• 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!

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

Oh great now because od Obama we have to recall all the Dictionaries in the world and add a new definition for the word ‘Agnostic’. We already had to add Obama tp the definition of Savior and Messiah now we have to add liar to the definition of ‘Agnostic’.
 
What spending do you recommend cutting to balance the budget?

15% across the board to start. I think that much could be saved just from finding efficiencies in processes and systems and just picking the low hanging fruit. That number is just a WAG, so please don't ask for back up.

And does the political will exist to make those cuts?

Hell no.
 
actually, when you come to think of it, it's absolutely stunning, no one's ever seen anything like it

and the realization hovers like a universal over every sunday talk---

obama's post MA agenda---his STATE OF THE UNION!

what the heck happened to it, where did it go?

the don't ask don't tell---turns out he was gonna turn THAT over to others, as well, the pentagon, which is gonna START to LOOK at it THIS YEAR with a mind for PERHAPS implementing something next...

LOL!

his debt commission---it was already killed on the senate floor the very afternoon before his ephemeral speech which people aren't even sure anymore was ever delivered

(i tell you, he's a POD!)

his bank tax?

when's the last time you heard him or his shadow puppeteer press secty mention the bank tax?

the spending freeze?

i guess the pod forgot his freeze

where'd it go?

the second stimulus which he can't call a stimulus so he called it a "jobs bill?"

harry killed the BIPARTISAN one, baucus-grassley

then interjected his own

which he'd trimmed down like charlie brown's christmas tree

15 billion dollars is reid's skimpy offering

the house bill was 147

baucus' was 85

it's like reid's NOT EVEN GONNA DO a jobs bill, or, the one he's gonna do is so microscopic, same thing

weird?

and the white house got totally suckered by reid

confused and outraged, reported politico (my favorite source, also msnbc's)

it's clear harry's hot

i think he hates the pod

wouldn't you? after all this?

oh well

it's sunday

party on, progressives

be proud, represent
 
Last edited:
It's funny how the Obamaphobes are outraged at Obama for doing the things their guys did. Hypocrites.

But Obama said transparency *sniffle* and look *sniffle* another politician lied to me... :baby1:

When did Bush raise it twice in 2 months.
 
We have a one term president in the White House. Bwuahahahaha
 
No it's not. It's just the economic dogma you've bought into.

You may call it anything you want (although it is interesting coming from the pro ABST camp), reality is what it is. Deficits cannot begin to be harnessed until unemployment falls.

Or do you disagree? I am not interested in normative discussions as they tend to go nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Only if your econ 101 professor is a Keynesian.

The neoclassical synthesis dominates mainstream economics because Keynesian stabilization policies are integral in fending off depressions. Prior to WWII, recessions and depressions were quite the norm.
 
and post ww2 they're still here
 
80%?

LOL!

recessions (2 quarters of negative growth), post ww2:

45, 49, 53, 58, 60, 69, 73, 80, 82, 90, 01

and TODAY's

today's DEPRESSION is pretty severe

perhaps you've heard
 
80%?

LOL!

recessions (2 quarters of negative growth), post ww2:

45, 49, 53, 58, 60, 69, 73, 80, 82, 90, 01

and TODAY's

today's DEPRESSION is pretty severe

perhaps you've heard

From 1869 to 1920, recessions were quite common. In fact, the months of expansion to months of contraction ratio is about 1:1. Following WWII, (when coherent macro stabilization policy was considered), it has been more than 5:1.

Any questions?
 
From 1869 to 1920, recessions were quite common. In fact, the months of expansion to months of contraction ratio is about 1:1. Following WWII, (when coherent macro stabilization policy was considered), it has been more than 5:1.

Any questions?

One question: does correlation equal causation?

The world was very different before the 20th century, and before WWII. So much changed that it's kinda silly to point to one thing and say that it is what caused the phenomenon you mentioned, solely because it was there when things changed.
 
Last edited:
One question: does correlation equal causation?

The world was very different before the 20th century, and before WWII. So much changed that it's kinda silly to point to one thing and say that it is what caused the phenomenon you mentioned, solely because it was there when things changed.

Much has changed, primarily the thought that economies will always self correct in short periods of time. Since the implementation of "Keynesian" stabilization policies (and that includes a competent monetary policy, stable financial systems, etc....) corrections are less likely to occur.

However.... If your argument is "correlation does not equal causation", why bother replying?:confused:
 
From 1869 to 1920, recessions were quite common. In fact, the months of expansion to months of contraction ratio is about 1:1. Following WWII, (when coherent macro stabilization policy was considered), it has been more than 5:1.

actually, doctor, before ronald reagan, they're still 1:1

after dear ronnie, it's more like 10:1

Any questions?

sure, where are the results TODAY of all that coherent macro stabilization?

LOL!
 
actually, doctor, before ronald reagan, they're still 1:1

after dear ronnie, it's more like 10:1

Nope! Besides, it is false dichotomy, of which you cannot back up. BTW Ronnie was all for deficit spending to get out of a recession. Given the stagflationary environment, tax cuts were integral in combating inflation.

sure, where are the results TODAY of all that coherent macro stabilization?

LOL!

Are we currently experiencing economic expansion? (hint: positive GDP)
 
However.... If your argument is "correlation does not equal causation", why bother replying?:confused:

Because your argument is "correlation equals causation".
 
Nope! Besides, it is false dichotomy, of which you cannot back up.

it's not even a dichotomy, let alone false

it's simply an observation

Are we currently experiencing economic expansion? (hint: positive GDP)

expansion?

growth?

LOL!

take my advice---

don't SAY it in michigan
 
Last edited:
it's not even a dichotomy, let alone false

Attempting to brand the post Reagan years as carrying the load is the sign of a clear attempt to split the prosperity numbers.

it's simply an observation

Does it hurt your heart that Reagan was the model Keynesian?

expansion?

growth?

LOL!

take my advice---

don't SAY it in michigan

I was unaware that Michigan represents the entire economy. Once again you fail!:2wave:
 
my heart? you're asking about my heart?

how kind, how personal

LOL!

unfortunately, yes, michigan is the miserable mug of this entire economy

poster state

she tugs at the hearts of all, i presume
 
my heart? you're asking about my heart?

how kind, how personal

LOL!

unfortunately, yes, michigan is the miserable mug of this entire economy

poster state

she tugs at the hearts of all, i presume

Again you side step in an attempt to avoid admitting to error. I'll give you another chance at regaining some credibility.
 
huh?

i'll give YOU one more chance...

LOL!
 
huh?

i'll give YOU one more chance...

LOL!

Chance for what? I have pointed out all of the errors in your replies, and you have yet to establish credibility. Instead, you either ignore or side step. Either way....
 
Campaign promises are irrelevant.
It does not surprise me that you have no issue with candidates putting forth bald-faced lies in order to get elected -- whatever it takes to get your guy elected, eh?
 
Back
Top Bottom