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.
People who support Obamas spending are those in your anology that are attempting to fix a roof.
People who support the liberation of Iraq are those in your anology that are crystal meth addicts.
Please do clarify how I am being foolish with interpreting your anology.
The simple point, which you keep showing that you unable to comprehend, is that sometimes going into debt can be a wise investment, and other times it is a waste of money (and perhaps even a long-term continuous money drain).
Talk about partisan B.S. Many of the programs which caused banks to invest in risky loans and pushed American automakers out of the domestic market were caused by policies developed and implemented by administrations LONG before Bush was ever in office.
Is this another insipid CRA reference? When are right-wingers going to drop that empty revisionist rhetoric? CRA conrtibuted nothing to the credit crisis. The crisis was manufactured by Bush's Wall Street buddies taking exhorbitant advantage of conditions that resulted from W's own failed fiscal and monetary policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Regulation as well as de-regulation caused the collapse. In 1982 the AMPTA contributed. Freddie and fannie contributed buy buying high risk loans in order to obtain additional federal funding in 1995.
Yes, there was a world before Bush and 1982, 1986, and 1999 were all part of it, but nothing of this order had or would have come from it had the reins of the new century been placed in better hands.
The GSE's meanwhile purchased no signficant subprime paper prior to 2002 when they bought about 10% of new issuances, still a tiny, tiny fraction of their total acquisitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
You can play partisan all you want... doesn't work with me. Simplicity for the sake of agenda is juvinile.
This is a joke. You've done nothing but post partisan spin.
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.
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.
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.
You have made dishonesty the topic.
What a bunch of bull**** and conjecture. You want to play this game, fine, I can be just as much as an ******* as you.
As far as the deficit savings:
"The president’s claim that his policies have resulted in $2 trillion less in deficit spending has been widely scorned by budget specialists. Three-quarters of those “reductions” reflect assumptions that the nation would have had as many troops in Iraq in 10 years as it does now, even though President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Baghdad before leaving office that will result in the withdrawal of all American forces within three years. So he’s claiming credit for not spending money that under policy he inherited would never have been spent in the first place."
Thus that shoots half of your argument down right there.
Secondly, the question that was raised to Obama had nothing to do with "what he inherited" and rather the amount of money that he was spending. In regard to this, he made the claim that budget savings from deficit spending which was reduced from the point of which he entered office (which as we see above is not true), justifies the massive deficit spending he has passed over the next 10 years.
"...First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit -- annual deficit that we had already inherited. We had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Consumers had lost through their 401(k)s, through home values, you name it, they had lost trillions of dollars. That all just went away.
That was the day I was sworn in; it was already happening. And we had 700,000 jobs that were being lost. So we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy. Then we had to pass a budget by law, and our budget had a 10-year projection. And I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion. Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in.
So the reason I point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mine. I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion..."
MY POINT. He is justifying trillions of dollars in deficit spending for HIS programs using the (not so real) savings of 2.2 Trillion to the budget. Which at the end of the day provide for a net loss, or trillions in additional deficit spending.
Any idiot with a brain can see how:
#1 He told a half truth about the "savings" his made to the projected 10 year budget
#2 How he attempted to justify his massive spending against minimal savings
A more descriptive thread title would probably bring more views from both sides.
I only opened this thread because I thought one of you know-it-alls was trying to debunk Einstein and I wanted a good laugh.
That's what brought me here too.
I've always been able to equate politics to Newton's third law but was hoping to see relativity brought into politics..... We can always compare government spending to a black hole.
Everything I see in politics only helps to prove Einstein and Newton right!
The simple point, which you keep showing that you unable to comprehend, is that sometimes going into debt can be a wise investment, and other times it is a waste of money (and perhaps even a long-term continuous money drain).
I understand that comment, and agree with it.
I won't however get on board with the assertation that people that don't align their views with yours are inheritantly "wrong", which is the point you tried to make, which is also what I called you out on.
This holier-than-thou mentality often seen on these boards demonstrates how extreme some individuals can be in their views.
Now, rather than speaking about the financial climate in itself, lets discuss the OP and my latest point of Obama avoiding the question, providing half truths, and justifying his actions through relativity.
Now, rather than speaking about the financial climate in itself, lets discuss the OP and my latest point of Obama avoiding the question, providing half truths, and justifying his actions through relativity.
I reject the premise of relativity in this case, and anyway I only came here looking for a discussion of Einstein, so I'll pass. The OP has already been shown to have misrepresented Obama's words, so what is there to discuss?
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.
What a bunch of bull**** and conjecture. You want to play this game, fine, I can be just as much as an ******* as you.
Touchy, touchy. You lied and then used those lies to construct a phony argument. You are only earning the wages of sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
As far as the deficit savings:
Yeah, the projected $2.2 trillion is a squishy number. All projections are squishy numbers in absolute terms. Which is why I cautioned that they could not be put in the bank. The point however wasn't whether it was $2.2 trillion or $1.4 trillion or $700 billion. The point was that, like everyone else, Obama is concerned with the deficits that this crisis forces us into and that he is actively looking at outyear cuts and changes that can be part of the process of restoring the fiscal sanity that was so completely lost over the preceding eight years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Secondly, the question that was raised to Obama had nothing to do with "what he inherited" and rather the amount of money that he was spending. In regard to this, he made the claim that budget savings from deficit spending which was reduced from the point of which he entered office (which as we see above is not true), justifies the massive deficit spending he has passed over the next 10 years.
No, he did not make that claim at all. You invented it. He claimed (quite accurately) that dealing with the mess he inherited will require a lot of deficit spending in the short term, that he doesn't like it any more than any one else does, and that he is working even now on ways to get deficits back under control as soon as possible. In no way, shape, or form did he say that because he thinks he can cut deficits by $2.2 trillion over the next ten years, it is just peachy keen to be running deficits at the rate of either $9.3 or $7.1 trillion over the next ten years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
"...First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit..."
Wow! That sure looks a whole lot different from the quote that was in the OP!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
MY POINT. He is justifying trillions of dollars in deficit spending for HIS programs using the (not so real) savings of 2.2 Trillion to the budget. Which at the end of the day provide for a net loss, or trillions in additional deficit spending.
And as has been pointed out over and over, your point is an entirely bogus misconstruction of what was actually said. You are either more dense than I am willing to accuse you of being, or you are simply following along a predictable partisan path of false criticism for the sake of criticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
This isn't rocket science.
Yet it all seems to have been beyond your grasp. Even the tattered remnants of the bozo Republican Party wanted to run out nearly half a trillion dollars worth of their patented tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations as a form of stimulus, even though such efforts are known to be among the worst sorts of remedy for declining aggregate demand. Instead, you got a far more sensible recovery and reinvestment package that includes both immediate and on-going relief to boost short- and medium-term demand along with targeted investments that support medium- and long-term growth. You've also gotten a whole lot of progress toward coming at last to grips with energy and health care, two mega-problems that pose very significant near-term risks to the economy but that had been foolishly ignored since at least 2001. It all costs up-front money. Every investment does. Lacking any actual argument against these initiatives however, you seem determined to out-and-out invent some. Not so much appreciation for or dedication to the reality of our situation there.
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.
