Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

ALiberalModerate · Feb 23, 2009

Nep188 said:
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.

Family Guy · Feb 23, 2009

Jerry said:
.....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.

Orion · Feb 23, 2009

Truth Detector said:
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.

RightinNYC · Feb 24, 2009

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

PeteEU said:
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.

PeteEU said:
Err no, we are in a credit crunch that has resulted in the worst contraction on record.

False.

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.

Maximus Zeebra said:
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.

It’s 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 “Connectivity Scorecard.” It’s 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. Waverman’s 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.

“Korea has great broadband to the house, but businesses in Korea don’t use the best networks and don’t have the skills and computing assets they need to take advantage of them,” 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. Waverman’s 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.)

Maximus Zeebra said:
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.)

Family Guy said:
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?

RightinNYC · Feb 24, 2009

PeteEU said:
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.

Maximus Zeebra said:
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/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/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.

Maximus Zeebra · Feb 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
****ing FAIL.

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

How pathetic. You post a blog comment to prove me that I am wrong on something I am right about also. Just like you always try to prove me wrong. Its a FACT that average European broadband speeds are better than American ones, and its a FACT that Japanese broadband speeds are better than European ones. You can deny that until you are blue and green and red like you always deny what I am saying. But you are just lying to yourself like usual.

RightinNYC said:
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.)

No matter IF that is true or IF he is withdrawing all troops, again you fail to see the point of even mentioning the withdrawal of troops, which as I said would be saving the US a lot of money. But again, you do have some trouble of seeing context when I am posting, perhaps its too complicated for you?

Also all the other "factual inaccuracies" that you commented on, as far as I could see was just your petty attempt to be right when you are wrong, yet again, because they were actually right, and you wrong. Like usual.

Maximus Zeebra · Feb 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Hmmm? What did you say?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

If only we were as smart as the Europeans.

I am not only criticizing the US about the debt situation. I am criticizing all the loser countries that cannot run surpluses, which is a situation created by the moron capitalist system.. All nations SHOULD run surpluses and save money for time of crisis for example, and build up state funds rather than state debt. Thats just how it must and will be, inevitable, eventually.

zimmer · Feb 24, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
I am criticizing all the loser countries that cannot run surpluses, which is a situation created by the moron capitalist system.. All nations SHOULD run surpluses and save money for time of crisis for example, and build up state funds rather than state debt. Thats just how it must and will be, inevitable, eventually.

Dreamer.
Wrong.
Government does too much and is too greedy.

Government spends everything it can get and then some.
"Surplus" means the people are overtaxed.

Tell me, where is our Social Security Lockbox funds?
We do not have one.
It's a Ponzi Scheme.

Government's role is not to play Mommy Dearest.
Its job is not to pick winners and loser but to ensure a level playing field for participants.

The best thing is to abolish the income tax as it is and replace it with a simple flat tax or consumption tax.

The government should be fearful it won't have money beyond defense, intel and policing. Most everything else is pure waste; social engineering.

American · Feb 24, 2009

chevydriver1123 said:
What kind of Voodoo math does Obama believe in?

Voodoo economics? NOT!

WillRockwell · Feb 24, 2009

zimmer said:
Dreamer.
Wrong.
Government does too much and is too greedy.

nice bumper sticker...is that the extent of your knowledge?

Government spends everything it can get and then some.
"Surplus" means the people are overtaxed.

It's called a deficit. Didn't Reagan teach you that deficits don't matter?

Tell me, where is our Social Security Lockbox funds?
We do not have one.
It's a Ponzi Scheme.

Bush spent it. That was the 2 trillion dollar surplus he started his regime with back in 2001. Conservative economics made it disappear quick

Government's role is not to play Mommy Dearest.
Its job is not to pick winners and loser but to ensure a level playing field for participants.

Only government will take the responsibility to insure the poorest citizens are able to support their family.

The best thing is to abolish the income tax as it is and replace it with a simple flat tax or consumption tax.

There is no such thing as a simple flat tax. In the case of a small business owner, just defining where income begins is a complex issue

The government should be fearful it won't have money beyond defense, intel and policing. Most everything else is pure waste; social engineering.

short-sighted Libertarian philosophy, which if actually practiced would eliminate roads, public services, Social Security, Medicare, education......

PeteEU · Feb 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Hmmm? What did you say?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

If only we were as smart as the Europeans.

CIA fact book? Give me a break. Try looking at the IMF or OECD. According to the OECD, the US government liabilities in % of nominel GDP of 62.9% in 2007 projected to rise to near 80% this year. While some countries had more in Europe and especially Japan, quite a few had far less..including the UK, Spain, all Scandinavia countries and a considerable number of the rest of Europe.

If you look at the IMF version you get nearly the same picture for the limited number of countries they do look at.

The only source that remotely backs your claim up is the CIA fact book...

As for you broadband BS. Again the statistics work against you. Again look at the OECD Broadband portal. American's might use the internet more than Europeans, but that does not mean that your connections are better.. in fact they are worse than quite a few European countries and far more expensive.

Some basic statistics. Countries ahead of the US on broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Korea, Finland, Luxenbourg, Canada, UK, Belgium, France, Germany... yes 14 nations are ahead of the US. Even with broadband access, the US lags behind countries like Denmark, Finland, UK, Canada, Norway, Sweden and some asian countries. And Germany, France and Spain are not far behind the US.

In every broadband statistic the US is no where near the top.

danarhea · Feb 24, 2009

Nep188 said:
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.

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?

I would rather see steady growth of half a percent to one percent per year with no cycles of boom and bust, which are caused by government intervention in the markets.

ALiberalModerate · Feb 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
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.

Ok, I think you would have a great point if we were just talking about over the last 25 years or so. However, we are talking about nearly the last 80 years, over that large of a time frame, the economy has fairer significantly better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations. That is quite a long time frame for a solid correlation to develop. One could also point out that during that time frame, when congress and the Whitehouse were under single party control, economic growth was stronger under Democrats than under Republicans. There is a long term correlation here, its a strong one, and it cant easily be dismissed because of that.

Its not that I think that many Republican ideas about the economy are wrong, its just that for whatever reason, they are much more apt to take them to the extreme and thus cast aside all pragmatism when in power than Democrats seem to. In fact, I think we would be worse off economically over the long term if people like Kucinich on the extreme left got there way in terms of economic policy than guys like Kudlow on the far right. However, guys like Kucinich never get their way in terms of economic policy when Democrats are in power, while guys like Kudlow almost always get their way more or less when Republicans are in power. Its that lack of pragmatism on the right more than anything else that leads to poor economic performance over the long term.

Middleground · Feb 24, 2009

e: 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.

It’s 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 “Connectivity Scorecard.” It’s 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. Waverman’s 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.

“Korea has great broadband to the house, but businesses in Korea don’t use the best networks and don’t have the skills and computing assets they need to take advantage of them,” 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. Waverman’s 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.)

What you quoted, Right, has little to do with speed and sound infrastructure.

As much as I dislike agreeing with MZ, most of Europe and some Asian countries--particularly Japan--are wired much better when it comes to the Internet. We here in NA rely mainly on archaic copper lines that have not been updated in a long time. Many parts of Europe and Japan mainly use fiber optics. Companies, such as Cisco, have developed products that speed up service on our outdated mainframe, but that can only take us so far. As usage increases each and every year, service declines.

Of course, the Japanese and Euros have the luxury of not having such a vast geography, but despite NA service providers receiving government subsidies and tax cuts throughout the years, they have done very little to change anything.

Nep188 · Feb 24, 2009

danarhea said:
I would rather see steady growth of half a percent to one percent per year with no cycles of boom and bust, which are caused by government intervention in the markets.

We have never seen that, and never will... without an economic collapse.

zimmer · Feb 24, 2009

WillRockwell said:
WillRockwell said:

nice bumper sticker...is that the extent of your knowledge?

Click to expand...

LOL.
So you believe the Miss Amerika tripe?

It's called a deficit. Didn't Reagan teach you that deficits don't matter?

Click to expand...

Ah... Regan showed conservatism worked, that tax cuts raise all boats to use a line from JFK (R-MA), and they increase government revenues. This has been documented as far back as the ancient Persians who said:
"When taxes were low revenues were high and when taxes were high, revenues were low."

The problem during Reagan's time was Democrat Congress. The spent like the drunkards they are.

YouTube - Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13

Bush spent it. That was the 2 trillion dollar surplus he started his regime with back in 2001. Conservative economics made it disappear quick Only government will take the responsibility to insure the poorest citizens are able to support their family.

Click to expand...

Ten Myths About Budget Deficits and Debt
MYTH #3: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts cancelled out the $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget surplus.

Fact: Those budget surplus estimates were based on unrealistic estimates.

Many taxpayers have wondered what happened to the projected $5.6 trillion 2002–2011 budget surplus that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) famously projected in January 2001. A popular mis*perception claims that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts cancelled out the majority of this surplus.[4]

In reality, this surplus projection was wildly unrealistic, as both the revenues and spending esti*mates were way off base.

There is no such thing as a simple flat tax. In the case of a small business owner, just defining where income begins is a complex issue

Click to expand...

Anything is better than the mess we have. Just look at your party! Their most brilliant members, those who were nominated for Cabinet positions couldn't figure out how to "pay their fair share"! LOL.

short-sighted Libertarian philosophy, which if actually practiced would eliminate roads, public services, Social Security, Medicare, education......

Click to expand...

Get rid of public services run by the government, social security isn't solvent it's a National Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme that makes Madoff's look like chicken feed, and Medicare is the PERFECT example why government should aggressively remove itself from social engineering.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says government should be in the business of creating a collective, subsidizing losers, and social engineering.

ALiberalModerate · Feb 24, 2009

danarhea said:
I would rather see steady growth of half a percent to one percent per year with no cycles of boom and bust, which are caused by government intervention in the markets.

You do realize that would not even keep up with labor market growth.

WillRockwell · Feb 24, 2009

zimmer said:
LOL.
Get rid of public services run by the government, social security isn't solvent it's a National Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme that makes Madoff's look like chicken feed, and Medicare is the PERFECT example why government should aggressively remove itself from social engineering.

Click to expand...

Right, and who will oversee our roads and bridges? Disney? Halliburton?
Social Security works. When it approaches its limits Congress fixes it. Yet Republicans will never get over the fact that it was a Democratic administration which engineered the most successful retirement program in history.

I know that Libertarians (which you seem to be, despite your claim of Conservatism) believe in "every man for himself", that the weak should quietly die off and private enterprise should run the country. There are countries that approach the Libertarian ideal, Somalia comes to mind, but America was founded on the principals of fairness and equal rights, so your dog eat dog utopia will have to flourish somewhere else.

zimmer · Feb 24, 2009

WillRockwell said:
zimmer said:

Right, and who will oversee our roads and bridges? Disney? Halliburton?
Social Security works. When it approaches its limits Congress fixes it. Yet Republicans will never get over the fact that it was a Democratic administration which engineered the most successful retirement program in history.

Click to expand...

I like Halliburton. Great company doing tough jobs well.

Madoff's Ponzi Scheme worked for a while too. Then reality set in.

Social security doesn't work. Look at their predictions, look at how many people paid in for each recipient and look at who got what at the start without putting any skin in the game.

The program was successful as a political weapon for Democrats. That's what it was designed for, and that's how it is used.

What is it about Socialists that they don't understand "freedom". Freedom of government intrusion in our lives. I don't want 500 pinheads telling me how I should live and where I should put my money. It's none of their ****ing business.

But we have the modern Amerikan. Who thinks the Constitution is toilet paper, our lives are for government to shape; our lives and property being theirs to control.

At least when the country was founded it was based on individual freedoms. Look at the great progress we've made... towards Marx and Lenin.

Social Security is a massive Ponzi Scheme left for future generations to dig out of. Bush tried to get a small percent (2%?) into private hands... but the Dems said... No, no, no. Don't touch OUR money.

Roads? States and Feds can do it, but beyond some infrastructure projects too big for states or private companies, the military and its associates Depts., government could get out the Mommy Dearest role.

Private companies could also manage the roads for profit.

We'd all be the better for it.

ALiberalModerate · Feb 24, 2009

zimmer said:
Social security doesn't work. Look at their predictions, look at how many people paid in for each recipient and look at who got what at the start without putting any skin in the game.

If nothing is done, Social Security will be fully solvent through 2042. That means worst case scenario, the program will have been fully solvent for around 110 years since its start.

Please provide an example of any large trust in the private sector, in the history of civilization, anywhere on earth, that has been solvent and successful for that long.

Goobieman · Feb 24, 2009

zimmer said:
Social security doesn't work. Look at their predictions, look at how many people paid in for each recipient and look at who got what at the start without putting any skin in the game.

Never mind that we do not have a choice, but to pay into SocSec.
I guess the part of choice only believes in choice when its a choice they want to let you make.

WillRockwell · Feb 24, 2009

Goobieman said:
Never mind that we do not have a choice, but to pay into SocSec.
I guess the part of choice only believes in choice when its a choice they want to let you make.

When you reach 65, you will appreciate having to pay into SS

Goobieman · Feb 24, 2009

WillRockwell said:
When you reach 65, you will appreciate having to pay into SS

Actually, what I would REALLY appreciate is having the choice to pay into SocSec, so that when I turn 65, I would have a much better return on that $.

But, that's a choice the party of choice won't let me have, and a choice the party of choice is more than happy to make for me.

I wonder if that will “change”.

Kushinator · Feb 24, 2009

WillRockwell said:
When you reach 65, you will appreciate having to pay into SS

More like, when i reach 65, the federal gov will appreciate my paying into the system.

Goobieman · Feb 24, 2009

WillRockwell said:
When you reach 65, you will appreciate having to pay into SS

Oh, and just so you know...
My parents appreciate all the money you are giving them.
Hopefully, my kids wont have to give any of theirs to you.

Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

Pragmatist

Girthless

Girthless

MoG

MoG

Educating the Ignorant

Trump Grump Whisperer

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Pragmatist

2-Lipped Beaver!

New member

Educating the Ignorant

Pragmatist

Educating the Ignorant

Pragmatist

I'm not-low all the time