What Obama Isn't Telling You About The Debt

[Misaki]

All of you cons who continue to point to and spout dogma about obama spending are brainless If youy look into it, on an objective basis (I know objective is hard for you) you could look to a non partisan source like Forbes. Not exactly a liberal source. And you would find that spending under Obama has been less than under any president since Eisenhower. Here is the link

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

A lot different than the crap you read in conservative sites, eh.

The answer you're looking for:

"Obama has done nothing to create jobs even in the worst economic crisis in 80 years. He hasn't even increased government spending by any significant amount!"

 

[rdean]

What Obama Isn't Telling You About The Debt

That nearly all of it was forced on us by Republicans? We know it. They just won't take any responsibility for it. The only thing the want to take responsibility for is taking out Bin Laden, something they had nothing to do with. The Obama administration only had the chance because Republicans let Bin Laden go.

We call that the "plain unvarnished truth".

 

[Rshermr]

Until Jan 20th 2009

And your point is?
Typical repub economy. Look up the two santa clause rule. You will understand. Repubs spend like crazy, then blame the dems for the national debt when they are out of office. Zero integrity.
So here you are, working as hard as you can to blame a dem pres for the deficit, while loving the repubs for blocking any possible solution to the problem. And the problem now is Not the natl debt, The problem is unemployment. And that has never, ever, ever been solved by decreasing taxes, and therefore spending.
If you disagree, show me the time when decreasing federal income tax rates has helped a bad economy.
And get some integrity. Take some responsibility for the repub great recession of 2007-2008.

 

[Widdekind]

show me the time when decreasing federal income tax rates has helped a bad economy.

when has increasing federal income tax rates helped ?

 

[Rshermr]

Here's a cute little piece less than a month after yours, and by your own "reliable source":

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes

Covered in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gest-government-spender-in-world-history.html


Your turn

Your cute little piece is a hit job meant to undermine the article I referenced earlier. You provided an article by Peter Ferrara, a far right winger, a libertarian by his own description. A guy who publishes in right wing journals, and is a regular Fox contributor.
Maybe I should send you to an article published by a common contributor to moveon. But then, I won't. I like to keep my integrity. Ferrar's article is completely riddled with inaccurate and incomplete statements. And references to such stellar sources as Peggy Noonan. Got a real, actually impartial source to debunk the article?? Or just more blogs and conservative dogma slingers.

At any rate, where is your proof of inaccuracies of the article that I referenced. Still waiting. And please, try to use a something close to impartial source.

Funny how you call the author I quoted unreliable because he's conservative while neglecting to mention how liberal your source is.


President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The point is that you work so hard et blaming a dem pres for problems of the economy, but never look at the underlying problem. Which is, how did we get here, and why are we still here. Which is to say, how do we decrease unemployment.
How we got here is easy enough. Simply go back to late 2006 and watch the numbers coming forward. By mid 2008 the economy was in free fall, Unemployment was gotnding. All the standard repub ideas whehey are out of power. Now, please, if that is a great plan, show me when it has ever worked during a bad economy. And you can not. Because decreasing taxes and decreasing spending actually help to make unemployment worse.
If I am wrong show me the time when a bad economy has been helped by decreasing taxes. Or decreasing gov. spending.
It is tiresome seeing cons like you extolling the right wing agenda without ever showing where that agenda has ever done anything but make the wealthy more so.

 

[Widdekind]

Because decreasing taxes and decreasing spending actually help to make unemployment worse.

If I am wrong show me the time when a bad economy has been helped by decreasing taxes. Or decreasing gov. spending.

It is tiresome seeing cons like you extolling the right wing agenda without ever showing where that agenda has ever done anything but make the wealthy more so.

your proposal, for economic recovery, is

• taxes
• designed to impoverish (wealthy) people

? What about re-legalizing low-pay (sub minimum wage) jobs, that would give some money, to many millions of Americans ?

 

[Misaki]

Because decreasing taxes and decreasing spending actually help to make unemployment worse.

If I am wrong show me the time when a bad economy has been helped by decreasing taxes. Or decreasing gov. spending.

It is tiresome seeing cons like you extolling the right wing agenda without ever showing where that agenda has ever done anything but make the wealthy more so.

your proposal, for economic recovery, is

• taxes
• designed to impoverish (wealthy) people

? What about re-legalizing low-pay (sub minimum wage) jobs, that would give some money, to many millions of Americans ?

"The unemployed are just lazy!"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you disagree, show me the time when decreasing federal income tax rates has helped a bad economy.

Gee, I don't know. Maybe every single time it's been done?

 

[Misaki]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe every single time it's been done?

It helps, but not as much as spending that goes to the poor.

Why economists are not more active in pointing this out: Market failure of the economics profession

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It helps, but not as much as spending that goes to the poor.

too stupid!!! considering the poor get trillions already !! and far far more than ever too!! Moreover, how can it help when the poor are not innnovators who invent new goods and services or make existing ones more efficient!!

Did you think we got from the stone age to here with welfare for the poor??? The poor don't contribute to society they take advantage of it and when its primarily a Republican capitalist society there is a lot to take advantage of.

 

[Misaki]

too stupid!!! considering the poor get trillions already !! and far far more than ever too!! Moreover, how can it help when the poor are not innnovators who invent new goods and services or make existing ones more efficient!!

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class: Here Is the Full Inequality Speech and Slideshow That Was Too Hot for TED - National Journal - The Atlantic

Although when the top 20% of income account for close to 60% of all consumer spending, the 'upper class' is just as essential to the economy as the middle class.

Did you think we got from the stone age to here with welfare for the poor??? The poor don't contribute to society they take advantage of it and when its primarily a Republican capitalist society there is a lot to take advantage of.

So then do you support job creation without more government spending?

The logical alternative, given that we have plenty of skilled people for even the sciences who can't find good jobs, is to say that it is NOT important we create jobs for the poor and poor people should just accept that they're expected to live off of welfare.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class:

so not Gates and Jobs?? Please explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[hortysir]

too stupid!!! considering the poor get trillions already !! and far far more than ever too!! Moreover, how can it help when the poor are not innnovators who invent new goods and services or make existing ones more efficient!!

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class: Here Is the Full Inequality Speech and Slideshow That Was Too Hot for TED - National Journal - The Atlantic

Although when the top 20% of income account for close to 60% of all consumer spending, the 'upper class' is just as essential to the economy as the middle class.

Did you think we got from the stone age to here with welfare for the poor??? The poor don't contribute to society they take advantage of it and when its primarily a Republican capitalist society there is a lot to take advantage of.

So then do you support job creation without more government spending?

The logical alternative, given that we have plenty of skilled people for even the sciences who can't find good jobs, is to say that it is NOT important we create jobs for the poor and poor people should just accept that they're expected to live off of welfare.

Now THERE'S a good shill.

Keep posting wh.gov shit.

We all know how they have our best interest at heart

 

[Rshermr]

All of you cons who continue to point to and spout dogma about obama spending are brainless If youy look into it, on an objective basis (I know objective is hard for you) you could look to a non partisan source like Forbes. Not exactly a liberal source. And you would find that spending under Obama has been less than under any president since Eisenhower. Here is the link

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

A lot different than the crap you read in conservative sites, eh.

The answer you're looking for:

"Obama has done nothing to create jobs even in the worst economic crisis in 80 years. He hasn't even increased government spending by any significant amount!"

True, though he has at least tried. On several occasions. And in each case the repubs have either vetoed bills for stimulus, or voted them down in congress.
So, what should this pres do?? The repub congress refuse to pass any of his bills, and the repubs in the senate will filibuster any that do get there. So, the congress has the ball. What would you suggest they do?

 

[Misaki]

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class:

so not Gates and Jobs?? Please explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

PETER THIEL: But, they're not ones that are able to basically ‑‑ you know, they're sort of the exception to the rule that we don't have enough innovation. So, you have to avoid confusing the specific and the general. Google is a great company. It has 30,000 people, or 20,000, whatever the number is. They have pretty safe jobs. On the other hand, Google also has 30, 40, 50 billion in cash. It has no idea how to invest that money in technology effectively. So, it prefers getting zero percent interest from Mr. Bernanke, effectively the cash sort of gets burned away over time through inflation, because there are no ideas that Google has how to spend money.

ERIC SCHMIDT [CEO of Google]: It's absolutely true, as Peter says, that these gems, if you will, and you were nice enough to call those companies ‑‑ describe them so well; they're not employing enough people.

ADAM LASHINSKY [moderator]: You have $50 billion at Google, why don't you spend it on doing more in tech, or are you out of ideas? And I think Google does more than most companies. You're trying to do things with self-driving cars and supposedly with asteroid mining, although maybe that's just part of the propaganda ministry. And you're doing more than Microsoft, or Apple, or a lot of these other companies. Amazon is the only one, in my mind, of the big tech companies that's actually reinvesting all its money, that has enough of a vision of the future that they're actually able to reinvest all their profits.

ADAM LASHINSKY: You don't want to address the cash horde that your company does not have the creativity to spend, to invest?

ERIC SCHMIDT: What you discover in running these companies is that there are limits that are not cash....

Transcript: Schmidt and Thiel smackdown - Fortune Tech

 

[Rshermr]

too stupid!!! considering the poor get trillions already !! and far far more than ever too!! Moreover, how can it help when the poor are not innnovators who invent new goods and services or make existing ones more efficient!!

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class: Here Is the Full Inequality Speech and Slideshow That Was Too Hot for TED - National Journal - The Atlantic

Although when the top 20% of income account for close to 60% of all consumer spending, the 'upper class' is just as essential to the economy as the middle class.

Did you think we got from the stone age to here with welfare for the poor??? The poor don't contribute to society they take advantage of it and when its primarily a Republican capitalist society there is a lot to take advantage of.

So then do you support job creation without more government spending?

The logical alternative, given that we have plenty of skilled people for even the sciences who can't find good jobs, is to say that it is NOT important we create jobs for the poor and poor people should just accept that they're expected to live off of welfare.

Now THERE'S a good shill.

Keep posting wh.gov shit.

We all know how they have our best interest at heart

So, I ask again. When has decreasing taxes or government spending ever helped unemployment in a bad economy? I keep asking, and you can not seem to come up with an answer.

 

[Misaki]

The answer you're looking for:

"Obama has done nothing to create jobs even in the worst economic crisis in 80 years. He hasn't even increased government spending by any significant amount!"

True, though he has at least tried. On several occasions. And in each case the repubs have either vetoed bills for stimulus, or voted them down in congress.
So, what should this pres do?? The repub congress refuse to pass any of his bills, and the repubs in the senate will filibuster any that do get there. So, the congress has the ball. What would you suggest they do?

This is why the Republicans won't vote for more spending:
Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes Over Half of Every Dollar

So, the President should endorse this proposal to create jobs without government spending: http://wh.gov/cVNr

As should anyone who wants the Democratic party to win in the 2012 elections, since unemployment/jobs is by far the most important issue in the elections.

 

[hortysir]

If you have heard of TED, here is the TED talk about how the true job creators are not the rich, but the middle class: Here Is the Full Inequality Speech and Slideshow That Was Too Hot for TED - National Journal - The Atlantic

Although when the top 20% of income account for close to 60% of all consumer spending, the 'upper class' is just as essential to the economy as the middle class.



So then do you support job creation without more government spending?

The logical alternative, given that we have plenty of skilled people for even the sciences who can't find good jobs, is to say that it is NOT important we create jobs for the poor and poor people should just accept that they're expected to live off of welfare.

Now THERE'S a good shill.

Keep posting wh.gov shit.

We all know how they have our best interest at heart

So, I ask again. When has decreasing taxes or government spending ever helped unemployment in a bad economy? I keep asking, and you can not seem to come up with an answer.

1. When have we ever decreased spending? Not increasing as much as the previous year doesn't count as a cut.

2. I'll answer yours as soon as you can tell me when an economy has ever taxed them selves into prosperity.

You don't really believe that revenue collected from raising taxes will go towards the debt/deficit do you?

 

[Rshermr]

show me the time when decreasing federal income tax rates has helped a bad economy.

when has increasing federal income tax rates helped ?

Couple examples: Reagan lowered taxes hugely in 1981. Net result within 14 months unemployment went from 7 to almost 11%. He then raised taxes on 11 occasions, and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.
Clinton raised taxes, agains republican protests that it would tube the economy, and we had a great economy and lower unemployment for his term.

So, again, when did lowering taxes and lowering spending help in a bad economy?? Still waiting.....

 

[Rshermr]

Now THERE'S a good shill.

Keep posting wh.gov shit.

We all know how they have our best interest at heart

So, I ask again. When has decreasing taxes or government spending ever helped unemployment in a bad economy? I keep asking, and you can not seem to come up with an answer.

1. When have we ever decreased spending? Not increasing as much as the previous year doesn't count as a cut.

2. I'll answer yours as soon as you can tell me when an economy has ever taxed them selves into prosperity.

You don't really believe that revenue collected from raising taxes will go towards the debt/deficit do you?

Read on.
Reagan and Clinton.
So, go ahead. Try to answer my question.