Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 142

Thread: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

  1. #71
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    There are no facts to support the assertion that expanding Government spending is a good thing.
    It is a good thing. Its stable economic activity, which is not going to fluctuate with the market, unless there is a total collapse, then it might be reduced somewhat, but nowhere near market activity. Thats OBVIOUS.

    Its a good thing until the state overspends and those money are inefficiently used, and its bad when it results in deficits, and even then its a safer bet than market money in bad times.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  2. #72
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    02-26-09 @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    So yes, take the pubic sector out of the economy and you will have economic cycles - booms and busts. However, the busts will be a lot deeper and those deeper busts are far more expensive than having a mixed economy where we have used public sector spending to stimulate the economy during downturns.
    So you're saying this isn't as bad of an economic downturn as it would be if we let the free market run it's own course? You sir, are completely incorrect. Before we became a "mixed" economy we NEVER had a crisis to the degree we are seeing today.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Err no, we are in a credit crunch that has resulted in the worst contraction on record. This has nothing to do with a cycle. And yes you need to artificially pump money into the economy to stop the slide because the free market is broken.
    And why do think it got the way it is now? Because it was so artificially inflated it eventually popped. We're just setting ourselves up for another depression down the road.

    If we let the free market run it's course we have booms and recessions every 10 years. The way we are now, we have a major depression every 50.
    Which is worse?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    This is a fruitless debate with you as obviously you don't even get the concept of Velocity of Money in an economy. Tax cuts right now would largely be saved, thus not increasing the velocity of money in the economy, thus having little to no multiplier in terms of growth in the short term.

    Businesses are not going to make investments until consumption comes back around. Thatís the point of a stimulus, to prime the pump on economic activity and increase consumption.

    The fact is, the economy has fared far better historically under Democrats than under Republicans. In fact, there is no comparison.

    The numbers don't lie, check them yourself:

    The numbers don't lie: Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine
    Youíre quoting the velocity of money and Michael Kinsley at slate to support your argument that spending trillions in deficit spending and expanding Government as being the way out of a recession caused by Government intrusion in the first place?

    Wow, I am not sure how one illustrates irony more profoundly. Itís almost as laughable as the Dexter desperately arguing for more Government deficit spending by quoting a Liberal think tank like the Global Public Policy Center.

    So you believe that velocity, which is significantly impacted by the relationship between money supply and GDP will somehow increase when Government artificially prints money to pay off debt it canít pay for while GDP declines?

    Fascinating; so instead of allowing corporations and businesses to keep more of their income by reducing confiscatory rates of taxation, we can increase demand and spending by printing money so the Government can decide who the winners in life will be which will result in inflationary pressures that will consume more of our perceived wealth.

    Carry on.

    Great paper on the velocity of money for those who may be curious what SouthernMan is attempting to argue:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...es_Mar1987.pdf

    PS: The flaw in Kinsley's analysis, we you should have instantly picked up, is the ASSumption that spending is a result of Presidents and not in the control of the Congress. The last five decades of Republican Presidents were dominated by a Democratic Congress which these Republicans had to deal with. Notice that the ONLY Congress in modern times to ever balance the Federal budget was a Republican one

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    It is a good thing. Its stable economic activity, which is not going to fluctuate with the market, unless there is a total collapse, then it might be reduced somewhat, but nowhere near market activity. Thats OBVIOUS.

    Its a good thing until the state overspends and those money are inefficiently used, and its bad when it results in deficits, and even then its a safer bet than market money in bad times.
    There is no valid research that supports your statement above. The notion that Government spending is somehow stable borders on absurdity. But if you want, educate me and cite some sources that support your contentions above.

    By the way, it still does not address the absurd notions that Obama is actually going to cut the deficit in four years by pulling us out of Iraq and cutting Government waste.

  5. #75
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    There is no valid research that supports your statement above. The notion that Government spending is somehow stable borders on absurdity. But if you want, educate me and cite some sources that support your contentions above.
    Its obvious isnt it? Please show me in any way how public spending and public state budgets have collapsed the same way as the rest of the economy have...
    Public spending IS a safe haven.. The only thing which affects it is a deteriorating economic situation that affects tax incomes, but such losses will always have to be huge to affect the state spendings.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    By the way, it still does not address the absurd notions that Obama is actually going to cut the deficit in four years by pulling us out of Iraq and cutting Government waste.
    Its not absurd. Obama said he would withdraw the US troops from Iraq. He said this in his whole campaign. If it turns out to be wrong, its just another nail in the already rotten democracy coffin.
    OBVIOUSLY again, if the US withdraws from iraq, huge sums will be saved.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  6. #76
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Nep188 View Post
    So you're saying this isn't as bad of an economic downturn as it would be if we let the free market run it's own course? You sir, are completely incorrect. Before we became a "mixed" economy we NEVER had a crisis to the degree we are seeing today.
    I am sorry but I am afraid you are mistaken. We basically entered into a mixed economy as we came out of the Great Depression. We have not had a single any economic depressions since then. So we have had a mixed economy in the United States for about 70 years, and have not had an economic depression. Thats not an opinion, thats history.

    Government had very little role in the economy prior to the great depression. From our nation's founding, until we entered into a mixed economy system, we had 5 economic depressions. On average we had an economic depression every 25 years or so. Thats not an opinion, thats history.

    Economic Depressions of the United States

    So a near total free market yielded an economic depression every 25 years or so, and a mixed economy has yet to yield an economic depression in 70 years.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    08-26-09 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    676

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    .....by raising your taxes.
    As if tax cuts weren't a main contributor to the mess that the Republicans created the last 8 years.

    For a party that preaches individual responsibility why do the Republicans in this community refuse to accept that their party, their tax cuts, their policies were the main contributor to our problems. Yes, Democrats are partially responsible too but let's be truthful shall we?

    President Bush and the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House from 2001 until January 2007 and when the Democrats took control of Congress they blocked almost all legislative action passed bythe Democrats or Bush vetoed their major initiatives.

    Bush set an all-time record by going 5 years without vetoing any bills and then when the Democrats got control of Congress he vetoed 12 bills. From zero to 12...interesting!

    Bush's total amount of vetoes (12) were the least since Warren Harding in the early 20th century. Harding died in office after only two years. The President who had the least after Bush was JFK who vetoed 21 bills...but he too died in office after 3 years!

    I'd much rather see our President do something than do nothing like Bush did except cut taxes.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    All of your arguments are desperate attempts to justify this criminal irresponsible behavior by Obama and his minions.
    Please provide evidence that President Obama and the Democrats have broken the law with their stimulus plan.

  9. #79
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    This thread is chock full of factual inaccuracies and misleading claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That is too much logic and economic fact for the American right to understand. They only understand small words combined.. like tax cut. Even the European right knows this basic economic fact.
    This added nothing to the debate, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Err no, we are in a credit crunch that has resulted in the worst contraction on record.
    False.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The fact is, the economy has fared far better historically under Democrats than under Republicans. In fact, there is no comparison.

    The numbers don't lie, check them yourself:

    The numbers don't lie: Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine
    I hear this claim all the time, and it's just so ridiculous that I don't know where to begin. What makes you think that economic numbers hew nicely to the terms of presidents? The economy has WAY too much of a lag for it to be useful at all in measuring something such as the 4 year success of a president's actions.

    Our current situation should be the perfect example. 2009, Obama's first year, is going to be worse than any of Bush's years. Is that Obama's fault? Under that article's logic, yes.

    Further, if you really want to pretend that that faulty logic works, let's use the branch of government that actually controls spending - Congress.

    -Throughout the 80's and into the 90's we had rising debt and a meh economy, while the Dems had sole control
    -From 94 through 2000 the economy grew like crazy, which is when the Reps had sole control.
    -From 2001-2006 it was mixed, as was the economy.
    -From 2006 on, it's been exclusively Dem control and our stock market has lost half its value.

    Is it ridiculously simplistic to claim that this proves "reps are good for the economy?" Of course. But by that author's logic, it's irrefutable proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Hah, keep up with Europe AND Japan. You are not even keeping up with Europe, and we are not keeping up with Japan(and South Korea), not to mention that China is getting ahead and now soon have faster wireless broadband covering the country than we have wired broadband..

    We are in decline in many ways.. We DO need to spend on internet, its IMPORTANT yes, to build infrastructure. Thats one of the few parts of the stimulous package I do agree with.
    ****ing FAIL.

    Surprise: America is No. 1 in Broadband - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com

    Surprise: America is No. 1 in Broadband
    By Saul Hansell

    There is a constant refrain that the United States is falling behind in broadband, as if the speed of Internet service in Seoul represents a new Sputnik that is a challenge to national security.

    Itís certainly true that in some countries, like South Korea, far more homes have broadband connections than in the United States. And the speeds in some countries are far higher than is typical here.

    But there are many ways to measure the bandwidth wealth of nations. At the Columbia/Georgetown seminar on the broadband stimulus yesterday, I heard Leonard Waverman, the dean of the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary, describe a measure he developed called the ďConnectivity Scorecard.Ē Itís meant to compare countries on the extent that consumers, businesses and government put communication technology to economically productive use.

    Even after deducting the untold unproductive hours spent on Facebook and YouTube, the United States comes out on top in Mr. Wavermanís ranking of 25 developed countries. The biggest reason is that business in the United States has made extensive use of computers and the Internet and it has a technically skilled work force.

    ďKorea has great broadband to the house, but businesses in Korea donít use the best networks and donít have the skills and computing assets they need to take advantage of them,Ē Mr. Waverman said.

    Also, as dusty as your local motor vehicle office may seem, government use of communications technology is as good in the United States as anywhere in the world, according to Mr. Wavermanís rankings.

    After the United States, the ranking found that Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway rounded out the five most productive users of connectivity. Japan ranked 10, and Korea, 18.


    And while wired and wireless broadband networks used by consumers lagged other countries, the United States ranked No. 1 in the world for technology use and skills by consumers. (This was measured by comparing countries on five measures: The penetration of Internet use, penetration of Internet banking, wired and wireless voice minutes per capita, SMS messages per capita, and consumer software spending.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Its not absurd. Obama said he would withdraw the US troops from Iraq. He said this in his whole campaign. If it turns out to be wrong, its just another nail in the already rotten democracy coffin.
    OBVIOUSLY again, if the US withdraws from iraq, huge sums will be saved.
    You've advanced this uninformed trope several times throughout this thread, while missing a huge point. Obama never said a thing about withdrawing all the US troops from Iraq. He talked about withdrawing all COMBAT troops. Guess what? That would still leave approx. 90k troops there, so don't count on the Iraq war costs to be coming off the books yet. (And that's not even counting the surge in Afghanistan.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Family Guy View Post
    Bush set an all-time record by going 5 years without vetoing any bills and then when the Democrats got control of Congress he vetoed 12 bills. From zero to 12...interesting!

    Bush's total amount of vetoes (12) were the least since Warren Harding in the early 20th century. Harding died in office after only two years. The President who had the least after Bush was JFK who vetoed 21 bills...but he too died in office after 3 years!
    Can you think of some reasons why "number of vetoes" is an utterly meaningless statistic?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #80
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That is too much logic and economic fact for the American right to understand. They only understand small words combined.. like tax cut. Even the European right knows this basic economic fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Thats wrong.. Its suppose to be save during good times, spend during bad times(the money you saved during good times)..

    The US has done.. Spend during good times(by taking on debt), spend during bad times(to get further into debt). Thats just skewed.
    Hmmm? What did you say?

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2186rank.html

    Public Debt as % of GDP:

    Italy - 103.70
    Greece - 90.10
    Norway - 89.70
    Belgium - 80.80
    France - 64.40
    Portugal - 64.20
    Germany - 62.20
    Canada - 62.30
    US - 60.80
    If only we were as smart as the Europeans.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •