Proof That Obama Is A Mistake

[Joe Steel]

Ask a conservative. They believe cutting spending in a recession is the way to economic recovery.

dear if you cut government spending you increase private spending and that make the economy grow.

We grew from stone age to here as the private sector invented new stuff. Since government does not invent new stuff when it taxes and spends it shrinks the economy.

Still over your head????

Don't worry. On the rare occasion you make sense, I have no problem. It's your usual nonsense that has me baffled.

Firms have $2T to invest but they're not doing it.

Get it?

Either the government spends or no one does.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Either the government spends or no one does.

too stupid and perfectly liberal. When soviet libturds invest in Solyndra, A123 Systems, Range Fuels, Fiscar, Abound Solar they mal-invest, cause bubbles and then recessions.

This makes the economic landscape more volatile and uncertain and corporations less likely to invest!!

Still over your head???

Your libturd friends just invested heavily in housing and caused the greatest recession since the Depression!!!

 

[NoNukes]

YOU WANT AMERICA TO BE LIKE A SOCIALIST EUROPEAN COUNTRY? What is wrong with you? Are you a Libtard or something.

Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…

Or admit that the you support the dolt in the White House because you recognize a similar lack of capacity in yourself.

I was imitating many of the right wingers on the board when Europe is mentioned. If you did not take yourself so seriously, it may not have gone over your head.

 

[editec]

The more I come to this place and read the confused thinking and musings of many of you the LESS I believe in the concept of democracy.

It's kind of ironic that the right and left wing partisans have done so much to change my mind about something so fundamental as the my faith in the concept of democracy, but there it is.

Reading the confused thinking and the flawed logic of many of your musings is slowly but surely turning me into an authoritarian wgho no longer believes VOX POPULI VOX DEUS.

If I keep coming here I might eventually become a monarchist -- that's how fightening it is for me to when I see how ignorant the average American is about facts and how to put them together logically to arrive at a narrative to describe the ssate of our world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

YOU WANT AMERICA TO BE LIKE A SOCIALIST EUROPEAN COUNTRY? What is wrong with you? Are you a Libtard or something.

Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…

Or admit that the you support the dolt in the White House because you recognize a similar lack of capacity in yourself.

I was imitating many of the right wingers on the board when Europe is mentioned. If you did not take yourself so seriously, it may not have gone over your head.

"Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?"


C'mon...try: you eligible for any Kewpie Doll on the top shelf!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not me. I voted for Barack Obama.

Now, I have to admit I wouldn't have done it in a perfect world. In a perfect world, we'd have a socialist running against a socialist. The choice between the two, however, would reflect subtleties unfathomable to the common conservative so saying they would amount to rational public policy would be lost on someone who would see them as cradle to grave protection from vicissitudes.

Let's prove the import of my statement above:

1. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.” From the OP.

2. Almost two thirds of the federal budget goes to entitlements. That'w why we have deficits as far as the eye can see.

What does this prove? That you can copy and paste someone's errors?

Tell me why entitlements are the reason. Make an argument.

How stupid does one have to be not to see the hand-writing on the wall???

Ask a conservative. They believe cutting spending in a recession is the way to economic recovery. And, get this, they believe Social Security actually contributed to the deficit.

"Ask a conservative. They believe cutting spending in a recession is the way to economic recovery."
History provides proof of that thesis.


You've already demonstrate an inability to learn....but, I, the eternal optimist....will provide a tutorial:

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


Aside from 'conservatives bad,' and 'duh,'....what do you say of the above?



Now....don't force me to write "Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."

 

[Foxfyre]

Joe Steel says that that if the government doesn't spend nobody does. He bases that theory on the fact that the American businessman is sitting on trillions in venture capital. I would add that Americans have trillions more parked out of the country that they are unwilling to brng back and put to work until the uncertainties of the economic policy are settled.

But the fact is the government does not create wealth. It cannot spend a dime without first taking that dime out of the economy either immediately via taxes or in the future via ever increasing debt.

So perhaps a concept of reducing government spending on a permanent basis could help provide the economic stability the private sector needs before it will again substantially spend? The Republicans, however timid and inept they have been, are at least attempting to get the President to do that.

So far he is not willing.

 

[NoNukes]

Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…

Or admit that the you support the dolt in the White House because you recognize a similar lack of capacity in yourself.

I was imitating many of the right wingers on the board when Europe is mentioned. If you did not take yourself so seriously, it may not have gone over your head.

"Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?"


C'mon...try: you eligible for any Kewpie Doll on the top shelf!

Stuttering for loss of a reply again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was imitating many of the right wingers on the board when Europe is mentioned. If you did not take yourself so seriously, it may not have gone over your head.

"Can you explain why the following would be inadvisable?"


C'mon...try: you eligible for any Kewpie Doll on the top shelf!

Stuttering for loss of a reply again?

I provided a substantive reply.

Your pretense is evidently either because you cannot find any way to answer....or because the answer would verify the essence of the OP.


Now, put some effort in: you're beginning to look like the the Kim Kardashian of posters, no apparent talent for the endeavor in which you're engaged.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is the problem with you folks.

You cherry pick the things you like..and toss out the rest.

Right, you Obamunists would never do that....

That's kinda like taking the cigarette lighter out of the car.

And then trying to drive the cigarette lighter.

Only if we called is a "Chevy Volt" like Dear Leader does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I once tried to light a joint on the exhaust manifold. Does that count?

Is that when you fried most of your brain?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bacon.

Since you couldn't refute, your goal was to derail.

Such is the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

The unwillingness of some in this thread to focus on suggested remedies in the OP is the problem. Neither is our Fearless Leader willing to focus on such suggested remedies which produces the thesis of the OP that he was the wrong choice to address the economic issues the nation currently faces. These are measures Sweden took to successfully improve their own economy and achieve better education for the kids and a better healthcare system for all. Would they work here?

Here they are again:

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

 

[UKRider]

I'm not sure if he's a mistake. I am sure that the more extreme from one side demand a response from the more extreme from the other side and both sides have their more extreme politicians. President Obama has clearly stopped the Republican momentum and has pretty much done with a very responsive populace (neg and pos) with the result being a second term with a majority mandate.

It will take the Republicans decades (or a great war) to try and deal with President Obama's massive restructuring of American momentum and he's doing a lot of it from the safety of "Foreign Policy".

I'm interested in seeing what changes this will bring in the upcoming decades. There's naysayers all over the place, but I'm interested regardless of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure if he's a mistake. I am sure that the more extreme from one side demand a response from the more extreme from the other side and both sides have their more extreme politicians. President Obama has clearly stopped the Republican momentum and has pretty much done with a very responsive populace (neg and pos) with the result being a second term with a majority mandate.

It will take the Republicans decades (or a great war) to try and deal with President Obama's massive restructuring of American momentum and he's doing a lot of it from the safety of "Foreign Policy".

I'm interested in seeing what changes this will bring in the upcoming decades. There's naysayers all over the place, but I'm interested regardless of them.

So you see stopping the Republican 'momentum', whatever that was, as a good thing? And that's how you conclude that Obama is not a mistake?

Can you name an Obama policy that you can point to as the definitive reason something is better now than it was before?

Which of the following--all of which Obama opposes at this time--do you approve that he opposes?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

 

[UKRider]

I'm not sure if he's a mistake. I am sure that the more extreme from one side demand a response from the more extreme from the other side and both sides have their more extreme politicians. President Obama has clearly stopped the Republican momentum and has pretty much done with a very responsive populace (neg and pos) with the result being a second term with a majority mandate.

It will take the Republicans decades (or a great war) to try and deal with President Obama's massive restructuring of American momentum and he's doing a lot of it from the safety of "Foreign Policy".

I'm interested in seeing what changes this will bring in the upcoming decades. There's naysayers all over the place, but I'm interested regardless of them.

So you see stopping the Republican 'momentum', whatever that was, as a good thing? And that's how you conclude that Obama is not a mistake?

Can you name an Obama policy that you can point to as the definitive reason something is better now than it was before?

Which of the following--all of which Obama opposes at this time--do you approve that he opposes?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

I'm looking in a longer term Foxfyre and I'm interested in seeing the long term results of President Obama's global foreign policies as that's where he's got far more reach and his ideas of restructuring America in 'resets' was quite an achievement in thought. I think future Presidents will see US Foreign policy differently because of President Obama's moves.

So I'm not all that interested in the present prognostications of possible futures. I'm a believer in the checks and balances of US politics.

Edit:

Just as I'm not looking at how the forum is running at the moment. It's in a state of flux and a lot of stuff is being bandied around by people with their own personal interests. There's quite a bit of "The World Will End" and lesser crystal ball seeking and there's some changes. The more powerful people have more invested in that power and people with positions of power are seldom the ones who appreciate letting it go. When they have to let it go, often the results are anger.

I'll wait until it all smooths out. The same with the US.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure if he's a mistake. I am sure that the more extreme from one side demand a response from the more extreme from the other side and both sides have their more extreme politicians. President Obama has clearly stopped the Republican momentum and has pretty much done with a very responsive populace (neg and pos) with the result being a second term with a majority mandate.

It will take the Republicans decades (or a great war) to try and deal with President Obama's massive restructuring of American momentum and he's doing a lot of it from the safety of "Foreign Policy".

I'm interested in seeing what changes this will bring in the upcoming decades. There's naysayers all over the place, but I'm interested regardless of them.

So you see stopping the Republican 'momentum', whatever that was, as a good thing? And that's how you conclude that Obama is not a mistake?

Can you name an Obama policy that you can point to as the definitive reason something is better now than it was before?

Which of the following--all of which Obama opposes at this time--do you approve that he opposes?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

I'm looking in a longer term Foxfyre and I'm interested in seeing the long term results of President Obama's global foreign policies as that's where he's got far more reach and his ideas of restructuring America in 'resets' was quite an achievement in thought. I think future Presidents will see US Foreign policy differently because of President Obama's moves.

So I'm not all that interested in the present prognostications of possible futures. I'm a believer in the checks and balances of US politics.

Edit:

Just as I'm not looking at how the forum is running at the moment. It's in a state of flux and a lot of stuff is being bandied around by people with their own personal interests. There's quite a bit of "The World Will End" and lesser crystal ball seeking and there's some changes. The more powerful people have more invested in that power and people with positions of power are seldom the ones who appreciate letting it go. When they have to let it go, often the results are anger.

I'll wait until it all smooths out. The same with the US.

As far as the current board unrest goes, I'm with you. Those moving to another site will probably be very happy with it, and while I'll miss some of those, I won't miss all the drama and sh*t stirring here. I prefer to let things shake out and see how they go. It will either result in a better board or there will be no change or it will be worse. At any rate, it won't affect me one way or the other except that I might have to find some other place to play. The world won't end. My life in general won't change. It is not all that big a deal.

That is not the case however re government policy. I can see the negative consequences of people or families who presume to live greatly beyond their means and the prognosis for that is evident in that it has NEVER turned out for the better for anybody who has ever done that.

And as a student of history, I can say that the very same prognosis and results is true for nations every single time certain policies or practices are implemented. There is no reason to believe that the USA's current fiscal policies do not have us on a steady course to complete disaster that will very likely occur within the next few years.

I'm NOT willing to sit on my hands and allow that to happen without speaking up.

 

[UKRider]

So you see stopping the Republican 'momentum', whatever that was, as a good thing? And that's how you conclude that Obama is not a mistake?

Can you name an Obama policy that you can point to as the definitive reason something is better now than it was before?

Which of the following--all of which Obama opposes at this time--do you approve that he opposes?

a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

I'm looking in a longer term Foxfyre and I'm interested in seeing the long term results of President Obama's global foreign policies as that's where he's got far more reach and his ideas of restructuring America in 'resets' was quite an achievement in thought. I think future Presidents will see US Foreign policy differently because of President Obama's moves.

So I'm not all that interested in the present prognostications of possible futures. I'm a believer in the checks and balances of US politics.

Edit:

Just as I'm not looking at how the forum is running at the moment. It's in a state of flux and a lot of stuff is being bandied around by people with their own personal interests. There's quite a bit of "The World Will End" and lesser crystal ball seeking and there's some changes. The more powerful people have more invested in that power and people with positions of power are seldom the ones who appreciate letting it go. When they have to let it go, often the results are anger.

I'll wait until it all smooths out. The same with the US.

As far as the current board unrest goes, I'm with you. Those moving to another site will probably be very happy with it, and while I'll miss some of those, I won't miss all the drama and sh*t stirring here. I prefer to let things shake out and see how they go. It will either result in a better board or there will be no change or it will be worse. At any rate, it won't affect me one way or the other except that I might have to find some other place to play. The world won't end. My life in general won't change. It is not all that big a deal.

That is not the case however re government policy. I can see the negative consequences of people or families who presume to live greatly beyond their means and the prognosis for that is evident in that it has NEVER turned out for the better for anybody who has ever done that.

And as a student of history, I can say that the very same prognosis and results is true for nations every single time certain policies or practices are implemented. There is no reason to believe that the USA's current fiscal policies do not have us on a steady course to complete disaster that will very likely occur within the next few years.

I'm NOT willing to sit on my hands and allow that to happen without speaking up.

No one said you had to sit on your hands FoxFyre. You're smart enough to know almost all of it is out of those hands. As a student of history you know that very few people get the chance to rework multi-generational movements.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm looking in a longer term Foxfyre and I'm interested in seeing the long term results of President Obama's global foreign policies as that's where he's got far more reach and his ideas of restructuring America in 'resets' was quite an achievement in thought. I think future Presidents will see US Foreign policy differently because of President Obama's moves.

So I'm not all that interested in the present prognostications of possible futures. I'm a believer in the checks and balances of US politics.

Edit:

Just as I'm not looking at how the forum is running at the moment. It's in a state of flux and a lot of stuff is being bandied around by people with their own personal interests. There's quite a bit of "The World Will End" and lesser crystal ball seeking and there's some changes. The more powerful people have more invested in that power and people with positions of power are seldom the ones who appreciate letting it go. When they have to let it go, often the results are anger.

I'll wait until it all smooths out. The same with the US.

As far as the current board unrest goes, I'm with you. Those moving to another site will probably be very happy with it, and while I'll miss some of those, I won't miss all the drama and sh*t stirring here. I prefer to let things shake out and see how they go. It will either result in a better board or there will be no change or it will be worse. At any rate, it won't affect me one way or the other except that I might have to find some other place to play. The world won't end. My life in general won't change. It is not all that big a deal.

That is not the case however re government policy. I can see the negative consequences of people or families who presume to live greatly beyond their means and the prognosis for that is evident in that it has NEVER turned out for the better for anybody who has ever done that.

And as a student of history, I can say that the very same prognosis and results is true for nations every single time certain policies or practices are implemented. There is no reason to believe that the USA's current fiscal policies do not have us on a steady course to complete disaster that will very likely occur within the next few years.

I'm NOT willing to sit on my hands and allow that to happen without speaking up.

No one said you had to sit on your hands FoxFyre. You're smart enough to know almost all of it is out of those hands. As a student of history you know that very few people get the chance to rework multi-generational movements.

I am smart enough to know that our elected leaders are first and foremost interested in protecting their own power, influence, prestige, and ability to continually increase their personal fortunes. I am smart enough to know that if enough people express their anger and concerns sufficiently that those elected leaders feel their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortune is threatened, they will do what the people want. It has to be more than just juvenile bitching and childish follow the leader stuff. It has to be people who have a real personal stake in the problem who make their voices heard loud and long.

It was such grass roots pressures that ended slavery, brought about women's suffrage, ended prohibition, and time and again has rolled back more onerous regulation and too costly policy. But the government is in the process of seizing powers to the point that soon we won't be able to frighten them any more because they will have made themselves immune to consequences of public opinion. This may be the last generation with any real voice.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the government is in the process of seizing powers to the point that soon we won't be able to frighten them any more because they will have made themselves immune to consequences of public opinion. This may be the last generation with any real voice.

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to see government as anything but a Santa Claus. They are no better than children.


"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Jeffferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."-Jefferson