Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a difference - and treating them as the same thing is not intelligent.
Which will not matter to the right-wingers one whit. Otherwise an excellent post. Bush ran huge deficits when he had no reason. Obama has run them when he had no choice.
That seems like common sense to me. It's better to take on some debt to replace your leaking roof than it is to go into debt so you can buy crystal meth. Buying a new roof will save you money in the long run.
Let's not pretend than this country runs itself without expense. Bridges and roads don't self-maintain.
Nobody is making that assertation at all.
And comparing one expense as a leaky roof, and the other as crystal meth, shows that you are unable to respect others opinions which you don't share. Anybody that supports an expenditure you don't is automatically equated to supporting crystal meth. Really?
Obamas policies are MUCH deeper than just bridges and roads. To make the claim that the trillions of dollars spent thus far only support social services is a flat out lie.
And comparing one expense as a leaky roof, and the other as crystal meth, shows that you are unable to respect others opinions which you don't share. Anybody that supports an expenditure you don't is automatically equated to supporting crystal meth. Really?
I guess you don't understand the concept of analogy. I can't say I'm surprised.
Well, he sure fooled a lot of tax analysts into believing that he did. Anyway you slice those numbers, the rich made out like bandits while other folks made do with peanuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinalsay
...and we haven't had a conservative in the WH in around 100 years.
Funny how some use this "He wasn't a real conservative" canard whenever the guy they manage to elect then manages to screw things up. Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush...all were the supposed conservative alternative, but after the sad facts come in, they somehow no longer qualify. Weird.
Baloney. Arguing that some ideas are good in one context but not in another is not "relativity." Many of us liberals believe that there was justification for the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. That doesn't mean that we're being "relative." It means we're evaluating two different situations.
No, using a war in Iraq, to justify deficit spending is relativity, and exactly the argument I was making. Its like you are saying, "yeah, we spent trillions on propping up GM, but thats ok because we spent money in Iraq". That is relativity, and exactly what your argument was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie
You are reading stuff that I didn't say. I blame conservative policies, because Presidents of both parties, particularly Clinton, were pursuing them. Clinton has a lot to answer for in the leadup to the financial collapse that happened near the end of Bush's term (Bush held it off as long as he could through defecit spending - trying desperately to put the collapse off until after the 2008 election - but he didn't quite make it). But those policies were undoubtedly conservative - market self-regulation, reduced regulatory burden, reduced taxation, derivatives trading, etc.
Oh come on. You can't seriously believe that every conservative economic policy causes a negative to our financial security. For 200 years, this country operated as nearly a laissez faire economic system and proved to build the worlds largest and richest economic superpower the world has ever seen.
Not all conservatives, myself included, oppose all government regulation. Infact, I support some initiatives that product workers right and safe working conditions.
Eitherway, your talking points about both the Iraq war and regulation of the markets is completely off topic. We are talking about the argument of relativity which you are proving here is a typical ploy of the liberal left. If you can't defend a situation on its own merits, and must rather attempt to justify it by comparison or its relative connection to something else, then is it really worth standing on its own?
Obama justified trillions of dollars in government spending by savings over a 10 year period. As stated in the OP, that is like me going out and buying a $80K BMW that I know I can't afford but trying to justify it by saying that Ill save 20 dollars a week. Just doesn't work.
Which will not matter to the right-wingers one whit. Otherwise an excellent post. Bush ran huge deficits when he had no reason. Obama has run them when he had no choice.
yay! for relativity!
Or, in logic, the cheap answer. Justify his spending on its own merits.
I guess you don't understand the concept of analogy. I can't say I'm surprised.
Wow, I see the liberals got their "attack" faces on all over the board today.
Your analogy sucks because it makes those that agree with you "problem solves" while those who don't "criminals". I understand an anology perfectly fine, I don't understand how somebody can be so blatently arrogant.
Wow, I see the liberals got their "attack" faces on all over the board today.
Your analogy sucks because it makes those that agree with you "problem solves" while those who don't "criminals". I understand an anology perfectly fine, I don't understand how somebody can be so blatently arrogant.
Go on and keep pretending you didn't understand my point. It just makes you look foolish.
What stands true is that Obama did not say what you put within your quote marks, and that your invented statement stands as an entirely phony comparison leading to baseless argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Obama said that he reduced the budget projection by +/- 2 trillion dollars over 10 years in order to justify bailouts that will exceed the net savings over 10 years.
For the apparently hard of hearing, what he said was that he didn't like having to run these deficits either, and that the administration was working on getting them back under control as soon as possible, having already put outyear cuts into place that per OMB projections will net a $2.2 trillion reduction in the deficit over ten years. Significant portions of the bank and auto bailout funding are meanwhile in the form of loans and other investments where repayment and even profit is reasonably expected so long as global and national economic recoveries proceed on a relatively sound basis. The forward budgetary savings cited are meanwhile independent of recovery and reinvestment efforts. They are, however, just projections, and you can't put projections in the bank. If you could, W would have had that $5.6 trillion projected surplus working on his behalf. We all know what happened to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
You can make snide little comments like "no real surprise there" and "either one is being pretty stupid"... or you can focus on the information provided by Obama and how it relates to the relativity argument. He tried to justify trillions of dollars in government spending with a mere 2 trillion dollar savings over 10 years.
You earn every snide remark that comes your way when you post patently dishonest and disingenuous arguments. The trillions in extra actual and projected spending are justified by the calamitous economic state that W et al managed to put this country (and many others) in with their years of laissez-faire economic bungling. Work on forward deficit reduction has nothing to do with the current need for spending. You act like the defendant convicted of murdering his parents who pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. You are as the arsonist complaining about water-damage caused by the fire department in seeking to extinguish the blaze. You have and make no actual case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Try to stay on topic here.
You have made dishonesty the topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
