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.
Really? Well, in keeping with the theme of simplcicity, here is one simple fact for you to deal with. GDP is comprised of just four things -- personal consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, net exports, and government consumption and investment exenditues. PCE and GDPI are flat out in the tank and the net export picture isn't going to improve for a very long time. What does that leave you???
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.
Ok, lets deal with this quote alone, since its really the sticking point of the entire conversation.
What is the point in even bringing up how much he cut out of the budget over the course of the next 10 years? How at all does that validate, or better yet, how is that even relative to the spending he is doing? That was infact the basis of the question, was it not?
This is the question that revolves around the relativity.
Obama could have answered the question COMPLETELY, as you have done for him, without so much as a mention of the reduction in the annual budget deficit.
(On a side note. Ill point out that you abondoned your argument regarding the Iraq war, and the trillions spent by Bush, and how Obama saved us trillions of dollars after I pointed out how his claim was false. In the least, own up to your errors.)
Last edited by jcarlilesiu; 07-24-2009 at 11:33 AM..
Reason: Additional info
Wow! That sure looks a whole lot different from the quote that was in the OP!!!
What I said Obama said in the OP: (And I said I was paraphrasing)
"We inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars”
What Obama actually said:
"...First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit..."
Yeah…. a WHOLE lot different. You are playing semantics to avoid discussing the real issue. You are criticizing how I paraphrased Obama in the OP, and as demonstrated above, for no logical reason.
Try to keep it on topic or make complaints if and when they are logical
Yet another internet one-man-band operation with no credentials as a reliable source.
The dot-com bubble is largely an urban legend that grew out of the rigged IPO scandals that were the first dividend of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Actual fallout in the tech sector had occurred in 1997-98 when hundreds of independents went belly-up as the brick-and-mortar boys started flexing their muscle by pushing the in-house technology that had proven so successful for them in B2B applications out into retail. Technology has otherwise continued its productivity-improving march unabated through today.
Corporate scandals briefly damaged consumer and investor confidence, but the actual economic damage was not sufficient to have brought about a recession.
Deflation didn't occur then. It is occurring in a so far relatively gentle sense now. The government was not "hoarding" money in any sense of the term.
Y2K came and went. It drew resources away from other demands and then returned them.
9/11 resulted in the destruction of four buildings in one corner of one city. The economic damage had been absorbed by the end of the year except for slumps in short- and medium-distance business travel and in the tourism industry that took up to a year to recover from. The 2001 recession was already six months old when the attacks occurred.
Ok, lets deal with this quote alone, since its really the sticking point of the entire conversation. What is the point in even bringing up how much he cut out of the budget over the course of the next 10 years?
He is fleshing out the fact that he too is concerned by the current need for these large deficits by noting that he is already at work in the outyears to help set a stage for decreasing deficits. It is not a great idea to be cutting these deficits NOW. Later and particularly as recovery begins to take hold will be the time for doing something about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
This is the question that revolves around the relativity. Obama could have answered the question COMPLETELY, as you have done for him, without so much as a mention of the reduction in the annual budget deficit.
Go read it again. There is absolutely no claim being made that huge deficits are okay now because he can save much less later. That's an invention you came up with out of thin air. Huge deficits are okay now because they are the only appropriate and available response to the giant mess that was left to Obama to deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
(On a side note. Ill point out that you abondoned your argument regarding the Iraq war, and the trillions spent by Bush, and how Obama saved us trillions of dollars after I pointed out how his claim was false. In the least, own up to your errors.)
The notion that I made the argument is also invented out of thin air. A product of your increasing desperation, I would suspect.
What I said Obama said in the OP: (And I said I was paraphrasing)
"We inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars”
What Obama actually said:
"...First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit..."
Yeah…. a WHOLE lot different. You are playing semantics to avoid discussing the real issue. You are criticizing how I paraphrased Obama in the OP, and as demonstrated above, for no logical reason.
How low can you go? What you actually said Obama said was...
"We inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars. We went on to increase that deficit to 9.5 trillion. However, we also made adjustments to the budget we inherited and cut out 2 trillion dollars of waste, thus saving the tax payers money"
How low can you go? What you actually said Obama said was...
"We inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars. We went on to increase that deficit to 9.5 trillion. However, we also made adjustments to the budget we inherited and cut out 2 trillion dollars of waste, thus saving the tax payers money"
That's not paraphrasing, it's lying.
WERE IS THE LIE!
He admits he inherited 1.3 trillion dollars of deficit annually.
He passed various stimulas bills that will end up costing Americans 3.2 trillioin plus the continued cost of the 10 year budget deficit spending which is 9 trillion.
He stated that he is saving us 2 trillion from cuts.
He is fleshing out the fact that he too is concerned by the current need for these large deficits by noting that he is already at work in the outyears to help set a stage for decreasing deficits. It is not a great idea to be cutting these deficits NOW. Later and particularly as recovery begins to take hold will be the time for doing something about that.
Go read it again. There is absolutely no claim being made that huge deficits are okay now because he can save much less later. That's an invention you came up with out of thin air. Huge deficits are okay now because they are the only appropriate and available response to the giant mess that was left to Obama to deal with.
The notion that I made the argument is also invented out of thin air. A product of your increasing desperation, I would suspect.
Alright, you know what, I am pretty new to this forum, but I can already see that you are one of those types of people that it is impossible to have a logical debate with.
Between the snide remarks, holier-than-thou attitude, off topic rants, and conjecture make it impossible to make a point.
Screw it. I made my point. Any logical person in this forum can see exactly the point I was trying to make and how Obamas speech was nothing more than a logical fallacy.
Im done dicking around and wasting time with you. Walk away feeling like you won, when in actuality, all you won at was stirring the pot of intellectually so much that you muddied the water of logic.
Obama provided facts that were untrue, and validated MASSIVE AND EXCESSIVE spending programs by providing false truths about savings he implemented because he couldn't answer the question provided with any type of logic. That is it.
**** it.
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.
