Oh yes, that peacenik Al Gore. Yeah I remember him vocally opposing all of Clinton's military adventures. Or that passionate speech on the Senate floor opposing Bush I 's invasion of Iraq.

Also, I'm trying to find when Republicans held the line on spending...all I'm seeing is spending increases no matter what party is in charge of any part of the federal government.

Unless you are referring to the act that they put on where they pretend they are budget hawks before they partake in their annual ritual of increasing federal spending. Increasing spending and debt, year after year doesn't sound like holdingthe line on anything. Or when they pretend that they have deep ideological differences, but when the bills get passed there is no way to tell whether it was a "Democratic" or "Republican" bill. Which party passed the bill that massively increased Medicare spending on prescription drugs? Which party was it that passed the bill giving hundreds of billions to the wall street crooks that caused the housing bubble? Which party was in charge when the Feds attacked that foreign country?

Ray Jay wrote:In the current case, I think the debt overhang is so great that deficit spending above and beyond the amount that is going on right now does no good at all. Any Keynesian benefit is offset by increased uncertainly on how we will ever pay it back.

QFT

theodorelogan wrote:Oh yes, that peacenik Al Gore. Yeah I remember him vocally opposing all of Clinton's military adventures. Or that passionate speech on the Senate floor opposing Bush I 's invasion of Iraq.

funny

Also, I'm trying to find when Republicans held the line on spending...all I'm seeing is spending increases no matter what party is in charge of any part of the federal government.

True, although many, er, a few Republicans suggested 1% real cuts for the next several years. That seemed reasonable, but cutting in DC seems to be as likely as me drowning puppies.

I can barely take it when I hit a squirrel.

As for the parties, we'll see if it is possible for there to be 2 again--after this election. I really don't know.

Actually I don't know that we can be totally certain, but you seem to be that Keynes failed in 2009-11.

Still, debt is a long term problem; deficits are a medium term problem. The Dow is on the slide now. Hold on to your hats, lads, here comes Double Dip.

danivon wrote:Actually I don't know that we can be totally certain, but you seem to be that Keynes failed in 2009-11.

Still, debt is a long term problem; deficits are a medium term problem. The Dow is on the slide now. Hold on to your hats, lads, here comes Double Dip.

Yes; I think the long term problem and medium term problem is now starting to cause the short term problem.

By it's nature, politics focuses on short term problems at the expense of medium and long term problems. To a certain extent that is appropriate. But it can be very unhelpful in sovling the mid term and long term problems.

TL: supporting a war in the Senate is very different than driving one forward as the President. Consent is very different than making a case before the country, the world, the military, and then ordering the troops to do it. That's especially true given that the Senate may have been misinformed.

"Also, I'm trying to find when Republicans held the line on spending...all I'm seeing is spending increases no matter what party is in charge of any part of the federal government.

Unless you are referring to the act that they put on where they pretend they are budget hawks before they partake in their annual ritual of increasing federal spending. Increasing spending and debt, year after year doesn't sound like holdingthe line on anything. Or when they pretend that they have deep ideological differences, but when the bills get passed there is no way to tell whether it was a "Democratic" or "Republican" bill. Which party passed the bill that massively increased Medicare spending on prescription drugs? Which party was it that passed the bill giving hundreds of billions to the wall street crooks that caused the housing bubble? Which party was in charge when the Feds attacked that foreign country? "
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Theodorelogan,
It is true that no matter what party is in the house, spending has gone up. That is the reason for the conservative group Tea Party, they are very angry at the spending, as well they should be. Only 22% of the true conservatives are happy with the new spending bill while 52% of the democrats are happy.
And yes, Bush II did spend as well and started digging us a hole but the Messiah dropped the shovel, hopped in a backhoe and really started digging, no comparison. So instead of the doing the smart things and getting the financial house in order he spent like a wild man, Obamacare, Porkulous, Tarp, QE1, QE2, cash for clunkers, Bailouts, never ends with this socialist. They are all unfunded and did little if anything for the economy. Also that little third war HE started in Libya and lets not forget the extra 30,000 troops he sent to Afghanistan.
And i f you really want to find the originator for the Housing failure, you have to start with Obama's mentor, Jimmy Carter and the House Act of 1978 and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Funny how the gov't felt all the private business's need more regulations but Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac can go without, wonder how this works.

regarding the inaccurate perceptions about taxes....
Obama has not raised taxes. His tax increases don't take effect for 3 more years. The payroll tax has actually been cut by two points. Total federal collection have dropped by 4 points of GDP since 2007, the lowest rate since truman. This realistically means that Obama is the biggest tax cuter in American history.
regarding the inaccurate perceptions about debt and conservatives. Nixon was the last republican President who had a debt as a percentage of GDP lower after he left then when he assumed. Under every other republican president since reagan the debt to GDP has gone up.. Under every Democratic President since Truman, until Obama, the Debt to GDP decreased...
Which outcome is more descriptive of a fiscal conservative? Increasing the debt to GDP or increasing?

When there is a monomania on spending only, and the focus is on ways to control it rather than on how to afford the spending as well...then you have a problem. That conservatives will now have to focus on "funding the military" which they havn't wanted to actually do since reagan, then perhaps some sanity will resume.
There is a trend in the US where there is a divorce from the reality of paying today for what you use today. In california there were laws passed denying tax raises, and yet Californians also rebelled at the potential loss of services...
Tea Party memebrs (at least vocal ones at rallies) seem quite happy with medicare...Will support for Tea Party positions diminish when they realize that hand in glove with lower taxes MUST be lower Medicare beneifits?
The nature of politcal debate and the use of labels which falsely convey a sense that real ...makes the debate unreal. If one can't acknowledge that obama has lowered taxes greatly, and that citizens are now taxed a t a lower rate than since before the war ...how can anything be addressed honestly?

Number one, that's not who we are in the United States and secondly, really easy to break off Alaska and with their resource/population ratio, easy to look good.

You know that Alakans are the greatest per capita recipients of Federal Largesse of any state Defiant? Even if you carved off Alaska you'd find that one entity is managing within its own means and the otehr depends on the tit of the Federal government,
What are the differences between Sweden and the US?
1) Sweden managed to produce balanced budgets throughfrom about 94 to 2007.
2) Sweden did this without significantly fraying the benefits recieved by its citizens.
3) Sweden bounced out of the recession fairly well as a result.
4) Sweden is a nanny state.
This is the important point D. You seem to think its impossible to offer social service within the confines of gfood economic management. And the fact is, no. You can. BEsides Canada and Sweden, you could add Germany Denmark and Norway to the lsit. SIngapore as well.

steve

Notice I didn't say, "Carter drove us into an economic Grand Canyon." If I had, your point might have had some validity. Throw the recession, stagflation (interest rates were obscene), boycotting the Olympics, the Iranian hostage situation, Afghanistan . . . Carter put the country into a collective depression, psychologically speaking. Reagan's great success was in revitalizing the country, getting us to believe we were great instead of Carteresque.

And that "physcic pain" justifies 8 years of deficits?

"This is the important point D. You seem to think its impossible to offer social service within the confines of gfood economic management. And the fact is, no. You can. BEsides Canada and Sweden, you could add Germany Denmark and Norway to the lsit. SIngapore as well."

Rick, Alaska shares it's resources with us(USA), if it sold it to us as a foreign nation, they would be very rich, just like the example of Norway, once they found oil in the 60's, this is from wikipedia;

"The country is richly endowed with natural resources including petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Large reserves of petroleum and natural gas were discovered in the 1960s, which led to a boom in the economy. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the population. In 2011, 28% of state revenues were generated from the petroleum industry.[81]"

You also forgot the fact that we, the United States, are the policeman of the world, so maybe we can get financial reimbursement from these countries that have virtually no defense, you know "share the wealth" and then see how well they do. We have 330 million people the world's sole super power, at the moment, these countries cannot compete with the dynamics of a country this size and complexity, social agenda and massive entitilement programs do not work.

Really Rick, the lastest one now is, that takes affect in January, is our insurance companies have to pay for contraceptives(before and after), some cancer screening for free. It's not free, insurance companies will pass that down to me to pay, disgusting. Also free cell phones from the Feds, c'mon, when does it stop, with free houses(oh tried that, it failed), free cars. No country can sustain this kind of stupidity.

rickyp wrote:regarding the inaccurate perceptions about taxes....
Obama has not raised taxes. His tax increases don't take effect for 3 more years.

No matter how much he has expressed a desire to do this? Well, he actually has raised taxes. My source? That well-known conservative, Ezra Klein:

"I didn't raise taxes once," Barack Obama told Bill O'Reilly on Sunday. "I lowered taxes over the last two years." That's, well, half true. The Obama administration has raised taxes. The excise tax on high-value health-care insurance, for instance, is a tax. So is the tax on tanning salons, and the increase in cigarette taxes. These taxes -- or at least tax levels -- didn't exist before Obama signed them into law. They will raise taxes on certain people under certain circumstances. They will get bigger as the years tick by. PolitiFact rated this as "false," and rightly so.

Furthermore, what did the Administration resort to in order to defend the individual mandate for Obamacare in court? Oh yeah, they called it "a tax."

The payroll tax has actually been cut by two points.

Temporary cut. Part of the problem with our economy is there is too much "temporary." Businesses want to know what their costs will be over a longer period of time.

Total federal collection have dropped by 4 points of GDP since 2007, the lowest rate since truman. This realistically means that Obama is the biggest tax cuter in American history.

No, this realistically means someone who is being dishonest can make statistics say whatever they like. Any fool would know why tax receipts are down and it's not because Obama is "the biggest tax cuter (sic) in American history." When the economy tanks and fewer people are employed, tax receipts go down.

By your logic, if Obama somehow can get us to 20% unemployment, he'll be the greatest conservative in history!

Would you please display a modicum of integrity?

regarding the inaccurate perceptions about debt and conservatives. Nixon was the last republican President who had a debt as a percentage of GDP lower after he left then when he assumed.

More economic gymnastics. While technically true, this is dependent upon tax rates, the economy, and spending. In other words, Obama is going to wind up looking like a big tax cutter even though he's not. If you simply raise taxes, cut defense, and the economy doesn't completely tank, you can look "conservative." However, what of LBJ? The "seeds" he sowed are yet to fully blossom. We've got tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities that he created. If you add that to his totals, he is the worst in history--ditto FDR.

Under every other republican president since reagan the debt to GDP has gone up.. Under every Democratic President since Truman, until Obama, the Debt to GDP decreased...
Which outcome is more descriptive of a fiscal conservative? Increasing the debt to GDP or increasing?

Again, this is simplistic and misleading. Wait. This is rickyp, so feel free to consider that redundant.

There is a trend in the US where there is a divorce from the reality of paying today for what you use today. In california there were laws passed denying tax raises, and yet Californians also rebelled at the potential loss of services...

The truth is California is nowhere near out of the woods. Watch the State over the next few years. Liberals rule that State and they are less in touch with reality than the crooks/Democrats who run MA. CA will face bankruptcy or massive cuts in the next three years. Call me on it.

*Aside: I do have a plan to fix the US economy: we sell California to China for $15T. We are suddenly debt free and they owe us trillions of dollars, and they are stuck with CA's hopeless economic model. Plus, all the CA socialists get their wish. It's win-win.*

Tea Party memebrs (at least vocal ones at rallies) seem quite happy with medicare...Will support for Tea Party positions diminish when they realize that hand in glove with lower taxes MUST be lower Medicare beneifits?

Someone has to be adult enough to explain the situation instead of demagogue it. Of course, that lets out all currently elected Democrats. I don't care who "wants" what--we can't afford to sustain Medicare on its current path. That's just the cold hard truth.

The nature of politcal debate and the use of labels which falsely convey a sense that real ...makes the debate unreal. If one can't acknowledge that obama has lowered taxes greatly, and that citizens are now taxed a t a lower rate than since before the war ...how can anything be addressed honestly?

I'll wait for you to be honest. Then again, the ice machine in hell is already working overtime and not getting anywhere.

Obama "has lowered taxes greatly?"



All-time record! 10 is the max allowed, so grats!

The good news is the head of the DNC says Democrats "own the economy."

Obama said in 2009 that if he hadn't fixed the economy in 3 years, he would be a one-term President.

Yes, maybe we will get some "change."

rickyp wrote:What are the differences between Sweden and the US?
1) Sweden managed to produce balanced budgets throughfrom about 94 to 2007.
2) Sweden did this without significantly fraying the benefits recieved by its citizens.
3) Sweden bounced out of the recession fairly well as a result.
4) Sweden is a nanny state.

5. Sweden has virtually no military. From Wiki:

Today, the total number of troops available to the Swedish Army after 90 days of full mobilization is about two battalions (600 troops each) and eight companies (120 troops each), totalling 2,160 soldiers and 37,000 Home Guard/Defense

If you follow the link for "Home Guard," you'll find out they get 8 (yes, eight) days of training a year.

Imagine cutting our military budget by, oh, I don't know, 98%. I guess that might change our economic situation a bit.

So, please, stop with the Sweden nonsense. You might as well compare the US with Asgard.

DEFIANT wrote:Rick, Alaska shares it's resources with us(USA), if it sold it to us as a foreign nation, they would be very rich, just like the example of Norway, once they found oil in the 60's, this is from wikipedia;

"The country is richly endowed with natural resources including petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Large reserves of petroleum and natural gas were discovered in the 1960s, which led to a boom in the economy. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the population. In 2011, 28% of state revenues were generated from the petroleum industry.[81]".

Btw, Defiant, I've given up trying to get Ricky to use the quote button, but it's quite nice. It brings up all of the post you're trying to quote. If you look at the format, it shows you how to get someone's name attached to the quote--bracket, "quote", equal sign, the persons name in quotations, close bracket. To end the quote, it's just bracket, forward slash, "quote", close bracket.

Regarding Alaska, I wonder how its economy would look if the Federal government let companies drill in ANWR, etc.?

At least the US jobs figures were better than expected. Government jobs down (was the stimulus winding down already) and private jobs up. These are before the budget/limit deal, though.

"At least the US jobs figures were better than expected. Government jobs down (was the stimulus winding down already) and private jobs up. These are before the budget/limit deal, though. "

Danivon, c'mon, a big reason from the 9.2 to 9.1 on the u3 unemployment rate is because of people that have quit looking for jobs and are not counted anymore, but the u6 unemployment is at 18%, that's the number of true people out of work, counting those that have given up or have fallen off unemployment benefits.

Ricky, forgot one. Germany, I think you need to do a little research with Germany, they did not fall into this stupid idea of super spending, they were fiscally responsible and they also maintained their manufactoring and now are considered the financial leader in Europe, model we should be following.