Printable View
I would make a statement about how this was the first time in history a president was reelected with numbers this bad..... but this is the first time in history a president has ever had numbers this bad, so that would be unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
The united states no longer understands personal responsibility. Our election system is a popularity contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...a8v5p5mY#t=18s
Wrong. This year had almost a 61% voter turnout, in just the 2004 election, only 56% of voters turned out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Your looking at the wrong numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
i dont care about voter turnout..... i put no value on the election process. Morons voting for Obama does not validate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Am i looking at the wrong deficit numbers? wrong unemployment numbers? wrong spending numbers????
Serious question: why do expert economists say that the deficits and the national debt aren't a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
tell tell!Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I wanna see his answer first.Quote:
Originally Posted by l Gizzy l
I could care less what economists say, it's common sense. "expert economist" once told us the world was flat. Think for yourself. You dont earn $500 a week and spend $2000 a week. If the deficit and debt doesnt matter, why do you need to tax the rich to pay it off? why tax anyone? it doesnt matter, right? Irony, the side that wants to raise taxes says that debt doesnt matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Lol. This is all I needed to know. The facts don't matter with some people. Just the stuff that gets you most riled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
If only it were that simple. Why is there a legion of people who know little about economics and insist their way of handling economics is right? Pop the question I asked you into google search.Quote:
You dont earn $500 a week and spend $2000 a week.
Who says that? Krugman? Define "not a problem".Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Its absolutely a problem, more than it ever has been before. We already know what happens when you run things at unsustainable levels , they become bankrupt. You become European countries dealing with ways to reign in things they cant. Anyone who thinks "its not a problem" is not an expert economist in my opinion.
Deficits CAN be run, but not at the level we are running them. You wanna run deficits of 100-400 billion, ok. 1+ trillion and up? NOT POSSIBLE. Not unless you are exploding the treasury every 3-4 years to pay that off, which isnt happening. The INTEREST ALONE ON OUR DEBT will surpass 700 billion a year by 2016?
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Thats CBS, not exactly a Right Leaning thinktank.
Rising national debt accounts for more tax revenues for EVERYONE to have to pay that off. It directly effects YOUR interest rates on your credit cards, home loans, etc. Obama isnt the first one to run up deficits, but hes done nothing but run them up FASTER than anyone else in history. What we have gotten for our spending is terrible. Stagnate economy, 8% UE, higher food prices, stagnate housing market, etc. Nothing has worked and we keep spending.
And we are suppose to blame this all on 100 billion or less in tax revenues from the top 1-2%? gimme a break.
Both sides are engaged in bullshit rhetoric that needs to end.
If you are ONLY looking at those numbers then yes, because you are looking at those numbers and ignoring context. A handful of economic numbers may be the only thing you care about but there are a lot of other things other people care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
It's a bit frightening when someone thinks common sense is a better way to run a country than asking people who dedicate their lives to studying a topic. Let's hope not too many people feel the same when it comes to medicine or engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Econ1102.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
...unless you are, maybe, trying to finanace a war or two?Quote:
Deficits CAN be run, but not at the level we are running them. You wanna run deficits of 100-400 billion, ok. 1+ trillion and up? NOT POSSIBLE. Not unless you are exploding the treasury every 3-4 years to pay that off, which isnt happening. The INTEREST ALONE ON OUR DEBT will surpass 700 billion a year by 2016?
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Why don't they ever list what the national debt really is, what it consists of, and who holds the majority of it?
Lysol is proven to kill aids. Lets all drink Lysol and end a serious pandemicQuote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Long term the deficit can be a big problem but it isn't right now when we are borrowing money at less than the rate of inflation.
Correct me if im wrong because its been about 12 years since Econ College level courses, but I dont recall anyone saying "run up more debt dont worry about it =prosperity".Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Dodging the question by blaming it on someone else. Answer honestly what YOU Think, not what others say or think.Quote:
...unless you are, maybe, trying to finanace a war or two?
Why don't they ever list what the national debt really is, what it consists of, and who holds the majority of it?
If you hate Bush for running up the debt, you LOATH obama. You cant simply say "Obama had no choice because of what BUsh left him" because not only is it patently false, its excuse making.
Do we blame Bush deficits on Clintons RECESSION he left him? The .com bubble was just as deep (not as wide) but just as deep as the collapse in 08, then, 9 months later 9/11 Happened (directly results of Clintons foreign policy). So if you are going to give a pass to obama, you give a pass to bush, and others before him.
But i dont play that game.
you realize the Iraq war is over right? And hes still projecting 900 billion and 1 trillion+ deficits well into the end of his 2nd term. Whats the excuse? the Iraq was has been done for 1-2 years now? Afghan is almost done.
The simple answer is Obama has exploded federal programs and played crony capitalism with companies. FOOD STAMPS=MONEY UE for 99 weeks=MONEY "INVESTING" in Green Energy that goes belly up= MONEY. Obamacare is going to cost a ton of money that they never paid for.
It has little to nothing to do with Bush and his policies. Obamas first 2 years id give him the "well i had to " because of Bush and the economy.
Inflation has to increase, its math.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
SureQuote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term
Clinton=1.X Trillion in 8 years
Bush = 5 Trillion in 8 years with 9/11, CLinton Recession, 08 Financial Collapse, Katrina (worst hurricane in US History), 2 wars
Obama= 5 Trillion in 4 years with no major natural disaster until Sandy, drawing down of 2 wars, Obamacare, 08 financial collapse
National Debt Graph by President
Clearly, CLinton was the best president of the last 20-30 years. He had the least amount of debt, the best economic conditions. However, he did this if you remember by drawing down our military, which some people will argue is what lead to 9/11. I wont say that, but he drew down the defense budget (which i think we should do again) and he embraced the tax cuts GOP offered, and reformed entitlements.
Obama/Bush did neither. Bush cut taxes and produced the highest receipts in tax revenues, but he spent too much. Obama has done nothing with taxes, nothing with revenues (lost revenues but expected because of 08 collapse), exploded spending
At current CbO projections, Obama will hold the majority of the debt by a LARGE amount
its a bit frightening when people abandon common sense to blindly follow a politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
side note..... Larry Sinclair, opinion?
Actually it doesn't. As long as the debt isn't in circulation, it won't cause inflation. If we tighten the money supply at the same rate as that debt is introduced into the economy assuming it is at all, there will never be any inflation from it. The key here is tightening the money supply (which does mean increasing revenue to spending ratios) but the timing is important. That is the reason the fed is more worried about deflation than inflation right now. So yes, we do need to control our spending and it is a good idea for us to try to bring down our debt. But getting the economy going is a higher priority right now than reducing the deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Who said anything about a politician. I thought we were talking about economists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Where do you think all the money is parked? Once it enters circulation inflation will go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
What you just described is what has NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS. Its impossible to time it just right, because it never works. Inflation HAS to happen. Youll never gain revenue fast enough to compete with deficits of 16 trillion or 700 billion in INTEREST alone in the next 5 years. The treasury can only gain more revenue by growing the tax payer base. That means people get hired, that means the money parked on the sidelines the FED has been pumping into the market will get spent= inflation explosion.
its going to happen we just dont know when
The Deficit is directly related to the economy, they are intertwined.
We are already over the financial cliff. Nobody is just willing to say it.
My disposable income is being diverted to preparing for it. No, you won't see me on an episode of "Doomsday Preppers"...
Only because I'm not going on TV
~insert trollface jpg.~
yep, hopefully after 4 more years we wont be in too deep of shit for someone whos not a retard to be elected and fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Echonova