Printable View
I like it. Here in the US, not all our freeways are safe to travel past about 70 MPH. The Autobahns were built in Germany, and you can go that fast in most areas.
Didn't they have hyperinflation?
Thank God you guys have been such debt hawks your entire lives.
A) I have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
B) Are you really too stupid to see the difference in magnitude between the debt being run up by Obama versus every previous administration in the history of our nation?
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
It was ok when Republicans did it.Quote:
B) Are you really too stupid to see the difference in magnitude between the debt being run up by Obama versus every previous administration in the history of our nation?
With the possible exception of defense spending -- a constitutional imperative of government -- you'd be hard-pressed to find me supporting any government spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I opposed stimulus and the bailouts even when Bush was president. On this, I'm consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Just Dump Chump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The asshole used to be comical at times, he is now nothing but irritating.
Dammit... Where's my fly swatter... Looks like I have to buy a new one to get rid on this gnat.
Yes, you are a real internet badass when it comes to debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
But you were fine with all of Bush's debt up til then. You are so consistent.Quote:
I opposed stimulus and the bailouts even when Bush was president. On this, I'm consistent.
He amuses.
You, on the other hand, are comical at all times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What are you trying to argue? That debt is good? Or that Yonivore is hypocritical? If its the latter, well, you could provide some proof of him saying that debt is good. If its the former, you could at least argue for the reasoning behind spending ass loads of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Too the original point of the thread:
Debt, especially in the amounts that the US has been gathering it in the past 20 years, is bad.
Bush spent money we didn't have, we can all agree on that, and agree that it is bad to spend that much.
Obama has spent or has agreed to spend far more than Bush. If Bush's debt was bad, Obama's larger debt has to be worse, correct?
I agree. It is amusing to watch things like Gilligan's Island, Monty Python, Forrest Gump, etc. It just gets old after a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
He's no good at arguing his own position, only picking at others' through strawmen arguments. See ChumpDumper's last 1,000 posts for proof of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
My position is you guys really didn't care about the debt at all when Bush was president -- which is correct.
But it's a absolutely stupid to assume we shouldn't care about deficit spending under different situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I have repeatedly said I understand deficit spending for wars and for recessions. Not bailouts and social programs.
I just burned your strawman.
Ah, so it is correct, because you say so? Did you bother to try and find a post where I said that I don't care about debt, unless its a Dem spending it? Did you find a post where I said large government is fine as long as its a Republican government? Or did you just make something up, hoping that no one would question you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Well, it's a start. I applaud you for finally starting a post by claiming you have a position instead of declaring what others' are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, that's incorrect. I was critical of the spending and, particularly, the bailouts and first stimulus; (even if the first stimulus did actually stimulate the economy where Obama's has failed, so far, to do so...Rahm's ChumpDumper-like declarations notwithstanding.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumperDumper
Nah, it's totally correct -- you didn't care. You just waved your flag and put him on Mt. Rushmore for his deficit spending.
So, you can't find proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, I held president Bush in high esteem for other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Again, you are just saying that its true, and not backing it up with anything but hyperbole...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I mean, don't get me wrong, this is the internet, and I kinda expect it, but coming in here, and just saying that you are right, without proof, or even a real arguement, doesn't really achieve much...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Bush spent like Ted Kennedy on a bender in Martha's Vineyard.
Given that I was against that, why would I want to double-down?
i've only seen you complain about pirates, not republican spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
You voted for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Fair enough. I went searching for posts from when Bush's stimulus package was getting passed, and unfortunately, it doesn't search that far back. However, I'm sure you would be pleased to know that I voted Libertarian for both Senator (because Cornyn voted for the damn thing) and President, because I didn't believe that McCain would cut back on government and government spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
And you voted for Obama (I'm assuming), does that mean that you agree with everything he has done?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
All of Obama's debt is to repair an economy and healthcare system savagely destroyed by the culmination of Reaganomics. All of the Republican debt went to enriching the wealthy and killing brown skinned people/American soldiers.
I voted for Palin.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
It does.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Obama isn't spending any money to kill "brown skinned people"?Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
And even if its intended purpose is to repair an economy "savagely destroyed by the culmination of Reaganomics" does that make it right to spend more money than we will be able to pay back in years?
How, when I searched for posts for me, it only showed till 5-2009... Unless that was an arguement on Spurscorrall.com or SpursReport.com. Which in that case, its probably gone forever. I forget when I started posting in here actively.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by balli
If you posted here before then, use a keyword to narrow down the search. I believe there is a limit to the number of results shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Tried that. Probably what happened was that the discussion was on the now defunct SpursCorral.com.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yes, because 8 summers after 2001, he's decided to clean up the Taliban. But he's certainly not going out of his way to drop a 'shock & awe' campaign on people who pose absolutely zero threat to us whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
I don't know. I don't even see a place for moral condemnation. We're creatures of circumstance. Any moral conclusions we draw are relative to 2.5 questions:Quote:
And even if its intended purpose is to repair an economy "savagely destroyed by the culmination of Reaganomics" does that make it right to spend more money than we will be able to pay back in years?
Would the economic consequences of inaction equal or outweigh any that we're taking on by interventionist government spending? The answer is yes; rapidly, with a more human toll. In that same vein, could Obama be handling it better? Again the answer is yes, but that begs another question.
Could the only other viable opposition party in America (The GOP) do any better? Hell fucking no. Republicans can talk all they want about reigning in spending, but they're straight up selling snake oil. These people had their shot and proved to be utterly incompetent and/or evil/corrupt in just about every way imaginable. I mean seriously, the nerve of the GOP to get all chest out after the trainwreck that was the 2000's is just beyond me.
So yeah, could Obama be doing some things differently, sure, but right now he's BY FAR the best we got... and trying to vilify him morally, especially when it's coming from Bushies, is a joke.
Who gives a shit about morals. Spending money that you don't have is just stupid. Period fucking dot.Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
Sure, it sucks to be fiscally responsible, but we've dug ourselves a hole as a nation by everyone, from the common man to the biggest corporation, to the government, spending more than they take in. So, the solution for the common man is to save rather than spend, but the solution for the government is to spend and then spend some more? Does that make any sense? This behavior is what got us to this place to start with, so we are just going to repeat it, but on a grander scale? 50 years down the road, when we are bajillions of dollars in debt, and no one will loan us anymore money, and we can't pay our bills as a nation, what is the solution then? Keep spending?
Then you shouldn't have ambiguously framed the question in terms of whether it's 'right' or not. A clearer question would have been does it make economic sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Either way, a lot of hypocrites are gunning for Obama as if he were conducting some master plan to destroy America. So whether or not that's what you meant... meh, plenty of other people morally condemn him.
Some of us have, not me, but mostly, as you well know, this situation was created by huge corporations banking (pun intended) on that bad debt.Quote:
Sure, it sucks to be fiscally responsible, but we've dug ourselves a hole as a nation by everyone, from the common man to the biggest corporation, to the government, spending more than they take in.
According to the only working economic theory we've found (Keynesian), yes. For the time being. And why should the common man save? Now's the time to buy.Quote:
So, the solution for the common man is to save rather than spend, but the solution for the government is to spend and then spend some more? Does that make any sense?
So you would argue that the government needs to spend far, far more than they currently are? If we are suggesting, as you did, that Keynesian economics are the only economics that works, that would make sense. I don't necessarily believe it to be true, but I'm way out of my field with economics. I just know that debt is bad for me, and IMO, its bad for the government, especially when there doesn't seem to be any effort to pay off that debt during the boom times. Also, after reading over Keynesian economics a little just now, I think that our government is spending far too much, far too soon for the scale of the recession we are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
I'm more than a layman too, but to paraphrase the words of Larry David, a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied. That's Keynesian theory to a T, so IMO, it's the best we got.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Whether Obama's implementing it correctly or not I couldn't assert with any real factual knowledge. All I can say is that I voted for him, that I believe him to be a competent and good man and that I think he's trying the hardest he can to repair one hell of a mess. At some point, it becomes an issue of trust. And I trust him.
Like you and I both admitted, we're just trying to make sense of a world we don't understand, so I'm not going to pretend to know whether what Obama's doing is as efficient as it could be. Some of the things he's done have seemed smart to me, others not so. But according to what limited knowledge I have, I think he could be doing a whole lot worse. On an anecdotal level, I know my dad's small business is still turning a profit and that recent governement spending has helped my sister to buy a house. Those are good things IMO. And they wouldn't have happened if the major banks had started failing or if the wider economic conditions had further eroded.
And on a fundamental level, I disagree entirely with the notion that the fed didn't need to intervene in the economy at all. That would have been suicide.
Eh, phoenix and all that, from ashes, rebirth. I'm dissatisfied with the general pattern of the traditional business model, I think our nation is far to reliant on being a service nation, and not enough production of goods, so on an intellectual level, I wouldn't mind a refactoring of our economy. I do realize though that it isn't the best thing for the individual (yes, I believe in understatement).Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
I have repeatedly said I understand deficit spending for wars and for recessions. Not bailouts and social programs.
I just burned your strawman.[/QUOTE]
If you understand deficit spending for wars and recessions as you clearly stated above, then are you saying that you DID approve of the Bush tax cuts that contributed 1.35 TRILLION to the national deficit? And if you did approve of Bush's policies, which resulted in the doubling of the national debt during his tenure, then why do you oppose the deficit spending for the same wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) that we had during the Bush Administration, and the stimulus spending for the recession, which was manifestly in place for the last four quarters of the Bush Administration, and has continued into the first two quarters of the Obama Administration?
It seems to me that the 'born again' fiscal conservatives that declaim the current stimulus package show themselves to be willing to take tax cuts for themselves from my grandchildren, but claim that a stimulus package that was smaller than the Bush tax cuts and that included more tax cuts ( but for different people) than during the Bush years along with some jobs programs ( horrrors!) are fiscally irresponsible are just exhibiting an internal inhcoherence.
The bottom line here is not..."if it is for war or recession it is ok". The bottom line is "if a Democrat supports it, even if it is for a war or a recession, it is not ok".
Personally, I don't agree with the tax cuts under Bush OR Obama because we can't afford them, and I don't believe that road construction projects have much to do with the overall economy. I just can't stand listening to hypocrisy from people who don't mind spending my grandchildren's money if it is going into their own pockets, but don't want to spend any to provide jobs for the folks who really want to work and support their families.
Wow... Your assumptions are so idiotic, I almost ignoted you.It wasn't the tax cuts that attributed to the deficits. They kept the deficits from being larger. The economy was already falling, indicators started in 1998 or 1999 that it would happen. President Bush inherited a recession. Deficit spending was already going to be reality without the financial impact of 9/121 and the war that followed. I would argue that the money we spent on our military actions prevented farther catastrophes. Of course, that is not a certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
It was not president Bush's policies alone that almost doubled the debt. Now keep in mind, it only increased by about 50% inflation adjusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
If you have follow any of my remarks, you know you are making false assumptions. I do not support everything president Bush has done. I was fully against the bailout he signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
You clearly don't understanf that the economy is dynamic, and that the tax cuts actually increased economic growth and federal revenues. Tax collections would have been lower without the tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Are you done talking out your ignorant-anus yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Go buy a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
I know more about macroeconomics than you can ever learn in several lifetimes. The empirical evidence that shows that the tax cuts (which were a stimulus plan, of course) DIRECTLY contributed to the deficits is compelling, if one accepts empiricism rather than right wing babble. Supply side economics, the theory underpinning the tax cuts, has been shown by repeated Nobel-winning economists to be a failure, but right wing politicos reassert it as gospel, most frequently accompanied by sophomoric references to bodily parts and functions. It is as pathetic as the ill-conceived assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Wait until he starts babbling about the successes of trickle down economics, THEN you heard it all.
That's as idiotic as those in the past believing that the Earth was flat and that CO2 causes Global Warming. First off, empirical evidence is bullshit until it is tried and tested. You also have to remove the other factors that affect the results, or you have no valid data.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
History has repeatedly shown that tax cuts work. You stop short at only looking at the evidence you want to see.
Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Bush Bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Bush never met a federal spending increase he didn't like. Medicare Part D should have been the end of any thought whatsoever that he was a fiscal conservative. Lest we forget the other philosophical diversions from conservativism, such as "No Child Left Behind."
Naturally Cobra Commander and Yanni think conservatism is about spending a lot on the military to shoot up brown folk in the Middle East to prove that the US has a large male appendage.
Again and again and again we find "conservatives" excusing some action of the Bush administration, even when it's painfully obvious that there was nothing traditionally conservative about that administration, and much which flew right in the face of the Constitution, a document of which Our Lord, Our Savior, George W. Christ was not a fan.
Are we saying he's a fiscal conservative? What fantasy land do you live in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Idiot. You are flat out an idiot. You obviously cannot defend your point of view against the facts, so you lie about our point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I find it offensive that people actually try to pin deficit spending on one political party.
Newsflash: nearly every contemporary president has expanded government power and spent money that they don't have.
Also, conservatives are only called conservatives relative to the other party platform. It has nothing to do with actually being conservative on anything other than biblical social issues. The GOP and the dems will both rack up debt in the name of unnecessary war/social programs/fixing the economy/$50,000 toilets/self-pay raises or whatever else comes their way.
It isn't their money and their constituents apparently could care less. People love big government. How else do we allow income tax to be amended to the constitution and fight wars of aggression?
It must be tough for you reading through the threads in this forum. They often consist of little else. That and personal insultsQuote:
Originally Posted by sabar
How insolent of you to take the long, historical view, and emphasize that we've been headed down this road for about a hundred years with the continuous approval/participation of both parties and the people who elected them to office.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
Real Americans prefer patriotic cant to history lessons. How dare you bring American history into this, Sir. I consider it shameless, un-American, and unforgivable. :hat
Are you a foreigner, sabar? Because that would just figure...
True, but that doesn't make "Bushonomics on steroids" better, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Very boutons-esque of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I'm not Bush apologist, but Bush is no longer president. The OP is about the current POTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
It's important to ascertain what exactly "conservatism" is today. On many fronts the current administration is merely continuing where the prior one left off. The only real difference seems to be that Uncle Sam now speaks with an urbane voice instead of a Texas twang tempered by stints at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That is a good question, to me, it seems there are three distinct "brands" of conservatives now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holt's Cat
Social conservatives, who don't mind, and really kinda want big government (the better to control you with).
Conservative Hawks - put national defense and protection #1, obviously, they want big government from a DoD and Homeland Security side. Bush was one of these, although I don't think he necessarily would have been without the World Trade Center attacks happening.
Traditional Conservatives - small government, fiscal responsibility.
Of course, there are just as many types of "liberals" too.
carter started the push to a financial sector based economy. reagan took off with it with deregulations and clinton further deregulated by repealing glass-steagal.
this road trip took off a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
lol, your graph doesn't go far enough into the future.
interesting thing about the graph as it timelines correctly in that it coincides with the end of our industrial society and the move towards banking and investments as the core of our economy.
That's what we get when spending growth is increasingly automatic and not discretionary, thanks to the entitlement programs.
As for the partisan element, you can thank both parties. I notice that graph does not note which parties controlled what houses of Congress during that period. The national debt has been truly a bipartisan accomplishment.
Non-Californians look at CA's fiscal crisis and wonder why spending can't be reduced, but when federal spending reductions are proposed, naturally no one is in favor. Sooner or later the CA scenario is going to play out at the federal level.
When the Chinese cut us off, naturally Democrats and Republicans will be pointing fingers at each other as the country descends into the abyss.
No shit. I was thinking the same things. I was taking the information from two OMB graphs and combining them. If I don't get interrupted, I'll have a graph in a bit. Must be nice that President Clinton had no serious disasters to worry about. However, it taxing people at 20% GNP caught up with him and started the 2000 recession, making President Bush's numbers look worse than they should have been That's what happens when you tax 11% above a sustainable level. The pendulum swings back hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
18% = sustainable taxation. 20/18 = 1.11, or 11% over sustainable.
Year Tax % of GNP
1993 17.5%
1994 18.1%
1995 18.5%
1996 18.9%
1997 19.3%
1998 20.0%
1999 20.0%
2000 20.9%
Where did you pull this magic number from? Can I see the math behind it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There have been several articles on the subject over the years. If you look at the data, we generally have a recession following above an 18% taxation rate. Compare the historical tata yourself sometime of GNP taxation and receipt levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I just finished this graph:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...venueinGNP.jpg
My intent was to show the out of control Social Spending. Notice that receipts correct at about an 18% average. Please note that the 2009 receipts are 15.1% of GNP and the Social Spending is 14.7%. I extrapolated the data from the following:
Table 6.1—Composition of Outlays: 1940–2014
Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2014
The two above tables come from the OMB:
Office of Management and Budget; Historical Tables
out of control social spending is not the reason for our current deficit and economic woes
Then I'm sure you won't have a problem presenting one. I'm mostly interested in the formula used to calculate the this 'sustainable tax' percentage and the scientific rationale behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Link?
:greedyQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv