LOL, Obama proposes more spending.

[RoseCity07]

1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's 10 years. How much did the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost? That cost has been going on for nearly a decade. This is over a pretty decent span of time. I don't see what your problem is. Are you an economist that has some past historical trend that shows this to be a bad idea?

[bmulls]

The bolded statement is just flat untrue. There is a reason the private sector is not taking up the slack and that is the demand is not there during this worldwide recession. If the economy was humming along, we could simply rely on the private sector, but the private sector has been sending a pretty clear message for the past several years. The International Monetary Fund has just released a study saying that the European countries that cut government spending the most are performing the worst during this worldwide recession. This is a counterintuitive thing, but the countries that worried about the debt problem first, had their economies slow down which has actually increased their debt because income fell so much that tax revenues are down.

It's not a 1 to 1 relationship of spending cuts and debt reduction, because of the economic multipliers of government spending. The IMF found those multipliers were much larger than previously though in a depressed economy and so the cuts have had reduced GDP by much more than they expected. They basically admitted that the Austerity measures they have been pushing for the past several years have been the wrong advice for this situation.

Debt is an issue, but it the current situation is much less of an issue than employment. Get people back working again and revenues will increase again and growth of the whole economy will be greater again.


As for the italicized statement, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain how that applies to past 100 years in America.

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

[Sarcastic]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

So true. Which is why the constant comparisons to Greece are laughable.

[DonDadda59]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

That's rich

Tell me, what is the Republican plan to deal with the fiscal cliff and the deficit. I'll wait.

[Droid101]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

Proving once and for all you are either a paid Republican shill or just plain uninformed.

[bmulls]

That's rich

Tell me, what is the Republican plan to deal with the fiscal cliff and the deficit. I'll wait.

Massive reductions in transfer payments for starters

[bmulls]

Proving once and for all you are either a paid Republican shill or just plain uninformed.

This is semantics, you have contributed nothing to this thread, come back when you understand the issues

[RoseCity07]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So your solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

[KevinNYC]

First, European governments and ours are not comparable. They have no sovereignty over their currency and no responsibility for inflation.

I also love how during the election our economy was doing great and unemployment was falling by the day. You praised Obama for saving the economy. Yet when it comes time to stop spending, we have a "situation" that necessitates more stimulus spending. You, like the vast majority of liberals, have no objective position. You merely support whatever Barack Obama wants to do.

No, I think Obama made a big mistake not prioritizing employment even more. That is, the original stimulus was too small. I think he should have listened more to advisors like Christine Romer, but I think virtually every Republican idea on this was worse. Obama did help avert a Depression (along with a lot of the measures taken by the Fed and the Treasury going back to 2008). I think averting a Depression is an achievement. What Obama did not do is give a robust recovery. The great achievement of the Tea Party to make this debate about the debt and not about employment.
Tea Partiers opposed the stimulus, TARP and the auto bailouts and there overwhelming evidence that unemployment would have spike at much thatn 10% without these measures. I don't know how much it was politically possible for Obama to do more, but he didn't fight for more and often said was he got was sufficient. It wasn't.

However, the other side was pretty much a disaster. I'm pretty practical in my politics.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" But people get fooled by this isn't gratification, which is all it is. Obama used it to rally people and create a class warfare of sorts when it simply doesn't address the problem. The taxes alone wouldn't make nearly enough of dent, and then, who employs the average person? Well, they'll be employing less of them. And it's part of a disturbing trend of diminishing the importance of hard work and rewarding those who in some cases have not only not worked as hard, but sometimes make no effort to work at all.

Yes. Raise taxes. That's fine. That's not at all my objection. It's the unfairness of it, you raise them on some, but not the others.

We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"

[DonDadda59]

Massive reductions in transfer payments for starters

Any specifics? Would it be a change in age eligibility or straight cuts? Why won't Boehner and co. present said plan to the president? Isn't that how you start a negotiation, one side presents their offer, the other side a counter offer. The president delivered his plan. Where's the GOP's?

[bmulls]

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So you're solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

I also believe in running a deficit, and I have defended it on this site before. My issues are 1) what that money is being spent on and 2) that deficit spending be kept at a sustainable level.

[IGOTGAME]

Redistribution of wealth is retarded, has consistently failed throughout history, and yet here we are.

so you disagree with a progressive tax code?

[KevinNYC]

It's Bush's tax policy that got us here in the first place. So you're solution is to bitch about the person who is trying to get away from that? Drastic measures have been taken in the past and worked out. Alexander Hamilton believed in running a deficit. That is an idea that I think Dick Cheney supported when he said deficits don't matter.

So why is spending the enemy here? I'm really asking. I want to know why you think this.

Bush's tax policy was a very, very big cause. Some estimate it was 60% of the increase in debt. However, it's not the only cause. Also even at the time of their passing it was noted that more of their impact would be felt now, if those tax cuts were revoked.

However it was very convenient for the Tea Party folk that a Democrat took office as the worst of the economic crisis was happening because it allowed them to vent their anger AND get their partisan shots in.

[Scoooter]

Of course, because if you actually think about it objectively, it doesn't make sense. It sounds good to some who think, "man, that'd be nice, we'd have a bit extra and the damn rich would have less!" But people get fooled by this isn't gratification, which is all it is. Obama used it to rally people and create a class warfare of sorts when it simply doesn't address the problem. The taxes alone wouldn't make nearly enough of dent, and then, who employs the average person? Well, they'll be employing less of them. And it's part of a disturbing trend of diminishing the importance of hard work and rewarding those who in some cases have not only not worked as hard, but sometimes make no effort to work at all.

Why not? I think it's very intuitive.

We're speaking of the same Obama who has no interest in rewarding hard work. "You didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"

Why do you keep falling for this? I'm really curious to know why you think that quote - which is wholly different in meaning when placed in it's proper context - gives you some insight into what's going on.

In other words, if I own a trucking company, how did I build the highways that company operates on? Did I found the schools that educated me? Did I create the laws that protect my business from others? What did I build, and what didn't I build.