Printable View
Even looking at it as a means to smear congress or the administration falls short of telling the whole story. You're trying to combine fiscal policy and monetary policy into one big group and that's not how it works. There are specific reasons deficits are higher now, why the debts are higher now. Trying to say its all executives fault, or all congress' fault, or all one persons fault is ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
I never made that claim. I simply stated facts - how you perceive those facts is not my problem. I am aware of history and how we have been put in situations where we had to spend outside of the planned budget many times. Part of Congress' job though is to specifically plan for these possible future expenditures, and to build a budget plan that includes deficit reduction. They have not even proposed a budget that could reconcile the federal deficit. To not hold them accountable for their job shows ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Deficit reduction isn't always the best course of action. In this sense they are doing their jobs and being held accountable for it. People who dont know any better automatically and incorrectly associate deficits as a bad thing, but that's not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Properly managed deficits in order to improve the country are one thing, rapid unchecked growth of a deficit with no real plan to control it is another. The CBO projects -6.7T in 8 years under Obama's executive position, compared to -9.8T in adjusted dollars from 1940-2008. Doesn't that seem excessive to you, considering we went through numerous wars, recessions, infrastructure upgrades, etc.? What are average Americans getting in return for these expenditures? We aren't seeing a massive infrastructure improvement, we aren't fighting wars on multiple fronts, we aren't suffering from massive inflation like under Carter, etc. How is this spending going to improve the lives for Americans for generations to come, without saddling our economy with burgeoning interest payments? Should government controlled healthcare costs be that expensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
It would seem excessive until you understand exactly how much greater your money supply is, vs. 200 years ago.
I completely understand that the income from tax revenue has increased, as we pay out a lot more taxes now than when they just paid the poll and property taxes at the start of this country. I have studied them a lot. Look at the percentage of expenditure vs revenue though, and you will see that it has increased dramatically in the last 4 years deeper into deficit spending. We did not have spending outside of the budget in these percentages anywhere in the past. Surely, you would agree that our generation pays out a much higher percentage in taxation than any of the generations prior to 1861 (Revenue Act of 1861 - first US income tax, abolished in 1872).Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Oh, and those last dollar amounts were adjusted amounts. The CBO projects that during the 8 years under Obama, Congress will increase the deficit to 70% of what all of the other budget deficits combined did from 1940-2008 - and that is adjusted, not raw dollar amounts.
I still haven't heard what we getting back for all of this spending increases. What's our ROI?
An unrivaled military industrial complex, taxpayer funded financial system protection for starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Yes, we do spend quite a bit each year on defense spending. In 2008, it was just over $730B, and it has continued to increase each year (2012 is just over $903B).Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
The total (TARP + Federal Reserve) bailout cost 3.3B NET as of Apr 2012.
Remember how Obama said that they would pay the TARP loans back with interest? That hasn't happened yet. The White House Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that TARP will ultimately cost the government $63.5 billion - you can look that up on HuffPost.
I don't know about you, but I want a better return on my investment.
It's Blank we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbow
Good thing Obama came around and gave us those things...... man i dont know how we ever made it without them....Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
oh wait, that's right... they were here before Obama and somehow never managed to cost trillions of dollars.
Then you need to get your head in a modern history book and an economics book I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
I'll do that as soon as you pull your head out of your ass, take a breath of fresh air and join reality with the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
How about this.... you admit you're a moron for supporting Obama if....
The deficit stays above 1T.... 1T a number we've accepted as normal under Obama, yet it's a number higher than any president in history by large margin. Obama was the first president to put the word trillion in the deficit and he's maintained it through his presidency. He claimed he would cut it in half and from the words of his own mouth said....
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Obama 2006
So even Obama realizes he's a failure.
He was right though..... we do deserve better than this piece of shit we currently have as a president.
While I do agree with you in many ways, no one can even begin to compare Bush spending to Obama spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Bush's largest tax receipt year was 2007 when the govt collected 2.568T. In today's currency, that would be about 2.85T. That year was also his lowest deficit at only 160B, ~175B in today's currency.
Obama's deficits have fallen every year he has been in as the economy slowly adds jobs but he hasnt broken 1T yet. Today's spending is 1.14T higher than 2007 and tax receipts are only 100B lower, ~400B when you adjust for inflation.
I dont care what program you want to look at for cuts, but spending is the problem, not revenue. If revenue was actually a problem, we would have had more than 5 years over the last 50 that we actually ran a surplus.
Except I understand why the deficit is 1T, and I understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
You would justify anything this president did. If he wasn't the first black president, perception would be a lot more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
It doesn't matter if he's black or white. The principles of macroeconomics have been the same with every single president before him, and they'll be the same for every president after him. That's the way things are. That's reality. You're just upset that you're heavily invested in the Obama Haterade Corp. (TM) and I'm the direct cause of your plummeting share prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
But you aren't exactly proclaiming it as a good thing either.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm interested in what you think you understand. Why do you think that the deficit is over $1T each year, and why is it not a bad thing? Details please. I want to see how you think it works.
I'm not trying to proclaim it as a good thing either.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
And the short answer is a combination between expansionary fiscal policy and expansionary monetary policy.
I didn't read all these pages... but just reading the first page was awesome and hilarious! Great Job Sinfix and David88!
I want to know exactly what you believe that you understand. You have stated multiple times that you understand these economic policies very well. Your short answer is very vague. I would like to hear what your education has taught you.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
What's vague about expansionary fiscal policy? That's about the most specific and realistic answer for anything in this thread. Deficit spending is a single tool governments use to balance an economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Explain what you think they are doing and why it is appropriate - in your opinion. You stated it was a combination of fiscal and monetary. Explain your perception of its combination - just your own opinion of how and what the right amount of expansion and distribution is - in regards to the value that the average American receives.
Or, you could paste your college dissertation on macroeconomic policy here. Surely, your college professor wouldn't have taken a paper that just said combination of expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.
How about I make another thread on it. If it pleases the court. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
So come 2016, things are exactly the way they are now...... Obama a success in your eyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm not the court, but I believe that I would find it interesting. I'm not trying to start an argument either - I'm genuinely interested in your opinion and position - and I'm not looking to attack you on your opinion on economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Honestly to lay it all out would require its own thread. It'll get side tracked in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
You think there will be a civil war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Whenever you have time, if you are willing to.
If there was or wasnt, you would deny the possibility until the moment someone kicked down your door. Video points out a lot of sketchy government over reaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbow
There's always been sketchy government, if there was something insane them I would believe it. If they banned guns and came to take them yes, there would be a civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
However far away you may think that possibility is, Obama brought us closer to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbow
I'll agree that we're closer than ever on terms of hardcore gun control/banning of certain weapons, but I truly don't think we will ever have guns taken from us, if that did happen, then there would be war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
lets be honest with ourselves.......
who doesnt need a 100 round magazine filled with armor penetrating ammo?
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...psf9b6fa72.jpg
I don't need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15