U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,420 posts, read 12,153,290 times
Reputation: 4536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Presidents are under no obligation to accept spending proposals from previous administrations nor Congress. Are you claiming that Obama was incompetent to do his own budgets?
OH, we are not even playing the change the subject game. you claimed president Obama added 1 trillion to the budget but in fact it was already budged in into it, it just hadnt been signed.

And im not claiming he is incompetent because unlike you , i dont just throw the opposite party aside,i actually agreed with President Bush on this one and there for i agreed with President Obama's decision to sign it into law.

face it, you were wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:10 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,733,829 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
In case you haven't noticed, corporate profits are at record levels.
Yes, thats what happens when government limits competition, those corporations that can weather the storm, see their profits climb.. basic business 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
So why won't those companies stimulate? Why?
Businesses dont stimulate, consumers do. If a company pumped out 50,000,000 cars in an effort, and they have no one to buy them, what exactly will they stimulate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
Should they just start hiring workers out of the goodness of their hearts?
Of coruse not which has me wondering how you think government should be stimulating.. hiring people out of the goodness of their heart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
When the private sector either cannot or will not induce demand, then the government has to do it.
The private sector can not induce demand when government crowds out any investmetn capital by record deficits. Clinton understood that, which is why the economy grew when he had reverse bond auctions which releaed capital into the economy, and why he cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, and why he cut the grow of government spending and tried to balance the budgets, thereby allowing all of the excess capital to sit in the private sector and be spent.

But now you are expecting the exact same result from the opposite action, which is pretty dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
I'll give you an example. My dad works for a very small company. They are doing well, they're very busy and productivity is very high. As a result, my dad works about 48 hours a week. However, the owner is a tightwad and won't hire more help because he doesn't want to pay for it.
He's already paying for it, unless your dad volunteers to work the extra hours
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
Now let's say you give him a tax cut under the theory that he'll hire someone. Let's be generous and say $20,000 (which would be huge for this small company). What do you think the owner's going to do with that money? Take one good guess where that $20k will wind up.
clearly your dad will have his hours cut and a new employee will be hired, resulting in no excess stimulation taking place.

48 work hours is the same economic benefit if 1 person is working it, or 2 are each working 24 hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:12 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,733,829 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
OH, we are not even playing the change the subject game. you claimed president Obama added 1 trillion to the budget but in fact it was already budged in into it,
I claimed no such thing. I claimed Obama signed the spending bills into law passed by a democratic Congress and as a result he is responsible for the action he took.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
it just hadnt been signed.
Thats no different than every budget signed by every President in history. So I guess none of them are responsible for bills they sign?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
And im not claiming he is incompetent because unlike you , i dont just throw the opposite party aside,i actually agreed with President Bush on this one and there for i agreed with President Obama's decision to sign it into law.

face it, you were wrong.
Clearly you are claiming that Obama is too incompetent to deal with budgets handed to him by a Democratic Congress, otherwise you wouldnt be blaming someone who wasnt even there..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,420 posts, read 12,153,290 times
Reputation: 4536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I'm very well aware of the difference clearly you have no basic 101 knowledge of accounting because projections and budgets dont equal results EVER..

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
Those werent projections, they were end of the year surpluses. Did you simply google "myth, clinton, surplus" and post the first thing you found ?

the only thing you have proven by posting that link is that you still dont understand what a budget it.

lets try simple terms.

you make 1000 dollars a month, your bills are 2,000. You are willing to get a loan for 500. your budget is 1,500.

so if one of the bills you plan to pay is cheaper than usual and you only spend 1, 400 dollars, you had a surplus of 100 dollars even though you went into debt by 500 dollars(or used the 100 to pay another bill).

a budget is only what you have decided to delegate, not how much needs to be spent in total.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:17 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,733,829 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Those werent projections, they were end of the year surpluses. Did you simply google "myth, clinton, surplus" and post the first thing you found ?

the only thing you have proven by posting that link is that you still dont understand what a budget it.
There was no dam surplus because the debt climbed yearly..

I know dam well what budgets are, and how spending works, even the US Treasury Office admits that there was no surplus. I guess their in on some big vast conspiracy to make you look dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
lets try simple terms.

you make 1000 dollars a month, your bills are 2,000. You are willing to get a loan for 500. your budget is 1,500.

so if one of the bills you plan to pay is cheaper than usual and you only spend 1, 400 dollars, you had a surplus of 100 dollars even though you went into debt by 500 dollars(or used the 100 to pay another bill).

a budget is only what you have decided to delegate, not how much needs to be spent in total.
Wrong.. Under your scenario
You had income of $1,000
$500 loan
Spent $2,000
Thats a deficit of $500 for the month which needs to be borrowed to pay, + $500 borrowed debt from the loan you took out, which is a $1,000 addition to the debt from your month long deficit spending.

In no way shape or form is that a god dam surplus..

Thats like suggesting presidents should budget to spend $50,000,000,000,000 this year and then claim a $46.5T surplus because they only spent $3.5T..

One of the stupidiest comments I've ever heard on city data.. bravo..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,420 posts, read 12,153,290 times
Reputation: 4536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I claimed no such thing. I claimed Obama signed the spending bills into law passed by a democratic Congress and as a result he is responsible for the action he took.

Thats no different than every budget signed by every President in history. So I guess none of them are responsible for bills they sign?

Clearly you are claiming that Obama is too incompetent to deal with budgets handed to him by a Democratic Congress, otherwise you wouldnt be blaming someone who wasnt even there..
if you are not saying the first bold, then that means you agreed with me and we are arguing over nothing and you responded for no reason other than a clarification of who signed the law.

Your second bold is just as misguided as your first argument,this isnt about blame, you were making a claim with all the rest of the right wingers and you were wrong, simple as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:19 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,115,141 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Yes, thats what happens when government limits competition, those corporations that can weather the storm, see their profits climb.. basic business 101
I don't know really know what you're on about when you say government is "limiting competition" (other than it being a platitude you heard somewhere). Companies gobble each other up all the time, mergers and acquisitions. Seen the airline industry lately? Banking industry? Telecom? Is that the government limiting competition or corporations doing it themselves? M&As surged during the Bush administration.

Quote:
Businesses dont stimulate, consumers do. If a company pumped out 50,000,000 cars in an effort, and they have no one to buy them, what exactly will they stimulate?
Right, consumers stimulate when they have jobs that pay money.

Quote:
Of coruse not which has me wondering how you think government should be stimulating.. hiring people out of the goodness of their heart?
Uh, no, but there's another way. How about fixing roads and bridges? You set up a RFP to build a new freeway. Government hires a construction company that will in turn hire workers. More people now have jobs and can spend money. This is how the economy works.

Quote:
48 work hours is the same economic benefit if 1 person is working it, or 2 are each working 24 hours.
Oh really? So why not fire everyone except my dad, and have him work 120 hours per week? Same "economic benefit?" Really? That's brilliant!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,420 posts, read 12,153,290 times
Reputation: 4536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
There was no dam surplus because the debt climbed yearly..

I know dam well what budgets are, and how spending works, even the US Treasury Office admits that there was no surplus. I guess their in on some big vast conspiracy to make you look dumb.

Wrong.. Under your scenario
You had income of $1,000
$500 loan
Spent $2,000
Thats a deficit of $500 for the month and another $500 added to the debt.

In no way shape or form is that a god dam surplus..

Thats like suggesting presidents should budget to spend $50,000,000,000,000 this year and then claim a $46.5T surplus because they only spent $3.5T..

One of the stupidiest comments I've ever heard on city data.. bravo..
you are to dumb to even argue with.

Yes, you went further into debt, but the 500 dollar is not within your budget at all. Thats why your Clinton surplus argument is a failure. You dont understand the definition of the word budget, you are using your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:22 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,733,829 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
if you are not saying the first bold, then that means you agreed with me and we are arguing over nothing and you responded for no reason other than a clarification of who signed the law.
Not at all. People are responsible for spending bills THEY SIGN into law. If the net effect of that was added to the debt then yes, they are to blame. I never ever came close to suggesting that all of that spending was deficit spending because clearly it wasnt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Your second bold is just as misguided as your first argument,this isnt about blame, you were making a claim with all the rest of the right wingers and you were wrong, simple as that.
Either
A) Obama is a leader and thus responsible for spending he signed or
B) Obama is incompetent and not responsible for spending he signed

There are no other options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:23 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,733,829 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
you are to dumb to even argue with.

Yes, you went further into debt, but the 500 dollar is not within your budget at all. Thats why your Clinton surplus argument is a failure. You dont understand the definition of the word budget
Haha.. You make such a stupid scenario and when proven that your own scenario didnt result in surpluses.. I'm the dumb one.. oooh what a tool..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top