Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth

[Moderate Right]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Not enough.

And what would be enough? Give us a dollar limit, percentage limit, a formula limit, something concrete instead of the evasive answers you guys always spew out like a high enough debt so that everyone who wants a job can have one - which would be NO limit because it can't ever happen.

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

You need to reread your own statement.

No. I don't. You are likely reading something into it so you are confused.

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

It was an ultimatum/threat and wasn't supposed to happen yes... but its better that it did.

Ok it's great that you agree but now I have no idea what your point is. Is Obama now a good president for doing what you want or is he a bad president because somethng you support didn't seem to get that 3% growth?

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Not enough.

And what would be enough? Give us a dollar limit, percentage limit, a formula limit, something concrete instead of the evasive answers you guys always spew out like a high enough debt so that everyone who wants a job can have one - which would be NO limit because it can't ever happen.

The answer is either full employment or until inflation starts to rise. Now I hand the same question back to you...what exactly is your benchmark that indicates we've spent too much?

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

The answer is either full employment or until inflation starts to rise. Now I hand the same question back to you...what exactly is your benchmark that indicates we've spent too much?

You gave me the exact same crap I asked you not to give me and now you want to move on? You haven't answered my question yet. According to economic experts we are close to full employment now but you guys want to define full employment as a 0% unemployment rate - which is impossible. It is just an excuse to continually add to the deficit in a never ending search for "full employment", which you already know can never happen. What does "until inflation starts to rise" mean? As inflation rises the fed increases interest rates and they are about to raise rates soon so I guess we are already at your point of both full employment (the accepted definition, not yours) and rising interest rates so it is time to stop the deficit spending NOW.

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

You gave me the exact same crap I asked you not to give me and now you want to move on? You haven't answered my question yet. According to economic experts we are close to full employment now but you guys want to define full employment as a 0% unemployment rate - which is impossible. It is just an excuse to continually add to the deficit in a never ending search for "full employment", which you already know can never happen. What does "until inflation starts to rise" mean? As inflation rises the fed increases interest rates and they are about to raise rates soon so I guess we are already at your point of both full employment (the accepted definition, not yours) and rising interest rates so it is time to stop the deficit spending NOW.

MR, I could attempt to point out the finer points to you on this but it wouldn't matter. You simply don't care what the answer is. All you care about is that the debt is called "debt" so it must be bad. You simply are not able to grasp the abstract beyond your simple household economic thinking. It's ok, i was there once, but I wasn't so GD stubborn about seeing the bigger picture and so you have the gulf between people like you and people like me.

Ironically even the most basic accounting should let you at least have some vision into what we are talking about. You should be able to see that if I am able to print 250 million dollars and I use it to build a 250 million dollar bridge, that things balance out perfectly. We have 250 million dollars in the economy and a 250 million dollar bridge to match. But because we didn't dig 250million dollars worth of some stupid metal out of the ground first to "pay for it", you just can't except it. The idea of creating currency is completely foreign to you so why the heck should I waste a minute explaining to you what "until inflation starts to rise" means?

Honestly it's sad. Forget the bridge. We could create money to educate whoever wanted to be educated and put more people to work solving real problems - environmental, medical, energy. What is the world value of curing cancer? But you don't care. All you care about is your household economics and your desperate attempt to make the rest of the world conform to something you can comprehend.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

MR, I could attempt to point out the finer points to you on this but it wouldn't matter. You simply don't care what the answer is. All you care about is that the debt is called "debt" so it must be bad. You simply are not able to grasp the abstract beyond your simple household economic thinking. It's ok, i was there once, but I wasn't so GD stubborn about seeing the bigger picture and so you have the gulf between people like you and people like me.

Ironically even the most basic accounting should let you at least have some vision into what we are talking about. You should be able to see that if I am able to print 250 million dollars and I use it to build a 250 million dollar bridge, that things balance out perfectly. We have 250 million dollars in the economy and a 250 million dollar bridge to match. But because we didn't dig 250million dollars worth of some stupid metal out of the ground first to "pay for it", you just can't except it. The idea of creating currency is completely foreign to you so why the heck should I waste a minute explaining to you what "until inflation starts to rise" means?

Honestly it's sad. Forget the bridge. We could create money to educate whoever wanted to be educated and put more people to work solving real problems - environmental, medical, energy. What is the world value of curing cancer? But you don't care. All you care about is your household economics and your desperate attempt to make the rest of the world conform to something you can comprehend.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh! Unbelievable how you can say that with a straight face. Spend 250 million dollars on a bridge, print up monopoly money to pay for it, call everything even, and go print up some more money to pay for something else. Owe, 20 trillion dollars? Owe 50 trillion dollars? Owe 100 trillion dollars? Worry about paying the interest on all that debt? No worry, because we can print up monopoly money to pay for the interest too and no, we don't have any national debt at all because everything evens out. You really do live in fantasy land.

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

LOL. Thanks for the laugh! Unbelievable how you can say that with a straight face. Spend 250 million dollars on a bridge, print up monopoly money to pay for it, call everything even, and go print up some more money to pay for something else. Owe, 20 trillion dollars? Owe 50 trillion dollars? Owe 100 trillion dollars? Worry about paying the interest on all that debt? No worry, because we can print up monopoly money to pay for the interest too and no, we don't have any national debt at all because everything evens out. You really do live in fantasy land.

You see MR, that's EXACTLY what is happening. While you're laughing, we print up monopoly money, inject it into our economy, and then somebody gives it to china in exchange for something tangible. We send china paper, they send us goods. We print up monopoly money and some aerospace company gives us 100 fighter planes. What you describe is EXACTLY what is happening, and you sound like a fool for mocking reality. Read the instructions in the game of monopoly - the bank NEVER runs out of money. It's all there MR, right in front of you. Plenty of examples that should make you stop and think for one hot second. But no, you go right back to sequentially listing of debt levels instead and think you're actually making a point. Seriously man.... 50 years ago there was some fool saying OMG our debt is 1 billion, then it'll be 10 and then 20 and then 50 and then 100 BILLION dollars...and 50 years in the future we get to look back and say man was that guy was completely wrong.

 

[Kushinator]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Seriously man.... 50 years ago there was some fool saying OMG our debt is 1 billion, then it'll be 10 and then 20 and then 50 and then 100 BILLION dollars...and 50 years in the future we get to look back and say man was that guy was completely wrong.

This point flies straight over their heads, and for some strange reason i cannot even begin to understand how. I typically use the 1945 debt level; in 1945, total public debt was about $260 billion. In 2016, we spend more than $300 billion a month (on average).

 

[DA60]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

MR, I could attempt to point out the finer points to you on this but it wouldn't matter. You simply don't care what the answer is. All you care about is that the debt is called "debt" so it must be bad. You simply are not able to grasp the abstract beyond your simple household economic thinking. It's ok, i was there once, but I wasn't so GD stubborn about seeing the bigger picture and so you have the gulf between people like you and people like me.

Ironically even the most basic accounting should let you at least have some vision into what we are talking about. You should be able to see that if I am able to print 250 million dollars and I use it to build a 250 million dollar bridge, that things balance out perfectly. We have 250 million dollars in the economy and a 250 million dollar bridge to match. But because we didn't dig 250million dollars worth of some stupid metal out of the ground first to "pay for it", you just can't except it. The idea of creating currency is completely foreign to you so why the heck should I waste a minute explaining to you what "until inflation starts to rise" means?

Honestly it's sad. Forget the bridge. We could create money to educate whoever wanted to be educated and put more people to work solving real problems - environmental, medical, energy. What is the world value of curing cancer? But you don't care. All you care about is your household economics and your desperate attempt to make the rest of the world conform to something you can comprehend.

Wow...right there you just proved that you have NO IDEA how the macroeconomic world works...no offense.

That is not even remotely close to how the world works...except in a Krugmanite dream.

At least for now, you and all who agree with the highlighted section are macroeconomic ignoramuses. Again, no offense.

 

[DA60]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

LOL. Thanks for the laugh! Unbelievable how you can say that with a straight face. Spend 250 million dollars on a bridge, print up monopoly money to pay for it, call everything even, and go print up some more money to pay for something else. Owe, 20 trillion dollars? Owe 50 trillion dollars? Owe 100 trillion dollars? Worry about paying the interest on all that debt? No worry, because we can print up monopoly money to pay for the interest too and no, we don't have any national debt at all because everything evens out. You really do live in fantasy land.

Yes, they do (many others agree with him).

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

This point flies straight over their heads, and for some strange reason i cannot even begin to understand how. I typically use the 1945 debt level; in 1945, total public debt was about $260 billion. In 2016, we spend more than $300 billion a month (on average).

People I know have a problem rejecting the age of the earth just because billions of years is so large relative to a human life. Only thing I can figure is that this is similar problem with individual finances.

 

[pdog]

Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Wow...right there you just proved that you have NO IDEA how the macroeconomic world works...no offense.

That is not even remotely close to how the world works...except in a Krugmanite dream.

At least for now, you and all who agree with the highlighted section are macroeconomic ignoramuses. Again, no offense.

I'm not sure I really care what the economic opinion is of someone who thinks that the insulting version of "nuhuhh, you're wrong and so are your Nobel laureate heros" and thinks he's actually debating...no offense :d'oh

Wouldn't matter anyway. Even if you posted something requiring an intellect, you'd "good day" your way out of the next post so you could ignore the rebuttal.