America's ignorance of Obama 'disturbing'

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Back on topic...

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis of Obama's future fiscal policies? Or would you like to try the straw man argument of ctb?

It is too early to tell. We have to wait and see what comes to pass. I think big spending is always dangerous, because someone has to pay for it.

 

[carpro]

It is too early to tell. We have to wait and see what comes to pass. I think big spending is always dangerous, because someone has to pay for it.

That's the problem with Obama's largest spending recommendations. He never mentions how we pay for them.

Got any guesses?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That's the problem with Obama's largest spending recommendations. He never mentions how we pay for them.

Got any guesses?

Well, if you will pardon my reference to history here, there are only three possible sources of revenue, borrow, print money or raise taxes.

We don't know the future, but I assume Pres Obama will continue the tax and spend policies of his predecessors, leading to greater indebtedness. I would love to see American elect a fiscal conservative, but just don't of any out there. People vote with their wallets, there is no doubt about that, and no one really wants the lean budget that fiscal conservatism would we require. People, to a huge extend, live their own personal lives on their credit cards so have no problem with their government doing the same.

I don't think people are ignorant of big spending plans, they just don't care.

 

[saturneptune]

I have neither attacked democrats nor praised republicans. My "default position" is purely a matter of your opinion, not fact.

Try dealing with the reality before you instead of your own pet peeve for a change.

Back on topic...

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis of Obama's future fiscal policies? Or would you like to try the straw man argument of ctb?

If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that Obama's economic policies are not even a consideration to me.

The change I want (again you never read posts) is to return to running this country by the Constitution. People with your mindset are a roadblock to that change because you insist on maintaining the liberal stauts quo by defending one liberal mainstream party over another.

In reality, or facts as you say, your position is much closer to Obama than mine.

Later, Mr Strawman.

 

[carpro]

Well, if you will pardon my reference to history here, there are only three possible sources of revenue, borrow, print money or raise taxes.

We don't know the future, but I assume Pres Obama will continue the tax and spend policies of his predecessors, leading to greater indebtedness. I would love to see American elect a fiscal conservative, but just don't of any out there. People vote with their wallets, there is no doubt about that, and no one really wants the lean budget that fiscal conservatism would we require. People, to a huge extend, live their own personal lives on their credit cards so have no problem with their government doing the same.

I don't think people are ignorant of big spending plans, they just don't care.

Good analysis.

The major difference I see in the plans of Obama is the degree of the "greater indebtedness". I predict it will be historically enormous, beyond the scope of anything we can even imagine.

Maybe enormous enough to wake people up. Maybe not.

 

[saturneptune]

Good analysis.

The major difference I see in the plans of Obama is the degree of the "greater indebtedness". I predict it will be historically enormous, beyond the scope of anything we can even imagine.

Maybe enormous enough to wake people up. Maybe not.

There is no major difference and that is exactly where your logic fails.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Good analysis.

The major difference I see in the plans of Obama is the degree of the "greater indebtedness". I predict it will be historically enormous, beyond the scope of anything we can even imagine.

Maybe enormous enough to wake people up. Maybe not.

The dollar sign on the national debt clock was recently replaced with a digit to reflect a $10 trillion plus debt. Will another digit need to be added? Since debt and spending are exponential, I would not be surprised.

 

[carpro]

If you had bothered to read any of my posts,...

Why bother?

They're all the same.

 

[saturneptune]

Why bother?

They're all the same.

As are yours, titled the liberal Republican apologist.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Good analysis.

The major difference I see in the plans of Obama is the degree of the "greater indebtedness". I predict it will be historically enormous, beyond the scope of anything we can even imagine.

Maybe enormous enough to wake people up. Maybe not.

Thanks to G. Bush it is already beyond anything we can imagine ... and Bush has set it up so the debt will continue for years to come. Obama can't turn this ship around quickly ... no one can.



Year-- Debt -- US Gross Debt as % of GDP
2000-- 5,674 -- 58 %
2005-- 7,933 -- 64.6 %
2007-- 9,008 -- 65.5 %
2008-- 10,024.7 -- 72.5 % (EST)

 

[carpro]

Thanks to G. Bush it is already beyond anything we can imagine ... and Bush has set it up so the debt will continue for years to come. Obama can't turn this ship around quickly ... no one can.

Strawman again.

Just can't seem to deal with the subject at hand.:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

Strawman again.

Just can't seem to deal with the subject at hand.:laugh:

Pot meet kettle. Another liberal vs liberal debate.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Strawman again.

Just can't seem to deal with the subject at hand.:laugh:

You are giving your opinion on the future ... which is just an opinion.

I give you facts on the past which are uncomfortable facts if you are claiming G. Bush did a responsible job of handling the economy.

To run the debt from 5 trillion to over ten trillion is not good economic policy. Under Bush the debt has risen from 58% of GNP to 72.5% of GNP. That is not good, not good at all. And because of his policies, it will probably get worse.

 

[saturneptune]

Republicans are pikers at spending when compared to liberals with a government checkbook.

The worst is yet to come, unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

Oh, you mean like the last eight years.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

[dragonfly]

The past is not under discussion. The future is.

I've made a prediction. I may be wrong.

If I've read the character and politics of Obama correctly, I'll be proven right.

If not, I'll be wrong. But it won't have anything at all to do with the economic performance of any president in the past.

Try to stay on topic, Roger. The subject is the economics of an Obama presidency, not bush or Reagan or Clinton.

Sound familiar?

Of course they aren't the issue, they don't support your stance. :laugh:

You cherry pick the information you want other to consider. You brought up deficits and Obama. In bringing up deficits you should see how Reagan and Bush have done exactly what you accuse Obama of doing although he is not in office.

Maybe you should take the blinders off and have an honest debate about deficits, but I doubt you will. You will just continue to spew your prophecy about what Obama might or might not do, nothing else.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, if you will pardon my reference to history here, there are only three possible sources of revenue, borrow, print money or raise taxes.

.

And this is incorrect. It overlooks the amount of sales tax that is brought in from a moving economy without the raising of taxes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And this is incorrect. It overlooks the amount of sales tax that is brought in from a moving economy without the raising of taxes.

I stand corrected. I should have technically said, 'increasing tax revenue' instead of 'raising taxes.' Thank you for your attention to detail.

However, an increase in tax revenue thanks for a moving economy is not likely in a recessionary spiral. into which I think economists along the full spectrum agree we are heading.

 

[Revmitchell]

I stand corrected. I should have technically said, 'increasing tax revenue' instead of 'raising taxes.' Thank you for your attention to detail.

However, an increase in tax revenue thanks for a moving economy is not likely in a recessionary spiral. into which I think economists along the full spectrum agree we are heading.

Agreed. So the plan should be to enable spending. What is happening however is that in the past a few intelligent banks did not get involved in sub prime loans and expanded to make the secure. So the bailout money is being used for the latter at a time when it should be used to make loans available. They are all working for long term preservation and the tax payers did not give them the money for that purpose.

Anyway Obama's plan to not repeal the tax cuts is a good one at this time.

 

[KenH]

unless you are a big government anti American socialist.

There is not a single thing anti-American about socialism as an economic system.

 

[KenH]

Annual deficits will top a trillion dollars easily.

This past fiscal year's deficit already topped a trillion dollars.

National Debt at 9/30/08 $10.026 trillion

National Debt at 9/30/07 $9.008 trillion

Increase for fiscal year 2008 $1.018 trillion

www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2008/opds092008.pdf

www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2007/opds092007.pdf