Obama General Discussion, vol. 4

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Government spending absolutely needs to shrink, but it needs to do so when the economy is healthy.

Which is coincidently exactly what Greece and Europe have been telling themselves for years. And what the Party of Government in this country still believes. The Laws of Economics are now catching up with them however.
You can starve the beast when middle and lower income families are out of the shitter, instead of blowing up their benefits and giving them to rich folks as tax cuts.
What is the source of revenue that funds "their benefits"?
Taking the legs out from under the very people who need to be spending to generate growth when the economy is shaky is ridiculous.
Thinking we need more spending rather than more production and capital formation is, well, ridiculous.
Supply side economics does not work. The very people who were the architects of it during the (!) Reagan era have admitted it is ineffective.
Reagan running for reelection in his 4th year, "It's morning in America."

Obama running for reelection in his 4th year, "I believe that there are a lot of Americans who are hurting right now, which is what I've been saying for the last year, two years, three years, what I've been saying since I came into office."

And growth is not a zero-sum game between government and the private sector as you are simplifying it to fit your political ideology :doh:

Government does not grow the economy or create wealth; it borrows or taxes money from existing sources and redistributes it to other sources. The only way to grow the economy is through the private sector or Greece would be an economic powerhouse instead of a economic basketcase.

:doh: indeed!!
 
Same planet, different worlds.

Want to solve the debt? End what started it in the first place: the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
INDY500 said:
Which is coincidently exactly what Greece and Europe have been telling themselves for years.
No. Greece has suffered from endemic, systematic problems with collecting tax revenue from its citizens for decades (ironic considering your political viewpoint and how you spin the problems with what's going on in that country.) America is not Greece; the IRS is fairly adept at squeezing the working man.

As far as your US Dollar / Euro comparison, I am not going to bother listing the differences between a vast land of states that has had a shared currency and cultural progression since its inception (gee golly, only one internal war wus a bargain, partner!) and a vast land that has bundled together a variety of states with vastly different systems of governance and fiscal responsibility only recently. Giving up the ability to regulate one's national currency vs. the crazy neighbours' via national-level central bank is a huge issue.

Again, the need for nuance when the conservative mind searches for black and white answers.

INDY500 said:
What is the source of revenue that funds "their benefits"?
Obviously it is the state, or the federal government. The issue at hand is whether it is a better idea to curb government spending now, where America is poised for a second recession after Europe gets embroiled in a bank run, or later, when the economy has recovered and is healthy.

Cutting benefits to middle and lower class Americans decreases their spending and in turn reduces their retail spending and savings for future investments (locally and nationally), as well as the amount of tax revenue they contribute to local, state, and federal governments.

If you want my honest opinion, we need stereotypically Democratic fiscal policies during the bust and stereotypically Republican fiscal policies during the boom.

Putting into place Republican (Paul Ryanesque) fiscal policy during the bust is like squeezing the last few PSI out of a suffocating diver's tank before he has the chance to use it to get to the surface.

INDY500 said:
Thinking we need more spending rather than more production and capital formation is, well, ridiculous.
We need both, truth be told.

If there is no income available to be spent from the working class, then there is no demand for goods and services. Jesus Christ. Are you going to build a Lamborghini factory and a couple hundred cars and then tell an economy that they need to buy these things? Fuck no, you respond to market demand.

Again, if you truly believe the only way out of a recession is tax cuts for a tax bracket that predominantly squirrels money away in safe investments for long-term growth and maintaining their wealth, there is nothing that I could ever type that would convince you otherwise.

The availability of investment information and the skilled resources to apply that knowledge for the rich and super-rich vs. the guy from the auto plant or the bowling alley is hugely disparate.
 
No. Greece has suffered from endemic, systematic problems with collecting tax revenue from its citizens for decades (ironic considering your political viewpoint and how you spin the problems with what's going on in that country.) America is not Greece; the IRS is fairly adept at squeezing the working man.

As far as your US Dollar / Euro comparison, I am not going to bother listing the differences between a vast land of states that has had a shared currency and cultural progression since its inception (gee golly, only one internal war wus a bargain, partner!) and a vast land that has bundled together a variety of states with vastly different systems of governance and fiscal responsibility only recently. Giving up the ability to regulate one's national currency vs. the crazy neighbours' via national-level central bank is a huge issue.
:up:

the aforementioned Europe/Greece comparison was shockingly inane
 
As far as your US Dollar / Euro comparison, I am not going to bother listing the differences between a vast land of states that has had a shared currency and cultural progression since its inception (gee golly, only one internal war wus a bargain, partner!) and a vast land that has bundled together a variety of states with vastly different systems of governance and fiscal responsibility only recently.

Seriously.

It's as if each time INDY gets on this track, he conveniently forgets that the US has the ability to print its own money.
 
I saw a married couple doing the same thing outside my local DMV. I don't know who these LaRouche people are.

Either way, these people eventually got kicked off the premises. It was a pretty funny spectacle.

The guy at the desk at the po said that the police had been by there to "check it out". It's federal property-but since they were right at the edge of the street/driveway they aren't trespassing I suppose. He didn't say that, just my guess. Don't know what the laws say about that. He also said that he couldn't say anything about it because he just works there, whatever that meant. Afraid for his job I guess, or just being sarcastic.
 
I get it, that's his cranky old guy insults everyone comedy. But-not classy or appropriate. I don't get what the President even has to do with AFI or Shirley MacLaine.

abcnews.com

Don Rickles has been on TV insulting people for laughs for decades, but his remark comparing President Barack Obama to a janitor at a recent taping of the American Film Institute’s tribute to Shirley MacLaine has been edited out of a broadcast version set to air on TV Land, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Rickles was firing verbal jabs at MacLaine and several guests, including Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty, when he commented about the commander in chief, saying “President Obama is a personal friend of mine. He was over to the house yesterday, but the mop broke.”

When The Hollywood Reporter asked TV Land about Rickles’ joke about the president, a spokesman for the cable channel replied, “It’s not going to make it on the air. That’s all I’ll say about it.”
 
Liberals have short memories, are we forgetting the Laffer curve:

laffer-curve.gif


Income taxes should be cut and cut significantly across the board. Ignore the class war b.s., the main beneficiaries of such a tax cut would be working class and middle class people not the 1%. And the public sector needs to be shrunk and have manners put on it. There are prison officers in California who earn $300k a year for Chrissakes (well, that receive salaries of that amount, I wouldn't say they 'earn' them precisely!).

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/hundreds-of-californias-state-employees-earn-more-than-240000/


Canadiens accuses conservatives of oversimplifying and lacking nuance - well, Indy500's core point is that the only thing that pays for the public sector is taxes on the private sector and that, I'm afraid, is black and white, no matter which way liberals try to obfuscate and create sidetracks and distractions.
 
Indy500's core point is that the only thing that pays for the public sector is taxes on the private sector and that, I'm afraid, is black and white, no matter which way liberals try to obfuscate and create sidetracks and distractions.

That's true but liberals aren't really hiding from that, are they? They want to create more revenue. And nobody is denying it that I can see. They want the Bush Tax Cuts to expire in December. Last I saw, that would create, about 800 billion in revenue over 10 years. Plus whatever loopholes or exemptions they want to remove. So yeah, they definitely are transparent about it.

Where conservatives in America fall short is the ability to see our inevitably growing public sector because of so called "entitlements" that everybody wants, and are professing an economic policy that has PROVEN that it can not pay for the public sector, in 1987, 1991, 2003 or 2007 or 2013.

Supply side economics + public need/desire = deficits.
Proven, across 3 administrations, and over 20 years apart.
We cannot run the federal government with those kinds of revenues. Period.

I am a big fan of what works. I said it weeks or months ago and I'll say it again. Show me how supply side economics works (using factual data) and I'll get on board. I've heard it my whole life and all I've seen is smoke and mirrors. It's impractical. Yes, it works to generate revenues (that is demonstrable)...but they are insufficient revenues. All I can say is - 8 years of George W Bush and tax cuts created almost no jobs.

We have 20 of the last 32 years under Reaganomic control and in that time we've seen one remarkable economic growth period (circa 1984) and the rest of it lackluster or worse. At the height of Reagan revenues (1987) it was the low of growth. In other words, the economy maxed out. And 20 years later the exact same thing happened.

Meanwhile we had remarkable job growth at the height of liberal taxation (1997-2000) and we had a balanced budget as well. Reagan raised taxes, I think 11 times. This is not that hard to figure out.

Supply-side Reaganomics is a sham used by Republicans to convince a lot of people to vote against their best interests. I fully accept that the public dichotomy (the political argument) is a big problem, that those that claim that it is ONLY a revenue problem are just as misguided. Honestly, I am all ears and eyes for opposing facts.
 
Electoral-Vote.com


Jesus Christ. Anybody see this yet? If you switch Iowa to Obama and give Romney Florida (the latter of which will almost surely happen in November), you get an electoral college tie of 269-269. Can you imagine the rioting that would happen? Even worse, under that scenario, the House chooses the winner based on each state's delegation having one vote apiece. We all know who would win under that scenario. :doh:

Of course, that map is pretty unlikely. Not that 49 of those can't happen as they may very well, but there's no way Romney is going to take Michigan, especially after what he said about Detroit. So the polls showing him in the lead there seem like an outlier to me.
 
The Laffer Curve is great and is generally applicable to reality if income taxes are in the 75% range, at least in terms of short term equilibria (what the Laffer Curve deals with). Of course, tax cuts can be great Keynesian stimulus to help boost revenues in the long run, but that's different, and supply-side Keynesianism alone isn't very helpful.

I think it's worth noting that mainstream Republicans are really just as Keynesian as Democrats; their focus for stimulus is just on the supply side rather than on the demand side, or something more balanced (Democrats have gone after both, really). They're not particularly serious about short-term budget balancing, any more than Democrats are. Ron Paul is a borderline Austrian who probably would balance the budget, but the Paul Ryan types who push for eliminating spending that generally helps the poor to have tax cuts for the wealthy tend to do a very bad job balancing the budget.
 
Seriously.

It's as if each time INDY gets on this track, he conveniently forgets that the US has the ability to print its own money.

Actually you will find me mentioning the federal government's ability to print money on the previous page of this very thread. :up: short attention spans.

Unfortunately, that "flexibility" or ability to print money -- unavailable to state or local governments here or the E.U. nations -- is being misused to buy political time only delaying the inevitable while insuring an all-the-more spectacular and destructive collapse.

The GDP of the entire world couldn't bail us out if we defaulted tomorrow, and it grows larger every day. And yet it isn't enough is it? It's never enough.
 
No. Greece has suffered from endemic, systematic problems with collecting tax revenue from its citizens for decades (ironic considering your political viewpoint and how you spin the problems with what's going on in that country.) America is not Greece; the IRS is fairly adept at squeezing the working man.
You think Greece's problems are revenue related rather than spending? WOW.
The Greek's may have "endemic, systematic problems with collecting tax revenues from its citizens" but they're rather adroit at collecting tax revenues from German and English citizens now aren't they?
As far as your US Dollar / Euro comparison, I am not going to bother listing the differences between a vast land of states that has had a shared currency and cultural progression since its inception (gee golly, only one internal war wus a bargain, partner!) and a vast land that has bundled together a variety of states with vastly different systems of governance and fiscal responsibility only recently. Giving up the ability to regulate one's national currency vs. the crazy neighbours' via national-level central bank is a huge issue.
The point was not an exact comparison but the commonality of denial. "I'll quit smoking when things settle down at work." "I'll go on a diet after the holidays." "We'll rein in government spending when the economy is 'better.'"
Democrats and some Republicans are in deep need of a spending intervention.
Obviously it is the state, or the federal government.
And where do they get it? Barack Obama's Money Tree?
If you want my honest opinion, we need stereotypically Democratic fiscal policies during the bust and stereotypically Republican fiscal policies during the boom.
Well that's classical Keynesian economics but the spending cutbacks in good times never seem to happen do they?
 
Actually you will find me mentioning the federal government's ability to print money on the previous page of this very thread. :up: short attention spans.

And yet you keep comparing the US to nations who are unable to do the same. Talk about a short attention span.
 
Well that's classical Keynesian economics but the spending cutbacks in good times never seem to happen do they?

Yeah, that may be the single biggest problem with Keynesianism. It's really tough to implement. On the surface, we can thank decades worth of Democrats and Republicans for being Keynesian during recession and very pro-cyclical during normal times, but it goes beyond that. People don't like having money taken away from them, and their politicians reflect that. It's not a Democratic or Republican flaw. It's everyone's flaw.

Unfortunately, that doesn't take away from the fact that spending cuts now will cause what you call the real economy to shrink and make even servicing that debt, much less addressing it in the long term, much more difficult. We could very quickly go down the route of Spain.
 
And yet you keep comparing the US to nations who are unable to do the same. Talk about a short attention span.

I'll compare them because we all have debt crises being compounded by a lack of political courage and looming demographic challenges in the near future.
 
INDY500 said:
I'll compare them because we all have debt crises being compounded by a lack of political courage and looming demographic challenges in the near future.

So why should the middle class and poor bear responsibility for this debt crisis?
 
Or, at least, they don't call themselves "job creators" which is more important than actual job creation.
 
We might as well just name the upper class "The Job Creators," since you don't have to create any jobs to be called a job creator. You just have to have a lot of money sitting in a bank.
 
i don't see why tax cuts on the rich should be funded by service cuts for the poor.

how is that not "class warfare" on poor people?
 
So why should the middle class and poor bear responsibility for this debt crisis?

Is it me or do believe the economy revolves around government spending? More of it benefits the middle class and "stimulates" the economy while less of it is "austerity" and harms the middle class.

I share your concern for the middle class and poor but my prescription isn't "trickle down government." What's my right-wing extremist answer?, well I have a feeling you won't care for it.

Do you share your concern about the middle class and poor when it comes to this president's harmful energy policies? Putting his environmental campaign donors ahead of cheaper energy by delaying the Keystone Pipeline and his EPA's attacks on the coal industry. Yeah, middle class coal workers in Kentucky and W Virginia are quite enamored with this president aren't they? If only they understood how much better they are receiving a check from Obama rather than some coal company right? One of the few economic bright spots during this recession (other than the housing industry around Washington D.C. :wave:) has been the natural gas industry via fracking. Guess what the EPA has in its sights next? Guess what the cumulative effect of all this is on the energy bills of the middle class and poor?

Do you share that concern for the middle class and poor when Republicans are said by this president to "want dirtier air and dirtier water" for simply telling the truth that excessive government regulations are choking small businesses and driving manufacturing from this country? The same goes for promoting a business tax code that would lower rates for businesses and incentivize the return of off-shore profits and capital formation. Just more "tax breaks for the rich" right?

Finally, how do you rectify your concern for the middle class and poor while supporting a president that wants to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and whose Justice Dept actively sues states trying to rein in illegal immigration. Do you not understand that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor depresses wages in those industries and costs Americans jobs? That an unchecked flow of poor illegal immigrants floods the basic government and private services most utilized by the middle class and poor?

What's the best thing that could happen for the middle class and poor in this country? Barack Obama losses his job this year.
And I bet I'm right about you not caring for my answer.
 
We might as well just name the upper class "The Job Creators," since you don't have to create any jobs to be called a job creator. You just have to have a lot of money sitting in a bank.

A lesson on banking for Philly courtesy of George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life.

its_a_wonderful_life_2.jpg


"No, but you're thinking of this place all wrong, as if I have the money back in a safe. The money's not here. Well, your money's in Joe's house, that's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Makelin's house, and a hundred others. You're lending them the money to build, and then they're going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now, what're you going to do, foreclose on them?"
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fracking that's leading to people's water in their sinks catching on fire? Or something related to the natural gas stuff is doing that? I fail to see exactly how that benefits anyone.

Also, what exactly do the business people who complain about the government regulations consider "excessive" about said regulation?

And in the towns I've lived in, any immigrant populations who live there tend to work in the service industry at fast food places or your local department stores or something. Lower-paying jobs, jobs that aren't exactly "Ooh! Aah!" types of work. It often either seems to be immigrants, or older people, or high school/college kids looking for part-time work doing those jobs. Most people who aren't in one of those three groups aren't working those jobs because they're shooting for something "better". But if they spend all that time looking for that perfect job instead of just bucking up and taking the low-paying, not so glamorous job, then they can't really complain if, while they're looking elsewhere, someone else comes in and takes the job they're not interested in until the time comes when they have no other choice BUT to look into that kind of work.
 
Is it me or do believe the economy revolves around government spending? More of it benefits the middle class and "stimulates" the economy while less of it is "austerity" and harms the middle class.

I share your concern for the middle class and poor but my prescription isn't "trickle down government." What's my right-wing extremist answer?, well I have a feeling you won't care for it.

Do you share your concern about the middle class and poor when it comes to this president's harmful energy policies? Putting his environmental campaign donors ahead of cheaper energy by delaying the Keystone Pipeline and his EPA's attacks on the coal industry. Yeah, middle class coal workers in Kentucky and W Virginia are quite enamored with this president aren't they? If only they understood how much better they are receiving a check from Obama rather than some coal company right? One of the few economic bright spots during this recession (other than the housing industry around Washington D.C. :wave:) has been the natural gas industry via fracking. Guess what the EPA has in its sights next? Guess what the cumulative effect of all this is on the energy bills of the middle class and poor?

Do you share that concern for the middle class and poor when Republicans are said by this president to "want dirtier air and dirtier water" for simply telling the truth that excessive government regulations are choking small businesses and driving manufacturing from this country? The same goes for promoting a business tax code that would lower rates for businesses and incentivize the return of off-shore profits and capital formation. Just more "tax breaks for the rich" right?

Finally, how do you rectify your concern for the middle class and poor while supporting a president that wants to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and whose Justice Dept actively sues states trying to rein in illegal immigration. Do you not understand that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor depresses wages in those industries and costs Americans jobs? That an unchecked flow of poor illegal immigrants floods the basic government and private services most utilized by the middle class and poor?

What's the best thing that could happen for the middle class and poor in this country? Barack Obama losses his job this year.
And I bet I'm right about you not caring for my answer.


if you think it's environmental regulations that's causing the shrinking of the middle class, then you've truly got all the wrong enemies.

if you're so concerned about DC housing prices, go talk to your GOP lobbyists who are driving up prices making a $450K 1-bedroom in Logan Circle sound like a bargain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom