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.
Why do so many of you live in a world of absolute where there is one answer?
There are times that government must spend, and there are times it must not spend.
Obama recognized that the only entity capable of spending in this economic collapse created by excessive greed in the free markets was the federal government.
Obama recognizes that, once the markets recover, the increased tax revenue will begin paying down this deficit. That is what he has committed himself to and that is what I hold him to.
And that is why most of the money in his stimulous plan will not go into effect until after 2010? Its May, and I think only 3% of the money has been allocated, not put into use yet, just allocated to a very few projects, like condom distribution centers.
Um...EVERYBODY recognizes that the current debt load is not sustainable. The world is divided here between those who recognize that there is no alternative to debt in the current crisis on the one hand, and those who don't really seem to recognize much of anything at all on the other. The economic circumstances brought upon us specifically by the disastrous policies of the previous administration, and more generally by a myopic faith in free-markets that stretches back to calamitous early days of the first Reagan administration, have left us with two choices. We can simply stand back (as the Bushies all but did for 15 months) and watch the economy go straight to he!! in a handbasket, or we can use the established financial powers of the state to slow the decline, hasten the recovery, and ameliorate the effects of the whole needless mess on the citizenry.
Since the first of these available courses of action is acceptable only to bozos and cave-dwellers, we are presently engaged in the second. That engagement has driven debt up to just about 80% of GDP, and it will climb higher still before all of this is behind us. We and other nations have been above 100% before and lived to tell the tale, but that is no place to try to be over the long haul. We would like to return as quickly as might be feasible to a debt-to-GDP ratio that falls into the 50-60% range. That will take time and depend upon circumstances as they emerge.
It should be noted of course that the ratio declines as the result of GDP increases to no less a degree than it does from debt reductions. Despite the silly claims that some make, current policies do provide a stimulus to GDP, as do the always underlying factors of population and productivity growth. There is high ground on the other side of this laissez-faire chasm, and there is no reason at all to follow along some "worst case scenario" sort of path in order to reach it.
It should also be noted that virtually all other economies have been stuck in just the same boat that we are. This erases what might under other circumstances have been a source of counter-productive forces. We all need to work together on this and to accommodate on our collective behalves what we might have taken issue with in a bilateral or simpler world. Fortunately, the current administration has done a very good job in seeing to it that this principle is established and recognized within the global community.
Much could still go wrong, of course. It is an epic and unprecedented problem that we are asked to address. Not every step may prove to be the right one. But the headings set and courses being followed are the proper ones to have taken up, and are superior by orders of magnitude to such alternatives as bozos and cave-dwellers have thus far managed to offer.
Um...EVERYBODY recognizes that the current debt load is not sustainable. The world is divided here between those who recognize that there is no alternative to debt in the current crisis on the one hand, and those who don't really seem to recognize much of anything at all on the other. The economic circumstances brought upon us specifically by the disastrous policies of the previous administration, and more generally by a myopic faith in free-markets that stretches back to calamitous early days of the first Reagan administration, have left us with two choices. We can simply stand back (as the Bushies all but did for 15 months) and watch the economy go straight to he!! in a handbasket, or we can use the established financial powers of the state to slow the decline, hasten the recovery, and ameliorate the effects of the whole needless mess on the citizenry.
Since the first of these available courses of action is acceptable only to bozos and cave-dwellers, we are presently engaged in the second. That engagement has driven debt up to just about 80% of GDP, and it will climb higher still before all of this is behind us. We and other nations have been above 100% before and lived to tell the tale, but that is no place to try to be over the long haul. We would like to return as quickly as might be feasible to a debt-to-GDP ratio that falls into the 50-60% range. That will take time and depend upon circumstances as they emerge.
It should be noted of course that the ratio declines as the result of GDP increases to no less a degree than it does from debt reductions. Despite the silly claims that some make, current policies do provide a stimulus to GDP, as do the always underlying factors of population and productivity growth. There is high ground on the other side of this laissez-faire chasm, and there is no reason at all to follow along some "worst case scenario" sort of path in order to reach it.
It should also be noted that virtually all other economies have been stuck in just the same boat that we are. This erases what might under other circumstances have been a source of counter-productive forces. We all need to work together on this and to accommodate on our collective behalves what we might have taken issue with in a bilateral or simpler world. Fortunately, the current administration has done a very good job in seeing to it that this principle is established and recognized within the global community.
Much could still go wrong, of course. It is an epic and unprecedented problem that we are asked to address. Not every step may prove to be the right one. But the headings set and courses being followed are the proper ones to have taken up, and are superior by orders of magnitude to such alternatives as bozos and cave-dwellers have thus far managed to offer.
Great post (I'll remove myself from supporting the "bozos and cave-dwellers" portion).
It perplexes me why people do not accept the fluctuations of markets and different tools for different times. Right now, we need liberal tools. No doubt once the power goes to their head, we will need conservative tools.
I would just like to reiterate Saganistas point - we ALL know this debt is unsustainable. Obama has proven himself smart enough to be able to pursue two seemingly dichotomous paths at the same time - creating debt to end a crisis and beginning the process of reducing debt to stabilize the economy (which it seems he has begun).
I trust that he will continue down this path. His actions and words have given me no reason to believe otherwise, even though many believe that the free market principles that created this mess are the solution to it.
This is the beauty of a two-party system with differing ideologies. Embrace it rather than demonizing those on the balancing side opposite yours.
Obama's massive spending is the root of our debt? Man, this is the type of partisan thinking that keeps us stagnated. Whether you agree with his plan or not, the current spending is designed to keep us out of a deep, deep recession or depression... he's not spending for spending's sake as has gone on for the past 30 years under mostly Republican administrations... incredible.
Spending for spending's sake, is exactly what he is doing. He is spending hundreds of billions on "shovel ready" make-work construction projects that won;t even start for a few years yet - how does this help the people who just lost their manufacturing job this year?
American businesses are laying people off, and 0bama and the democrats idea of stemming the tide of layoffs is to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from China to resurface roads, refurbish bridges, build a few new highway interchanges and build light rail systems in Florida and California, which will take 4-6 years of planning before construction can begin.
Being in the Senate before he became President he was part of the mess he inherited. Recall that he voted FOR the bailout last year.
0bama voted for every spending bill, except one of Bush's emergency war supplementals. He voted for the bailouts, and TARP and thought so highly of the author of TARP that he appointed him in charge of the US Treasury. No one can find 0bama begging the government to reduce domestic spending, he wanted more, and has wanted even more spending since being president. The one and only tools in the 0bama toolbox is "more government spending" and "more government control"!!!
Um...EVERYBODY recognizes that the current debt load is not sustainable.
The point is that many of us were against the 0bama /democrat stimulus plan the 0bama budget this year because we all knew that this much debt load was unsustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The world is divided here between those who recognize that there is no alternative to debt in the current crisis on the one hand, and those who don't really seem to recognize much of anything at all on the other.
In other words, if people do not see that the 0bama stimulus was the correct thing to do, then they are clueless dolts who cannot "recognize much of anything at all". Debt spending can help, as long as it is done correctly, and 0bama's plan does not "jolt the economy" as he said, it is only prolonging the crisis. Just like bailing out GM and Chrysler and some of these banks, it is only delaying their inevitable bankruptcy, which will slow their recovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The economic circumstances brought upon us specifically by the disastrous policies of the previous administration, and more generally by a myopic faith in free-markets that stretches back to calamitous early days of the first Reagan administration, have left us with two choices. We can simply stand back (as the Bushies all but did for 15 months) and watch the economy go straight to he!! in a handbasket, or we can use the established financial powers of the state to slow the decline, hasten the recovery, and ameliorate the effects of the whole needless mess on the citizenry.
Which Bush policies caused all this, spending on the war? Was it a Bush policy to ask banks to give out risky loans, and create toxic assets? If the disastrous policies of Bush were so obvious, why did democrats do nothing, when they took over all the oversight committees?
Since the first of these available courses of action is acceptable only to bozos and cave-dwellers, we are presently engaged in the second.[/quote]
Ah yes, the clueless dolts who did not approve of the 0bama stimulus plan, are now knuckle dragging cavemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
It should be noted of course that the ratio declines as the result of GDP increases to no less a degree than it does from debt reductions. Despite the silly claims that some make, current policies do provide a stimulus to GDP, as do the always underlying factors of population and productivity growth. There is high ground on the other side of this laissez-faire chasm, and there is no reason at all to follow along some "worst case scenario" sort of path in order to reach it.
No little French lingo ever fed a hungry child. A boost to GDP because government debt spending is building a road in New Jersey will not do anything for a million people that are out of work, or help failing businesses that gain nothing from a few scattered construction jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
It should also be noted that virtually all other economies have been stuck in just the same boat that we are. This erases what might under other circumstances have been a source of counter-productive forces. We all need to work together on this and to accommodate on our collective behalves what we might have taken issue with in a bilateral or simpler world. Fortunately, the current administration has done a very good job in seeing to it that this principle is established and recognized within the global community.
Much could still go wrong, of course. It is an epic and unprecedented problem that we are asked to address. Not every step may prove to be the right one. But the headings set and courses being followed are the proper ones to have taken up, and are superior by orders of magnitude to such alternatives as bozos and cave-dwellers have thus far managed to offer.
Does it strain your neck to hold your nose up so high all the time?
1. Christ never spoke of abortions or stem-cells. It is only a certain conservative sect of Christians that agree with your assessment. Most who call themselves Christians do not (keeping in mind over 75% of the U.S. identifies as Christian and about 25% identify as conservative evangelical, with many of the younger generation branching off from the political ideology of their predecessors).
One could just as easily say Bush was an anti-Christian president for breaking so many of the 10 Commandments, including lying, stealing, and killing. Likewise, Obama has restored Christian values to the White House by ending a frivolous war while calling for transparency and honesty.
2. Like every president before him, Obama spent in response to failed markets. His recent actions - cutting superfluous budgetary items and adjusting regulations suggest he will ultimately prove to be pretty fiscally moderate. He inherited the opposite problem that Reagan did, which was too much government interference. Reagans solutions were perfect for his time, and perhaps Obama's will prove likewise for our time.
1. You better come at me with some proof that only 25% of Christians disagree with abortions and stem cell research my friend. I highly doubt you can back up this assertion.
Obama announces he's found a Christian church in DC - AFTER he makes anti-Christian maneuvers (abortion funding, stem-cell research, etc.)
Obama announces that we can't continue on the same path of deficit spending - AFTER he spends more money than all U.S. Presidents combined.
This guy is the king of the ole' bait and switch. Thankfully I still have a little dignity by not voting for this chump. His followers are just plain stupefied and he's making a mockery of them at every turn.
Nah its like good cop/bad cop. Only there's only one person playing both parts.
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.
