• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

poweRob said:
Whose this we stuff? I don't think anyone was actually talking to you. But if you want to weigh in on yet another fiscal thread were you ultimately go down in flames... help yerself!
Click to expand...

Didn't realize this was a private thread but I do realize that you are a legend in your own mind. Facts simply don't support your contention. Reality Bush submitted a budget with a 400 billion plus deficit that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush. The deficit exceeded 1.4 trillion dollars and the budget signed by Obama. Not surprisingly you and other liberals blame Bush and ignore Obama. The electorate gets it, when will you?
 
Conservative said:
Didn't realize this was a private thread but I do realize that you are a legend in your own mind. Facts simply don't support your contention. Reality Bush submitted a budget with a 400 billion plus deficit that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush. The deficit exceeded 1.4 trillion dollars and the budget signed by Obama. Not surprisingly you and other liberals blame Bush and ignore Obama. The electorate gets it, when will you?
Click to expand...

You dropped in and offered "No we are talking..." when I didn't even address you at all. You volunteered yourself but... ok. Yeah... you got Bush crashing the economy in 2007 through 2009 and handing it off to Obama. Sorry you can't blame O for the mess before him as much as you would love to and as much as you try to.
 
poweRob said:
You dropped in and offered "No we are talking..." when I didn't even address you at all. You volunteered yourself but... ok. Yeah... you got Bush crashing the economy in 2007 through 2009 and handing it off to Obama. Sorry you can't blame O for the mess before him as much as you would love to and as much as you try to.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, no one is blaming Obama for the recession, but everyone ie blaming Obama for the poor recovery and his failed economic policies. There is a reason that he ha. is a 41% JAR as well as got a thumping on Tuesday but people like you are too partisan and too poorly informed to understand it. It is really a shame how poorly educated you are on civics as well as the budget process so there is no question that you are in that 41% who still supports Obama and blames Bush 6 years after Bush left office. Must be lonely in your alternate universe.

I am amazing at what poor understanding you have of leadership skills and how anyone could call themselves a Proud liberal with 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, almost 18 trillion in debt, foreign policy disasters and the complete loss of the Congress. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you where results don't matter or the actual results easily distorted?
 
jonny5 said:
Lets move forward. Bush isnt President.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy every time someone says that. In a couple of years, I'll feel the same way when someone points out that Obama is no longer president.

But, OMG! Who's going to be next??!!:shock:
 
Dittohead not! said:
Thank you. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy every time someone says that. In a couple of years, I'll feel the same way when someone points out that Obama is no longer president.

But, OMG! Who's going to be next??!!:shock:
Click to expand...

I actually can't imagine why anyone would want to be president these days.

And the next POTUS, regardless of party, is statistically very likely to have another recession on his/her hands as we will be overdue for one.

If they don't experience a recession, then it will be a record length of time without a recession - I wonder who's gonna take credit for that record?
 
imagep said:
I actually can't imagine why anyone would want to be president these days.

And the next POTUS, regardless of party, is statistically very likely to have another recession on his/her hands as we will be overdue for one.

If they don't experience a recession, then it will be a record length of time without a recession - I wonder who's gonna take credit for that record?
Click to expand...

it is hard to see how the next president could not have a recession. There is still a huge amount of money in the economy and the corresponding bubbles are forming or already a clear danger. And the trade deficit might not be as much in view at present, but it is still rather on the large side.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Thank you. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy every time someone says that. In a couple of years, I'll feel the same way when someone points out that Obama is no longer president.

But, OMG! Who's going to be next??!!:shock:
Click to expand...

I will be saying that. Obama is not responsible for the bills passed after he leaves office, or the actions NOT taken. IE, Bush is not responsible for the currents govt failure to deal with out of control entitlement spending.
 
imagep said:
I actually can't imagine why anyone would want to be president these days.

And the next POTUS, regardless of party, is statistically very likely to have another recession on his/her hands as we will be overdue for one.

If they don't experience a recession, then it will be a record length of time without a recession - I wonder who's gonna take credit for that record?
Click to expand...

Probably the Republicans.

and the Democrats.
 
joG said:
it is hard to see how the next president could not have a recession. There is still a huge amount of money in the economy and the corresponding bubbles are forming or already a clear danger. And the trade deficit might not be as much in view at present, but it is still rather on the large side.
Click to expand...

What are those bubbles?
 
jonny5 said:
...Bush is not responsible for the currents govt failure to deal with out of control entitlement spending.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what was his excuse for out of control entitlement spending when he was in office?
 
imagep said:
What are those bubbles?
Click to expand...

The prices of bonds, real estate and equities in Europe and the US are all rather higher than the expected cash flow would justify. China certainly has a real estate and debt double bubble.

Of course, bubbles do not necessarily pop, when you realize they are there. Greenspan noticed the first bubble years before it blew up. While bonds cannot easily double in price anymore, at least not German bonds, share prices could, like they did before the Dot.Com crisis. But with the Fed tightening the likelihood of nearing collapse rears its head.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
The prices of bonds, real estate and equities in Europe and the US are all rather higher than the expected cash flow would justify. China certainly has a real estate and debt double bubble.

Of course, bubbles do not necessarily pop, when you realize they are there. Greenspan noticed the first bubble years before it blew up. While bonds cannot easily double in price anymore, at least not German bonds, share prices could, like they did before the Dot.Com crisis. But with the Fed tightening the likelihood of nearing collapse rears its head.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.

And does the pooling of wealth have anything to do with this? Just seems to me that it would be the very rich who are desperate for a place to park their money who cause bubbles. Maybe higher taxes on the uber weathy would prevent these types of bubbles.
 
imagep said:
Makes sense to me.

And does the pooling of wealth have anything to do with this? Just seems to me that it would be the very rich who are desperate for a place to park their money who cause bubbles. Maybe higher taxes on the uber weathy would prevent these types of bubbles.
Click to expand...

Anytime someone talks about redistributing wealth which means higher taxes on a particular class it is really disturbing. This country wasn't built on that but rather neighbor helping neighbor. Obama has promoted making the govt. that neighbor as has liberalism and that destroys incentive and creates greater dependence. There is no justification for a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and therein lies the problem.
 
Conservative said:
Anytime someone talks about redistributing wealth which means higher taxes on a particular class it is really disturbing. This country wasn't built on that but rather neighbor helping neighbor. Obama has promoted making the govt. that neighbor as has liberalism and that destroys incentive and creates greater dependence. There is no justification for a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

Lower taxes on a particular income class is also redistribution. And complaining about the 47% could equally be considered "class warfare". It's just a matter of point of view.

The poor and middle class have always gotten by by "neighbor vs neighbor". the rich get rich by redistribution from the poor and middle class - I would call that "neighbor vs neighbor"
 
Conservative said:
Anytime someone talks about redistributing wealth which means higher taxes on a particular class it is really disturbing. This country wasn't built on that but rather neighbor helping neighbor. Obama has promoted making the govt. that neighbor as has liberalism and that destroys incentive and creates greater dependence. There is no justification for a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

My beginning questions to you on the economy will be picking your brain.
I'm a science/math guy, not an econ expert.
I found it very dry and gray, with theories not applicable to every new generation due to so many factors.

With that, I recognize that the gains in jobs once again last month have a down side from your perspective.
I'm aware of the stagnant wages for the middle class except for the very rich.

Please pick up the ball and keep it rolling from there.
I'm a quick learn when listening earnestly .
 
imagep said:
Lower taxes on a particular income class is also redistribution. And complaining about the 47% could equally be considered "class warfare". It's just a matter of point of view.

The poor and middle class have always gotten by by "neighbor vs neighbor". the rich get rich by redistribution from the poor and middle class - I would call that "neighbor vs neighbor"
Click to expand...

Let the people who earned the money decide where to spend it or send it rather than letting the govt. take it, subtract the administrative costs and create greater dependence. That was our Founders point of view when they promoted a limited Federal Govt. Don't understand how we got to the point we are today
 
NIMBY said:
My beginning questions to you on the economy will be picking your brain.
I'm a science/math guy, not an econ expert.
I found it very dry and gray, with theories not applicable to every new generation due to so many factors.

With that, I recognize that the gains in jobs once again last month have a down side from your perspective.
I'm aware of the stagnant wages for the middle class except for the very rich.

Please pick up the ball and keep it rolling from there.
I'm a quick learn when listening earnestly .
Click to expand...

The basic problem I have is that we have gone way too long for any kind of significant job gains and the reality is there are still far too many part time employees who want full time jobs, far too many discouraged workers, and an economy that isn't keeping up with population growth and personal demand. When the recession began in December 2007 there were 146.6 million Working Americans, today that number is 147.2 million with far too many of them part time. That isn't a strong economy, that isn't a pro growth economic policy, that is a stagnant economy generated by a President who lacks the experience for the job or even the understanding of how our economy works.

Obama's problem is he is a community organizer who doesn't understand incentive and how to create jobs. It is the private sector that creates the jobs and it has been way too long for us to get back to the 2007 levels because Obama is a big govt. liberal who believes the govt. has the solutions when the govt. just creates the problem. There are four components to GDP with govt. spending normally about 20%. Obama doesn't understand that it is the consumers which constitute about 66% of the economy that generates the demand. More money in the hands of the consumer means greater demand created and that is why we have had stagnant growth and slow job creation
 
Conservative said:
Let the people who earned the money decide where to spend it or send it rather than letting the govt. take it, subtract the administrative costs and create greater dependence. That was our Founders point of view when they promoted a limited Federal Govt. Don't understand how we got to the point we are today
Click to expand...

Large sums of money acquired in a fairly short period of dime often aren't actually earned, it's just transfered from the production of others.
 
Conservative said:
The basic problem I have is that we have gone way too long for any kind of significant job gains and the reality is there are still far too many part time employees who want full time jobs, far too many discouraged workers, and an economy that isn't keeping up with population growth and personal demand....
Click to expand...

The economy is keeping up with personal demand and population growth. The proof is the fact that store shelves are pretty much full. I'm not aware of any product shortages right now.

Anyhow, the lack of gains of good jobs is a symptom of mal-distribution of income. When income shifts away from the worker-consumer class to the rich, demand fails to expand as fast as it would otherwise, and fewer jobs are created.

Just because Bill Gates makes a few extra bucks this year doesn't mean that he is going to consume (demand) any more, but if Average Joe makes a few extra bucks, he will definitely demand more. Businesses seek to meet demand, no more and no less, for better job growth, the consumer class has to have more money in their wallets.
 
imagep said:
Large sums of money acquired in a fairly short period of dime often aren't actually earned, it's just transfered from the production of others.
Click to expand...

Regardless of where the money comes from every dollar donated to someone poor that person gets a dollars worth of benefits, every dollar given to the govt. the benefits generated doesn't generate a dollars worth of benefits to the poor. Govt. overhead and expenses are extracted.
 
imagep said:
The economy is keeping up with personal demand and population growth. The proof is the fact that store shelves are pretty much full. I'm not aware of any product shortages right now.

Anyhow, the lack of gains of good jobs is a symptom of mal-distribution of income. When income shifts away from the worker-consumer class to the rich, demand fails to expand as fast as it would otherwise, and fewer jobs are created.

Just because Bill Gates makes a few extra bucks this year doesn't mean that he is going to consume (demand) any more, but if Average Joe makes a few extra bucks, he will definitely demand more. Businesses seek to meet demand, no more and no less, for better job growth, the consumer class has to have more money in their wallets.
Click to expand...

In a consumer driven economy, job growth comes from an increase in demand and when the people have more spendable income that demand goes up. Reagan created 17 million jobs, Before the Democrats took Control of the Congress Bush had created 9 million jobs all due to increased demand due to more spendable income thus tax cuts
 
Conservative said:
In a consumer driven economy, job growth comes from an increase in demand and when the people have more spendable income that demand goes up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. that's why I advocate for shifting taxation from the consumer class to the rich.

Reagan created 17 million jobs, Before the Democrats took Control of the Congress Bush had created 9 million jobs all due to increased demand due to more spendable income thus tax cuts
Click to expand...

I have never understood why conservatives like to use Reagan's 17 million jobs as an example, when that is only about average. Carter "created" 11 million jobs in half the amount of time. Clinton "created" 22 million jobs. Bush is the only president in my lifetime who had a net loss of jobs during any term and fewer than 5 million total new jobs - even Obama has that beat.
 
Conservative said:
Regardless of where the money comes from every dollar donated to someone poor that person gets a dollars worth of benefits, every dollar given to the govt. the benefits generated doesn't generate a dollars worth of benefits to the poor. Govt. overhead and expenses are extracted.
Click to expand...

Every charitable organization has overhead. Even that overhead money isn't destroyed, it's spent back into the private sector economy, and results in jobs and demand.

Anyhow, I'm not an advocate for means tested welfare, I believe we should end means tested welfare.

I'm not even particularly an advocate for charity. If net after tax income was distributed in such a manner that it was suffient for familes that had full time workers to take care of themselves, then welfare wouldn't be needed. I believe in personal responsibility, if everyone took care of their selves first, their family second, their friends and coworkers and neighbors and churchmates third, then there would be no need for either welfare or organized charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom