• 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!

Would Republicans have Whined if Obama Did This?

joG said:
You are quite right, the rates should not have been kept so low and the Fed should not have refinanced the government to the extent it has. But the Fed has actually done a quite good job, considering the mess Clinton and Greenspan made, the fact that we were at war and Obama then did not reign in public spending. But the Fed's tools are spent and that is, what disturbs me with the Fed.

I am fully with you that the government should incentivize the economic actors. But it should do so on a general rule of law basis and not on a fly by night message.
Click to expand...

Reigning in spending is not in the cards. We need to up revenue, hopefully through increased growth and not higher taxes. Our expenses are fixed--unless you want to start pulling money out of Defense, SS and Medicare that is.

total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png
 
calamity said:
I understand completely. Manufacturing management is, after all, what I do. My point though is that if we rely too much on overseas goods, we are ****ed if the shipping lanes ever become compromised. So, it might be worth the investment to expand manufacturing, even if the the automation is too costly at this given point in time and labor in Thailand can produce the good at a fraction of the cost.

Tariffs on imports are more than just a protection racket for labor. It's a national security issue, IMO.
Click to expand...

I am fully with you on the national security issue. Even in peace there could develop circumstances that would make us very sorry that we do not produce some of the things we like at home. The question seems more to me, whether we can organize ourselves to be more efficient domestically. Say, to take random examples, harness the immigrants into the labor force better and induce parents to upgrade their children and put more of them in a prosperous track.

If we start with tariffs, we will reduce efficiency and income just as we need it to improve the country.
 
calamity said:
I'm quite sure we would have all heard about the horrors of government overreach by the usual small government/libertarian/conservative suspects, if a D president had dared to do this.

Pres. elect Trump goes after GM for Chevy Cruze manufacturing

Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in 'vote of confidence' in Trump - Jan. 3, 2017



Why are they all of a sudden Big Government Liberals? Oh, that's right. It's because a Republican is the one pushing his big government weight around.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to break this to you but government has been 'interfering' in business since forever. A president tweeting and jawboning is far, far different from congress enacting laws, or agencies passing regulations, or presidents passing edicts. The idea that liberals who support imposing a $15 minimum wage on every business are outraged by this is insanity.
 
calamity said:
I'm all for getting jobs back to the US, but I am not really sure that strong-arming corporations is the way to go about it. If I was a shareholder of GM or Ford, I would be pissed.
Click to expand...

LOL

Heck, Obama took a 14" strap-on to GM when management allowed the UAW to just about put them out of business.

I think you're getting too desperate for things to whine about.
 
calamity said:
Reigning in spending is not in the cards. We need to up revenue, hopefully through increased growth and not higher taxes. Our expenses are fixed--unless you want to start pulling money out of Defense, SS and Medicare that is.

total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png
Click to expand...

Here I disagree to a certain extent. Most of those costs should not be in the public sector. And even then, to be outspending countries like Denmark or France on health care, when the private sector spends nearly the same again is mad. We should be able to save 20 percent (to take a number) of the budget right there. Military is necessary, but there is no reason to allow Germany to spend 2 percent less than we do and to live from the security we produce. Social security is another area that is certainly up for change. You cannot allow politicians to base their income and careers on promising that people can retire on so little savings on, what is essentially a Ponzi Scheme. Again something that should be almost totally placed in the private sector.
 
calamity said:
I'm quite sure we would have all heard about the horrors of government overreach by the usual small government/libertarian/conservative suspects, if a D president had dared to do this.

Pres. elect Trump goes after GM for Chevy Cruze manufacturing

Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in 'vote of confidence' in Trump - Jan. 3, 2017



Why are they all of a sudden Big Government Liberals? Oh, that's right. It's because a Republican is the one pushing his big government weight around.
Click to expand...

Dont lump libertarians in on this. I have already posted on this forum about MY opposition to such interference in free markets.
 
calamity said:
Reigning in spending is not in the cards. We need to up revenue, hopefully through increased growth and not higher taxes. Our expenses are fixed--unless you want to start pulling money out of Defense, SS and Medicare that is.]
Click to expand...

We had already reigned in spending due to the sequester. Why do you think the deficit decreased so much? Revenue returned to normal (18% of GDP), and spending increases were frozen.

Spending
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,056
2012 3,536,951
2013 3,454,647
2014 3,506,114
2015 3,688,292

We can definitely balance it by pulling money out of defense and social spending.
 
joG said:
Here I disagree to a certain extent. Most of those costs should not be in the public sector. And even then, to be outspending countries like Denmark or France on health care, when the private sector spends nearly the same again is mad. We should be able to save 20 percent (to take a number) of the budget right there. Military is necessary, but there is no reason to allow Germany to spend 2 percent less than we do and to live from the security we produce. Social security is another area that is certainly up for change. You cannot allow politicians to base their income and careers on promising that people can retire on so little savings on, what is essentially a Ponzi Scheme. Again something that should be almost totally placed in the private sector.
Click to expand...

The problems are indeed legion. But, let's go with what we have and not with how we wish things would be. Gvt SS and MC benefits are not going to be erased overnight. Old people vote. In fact, they vote at the highest rates of all citizens.

Here's what can be fixed/improved:

Healthcare: We pay too much. Drugs, hospital visits, diagnostics, etc are all much higher in the US than other countries. ***** Obama refused to force down prices when he pushed ACA through. That was a mistake. Trump may have the gnads to push this through.

SS: I have no idea how we fix this while more and more people are retiring as proportionally fewer and fewer people are working to support the system. Raise retirement age perhaps and/or give huge tax incentives for people to continue working past age-70. I can see giving a special exemption for any income earned over age 70 if that person elects to not collect SS until full retirement. We can do the same for medicare. Give a tax credit (not just a deduction) for anyone over 70 who stays on employer provided or private insurance. Theory being: If you pay them, they will chose to work.

Defense: Pay us and we will defend you sounds good, but it is not exactly how we do it. Why? Because most of the countries where we have our forces are not exactly thrilled to have our boots on their ground. Sure, they'd be scared ****less if we left. But, we are more there because we want to be than they want us to be there. The only option here is to walk away and let those countries defend themselves and do as they wish. I am not sure we want that.
 
jonny5 said:
We had already reigned in spending due to the sequester. Why do you think the deficit decreased so much? Revenue returned to normal (18% of GDP), and spending increases were frozen.

Spending
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,056
2012 3,536,951
2013 3,454,647
2014 3,506,114
2015 3,688,292

We can definitely balance it by pulling money out of defense and social spending.
Click to expand...

The deficit dropped because revenue went up. Duh. We had a recession when the deficit soared. Did you forget about that already?
 
jonny5 said:
Dont lump libertarians in on this. I have already posted on this forum about MY opposition to such interference in free markets.
Click to expand...

Libertarian seems to cover a wide range of people, many of them are just big government Right Wingers who pretend to be libertarian. The only difference between them and big government Liberals are the things they want government to do for them. The Libertarians I am talking about want government to meddle in women's pregnancies, for example, by policing their choices. Liberals want government to feed, house and educate babies once they are born. Same book, different cover.
 
Fletch said:
I don't know how to break this to you but government has been 'interfering' in business since forever. A president tweeting and jawboning is far, far different from congress enacting laws, or agencies passing regulations, or presidents passing edicts. The idea that liberals who support imposing a $15 minimum wage on every business are outraged by this is insanity.
Click to expand...

I think Trump using the bully pulpit to arm-twist corporations intent on building super-plants in Mexico into changing their minds is great. I also support tariffs on imports. I am sort of amazed that we were dumb enough to not impose them to begin with.

I just know that you all would be flipping your cookies if Obama did it.

$15 minimum wages is stupid. But, it's good for me because it means more automation will be needed. :)
 
calamity said:
The deficit dropped because revenue went up. Duh. We had a recession when the deficit soared. Did you forget about that already?
Click to expand...

Thats what I said. Revenue returned to normal. Had we not frozen spending increases with the sequester, the deficit would still be over a trillion.

Revenue prior to the recession - 18% of GDP
Post recession - 15%
Revenue today - 18% of GDP

Spending prior to the recession - 19% of GDP
Spending post recession - 24%
Spending today - 21%

As you can see, revenue is the same, spending decreases have been the greater driver.
 
calamity said:
Libertarian seems to cover a wide range of people, many of them are just big government Right Wingers who pretend to be libertarian. The only difference between them and big government Liberals are the things they want government to do for them. The Libertarians I am talking about want government to meddle in women's pregnancies, for example, by policing their choices. Liberals want government to feed, house and educate babies once they are born. Same book, different cover.
Click to expand...

By definition, those arent libertarians.
 
calamity said:
I think Trump using the bully pulpit to arm-twist corporations intent on building super-plants in Mexico into changing their minds is great. I also support tariffs on imports. I am sort of amazed that we were dumb enough to not impose them to begin with.

I just know that you all would be flipping your cookies if Obama did it.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't bother me if Obama did it one bit. And what is it that Trump actually did? He brought attention to companies that wanted to leave and the negative image forced them to alter their path. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats what I said. Revenue returned to normal. Had we not frozen spending increases with the sequester, the deficit would still be over a trillion.

Revenue prior to the recession - 18% of GDP
Post recession - 15%
Revenue today - 18% of GDP

Spending prior to the recession - 19% of GDP
Spending post recession - 24%
Spending today - 21%

As you can see, revenue is the same, spending decreases have been the greater driver.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying now. But, IMO, the increased spending was government's effort to deal with the recession. Recession over, no need for that level of gvt spending.

I agree the sequester reigned in a potentially out of control liberal bonanza for the well connected which would not have benefited the average American one bit.
 
calamity said:
Libertarian seems to cover a wide range of people, many of them are just big government Right Wingers who pretend to be libertarian. The only difference between them and big government Liberals are the things they want government to do for them. The Libertarians I am talking about want government to meddle in women's pregnancies, for example, by policing their choices. Liberals want government to feed, house and educate babies once they are born. Same book, different cover.
Click to expand...

It is entirely possible for a libertarian to oppose abortion and not be for enhancing state power. Libertarians recognize the proper role of the state is to protect the rights and lives of the individual. The issue with abortion is not state power, but when life begins. No one would argue that state power is appropriate and rights apply once a baby is born. The question with abortion is was that child alive and worthy of rights and legal protection prior to passing through the birth canal.
 
Fletch said:
It wouldn't bother me if Obama did it one bit. And what is it that Trump actually did? He brought attention to companies that wanted to leave and the negative image forced them to alter their path. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt you specifically. But, my take on the observed responses to Obama is that he would have been targeted by the Right Wing noise machine no matter what he did. But, you are right. There is nothing wrong with what Trump did. Hell, it was actually a very good move.

Like I said above, a clear win for Trump.
 
Fletch said:
It is entirely possible for a libertarian to oppose abortion and not be for enhancing state power. Libertarians recognize the proper role of the state is to protect the rights and lives of the individual. The issue with abortion is not state power, but when life begins. No one would argue that state power is appropriate and rights apply once a baby is born. The question with abortion is was that child alive and worthy of rights and legal protection prior to passing through the birth canal.
Click to expand...

But, to go there: to say life begins at conception; requires a significant change in how we appropriate rights, which are given at birth. It is government overreach to change that.
 
calamity said:
But, to go there: to say life begins at conception; requires a significant change in how we appropriate rights, which are given at birth. It is government overreach to change that.
Click to expand...

I think life obviously begins at conception, but abortion in those early phases doesn't really end the life of a human being. There is no form, no heart, no brain, nothing but potentiality. But at some point, that is no longer true. Viability seems a perfect standard of where the rights of the individual would begin. I have relatives who have given birth long before the nine month point, a pair of twins were removed early and were in incubators for about two months. Aborting at that point would have been clearly ending human life. Abortion is a tough call. I think if your going to have one, you have to do it early. At some point, and I don't pretend to know what that point is exactly, it is too late and you have to carry the child to term and put it up for adoption if you must. That isn't a call for big government on my part, but a call for clarification on when life and rights begin.
 
calamity said:
The problems are indeed legion. But, let's go with what we have and not with how we wish things would be. Gvt SS and MC benefits are not going to be erased overnight. Old people vote. In fact, they vote at the highest rates of all citizens.

Here's what can be fixed/improved:

Healthcare: We pay too much. Drugs, hospital visits, diagnostics, etc are all much higher in the US than other countries. ***** Obama refused to force down prices when he pushed ACA through. That was a mistake. Trump may have the gnads to push this through.

SS: I have no idea how we fix this while more and more people are retiring as proportionally fewer and fewer people are working to support the system. Raise retirement age perhaps and/or give huge tax incentives for people to continue working past age-70. I can see giving a special exemption for any income earned over age 70 if that person elects to not collect SS until full retirement. We can do the same for medicare. Give a tax credit (not just a deduction) for anyone over 70 who stays on employer provided or private insurance. Theory being: If you pay them, they will chose to work.

Defense: Pay us and we will defend you sounds good, but it is not exactly how we do it. Why? Because most of the countries where we have our forces are not exactly thrilled to have our boots on their ground. Sure, they'd be scared ****less if we left. But, we are more there because we want to be than they want us to be there. The only option here is to walk away and let those countries defend themselves and do as they wish. I am not sure we want that.
Click to expand...

Just one note about stationing. When Rumpsfeld wanted to move troops out of Germany he ran into strong resistance from the Germans, who did not want them moved to other countries, because the income would be lost.
 
Fletch said:
I think life obviously begins at conception, but abortion in those early phases doesn't really end the life of a human being. There is no form, no heart, no brain, nothing but potentiality. But at some point, that is no longer true. Viability seems a perfect standard of where the rights of the individual would begin. I have relatives who have given birth long before the nine month point, a pair of twins were removed early and were in incubators for about two months. Aborting at that point would have been clearly ending human life. Abortion is a tough call. I think if your going to have one, you have to do it early. At some point, and I don't pretend to know what that point is exactly, it is too late and you have to carry the child to term and put it up for adoption if you must. That isn't a call for big government on my part, but a call for clarification on when life and rights begin.
Click to expand...

Even if we stipulate that life begins at conception, we need to consider that we do not bestow rights until birth. You are asking us to change that. And, worse, you're asking us to infringe on the rights of a born person: the pregnant mother; to do that. That is not very libertarian, IMO.
 
joG said:
Just one note about stationing. When Rumpsfeld wanted to move troops out of Germany he ran into strong resistance from the Germans, who did not want them moved to other countries, because the income would be lost.
Click to expand...

Yes. The military gravy train. I am totally in agreement about that being an issue. When I mentioned objections, I was referring more to the average German, Japanese, Korean, etc. objecting than I was the people who are profiting from it and their lobbyists.
 
calamity said:
I see what you're saying now. But, IMO, the increased spending was government's effort to deal with the recession. Recession over, no need for that level of gvt spending.

I agree the sequester reigned in a potentially out of control liberal bonanza for the well connected which would not have benefited the average American one bit.
Click to expand...

Im just looking at the raw numbers. Spending was indeed reigned in. Which allowed normal revenue growth to outpace spending and thus reduce the deficit. This was even bigger spending increase reduction than in the 90s when it dropped from 6% a year increases to 3% a year. From 2010 to 2015 we averaged 1% spending growth.

Of course we're back to 7% spending increases which is why the deficit is going back up. Cutting spending is the only real way that weve ever cut the deficit. We have to get it back to 18% of GDP.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
How did the government interfere with business? Did Congress pass a law? Did the bureaucracy pen a regulation?
Click to expand...
Threatened with tarrifs.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom