14
   

Obama's State of the Union

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
You are wrong about that.
Obama created ObamaCare.
ObamaCare is responsible for the creation a host of problems, more than we know.

Obama ran up the debt to record numbers, this has created a long list of issues.

Obama's economic recovery is far worse and longer lasting than the Bush recession.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
Milbank makes this statement:
Milbank in the Times wrote:
In reality, we eventually need both spending cuts and tax increases — and lots of them. But sacrifice will have to wait. In Washington, they’re still partying like there’s no tomorrow.

It seems like a wide swath of people believe this - and it is wrong. Lots of spending cuts means lots of economic contraction during a period where the economy doesn't need a kick in the head. Moreover, economic contraction increases government costs. Better to pay someone to build a bridge and keep them off of unemployment than pay a lessor amount to let them sit on their butt even if you need to borrow money to build that bridge. At the end, you have a bridge and a person contributing (both by making and by spending) rather than have nothing. The reality is that twelve years ago, we had a smaller economy, a more robust social safety net and we had a budget surplus. If you want to cut spending, slowly reduce military spending back to the Clinton levels (pre-war levels), slowly reduce the stimulus to what we had before the financial meltdown and slowly raise taxes back to the Clinton levels. That's what we are doing today. The brutal spending cuts asked for on the far right and the sharp tax increases we hear discussed on the far left are recipes for disaster. The double whammy Milbank proposes is a recipe for a double decker disaster and almost exactly mirrors what we did in the 30's to bring on the Depression. It amazes me that we have an excellent example of running ourselves into the ground but we keep hearing how great a strategy it is. Washington is doing the exact right thing (going slowly and letting the economy and tax base recover) in the exact wrong way (by dithering and fighting instead of planned action.) The idea that we are on "the road to doom" is a lot more talk radio than reality. I'm a lot more worried that a significant portion of the US population cannot disagree with someone while respecting their opinion than I am about the budget being balanced.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:09 pm
@engineer,
We need spending & tax cuts.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:36 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

We need spending & tax cuts.

So in other words you are all for increasing the deficits.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:07 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

We need spending & tax cuts.

So in other words you are all for increasing the deficits.

You admit that haven't got a clue.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:47 pm
@H2O MAN,
Cutting taxes has never decreased deficits.

Reagan cut taxes and guess what happened to the deficits
deficit in 1980 - $73.8 billion.
It was never below $125 billion during any of Reagan's budget years and often over $200 billion. One could easily argue that Reagan's tax cuts tripled the deficit.

Now let's look at Bush's tax cuts.
Clinton's last budget year was a surplus
Bush last budget year had a deficit of 1.4 trillion. Every one of Bush's years had a deficit compared to the surplus the previous 4 budget years.

Table 1.1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/


I have facts on my side. What do you have?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 04:01 pm

The combination of reduced spending and reduced taxes results in economic growth.
Economic growth results in higher tax revenues collected by the government, these
revenues are then used to further reduce the debt.

Raising taxes and increasing spend never results in economic growth, never.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 04:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Your solution to the problem is too elect more of the republicans who caused the problem? Maybe we could run Chaney in 2016.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 04:21 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
The combination of reduced spending and reduced taxes results in economic growth.

Please point to the time in history that this has occurred.


Quote:
Raising taxes and increasing spend never results in economic growth, never.

1. Can you agree that Clinton raised taxes?
2. Can you agree that Clinton increased spending?
3. Can you agree that the economy grew under Clinton?
Please tell us which one of the 3 points you take issue with. Then provide a link to actual data to back up your opinion.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 04:28 pm
http://moonbattery.com/commies-say-the-darnedest-things.jpg
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 05:00 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Your solution to the problem is too elect more of the republicans who caused the problem? Maybe we could run Chaney in 2016.

No, I have said about a dozen times on A2K that I think both parties need to be rubbed out and replaced.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 05:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

Your solution to the problem is too elect more of the republicans who caused the problem? Maybe we could run Chaney in 2016.

No, I have said about a dozen times on A2K that I think both parties need to be rubbed out and replaced.


That's not a workable plan. It might sound cute for you to say it, but it's ultimately useless - it doesn't provide us with any way to move forward.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 05:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
all parties dither and lie as America burns.

You really need to change your screen name to Chicken Little.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:08 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
What did you think?


I'm amazed at how much the little bugger hates the US Constitution.

Luckily we have groups like the NRA to protect us from people like Obama.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:09 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You do realize, H2OMan, that Obama won the election and is by definition a political winner. Obama has a 54% approval rating and has the Republicans on their heals on several issues.


The Republicans won their elections too.

It's a shame that Obama doesn't know how to compromise. Boehner was willing to meet him halfway.

Oh well, the important thing is that the NRA stands resolute in their defense of the Constitution.

So long as the Constitution is safe, we can treat "Obama verses the Tea Party" as if it were some sort of weird reality TV show.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:16 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Milbank makes this statement:
Milbank in the Times wrote:
In reality, we eventually need both spending cuts and tax increases — and lots of them. But sacrifice will have to wait. In Washington, they’re still partying like there’s no tomorrow.

It seems like a wide swath of people believe this - and it is wrong. Lots of spending cuts means lots of economic contraction during a period where the economy doesn't need a kick in the head. Moreover, economic contraction increases government costs. Better to pay someone to build a bridge and keep them off of unemployment than pay a lessor amount to let them sit on their butt even if you need to borrow money to build that bridge. At the end, you have a bridge and a person contributing (both by making and by spending) rather than have nothing. The reality is that twelve years ago, we had a smaller economy, a more robust social safety net and we had a budget surplus. If you want to cut spending, slowly reduce military spending back to the Clinton levels (pre-war levels), slowly reduce the stimulus to what we had before the financial meltdown and slowly raise taxes back to the Clinton levels. That's what we are doing today. The brutal spending cuts asked for on the far right and the sharp tax increases we hear discussed on the far left are recipes for disaster. The double whammy Milbank proposes is a recipe for a double decker disaster and almost exactly mirrors what we did in the 30's to bring on the Depression. It amazes me that we have an excellent example of running ourselves into the ground but we keep hearing how great a strategy it is. Washington is doing the exact right thing (going slowly and letting the economy and tax base recover) in the exact wrong way (by dithering and fighting instead of planned action.) The idea that we are on "the road to doom" is a lot more talk radio than reality. I'm a lot more worried that a significant portion of the US population cannot disagree with someone while respecting their opinion than I am about the budget being balanced.


You have a good point about doing it slowly, but we are on the road to doom. Look what happened to Greece.

Further cuts in military spending are bad though. We've already cut the military as much as it can stand to be cut. Any deficit reduction is going to have to come from someplace else.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 10:42 pm

Just saw on Charlie Rose tonight, Dick Cheney called the Obama Administration a "second rate administration".
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 10:45 pm
@oralloy,
That's funny.

I am counting on Obama to protect us from people like the NRA.
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 11:55 pm
@oralloy,
Saw Cheney on Carlie Rose ---when Cheney says Obama is second rate that indicates Obama is an effective executive.

After all ,Cheney has demonstrated that he is a habitual liar.

Rap
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 04:27 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
That's funny.

I am counting on Obama to protect us from people like the NRA.


The NRA is not a threat to you. All they do is protect your civil rights. They are like the ACLU except with integrity.

Obama, on the other hand, hates the Constitution with a passion. He is a grave threat to the liberty of all Americans.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 02:43:20