|
| Posted by: Gator
- [19323103] Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 04:30
I am fascinated by the the right/ left brain theory. The right brain centering on emotion and and the left brain on logic. I find both the far right and far left in politics equally illogical and have come to believe their environment shapes the beliefs as to which extreme they will side. |
| | | 1 | nerveclinic
ID: 8832812
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 06:27
|
For both sides (far right and left)it's like a religion. They have a kind of religious blindness. They have a bible, which is a list of talking points and positions they have to stick to with rigidity.
They are never able to think outside the box. It is haram (Arabic word for sinful and forbidden) to waiver from their inflexible dogmatic positions.
Any politician who agrees with their dogma can do no wrong and they will defend him/her against any and all accusations against them no matter how much the charges are proven to be true.
I could go on and on with more of the same.
It is a dogmatic, inflexible religion.
|
|
| | | 2 | CanadianHack
ID: 579471516
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 11:49
|
While it may be that there are loonies on both extremes of a political spectrum, I strongly disagree with the idea that Liberals are anywhere near an extreme.
In most countries the Liberal Party is a centrist party. In the US, liberal ideas are often quite centrist as well, but they have been incorrectly tarred as being extreme by right wing talk radio.
|
|
| | | 3 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 13:44
|
While there are certainly far left democrats with rigid dogma as their base position, they are largely marginalized.
Far right politicians in the republican party, on the other hand are running the asylum. Rigid dogma is the party platform.
It wasn't always this way, but that's the state of things now.
|
|
| | | 4 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 13:59
|
You can always expect propaganda from democrat and republican lovers, in equal doses.
|
|
| | | 5 | Nerveclinic
ID: 542438
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 14:12
|
Bili he didn't mention Democrats. Just right and left extremes.
|
|
| | | 6 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 15:48
|
Why purely environment, gator? I'd have to disagree.
|
|
| | | 7 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 16:59
|
I am not a religious person but would believe Jesus walked on water before I would believe a liberal could balance a budget.
Bili, what other factor other than environment could make right brainer chose a side. Divine intervention?
|
|
| | | 8 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 17:21
|
I am not sure Baldwin fits a true right brainer. One thing I have notice is he does not get emotional about his political points. He never seems to get upset or nasty, rather he reasserts his points with confidence. He was the only religious right person I see on the forum.
Hack- I do not listen to right wing radio but if liberals were centrists then they would not be classified as liberals.
|
|
| | | 9 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 18:37
|
, the generally accepted theory is that human behaviors are motivated by a mix of environment and genetics.
For example, I posit that a healthy portion of the far rights behaviors are motivated by an excess of the brain chemicals that cause fear. This was beneficial when there were lions aroundcthe other side of the bush. Now it causes irrational fears of all sorts of things that drive the policy decisions.
|
|
| | | 10 | Boldwin
ID: 343311018
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 19:36
|
Hysterical that the side which insists life cannot be successfully lived without holding onto big brother's hand is the fearless side and the rugged individualist, 'Leave me alone, I've got this.' side is living in fear.
Hysterical.
|
|
| | | 11 | Canadian Hack
ID: 348501421
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 19:56
|
Gator
In Canada, the Liberal party has been in power throughout the majority of the history of the country. The Conservative party currently is in charge.
The Liberal party has balanced the budget routinely. In fact Canada had a very small deficit before the economy was blown up largely due to international problems on Bush's watch. The Liberals had accomplished that. They had several years of budget surpluses. The Conservatives have had to run a deficit because of the world's economical problems.
This Liberal Party in Canada is a centrist party in Canadian politics. There are parties to the right and to the left of them who have significant number of members of parliament. This Liberal Party has historically run to the left of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton's positions in the political spectrum and they ran a surplus routinely.
The axes of the US political system have been highjacked and moved very far to the right relative to the rest of the world in the past 30+ years. You now think liberal means left wing. It may be as far left as the US tends to get while staying in the mainstream but there is a lot of room for sensible politics in this area.
I think statements like:
I am not a religious person but would believe Jesus walked on water before I would believe a liberal could balance a budget
Reveal that part of your belief system to be illogical. Bill Clinton balanced the budget. The Canadian Liberal Party balanced the budget. The facts do not fit your belief.
|
|
| | | 12 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 21:08
|
"The homos are coming to ruin my marriage!"
"The government wants to create panels that sentence me to death!"
"The rag-heads are sneaking across Jordan to capture Omaha as we speak!"
"The teachers are turning my chilin's into Deeevil Worshipers!"
and on and on and on.
Fear is the mind killer.
|
|
| | | 13 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 21:19
|
Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, it was Newt Gingrinch. Clinton was also the last president to have the line-item veto until SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional in 1996. A line item veto is the easiest way to trim fat off a budget.
Canada is more of a resource based economy with strict immigration laws. I would like to see how your socialist system would work with a high influx of poor immigrants.
We are discussing semantics. Liberal has a different meaning politically in different countries. The Liberal Party are also the centralists in England. Your Socialist party would be more on par with the Democrats in America.
I see no difference between a socialist and a religious fanatic. Both can justify their positions and show evidence for their reasoning, but they both have a belief and then look for evidence to support that belief, instead of gathering information and then coming to a conclusion. It is also the emotion of the fringe that separates them from the left brain dominate person.It is this emotional tie that makes them so steadfast in their opinions and emotional when talking about it.
|
|
| | | 14 | Canadian Hack
ID: 348501421
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 21:30
|
And I see no difference between you and a religious fanatic. As you have shown in the above post, you can justify your positions and show evidence for your reasoning. You have a belief and look for evidence to support the belief, instead of gathering information and then coming to a conclusion.
You are exactly the kind of person you are ranting against.
|
|
| | | 15 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 22:09
|
a post from my FB:
How is it, you talk to staunch Liberals, or staunch Conservatives, and each one will appear to accuse the other of doing the exact same things, and each one denies THEY are doing it, and each one is just as sincere as they can possibly be?
With full credit to the originator, author Marc MacYoung, here is his "Bleacher Analogy", which I believe captures the phenomena quite well.
*****************************************************
The problem with any two party position is that it's like bleachers on either side of the field. The other side is accusing your side of doing horrible things. Things you don't see your side doing. In the mean time you're looking across the field and seeing some really bad things going on up in the bleachers of the other team. Stuff the folks in those bleachers are denying. Yeah, right sure... I'm looking right at it.
Simply stated, from your position in the middle of the bleachers you can see all of the other teams bad behavior. What you can't see is what is going on behind you in your teams bleachers. Things that the other side is accusing your side of doing. You look around and don't see it where you're sitting, so it's easy to dismiss. Thing is, the 'rowdies' up at the top of your side's bleachers ARE doing what the other side is accusing your side of doing.
Now here's the kick in the pants. Those same extremists are looking down at people on their sides as wimps and pansies for trying to find compromise and working solutions. "Damn it! You claim you're on our side! But you're not helping solve the problem! In fact, you're getting in the way! The only thing that will fix the problem is (____ fill in the blank)!"
These people don't want to compromise. But then again people on the other side don't either because often they don't want to look over their shoulders to see the validity of the other side's complaints (about the extremists in their own bleachers.)
*******************************************************
|
|
| | | 16 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 22:41
|
One thing I have notice is he does not get emotional about his political points.
i'm pretty sure you're not paying attention if you believe that. much of what he posts is based purely on emotion, re bili's #12.
this thread has essentially gone to hell in a hand basket quickly.
post #0 was rational and reasonable. although i disagree with the premise, it was a fair question.
post 7, 8, and 13 killed any notion of actual interest in the question being answered - rather, it appears to just have been bait.
|
|
| | | 17 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 23:21
|
I am not saying folks like my sister or my aunt don't have equal and opposite fears. They do.
But everyone rightly treats them as kooks, and they are completely marginalized.
On the far right, they get elected, selected for powerful committee chairmanships, create policy and build the planks for the republican base.
Until the right stands up to the kooks, they should not be allowed a voice in government. They will, but they shouldn't.
Can't govern from fear.
|
|
| | | 18 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 01:45
|
Questions for bili:
1) Say you are a pharmacist who doesn't want to be forced into taking a role in an abortion.
Why shouldn't he rightly fear Sarge who wants to force him to choose between starving to death or becoming God's enemy?
If the pharmacist can get the government to obey the constitution and the country's founding principles why shouldn't he, and how is that not proper government even if it involves a [legitimate] fear?
2) If you are a liberal who is not afraid to do anything big brother tells him to do, why is that a virtue? How is that different from an SS officer willing to commit war crimes without a qualm? He is fearless. Is it commendable to have no unbreakable moral principles? Is it commendable to be a moral blank slate for big brother?
3) If you are a conservative who is upset that liberals are deliberately bankrupting the country, why is it an unwarranted 'fear'? You guys honestly believe deficit spending can go on forever and there is no limit. There will always be a buyer for our T-bills. If you are a liberal willing to write a blank check and bankrupt the country why is your 'fearlessness' commendable? When the system crashes and you can't pay the ss checks and the welfare checks and the entire house of cards comes crashing down, tell me what you will fearlessly do? Literally eat the rich?
I'll be afraid of suicidal governmental policies and you'll destroy the nation without blinking an eye or getting a gray hair over it.
How magnificent you are fearlessly creating an IPAB which will proudly euthanize us in our old age. How free of guilt you are denying they clearly plan on doing exactly that. You go from denying it, to telling me what a great idea it is when I quote a liberal expert admitting it, and back again as it conveniences you.
Living in this county is like being the passenger in a hijacked car. As the lawless idiots driving your car blow past stoplights they turn around and sneer, "What? You want to live forever?'.
|
|
| | | 19 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 08:59
|
In the end, Baldwin, government has very little impact on my, and most people's lives.
I pay too few taxes, and make a little effort to get that money spent on things that I care about - mainly schools and the right kind of infrastructure.
Beyond that, I just go about my life.
If I got worked up about every little absurd hypothetical, or was afraid of some invisible/non-existent being floating in the heavens, boy would it put on a damper on living life. I'm sorry that's happened to you.
|
|
| | | 20 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 11:21
|
And you love big brother's collar.
|
|
| | | 21 | biliruben
ID: 21841115
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 13:39
|
A kook might have that perspective.
|
|
| | | 22 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 14:39
|
The universe contains hundreds and hundreds of mathematical constants and natural cycles and other factors that altogether have to be perfectly dialed in to precise tolerances to make life possible, and that conclusion looks to you as unlikely as the great spagetti monster, and you prefer to turn your life's guidance over to glorified DMV workers instead.
Sebelius be praised, huh?
|
|
| | | 23 | WiddleAvi
ID: 56301813
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 19:54
|
Say you are a pharmacist who doesn't want to be forced into taking a role in an abortion.
So Baldwin - Just curious. Would it be OK for a paramedic to not help someone because they are gay ?
It would seem to me that if you pick a profession (especially something in the medical field) then you need to put your religious beliefs aside. If you would have issues giving out the morning after pill to someone or selling condoms to someone then maybe you should choose a different field.
|
|
| | | 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 00:41
|
Should an Atheist Pharmacist, be free to refuse to fill the scrip of a Christian, out of religious differences? Or to Widdle's point, should a Gay Paramedic, be free to refuse to perform CPR on an anti-gay Christian?
What say you Boldwin?
|
|
| | | 25 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 04:09
|
Boldwin's views may differ than most here, but the true lunatics are those that back Obama's economic policies. We are so far in debt the interest rate on our loans are approaching the amount we taking in and the idea we can tax the rich to pay it off is even more crazy. Boldwin is right. A pharmacist shouldn't be forced to sell something he is morally against and people should fear the dangerous policies of Obama. While some of Boldwin's ideas are bible related and thus may lack a bit of logic, on economics he hits the mark and the ones doubting his saneness are the ones nuttier than a squirrel turd.
|
|
| | | 26 | nerveclinic
ID: 8832812
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 04:27
|
Gator Republicans are as responsible as anyone for the huge deficits. Reagan and the two Bushes are some of the biggest debtors this country has ever seen.
The right always ignores it when their own are in power.
Gingrich could not have balanced the budget if Clinton and the Dems didn't go along with some extremely difficult social spending cuts. Anyone who is honest and non partisan knows that. Clinton had veto power.
Your statements only blaming the Dems and defending the Repubs are the perfect example in my earlier post about people who are "religious" in their beliefs.
|
|
| | | 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 11:31
|
Good response, nerve. I'd only add that deficits have fallen like a stone under Obama, spending is flat, and so have taxes.
How did we get into such a big deficit pickle? 3 main reasons:
-unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
-tax cuts for the wealthy (which *surprise* did not result in larger tax revenues as promised)
-corporate welfare.
I've said it before: If Obama was a Republican and pursued the exact same policy proposals, the GOP would be hailing him as a god.
|
|
| | | 28 | weykool
ID: 474402717
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 12:23
|
Gator, your premise is spot on.
Bolldwin is not the only conservative who has posted here.
I cant speak for other conservative as to why they have stopped posting but I suspect that it would be for reasons similar to mine.
One reason is because I realized that there was zero chance that anyone here would ever change their position.
Their minds are made up no matter what facts are presented.
In addition I find the liberals who post here are hypocrites and liars so any hope of an honest debate is impossible.
I saw debating here as a complete waste of time.
I still read these forums for the comedic value it provides.
|
|
| | | 29 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 13:02
|
Just because Bush and Reagan did it does not make it right. Bush was wrong for trying to fund a war without raising taxes. However, they did have better economies which created more money so the damage was not as great. Reagan's military spending caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and Bush stopped Hussein's goal of taking over the Mid-East oil producing countries, both are worthwhile achievements.
Since the budget was balanced after Reagan left your statement he is partially to blame for the current deficit makes no sense.
The Democrats were dropping like flies from Congress in the 90's and that is the only reason they went along with the spending cuts.
This not a Republican/Democrat issue. If we do not cut spending, the economy will continue to stagnate. The fact you guys are staunchly opposed to this logical move goes back to subject of this thread.
|
|
| | | 30 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 13:40
|
Weykool, I intentionally started using words like insane and crazy to see if they would be hypocritical and chastise me when there were many using those terms for Boldwin and nothing was said. So far they haven't.
I am not a far right conservative. I am more like JFK who was an economic conservative and social liberal. I mainly address economics because as a business owner it is what affects me the most.
|
|
| | | 31 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 18:07
|
Here are some contradictions in this thread.
Nerve wants to give part credit to the Dems for the balance budget but has no problem with Obama deficit spending. Are you pro or anti-deficit spending. I don't think even the staunchest Keynesian theorist would say he meant for this to go on for 6 years.
PD's corporate welfare is a contradiction in terms. Tax cuts are not welfare.
Bili-"While there are certainly far left democrats with rigid dogma as their base position, they are largely marginalized.".. Does he know Obama is president?
|
|
| | | 32 | Boldwin
ID: 13361217
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 18:56
|
I'd only add that deficits have fallen like a stone under Obama, spending is flat, and so have taxes. - PD
See, this is why you just can't post here anymore and expect a sane discussion. It doesn't matter if you show PD the facts, his mind just rearranges reality to suit his agenda immediately thereafter.
Here are Bush and Obama compared by your beloved Obama loving Annenberg's Factcheck.org. On Oct. 4, the debt held by the public — not including Social Security and Medicare — had risen 89.3 percent since Mr. Obama took office, according to FactCheck.org, a nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and $626 billion the year after that.
“At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency,” FactCheck said in its quarterly statistical report on Mr. Obama’s tenure in office. And that site is comparing Obama to Bush, who himself was an anti-conservative America destroying spend-like-a-drunken-sailor fiasco.
Here are all the presidents compared.
And that was with Obama being dragged kicking and screaming by the Tea Party congress to cut spending. That was accomplished against Obama and the MSM's fiercest opposition to fiscal sanity.
This country is now a house of cards that will start folding as soon as the dollar loses it's reserve currency status, or as soon as China or Russia starts a run against T-bills.
And PD thinks it's all hunkey-dorey...getting better every day in every way...fiscally sound.
This country is already bankrupt and it's just a matter of time until our creditors call us into the office and let us know our line of credit has been cut off and we can get into line with Greece and Spain and other such dumb-ass socialist nations.
It is to die laffin'.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 13361217
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 19:30
|
It would seem to me that if you pick a profession (especially something in the medical field) then you need to put your religious beliefs aside. - WiddleAvi
You are ignoring the obvious. You incipient tyrants [tho you are not self-aware of it] will inevitably find an excuse to extend this argument to every line of work.
What activists have planned for the godly is a death march to starvation similar to Saddam's Anfal campaign.
Don't want to bake a cake for the Gay Pride March?
You're fired. Go march.
Don't want to make banners or photos for the Gay Pride Parade?
You're fired. Go march.
Don't want to decorate the masonic lodge?
You're fired. Go march.
And it will never end. In fact it will actually be, 'You're fined into poverty. Now Go march'.
And you think everyone will just eventually cave and drop their religion for you. So right now your conscience feels clean and your vindictive liberal religious adherents quiver in ecstasy at the vision of forcing the whole world into their religion.
But it won't go that way. Sure the posers and hypocrites will cave but not the real christians. You will either have us starving on the street like the anfal campaign or in camps for the religious.
People like the Nazis who pull this tactic get an answer from God eventually. Look around and they are gone.
It starts like this. First chapter of Psalms
And ends like this. Psalms 37:10...in fact read the entire 37th chapter.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 13361217
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 19:31
|
For extra credit read Prov. 2:22
|
|
| | | 35 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 19:44
|
"economic conservative and social liberal."
You mean libertarian?
I'm self-employed. I am also "socially liberal & economically conservative". I view our federal govt, in short, as a gargantuan source of unchecked dread and misery. Particularly the IRS.
If I had to choose who is the "kookiest" between the far right and the far left, I would have to choose the left. When it comes down to it, the Govt's impact on economic issues is more important to me than its impact on social issues (I do have strong views on social issues and I am firmly left of center there). At least those on the far right seem to be in support of a smaller and less invasive govt. Not that I would ever expect the Republican party to have a role in making that happen...
Bureaucratic systems are so bad at virtually everything, I really don't understand how anyone can view the federal government as the answer to all of mankind's problems. I'd really like to see more power transferred from the federal level to the state and local levels, where you find more efficiency and adaptability (and where voters are more in control of those in power).
If the good ole United States were suddenly broken into 50 separate countries, you'd hear no complaints from me.
|
|
| | | 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 593111219
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 20:17
|
Thats not libertarian holt, thats insane. Which on second thought, isnt much different.
|
|
| | | 37 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 20:21
|
Baldwin's hatred of homosexuals rears its head in an unrelated thread. shocking. /sarcasm
|
|
| | | 38 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 20:50
|
Which part is insane Sarge? The economic conservative part? Or the part about wanting to be rid of a government that seeks to be involved in every aspect of my life?
|
|
| | | 39 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 21:09
|
I know a lot of people like to paint libertarians as anarchists so as to marginalize the movement. I grant that there is a small minority of wacko anarchist libertarians, but most libertarians just want a reasonable level of government that attempts to stay out of our way and does the things that it is good at (national defense, building roads, protecting the streets) and even some of the things that it's not good at (like education & welfare, both in need of overhaul).
There is absolutely no way our country can continue down the road we are on. Our deficit is too high and you can't tax it away.
Now, back to working on my damn taxes.
|
|
| | | 40 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 22:22
|
Most, is a difficult thing to describe. The vocal ones, those making waves/noise (like the Koch brothers), would just as soon disband the government.
Then there was your comment about how you wouldnt mind if the union shattered and became 50 independent 'nations'. Of course if that WERE to happen. some 25 or 30 of those nations, mostly currently red states, would be asking the other ones (mostly blue states), for foreign aid.
How exactly is it NOT anarchy, to say you wouldnt mind the dissolution of the union?
|
|
| | | 41 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 04:36
|
Holt, you are right on target. Some advice though, be careful with hyperbole, the hounds will be all over it like a pitbull on a ham bone.
|
|
| | | 42 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 04:51
|
If the U.S. did split into 50 countries, where would you like to live?
|
|
| | | 43 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 04:57
|
I am not sure if it is sad or funny that Tree feels the need to /sarcasm when using irony.
|
|
| | | 44 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 05:58
|
Re 41: That's why I rarely bother speaking about my political views. There is no way to exchange viewpoints in any kind of pleasant manner. None of us have any power whatsoever to make our ideas come to fruition. Our country goes merrily along like an ocean liner headed for an iceberg, with two captains tugging on either side of the wheel.
I'm a member of the Libertarian party. That's about all I can do. What's sad is that the Reps & Dems here in Oklahoma actively shut Libertarians out of the ballots. I was not allowed to vote for Gary Johnson in the last election. We submitted a petition with over 50,000 signatures to get on the ballot (more than the number needed) but were still denied. I believe they said the reasoning was that the signatures could not all be verified to be valid. The real reason is probably that the Republicans knew that they'd lose Romney votes if Johnson was on the ballot. I know some people might snicker, "oh no, you couldn't vote for G Johnson who had no prayer of winning". Well, he was a candidate and I wasn't allowed to vote for him. Not even as a write-in. Think about that.
I really don't understand the entertainment value of daily banter with people who hold polar opposite views. You can't change anyone's opinion, and even if you were able to, you aren't changing the opinion of the next George Washington.
Re 42: That's an interesting question. Whichever one of them offered the most freedom, both social and economic - that's where I would go. If there is a tie, I prefer mountains!
|
|
| | | 45 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 20:35
|
I am not sure if it is sad or funny that Tree feels the need to /sarcasm when using irony.
i'm just curious if you know that using /sarcasm there is apt, as i was mocking Baldwin.
|
|
| | | 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 21:08
|
A most appropriate use of both guns and barrels.
|
|
| | | 49 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 04:04
|
You know, I have friends with all kinds of political views. We tend to avoid topics we don't agree with one another on. I'll sit and have a beer with any of you guys that hangs out in the Rotoguru forums if I ever have the opportunity. Some of you guys seem to hate each other due to the ongoing nasty discussions, which is too bad. We're all just Earthlings with different backgrounds and experiences. No point to this post really. I just think that the internet has a way of bringing out anger and nastiness in people. Later.
|
|
| | | 50 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 08:07
|
The irony was so obvious that it seemed odd you had to clarify it, but many do seem to miss it.
|
|
| | | 53 | nerveclinic
ID: 54039114
Tue, Apr 15, 2014, 03:29
|
Gator Nerve wants to give part credit to the Dems for the balance budget but has no problem with Obama deficit spending.
Careful there Gator you may pull a quad muscle with that twist of logic.
How does someone pointing out that Republicans have been big deficit spenders make you leap to the conclusion that the person pointing that out agrees with Obama's deficit spending?
You could fall and break your ankle with that leap of logic.
|
|
| | | 55 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 15, 2014, 20:39
|
I am very limber, no worries.
|
|
| | | 56 | sarge33rd
ID: 593111219
Tue, Apr 15, 2014, 20:55
|
Obamas deficit spending, is now approximately half what it was, when he inherited the FY 2008 budget. So Gator, are you saying oyu are opposed to Obamas having reduced the deficit by nearly 50%?
|
|
| | | 57 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 07:23
|
According to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html ...
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 billion
FY 2014*: $649 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion Bush/Obama
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion
C'mon man
|
|
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 9315169
Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 10:52
|
To be fair to liberal partisans, I understand how tempting it must be to run with those CBO statements which have been selectively edited to make a turkey sound like an eagle.
But frankly everyone here knows which side is demanding ever higher spending and which side is demanding and getting at least some restraint.
Can even the most partisan liberal not plainly see that? Can they honestly believe their side is acting with fiscal restraint and common sense?
|
|
| | | 59 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 12:10
|
FY 09... budget passed by the Bush Admins. Look at your own numbers.
|
|
| | | 60 | Boldwin
ID: 9315169
Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 18:02
|
#57 crushed the 'Obama lowered deficits' claim like a grape, Sarge.
|
|
| | | 61 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 19:05
|
" Ask and ye shall receive." Boldwin, I may start becoming a believer. I wanted proof that the far left are right brain dominate and are guided by emotion with no logic and I am given Sarge 56 and 59. Preach on brother Boldwin, preach on!
|
|
| | | 62 | Frick
ID: 29235107
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 08:49
|
I'm confused, what exactly is false about Sarge's claim in 56 and the evidence in 59? The first budget that Obama worked under was passed by Bush and budget for this year and next are 1/2 of that first budget.
Or do you only want to believe the facts that fit your argument? Basically what you are claiming the other side is doing?
|
|
| | | 63 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 09:58
|
The 2009 budget contained over 200 billion of Obama deficit spending. It also had 475 billion in bank bailout. I believe Bush spent way too much that year even if you took out the bailout and extra Obama spending, but no way does it compare with what Obama has spent in the following years.
|
|
| | | 64 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 10:14
|
The more I think about it, other than the bank bailout, there was no excuse for any deficit spending during the Bush years. Bush was reckless for his deficit spending and Obama will be about 3 times more so by the end of his administration.
|
|
| | | 65 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 10:16
|
I'm not certain why the bailout money is being called out here--this was passed under Bush, not Obama.
Not all spending is the same, however. Deficit spending during a recession (such as for social net programs) is what keeps a recession from getting deeper. And while the bank bailout money was "Bush's" (in that he signed the law), this was money well spent, and timely, and is an example of government using its spending powers wisely. Using it as part of a counting exercise misses any context with which a point can be made.
Spending on the War on Terror, however, kept Haliburton officials from missing payments on their second boat. So there's that.
|
|
| | | 66 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 11:09
|
I agree PD. The bailout was charged on the 2009 Bush fiscal year which Sarge was using as an example of Obama spending less the following year.
I am a bit of a Keynesian when comes to the first year or two of a recession but not 7 years of it and a huge Milton Friedman fan during non-recession times, even though those are 2 completely different economic philosophies.
PD, you have the ability to be level headed, can you look at those numbers and say Obama has lowered the deficit by 50% as Sarge stated in 56.
|
|
| | | 67 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 11:59
|
You want government spending to work, you have to close the system you are evaluating. Otherwise the Keynesian model falls apart quickly.
Stopping immigration, imposing prohibitive tarrifs, ensuring that foreign investors dont win government contracts etc. is the only way to ensure that American citizens benefit from American expenditures. Of course none of that will ever happen.
|
|
| | |
| | | 69 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 00:38
|
FY 2009 budget: 1.4 trillion dollar deficit
2014 budget: 649 billion.
Thats less than half, and thus a greater than 50% reduction. Rather simple, math actually.
|
|
| | | 70 | Boldwin
ID: 413541719
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 10:55
|
Actually pretending the spending during the crash , while they were forcing banks to take money they didn't even want, to forestall a depression, is some kind of reasonable baseline is ridiculous. The Fed actually gave away 16 trillion to foreign corporations and banks during that period.
Does Obama honestly get credit for staunching the red ink bleeding from 17.5 trillion to 500 billion as if he was some kind of penny-pincher? Heck no. Even getting back to Bush's 'spend-like-a-drunken-sailor' compassionate conservatism would be an improvement.
Every last one of us knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama would always demand twice as much spending as any republican budget proposal. And that goes for any Dem presidential candidate in the foreseeable future as well.
|
|
| | | 71 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 15:50
|
Even some of the liberals have to be shaking their head at Sarge's logic.
This is why I keep coming back to this forum a few times a year. I am watching Obama create a dangerously large deficit and wonder how even the far left can justify such recklessness.
Let me see if I have this correct...
You took the the fiscal year that contained the bank bailout with both Bush and Obama debt then ignored the next 3 years of Obama spending and because the 4th year was lower than the bailout year Obama is reducing the deficit. A team of comedy writers couldn't come up with something this ridiculous.
|
|
| | | 72 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 17:00
|
This place is a fascinating study of the human psyche.
There could be an intro at the top..."You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not of sight and sound but of a delusional mind. A journey into a strange land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Liberal Zone!"
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 413541719
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 17:30
|
It truly is amazing to see liberals in the middle of a government shutdown by the republicans to force reduced spending, claiming that Dems are the responsible ones and then they'll brag about Algore's 'spectacular record of fighting "waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, trimming the size of the bureaucracy and the number of regulations." Or some such nonsense. As if. There will never be enuff public sector workers or illegal immigrants to please a liberal.
The clear fact is that we have been witnessing 45 years of deliberate calculated Cloward-Piven sabotage of the capitalist system by marxist/liberals [as opposed to classical liberals], deliberately overloading the social services burden. As soon as it crashes they won't blame the social services over-burden of course. They'll say that 'unfettered capitalism' has failed. [as if we've ever seen unfettered capitalism in our lifetime] Their answer will be that we then need total marxism.
|
|
| | | 74 | Boldwin
ID: 413541719
Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 17:45
|
A subset of this reality will be in plain view when liberals fail to take the blame for the spectacular failure that is Obamacare, and they will claim that the only reason it failed was because there was a private sector component and that the only workable solution is a totally marxist system of healthcare.
This tactic is lifted right out of Karl Marx's handbook.
If they hadn't been deliberately sabotaging the medical system with their Dem operatives working as trial lawyers, expenses would have never risen high enuff to give them the lever to push Obamacare thru in the first place.
|
|
| | | 75 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 00:23
|
Speaking of delusional.
|
|
| | | 76 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 00:26
|
Heh. Someone's Breitbart newsletter spilled all over their keyboard...
|
|
| | | 77 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 00:35
|
Gator, Baldwin...homework assignment for oyu.
Google and read the 19656 GOP Presidential Platform that Eisenhower ran under and won re-election. THEN, tell me what in that platform todays GOP supports, and what in that platform todays Democrats support.
I can make it very easy for you...todays GOP supports virtually nothing in that platform, while todays Democrats support virtually the entirety OF that platform. Yes, todays Democrats are in fact, the Republicans of your grandfathers day.
|
|
| | | 78 | Boldwin
ID: 29358203
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 04:59
|
Find me anything in JFK's philosophy that you agree with, Sarge.
|
|
| | | 79 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 08:34
|
I am a Libertarian so that has no affect on my thoughts. This also has no ties to Obama's reckless deficit. I stand by the topic of this thread that those who can not see the danger of Obama's crazed deficit spending suffer from a lack of logic and are probably right brain dominate.
|
|
| | | 80 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 09:12
|
Perhaps, as is often the case, they simply have different priorities. While I can't attest to sarge's exact numbers, the deficit *has* dropped, quite a bit, over the last few years. And the trade deficit last year was the smallest in the last 4 years.
Frankly, I don't think either is a long-term problem right now. In fact, part of the reason why our economy is just sputtering along right now is that the GOP has choked the ability to more smartly deficit spend. Throwing a boatload of money at the military to spend overseas while restricting domestic spending is about the opposite way to help our country recover from such a steep recession as we had.
|
|
| | | 81 | biliruben
ID: 81382416
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 10:35
|
I think I see the pattern here. Looks fun!
Forcing states and municipalities to layoff unprecedented amounts of teachers, firemen and postpone essential infrastructure maintenance has prolonged our recession, stealing vital tax dollars as well as services that make our country competitive from future generations.
Such shortsightedness is clearly illogical, and therefore all tea-partiers and libertarians advocating for continued austerity must be right brain dominant, befuddled, confused and unable to think logically.
Is that how this game works? It sure does move the conversation forward. Not.
|
|
| | | 82 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 11:16
|
Any of you ever used this site?:
http://www.factcheck.org/
It will help you on occaision to check it before repositing rumors, attempts to mis-lead you and outright lies. You have to be careful before you forward a lie "to all your friends and family in your address book". The lie may support your favored position, but it will destroy your reputation when someone else finds out. And who wants some other idiot controlling their reputation. Just because you read it on the internet, doesn't mean your date will be "some fancy french model". Ooo Laa Laa!
|
|
| | | 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 11:22
|
EZ challenge B...JFK agreed entirely and completely, with the value of education. Public and private. He agreed 100%, with separation of Church and State. He agreed, with providing a safety net, while challenging folks to better themselves. All sound Democratic principles.
|
|
| | | 84 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 12:24
|
Bili-your posts of 12, 17 and 21 you describe those that have a different opinion than yours kooks. Don't be hypocritical.
http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill
"Now the majority of the $787 billion isn't pork. Indeed, tax relief alone makes up some 34 percent of the bill. Where you might find the pork is in the so-called discretionary spending portion of the bill, which amount to $308 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of that money, $48 billion goes to the Department of Transportation for various rail and road projects to repair and expand infrastructure. That leaves about $260 billion of discretionary spending that goes to various federal agencies, as well as to state and local governments. How much of that amount helps special interests instead of the economy as a whole? That depends, of course, on what you consider a special interest. But decide for yourself. Here is a list of some of the most controversial individual pieces of discretionary spending that might have the pleasant taste of pork.
1) Green golf carts. Ever rode a "neighborhood electric vehicle?" Well, you might want to now. The stimulus includes a tax credit toward the purchase of NEVs, which closely resemble golf carts in appearance. They are considered green vehicles because they use an electric battery instead of gasoline. You fill it up with juice by plugging it into a home electrical outlet. Don't expect to be able to take your NEV far outside of your neighborhood, though. Federal regulations limit their top speed to between 20 and 25 miles per hour. Freeway cruising is out.
Those aren't the only green vehicles getting stimulus subsidies. There is also $300 million to buy "green" cars for federal employees.
2) Closing the ice-breaking gap. The U.S. Coast Guard is getting a shot in the arm from the stimulus, thanks to $98 million for a "polar icebreaker." That's not a new gum flavor, but a ship. The service currently has three ice-breaking ships able to sail through the frozen Arctic Ocean, but it wants a new and improved one to upgrade the aging fleet. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, testified before a House panel last summer that icebreakers are needed for national security reasons. "Russia, Germany, China, Sweden and Canada are all investing and maintaining and expanding their national ice-breaking capacity," he said.
3) Homeland security stimulus. That pricey icebreaker is just one of several examples of homeland and national security spending contained in the stimulus not directly connected to restoration of the economy. There is also $200 million to "design and furnish" the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. De Rugy says that security spending should be considered by Congress in bills related to security, not the economy. "There was no debating these things on the merits," she says.
4) Clean Coal. While Obama has stressed the number of "green jobs" his stimulus will create, $3.4 billion of the $787 billion will be spent on old-school, non-green energy technology. That's how much goes to the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, a Department of Energy project that, among other things, seeks to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by the use of fossil fuels. Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, says that most of this money will go toward the development of clean-coal technology. "The goal is to develop a technology that can capture carbon dioxide from coal in a coal-fired power plant," he says. And where's the stimulus in clean coal? Weiss says that we won't see the results of this investment anytime soon, and $3.4 billion is probably only a fraction of what is needed for real clean-coal technology to ever be achieved. But, he adds, in the short term, "this would create research jobs and jobs at power plants." That isn't stopping critics from calling this fossil energy provision pork.
) Mystery Meat. It's hard to know just how much pork there is in the stimulus package for one simple reason: We still don't know how exactly a huge chunk of it will be spent. A whopping $144 billion from the bill is flowing directly to state and local governments. That means the true amount of pork will depend on the priorities of your governors, legislatures, and mayors. The best guesses for what this money will be spent on might be in a list of "ready-to-go" projects released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in January, dubbed the "Main Street Economic Recovery." Some of the most outlandish of these projects -- such as an $886,000 36-hole disc golf course in Austin, Texas -- won't be allowed to receive stimulus dollars because the bill explicitly says that none of its funds can be used for "any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."
But a prohibition on funding toward any "stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project" was dropped from the final version of the bill. That means that many other porky projects from the U.S. Conference of Mayors report are open to get money. That includes $150 million for parking improvements at a Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico, and $6 million for a "snowmaking and maintenance facility" at Spirit Mountain ski area in Duluth, Minnesota.
Only 48 billion of a near 800 billion package that was put together by Obama went to infrastructure, which makes your words hollow and adds credence that you are not looking at the problem logically.
With some effort I bet you can find even more pork in the rest of Obama 5 trillion dollar deficit. If your position was strong you would not have to rely on hyperbole to make your point.
|
|
| | | 85 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 12:35
|
PD, The deficit is not going down, Obama didn't spend as much as the previous years. I would like to see the numbers of military overseas spending compared to the rest of the 6 trillion dollar deficit spending, my guess it would be minimal.
|
|
| | | 86 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 12:59
|
I looked it up for you PD.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
I assume you are talking about the Overseas Contingency Operations which was funded by the BI-PARTISAN Budget Act of 2013 and recommended $80.7 billion.
|
|
| | | 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 14:22
|
The deficit is not going down, Obama didn't spend as much as the previous years.
So which is it? Did he spend less, in which case the deficit IS going down, or is it not going down, in which case he did not spend less?
IOW, quit confusing the DEBT, with the DEFICIT.
|
|
| | | 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 14:28
|
...the rest of the 6 trillion dollar deficit spending,...
What planet are you deriving these budget numbers from? Certainly not Earth and absolutely not the US budget.
|
|
| | | 89 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 15:28
|
#86: From the link: "That makes military spending the second largest Federal government expenditure, after Social Security"
And, of course, Social Security is separately funded and does not come out of general tax revenues. Military spending is by far the largest federal expenditure and therefore contributes the most to the deficit.
And yes, the War on Terror was largely off budget.
The deficit is not going down...
There might be some debate about the rate of the decline. Or who gets "credit" for it. But there is no real question that the deficit is going down.
The 2014 deficit is now projected to be the lowest in 6 years. Even the NRO is talking about who gets the credit rather than challenging the numbers on the ground.
Even since February, the CBO has knocked off $23 billion from the expected deficit for this year, largely as a result of greater tax collections.
|
|
| | | 90 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:12
|
again, from #57...I do not see how one can claim the deficit has NOT been cut in half.
2009 deficit (the last year for which expenditures were set by the Bush Administration, FY 2009 began Oct 1, 2008. A full month before Obama won his first election); 1,413,000,000,000 dollars. (1.4 trillion. Half of which would be 700 billion)
FY 2014 deficit 649 billion, for a reduction of approximately 764 billion. Now yes, some accounting trickery and sleight of hand undoubtedly exists, but I'd need see proof of such sleight of hand exceeding 100 billion to change the conclusion.
|
|
| | | 91 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:38
|
I think part of Gator's point is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were off budget. And both were very large amounts of money.
I agree that the deficit has been cut, and cut substantially.
|
|
| | | 92 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:51
|
Yes, those wars WERE off budget. But those expenditures are over now, for the most part. But if those dollars arent counted against Bush's deficits, they cant be counted against Obamas in a comparison either.
And if he is going to quote the official budget numbers, then go by those numbers. If you dont intend to do that, dont quote them to start with.
|
|
| | | 93 | Boldwin
ID: 29358203
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:22
|
The 2014 deficit is now projected to be the lowest in 6 years. - PD
You see how ridiculous it is posting here, Gator?
PD, you couldn't include any years that weren't Obama's or the crash's fault. There's a reason for that. A reason that crushes your argument like a grape.
|
|
| | | 94 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:45
|
#92: I think (and you would agree, I believe) that we can't know what the real budget numbers are when the official ones lack a huge amount of expenditures. We can't say both "look to the official budget numbers for the real deficit" and "the War on Terror was almost all off-budget."
And no, those expenditures are not over, not by a long shot. Though greatly reduced, I'll certainly grant you.
Largely, we agree: Obama has shrunk the budget much lower than he inherited (although he inflated the deficit while trying to respond to the recession).
|
|
| | | 95 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:49
|
and inflating the deficit in the short term, forestalled a full blown depression which was clearly the correct thing to do, rightwing protestations not withstanding. Even the WSJ, ultimately admitted that the stimulus package worked, just wasnt big enough to REALLY get the job done.
|
|
| | | 96 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 22:18
|
I erred,I meant to say the federal debt is not going down, which is my chief concern for these reasons and this is from the CBO..
The CBO reported several types of risk factors related to rising debt levels in a July 2010 publication:
A growing portion of savings would go towards purchases of government debt, rather than investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers, leading to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur;
If higher marginal tax rates were used to pay rising interest costs, savings would be reduced and work would be discouraged;
Rising interest costs would force reductions in government programs;
Restrictions to the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to economic challenges; and
An increased risk of a sudden fiscal crisis, in which investors demand higher interest rates.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm
End of Fiscal Year Debt (in billions) GDP (in billions) Debt/GDP Ratio Event
2013 $16,738 $16,913 in Q3 99% Sequestration reduced government spending, at the same time the end of Obama's payroll tax holiday raised revenue. The debt hit $17 trillion a few days after the end of the fiscal year.
2012 $16,066 $16,356 98% Obama extended Bush tax cuts, combined with $900 billion in defense spending.
2011 $14,790 $15,612 95% Obama Stimulus Act (ARRA) spent $120 billion.
2010 $13,562 $15,050 90% ARRA budgeted $400 billion. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
2009 $11,910 $14,384 83% Economy contracted 8.9% in Q4 '08, 6.7% in Q1 '09, lowering tax revenues. ARRA spent $241.9 billion. War on Terror cost $79 billion. Fed funds rate lowered to 0%.
2008 $10,025 $14,844 68% Economy contracted 3.7% in Q3 '08, 1.8% in Q1 '08. War on Terror cost $197.6 billion, Bank Bailout Bill cost $350 billion.
2007 $9,008 $14,572 62% Iraq War cost $131.6 billion.
2006 $8,507 $13,911 61% Katrina clean-up was $24.7 billion, swine flu added $6 billion, War on Terror cost $120.4 billion. Ben Bernanke became Fed Chair.
2005 $7,933 $13,207 60% War on Terror cost $107.6 billion.
2004 $7,379 $12,369 60% War on Terror was $94 billion.
2003 $6,783 $11,628 58% Unemployment still at 6%. War on Terror cost $53 billion.
2002 $6,228 $11,040 56% War on Terror added $33.8 billion.
2001 $5,807 $10,644 55% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.
This why I find this interesting study on the human mind. We have shown that the 2009 budget was a combination of Obama and Bush and had the bank bailout, yet Sarge continues to use that as the benchmark for Obama lowering the deficit and he does it year by year instead of the total deficit spent by Obama and Bush. Using this logic Obama could deficit spend one dollar less than the previous year and he would credited him with lowering the deficit, even though the total debt incurred would be trillions.
Many would say the total debt incurred under Obama is 6.5 trillion but unlike some here I try to be logical and don't count much of 2009. If you tack on just 200 billion of 2009 (and that is generous to Obama) his total deficit is projected around 5 trillion. That is double of Bush who fought a war, cut taxes, did a bank bailout and, fiscally, was the one of the most irresponsible presidents we have had in the modern era.
|
|
| | | 97 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 22:50
|
Correction-it is projected to be double. Obama spent more in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8.
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 23:12
|
There are a heck of a lot of assumptions in that post. Too many to deal with, frankly. For example, you toss out some numbers which are not net numbers, and cite a CBO study which is nearly 4 years old. The economy was very different in July 2010 than it is now.
Sarge is right: We could have spent more money and come out in better shape than we are right now. A large part of our sputtering economy is a direct result of the short-term hand wringing over the deficit. We don't have a deficit problem right now--we have a problem doing the right things to get people back to work.
You're right that there is a difference between the debt and deficit, but continue to conflate them without distinguishing between them. Is that part of your human mind study?
|
|
| | | 99 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 23:27
|
98, says it all.
|
|
| | | 100 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 01:14
|
It was not a CBO study. It was a statement on risk factors for high deficit spending and would be correct for any year, past or present.
Sarge is right: We could have spent more money and come out in better shape than we are right now. A large part of our sputtering economy is a direct result of the short-term hand wringing over the deficit. We don't have a deficit problem right now--we have a problem doing the right things to get people back to work.
That statement is subjective. If we are going to go that route then here is mine..
The economy is doing exactly what I and many others predicted. The ones that can grow the economy the most are sitting on their capital because of a lack of a faith in Obama. here is an exert of a survey of Obama's first year..."As President Barack Obama approaches his one year anniversary in office, 80 percent of small business owners believe that small business initiatives are not a priority for the Obama administration in 2010. The survey, conducted in early January by Manta of more than 900 small business owners and employees, found that 77 percent of respondents say the administration has hurt small business, and 76 percent believe Obama had an unsuccessful first year." and this one done in 2013..“In a separate survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Franchise Association and cited by the Wall Street Journal, 64 percent of small business franchise owners believe the law will have a ‘negative impact’ on their operations. Just 5 percent felt it would have a positive impact … Twenty-seven percent of franchisees surveyed have replaced full-time workers with part-time workers."
Growing the economy is not as difficult as it may seem. If people and business spend money the economy grows, if consumer and business confidence is low and they sit on their capital the economy shrinks.
You can do all the deficit spending you like but the economy will not grow sufficiently until businesses believe there will be a dividend on the capital invested. That sir is logic.
On a brighter note... the economy will naturally rebound to an extent because businesses are now at the point where they have to replenish their surpluses and hire back employees, but that happens after all dips in the economy.
I do find all this interesting. Biliruben's post 12 where he pokes at Boldwin and states "fear is the mind killer" then states that republicans are "Forcing states and municipalities to layoff unprecedented amounts of teachers, firemen and postpone essential infrastructure maintenance has prolonged our recession, stealing vital tax dollars as well as services that make our country competitive for future generations" sounds a bit like fear mongering.
I don't expect anyone here to slap their head and to come to an epiphany that socialism doesn't work, but to deny Obama's deficit spending and even say he lowering it because his previous years were so extremely high is madness. Worse yet is comparing everything to George Bush, who was fiscally irresponsible. I will explain like your parents probably did many years ago..If little Billy jumped off a cliff would you?"
|
|
| | | 102 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 15:53
|
Growing the economy is not as difficult as it may seem. If people and business spend money the economy grows, if consumer and business confidence is low and they sit on their capital the economy shrinks.
If, once Americans are willing to let go the purse strings, they invest outside of the US or spend outside of the US or on foreign made products, then we would all be better off if they would keep a tight grip on their purses and help keep interest rates down.
It's counterproductive to encourage consumption and investment, if it isnt exclusively American spending and investment.
|
|
| | | 103 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 19:31
|
Bean, you sound like Keynes fan. The neo-merchantilism ideas have long been considered anti-productive and heterodox economics.
|
|
| | | 104 | sarge33rd
ID: 593111219
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 20:06
|
The ones that can grow the economy the most are sitting on their capital because of a lack of a faith in Obama.
Self fulfilling prophecy there, whereby the ones you claim COULD do something, wont, just so they can say "See, told you so". Real Americans right there by gawd.
|
|
| | | 105 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 21:48
|
You invest money to make money. There is no anti-Obama conspiracy in the business world. If conditions are such that people feel they will lose their investments then they will sit on their capital.
|
|
| | | 106 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 22:31
|
Yes Gator there most definitely IS an anti-Democrat conspiracy in the business wrld.
By every metric out there, the Dems outperform the GOP,
In terms of corporate ROI,
in terms of GDP growth,
in terms of personal income,
in terms of slower debt growth,
in terms of stock market performance,
in terms of employment,
the Democrat administrations have a history of outperforming the GOP. Yet, the business world by and large would cut off its own nose, before admitting that Obama has done anything good for them and that includes MY industry, the auto industry which Obama saved from devestation.
|
|
| | | 107 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 22:58
|
Liberals at Slate openly call for purging of all christians from society, from the ability to hold a job.In an article titled, “Purge the Bigots,” Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words: “Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
“More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,’” he continued. “Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.” Thot I was joking in #33? Oh, you buy his later denial that he was serious? I suppose if I said, 'Let's go get those _____', you'd let me claim it was all a joke later.
|
|
| | | 108 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:20
|
what makes you think that ONLY Christians donated t that prop?
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:50
|
And throwing that issue up, helps your scheme to purge traditional religious people from the workforce and out of society how?
|
|
| | | 110 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:52
|
You said in 107, that the call was against CHRISTIANS. In fact, he called against all supporters of bigotry. What makes you think, that only Christians fit the target of the call for action? Or, are you saying that while all Christians are not bigots, all bigots are Christian?
|
|
| | | 111 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:59
|
Secular humanist marxists are the worst bigots of all. They wrestle with Torquemada for the all-time title.
|
|
| | | 112 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 00:04
|
IOW, you dont even know what you said......
|
|
| | | 113 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:14
|
Wow, 106 is something else. There were 3 democrat presidents in my adulthood. Jimmy Carter who damn near took the country into a depression, Obama who is trying to bankrupt the country and Bill Clinton who Newt Gingrich had to drag kicking and screaming to the center. This is not just my opinion, but also Time magazine who named Newt man of the year. Here is an exert from that year...
"Leaders make things possible. Exceptional leaders make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year — ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously — he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. ... Today, because of Gingrich (emphasis added), the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.
"Gingrich has changed the center of gravity. From Franklin Roosevelt onward, Americans came to accept the federal government as the solution to problems, a vast parental presence. ... Newt Gingrich wants to reverse the physics, make American government truly centrifugal, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states."
And what of Clinton's role?
Time continues: "Having organized an insurrectionist crew in the House, Gingrich seized the initiative from a temporarily passive president (emphasis added) and steered the country onto a heading that the speaker accurately proclaimed to be revolutionary."
In 1996, Newsweek's Evan Thomas wrote: "More than anything else, Gingrich wanted to dismantle the 'beauractic welfare state.' To do that, he understood, he had to attack Congress' addiction to deficit spending. When he assumed power in 1995, he consulted CEOs who had downsized their own companies; they advised him to stake out bold positions and force others to follow. ... Under Gingrich the House passed a budget that truly restrained the growth of federal spending."
|
|
| | | 114 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 12:07
|
<103> All of my formal economics education was in Keynesian Economics. I received my BBA in 1978 and that was the flavor of the day, havent had any formal training since. I imagine that any other theories have an element of Keynes in them. Anyway, the model works with limitations. Those limitations are often ignored for political or selfish reasons when people use the model for their arguments. I am sorry if my neo-mercantilist views seem to be heterodox to you, I guess I will just have to remain the minority if thats the case. (insert carcasm)Seems the majority of folks who believe otherwise have done a great job with the banking industry, employment, the deficit and debt, and pensions. No wonder we like these new theories so much, gives us new ways to steal.
Having spent 20 years in the military, I have a protectionist viewpoint for good reason. There really is no need for any country to go to war to conquer us if they can simply buy us in an open market. We call that war by other means in our leadership schools, though this particular strategy is not formally discussed.
Our politicians are corrupt and can easily be purchased on the open market, I am surprised there isnt a vote exchange that can be monitored with some metric to determine the fair price. How much does it cost to buy a Senator these days anyway?
I'll tell you what really scares me is foreign ownership of American natural resources and infrastructure (utility companies). Ronald Reagan's great economic about face would not have been possible without selling off our oil to BRITISH petroleum and ROYAL DUTCH Shell, a fact that few still remember.
Take some time to investigate who owns farm land in this country. Its not scary yet, but the trend is. Farm land prices have been soaring.
Economics is not nearly as complicated as people want to make it. A country should strive to import the natural resources of others and sell them back finished products. That is all there is to it, when you start selling the resources and buy the products, you got it all backwards.
A few decades of economic isolation could do wonders for us as a people, but it will never be allowed to happen and unfortunately we cant turn back the clock on Reagan's plunders and blunders.
|
|
| | | 115 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 18:31
|
Bean, watch some Milton Friedman videos on U Tube and tell me what you think.
|
|
| | | 116 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 19:54
|
re 113, seriously Gator, Do some honest research. Forbes, even FOX have admitted and published as much. It's been a truthful statement, since 1920 or there abouts and forward. I know, your much ballyhooed GOP talking heads tell you otherwise but guess what? That simply means, they are lying to you...still.
US News
Forbes
FOX Business
Princeton analysis
The facts, are clear Gator.
|
|
| | | 117 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:30
|
<115> Though Friedman is a very bright guy, I dont agree with his world view of a utopia that's defined by borderless, every man for himself, unbridled greed. I do not feel responsible for the entire world, and many foreign governments would love to own our nation's natural wealth if they can find a way to manage it. With so much wealth in the hands of sovereign states, thats not a hard thing to do. Watch your back free trader.
What Mr Friedman and nearly every anti-protectionist pundit fails to acknowledge is that the profit from foreign goods sold in this country is not taxed without tariffs. Failure to tariff ALL imported goods is simply giving the foreign businessman a competitive edge over domestic companies, since he doesn't have to pay for the costs of our government in any way.
Prohibitive tarriffs on imported products forces companies to produce their products in the US. That in turn creates US jobs and creates a US tax base. That it will increase prices is not important when so many US citizens are unemployed. Eventually a Japanese auto manufacturer could be forced to make ALL of his auto parts in the US, employing US citizens if he wants to make a profit in the US. If he makes a profit in the US, he will pay taxes to the US government to pay for defense and infrastructure that he benefits from.
Aren't you tired of giving all these foreigners a free ride? If we are going to be the world's military protection, then they should be helping us pay for it. If they want to use our roads to distribute their products, they need to pay for it. If they want to take jobs from US people and give them to their own, then they should pay the entitlements. They should not be allowed to just suck on the US teat well past infancy.
|
|
| | | 118 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:43
|
Lol, one of those studies went back to 1901. Here is a review by a democrat on the book. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/464639239
"The main flaw in this one is apparent right from the start -- opinions are often presented as facts. In the first pages, for example, it is stated that one of the criteria for determining the economic success of a president was how much he equitably distributed the country's wealth among its people; my radical relatives would immediately disagree with that standard and probably wouldn't read any further. It then goes on to state that civil rights issues are mere "distractions" and that you should only vote based on "what's important -- your pocketbook." This is the point where it turned me off, although I decided to stick with it."
I agree the Dems are better at playing Robin Hood and if that is the criteria, you win Sarge.
"The chapters themselves are also heavily skewed toward the Democrats. Republican presidents are vilified in the text for everything from their upbringing and education to their campaign tactics, whereas Democrats are only lauded for their economic successes. I (full disclosure) am a staunch Democrat, and even I noticed the disparity; it is not subtle, and right-wing-leaning readers are going to pick it up and run with it. It has the effect of making the book seem like subjective propaganda. The authors would have served themselves better to just let their impressive economic facts speak for themselves."
Even a democrat called that hogwash propaganda.
Now lets look at the this joke of a chart. Woodrow Wilson ranks last because of the crash so anyone after him is going to rank high because the economy was rock bottom and he became more liberal than Obama. So even though FDR's policy delayed the recovery he will always be high on a list like this. JFK is first on this list and he was an economic conservative. It is well known Kennedy hated liberals.."MSNBC host Chris Matthews conceded the point in his recent biography, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero. “I am not a liberal at all,” Kennedy once told the Saturday Evening Post. “I’m not comfortable with those people.” Journalist and JFK insider Ben Bradlee confirmed it. “He hated the liberals.
Clinton ranks near the on top of the list also but everyone with knowledge knows it was Newt Gingrich who drove the economic policy.
I do have give the liberals credit for playing with the numbers and coming up with this unique propaganda. It is on par with you taking a budget that Obama helped raise and had a bipartisan bailout and use it to show Obama lowering the deficit. Even though by the end of his term Obama will be close to matching the total of all the presidents in history for deficit spending.
And quit using JFK as example of today's democrat the poor man is probably doing back flips in his grave over you guys sullying his economic views.
|
|
| | | 119 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:55
|
Bean, It was tariff policies like you are recommending that caused a worldwide trade war and a global depression in the 30's. I cannot emphasize how dangerous that would be.
Friedman is a bit right of me on many topics but I am in awe of his intelligence.
|
|
| | | 120 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 22:51
|
I doubt that tariffs alone caused the great depression. In any case, we came out of it pretty well. None of my ancestors jumped out of windows, we weren't rich. No pity for the losers who did.
If there is a world wide trade war, and we have the national will, we win it. We simply have more natural resources than most others. If we are a bunch of half asses, we lose.
You're not scared are you?
|
|
| | | 121 | Boldwin
ID: 493202218
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 04:52
|
Not only was Keynes less dogmatic than his followers today but Hayek was also more nuanced than his position is portrayed.
Don't get me wrong. Hayek, Mises and Adam Smith are the foundations of the modern conservative position and it is hard to overstate the influence Hayek's 'Road To Serfdom' had. I can't even imagine Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley without him.
|
|
| | | 122 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 10:41
|
Talking about economists, John Locke is another favorite of mine and one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He was a bit off on his mercantilism ideas but for his time Locke was a genius and one of the most underrated greats of all time. He needs a publicist.
|
|
| | | 123 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 11:03
|
Nothing new under the sun my friend. How many times was Austria raped in the world economy/warfare before they found this enlightenment?
The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:
1) That every little bit of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
2) That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
3) That a large, working population be encouraged.
4) That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
5) That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
6) That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
7) That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
8) That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
9) That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.
|
|
| | | 124 | biliruben
ID: 561162511
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 16:53
|
So Gator - how to you propose bringing the deficit to zero? I assume you are suggesting raising taxes, given the ill-advised austerity experiments we have seen in Europe have caused mass unemployment, dis-inflation and in many cases have actually harmed the deficit situation.
So which taxes are you proposing raising?
|
|
| | | 125 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 17:59
|
Dismantle the public sector. Every dollar saved from leviathan's maw is a dollar that can be productively utilized.
|
|
| | | 126 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:08
|
All actual evidence to the contrary...
"Logic" needs not depend on any sort of couch in reality, I guess.
|
|
| | | 127 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:37
|
In what country will that dollar be productively used? Wait, without a government there is no such thing as a dollar or country, so its irrelevant.
Sure, let's dismantle the government and give every one a gun and see who survives. What the hell, lets give everyone a personal nuke and we'll get there even faster, because that's the goal...eternal life after we are dead, right?
Why not dismantle the private sector instead and eliminate greed as a primary motivation of humankind? Seems like a great goal to me. (insert john Lennon song, or those Lennon sisters, not sure which Lennon is appropriate here). Throw out the money-changers from this house of the lord!!!!
Oh, but what if we are the only ones who aren't greedy, then what? What if someone else has discovered passive-aggressive tactics that give the illusion of peace...then what? Those sneaky bastards!!!
Whose team are you on, anyway? Do you wave the flag with one hand, and flip the bird with the other?
What exactly is your vision of utopia Boldy? Does it include all of us, or will we be left off the ark as you already have two of everything you need and we are not required.
|
|
| | | 128 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:39
|
Conversely every dollar that slips thru our fingers into leviathan's maw only feeds another unelected overpaid DMV petty tyrant to look balefully down at us while they force us to buy their crap.
|
|
| | | 129 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:44
|
Bean
There is no one greedier or more unworthy of that dollar than a member of the moorlocks nomenclatura.
Perhaps they will find employment in the real world if we took away their free lunch.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:50
|
What exactly is your vision of utopia Boldy?
It is you leaving me alone and doing me no 'favors' as I board the ark. You are all invited. If you can't be taught you won't be there.
|
|
| | | 131 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 19:19
|
How bout we just vote on what should be taught, one man one vote
|
|
| | | 132 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 19:34
|
Excellent question Bili on 124. Keynes said it best, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."
I have no problem with deficit spending to slow a recession. I do have a problem with the amount, length of Obama's deficit spending and how it was spent.
The one thing economists cannot chart is future business and consumer confidence and thus the flaw in almost every economic model. Liberals and socialists have used the fears of a poor economy to offer a villain to the masses. There is a "Blame the rich" and anti-business sentiment all over the world today. An example is PD talking about corporate welfare.
Reagan did some things that drove my wealthier friends crazy but overall he appeared pro-business and thus we had high business confidence and a strong economy. Reagan is an excellent example of perception becoming reality.
The world needs a charismatic president in the U.S. that can empower business and wealthy consumers to spend capital and reverse the socialist mentality permeating throughout America. World economics is tied to America and a robust U.S. economy would trickled down to the world.
|
|
| | | 133 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 09:46
|
Obama's deficit spending has been nothing but an Obama bailout for his Wallstreet buddies. This is a war of the liberal uber-elites and the nomenclatura against the middle class and any citizen who wants a job.
You will notice the other Obama enablers among the wealthy, namely the establishment republicans always vote to swamp the labor force and they have turned a blind eye to outrageous impeachable offenses letting Obama target the Tea Party with the IRS.
|
|
| | | 134 | nerveclinic
ID: 54039114
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 09:58
|
Baldwins word for the next few months apparently, "nomenclatura". (Actually I trust he means nomenklatura
He latches onto buzzwords like this then parades them around like a poodle on a leash at the gala dog show, and he goes to a lot of dog shows.
At the same time he will stoop into the verbal gutter using such gems as "prolly" because he is too lazy to type out Probably.
If you look it up in the dictionary, you will find this... prolly - no dictionary results
Cheers Baldy.
|
|
| | | 135 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 10:13
|
I liked leviathan's maw better.
|
|
| | | 136 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 11:21
|
Nerve
I'm prolly just trying to sneak my huge brain under the big tent by pretending to be one of the easy going colloquial hoi polloi instead of one of the pedantic 'hater's-of-the-common-man' outsiders.
BTW if you know the rules you are often allowed to break them. Did you really think I had forgotten the word probably?
|
|
| | |
| | | 138 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 15:50
|
A fun graphic, but what is the data behind the graph?
|
|
|
|