PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Tea Party Downgrade


RINGLEADER
08-07-2011, 11:35 AM
That's the new talking point on the left. Not out-of-control spending or flawed entitlement programs. Goes to show how concerned the liberal base is of anyone who wants to change the way government works.

David Axelrod was practically foaming at the mouth about it.

mlyonsd
08-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Kerry used the same term this morning on MTP.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 11:40 AM
somehow I dont think Obama can teflon out of this mess

stevieray
08-07-2011, 11:43 AM
Beck predicted they would try to shift the blame months ago.

Donger
08-07-2011, 11:47 AM
No one is denying that we have this enormous debt, right?

RINGLEADER
08-07-2011, 12:02 PM
No one is denying that we have this enormous debt, right?

Yes, but the Dems don't seem to want to address the root problem. The GOP, on the other hand, only seems to want to talk about it.

blaise
08-07-2011, 12:03 PM
It's a shame, we were doing so well until the Tea Party showed up. If not for them Obama would have the streets paved with gold by now.

Ace Gunner
08-07-2011, 01:26 PM
Yes, but the Dems don't seem to want to address the root problem. The GOP, on the other hand, only seems to want to talk about it.

GOP has mentioned it twice in the last 50 years - they are really on it...

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 01:28 PM
S and P head says it may take 18 years to repair the Obama Damage to credit rating:

(The Hill) — John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating.

Chambers said the credit agency could further downgrade the national rating depending on whether President Obama and congressional leaders can agree on reducing the deficit.

Chambers said “it could take a while” for the U.S. to regain its perfect credit rating.

orange
08-07-2011, 01:50 PM
between 9 and 18 years

That's interesting - I predict it could take between 9 and 18 days for the world to put S & P on Ignore.

Chocolate Hog
08-07-2011, 06:05 PM
That's interesting - I predict it could take between 9 and 18 days for the world to put S & P on Ignore.

You libs would like to ignore it just like you've ignored the debt all this time.

banyon
08-07-2011, 06:26 PM
In this forum yesterday everyone was calling it the Obama or Geithner downgrade, so I guess both sides know their rote talking point.

RINGLEADER
08-07-2011, 06:32 PM
You libs would like to ignore it just like you've ignored the debt all this time.

There's a common refrain I hear from a lot of liberals when you start quoting figures to them -- a belief that money "doesn't really matter" like it's some make-believe concept that can be ignored.

Of course, as I said earlier, the GOP just talks about it (and yes, this conversion to fiscal responsibility is a newfound belief system on their part)...

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 06:49 PM
Bush Tax cuts are Bush Tax cuts even after Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts.

Obama seems to be the only President to lead us to a downgrade.

Logic would say this is an Obama downgrade.

Forever.

Pitt Gorilla
08-07-2011, 06:49 PM
Do deficits matter?

Chocolate Hog
08-07-2011, 06:54 PM
Bush Tax cuts are Bush Tax cuts even after Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts.

Obama seems to be the only President to lead us to a downgrade.

Logic would say this is an Obama downgrade.

Forever.

This is the first time i've seen him lead since taking office. Progress right?

NaptownChief
08-07-2011, 07:42 PM
Bush Tax cuts are Bush Tax cuts even after Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts.

Obama seems to be the only President to lead us to a downgrade.

Logic would say this is an Obama downgrade.

Forever.


How could it not be? 3 years on the job and a Dem controlled congress went years without caring to put a budget in to place. He has no legitmate argument. The libs will scramble and try to create one but they will fool nobody but their poorly informed and grossly biased base.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 09:15 PM
S and P head says it may take 18 years to repair the Obama Damage to credit rating:

(The Hill) — John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating.

Chambers said the credit agency could further downgrade the national rating depending on whether President Obama and congressional leaders can agree on reducing the deficit.

Chambers said “it could take a while” for the U.S. to regain its perfect credit rating.

They also mentioned not willing to raise taxes as a reason why too.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 09:17 PM
There's a common refrain I hear from a lot of liberals when you start quoting figures to them -- a belief that money "doesn't really matter" like it's some make-believe concept that can be ignored.

Because to them everything should be free....they didn't even have real prices in the Soviet Union either. Same mindset.

petegz28
08-07-2011, 09:21 PM
Because to them everything should be free....they didn't even have real prices in the Soviet Union either. Same mindset.

My Dad just got back from a vacation where he spent some time in Russia. Says the place is falling apart.

go bowe
08-07-2011, 11:13 PM
My Dad just got back from a vacation where he spent some time in Russia. Says the place is falling apart.

falling apart in what sense?

fan4ever
08-07-2011, 11:35 PM
That's interesting - I predict it could take between 9 and 18 days for the world to put S & P on Ignore.

Whew, I feel better now. That will certainly change the dynamics of our debt.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 06:16 AM
falling apart in what sense?

The place in general.

Extra Point
08-08-2011, 06:36 AM
The place in general.

All that Caucasian on white crime, huh?

Back to the US debt thing, how can it not take years for a family to get out of debt, when its income is reduced/flat, and gas and food prices go up, and it has to borrow from its 401k?

Even this republican can see that you have to raise the amount of revenue, to pay back social security, at the same time, cut back on fe(de)ral subsidies (income re-distribution), while being able to fix bridges and defend them.

Both sides of the income-outgo have to change.

TEX
08-08-2011, 06:41 AM
That's the new talking point on the left. Not out-of-control spending or flawed entitlement programs. Goes to show how concerned the liberal base is of anyone who wants to change the way government works.

David Axelrod was practically foaming at the mouth about it.

Well the sick / sad thing is many will actually believe it, and their vote counts just as much as mine.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 06:54 AM
Well the sick / sad thing is many will actually believe it, and their vote counts just as much as mine.


Unfortunately true. The Democrats have two parts to their base. The emotional liberal left and those that fall into the 48% in the US that don't pay any federal taxes.

The emotional liberal left don't care about facts they just need a buzz word that they can get worked up over like "Big Oil", "Corporate jets" and the such. Those that don't pay any Federal taxes don't care whats going on as long as they keep receiving without paying.

That being the case they can sell anything to their base. Now the independents and moderates in the middle on the otherhand hopefully see through their nonsense. At least we can hope.

FishingRod
08-08-2011, 06:59 AM
The Rich are not paying their fair share. The bottom 90% that are paying about 22% and the bottom 50% that are paying none of the federal income Taxes are tired of being taken advantage of by the people paying all the taxes. And no I don’t want my Bush tax cuts to expire just the rich guys. Lather rinse repeat.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:03 AM
This isn't going to fly. Blaming the Tea Party for wanting D.C. to cut the spending is like blaming your trainer for telling you to knock off the McDonald's.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 07:05 AM
S and P head says it may take 18 years to repair the Obama Damage to credit rating:

(The Hill) — John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating.

Chambers said the credit agency could further downgrade the national rating depending on whether President Obama and congressional leaders can agree on reducing the deficit.

Chambers said “it could take a while” for the U.S. to regain its perfect credit rating.



Meanwhile, talking about spin...


I agree, its' a real shame that Obama messed up our balanced budget, no debt load and great economy when he came into office. :rolleyes:

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:05 AM
Meanwhile, talking about spin...


I agree, its' a real shame that Obama messed up our balanced budget, no debt load and great economy when he came into office. :rolleyes:

We were AAA rated when he came in where we not? Let me rephrase...we were AAA when he came in with 0 threat of being downgraded.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 07:08 AM
We were AAA rated when he came in where we not? Let me rephrase...we were AAA when he came in with 0 threat of being downgraded.

Yeah, but we shouldn't have been even then.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:10 AM
It isn't like Obama and the Dems didn't pass some massively expensive program like Obamacare or anything. Well, ok they did, but it isn't like it cost us anyhting. Well, ok, it does. But it isn't like $788 bil over 10 years net cost is anything to worry about.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:10 AM
Yeah, but we shouldn't have been even then.

All things considered, we were not in any jeopardy of getting downgraded then. Whether we should or should not have been is a different discussion.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 07:11 AM
All things considered, we were not in any jeopardy of getting downgraded then. Whether we should or should not have been is a different discussion.

It should be part of the discussion on downgrades, imo.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 07:31 AM
Debt to GDP was reasonable until the Dems took control of congress in W's final 2 years. Historic numbers show that a country can have solid growth with debt to GDP at 90% and under. Over 90% has been a growth killer for all countries throughout history.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:31 AM
It should be part of the discussion on downgrades, imo.

It's irrelevant, Pea. For that matter there is not a country in the world that really deserves AAA rating. Do you really thing France deserves a AAA rating?

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 07:39 AM
We were AAA rated when he came in where we not? Let me rephrase...we were AAA when he came in with 0 threat of being downgraded.

And we were told that a $4 trillion package that included tax increases and spending cuts was needed, and Obama was ok with that, and the Tea Party was not.

So we get downgraded.

And it's 100% Obama's fault.

Got it. Very convincing argument.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 07:42 AM
And we were told that a $4 trillion package that included tax increases and spending cuts was needed, and Obama was ok with that, and the Tea Party was not.

So we get downgraded.

And it's 100% Obama's fault.

Got it. Very convincing argument.


Did the Dems not have complete control before Jan and refused to do anything about the budget except spend all their time blowing it up with ObamaCare?

They could have done anything they wanted and the only thing they wanted to do was figure out how to spend a lot of current money and a ton of future money.

HonestChieffan
08-08-2011, 07:44 AM
And we were told that a $4 trillion package that included tax increases and spending cuts was needed, and Obama was ok with that, and the Tea Party was not.

So we get downgraded.

And it's 100% Obama's fault.

Got it. Very convincing argument.


And no one has yet to see any evidence of any plan from the Prez. Words ring pretty hollow when there is nothing there. Devil in the details bite us in the ass again.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:45 AM
And we were told that a $4 trillion package that included tax increases and spending cuts was needed, and Obama was ok with that, and the Tea Party was not.

So we get downgraded.

And it's 100% Obama's fault.

Got it. Very convincing argument.

Really? Seems Paul Ryan had a plan to cut $4 tril and the Dems weren't cool with that. Very convincing argument.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 07:46 AM
Really? Seems Paul Ryan had a plan to cut $4 tril and the Dems weren't cool with that. Very convincing argument.


Yes but those were real cuts and not just pie in the sky cuts....they don't want any part of that "crazy" stuff.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 07:55 AM
Yes but those were real cuts and not just pie in the sky cuts....they don't want any part of that "crazy" stuff.

Exactly. Obama's plan for things like Medicare were things like "attempt to curb waste". LMAO

alnorth
08-08-2011, 08:03 AM
Really? Seems Paul Ryan had a plan to cut $4 tril and the Dems weren't cool with that. Very convincing argument.

Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low. I absolutely heap a very large amount of blame on the tea party, especially since S&P likely would have carried on as they had for years if we quietly passed another clean ceiling hike. The tea party dug in, insisted on fixing our debt now even if it meant default, which is fine if you are serious. Any long-term plan that does not have tax increases is not serious.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 08:12 AM
Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low. I absolutely heap a very large amount of blame on the tea party, especially since S&P likely would have carried on as they had for years if we quietly passed another clean ceiling hike. The tea party dug in, insisted on fixing our debt now even if it meant default, which is fine if you are serious. Any long-term plan that does not have tax increases is not serious.

:LOL:

Probably one of your worst posts I have ever seen. I don't even know where to beging. Paul Ryan's tax plan wasn't far off from what a lot of Dems are saying. The Tea Party is doing the right thing. They had absolutely nothing to do with this downgrade. You are just looking to spew some hate.

How did the Tea Party **** this up? The approved plan ADDS $7 tril over 10 years. HTF can you blame the Tea Party insisting on cutting spending now when spending was actually increased??? You want tax hikes? Fine. Then EVERYONE should have their taxes raised. Raising them on a select few people isn't going to do jack shit!

ChiTown
08-08-2011, 08:13 AM
Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low. I absolutely heap a very large amount of blame on the tea party, especially since S&P likely would have carried on as they had for years if we quietly passed another clean ceiling hike. The tea party dug in, insisted on fixing our debt now even if it meant default, which is fine if you are serious. Any long-term plan that does not have tax increases is not serious.

JFC :banghead:

Otter
08-08-2011, 08:15 AM
Any idiot who can't see what our government has become at this point is part of the problem. Get Ron Paul in there and we'll give our grandchildren something to read about in the history book for the better instead of us coming off as a bunch of needy government little worms who forgot why our forefathers founded this country in the first place.

How do you want to be remembered when your dead?

phisherman
08-08-2011, 08:16 AM
sure would be nice to have all that money back that we dumped down in the toilet in the middle east.

partisan or not, the leaders of this country have taken us all to the cleaners.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 08:22 AM
sure would be nice to have all that money back that we dumped down in the toilet in the middle east.

partisan or not, the leaders of this country have taken us all to the cleaners.

Yes it would but that's a drop in the bucket. The problem is you have less people paying taxes because of the higher unemployment with a Fed Gov that doesn't seem to understand the concept of budgeting. Even if we doubled taxes on "the rich" it would not make much of a difference. If we ended all our wars today it would help slightly in the near term but until congress quits its spending, that money would just get spent on something else we really don't need.

Chiefshrink
08-08-2011, 08:23 AM
This isn't going to fly. Blaming the Tea Party for wanting D.C. to cut the spending is like blaming your trainer for telling you to knock off the McDonald's.

:bravo::bravo::bravo::bravo:

phisherman
08-08-2011, 08:24 AM
Yes it would but that's a drop in the bucket. The problem is you have less people paying taxes because of the higher unemployment with a Fed Gov that doesn't seem to understand the concept of budgeting. Even if we doubled taxes on "the rich" it would not make much of a difference. If we ended all our wars today it would help slightly in the near term but until congress quits its spending, that money would just get spent on something else we really don't need.

i agree with you 100% man. we should've taken the checkbook away a long time ago.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 08:26 AM
Keynesianism is dying....oh wait it's dead having been brought to its logical conclusion.

Chiefshrink
08-08-2011, 08:43 AM
Any idiot who can't see what our government has become at this point is part of the problem. Get Ron Paul in there and we'll give our grandchildren something to read about in the history book for the better instead of us coming off as a bunch of needy government little worms who forgot why our forefathers founded this country in the first place.

How do you want to be remembered when your dead?

How about "FINANCIAL CHILD MOLESTORS" !!!! Yes they are financially molesting our kids future everyday!!!! That's how they(Marxist Dems/RINOS) want to be remembered!!!!

Addicts whatever their addiction don't care about the past or future. They only live for the moment trying to figure out where their next "fix" will come from(a la QEIII) and will sacrifice 'anything' including themselves and their family(kids) just to experience that next so-called 'high'.

Chiefshrink
08-08-2011, 08:46 AM
Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low. I absolutely heap a very large amount of blame on the tea party, especially since S&P likely would have carried on as they had for years if we quietly passed another clean ceiling hike. The tea party dug in, insisted on fixing our debt now even if it meant default, which is fine if you are serious. Any long-term plan that does not have tax increases is not serious.

:facepalm:

Hey Al, the dirty little secret is that we were never going to 'default' and we had plenty of $$ to pay our debt.

"We The People" (a la Tea Party) knew this and all we wanted to do is for our GOP pussies to actually show a spine and call Obama's bluff but instead they caved in to the fear that Obama was telling them behind closed doors saying something like this to them, "Remember the '95 govt shutdown and the '08' sell off that your party got the blame for???? Yeah this will happen again 10x worse if you don't do a deal with me"

Well Al, we did your and Obama's deal and look where it got us.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 08:51 AM
Typical damage control by the lying left. There wasn't enough cuts, it's the driving force.

We have a spending problem, but pay no attention to the left that wants to continue spending at record clips.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 09:23 AM
Meanwhile, talking about spin...


I agree, its' a real shame that Obama messed up our balanced budget, no debt load and great economy when he came into office. :rolleyes:

It is, it's like Obama was the drunken sailor that took command of the ship ( WH, Senate & House ), instead of throwing out the anchor, he left the harbor with warp speed spending to out run the inevitable.


Obama had a chance to be GREAT, he could have cut spending, been selective on raising revenue and turned a negative into a positive. But instead all three branched of our government ( that was liberal controlled ) took the freedom to impose things the country wasn't ready for.


Yep, Obama & Co. was largely the responsible part by not taking the necessary steps to stop the snowball heading to hell. It was Timmy that said, no chance of losing our AAA rating! It was Obama & Co that took 2 years without a passed budget, the same 2 years impose massive spending programs and creating a new entitlement.

Please defend the Dear leaders actions and the 3+ years of a liberal controlled house & senate.

Please.

TEX
08-08-2011, 09:31 AM
And we were told that a $4 trillion package that included tax increases and spending cuts was needed, and Obama was ok with that, and the Tea Party was not.

So we get downgraded.

And it's 100% Obama's fault.

Got it. Very convincing argument.

Not gonna waste my time. Your mind, like so many others who share your political beliefs, is made up and are beyond convincing. Which is a huge part of the problem...Stick to football. You make much more sense there.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 09:32 AM
In this forum yesterday everyone was calling it the Obama or Geithner downgrade, so I guess both sides know their rote talking point.

The credit rating agencies probably should have downgraded us when Obama produced his budget ideas earlier this year. The fact that we're led by a man so monumentally out of touch with fiscal responsibility should be enough to call US fiscal stability into question.

On the other hand, one of the main defining characteristics of the tea party is a desire for fiscal responsibility in Washington DC. Whether you agree with their small government, low tax approach or not, you can't deny that they are serious about getting the federal government's house in order by bringing the budget into balance.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 09:33 AM
S and P head says it may take 18 years to repair the Obama Damage to credit rating:

(The Hill) — John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating.

Chambers said the credit agency could further downgrade the national rating depending on whether President Obama and congressional leaders can agree on reducing the deficit.

Chambers said “it could take a while” for the U.S. to regain its perfect credit rating.

Every President seeks a legacy.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 09:34 AM
Do deficits matter?

It depends on the deficit. Small, short term ones don't. Large, permanent ones do. The line lies somewhere in between.

FishingRod
08-08-2011, 09:36 AM
Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low. I absolutely heap a very large amount of blame on the tea party, especially since S&P likely would have carried on as they had for years if we quietly passed another clean ceiling hike. The tea party dug in, insisted on fixing our debt now even if it meant default, which is fine if you are serious. Any long-term plan that does not have tax increases is not serious.

They didn't fix anything they caved in after dragging their feet and we went and had business as usual.

"our taxes are too low" by our do you mean you feal your taxes are not high enough? IF are Federal Gov started running a surpluss of $1.00 every second and no longer paid % on the debt we would have that sucker paid off in no time. Well in the big picture of the universe 1/2 million years is pretty fast.

Otter
08-08-2011, 09:54 AM
Paul Ryan's stupid plan was politically impossible and should have been killed.

Our taxes are too damned low.

38% of my day is to pay the government. And that's just federal. How much of my money is OK with you to take from me? When do I start to get a say what's done with it?

You fuckstick, I can't believe people like you exist. I really wish we could just separate and not live under the same system.

Ebolapox
08-08-2011, 10:00 AM
Meanwhile, talking about spin...


I agree, its' a real shame that Obama messed up our balanced budget, no debt load and great economy when he came into office. :rolleyes:

HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
INHERITEDITINHERITEDIT
HE DIDN'T DO IT BUSH DID IT, OMG!

seriously, this shit again? the fuck, man? where is the personal accountability in the fucking country anymore?!?

HonestChieffan
08-08-2011, 10:08 AM
For sake of discussion, Lets take Obama's claim this is the TeaParties fault since he wanted to cut 4 trillion. Accept that as fact on face value.

Please help me understand how that was his position a week ago and Yesterday he called for more spending.

Parts dont seem to fit with parts in this puzzle.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 10:12 AM
HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
HE INHERITED THE MESS FROM BUSH
INHERITEDITINHERITEDIT
HE DIDN'T DO IT BUSH DID IT, OMG!

seriously, this shit again? the fuck, man? where is the personal accountability in the fucking country anymore?!?

I have stated, REPEATEDLY, that Obama and Democrats deserve a very healthy share of the blame for this debt mess.

I only make my points when, as is so often the case, others lay it on Obama's doorstep as if he inherited a healthy baby and then murdered it in cold blood. It's ridiculous.

KCChiefsFan88
08-08-2011, 10:14 AM
How much debt did Obama and the Democraps cut when they controlled all of Washington in 2009 and 2010? I count zero. In fact they surged the debt.

This is not a revenue problem it is a spending problem.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 10:14 AM
For sake of discussion, Lets take Obama's claim this is the TeaParties fault since he wanted to cut 4 trillion. Accept that as fact on face value.

Please help me understand how that was his position a week ago and Yesterday he called for more spending.

Parts dont seem to fit with parts in this puzzle.


Voters #1 concern is jobs. Second is Jobs. Third is FUCKING JOBS, YO!

And you don't get out of a recession by strangling the economy. The fact is that Obama and this Congress (why does no one on here talk about Congress's current 14% approval rating?) are between a rock (economy) and a hard place (deficit/debt).

There are no easy answers to the situation.

HonestChieffan
08-08-2011, 10:20 AM
Voters #1 concern is jobs. Second is Jobs. Third is ****ING JOBS, YO!

And you don't get out of a recession by strangling the economy. The fact is that Obama and this Congress (why does no one on here talk about Congress's current 14% approval rating?) are between a rock (economy) and a hard place (deficit/debt).

There are no easy answers to the situation.


So, the 4 trillion cuts we are told he wanted would not impact jobs but new spending will create jobs.

Im starting to get this now.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 10:22 AM
Voters #1 concern is jobs. Second is Jobs. Third is ****ING JOBS, YO!

And you don't get out of a recession by strangling the economy. The fact is that Obama and this Congress (why does no one on here talk about Congress's current 14% approval rating?) are between a rock (economy) and a hard place (deficit/debt).

There are no easy answers to the situation.

You don't get out of a recession by blindly tossing trillions of $'s out the door either.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 10:22 AM
Voters #1 concern is jobs. Second is Jobs. Third is ****ING JOBS, YO!

And you don't get out of a recession by strangling the economy. The fact is that Obama and this Congress (why does no one on here talk about Congress's current 14% approval rating?) are between a rock (economy) and a hard place (deficit/debt).

There are no easy answers to the situation.


2 1/2 years to address JOBS and all he did was , OBAMACARE! 2 years to pass a budget, it took the R's to get it going. OBAMA sends budget deal to Congress, voted 97 - 0 , TURNED DOWN. OBAMA and DEMOCRATS go on a shopping spree for 2 years and address nothing but their own agenda.

Where are the JOBS? He campaigned on JOBS, claimed when elected he will produce JOBS, even claimed there would be SHOVEL READY JOBS.

Now you want to trust him about JOBS? You are probably OK with him taking your money too, more of it, now, next year, the next year, and so on.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 10:25 AM
How much debt did Obama and the Democraps cut when they controlled all of Washington in 2009 and 2010? I count zero. In fact they surged the debt.

This is not a revenue problem it is a spending problem.

At the very least, let's roll back spending to pre-Obama levels before we start talking about tax increases.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 10:26 AM
At the very least, let's roll back spending to pre-Obama levels before we start talking about tax increases.

You'd have to 86 Obamacare then.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 10:39 AM
You'd have to 86 Obamacare then.

That's what Bachmann says we should do. It would go a LONG way to helping the situation. I'd go after all his added spending too.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 10:39 AM
You'd have to 86 Obamacare then.

I'm heartbroken. Do it anyway.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 10:42 AM
I'm heartbroken. Do it anyway.

Obama & The Lib's would be too!

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:09 AM
So, the 4 trillion cuts we are told he wanted would not impact jobs but new spending will create jobs.

Im starting to get this now.


You're really getting better at this snide asshole routine. Well done.

As you would know if you removed certain body parts purportedly containing intelligence from other body parts that certainly spew alot of feces on this board, the cuts are phased over 10 years, and there is only a VERY small impact on short term deficit spending.

What really amuses me, however, is that Republicans don't have any better plan for addressing the recession. In fact, there's no plan at all that I've heard. They wish to sling arrows without any offered solutions -- something that Republicans always complained about when the shoe was on the other foot (Democrats were in the minority).

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:11 AM
You don't get out of a recession by blindly tossing trillions of $'s out the door either.


Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.

Chocolate Hog
08-08-2011, 11:13 AM
Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.

Worked for Japan eh?

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:13 AM
2 1/2 years to address JOBS and all he did was , OBAMACARE! 2 years to pass a budget, it took the R's to get it going. OBAMA sends budget deal to Congress, voted 97 - 0 , TURNED DOWN. OBAMA and DEMOCRATS go on a shopping spree for 2 years and address nothing but their own agenda.

Where are the JOBS? He campaigned on JOBS, claimed when elected he will produce JOBS, even claimed there would be SHOVEL READY JOBS.

Now you want to trust him about JOBS? You are probably OK with him taking your money too, more of it, now, next year, the next year, and so on.


Stop drooling, it's not helping your keyboard any.

I seem to remember a massive stimulus package. Of course, everyone says it did nothing, but nobody can quantify what the situation woudl be if we had done nothing instead. Could've been much worse, as we all saw under Hoover.

Let's face it, most mainstream economists support exactly the type of things that Obama did. If he had done nothing and unemployment was at 10+ percent, then you'd be screeching the same song, but to a different beat. Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks. We get it.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:14 AM
Worked for Japan eh?


I heard an economist th eother day saying that Japan was pulling out of their recession in '97 and then decided to start fixing the deficit, and it made their economy implode.

I haven't studied the Japanese economy or why it has been so mediocre for very long, but perhaps you can share your treatise on the subject.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:15 AM
How much debt did Bushand the Republicanscut when they controlled all of Washington in 2009 and 2010? I count zero. In fact they surged the debt.



I note that a few key changes does not change the truthfulness of your statement...

petegz28
08-08-2011, 11:22 AM
Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.

Depends on how the money is spent. DUH!

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:24 AM
38% of my day is to pay the government. And that's just federal. How much of my money is OK with you to take from me? When do I start to get a say what's done with it?

You fuckstick, I can't believe people like you exist. I really wish we could just separate and not live under the same system.


I pay my fair share. I'm glad you do too.

I'm also glad you've managed to make the most of the societal and economic advantages of our nation to make a VERY healthy level of income for yourself.

You can change to another system any time you want. There are hundreds of countries operating under various systems all around the world for you to choose from. Good luck. I think our system works reasonably well, so I'm staying.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:25 AM
Depends on how the money is spent. DUH!


Thanks for your insight.

trndobrd
08-08-2011, 11:45 AM
Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.


A 'great majority' of economists? Really?

petegz28
08-08-2011, 11:47 AM
A 'great majority' of economists? Really?

He is right based on Keynsian economics. The problems is we spent the money on bullshit, backed it up with nothing long term, pretended that was going to be the cure-all, contintued to pass bullshit legistlation and regulations that constrict job growth and here we are now.

johnny961
08-08-2011, 11:49 AM
Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.

I agree with this notion. That is, if our government was sitting on lots of cash or if our debt load was at a more reasonable level. Just spend is oversimplifying the issue. Kinda hard to spend when you're broke and the credit card is maxed out, isn't it? As a country we simply can't sustain the deficits in our budget we've seen the past several years. And at some point we have to begin to pay down the staggering debt we've already incurred. I'm no economist but I don't see an easy way out of this mess.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 11:57 AM
A 'great majority' of economists? Really?

Yep, really.

The problem isn't with the theory -- the problem is that our stupid-ass government was racking up massive deficits during GOOD economic times, so when bad economic times came, the resources available to be able to stimulate the economy were not nearly so deep or broad as we'd like to have.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 11:59 AM
Stop drooling, it's not helping your keyboard any.

I seem to remember a massive stimulus package. Of course, everyone says it did nothing, but nobody can quantify what the situation woudl be if we had done nothing instead. Could've been much worse, as we all saw under Hoover.

Let's face it, most mainstream economists support exactly the type of things that Obama did. If he had done nothing and unemployment was at 10+ percent, then you'd be screeching the same song, but to a different beat. Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks. We get it.


You are correct, He does suck, as well as the D's and L's that held America and it's kids HOSTAGE for 2 + years. The D's & L's, as well as Obama acted like THUGS and TERRORIST during his presidency.

You see, Obama does suck, the plan by Obama sucked from the beginning. ( The thugs & terrorist is just a little reverse psychology that the left uses against the right ). But spending more when we needed to cut spending wasn't the right solution by Obama & the L's.

To be fair, it's going to take cutting loopholes, raising some taxes, cutting ( some severe cutting) to get things back under control. Will the R's & D's be selective on the tax increases, do away with the loopholes and come together in the cuts everywhere?

Can they? Doubt it, it will probably take a one sided government to get us out of the mess we are in, the D's had a chance, they blew it so far.

Amnorix
08-08-2011, 12:07 PM
You are correct, He does suck, as well as the D's and L's that held America and it's kids HOSTAGE for 2 + years. The D's & L's, as well as Obama acted like THUGS and TERRORIST during his presidency.

You see, Obama does suck, the plan by Obama sucked from the beginning. ( The thugs & terrorist is just a little reverse psychology that the left uses against the right ). But spending more when we needed to cut spending wasn't the right solution by Obama & the L's.

To be fair, it's going to take cutting loopholes, raising some taxes, cutting ( some severe cutting) to get things back under control. Will the R's & D's be selective on the tax increases, do away with the loopholes and come together in the cuts everywhere?

Can they? Doubt it, it will probably take a one sided government to get us out of the mess we are in, the D's had a chance, they blew it so far.


You get that Republicans controlled both Congress and the WH for six years within the last 10, right? Had the WH for 8 of hte last 10?

But it's 100% Obama's/Democrats' fault? That's your position?

Cuz it's retahded*.



*Boston spelling.

petegz28
08-08-2011, 12:11 PM
You get that Republicans controlled both Congress and the WH for six years within the last 10, right? Had the WH for 8 of hte last 10?

But it's 100% Obama's/Democrats' fault? That's your position?

Cuz it's retahded*.



*Boston spelling.

100%? No. The fact of the matter is though shit started going to hell in a hand basket when the Dems took over in 07. Coincidence? Probably

Chocolate Hog
08-08-2011, 12:11 PM
I heard an economist th eother day saying that Japan was pulling out of their recession in '97 and then decided to start fixing the deficit, and it made their economy implode.

I haven't studied the Japanese economy or why it has been so mediocre for very long, but perhaps you can share your treatise on the subject.

Basically the Japanese government intervened and never let the market correct itself. They spent billions into construction projects but never allowed production to match up with consumer preferences.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Basically the Japanese government intervened and never let the market correct itself. They spent billions into construction projects but never allowed production to match up with consumer preferences.

They never recovered from what I recall. It's called their Lost Decade or was it Decades? Oh well, not much different.

CrazyPhuD
08-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Increasing spending is, actually, one of the methods that a great majority of economists DO say is how you get out of a recession.

Actually probably the only sure fire way to get out of a recession(or really even a depression too), is to win a world war that destroys the industry of your opponents while keeping yours intact. It will lead to unparalleled economic growth(because, after all, there is no competition).

boogblaster
08-08-2011, 12:42 PM
its all just a paper-magic act ... if we called in all our out spending wed be in the black ... yes the baby boomers put a strain on our spending which some need cleaned up ... but lets also look at the high earners and corps they have hidden behind loops for too many years ....

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 01:13 PM
You get that Republicans controlled both Congress and the WH for six years within the last 10, right? Had the WH for 8 of hte last 10?

But it's 100% Obama's/Democrats' fault? That's your position?

Cuz it's retahded*.



*Boston spelling.

Wheeee, you really like having your head in the sand, don't you. Yes, the war was costly, but were we suppose to turn our heads and look the other way as the D's & L's want to do with the debt? Should we still spend Trillions more because it makes the D's and L's feel good, telling the people how much they have done for them?

Pete hit the nail before I could respond, the last few years of Bush was a house & Senate controlled by D's & L's and Bush had to follow suit like a buffoon.

Obo has done nothing spend more on top of what was needed to be paid down. Do you not understand this ? Why spend a lot more for things we can not afford when he should have been putting on the brakes when he got into office. He said some tough sacrifices had to be made, that means spending less, not spending more, which is easy when you have an open account as he did for 2 years.

Yes, he had a tough situation, a very hard uphill climb when he got into office, but let's face it, He blew it.

trndobrd
08-08-2011, 01:33 PM
Yep, really.

The problem isn't with the theory -- the problem is that our stupid-ass government was racking up massive deficits during GOOD economic times, so when bad economic times came, the resources available to be able to stimulate the economy were not nearly so deep or broad as we'd like to have.


So what percentage would 'great majority' be? Somewhere above 70%? Are you suggesting an 'economic consensus' of the Global Warming/Climate Change ilk? Just an assumption that 'everybody knows'?

To be sure, from 2008 on, there has been a increased interest in stimulus/pump priming/spending by policy makers and media types desperate to "do something", but among serious academics there is not, and has not been a 'great majority' that believe government spending is the preferred* method of getting out of a recession.

Even if one accepts the Keynsian model, the way it was executed in the 2009 stimulus was laughable. The purpose of government spending of the type Keynes proposed is to increase consumer spending thereby increasing demand for goods, leading to more investment and hiring.

Simply pushing money to state and local govenments so that they didn't have to make hard decisions, using the money to prop up companies operating on outdated business models, and funnelling money to a varied array of pet projects did little to create more consumer demand.

The effectiveness of portions of the stimulus that did direct money to consumers, such as extended unemployment benefits and expanded welfare payments were short circuited by increased consumer costs due to poorly considered energy, monetary and regulatory policies.



*Most will agree that massive government spending will effect the economy. Most doctors will agree that a shotgun will effectively remove a tick.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 03:01 PM
Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks, Obama Sucks.


It's good to se Amnorix come around....never thought that would happen.

FishingRod
08-08-2011, 03:07 PM
First off screw all of you idiots. Ok, Now that I have said that Amnorix and myself more often than not, view things from a different perspective but we can usually have a civil discussion and on occasion are even willing to admit some of the failings of “our” sides actions. In that spirit The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller Government. Much to my dismay their actions during the time between Clinton and Obama didn’t often collide with those principals. An unwillingness to Acknowledge the faults of one’s own party does nothing but allow them to continue their unacceptable level of service. So while I applaud the recent speeches and lip service given to shrinking the Government the vote last week was again business as usual. At some point the representatives on both sides of the isle are going to actually start doing what is best for the country and not what is best for their party. I do hope it is not already too late to right our financial ship but, have little confidence in our honorable representative to recognize the situation for what it is and not much more confidence in my fellow Americans to walk away from the anger and talking points long enough to hold are representative accountable for the massive cluster fuck they have helped create.

NaptownChief
08-08-2011, 03:19 PM
First off screw all of you idiots. Ok, Now that I have said that Amnorix and myself more often than not, view things from a different perspective but we can usually have a civil discussion and on occasion are even willing to admit some of the failings of “our” sides actions. In that spirit The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller Government. Much to my dismay their actions during the time between Clinton and Obama didn’t often collide with those principals. An unwillingness to Acknowledge the faults of one’s own party does nothing but allow them to continue their unacceptable level of service. So while I applaud the recent speeches and lip service given to shrinking the Government the vote last week was again business as usual. At some point the representatives on both sides of the isle are going to actually start doing what is best for the country and not what is best for their party. I do hope it is not already too late to right our financial ship but, have little confidence in our honorable representative to recognize the situation for what it is and not much more confidence in my fellow Americans to walk away from the anger and talking points long enough to hold are representative accountable for the massive cluster **** they have helped create.


The stupid spending started in GWB's final 2 years when the Dems took over congress. While that stupid level of spending was the Dems, I still heavily fault Bush because he had a veto pen and should have used it a lot. He foolishly thought he could be the "uniter" and should have known better.

I honestly think the US economy as we know it is screwed. The only chance of us having a decent place to live in 10 years is if the GOP sweep the trifecta in 2012 and get a filibuster proof majority in the Sen and the President has to care far more about the country long term than getting reelected. I honestly don't think Dems will ever be willing to make the drastic cuts that have to be made to give us a chance. Anytime real cuts get talked about they stand around and talk about it being "radical".

Even if we had a balanced budget right now(which would be a wonderful improvement) we still wouldn't be a good shape. Interest rates will go to 7 to 9% in the next 5 to 10 years and when they do we will be running huge deficits again because our debt expense will pretty much be double. For us to be in a good place long time we should be running a surplus right now while interest rates are near historic lows.

I just don't see this new political climate allowing this to happen. Any legitimate plan requires dramatic and "radical" cuts because the deficit and current spending is "radical". Dems won't be willing to make these type of cuts because they need to keep handing out money to keep getting votes. And most Republican's that could be put in the WH won't have the balls to endorse the type of cuts required because the media will brand them as racist, haters of the poor, haters of hispanics and everything else under the sun. And that especially goes for Mitt who wants to take a popular opinion poll before he speaks to anyone.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 03:24 PM
You get that Republicans controlled both Congress and the WH for six years within the last 10, right? Had the WH for 8 of hte last 10?

But it's 100% Obama's/Democrats' fault? That's your position?

Cuz it's retahded*.



*Boston spelling.

Those 6 years were, by far, the most prosperous years of the decade (e.g. remember the days when jobs were easy to find?). They also didn't have the complete control that democrats had at the beginning of Obama's reign of terror. The Republicans have NEVER had a filibuster-proof majority so they've always had to work with democrats to get anything done.

HonestChieffan
08-08-2011, 03:28 PM
Pretty clear after todays speech, the ship has no captain. No leadership. No effort. Shameful.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 03:38 PM
Those 6 years were, by far, the most prosperous years of the decade (e.g. remember the days when jobs were easy to find?). They also didn't have the complete control that democrats had at the beginning of Obama's reign of terror. The Republicans have NEVER had a filibuster-proof majority so they've always had to work with democrats to get anything done.

:LOL: LMAO ROFL Seriously pat, do you even understand the kind of economic system we even have? Prosperous?

It was just as artificially created as the Clinton economy only this time with zero percent easy cheap credit. Both were part of the 16 year Greenspan-engineered Keynesian stimulus that eventually led to 2008. Bush stimulated artificially his way out of the Clinton recession. Even now, Greenspan is saying we will never default because we can always print money. So now he aims for the Wiemar-Zimbabwe solution.

Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust until the final bust that can't be fixed with the same crap!

patteeu
08-08-2011, 03:38 PM
First off screw all of you idiots. Ok, Now that I have said that Amnorix and myself more often than not, view things from a different perspective but we can usually have a civil discussion and on occasion are even willing to admit some of the failings of “our” sides actions. In that spirit The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller Government. Much to my dismay their actions during the time between Clinton and Obama didn’t often collide with those principals. An unwillingness to Acknowledge the faults of one’s own party does nothing but allow them to continue their unacceptable level of service. So while I applaud the recent speeches and lip service given to shrinking the Government the vote last week was again business as usual. At some point the representatives on both sides of the isle are going to actually start doing what is best for the country and not what is best for their party. I do hope it is not already too late to right our financial ship but, have little confidence in our honorable representative to recognize the situation for what it is and not much more confidence in my fellow Americans to walk away from the anger and talking points long enough to hold are representative accountable for the massive cluster **** they have helped create.

I can't think of any conservatives around here who have had any trouble acknowledging that the Bush era Republicans performed poorly against the ideal of fiscal responsibility and small government. But in fairness to many of the Republicans of that era, they were operating in an electoral environment where the majority of people weren't on board with any of the difficult choices that needed to be made.

GWBush, himself, floated the idea of SS reform at the beginning of his second term but he was met with instant demagoguery from democrats and enough of a headwind from voters that he abandoned the effort. One huge difference between then and now is that now there is a large swell of voter support for the general idea of fiscal responsibility as evidenced by the popularity of the tea party and the wave election of 2010.* But even with this general support for fiscal restraint we find that democrats continue to try to enlarge government and ignore the most important pieces of the deficit problem (entitlements and health care cost containment).

To summarize:

1) Republicans were disappointingly bad about restraining spending when it would have been dramatically unpopular among voters.

2) democrats have always been and continue to be bad about restraining spending despite the fact that voters seem to have begun to warm up to the idea.

-----------------
* Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that voters will continue to support spending restraint when the details become more clear.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 03:43 PM
:LOL: LMAO ROFL Seriously pat, do you even understand the kind of economic system we even have? Prosperous?

It was just as artificially created as the Clinton economy only this time with zero percent easy cheap credit. Both were part of the 16 year Greenspan-engineered Keynesian stimulus that eventually led to 2008. Bush stimulated artificially his way out of the Clinton recession. Even now, Greenspan is saying we will never default because we can always print money. So now he aims for the Wiemar-Zimbabwe solution.

Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust until the final bust that can't be fixed with the same crap!

I'd love to hear your explanation for how the past two years under Obama have been more prosperous than the first six under Bush.

Chocolate Hog
08-08-2011, 03:47 PM
I'd love to hear your explanation for how the past two years under Obama have been more prosperous than the first six under Bush.

An economy we haven't seen since the Great Depression is considered prosperous? Certainly you can't be this fucking stupid.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 03:48 PM
An economy we haven't seen since the Great Depression is considered prosperous? Certainly you can't be this ****ing stupid.

Loving govt stimulus if your man is doing it. Plus Bush emphasized the "ownership" society under which mortgages went to those who could not afford them at too low an interest rate. Then there was the hi cost of gasoline due to upsetting oil markets. I wonder how much prices increased over all during that stimulus as well.

Calcountry
08-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Voters #1 concern is jobs. Second is Jobs. Third is ****ING JOBS, YO!

And you don't get out of a recession by strangling the economy. The fact is that Obama and this Congress (why does no one on here talk about Congress's current 14% approval rating?) are between a rock (economy) and a hard place (deficit/debt).

There are no easy answers to the situation.Time to eat your peas.

Calcountry
08-08-2011, 03:56 PM
:LOL: LMAO ROFL Seriously pat, do you even understand the kind of economic system we even have? Prosperous?

It was just as artificially created as the Clinton economy only this time with zero percent easy cheap credit. Both were part of the 16 year Greenspan-engineered Keynesian stimulus that eventually led to 2008. Bush stimulated artificially his way out of the Clinton recession. Even now, Greenspan is saying we will never default because we can always print money. So now he aims for the Wiemar-Zimbabwe solution.

Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust, Boom-Bust until the final bust that can't be fixed with the same crap!Then they repudiate, point their guns and tell the world to sue us.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 03:56 PM
Time to eat your peas.

So long as they're green and not black eyed ones! :p :harumph:

patteeu
08-08-2011, 04:45 PM
An economy we haven't seen since the Great Depression is considered prosperous? Certainly you can't be this ****ing stupid.

You don't seem to understand what we're talking about.

Chocolate Hog
08-08-2011, 04:48 PM
You don't seem to understand what we're talking about.

No I do and I see what you're trying to do. The conversation is irrelevant though. Sometimes you gotta call a cigar a cigar.

CrazyPhuD
08-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Yep, really.

The problem isn't with the theory -- the problem is that our stupid-ass government was racking up massive deficits during GOOD economic times, so when bad economic times came, the resources available to be able to stimulate the economy were not nearly so deep or broad as we'd like to have.

So this what's somewhat funny. The reason that social security exists is because our people cannot save for the future. While I agree the government should effectively 'save' during times of surplus so that it has something to spend during times of hardship. Unfortunately if our people cannot do it, then how can we expect our government too. We live in a society that thinks that we should be able to eat all of our pie today and when tomorrow comes we think that because you were smart enough to save half of your pie for the lean days that you should have to share that pie with those who already ate all of theirs...

CrazyPhuD
08-08-2011, 05:24 PM
Winter is coming!

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wM1DgihKHVI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
08-08-2011, 05:24 PM
No I do and I see what you're trying to do. The conversation is irrelevant though. Sometimes you gotta call a cigar a cigar.

I'm pretty sure you don't since you're talking about an economy (presumably a bad one) like no other since the great depression and I'm talking about the economy of the first six years of the decade. That's two very different things.

Chocolate Hog
08-08-2011, 05:42 PM
I'm pretty sure you don't since you're talking about an economy (presumably a bad one) like no other since the great depression and I'm talking about the economy of the first six years of the decade. That's two very different things.

Half of those six years were nothing more than a bubble.


No surprise you talk out of your ass to defend a failed policy once again.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 05:59 PM
Half of those six years were nothing more than a bubble.
EXACTLY! :thumb:


No surprise you talk out of your ass to defend a failed policy once again.
A policy that resulted in the bust of 2008.

Calcountry
08-08-2011, 06:15 PM
EXACTLY! :thumb:



A policy that resulted in the bust of 2008.Clinton was able to get head, and nobody cared because we were in the dot com bubble.

Do you think he would have got head now?

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 06:19 PM
Clinton was able to get head, and nobody cared because we were in the dot com bubble.

Do you think he would have got head now?

I don't care if he would. Anyhow, I already mentioned his economy was also an artificially stimulated one as well resulting in his own bubble, the dotcom, which Bush had to stimulate us out of. Clinton had cheap imports to hold prices down though disguising the inflation. We all know that was due to mercantile fake-free-trade agreements that were fast-tracked.

Calcountry
08-08-2011, 06:28 PM
I don't care if he would. Anyhow, I already mentioned his economy was also an artificially stimulated one as well resulting in his own bubble, the dotcom, which Bush had to stimulate us out of. Clinton had cheap imports to hold prices down though disguising the inflation. We all know that was due to mercantile fake-free-trade agreements that were fast-tracked.But, Clinton was Charlie Sheen's favorite president.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 06:29 PM
But, Clinton was Charlie Sheen's favorite president.

That's what I call "winning."

Calcountry
08-08-2011, 06:31 PM
That's what I call "winning."Oh yeah, he had hookers in each arm, carrying them when he had that "skiing accident" and twisted his ankle.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Half of those six years were nothing more than a bubble.


No surprise you talk out of your ass to defend a failed policy once again.

Bubble or no bubble, those years were more prosperous than the last two Bush years or either of the Obama years in just about any way you can measure it. They were the most prosperous years of the decade, just as I said.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Half of those six years were nothing more than a bubble.


No surprise you talk out of your ass to defend a failed policy once again.

EXACTLY! :thumb:



A policy that resulted in the bust of 2008.

We weren't talking about a policy.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 07:15 PM
Uh huh...yeah right! I don't care what you want to call it anyway. He resorted to a Keynesian stimulus. LMAO

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Bubble ? When has any political party not skewed the #'s to push their agenda?

patteeu
08-08-2011, 08:46 PM
Bubble ? When has any political party not skewed the #'s to push their agenda?

Ron Paul has never done it... mainly because he's never been in a position of power. It's incredibly easy for his followers to throw darts from the sidelines.

Saul Good
08-08-2011, 08:55 PM
Half of those six years were nothing more than a bubble.


No surprise you talk out of your ass to defend a failed policy once again.

When is the last time the economy was good that wasn't a "bubble"?

petegz28
08-08-2011, 09:04 PM
When is the last time the economy was good that wasn't a "bubble"?

Exactly...just in my lifetime we had the real estate bubble under Reagan, the .Com bubble under Clinton and another real estate bubble under Bush Jr.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 09:07 PM
Ron Paul has never done it... mainly because he's never been in a position of power. It's incredibly easy for his followers to throw darts from the sidelines.

I said party, not politician.

Chocolate Hog
08-09-2011, 12:48 AM
Ron Paul has never done it... mainly because he's never been in a position of power. It's incredibly easy for his followers to throw darts from the sidelines.

You have no grasp of economics it's pretty clear from your dumbass statements made in this thread. While some offer solutions you ramble about some nonsense "we were prosperous at beginning of the century" Like it has any relevance.
Now you have to revert back to political memes to get your lame ass point across. We get it you're a right wing windbag.

Chocolate Hog
08-09-2011, 12:49 AM
Bubble ? When has any political party not skewed the #'s to push their agenda?

Like I mentioned in the other thread this is the exactly what Japan did in the late 80's.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2011, 07:17 AM
Bubble ? When has any political party not skewed the #'s to push their agenda?

This isn't about skewing numbers. It's about how we have the same Keynesian economy no matter who is in office. Ya' know stimulus spending which creates a bubble but is always followed by a bust? That phenomena.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2011, 07:30 AM
When is the last time the economy was good that wasn't a "bubble"?

I think you should be asking what is a "bubble?" Do folks like patteeu and yourself have any curiosity about such things?
Or are issues only parsed through partisan loyalty?

A bubble is not about true economic growth from the market sector alone. We're talking about Keynesian stimulus that leads players in the market to think they have more money than they really have or richer than they are which leads to malinvestments during the stimulated phase which eventually go bust. These malinvestments should be liquidated in the bust phase, but instead a new stimulus begins.

Also, govt gets more money which it spends on certain areas leading to cones—hot overstimulated areas of demand which will also go bust.

This is what happens when the Federal Reserve prints money—money that is not from increased production. It cheapens the dollar over time, impoverishes the people and puts govt into debt. You guys think Obama is bad, but it's just the same Keynesianism of previous presidents but on steroids because he spends so much and because it's not working this time. It doesn't always work and it won't here because there is for one reason too much housing inventory on the market from the Bush bubble and for two, too much debt picked up by people from the 0% interest phase earlier. I am not saying Democrats wanting housing socialism are blameless either. However, Bush did push being an "ownership" society too.

Bush spent on war. Obama spends on everything.

This is what the Austrian Economic school calls the business cycle and it is caused by the central bank hand and hand with govt spending. It was caused by a central bank in the 19th century as well. The same thing happened after Hamilton got his first bank of the US.

The flaw in your reasoning Saul, is that you equate a good economy with bubbles. There is such a thing as a normal sustained growth with stable money and where prices, as an economy develops, actually tend to go lower. It really raises the true standard of living of the regular folks contrary to what the Marxist party line promotes.

For patteeu, whining that Paul has never done it. Well, since when does one man "do" it in a free market economy as opposed to allowing the players to do it?
Is pat for a command economy now?

patteeu
08-09-2011, 10:34 AM
I think you should be asking what is a "bubble?" Do folks like patteeu and yourself have any curiosity about such things?

I'm not curious about bubbles because I already understand them. I am curious about what years during the last decade you think were more prosperous than the first six?

There is such a thing as a normal sustained growth with stable money and where prices, as an economy develops, actually tend to go lower.

There is? Where?

For patteeu, whining that Paul has never done it. Well, since when does one man "do" it in a free market economy as opposed to allowing the players to do it?
Is pat for a command economy now?

Normally, these market manipulations and number-fudging exercises are performed by (or at least on behalf of) one man, the POTUS, in order to make the economy look as good as possible going into an election by masking bad news or by pushing it out beyond the election. Ron Paul is pure as a virgin on this for obvious reasons.