PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Does not bode well for our future


HonestChieffan
01-31-2012, 08:42 AM
(The Hill) — The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.
This doesn't sound good at all

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated

CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.

These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO’s last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama’s reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing.

If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term.

The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 08:47 AM
The Mayans anticipated Barack Obama.

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 08:59 AM
The Mayans anticipated Barack Obama.

Maybe they're the ones who have his birth certificate.

Dayze
01-31-2012, 09:13 AM
(The Hill) — The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.
This doesn't sound good at all

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated

CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.

These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO’s last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama’s reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing.

If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term.

The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

LMAO
awesome.

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 09:18 AM
LMAO
awesome.

It's Bush's fault.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 09:30 AM
There is only one candidate willing to make any real cuts right now - $1 Trillion in his first year.


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4b81537100000000007c0b62/ron-paul.jpg

Amnorix
01-31-2012, 09:36 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 09:41 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

Yepper.

vailpass
01-31-2012, 09:41 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

X2

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 09:43 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

Well, that and the incredible flock of kooks that he seems to draw to himself...There has to be something wrong with a candidate who seems to have such a strange, zombie-like following.

blaise
01-31-2012, 09:56 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

Yeah, it's an automatic disqualifier.

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 10:03 AM
How does he plan on cutting 1 Trillion in the first year? I'm all ears, by the way, I just wonder what he's planning on cutting...

HonestChieffan
01-31-2012, 10:16 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

So true.

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 10:18 AM
I've been saying it all along, we'll need to cut spending and raise taxes. It's crazy where we're going. Politicians more interested in their re-elections than the good of the country.

Drives me crazy.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2012, 10:49 AM
How does he plan on cutting 1 Trillion in the first year? I'm all ears, by the way, I just wonder what he's planning on cutting...

It's on the net. Look up his platform.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2012, 10:50 AM
I've been saying it all along, we'll need to cut spending and raise taxes. It's crazy where we're going. Politicians more interested in their re-elections than the good of the country.

Drives me crazy.

Raising taxes will not catch us up. Taxing the rich won't do it either. The only way to go is spending cuts.

jiveturkey
01-31-2012, 10:51 AM
I've been saying it all along, we'll need to cut spending and raise taxes. It's crazy where we're going. Politicians more interested in their re-elections than the good of the country.

Drives me crazy.
I'm down with that. Major cuts with minor tax increases.

I don't believe that any tax increases are possible with the current congress though.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 10:55 AM
For a truthful look at it, recognize that of course the payroll tax extension was going to alter projections. And of course we knew.a post-stimulus era was forced to see budget deficits at record high levels. The entire point of it was to bode well for our future. The trend on deficit in Obama's term is going down, if you demand that, but there's no consensus that austerity is immediately necessary.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:02 AM
The entire point of it was to bode well for our future. The trend on deficit in Obama's term is going down, if you demand that, but there's no consensus that austerity is immediately necessary.yep,
The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011 and now $1.08 trillion in 2012. And in 135 years, the deficit will finally be $0 and we can have a balanced budget! YEA!!!! I wonder what accumulated debt will be around $80 trillion. Double Yea!!! f'n ridiculous, pompous money grubbing politicians...

HonestChieffan
01-31-2012, 11:02 AM
For a truthful look at it, recognize that of course the payroll tax extension was going to alter projections. And of course we knew.a post-stimulus era was forced to see budget deficits at record high levels. The entire point of it was to bode well for our future. The trend on deficit in Obama's term is going down, if you demand that, but there's no consensus that austerity is immediately necessary.

English?

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:08 AM
For a truthful look at it, recognize that of course the payroll tax extension was going to alter projections. And of course we knew.a post-stimulus era was forced to see budget deficits at record high levels. The entire point of it was to bode well for our future. The trend on deficit in Obama's term is going down, if you demand that, but there's no consensus that austerity is immediately necessary.

IYO, was Obama's massive stimulus wisely spent? Did it maximize economic growth? Did it even target economic growth or was it more like a life raft for government workers and other democrat constituencies?

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:08 AM
yep,
The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011 and now $1.08 trillion in 2012. And in 135 years, the deficit will finally be $0 and we can have a balanced budget! YEA!!!! I wonder what accumulated debt will be around $80 trillion. Double Yea!!! f'n ridiculous, pompous money grubbing politicians...

It's not the fault of politicians. This is an economic debate that is fought in policy chambers, think tanks, and academic halls, and is fueled by economic models, statistics, and 20th century history.

mnchiefsguy
01-31-2012, 11:10 AM
There is only one candidate willing to make any real cuts right now - $1 Trillion in his first year.


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4b81537100000000007c0b62/ron-paul.jpg

Even if he was elected, how is Paul going to get Congress to go along with a trillion in cuts?

mnchiefsguy
01-31-2012, 11:11 AM
It's not the fault of politicians. This is an economic debate that is fought in policy chambers, think tanks, and academic halls, and is fueled by economic models, statistics, and 20th century history.

It is the fault of the politicians..they spent money they did not have. The stimulus was a massive failure, and the politicians that passed, and the Presidents (both of them) who advocated this along with the bailouts bear the responsibility of it .

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:12 AM
IYO, was Obama's massive stimulus wisely spent? Did it maximize economic growth? Did it even target economic growth or was it more like a life raft for government workers and other democrat constituencies?

I think it largely was a life raft, like the bailouts. I don't think it was perfect, but that's an impossible demand. I think we are better off with it than without. I'm glad it happened.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:14 AM
It is the fault of the politicians..they spent money they did not have. The stimulus was a massive failure, and the politicians that passed, and the Presidents (both of them) who advocated this along with the bailouts bear the responsibility of it .

It is okay to spend money that we don't have, especially when it's a bet on America's future. Ultimately, the politicians will bear the brunt of responsibility, the buck stops there so to speak, but their hands were essentially tied.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:15 AM
It's not the fault of politicians. This is an economic debate that is fought in policy chambers, think tanks, and academic halls, and is fueled by economic models, statistics, and 20th century history.
Bullshit! This is all about giving out taxpayer and borrowed money, so they can continue to receive campaign donations and stay in office regardless of what the long-term effects are on our economy, society and our children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren standard of living. If you think otherwise you really have been brainwashed in school...

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:16 AM
Bullshit! This is all about giving out taxpayer and borrowed money, so they can continue to receive campaign donations and stay in office regardless of what the long-term effects are on our economy, society and our children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren standard of living. If you think otherwise you really have been brainwashed in school...

I respectfully disagree.

FD
01-31-2012, 11:18 AM
Probably not a popular position around here, but with massive unemployment and negative real interest rates, this year's deficit should be even higher.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:18 AM
I respectfully disagree.well you certainly have more faith in our elected leaders than I have. I really only see their relections as their motivation. Otherwise, they would have pounced on Simpson-Bowles

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:24 AM
well you certainly have more faith in our elected leaders than I have. I really only see their relections as their motivation. Otherwise, they would have pounced on Simpson-Bowles

My understanding is that I'm a rarity in thinking that the halls of Congress are not run by drooling imbeciles too incompetent to run a hot dog stand.

Brainiac
01-31-2012, 11:26 AM
It's on the net. Look up his platform.
I think you can probably sum up what he wants to cut in a few sentences.

Since you chose not to, I'll take a shot at how Ron Paul plans to cut the deficit by $1 Trillion:

- Eliminate five federal departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education (sounds OK to me)
- Reduce the federal work force by 10% (sounds OK to me)
- Eliminate all US foreign aid (ALL? There may be unintended consequences to doing that.)
- Allow younger citizens to drop out of Social Security (sounds like this will kill Social Security. Kind of harsh for the old people.)
- Kill Medicare (Consistent with his philosophy, but also kind of harsh for the old people.)
- Gut the military and establish a foreign policy based upon peace through weakness and appeasement (That's the deal-breaker for most people).

How did I do?

headsnap
01-31-2012, 11:27 AM
My understanding is that I'm a rarity in thinking that the halls of Congress are not run by drooling imbeciles too incompetent to run a hot dog stand.

individually no but collectively yes...

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:28 AM
My understanding is that I'm a rarity in thinking that the halls of Congress are not run by drooling imbeciles too incompetent to run a hot dog stand.I agree with you here. They are not imbeciles but are cool, calculating people hell bent on ensuring that their favored, money-bag lobbyists get what they want to garner enough money for their reelection campaigns as well as look favaorable to enough constituencies to garner the votes they need. As for incompetent, yes - for the job they were elected to perform

Jawshco
01-31-2012, 11:31 AM
It's on the net. Look up his platform.

BEP- you seem to be the most knowledgeble Ron Paul supporter on the board... I have a question about Paul's platform of moving the value of the dollar to a "Gold Standard." If you base your currency on any natural resource, doesn't that put that currency at a serious risk if you're the only country who is enforcing fair & ethical labor practices in the global market? Wouldn't the "Gold Standard" favor countries that were willing to sacrifice the rights and ethics of it's own people in order to get these resources? I'm no economist, but that sounds risky to me. If it's such a great idea- there has to be a reason why so many American economists don't support it.

BTW- I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, and I'm still leaning towards voting for him (as I find Newt, Santorum to be relulsive as candidates- & Romney isn't much an improvement over Obama).

I was just hoping to get your take on this topic. Thanks!

mnchiefsguy
01-31-2012, 11:32 AM
I agree with you here. They are not imbeciles but are cool, calculating people hell bent on ensuring that their favored, money-bag lobbyists get what they want to garner enough money for their reelection campaigns as well as look favaorable to enough constituencies to garner the votes they need. As for incompetent, yes - for the job they were elected to perform


Politicians are not imbeciles, but today's politicians serve themselves and worship at the alter of re-election rather than attempt to govern for the greater good. It is true on both sides of the isle. Not sure what the answer is, I have been against term limits in general in the past, but would be open to anything at this point. The quality of public service at the congressional level is at an all time low, in my opinion.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:38 AM
Politicians are not imbeciles, but today's politicians serve themselves and worship at the alter of re-election rather than attempt to govern for the greater good. It is true on both sides of the isle. Not sure what the answer is, I have been against term limits in general in the past, but would be open to anything at this point. The quality of public service at the congressional level is at an all time low, in my opinion.

Do you think that's primarily the fault of business and industries, or do you think that's some moral failure our country is going through?

I think the bailouts, especially, go to show that politicians are willing to do things that angers the geneal public because they do feel they have a duty to represent responsibly the people, even when unpopular.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:41 AM
I think the bailouts, especially, go to show that politicians are willing to do things that angers the geneal public because they do feel they have a duty to represent their contributors, even when unpopular.
fyp

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:44 AM
fyp

I remember well the outrage, the phone call campaigns, the disbelief of the majority of people, when those bailouts were coming down. It would have been easy to ride with that general resentment.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:45 AM
I think it largely was a life raft, like the bailouts. I don't think it was perfect, but that's an impossible demand. I think we are better off with it than without. I'm glad it happened.

I think it was largely a life raft too, but I'm not sure it's exactly like the bailouts. The bailouts of the banking industry and the automotive industry are arguably bailouts of the massive, inter-dependent infrastructure of our financial system and our manufacturing sector (more convincingly with TARP than with the auto bailouts, IMO). The life raft aspect of the stimulus benefitted individuals more than infrastructure (extended unemployment benefits, preservation of state government workers jobs, etc).

But more importantly, "better off with it than without" isn't the right measure. If a point guard on a basketball team brings the ball up the court 20 times and on each of those possessions he chucks up an ill advised 3-point shot from half-court without bothering to run the offense and ends up making 3 out of 20 of those shots, he'll end up scoring 9 points. 9 points is better than 0 points, but the real question is whether those possessions could have been more effective if he had run the offense and tried to help his team find better shots. You'd like to see the team get something more like 20 or 30 points on those possessions and assuming that an alternate approach could have accomplished that, the point guard's play was actually hurting the team.

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 11:47 AM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

Foreign policy has to take a back seat to the deficit, or it wont matter what our foreign policy is.

mnchiefsguy
01-31-2012, 11:48 AM
Do you think that's primarily the fault of business and industries, or do you think that's some moral failure our country is going through?

I think the bailouts, especially, go to show that politicians are willing to do things that angers the geneal public because they do feel they have a duty to represent responsibly the people, even when unpopular.

The bailouts show how beholden Congress is to the banking industry, nothing more. I think you are the only person I recall saying that Congress was courageous and doing the right thing with the bailouts.

I do not think you can fault business or industry, they are within the law. The problem is that corporations are considered people now, rather than businesses, and money is considered free speech. While these are highly debatable issues, it does seem that allowing corporations to contribute unlimited funds to campaigns has hurt the political process in this country much more than it has helped.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:48 AM
I remember well the outrage, the phone call campaigns, the disbelief of the majority of people, when those bailouts were coming down. It would have been easy to ride with that general resentment.But see, that's where we stack up against the lobbyist money. We don't, they win - we lose. It was not for the greater good as they keep trying to bang into our heads. It was in their greater good interest. Really, the politicians were not doing what was best for us and thier country, they were doing what was best for their election coffers.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:49 AM
BTW, Obama was planning on nearly $1 trillion of new spending beyond anything that Bush had spent BEFORE the economic crisis occurred. Couple that with the fact that he didn't really save any money by ending the wars as he claimed he would and you have historical deficits even without the economic crisis.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:51 AM
I have hard time thinking that an alternative approach could have gotten us better results, though, unless it was a greater stimulus. I think the opposing approach was doing very little, which I compare to not having a point guard. Instead, the ball just sits in backcourt for a delay that causes a turnover.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:51 AM
My understanding is that I'm a rarity in thinking that the halls of Congress are not run by drooling imbeciles too incompetent to run a hot dog stand.

It's not drooling imbeciles that you're giving them credit for not being. It's conniving, self-interested charlatans.

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 11:51 AM
I remember well the outrage, the phone call campaigns, the disbelief of the majority of people, when those bailouts were coming down. It would have been easy to ride with that general resentment.

I believe that those who voted for this at the time were taking a calculated risk that:
a) it would actually work and they would be vindicated
or
b) that even if it blew up in their faces, they view the general public as a bunch of drooling idiotic MTV Jersey Shore fans who would forget the transgression in time for them not to feel the pain next election.

I do NOT think that the majority thought they were "making the tough call and doing the right thing, consequences be damned".

I've been at this American Citizen thing for 41+ years. I've been burned too many times to trust that these guys are really in this for the right reasons. They probably start out that way, but by the time Washington gets through with them, they are marching lockstep, brandy and cigars together in the back room...they are in it together.

I never used to believe in term limits. I am now an advocate for them. The modern politician is not the citizen servant they were initially supposed to be. Now they are career politicians. This is NOT a recipe for success for the nation.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:53 AM
But see, that's where we stack up against the lobbyist money. We don't, they win - we lose. It was not for the greater good as they keep trying to bang into our heads. It was in their greater good interest. Really, the politicians were not doing what was best for us and thier country, they were doing what was best for their election coffers.

There were certainly threats that voting for the bailout would end their re-election hopes.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:54 AM
I have hard time thinking that an alternative approach could have gotten us better results, though, unless it was a greater stimulus. I think the opposing approach was doing very little, which I compare to not having a point guard. Instead, the ball just sits in backcourt for a delay that causes a turnover.

You've already agreed that the stimulus was more life raft than actual economic stimulus so it ought to be an easy mental exercise to imagine that the money could have been better spent even if you don't necessarily know how it should have been better spent.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:55 AM
There were certainly threats that voting for the bailout would end their re-election hopes.coupled with the stimulus and a lot of them were voted out

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:56 AM
You've already agreed that the stimulus was more life raft than actual economic stimulus so it ought to be an easy mental exercise to imagine that the money could have been better spent even if you don't necessarily know how it should have been better spent.

Like I said, it wasn't perfect, but I think it was good, overall.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 11:57 AM
coupled with the stimulus and a lot of them were voted out

Which would go to show that big bank didn't save them.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 11:58 AM
Foreign policy has to take a back seat to the deficit, or it wont matter what our foreign policy is.

That can't be true. If you're being invaded, but to resist requires massive deficit spending, do you just surrender? Of course not.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 12:01 PM
Like I said, it wasn't perfect, but I think it was good, overall.

I don't know how you can have any faith in that answer. The recovery promises of the stimulus advocates have failed to even come close to materializing. How long ago was "recovery summer"? We're getting more summer during this winter than we got recovery during that summer.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 12:03 PM
I don't know how you can have any faith in that answer. The recovery promises of the stimulus advocates have failed to even come close to materializing. How long ago was "recovery summer"? We're getting more summer during this winter than we got recovery during that summer.

Let's assume that had we not had the stimulus, we would have a bigger drop, and longer recovery. That's a perfectly plausible assumption. Many have said that but for stimulus, we have great depression II.

Jawshco
01-31-2012, 12:04 PM
I think you can probably sum up what he wants to cut in a few sentences.

Since you chose not to, I'll take a shot at how Ron Paul plans to cut the deficit by $1 Trillion:

- Eliminate five federal departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education (sounds OK to me)
- Reduce the federal work force by 10% (sounds OK to me)
- Eliminate all US foreign aid (ALL? There may be unintended consequences to doing that.)
- Allow younger citizens to drop out of Social Security (sounds like this will kill Social Security. Kind of harsh for the old people.)
- Kill Medicare (Consistent with his philosophy, but also kind of harsh for the old people.)
- Gut the military and establish a foreign policy based upon peace through weakness and appeasement (That's the deal-breaker for most people).

How did I do?

I interprete Paul's stance on foreign aid to be aimed at less intervention from the US. Our aid comes at a price, and countries like Isreal might be happier without the aid if that also meant that we weren't forcing our will onto them. When I studied Foriegn aid in college, one of the first things we were taught was how most of it doesn't reach the people who need it most. It mostly gets taken by the rich and corrupt of that nation who decide how to use it.

I also see his Foriegn policy as being centered around the defense of our nation as opposed to policing the world and interfering with the way other countries do their business. Instead we bring our troops home and defend our borders. I've not heard him saying that he supports "gutting" our military. I definitely wouldn't support that.

The main FP point I don't like from Paul is his stance on Iran. They are a serious threat. They have leaders stating that they will try to kill us and Isreal any chance they get. Some of them even believe that martyring themselves to destroy the US will bring about the coming of their religious Messiah. Iran is not the same as Russia and this won't be another cold war, IMO.

As far as his Social Security & Medicare plan- I heard him adress that a couple times in the debates by saying there would have to be a transition period and you couldn't cut it off immediately for those that depend on it. I actually find Paul to be pretty honest and realistic about his expectations of changing existing programs. When asked during the debate if Obamacare could be immediately and completely repealed- Paul was the only one honest enough to say "no," that it would take time. I think the rest of candidates know this too, but Paul was the one willing to be honest rather than try to get the big applause from the crowd.

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 12:05 PM
That can't be true. If you're being invaded, but to resist requires massive deficit spending, do you just surrender? Of course not.

I mean, if we dont get our debt under control, it wont matter what we do with our foreign policy. China will be telling us what our foreign policy is.

If we are invaded, is a completely different story.

mnchiefsguy
01-31-2012, 12:06 PM
I believe that those who voted for this at the time were taking a calculated risk that:
a) it would actually work and they would be vindicated
or
b) that even if it blew up in their faces, they view the general public as a bunch of drooling idiotic MTV Jersey Shore fans who would forget the transgression in time for them not to feel the pain next election.

I do NOT think that the majority thought they were "making the tough call and doing the right thing, consequences be damned".

I've been at this American Citizen thing for 41+ years. I've been burned too many times to trust that these guys are really in this for the right reasons. They probably start out that way, but by the time Washington gets through with them, they are marching lockstep, brandy and cigars together in the back room...they are in it together.

I never used to believe in term limits. I am now an advocate for them. The modern politician is not the citizen servant they were initially supposed to be. Now they are career politicians. This is NOT a recipe for success for the nation.

I have never been a believer in term limits either, but if a vote would held for them today, I would vote for the implementation of term limits.

go bowe
01-31-2012, 12:10 PM
I've been saying it all along, we'll need to cut spending and raise taxes. It's crazy where we're going. Politicians more interested in their re-elections than the good of the country.

Drives me crazy.

yeah, let's really soak them rich folk... :p

patteeu
01-31-2012, 12:11 PM
Let's assume that had we not had the stimulus, we would have a bigger drop, and longer recovery. That's a perfectly plausible assumption. Many have said that but for stimulus, we have great depression II.

Let's assume that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus and no stimulus aren't the only two options.

If a surgeon prevents a gunshot wound patient from bleeding to death but because he didn't bother to scrub he causes a major infection that ultimately destroys a kidney and because he wasn't careful with his incisions he accidentally severs a major nerve leaving the patient with some degree of paralysis, we don't high five the surgeon for saving the guy's life.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 12:14 PM
I mean, if we dont get our debt under control, it wont matter what we do with our foreign policy. China will be telling us what our foreign policy is.

If we are invaded, is a completely different story.

Being invaded is a matter of degree. We went into historical debt to fight WWII and it was the right decision despite the fact that we were never invaded by any significant force. Our debt problems are not caused by our foreign policy. Our debt problems are caused by our gluttony for domestic spending and our inability or unwillingness to deal with skyrocketing health care costs.

Amnorix
01-31-2012, 12:15 PM
Well, that and the incredible flock of kooks that he seems to draw to himself...There has to be something wrong with a candidate who seems to have such a strange, zombie-like following.


True that. Anything I think I might need to look at RP seriously, the sheer whackiness of his devoted legion of followers reminds me that, no, actually, I probably don't. God forbid I should agree with some of that crowd...

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 12:15 PM
Let's assume that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus and no stimulus aren't the only two options.

If a surgeon prevents a gunshot wound patient from bleeding to death but because he didn't bother to scrub he causes a major infection that ultimately destroys a kidney and because he wasn't careful with his incisions he accidentally severs a major nerve leaving the patient with some degree of paralysis, we don't high five the surgeon for saving the guy's life.

I dont think anyone is applauding Mr. Obama for the stimulus but most can see he had to do something.
Its better to throw a drowning person a "Life Raft" than an anchor, right. He didnt place them on the beach safe and sound but he did keep them from dying.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 12:17 PM
I dont think anyone is applauding Mr. Obama for the stimulus but most can see he had to do something.
Its better to throw a drowning person a "Life Raft" than an anchor, right. He didnt place them on the beach safe and sound but he did keep them from dying.

Again, the choice isn't between doing nothing and doing something terribly ineffective.

If the captain of the Titanic orders his radio man to forget calling out a distress call and instead start throwing out life rafts, everyone dies.

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 12:19 PM
Being invaded is a matter of degree. We went into historical debt to fight WWII and it was the right decision despite the fact that we were never invaded by any significant force. Our debt problems are not caused by our foreign policy. Our debt problems are caused by our gluttony for domestic spending and our inability or unwillingness to deal with skyrocketing health care costs.

I dont disagree with any of that.
My comment was in response to the person that said if it werent for Ron Pauls stance on foreign policy he would vote for him because of his views on the economy and deficit.
I was trying to say, foreign policy should be a distant second. I believe we need to fix America first and then look at our foreign policy. Before its to late.

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 12:23 PM
Again, the choice isn't between doing nothing and doing something terribly ineffective.

If the captain of the Titanic orders his radio man to forget calling out a distress call and instead start throwing out life rafts, everyone dies.

OK, but we are over three years into it and I still havent heard anyone say what else could have been done, and why it would have been better.
Inaction is worse. Wouldnt you agree? I am not a proponent for the stimulus but I see he was trying.

Amnorix
01-31-2012, 12:53 PM
Being invaded is a matter of degree. We went into historical debt to fight WWII and it was the right decision despite the fact that we were never invaded by any significant force. Our debt problems are not caused by our foreign policy. Our debt problems are caused by our gluttony for domestic spending and our inability or unwillingness to deal with skyrocketing health care costs.


Taxes are part of the equation also. The recession INHERITED by Obama has dramatically decreased tax revenues, and tax income is quite low as a percentage of GDP by historic averages, etc.

But of course Republicans always think its an exclusively spending-side issue.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 01:02 PM
I dont disagree with any of that.
My comment was in response to the person that said if it werent for Ron Pauls stance on foreign policy he would vote for him because of his views on the economy and deficit.
I was trying to say, foreign policy should be a distant second. I believe we need to fix America first and then look at our foreign policy. Before its to late.

Fair enough, but Amnorix is more than willing to cut our defense budget for the sake of getting the deficit under control. Too willing, in my view. But the difference between Amnorix's position and that of Ron Paul is pretty stark.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 01:04 PM
Taxes are part of the equation also. The recession INHERITED by Obama has dramatically decreased tax revenues, and tax income is quite low as a percentage of GDP by historic averages, etc.

But of course Republicans always think its an exclusively spending-side issue.

Tax revenues are certainly a part of it. That's why economic growth is so important. A stimulus that focused on life rafts for democrat constituents instead of economic growth is a stimulus destined to fail. That's my point.

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 01:09 PM
I am curious patteeu, do you agree that we can cut military spending and not defense spending? That is Mr. Pauls opinion as I understand it. Makes a great deal of sense to me.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 01:24 PM
Let's assume that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus and no stimulus aren't the only two options.

If a surgeon prevents a gunshot wound patient from bleeding to death but because he didn't bother to scrub he causes a major infection that ultimately destroys a kidney and because he wasn't careful with his incisions he accidentally severs a major nerve leaving the patient with some degree of paralysis, we don't high five the surgeon for saving the guy's life.

What was the other proposal? Yes, I would much rather have 2 year temporary paralysis than be dead, or have a 8 year temporary paralysis. I would high five the doctor that saved my life. Your analogy includes an element of negligence (not scrubbing), and that's provable. Whether the administration was acting negligently in some form by prescribing the stimulus is unknown to me, and the burden is on you to show it.

KC native
01-31-2012, 01:26 PM
Being invaded is a matter of degree. We went into historical debt to fight WWII and it was the right decision despite the fact that we were never invaded by any significant force. Our debt problems are not caused by our foreign policy. Our debt problems are caused by our gluttony for domestic spending and our inability or unwillingness to deal with skyrocketing health care costs.

You are almost as batshit crazy as bep. You're just more eloquent.

Explain to me how the trillions we've spent in Iraq and afghanistan have had nothing to do with ou debt problems.

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 01:36 PM
You are almost as batshit crazy as bep. You're just more eloquent.

Explain to me how the trillions we've spent in Iraq and afghanistan have had nothing to do with ou debt problems.

According to the Congressional Research Service's report to Congress in March of 2011 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan had totaled to that point $1.2 trillion.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Looks like that's about $120 billion a year.

Obama spends more than that flying him and Michelle around on Hawaiian vacations...

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 01:38 PM
You are almost as batshit crazy as bep. You're just more eloquent.

Explain to me how the trillions we've spent in Iraq and afghanistan have had nothing to do with ou debt problems.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not cost us trillions. In fact, it's a little over a trillion in 10 years...I know there are other sources that cite other numbers. I'd bet the truth is somewhere in between.

The money we spent on wars certainly contribute to debt, since it's all money we spend that we don't have. But the national defense is something the government is actually SUPPOSED to spend money on, not entitlement spending.

You can argue that the wars were bullshit and we shouldn't have been there to begin with, but at least the national defense is something the government is (and should be) responsible for.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 01:42 PM
You can argue that the wars were bullshit and we shouldn't have been there to begin with, but at least the national defense is something the government is (and should be) responsible for.

You can also argue that national defense is a net job creator. But I think it's well accepted that government is responsible for providing a basic social security net.

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 01:45 PM
You can also argue that national defense is a net job creator. But I think it's well accepted that government is responsible for providing a basic social security net.

Extremely basic. Do you think that what we have right now can be described in any way as BASIC?

La literatura
01-31-2012, 01:47 PM
Extremely basic. Do you think that what we have right now can be described in any way as BASIC?

Yes, I do.

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 01:49 PM
OK, but we are over three years into it and I still havent heard anyone say what else could have been done, and why it would have been better.
Inaction is worse. Wouldnt you agree? I am not a proponent for the stimulus but I see he was trying.
It didn't do what the administration itself claimed it would do, which was keep unemployment below 8%.

And what they claim it did, prevent a depression, is something they can't prove.

So the fact we're now carrying the stimulus as debt the argument could be made that doing nothing was a viable option.

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 01:49 PM
Yes, I do.

Alrighty then.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 01:51 PM
Even if he was elected, how is Paul going to get Congress to go along with a trillion in cuts?

With a veto pen first of all.

Second of all, most congress people just vote in whatever way they think will save their jobs. If Paul wins, the paradigm changes.

Aside from that, what's the alternative? No one else is offering any real cuts. They're just carrying on the status quo and will spend until we finally break. If you're not voting for Ron Paul, you're voting for "spend until we finally break."

KC native
01-31-2012, 01:52 PM
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not cost us trillions. In fact, it's a little over a trillion in 10 years...I know there are other sources that cite other numbers. I'd bet the truth is somewhere in between.

The money we spent on wars certainly contribute to debt, since it's all money we spend that we don't have. But the national defense is something the government is actually SUPPOSED to spend money on, not entitlement spending.

You can argue that the wars were bullshit and we shouldn't have been there to begin with, but at least the national defense is something the government is (and should be) responsible for.

So, if the research office says over a trillion and other estimates are much higher, somewhere in the middle would be trillions.

InChiefsHell
01-31-2012, 01:54 PM
So, if the research office says over a trillion and other estimates are much higher, somewhere in the middle would be trillions.

Maybe, maybe not. Point is, everyone is dicking with the numbers to suit their agenda, so the number is not anything to be certain about.

I will stipulate that it's probably more that 1.2 trillion, but it could be less than 2 trillion as well.

But, remember when BILLIONS used to be a lot of money? That wasn't that long ago...say...2008...

KC native
01-31-2012, 01:59 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Point is, everyone is dicking with the numbers to suit their agenda, so the number is not anything to be certain about.

I will stipulate that it's probably more that 1.2 trillion, but it could be less than 2 trillion as well.

But, remember when BILLIONS used to be a lot of money? That wasn't that long ago...say...2008...

when everything its said and done, I'm fairly confident that we'll be well offer $2T.

I just took issue with patty saying our foreign policy had nothing to do w ith our debt.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 02:02 PM
I have hard time thinking that an alternative approach could have gotten us better results, though, unless it was a greater stimulus. I think the opposing approach was doing very little, which I compare to not having a point guard. Instead, the ball just sits in backcourt for a delay that causes a turnover.

We'd be well on the road to recovery right now if we would have just allowed the debt to be liquidated and the economy would have nowhere to go but up.

Right now, we're on a long and windy road to find a bottom, leaving the market in a constant state of uncertainty.

Stewie
01-31-2012, 02:05 PM
Meh! This is a zit on a gnat's ass compared to what the five largest banks have in store over the next six months.

Calcountry
01-31-2012, 03:08 PM
The Mayans anticipated Barack Obama.Say your prayers.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 03:17 PM
We'd be well on the road to recovery right now if we would have just allowed the debt to be liquidated and the economy would have nowhere to go but up.

Right now, we're on a long and windy road to find a bottom, leaving the market in a constant state of uncertainty.

I don't think wiping out the U.S. economy for decades is worth it, even if it means temporary unemployment at current levels.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 04:11 PM
I am curious patteeu, do you agree that we can cut military spending and not defense spending? That is Mr. Pauls opinion as I understand it. Makes a great deal of sense to me.

I don't know what that means.

I think we should be re-evaluating our defense priorities on a regular basis and that we should adjust the defense budget accordingly. I'm absolutely against Obama's plan to size the military on the basis of a single land war instead of the traditional capability of being able to fight on two fronts at once.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 04:14 PM
What was the other proposal? Yes, I would much rather have 2 year temporary paralysis than be dead, or have a 8 year temporary paralysis. I would high five the doctor that saved my life. Your analogy includes an element of negligence (not scrubbing), and that's provable. Whether the administration was acting negligently in some form by prescribing the stimulus is unknown to me, and the burden is on you to show it.

You've already agreed that a substantial portion of the stimulus was focused on "life rafts" rather than economic growth. The life raft is a temporary relief (e.g. pain medication) whereas economic growth is the cure (e.g. penicillin). A stimulus that was focused on economic growth like a laser beam is the alternative proposal.

La literatura
01-31-2012, 04:17 PM
You've already agreed that a substantial portion of the stimulus was focused on "life rafts" rather than economic growth. The life raft is a temporary relief (e.g. pain medication) whereas economic growth is the cure (e.g. penicillin). A stimulus that was focused on economic growth like a laser beam is the alternative proposal.

What would that have looked like? It sounds expensive. It sounds like New Deal.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 04:18 PM
You are almost as batshit crazy as bep. You're just more eloquent.

Explain to me how the trillions we've spent in Iraq and afghanistan have had nothing to do with ou debt problems.

It's not the cause of our debt problem because it's temporary spending as opposed to the spending that is projected to grow and grow into the future with no relief in sight. I think we've been through this before, but maybe it wasn't with you.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2012, 04:29 PM
I am curious patteeu, do you agree that we can cut military spending and not defense spending? That is Mr. Pauls opinion as I understand it. Makes a great deal of sense to me.

Paul's military cuts, which are not related to defense, brings the military budget back to 2006 levels. This is hardly draconian and very responsible, actually.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 04:32 PM
Paul's military cuts, which are not related to defense, brings the military budget back to 2006 levels. This is hardly draconian and very responsible, actually.

What are these military cuts that aren't related to defense? I'm pretty sure I don't trust you ronpauls with words like "defense".

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 04:34 PM
Paul's military cuts, which are not related to defense, brings the military budget back to 2006 levels. This is hardly draconian and very responsible, actually.

He makes more sense to me than any candidate in a long time. In fact I have become a donor. Should he become the nominee I could actually vote Republican again!

Taco John
01-31-2012, 04:38 PM
What are these military cuts that aren't related to defense? I'm pretty sure I don't trust you ronpauls with words like "defense".

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/31/pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture

chiefforlife
01-31-2012, 04:39 PM
What are these military cuts that aren't related to defense? I'm pretty sure I don't trust you ronpauls with words like "defense".

You shouldnt worry, the Military likes him more than any other candidate. In fact they are his largest supporters. The majority of his money comes from the armed forces. Interesting?

patteeu
01-31-2012, 05:46 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/31/pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture

I don't have a problem cutting art so if that's all that Ron Paul wants to cut, he has my blessing. Something tells me that it's more than that. Like for instance, withdrawing from the world.

patteeu
01-31-2012, 05:49 PM
You shouldnt worry, the Military likes him more than any other candidate. In fact they are his largest supporters. The majority of his money comes from the armed forces. Interesting?

It would be interesting it if were true, but it's not. Don't fall for another hope and change.

According to opensecrets.org, as of December 5, 2011, he had collected a little over $65,000 from US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy personal who elected to list their employer as their service branch (rather than US Government or Retired, for example).

Compare that paltry sum to the roughly $4,800,000 total that he collected. Those military contributions make up about 1.4% of his total so the majority of his money doesn't come from the military.

Furthermore, not counting the US Marine Corps or the Coast Guard or people who are retired from the USA, USAF, or USN, there are approximately 1.2 million enlisted people and officers in those three branches. That means that his contributions amount to about 5.5 cents per person. Alternatively, if we assume that each actual donor donated $25, it means he received contributions from 2600 people or 0.2% of military personnel. That's not really a ringing endorsement.

go bowe
01-31-2012, 08:17 PM
You've already agreed that the stimulus was more life raft than actual economic stimulus so it ought to be an easy mental exercise to imagine that the money could have been better spent even if you don't necessarily know how it should have been better spent.

yes it is easy to imagine, but not everyone imagines in the same way...

i can imagine if i didn't have any better notion of how the money should have been spent i might think i had chosen the best available option...

i can also imagine that i've instantly arrived at my ideal weight but i've still got a long way to go...

and i can imagine what i'm going to do next... :bong:

go bowe
01-31-2012, 08:24 PM
It didn't do what the administration itself claimed it would do, which was keep unemployment below 8%.

And what they claim it did, prevent a depression, is something they can't prove.

So the fact we're now carrying the stimulus as debt the argument could be made that doing nothing was a viable option.

and the argument could be made that i'm 25 and hung like a horse, at least on the intratubes... :p

KC native
01-31-2012, 10:37 PM
It's not the cause of our debt problem because it's temporary spending as opposed to the spending that is projected to grow and grow into the future with no relief in sight. I think we've been through this before, but maybe it wasn't with you.

Debt is debt. Whether it's incurred today or in the future. Fortunately, if we raise certain taxes the entitlement spending becomes a non-issue.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 10:38 PM
I don't have a problem cutting art so if that's all that Ron Paul wants to cut, he has my blessing. Something tells me that it's more than that. Like for instance, withdrawing from the world.

Expanding our role as the trade mecca of the world while reducing wasteful military spending (ie. bases in france and germany) is the opposite of withdrawing from the world.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 10:40 PM
It's not the cause of our debt problem because it's temporary spending as opposed to the spending that is projected to grow and grow into the future with no relief in sight. I think we've been through this before, but maybe it wasn't with you.

If you blow your paycheck on hookers and coke, it's still a problem, even if you have another paycheck coming in two weeks. And I don't understand where you get this idea that we can't project the military spending to grow and grow. We've done nothing but expand our military presence in the last 100 years with no relief in sight. What's temporary about this spending?

FD
01-31-2012, 10:47 PM
Debt is debt. Whether it's incurred today or in the future. Fortunately, if we raise certain taxes the entitlement spending becomes a non-issue.

Not even close. On Medicare's current path, the taxes necessary to fund it would be completely unprecedented and unsustainable.

Bewbies
01-31-2012, 10:52 PM
X2

X every republican in the country.

KC native
01-31-2012, 10:55 PM
Not even close. On Medicare's current path, the taxes necessary to fund it would be completely unprecedented and unsustainable.

Yes, you are correct. Baked into my argument is an assumption that we come to our senses about how we provide medical care in this country.

Medical costs are ridiculous and aren't going to get any better until we get away from the health care for profit nonsense.

Otter
01-31-2012, 11:38 PM
JFC.

Seriously, if RP wasn't a complete whacko on foreign policy I might vote for him just on the basis of needing to rein in the deficit.

Might be a really good time put America ahead of foreign policy for at least 4 years.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:04 AM
Debt is debt. Whether it's incurred today or in the future. Fortunately, if we raise certain taxes the entitlement spending becomes a non-issue.

Not all debt is bad. Debt is not the same as debt problem. You can't fix entitlements, particularly the health care entitlements, by simply raising some taxes.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:08 AM
If you blow your paycheck on hookers and coke, it's still a problem, even if you have another paycheck coming in two weeks. And I don't understand where you get this idea that we can't project the military spending to grow and grow. We've done nothing but expand our military presence in the last 100 years with no relief in sight. What's temporary about this spending?

Our military spending has surged and receded as a portion of GDP over the years. Surge spending on wars is temporary because the wars eventually end despite the scaremongering some Ron Paul fans and other foreign policy leftists do about perpetual war.

FishingRod
02-01-2012, 07:46 AM
The problem we have is that your average citizen actually believes the tried and true political tactic, which was in full force in the State of The Union address. That we can get more free stuff from the Government while they lower our taxes and it will be paid for with pixie dust and taxing that other guy. We simply do not have the resources for the government to do everything for everybody. While there are ways to increase the dollars filling the federal purse the best solution for that side of the equation is to promote a strong economy. Sometimes the best way to do that is to just get the hell out of the way. On the spending side we have too much redundancy, too many agencies trying to do too much in too many places. Many of these the government was never meant to be involved with in the first place. As much as conservative minded people cringe at the idea the military is also afflicted with the same waste and redundancy it too needs a trim. While a strong, powerful, technologically advanced military is indeed necessary, we could significantly reduce the size and cost of our armed forces and still out spend any combination of our potential adversaries 3 or 4 to one. The military reductions are necessary not only because of the economic reality that we just plain need them but, for the perception from the American people that a 15 trillion dollar debt really is a serious situation that needs to be dealt with and it is just not the big mean rich guys trying to take away the poor people’s food stamps.

tredadda
02-01-2012, 08:13 AM
Well, that and the incredible flock of kooks that he seems to draw to himself...There has to be something wrong with a candidate who seems to have such a strange, zombie-like following.

It worked in 2008 with another candidate. :thumb:

durtyrute
02-01-2012, 08:21 AM
That's okay, the next president will fix everything. We can blame the first three years on the last president then in the final year things will still be the same or worse and we will look for the next president to fix everything.

Written in 1988

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 11:26 AM
Fair enough, but Amnorix is more than willing to cut our defense budget for the sake of getting the deficit under control. Too willing, in my view. But the difference between Amnorix's position and that of Ron Paul is pretty stark.


The above is correct, but I also note that I would be dramatically revamping the entire operation with absolutely everything "on the table". NPR and other "nice-to-haves" would be DOA.

You'd basically be seeing me try to run it more like an entity that cares about revenues compared to expenditures, rather than a run-away freight train with inertia ruling everything.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 11:28 AM
Aside from that, what's the alternative? No one else is offering any real cuts. They're just carrying on the status quo and will spend until we finally break. If you're not voting for Ron Paul, you're voting for "spend until we finally break."


Sadly, I'm worried that this comment is correct. And it's unbelievably pathetic and a real condemnation of our leadership that I do worry that that might be correct.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 11:30 AM
We'd be well on the road to recovery right now if we would have just allowed the debt to be liquidated and the economy would have nowhere to go but up.



You have no idea if that's true. It's entirely possible that nearly every major bank would be in bankruptcy for years, along with some of our largest corporations (GM, Chrysler) and years of shrinking GDP etc. etc. as a result of the massive economic fallout.

You have no idea. You think you do, but you don't. Many of our country's brightest economists looked at that black hole and decided that we couldn't risk the alternative because it might be a truly horrific downward spiral.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 11:33 AM
The above is correct, but I also note that I would be dramatically revamping the entire operation with absolutely everything "on the table". NPR and other "nice-to-haves" would be DOA.

You'd basically be seeing me try to run it more like an entity that cares about revenues compared to expenditures, rather than a run-away freight train with inertia ruling everything.

Yes, setting aside your unfortunate positions on defense spending, progressive taxation, and a few other somewhat liberal tendencies (like an inexplicable appreciation for Ted Kennedy), you're a pretty reasonable guy.

So, how much chance does Mitt Romney have of getting your vote if it comes down to Mitt vs Barack? Would you be able to cast a vote for Obama if the election were held today?

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 11:34 AM
Debt is debt. Whether it's incurred today or in the future. Fortunately, if we raise certain taxes the entitlement spending becomes a non-issue.


Don't see how that is true, based on the projected growth of entitlement spending. Demographics don't lie.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 11:38 AM
Yes, setting aside your unfortunate positions on defense spending, progressive taxation, and a few other somewhat liberal tendencies (like an inexplicable appreciation for Ted Kennedy), you're a pretty reasonable guy.

So, how much chance does Mitt Romney have of getting your vote if it comes down to Mitt vs Barack? Would you be able to cast a vote for Obama if the election were held today?


Romeny v. Barack -- probably Romney. Able to vote for Obama -- yes, but not happily. I think in many, many respects he inherited a very raw deal. And I don't blame that 100% on BushCo either. Walking into a horrific economic situation is walking into a horrific economic situation, no matter who caused it, etc.

mnchiefsguy
02-01-2012, 02:10 PM
Don't see how that is true, based on the projected growth of entitlement spending. Demographics don't lie.

I would have to agree with this. I fail to see any scenario in which entitlement spending becomes a non-issue. Entitlement spending needs to be reduced before we start raising taxes.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 02:15 PM
I would have to agree with this. I fail to see any scenario in which entitlement spending becomes a non-issue. Entitlement spending needs to be reduced before we start raising taxes.


We need to raise taxes sooner, not later. But that doesn't fix the entitlement problem.

Even if you think the problem is entirely spend-side, the problem is that political realities aren't going to permit a purely spend-side solution to be enacted. Which is why I blame Republicans for failing to resolve the deficit issue last year when, I understand, Obama was offering a 4:1 cuts to taxes deal or whatever it was. Seemed pretty reasonable to me.

KC Dan
02-01-2012, 02:21 PM
I blame Republicans for failing to resolve the deficit issue last year when, I understand, Obama was offering a 4:1 cuts to taxes deal or whatever it was. Seemed pretty reasonable to me.The problem is that Obama would never agree to ACTUAL cuts just a BS framework. Its the old tax rise now and we promise to do cuts later which Congress never does

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 02:42 PM
The problem is that Obama would never agree to ACTUAL cuts just a BS framework. Its the old tax rise now and we promise to do cuts later which Congress never does


No idea why you think that. Nor do I think Boehner thought that when he thought they had a deal, before the Republican caucus deserted him.

mnchiefsguy
02-01-2012, 02:49 PM
Honestly Amnorix, I would settle for having the cuts and the taxes in the same bill, with the caveat that the cuts must be fully implemented withing six months, and the increases taxes phasing in the six months after that. Washington has to show me they are serious about reducing spending before I am inclined to raise taxes, since they cannot be trusted with the peoples money.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:51 PM
No idea why you think that. Nor do I think Boehner thought that when he thought they had a deal, before the Republican caucus deserted him.

Perhaps he thinks that because it's been standard operating procedure in Washington DC (by both parties to some extent, but especially by democrats) for decades.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 02:59 PM
Perhaps he thinks that because it's been standard operating procedure in Washington DC (by both parties to some extent, but especially by democrats) for decades.



Where a deal is struck to raise taxes and cut spending, but the spending cuts are never implemented? err...ok. Not sure I'm aware of any such specific deals having been made.

I do agree that politicans play games with "cuts" that are really "reduced increases in expenditures going forward". Not sure I've seen those directly tied to tax increases, however.

KC Dan
02-01-2012, 03:01 PM
Perhaps he thinks that because it's been standard operating procedure in Washington DC (by both parties to some extent, but especially by democrats) for decades.perhaps because
- "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it".
OR
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me

And, that is the Washington game. They bet that we will not remember the past promises for cuts with tax increases and then never cut.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Where a deal is struck to raise taxes and cut spending, but the spending cuts are never implemented? err...ok. Not sure I'm aware of any such specific deals having been made.

I do agree that politicans play games with "cuts" that are really "reduced increases in expenditures going forward". Not sure I've seen those directly tied to tax increases, however.

Here's a relatively brief analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-182es.html) of the 1990 GWHBush budget deal ("read my lips") after two years, for example.

KC Dan
02-01-2012, 03:20 PM
Where a deal is struck to raise taxes and cut spending, but the spending cuts are never implemented? err...ok. Not sure I'm aware of any such specific deals having been made.Reagan's regrets:
One of the greatest regrets of several members of the generally sound Reagan administration was that in an effort to cut spending significantly, President Reagan went along with some tax hikes sought by Democrats in his first term in office.

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Supposedly there would be $3 worth of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
But it didn't work out that way.

The tax increases were imposed, but the spending cuts failed to materialize. As Reagan later wrote, "The Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/nov/12/reagan-taxes-and-spending-cuts/

The same thing happened to George H.W. Bush but you can look that up.

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 03:36 PM
It would be interesting it if were true, but it's not. Don't fall for another hope and change.

According to opensecrets.org, as of December 5, 2011, he had collected a little over $65,000 from US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy personal who elected to list their employer as their service branch (rather than US Government or Retired, for example).

Compare that paltry sum to the roughly $4,800,000 total that he collected. Those military contributions make up about 1.4% of his total so the majority of his money doesn't come from the military.

Furthermore, not counting the US Marine Corps or the Coast Guard or people who are retired from the USA, USAF, or USN, there are approximately 1.2 million enlisted people and officers in those three branches. That means that his contributions amount to about 5.5 cents per person. Alternatively, if we assume that each actual donor donated $25, it means he received contributions from 2600 people or 0.2% of military personnel. That's not really a ringing endorsement.

This is a list of his top donors:

US Army $78,056
US Navy $56,769
US Air Force $55,405
Google Inc $52,801
Microsoft Corp $47,923
US Postal Service $26,591
Hewlett-Packard $25,318
Lockheed Martin $23,425
Cisco Systems $23,007
Boeing Co $22,434
Verizon Communications $19,944
Wachovia Corp $19,629
US Dept of Defense $19,198
General Dynamics $18,506
AT&T Inc $17,946
Northrop Grumman $16,907
JPMorgan Chase & Co $16,072
Apple Inc $15,903
Raytheon Co $15,830
General Electric $15,000

Clearly, the armed forces are at the top. They may be a small percentage of his overall money but they are the largest contributors.

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 03:41 PM
Mitt Romneys top contributors:

Goldman Sachs $496,430
JPMorgan Chase & Co $317,400
Morgan Stanley $277,850
Credit Suisse Group $276,250
Citigroup Inc $267,050
Bank of America $211,650
Barclays $203,650
Kirkland & Ellis $201,701
HIG Capital $188,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $179,300
Blackstone Group $170,550
Bain Capital $144,000
EMC Corp $127,800
Wells Fargo $126,200
UBS AG $123,900
Elliott Management $121,000
Citadel Investment Group $118,625
Bain & Co $116,050
The Villages $98,300
Sullivan & Cromwell $97,150


All Banks at the top. Who is Romney going to represent? The People or the BANKS? That has me worried.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:55 PM
This is a list of his top donors:

US Army $78,056
US Navy $56,769
US Air Force $55,405
Google Inc $52,801
Microsoft Corp $47,923
US Postal Service $26,591
Hewlett-Packard $25,318
Lockheed Martin $23,425
Cisco Systems $23,007
Boeing Co $22,434
Verizon Communications $19,944
Wachovia Corp $19,629
US Dept of Defense $19,198
General Dynamics $18,506
AT&T Inc $17,946
Northrop Grumman $16,907
JPMorgan Chase & Co $16,072
Apple Inc $15,903
Raytheon Co $15,830
General Electric $15,000

Clearly, the armed forces are at the top. They may be a small percentage of his overall money but they are the largest contributors.

You also said that "the majority of his money comes from the armed forces" which isn't even close to true. And it's quite a leap of logic to suggest, as you did, that "the Military likes him more than any other candidate" given the tiny contributions given by military personnel to his campaign compared to the large number of people in the military.

You were right on the least important assertion you made, so no, as it turns out, it's not very interesting.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:56 PM
Mitt Romneys top contributors:

Goldman Sachs $496,430
JPMorgan Chase & Co $317,400
Morgan Stanley $277,850
Credit Suisse Group $276,250
Citigroup Inc $267,050
Bank of America $211,650
Barclays $203,650
Kirkland & Ellis $201,701
HIG Capital $188,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $179,300
Blackstone Group $170,550
Bain Capital $144,000
EMC Corp $127,800
Wells Fargo $126,200
UBS AG $123,900
Elliott Management $121,000
Citadel Investment Group $118,625
Bain & Co $116,050
The Villages $98,300
Sullivan & Cromwell $97,150


All Banks at the top. Who is Romney going to represent? The People or the BANKS? That has me worried.

Who was the last President you liked and who do you think his top donors were?

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 04:15 PM
Who was the last President you liked and who do you think his top donors were?

George W. Bush. I dont know who they were but I am now very interested...

yikes...

Morgan Stanley $603,480
Merrill Lynch $586,254
PricewaterhouseCoopers $514,250
UBS AG $474,325
Goldman Sachs $394,600
Lehman Brothers $361,525
MBNA Corp $350,350
Credit Suisse Group $326,040
Citigroup Inc $320,820
Bear Stearns $313,150
Ernst & Young $305,140
US Government $295,786
Deloitte LLP $292,250
Wachovia Corp $279,310
US Dept of Defense $279,157
Ameriquest Capital $253,130
US Dept of State $225,330
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
Bank of America $218,261
AT&T Inc $214,920

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 04:22 PM
I guess we can see why the Banks got everything they needed...

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 04:40 PM
So after voting for GW Bush twice and then Obama, I am trying to do more homework. I really dont like what Im finding unless I look at Ron Paul. I havent found anything I dont like about him. I think its Ron Paul for me even if I have to write him in.

KC Dan
02-01-2012, 04:42 PM
I guess we can see why the Banks got everything they needed...Literature would have to disagree with you. He thinks that politicians don't write laws that favor their campaign contributors. They only look out for us.....:banghead:

patteeu
02-01-2012, 04:43 PM
George W. Bush. I dont know who they were but I am now very interested...

yikes...

Morgan Stanley $603,480
Merrill Lynch $586,254
PricewaterhouseCoopers $514,250
UBS AG $474,325
Goldman Sachs $394,600
Lehman Brothers $361,525
MBNA Corp $350,350
Credit Suisse Group $326,040
Citigroup Inc $320,820
Bear Stearns $313,150
Ernst & Young $305,140
US Government $295,786
Deloitte LLP $292,250
Wachovia Corp $279,310
US Dept of Defense $279,157
Ameriquest Capital $253,130
US Dept of State $225,330
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
Bank of America $218,261
AT&T Inc $214,920

I think you'd find similar donor profiles for Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan too, although I don't know for sure. Politicians collect money from the people who have it, for the most part.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 04:45 PM
So after voting for GW Bush twice and then Obama, I am trying to do more homework. I really dont like what Im finding unless I look at Ron Paul. I havent found anything I dont like about him. I think its Ron Paul for me even if I have to write him in.

Ron Paul has a lot of good positions and I'd vote for him over Obama if he were the nominee, although I couldn't possibly endorse his foreign policy views. But a write-in vote is a protest vote at best, and a wasted vote at worst. At least you've hopped off the Obama train though. Good for you.

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 04:48 PM
I think you'd find similar donor profiles for Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan too, although I don't know for sure. Politicians collect money from the people who have it, for the most part.

I do understand that but I also understand that money like that comes with expectations.

mlyonsd
02-01-2012, 04:49 PM
So after voting for GW Bush twice and then Obama, I am trying to do more homework. I really dont like what Im finding unless I look at Ron Paul. I havent found anything I dont like about him. I think its Ron Paul for me even if I have to write him in.If it comes down to you at the ballot box and you find you can't vote for Romney, RP is your obvious choice.

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 04:53 PM
Ron Paul has a lot of good positions and I'd vote for him over Obama if he were the nominee, although I couldn't possibly endorse his foreign policy views. But a write-in vote is a protest vote at best, and a wasted vote at worst. At least you've hopped off the Obama train though. Good for you.

I hear that a lot and thats what I was trying to address the other day when I was saying that foreign policy should take a back seat, given our current situation. In order to win, Mr. Paul will need to get people like you to vote for him.
Would you be willing to to do something like that? Do you think Mr. Romney is a better all around candidate?

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:19 PM
I hear that a lot and thats what I was trying to address the other day when I was saying that foreign policy should take a back seat, given our current situation. In order to win, Mr. Paul will need to get people like you to vote for him.
Would you be willing to to do something like that? Do you think Mr. Romney is a better all around candidate?

I don't think Ron Paul would have any chance to be elected. I think Romney is likely to be elected. That alone makes him a better candidate AFAIC. I'll vote for Romney in the primary, but I would certainly put the Supreme Court and other domestic issues ahead of foreign policy and vote for Paul if he ends up shocking me by getting the nomination.

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 05:25 PM
I don't think Ron Paul would have any chance to be elected. I think Romney is likely to be elected. That alone makes him a better candidate AFAIC. I'll vote for Romney in the primary, but I would certainly put the Supreme Court and other domestic issues ahead of foreign policy and vote for Paul if he ends up shocking me by getting the nomination.

I know how you enjoy a "shock and awe" campaign. LOL:p

Thanks, glad to hear. I thought it was Mr. Romney and no one else for you.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 05:29 PM
I don't think Ron Paul would have any chance to be elected. I think Romney is likely to be elected. That alone makes him a better candidate AFAIC. I'll vote for Romney in the primary, but I would certainly put the Supreme Court and other domestic issues ahead of foreign policy and vote for Paul if he ends up shocking me by getting the nomination.

Well there is your answer to this:


I'm not sure I've ever seen such great self delusion as the "only Ron Paul can beat Obama" concept.

People like you will vote for Ron Paul to beat Obama. People like me won't vote for Mitt Romney. I put foreign policy ahead of the supreme court because as I see it, without changing it, we're doomed.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:30 PM
I know how you enjoy a "shock and awe" campaign. LOL:p

Thanks, glad to hear. I thought it was Mr. Romney and no one else for you.

Heavens no. It's whoever wins the GOP nomination for me. But it's Romney in the primary unless he drops out, in which case I'd have to choose between Newt or Santorum. Ron Paul would be last in line for my primary vote.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:31 PM
Well there is your answer to this:




People like you will vote for Ron Paul to beat Obama. People like me won't vote for Mitt Romney. I put foreign policy ahead of the supreme court because as I see it, without changing it, we're doomed.

I'll take my chances with the tiny minority of Paul's-way-or-the-highway voters. Most Ron Paul voters will end up voting for the GOP nominee. And Romney will more than make up for them with former Obama supporters (other than yourself of course :Poke: :p).

chiefforlife
02-01-2012, 05:35 PM
Heavens no. It's whoever wins the GOP nomination for me. But it's Romney in the primary unless he drops out, in which case I'd have to choose between Newt or Santorum. Ron Paul would be last in line for my primary vote.

Thats to bad. I think Mr. Paul will need to sway some voters from the far right (like yourself) but if he is last on your list. He probably doesnt have a decent chance.
To me, he is the only real conservative in the bunch. Can you give me the short answer as to why he is last on your list?

Taco John
02-01-2012, 05:42 PM
I'll take my chances with the tiny minority of Paul's-way-or-the-highway voters. Most Ron Paul voters will end up voting for the GOP nominee. And Romney will more than make up for them with former Obama supporters (other than yourself of course :Poke: :p).

That's what you said last time right before McCain lost.

Guru
02-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Even if he was elected, how is Paul going to get Congress to go along with a trillion in cuts?

Thats why I don't feel I can vote for him. Nothing would get done because of congress butting heads with him all day on both sides.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 06:18 PM
That's what you said last time right before McCain lost.

Are you expecting another largely unanticipated economic crisis that can be conveniently blamed on Republicans in the weeks leading up to this election? I don't think Ron Paul voters who refused to vote for McCain made the difference last time, do you?

patteeu
02-01-2012, 06:19 PM
Thats to bad. I think Mr. Paul will need to sway some voters from the far right (like yourself) but if he is last on your list. He probably doesnt have a decent chance.
To me, he is the only real conservative in the bunch. Can you give me the short answer as to why he is last on your list?

Because his foreign policy positions are crazy, IMO, and because he wouldn't stand a chance to be elected.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:21 PM
Our Congress is out of control. I don't blame Obama specifically for our deficit. He will spend whatever he is allowed to spend. Our congress is who approves the spending. The funny thing is we heard about how the right spent like crazy when they had power but rarely hear anything about the left doing the same if not worse. Both sides are fucked up.

banyon
02-01-2012, 06:45 PM
For a truthful look at it, recognize that of course the payroll tax extension was going to alter projections. And of course we knew.a post-stimulus era was forced to see budget deficits at record high levels. The entire point of it was to bode well for our future. The trend on deficit in Obama's term is going down, if you demand that, but there's no consensus that austerity is immediately necessary.

Also for a more even comparison between 08 and 09, they might want to mention that Bush kept the Iraq & Afghanistan wars off-budget while Obama put them on budget.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:51 PM
Also for a more even comparison between 08 and 09, they might want to mention that Bush kept the Iraq & Afghanistan wars off-budget while Obama put them on budget.

Obama has a budget???? ROFL

Just funnin' ya

banyon
02-01-2012, 06:58 PM
Obama has a budget???? ROFL

Just funnin' ya

It doesn't bother me. I'm not supporting Obama. But it's not like Bush was some great steward of the economy either.

Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time had never been done in our history and I think we're starting to see why. Most people had better sense.

Most of Obama's spending was continuing Bush's bad policies, for which they (and Congress) should both be blamed.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 07:01 PM
It doesn't bother me. I'm not supporting Obama. But it's not like Bush was some great steward of the economy either.

Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time had never been done in our history and I think we're starting to see why. Most people had better sense.

Most of Obama's spending was continuing Bush's bad policies, for which they (and Congress) should both be blamed.

I can see the argument for not cutting taxes with a war going on. That being said though I still think the problem is spending as opposed to not taxing enough. Yes, both sides take the blame on that.