• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Out of curiosity....

More left wing boiler plate HOJ ??

I sometimes think you're just a bit of spam code that's programed to spit out warmed over DNC approved talking points whenever a Conservative points out the truth.

Blaming a President who hasn't been in office for nearly 5 years now for Obama's failure does wonders for your credibillity.

But something tells me you're not too concerned about your credibillity.

Blaming a President for the failures made on his watch is always current. Bush will always be the cause of our current deficits because he took a balanced budget and spent like a drunken sailor while setting fire to Rome. Obama has reduced Bush's 2009 deficit EVERY year he has been in office. Bush took a balanced budget and ran his deficits up to over a trillion. Who did the better job?
200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg
 
The debt didn't start in a vacuum.

What ? Bush's fault again ?

I never said it started in a "vacuum".

It's unprecedented explosion over the last 5 years with little to no positive economic results can be easily qualified, and it has nothing to do with Bush.
 
Blaming a President for the failures made
on his watch is always current. Bush will always be the cause of our current deficits because he took a balanced budget and spent like a drunken sailor while setting fire to Rome. Obama has reduced Bush's 2009 deficit EVERY year he has been in office. Bush took a balanced budget and ran his deficits up to over a trillion. Who did the better job?
200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg

Huh ?

Liberal math again.....

Yes the Republican Congress balanced the budget even though Clinton through a hissy fit and refused it 5 times before giving in.

But the debt still grew didn't it.

True story, Obama signed 9 out if the 12 spending appropriations bills of Bush's 2009 budget.

Don't tell me you're adding that to Bush's spending.

And on top of that was his "stimulus", and then trillion dollar deficits every year......but BUSH was the drunken Sailor ?

You people have gone off the deep end with your damage control.
 
What ? Bush's fault again ?

I never said it started in a "vacuum".

It's unprecedented explosion over the last 5 years with little to no positive economic results can be easily qualified, and it has nothing to do with Bush.

Debt is the accumulation of more than one president. Obama may not always make the best choices to grow the economy but things could be much worse for people like in many other countries that also suffered the after effects of the economic meltdown.
 
Huh ?

Liberal math again.....

Yes the Republican Congress balanced the budget even though Clinton through a hissy fit and refused it 5 times before giving in.

But the debt still grew didn't it.

True story, Obama signed 9 out if the 12 spending appropriations bills of Bush's 2009 budget.

Don't tell me you're adding that to Bush's spending.

And on top of that was his "stimulus", and then trillion dollar deficits every year......but BUSH was the drunken Sailor ?

You people have gone off the deep end with your damage control.

That graph was from that pinko group called the CATO Institute and they agree, 2009 is mostly BUSH. Of course it was magnified by the Great recession he also led us into. Obama has had to dig out of that massive hole Bush left him along with the worse recession since the 1930's. What we won't do is crash the economy and worsen the deficit by making more cuts in discretionary spending. You would love that I know because recessions and misery are your chosen "lean". We need more revenue from better unemployment. Growing the GDP and the tax base is the way we get out of this. It will all be a dream once the economy gets really going.

Don't Blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty
 
Last edited:
Debt is the accumulation of more than one president. Obama may not always make the best choices to grow the economy but things could be much worse for people like in many other countries that also suffered the after effects of the economic meltdown.

BS.

Absolute partisan nonsense. You have no way to quantify your assertions of our condition minus Obama's actions.

For one, NO economist was predicting a collapse of our economy after the 2008 sub-prime bubble collapse, and jobs started coming back before his stimulus.

Obama's made things worse if you hadn't noticed. Much worse.
 
BS.

Absolute partisan nonsense. You have no way to quantify your assertions of our condition minus Obama's actions.

For one, NO economist was predicting a collapse of our economy after the 2008 sub-prime bubble collapse, and jobs started coming back before his stimulus.

Obama's made things worse if you hadn't noticed. Much worse.

Um, you mean before the 2008 collapse?! Yes, there was so very few who did that prediction but what exactly is your point? Also, you're saying "partisan nonsense" to me??? Lol, the irony is simply delicious. I don't think Obama did all the right moves dealing with the economy but can say with certainty much better than what the GOP ever had planned. Austerity is simply illogical.
 
Um, you mean before the 2008
collapse?! Yes, there was so very few who did that prediction but what exactly is your point? Also, you're saying "partisan nonsense" to me??? Lol, the irony is simply delicious. I don't think Obama did all the right moves dealing with the economy but can say with certainty much better than what the GOP ever had planned. Austerity is simply illogical.


Austerity is not a plan for economic growth, it is a fiscal plan for dealing with massive unsustainable debt when that Government can no longer lie to their creditors about the value of their securities and finance their future " revenue" to pay off their current debt.

The European Union didn't enter into Austerity to improve their economy. The 2008 Collapse exposed massive amounts of worthless European Bonds, that were distributed through the European asset markets by Countries that violated the Maastricht Treaty. Austerity was a way to address a threat to the Euro.

Why you libs keep refering to as a plan for economic growth is beyond me.

And Obama and his party had more to do with the 2008 collapse than Bush did, Considering it was the only two finincial entities that were actually accused of securities fraud by the SEC were Fannie and Freddie.

6 of their executives were CONVICTED.

Just FYI the GSEs wound up with over 70% of all Low quality loans or securities backed by low quality loans. They were vigorously defended by the Democrats from 2001 to 2008.
 
They chose Austerity in favor of creditors and to hell with everyone else including their own economic well being. I'm glad that was not the way we went. It takes some grit to stand against what the plutocrats try to sell through their many think tanks and media outlets. Not eveyone bought into the propaganda.
 
BS.

Absolute partisan nonsense. You have no way to quantify your assertions of our condition minus Obama's actions.

For one, NO economist was predicting a collapse of our economy after the 2008 sub-prime bubble collapse, and jobs started coming back before his stimulus.

Obama's made things worse if you hadn't noticed. Much worse.

So you want play pretend and hope nobody notices the fiscal impact of Bush's two vanity wars, tax cuts for Paris Hilton and disastrous deregulatory regime?

Ok, let's pretend.
 
Austerity is not a plan for economic growth, it is a fiscal plan for dealing with massive unsustainable debt when that Government can no longer lie to their creditors about the value of their securities and finance their future " revenue" to pay off their current debt.

The European Union didn't enter into Austerity to improve their economy. The 2008 Collapse exposed massive amounts of worthless European Bonds, that were distributed through the European asset markets by Countries that violated the Maastricht Treaty. Austerity was a way to address a threat to the Euro.

Why you libs keep refering to as a plan for economic growth is beyond me.

And Obama and his party had more to do with the 2008 collapse than Bush did, Considering it was the only two finincial entities that were actually accused of securities fraud by the SEC were Fannie and Freddie.

6 of their executives were CONVICTED.

Just FYI the GSEs wound up with over 70% of all Low quality loans or securities backed by low quality loans. They were vigorously defended by the Democrats from 2001 to 2008.

Debt fetish: you're soaking in it. Meanwhile the US, which rejected austerity has had slow but consistent growth since the Bush Meltdown. Europe, in contrast, pursued austerity, and has huge unemployment and double dip recession or nonexistent growth.

In short, the evidence is in. Keynesianism worked. Austerity failed.
 
u.s. news and world report

The Myth of European Austerity

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was ousted by his socialist opponent Francois Hollande on May 6, the verdict from opinion leaders was swift and certain: France's election results represented a sure repudiation of Europe's strategy of government budget cutting to restore the economy.

But a closer look at how austerity has actually played out in Europe tells a much different story—and offers a lesson for American policymakers.

The austerity agenda, critics have it, in which debt-laden governments have slashed services and social programs, has angered European voters. Worse yet, the critics claim, it's not working, as European nations that have followed this supposedly vicious austerity program are struggling with nonexistent growth and slipping back into recession.


And their solution is entirely predictable: austerity critics call for additional debt-fueled stimulus spending, despite the fact that trillions have already been spent to kick-start the European economy, to little effect.

However, it turns out that those blasting Europe's experience with spending restraint omit some critical facts. Contrary to what you may have heard, spending cuts have largely been lacking in Europe's economic crisis response. Instead, in most European nations, austerity has mostly taken the form of higher taxes. We shouldn't be surprised Europe is struggling: when you raise taxes in a weak economy, it has a negative effect on investment and economic growth.

In fact, most countries in Europe are spending more today than they did before the 2008 crash, according to financial reports from the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. Yet austerity critics want to attribute the sluggish European economy entirely to spending cuts. France and the United Kingdom, for example, have made virtually no effort to cut spending; they've seen spending increase nearly every year over the last decade.

Many European nations have embraced the so-called "balanced approach" strategy, meaning a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Unfortunately, that approach has disappointed. Those nations that have followed a purer course of spending restraint, like Estonia, have seen superior growth. On the other hand, while countries like Greece and Italy have cut some spending, they've undermined their progress by raising taxes at the same time.

Moreover, that "balanced approach" is rarely all that balanced. In most cases, tax increases have been larger and more quickly implemented than spending cuts. For example, only about 30 percent of the budget cuts the United Kingdom had slated to go into effect between 2010 and 2015 have been implemented, according to a May 14 report in the Wall Street Journal. The tax hikes, however, are securely in place.


Critics of "austerity" would have you believe Europe is suffering because they have embraced radical frugality, cutting public spending and turning away the poor and needy. The evidence proves that's not true.

Yes, European nations are struggling with economic woes, but those woes don't stem from spending restraint—they stem from a broad variety of factors, including high levels of taxation, fractious E.U. politics and the hard demographic realities of an aging population demanding greater levels government support.

Austerity critics hope to derive lessons for the United States from the other side of the Atlantic, but they overlook critical differences between the United States and Europe. For one, most American voters have a more skeptical view of government spending. In polling conducted last month by the Tarrance Group for my organization, Public Notice, respondents expressed little confidence in the federal government's fiscal management skills, estimating that 47 percent of every federal dollar is wasted.


Moreover, when the pollsters asked about the president's proposal to raise taxes on wealthier taxpayers, 54 percent said they believe the government will simply use the new revenue to increase spending, rather than paring debt and deficit spending. Americans are skeptical of the government's ability to borrow and spend our way to prosperity—an appropriate and healthy skepticism that appears less evident among European voters.

American and European voters do have one thing in common: both are fed up with incumbent politicians who seem unequal to the task of meeting today's economic challenges.

U.S. policymakers should understand that restoring fiscal sanity to the federal budget is an urgent priority, despite what the austerity critics would have you believe. By their lights, no amount of government spending will ever be enough. For those of us who will have to foot the bill for their debt-fueled delusions, that's very worrisome indeed.


The Myth of European Austerity - US News and World Report
 
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. The last bastion of tea partiers losing another argument on the merits.
 
...if 29 of the 34 OECD nations are spending more than they take in then who are we going to borrow money from?

Last night I decided to look at the economies of the 34 OECD nations to see who we could borrow money from and my jaw pretty much hit the floor. Only 5 of the 34 member nations show more in revenue than expenses. Those 5 nations account for something like $110B in excess revenue. The other 29 nations....$1.9T in excess expenses.

Now I just want to note that the OECD was formed to stimulate international economies and trade. I mean, these are the guys we're supposed to be looking to for our model of economic excellence and as a whole this group is $2T in the red (half of that is just the US).

Anyway, after looking at that mess it occurred to me that everything will still be OK as long as some of the non-OECD nations are available to pick up the slack. So, with happy thoughts in mind I looked at China...$100B+ in the red. I looked at India.....$100B+ in the red. Brazil? They'd actually be good for about $60B but that's only 3% of the way to even.

So what does that leave us with?

Well, Saudi Arabia is roughly +$90B. The UAE could be good for another $30B. Kuwait should be good for about $60B and Russia should be available for another $55B......hell, if we wrapped them all up we'd be covered for......well....less than 25% of what we need to break even as a world economy.

So anyway, what's the answer? If the whole freaking world is spending more money than it makes then who are they paying it to? I mean all that extra expense is going somewhere so who has it and, more to the point, will they let us borrow more?

Do you think that we borrow cash on hand?

Bonds represent promises to pay which governments and businesses treat as assets. So when a nation or business buys a bond, the effect on their balance sheets is actually positive.

Buy a 30 year $10B dollar bond for 900M. $10B asset against a $900M liability. The magic of modern banking....
 
head of joaquin;1062421478 said:
Debt fetish: you're soaking in it. Meanwhile the US, which rejected austerity has had slow but consistent growth since the Bush Meltdown. Europe, in contrast, pursued austerity, and has huge unemployment and double dip recession or nonexistent growth.

In short, the evidence is in. Keynesianism worked. Austerity failed.

Hmmmm...I'm weighing the validity of you warmed over MSNBC approved talking points with the decisions made by the IMF.....

Hmmmmm....nope. You're just parroting the partisan nonsense of arbitrary spending.

I mean C'mon. Barry's blown through Trillions in 5 years and our economy is so unstable it has to be held up by the Fed.

Growth indeed.
 
Do you think that we borrow cash on
hand?

Bonds represent promises to pay which governments and businesses treat as assets. So when a nation or business buys a bond, the effect on their balance sheets is actually positive.

Buy a 30 year $10B dollar bond for 900M. $10B asset against a $900M liability. The magic of modern banking....

Greece sold a ton of bonds...

I bet the owners of those bonds don't consider the junk paper they now own as an " asset".

Same with the GM bond holders. They're not exactly "assets" if the bond holder recieves pennies on the dollar for his investment.

A bond is an INVESTMENT, and its value as an "asset" is subjective and based on the issuer.
 
u.s. news and world report

The Myth of European Austerity

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was ousted by his socialist opponent Francois Hollande on May 6, the verdict from opinion leaders was swift and certain: France's election results represented a sure repudiation of Europe's strategy of government budget cutting to restore the economy.

er uh ernst, we already have Wehrwolven to mindlessly post con editorials. did you get his permission to mindlessly post that? anyhoo, see how your lying editorial starts out with France. France was never in the discussion. It was mostly Britain with a little spain mixed in for flavor. And even when the lying editorial you mindlessly posted mentions Britain it is off averaged with France.

" France and the United Kingdom, for example, have made virtually no effort to cut spending; they've seen spending increase nearly every year over the last decade."

Wow! nearly every year. mmmmmm, I wonder what year it cut spending? and I know from other lying editorials that other cons have mindlessly posted that your editorial is really saying " nearly every year on a nominal basis"
 
Hmmmm...I'm weighing the validity of you warmed over MSNBC approved talking points with the decisions made by the IMF.....

Hmmmmm....nope. You're just parroting the partisan nonsense of arbitrary spending.

I mean C'mon. Barry's blown through Trillions in 5 years and our economy is so unstable it has to be held up by the Fed.

Growth indeed.

No content from you. Again!
 
er uh ernst, we already have Wehrwolven to mindlessly post con editorials. did you get his permission to mindlessly post that? anyhoo, see how your lying editorial starts out with France. France was never in the discussion. It was mostly Britain with a little spain mixed in for flavor. And even when the lying editorial you mindlessly posted mentions Britain it is off averaged with France.

" France and the United Kingdom, for example, have made virtually no effort to cut spending; they've seen spending increase nearly every year over the last decade."

Wow! nearly every year. mmmmmm, I wonder what year it cut spending? and I know from other lying editorials that other cons have mindlessly posted that your editorial is really saying " nearly every year on a nominal basis"

as i am sure you saw, its from u.s. news and world report.....i did not make a statement.

i gave info for individuals to read, and decide for themselves , since some are making claims on this thread.

if you think its lying, fine, you have the ability to read it and move one, instead of attacking the post, and then going after me.
 
It is kind of sad the way that democrats have consistently just thrown money at various problems. They've been that way for decades and, frankly, dragged a bunch of republicans into that way of thinking too.

Ha! Talk about the "Party of Responsibility"...you don't even take responsibility of the actions of your own party!
 
However, it turns out that those blasting Europe's experience with spending restraint omit some critical facts. Contrary to what you may have heard, spending cuts have largely been lacking in Europe's economic crisis response. Instead, in most European nations, austerity has mostly taken the form of higher taxes. We shouldn't be surprised Europe is struggling: when you raise taxes in a weak economy, it has a negative effect on investment and economic growth.

And therein lies the rub. The financial capitalist like banks and other lenders of capital, that make up the IMF, want their money back. So, they want to cut social spending and raise taxes. The global firms that make up the IMF want to cut social spending and to lower taxes so they don't have to pay taxes. You have two competing self interest but no one to speak for the many people who will suffer due to social cuts like retirees, the unemployed, and people who earn low wages, the young etc... That must be a lot of people in Estonia as they have a high rate of emigation to their Finnish neighbors. Yes, their population has been on the decline due to high emigation. Which begs the question, do they have less unemployment now due to high levels of emigation or because they have many more people finding jobs? For groups that have very separate self interest, than the majority of your average population, to promote people work until the late 60s sounds great. Only to anyone that has half a brain, they know it's hard enough to keep a job into your late 50s or early 60s ( we don't live in dad's generation) in this dog eat dog economy because please answer me- what company would rather keep an aging person who has more health risks/problems nearing retirement on a high salary than a young person entering the workforce with low risks and low salary? Anyone who has thought this through knows the real realistic answer and not the answer the Cato Institute wants to give you or any other corporate backed think tank. If they had it their way they would tell you to get a job a Walmart and be a greeter. So, how do people retire without entering poverty if we pull away the social safety nets that will costs the most as an aging population approaches? Just not have them? Have only the rich retire with comfort? Give the elderly foodstamps or other sources of help (but gosh ole mighty that grows the welfare state). Who is rallying for the people? I know for fact it ain't (sic) the Cato Institute. Cutting the social safety nets is short sighted and only is in the self interest of certain groups that don't make up the general population. Pushing people into unemployment, lower wages, taking away benefits etc....is short sighted and only is in the self interest of certain groups that don't make up the general population.
 
Oh, and to answer my other question: Estonia And The Department Of Meaningless Statistics - Forbes
From the article:
"Well a drop in the unemployment rate can come either from an increase in the number of people working or a decrease in the size of the labor force. What do you think happened in Estonia? Surprise! The population is collapsing."

Yeah, it's always important to get both sides of the story.
 
Pot meet kettle

Uh, you might want to look up the meaning of that expression. You just admitted your posts have no content.

In any case, you didn't rebut my factual claims, so I'll take your rant as a surrender.
 
And therein lies the rub. The financial capitalist like banks and other lenders of capital, that make up the IMF, want their money back. So, they want to cut social spending and raise taxes. The global firms that make up the IMF want to cut social spending and to lower taxes so they don't have to pay taxes. You have two competing self interest but no one to speak for the many people who will suffer due to social cuts like retirees, the unemployed, and people who earn low wages, the young etc... That must be a lot of people in Estonia as they have a high rate of emigation to their Finnish neighbors. Yes, their population has been on the decline due to high emigation. Which begs the question, do they have less unemployment now due to high levels of emigation or because they have many more people finding jobs? For groups that have very separate self interest, than the majority of your average population, to promote people work until the late 60s sounds great. Only to anyone that has half a brain, they know it's hard enough to keep a job into your late 50s or early 60s ( we don't live in dad's generation) in this dog eat dog economy because please answer me- what company would rather keep an aging person who has more health risks/problems nearing retirement on a high salary than a young person entering the workforce with low risks and low salary? Anyone who has thought this through knows the real realistic answer and not the answer the Cato Institute wants to give you or any other corporate backed think tank. If they had it their way they would tell you to get a job a Walmart and be a greeter. So, how do people retire without entering poverty if we pull away the social safety nets that will costs the most as an aging population approaches? Just not have them? Have only the rich retire with comfort? Give the elderly foodstamps or other sources of help (but gosh ole mighty that grows the welfare state). Who is rallying for the people? I know for fact it ain't (sic) the Cato Institute. Cutting the social safety nets is short sighted and only is in the self interest of certain groups that don't make up the general population. Pushing people into unemployment, lower wages, taking away benefits etc....is short sighted and only is in the self interest of certain groups that don't make up the general population.

this story, is giving information to people stating, that what austerity in Europe it not what americans would think austerity would be.

now we have comments by individuals, who have already stated, they know FOR sure, austerity does not work, and continuing to spend more money does.

so this story, gives you different view, from those who already tell us what works and what does not.
 
Back
Top Bottom