An honest question to liberals/Democrats

[Black_Label]

All of those countries mentioned have similar economic policies, and they are all headed in the same direction. You can scream foul if you want, but those same policies are the exact same ones that liberals/Democrats are trying to institute in the U.S. If you consider that an insult, then that says more about your economic position than anything else and your refusal to put it against reality than anything else.

Anyway, my question still stands.

Why be insulted by bullcrap? There is no honest ? to be seen here so on to the next thread.

Regards from Rosie

In other words, you have nothing.

In other words, you are an idiot.

 

[MarcATL]

Actually, the US isn't emulating any of those countries.

Take Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France - all members of the EU, and all attempting to institute "austerity" budgets. They're cutting spending and raising taxes. The result is shrinking economies, widening deficits, and increasing unemployment.

Now look at the US: here we've chosen not to raise taxes or cut spending and our economy has grown as a result, and unemployment has steadily fallen.

So if we followed the example of the EU countries - a path that's already been proven not to lead nowhere - that would be ridiculous. But that's not what we're doing.

Answer this question:

WHY have the EU nations been forced into austerity measures?

There was a big build-up of debts in Spain and Italy before 2008, but it had nothing to do with governments. Instead it was the private sector - companies and mortgage borrowers - who were taking out loans. Interest rates had fallen to unprecedented lows in southern European countries when they joined the euro. And that encouraged a debt-fuelled boom.

BBC News - What really caused the eurozone crisis?

Eurozone crisis explained

Basically Big Corpa run amock and causing the national & world economy harm...yes?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm afraid he hasn't. But FoxNation believes it is true

Is he not on line to double the debt again? Go ahead spin away.........

Lets look at the numbers...

Debt is $16 trillion of which $5 trillion occurred in Obamas Presidency
Why do Conservatives lie and say he has spent more than EVERY President combined?

More important, How much has Obamas programs added to out debt? Stimulus $800 billion, Obamacare $800 billion

Where did the rest come from?
$2 trillion to wrap up Bush's wars
$1 trillion unfunded Medicare Part D
$2 trillion lost through Bush tax cuts

So he's not going to double the debt? 4 years later and still blaming Bush. Sorry it just doesn't cut it. No budget since 09? Really? It simply does not pass the smell test.....

 

[Sundial]

Answer this question:

WHY have the EU nations been forced into austerity measures?

Because they don't have control of their own currency.

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16290598]Eurozone crisis explained[/URL]

So what really caused the crisis?
There was a big build-up of debts in Spain and Italy before 2008, but it had nothing to do with governments. Instead it was the private sector - companies and mortgage borrowers - who were taking out loans. Interest rates had fallen to unprecedented lows in southern European countries when they joined the euro. And that encouraged a debt-fuelled boom.

We had a debt-fueled boom here, too. But we don't have 25% unemployment. The US was able to cut taxes and raise spending when the crisis hit. The Euro countries had to cut spending and raise taxes. That's why our economy is getting better, and theirs are getting worse.

 

[rightwinger]

Is he not on line to double the debt again? Go ahead spin away.........

Lets look at the numbers...

Debt is $16 trillion of which $5 trillion occurred in Obamas Presidency
Why do Conservatives lie and say he has spent more than EVERY President combined?

More important, How much has Obamas programs added to out debt? Stimulus $800 billion, Obamacare $800 billion

Where did the rest come from?
$2 trillion to wrap up Bush's wars
$1 trillion unfunded Medicare Part D
$2 trillion lost through Bush tax cuts

So he's not going to double the debt? 4 years later and still blaming Bush. Sorry it just doesn't cut it. No budget since 09? Really? It simply does not pass the smell test.....

Is he?

He has cut the deficit every year. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq will cut the deficit to zero

May I ask why we cant continue to blame Bush when his policies are still contributing our deficit? Let's get out of Bushs tax cuts, out of Bushs wars and find a way to fund Medicare Part D and THEN we can stop planing Bush

 

[ecinicola]

Obama bought the election. He was giving free Obama cell phones out. food stamps and many other things to get peoples votes. unfortunately there are lots of freeloader in our country and could care less about putting the right person in the white house.....its all about free stuff and what they can get.
obama now has given Hama's 2 Million dollars of our tax money. We are going to pay dearly for Obama having 4 more years to give our money away.
Companys are letting people go, and only hiring part time people, so they don't have the benefits that obama is demanding the companies pay. we are in deep trouble for the next 4 yrs because of the ignorant people in this country that put this failure and disaster Muslim back in office. God help us all for what the voters have caused on us. and tell you the truth, i hope those who voted for Obama suffer the consequences more then the rest of us.

 

[HUGGY]

Lets look at the numbers...

Debt is $16 trillion of which $5 trillion occurred in Obamas Presidency
Why do Conservatives lie and say he has spent more than EVERY President combined?

More important, How much has Obamas programs added to out debt? Stimulus $800 billion, Obamacare $800 billion

Where did the rest come from?
$2 trillion to wrap up Bush's wars
$1 trillion unfunded Medicare Part D
$2 trillion lost through Bush tax cuts

So he's not going to double the debt? 4 years later and still blaming Bush. Sorry it just doesn't cut it. No budget since 09? Really? It simply does not pass the smell test.....

Is he?

He has cut the deficit every year. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq will cut the deficit to zero

May I ask why we cant continue to blame Bush when his policies are still contributing our deficit? Let's get out of Bushs tax cuts, out of Bushs wars and find a way to fund Medicare Part D and THEN we can stop planing Bush

Ollie is an idiot. He sniffs his compter screen for truthiness.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama bought the election. He was giving free Obama cell phones out. food stamps and many other things to get peoples votes. unfortunately there are lots of freeloader in our country and could care less about putting the right person in the white house.....its all about free stuff and what they can get.
obama now has given Hama's 2 Million dollars of our tax money. We are going to pay dearly for Obama having 4 more years to give our money away.
Companys are letting people go, and only hiring part time people, so they don't have the benefits that obama is demanding the companies pay. we are in deep trouble for the next 4 yrs because of the ignorant people in this country that put this failure and disaster Muslim back in office. God help us all for what the voters have caused on us. and tell you the truth, i hope those who voted for Obama suffer the consequences more then the rest of us.

Obama did not give out a single cell phone...not a one

Foodstamps have been around for fifty years....about the same time Obama has been around

When all is said in done, it was multimillionaire Romney and his billionaire supporters who tried to buy the election.....it didn't work

 

[Lakhota]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

I don't recall you NaziCons bitching about debt during the Clinton Administration. What happened...?

 

[candycorn]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

Why do you have to start your question with an insult? I'm give my opinions here daily. If you you don't think I'm being honest, FUCK YOU. Why do you CONS think you can slip this "I'm so superior shit" by us. Lurk a little while longer before posting, noob. We already have enough clueless assholes around here.

....so says the clueless asshole.

Your lame ass repeatedly said Romney was ahead...

You're the poster child for clueless

 

[Two Thumbs]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

w/o reading a single post;

It's boooshes fault
it's the gop, party of no fault.
HIstory says spending money you don't have works everytime
It's just different
You're a rw moran


bet Im 4 outta 5

w/o looking past page one, and the page my first post was on, I'm willing to bet that no liberal gave an honest answer.


amahrite?

 

[martinjlm]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

w/o reading a single post;

It's boooshes fault
it's the gop, party of no fault.
HIstory says spending money you don't have works everytime
It's just different
You're a rw moran


bet Im 4 outta 5

w/o looking past page one, and the page my first post was on, I'm willing to bet that no liberal gave an honest answer.


amahrite?

Did Romney win? Same answer.

 

[Toro]

He has cut the deficit every year. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq will cut the deficit to zero

No they wouldn't.

The deficit is $1 trillion a year. The cost of the wars is about $100 billion a year. The cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $300 billion a year.

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

 

[Pinocchio]

Greece and the other Euro countries emulated the Bush model, cut taxes , borrow during the good times to make them the good times and get reelected, and have no central banking at the Fed or Euro level. Bush got us $5 trill in more debt, from a surplus.

The only way out of a deep recession, when the banks are failing and not lending, everyone is in debt (consumers and business), is Fed stimulus which equals debt. We have dug ourselves out of a deep hole and are now in the recovery mode, however recovering from a financial crisis recession takes longer.

In a mild recession, tax cuts are fine but not in a deep recession.

The Eurozone is already in so much debt, all they can do is austerity, which causes less consumerism, weaker economy and more debt. A nasty cycle.

It seems this has been explained many times before, but here it is again.

Stimulus was the unpopular medicine and now the econ was forecast to improve no matter who won. At least the right party got the credit.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

The problem is, we aren't any of those countries.

And yes, before 1980, we taxed the wealthy at a rate of 70%. Debt was only 20% of GDP after two world wars, a great society, Interestate Highway program, etc.

Then Reagan had the brilliant idea to cut the top rates. While increasing spending. And by the end of his term, Debt to GDP ratio was 50%.

Reagan realized his mistake and raised taxes. Bush raised taxes to fight the S&L Crisis, and conservatives turned on him, Clinton raised taxes. And we were, for a while, getting a handle on our debt crisis.

Now, all that said, I think there are GOING to have to be some cuts in entitlements as well as increases in taxes. But we ain't going to get there with drooling Teabaggers muttering "Gummit Bad".

 

[JoeB131]

He has cut the deficit every year. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq will cut the deficit to zero

No they wouldn't.

The deficit is $1 trillion a year. The cost of the wars is about $100 billion a year. The cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $300 billion a year.

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

You really think the wars aer only costing 100 billion a year?

The Department of Defense Budget is well over 900 billion.

 

[Toro]

He has cut the deficit every year. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq will cut the deficit to zero

No they wouldn't.

The deficit is $1 trillion a year. The cost of the wars is about $100 billion a year. The cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $300 billion a year.

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

You really think the wars aer only costing 100 billion a year?

The Department of Defense Budget is well over 900 billion.

Those are the costs of the war. And they are going lower. Roughly half of the costs of the armed forces ex the wars is procurement and the other half is operations.

Both liberals and conservatives are looking for easy answers. There are none. The fiscal situation is a mess. We have to raise taxes and we have to reform entitlements. Blaming our problems solely on wars or tax cuts or immigrants or foreign aid are fairy tales.

 

[Pinocchio]

No they wouldn't.

The deficit is $1 trillion a year. The cost of the wars is about $100 billion a year. The cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $300 billion a year.

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

You really think the wars aer only costing 100 billion a year?

The Department of Defense Budget is well over 900 billion.

Those are the costs of the war. And they are going lower. Roughly half of the costs of the armed forces ex the wars is procurement and the other half is operations.

Both liberals and conservatives are looking for easy answers. There are none. The fiscal situation is a mess. We have to raise taxes and we have to reform entitlements. Blaming our problems solely on wars or tax cuts or immigrants or foreign aid are fairy tales.

I agree. The econ is in a position where we can do these things. The biggest wild card is a war with Iran. This would disrupt oil supplies and the economy. It would be nice if we weren't so dependent on ME oil.

 

[JoeB131]

Those are the costs of the war. And they are going lower. Roughly half of the costs of the armed forces ex the wars is procurement and the other half is operations.

Both liberals and conservatives are looking for easy answers. There are none. The fiscal situation is a mess.... Blaming our problems solely on wars or tax cuts or immigrants or foreign aid are fairy tales.

Oh, I wasn't calling for an "easy" answer.

In fact, really cutting into the defense budget is going to be a hard psychological thing for Americans to do, because we love our military dominance, even though it is killing us just as much as it killed the USSR and the British Empire.

We spend more on our military than the next ten biggest spenders COMBINED. And most of those countries are our allies.

But to say we are not the world's "Super-power", but just another nation that has to follow the dictates of the UN and world consensus on problems. I don't think either party is ready to go there... yet.

We have to raise taxes and we have to reform entitlements.

Now, I promised myself to keep the gloating to a minimum, and not rub it in the face of any Romney supporter, but how do you jive this statement with your support of Romney, who promised to cut taxes, increase military spending and restore some of the spending cuts Obama already put into Medicare?

 

[Toro]

Now, I promised myself to keep the gloating to a minimum, and not rub it in the face of any Romney supporter, but how do you jive this statement with your support of Romney, who promised to cut taxes, increase military spending and restore some of the spending cuts Obama already put into Medicare?

You want to go back and look at all of Obama's promises in 08?

Romney was the least bad Republican candidate left standing. I liked Huntsman best, but you can't win with 1%. Perhaps if Pawlenty had the cajones to stick with it, I would have supported him. Santorum was a complete no-hoper, and Gingrich, well, c'mon, be serious. The Republican Party threw up perhaps the weakest field I've ever seen. And of that, Romney was the least bad.

I have never met Romney, but I know many people who have worked for him or with him, and they all say the same thing, even if they are Democrats. He is extraordinarily intelligent, a pragmatist and someone focused on accomplishment. In 08, I perceived him as saying and doing anything to get elected, but I came to believe that "flexibility" is what is needed now.

The political classes have become extraordinarily divided, and we need a pragmatist to bridge the gap. We have serious problems that need fixing, and I don't believe Obama or the Democrats are up to it. I don't think the Republicans are either, but their fundamental belief that spending will ruin us is correct, even if they've gone full retard on you can't raise taxes under any circumstances. I like Obama personally, but I think he's been a weak and ineffective leader for the most part, and I don't think he's up to the challenges that await.

The economy is going to get better but every year that goes by means the long term problems get worse. This country is in denial about what's coming. I've been through it twice, and Americans don't grasp what is needed. Obama either doesn't or hasn't articulated the necessary steps. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Obama sorts this out - and I have reason to believe that I should be more optimistic, given what I have heard from people who met with Plouffe and Boehner just before the election. But after watching just this week, its the same old, same old.

I have said many times that no one from Wall Street should be allowed within the Beltway, let alone the White House. But given Obama's ineptness at leadership, I still think that Romney probably had a better chance at sorting this out than Obama.