capital lost from the company who lost the employee who switched jobs because of Stimulus Funding. They invested money in that employee (especially mid level IT/Database Administration ect), and will now have to fill the void, which costs additional capital. Again, this just proves beyond refute that you do not understand the concept of Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities. My advice would be go back to school and take a basic economics class to get up to speed. Also a lot of that Stimulus money was used to employ temp workers. Not permanent workers. Firms just got more productivity out of their existing employees for the most part. Your premises are shortsighted and incorrect.

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.

Click to expand...

You're dodging. If you're not sure what I'm arguing than that is just more proof you do not comprehend basic economics. People on welfare/unemployment pay for goods and services with resources taken out of the private sector that would have otherwise been invested in other opportunities for growth. They don't contribute any productivity for that income. It's a shifting of resources. Not a creation of new wealth. Got it now? Good.

You can't just dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your ideology as "not making sense"

This is a classic example of a strawman; not to mention it is rather inconsistent given the fiscal dissimilarities regarding the respective countries.

Click to expand...

See above. Projection noted

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.

Click to expand...

That's not what Obama and the Democrats have claimed. You're trying to move the goal post.

Pelosi Unemployment - YouTube

So billions upon billions is taken out of the private economy (which creates jobs) to pay people for 99 weeks to sit on their a$$es and buy food at a grocery store. You're assuming that A) 99 weeks of unemployment is necessary B) 47 million on Food Stamps/Welfare is nec

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!).

Click to expand...

Our trade deficit is mostly with China. Those are jobs that are NEVER coming back.

GDP growth Q2 2012 was only 1.3%. Maybe you want to believe in unicorns. I don't.

GDP Growth projections are way short of what Obama predicted they would be right now. He predicted 4.2%. The rosiest of predictions puts it at 2.5%

Rather odd you felt the need to bring FDR into this mix. Here is the proper source of the paper you have provided.

Which means that further analysis is needed to establish accuracy.

Click to expand...

Rather odd? So comparing relatively identical economic policies between the 2 largest economic recessions in US history is "odd"? It says it right there. A multiplier of 1. Maybe you want to consider that "inconclusive" :lol: but unfortunately for you there is additional research that confirms I am indeed correct.

As someone who claims to be such an economic genius, surely you have read it? No?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.

Click to expand...

However, i do not expect you to have even the slightest understanding of econometrics, so it is rather odd you linked this paper.

Click to expand...

Projection noted

So they were wrong. Not sure how this negates anything i have stated in regards to this subject.

Click to expand...

Just dismiss anything that shatters your ideology. Shrug it off. Nothing to see here. Move along. (Dodge noted)

Now you are getting desperate,

Click to expand...

In other words you can't refute facts. You do realize that the % of Americans Employed that are working age is the about the same as it was 4 years ago right? That statistic right there destroys every false premise and deflection you've brought into this thread.

I have come to expect nothing less from you. Clearly you're ideological partisan who pretends behind a curtain of smugness, who obfuscates, deflects, dismisses inconvenient facts that tear apart his endless strawmen, and shrugs off anything that shatters his ideological nonsense.

Have a nice day :2wave:

Bronson said:

Your link is a year old and the premise is misleading. The money you claim "wasn't spent" was still already tied up in projects, contracts, obligations, and subsidies. Even the AP reported in early 2011 that only 7billion of the 800B stimulus hadn't been accounted for. The CBO has also said by the end of Q4 2013, only 400K jobs will be sustained by the Stimulus. That's a cost of more than 2 million per job.

Obama Advisor: Stimulus Will Impact the Economy Immediately - ABC News



Obama "Not as shovel ready as expected"

Obama: Shovel-Ready Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected - YouTube

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/No_such_thing_as_shovel_ready_WP1118.pdf



Sure you did. You do every time you insist the Stimulus wasn't big enough.

Obama set aside a massive amount of Stimulus Funds for "Green Jobs". He basically acted like an Investment Banker in an effort to create an entirely new market of electric cars and Green Energy. It didn't work

Whoops

Not only that but there was no real net gain in economic activity because again, people who went and bought cars, were for the most part, people who were going to buy cars anyways.

A123 Systems sold at a loss to the taxpayer - Chinese acquisition of A123 assets spurs debate on US support of clean energy - Business - The Boston Globe

Obama touting A123 as a "Stimulus Success" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPWLaw0i86s

Fisker - Fisker failure hurts Delaware taxpayers twice | Times 247



Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News



GM?s vaunted Volt is on the road to nowhere fast - Washington Post



Review & Outlook: The Solyndra Memorial Tax Break - WSJ.com





Government Spending is taking money out of the hands of private investors who would have otherwise invested that Capital more wisely than Government. It's called Risk. Nobody claimed private investment is being "crowded out". It's being taken away. Clearly you don't understand what Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities even are. When you have a Fed that admits it's wasting 125B a year on "improper payments", then there is a problem with your rhetoric. We KNOW that 125B could have been put to much better use by someone other than the Feds. Now calculate the rest of the billions wasted on projects like Solyndra, Brightsource, ect.

Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed? | Mercatus

Labor actually WAS crowded out with Stimulus money



There is also organizational capital lost from the company who lost the employee who switched jobs because of Stimulus Funding. They invested money in that employee (especially mid level IT/Database Administration ect), and will now have to fill the void, which costs additional capital. Again, this just proves beyond refute that you do not understand the concept of Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities. My advice would be go back to school and take a basic economics class to get up to speed. Also a lot of that Stimulus money was used to employ temp workers. Not permanent workers. Firms just got more productivity out of their existing employees for the most part. Your premises are shortsighted and incorrect.



You're dodging. If you're not sure what I'm arguing than that is just more proof you do not comprehend basic economics. People on welfare/unemployment pay for goods and services with resources taken out of the private sector that would have otherwise been invested in other opportunities for growth. They don't contribute any productivity for that income. It's a shifting of resources. Not a creation of new wealth. Got it now? Good.

You can't just dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your ideology as "not making sense"



See above. Projection noted



That's not what Obama and the Democrats have claimed. You're trying to move the goal post.

Pelosi Unemployment - YouTube

So billions upon billions is taken out of the private economy (which creates jobs) to pay people for 99 weeks to sit on their a$$es and buy food at a grocery store. You're assuming that A) 99 weeks of unemployment is necessary B) 47 million on Food Stamps/Welfare is nec



Our trade deficit is mostly with China. Those are jobs that are NEVER coming back.

GDP growth Q2 2012 was only 1.3%. Maybe you want to believe in unicorns. I don't.

GDP Growth projections are way short of what Obama predicted they would be right now. He predicted 4.2%. The rosiest of predictions puts it at 2.5%



Rather odd? So comparing relatively identical economic policies between the 2 largest economic recessions in US history is "odd"? It says it right there. A multiplier of 1. Maybe you want to consider that "inconclusive" :lol: but unfortunately for you there is additional research that confirms I am indeed correct.

As someone who claims to be such an economic genius, surely you have read it? No?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom





Projection noted



Just dismiss anything that shatters your ideology. Shrug it off. Nothing to see here. Move along. (Dodge noted)



In other words you can't refute facts. You do realize that the % of Americans Employed that are working age is the about the same as it was 4 years ago right? That statistic right there destroys every false premise and deflection you've brought into this thread.

I have come to expect nothing less from you. Clearly you're ideological partisan who pretends behind a curtain of smugness, who obfuscates, deflects, dismisses inconvenient facts that tear apart his endless strawmen, and shrugs off anything that shatters his ideological nonsense.

Have a nice day :2wave:

Click to expand...

There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who believes they are debating with the Obama administration via proxy. Your arguments do not make sense because they are random rants that lack relevancy to the discussion at hand.

Kushinator said:

There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who believes they are debating with the Obama administration via proxy. Your arguments do not make sense because they are random rants that lack relevancy to the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

You can't refute facts. You are attempting to objectify/characterize instead of debate. That won't work.

So in reality there is no point in any further discussion with you. Clearly you're a dishonest hack.

The US bureaucracy is becoming more powerful and with a greater power shift away from the States to Washington, billions of dollars have disappeared through "stimulus spending" and Obama appears to be deliberately destroying the economy. And soon he will decimate the military, no doubt as part of his 'flexibility' with Putin.

Perhaps there should have been more vetting of this presidential candidate but that was discouraged at every step, and still is. It is truly amazing that many Americans would not want background checks on a person responsible for their economy and their future. Brains have not just been washed, they have been tumble dried, folded and packaged in cellophane wrapping.

Grant said:

Perhaps there should have been more vetting of this presidential candidate but that was discouraged at every step, and still is. It is truly amazing that many Americans would not want background checks on a person responsible for their economy and their future. Brains have not just been washed, they have been tumble dried, folded and packaged in cellophane wrapping.

Click to expand...

These sorts of arguments might have been effective were it not for the president just prior to Obama having been Bush. Just saying.

Bronson said:

You can't refute facts. You are attempting to objectify/characterize instead of debate. That won't work.

So in reality there is no point in any further discussion with you. Clearly you're a dishonest hack.

Click to expand...

I am not here to answer to you for your disdain of the Obama administration. We get it, you hate the current administration; but nobody cares.

Mach said:

These sorts of arguments might have been effective were it not for the president just prior to Obama having been Bush. Just saying.

Click to expand...

Well what you're just saying doesn't make a great deal of sense as the discussion was related to Barrack Obama and none of his 43 predecessors.

Kushinator said:

I am not here to answer to you for your disdain of the Obama administration. We get it, you hate the current administration; but nobody cares.

Click to expand...

Another attempt at Objectification/Characterization because you cannot refute facts.

Clearly you are running away from the debate with your tail tucked firmly between your legs. Consider this my last response unless you address every point made in post #163 directly and in full context. I have repeatedly and directly addressed every single point you have made thoroughly with multiple main stream sources, while you have repeatedly run away from mine, masking your lack of rebuttals with patronizing arrogance, endless strawmen, and a phony dismissive attitude.

Have a nice day :2wave:

Kushinator said:

I am not here to answer to you for your disdain of the Obama administration. We get it, you hate the current administration; but nobody cares.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "hate" but there is a great deal of international concern about the competence and honesty about this President. It is simply not true that "nobody cares".

jonny5 said:

Fitches opinion is just as wrong as anyone else. Whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, the US should lose its credit rating. This whole mess proves that the US is not a good fiscal risk. When I borrow more money my credit rating goes down. So should the US.

Click to expand...

I agreed when S&P lowered the U.S. credit rating. The nation's political leaders have demonstrated a repeated inability to tackle the nation's biggest challenges in an effective fashion. That they can blame-shift in world-class fashion is irrelevant. They had fifteen months to adopt a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation package following the last increase in the debt ceiling. There was no sense of urgency, until the fiscal cliff was imminent. Then, they took the course of accommodation making essentially all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and patching the AMT at current levels (when issues about the right level for the patch given the nation's fiscal imbalances were not examined) while choosing not to address the spending side of the equation. Excuses to the contrary, the choice to postpone spending-related reforms was deliberate.

In that context, it is not improper to ask whether the United States today has political leaders who grasp the big picture and who are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges. An absence of strategy--where the nation wants to go and preparation for contingengies-- and their lurching from near self-inflicted crisis to near self-inflicted crisis is not an indication that American policy makers understand the big picture, much less the consequences of their choices. Needlessly frittering away time, engaging in petty rhetoric for partisan advantage, and threatening to push the nation into partial default is not an indication that they are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges in any kind of effective manner.

In August, 2011 courtesy of suboptimal political leadership, the nation had a near-miss with a partial default. In December 2012, again on account of ineffective leadership, it had a near-miss with the fiscal cliff, averted only after the Vice President and Senate Minority leader filled the leadership vacuum and came up with a hasty solution to avoid the worst of the fiscal cliff. Now, the nation has reached its statutory debt limit and is steaming steadily toward the proverbial iceberg where its borrowing authority will be exhausted. It is doing so, even as some in the House are politicizing the debt ceiling issue as a substitute for their repeated failure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and the President is trying to demonstrate toughness. That's not leadership.

donsutherland1 said:

I agreed when S&P lowered the U.S. credit rating. The nation's political leaders have demonstrated a repeated inability to tackle the nation's biggest challenges in an effective fashion. That they can blame-shift in world-class fashion is irrelevant. They had fifteen months to adopt a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation package following the last increase in the debt ceiling. There was no sense of urgency, until the fiscal cliff was imminent. Then, they took the course of accommodation making essentially all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and patching the AMT at current levels (when issues about the right level for the patch given the nation's fiscal imbalances were not examined) while choosing not to address the spending side of the equation. Excuses to the contrary, the choice to postpone spending-related reforms was deliberate.

In that context, it is not improper to ask whether the United States today has political leaders who grasp the big picture and who are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges. An absence of strategy--where the nation wants to go and preparation for contingengies-- and their lurching from near self-inflicted crisis to near self-inflicted crisis is not an indication that American policy makers understand the big picture, much less the consequences of their choices. Needlessly frittering away time, engaging in petty rhetoric for partisan advantage, and threatening to push the nation into partial default is not an indication that they are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges in any kind of effective manner.

In August, 2011 courtesy of suboptimal political leadership, the nation had a near-miss with a partial default. In December 2012, again on account of ineffective leadership, it had a near-miss with the fiscal cliff, averted only after the Vice President and Senate Minority leader filled the leadership vacuum and came up with a hasty solution to avoid the worst of the fiscal cliff. Now, the nation has reached its statutory debt limit and is steaming steadily toward the proverbial iceberg where its borrowing authority will be exhausted. It is doing so, even as some in the House are politicizing the debt ceiling issue as a substitute for their repeated failure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and the President is trying to demonstrate toughness. That's not leadership.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, the American people are responsible for those they elect. In many cases they knew what they were getting and voted for them anyway. Fool me once......

Grant said:

I don't know about "hate" but there is a great deal of international concern about the competence and honesty about this President. It is simply not true that "nobody cares".

Click to expand...

More total poppycock. Obama has restored the US as the most popular country in the world after trailing badly under the Bush regime.

Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 based in part on the promise that he would restore America’s standing in the world, and a new Gallup poll released today shows that he has done just that. Respondents in 100 countries were surveying and the United States was the most popular world power at 47%. This is a roughly 14% increase in America’s global standing since the Bush administration.

Gallup found that Obama has managed to turn the US from the power that trailed Japan, Germany, France, Russia, and even China from 2007-2008 into the most popular of the world’s global powers. US leadership is now approved of by 47% of the world and only 25% disapprove. Germany is second with a 40%/17% approval to disapproval ratio. France was third with a 39% approval rating followed by Japan (37%), the UK (35%), China (31%), and Russia (27%).

Click to expand...

Obama Clears Out The Bushes And Restores America's Global Popularity

donsutherland1 said:

I agreed when S&P lowered the U.S. credit rating. The nation's political leaders have demonstrated a repeated inability to tackle the nation's biggest challenges in an effective fashion. That they can blame-shift in world-class fashion is irrelevant. They had fifteen months to adopt a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation package following the last increase in the debt ceiling. There was no sense of urgency, until the fiscal cliff was imminent. Then, they took the course of accommodation making essentially all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and patching the AMT at current levels (when issues about the right level for the patch given the nation's fiscal imbalances were not examined) while choosing not to address the spending side of the equation. Excuses to the contrary, the choice to postpone spending-related reforms was deliberate.

In that context, it is not improper to ask whether the United States today has political leaders who grasp the big picture and who are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges. An absence of strategy--where the nation wants to go and preparation for contingengies-- and their lurching from near self-inflicted crisis to near self-inflicted crisis is not an indication that American policy makers understand the big picture, much less the consequences of their choices. Needlessly frittering away time, engaging in petty rhetoric for partisan advantage, and threatening to push the nation into partial default is not an indication that they are willing and able to address the nation's big challenges in any kind of effective manner.

In August, 2011 courtesy of suboptimal political leadership, the nation had a near-miss with a partial default. In December 2012, again on account of ineffective leadership, it had a near-miss with the fiscal cliff, averted only after the Vice President and Senate Minority leader filled the leadership vacuum and came up with a hasty solution to avoid the worst of the fiscal cliff. Now, the nation has reached its statutory debt limit and is steaming steadily toward the proverbial iceberg where its borrowing authority will be exhausted. It is doing so, even as some in the House are politicizing the debt ceiling issue as a substitute for their repeated failure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and the President is trying to demonstrate toughness. That's not leadership.

Click to expand...

Interest rates actually went down after the credit downgrade so it seems the World's investors doen't agree with Moody's or you. The childish behavior of the House Republicans is what caused the first downgrade and now it appears they are going for another. That is not only not leadership that is TREASON.