NationStates Jolt Archive

President Obama is proposing the largest budget in US history while we have the largest deficit and debt in history. This comes with promises of cutting the deficit and bolstering the economy. What's you're view on it?

Contradictory. Obama's yet another politician, he'll promise us the moon and give us a slice of cheese instead. That's not saying I don't prefer him over most of the other politicians today, only that he's not some miracle worker. He made what promises he needed to during the election, and now he's going to do what he thinks is right for the country.

I can only hope that this depression isn't worse than the '30s...

I wouldn't mind a slice of cheese....

Yea, we'll never see our budget get smaller anytime soon. Obama has open up a Pandora's Box by creating the biggest budget in US History.

I wouldn't mind a slice of cheese....

Yea, we'll never see our budget get smaller anytime soon. Obama has open up a Pandora's Box by creating the biggest budget in US History.

I think you'll find Shrubya opened that box about six years ago.

Also poll failure. Where's the "I hate it but it'll probably help the economy" option?

The fact that Obama is increasing the defense budget by 4% (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-defense227.artfeb27,0,7297556.story) shows me he is irresponsible; that was the one area I really expected a cut-back in.

The fact that Obama is increasing the defense budget by 4% (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-defense227.artfeb27,0,7297556.story) shows me he is irresponsible; that was the one area I really expected a cut-back in.

Right now military service is also an excellent job choice for the unemployed.

I think you'll find Shrubya opened that box about six years ago.

Also poll failure. Where's the "I hate it but it'll probably help the economy" option?

Unarguably so. But where is all this talk about fiscal responsibility supposed to take us? The budget+bailout+stimulus certainly doesn't seem to be headed down the fiscal responsibility road. Neither does halving a trillion dollar deficit in four years, for that matter.

Obama may talk the talk, but he's still a spendthrift.

Unarguably so. But where is all this talk about fiscal responsibility supposed to take us? The budget+bailout+stimulus certainly doesn't seem to be headed down the fiscal responsibility road. Neither does halving a trillion dollar deficit in four years, for that matter.

Obama may talk the talk, but he's still a spendthrift.

Halving the deficit is incredibly unlikely. I don't know enough about economics to make a prediction on the turnaround for the economy, but I certainly hope it works. I think he's picked some decent advisers overall, so here's hoping things improve. Otherwise things are going to get very uncomfortable.

Unarguably so. But where is all this talk about fiscal responsibility supposed to take us? The budget+bailout+stimulus certainly doesn't seem to be headed down the fiscal responsibility road. Neither does halving a trillion dollar deficit in four years, for that matter.

Obama may talk the talk, but he's still a spendthrift.

Compared to the Republicans.........

The fact that Obama is increasing the defense budget by 4% (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-defense227.artfeb27,0,7297556.story) shows me he is irresponsible; that was the one area I really expected a cut-back in.
More acquisitions reform... That's scary.
"...Of particular interest to defense contractors, the plan emphasizes the administration's intention to reform the acquisition process to better control cost increases and delivery delays.

"The administration will set realistic requirements and stick to them and incorporate 'best practices' by not allowing programs to proceed from one state of the acquisition cycle to the next until they have achieved the maturity to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and schedule slippage..."

That can only mean that the contractors will have to satisfy more fucking auditors and accountants, while the end-users can't get what they really need -- working equipment.

Compared to the Republicans.........

There's little reason to rehash failures of the past. Everyone here knows they screwed up, nothing we can do about that now other than not doing what they did.

Compared to the Republicans.........
Finish that sentence.

Compared to the Republicans...
He's vastly increased the federal budget when compared to the last Congress. He's vastly increased the budget deficit, too. How about earmarks? Vastly increased, I do believe.

Halving the deficit is incredibly unlikely. I don't know enough about economics to make a prediction on the turnaround for the economy, but I certainly hope it works. I think he's picked some decent advisers overall, so here's hoping things improve. Otherwise things are going to get very uncomfortable.
Spending gazillions didn't buy FDR his way out of the depression. There were as many jobless in 1939 as there were in 1932. We don't even want to get into the counter productive, inflation producing, anti-competitive policies that FDR promoted, just in case Obama might decide they're a good idea, too.

Spending gazillions didn't buy FDR his way out of the depression. There were as many jobless in 1939 as there were in 1932. We don't even want to get into the counter productive, inflation producing, anti-competitive policies that FDR promoted, just in case Obama might decide they're a good idea, too.

I'd have to look that up to verify, but the national works projects did do a lot of good.

Compared to the Republicans.........

He sure as hell is if he is spending more on the military than Bush did, and is increasing spending in virtually every other department.

He sure as hell is if he is spending more on the military than Bush did, and is increasing spending in virtually every other department.

Considering the state of affairs? Meh.

What's your solution? Bring back the shrub?

Right now military service is also an excellent job choice for the unemployed.

The government has the greatest debt and deficit in history, and you propose our President (who is directly lying when he does not need to) increase military spending? Where is all this money going to come from? More taxes? Gee, that will do wonders for the economy! If spending can prevent this, it is obviously not Bush's fault.

Considering the state of affairs? Meh.

What's your solution? Bring back the shrub?

Cut spending drastically, particularly in the field of military adventures. I think I'd close down most if not all overseas bases. With the money saved you either pay down the deficit, or cut taxes more to encourage consumer spending. Though I'm uncertain how effective the latter is. It surely didn't work the last several years.

The government has the greatest debt and deficit in history, and you propose our President (who is directly lying when he does not need to) increase military spending? Where is all this money going to come from? More taxes? Gee, that will do wonders for the economy! If spending can prevent this, it is obviously not Bush's fault.

I never said, suggested, nor implied that.

If you want to argue that point, I'd suggest you find a forum where someone did say that.

The government has the greatest debt and deficit in history, and you propose our President (who is directly lying when he does not need to) increase military spending? Where is all this money going to come from? More taxes? Gee, that will do wonders for the economy! If spending can prevent this, it is obviously not Bush's fault.

Repealing all those tax cuts for the upper class is VERY appealing.

Spending gazillions didn't buy FDR his way out of the depression. There were as many jobless in 1939 as there were in 1932. We don't even want to get into the counter productive, inflation producing, anti-competitive policies that FDR promoted, just in case Obama might decide they're a good idea, too.

Technically the depression ended in 1933 when the last of the banks failed (more or less) and the dollar was devalued. Of course unemployment remained persistently high so the average person didn't see it that way.

I'd have to look that up to verify, but the national works projects did do a lot of good.
Whether or not FDR prolonged the depression is probably an arguable point. It has been so since 1932.

One of those questions that is hard to answer is whether or not spending public money on unnecessary projects is a good idea.

One of the easy to answer questions is more related to those anti-competitive policies that I mentioned. Those certainly did hurt the economy and did prolong the depression. One of the more recent articles on the subject is out of UCLA. It concludes with a conclusion that I very much like, but one that would be almost impossible for politicians to accept.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The government has the greatest debt and deficit in history, and you propose our President (who is directly lying when he does not need to) increase military spending? Where is all this money going to come from? More taxes? Gee, that will do wonders for the economy! If spending can prevent this, it is obviously not Bush's fault.
Actually, I thought the reduction in forces in Iraq was supposed to save billions. And still we need a 4% increase?

Whether or not FDR prolonged the depression is probably an arguable point. It has been so since 1932.

One of those questions that is hard to answer is whether or not spending public money on unnecessary projects is a good idea.If they're going to be on the government teat they may as well be doing something useful.

One of the easy to answer questions is more related to those anti-competitive policies that I mentioned. Those certainly did hurt the economy and did prolong the depression. One of the more recent articles on the subject is out of UCLA. It concludes with a conclusion that I very much like, but one that would be almost impossible for politicians to accept.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

That I'll have to read, sounds pretty damn interesting. That's a fascinating read, and it jives with what I thought about the Detroit bailout fiasco. The unions had a solid hand in destroying their own market.

Considering the state of affairs? Meh.

"Meh"? Obama is lying about cutting the deficit, just as he lied about withdrawing from Iraq in 2009.

What's your solution? Bring back the shrub?

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:nhtJK_dawAXhbM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Black_and_white_squares.svg/800px-Black_and_white_squares.svg.png

Actually, I thought the reduction in forces in Iraq was supposed to save billions. And still we need a 4% increase?

The populace is an infant being spoon-fed bullshit.

The populace is an infant being spoon-fed bullshit.

yes yes, and you're so VERY much smarter then us plebs. :rolleyes:

yes yes, and you're so VERY much smarter then us plebs. :rolleyes:

Surely you can see Obama is a breaker of promises? Do try addressing some of my other posts.

Surely you can see Obama is a breaker of promises? Do try addressing some of my other posts.

dunno, I haven't really seen much that I would substantiate as a "breaking of a promise". I'm a big picture kinda guy, if he says he'll remove troops in 16 months and ends up doing it in 19, I'm ok with that. Realities change. Situations change. People need to adapt. As long as he's generally moving in the direction of doing things I want him to do, I'm not going to cry foul if he deviates a little bit from his words.

Like I said, big picture.

And it's hard to address your posts when you pull the "I'm so much SMARTER than everyone else!" bullshit. You're not a 14 year old who is pissed off at his parents because "they just don't understand".

Don't act like one.

dunno, I haven't really seen much that I would substantiate as a "breaking of a promise". I'm a big picture kinda guy, if he says he'll remove troops in 16 months and ends up doing it in 19, I'm ok with that. Realities change. Situations change. People need to adapt. As long as he's generally moving in the direction of doing things I want him to do, I'm not going to cry foul if he deviates a little bit from his words.

Like I said, big picture.

I'm all for big picture, but the increased spending gives me pause. I'll give him a chance and see where it goes, but it is not a happy sign.

I'm all for big picture, but the increased spending gives me pause. I'll give him a chance and see where it goes, but it is not a happy sign.

no, agreed, but I'm not going to proactively say he did something he hasn't. He said he'll reduce the deficit in 4 years, I'll give him 4 years to make good on that.

The populace is an infant being spoon-fed bullshit.

Actually infants are rather particular about what they eat.

dunno, I haven't really seen much that I would substantiate as a "breaking of a promise". I'm a big picture kinda guy, if he says he'll remove troops in 16 months and ends up doing it in 19, I'm ok with that. Realities change. Situations change. People need to adapt. As long as he's generally moving in the direction of doing things I want him to do, I'm not going to cry foul if he deviates a little bit from his words.

He has postponed their withdrawal to a deadline made in Bush's terms; in other words, he is not moving any faster than McCain would.

Like I said, big picture.

What excuse does he have to wait this long? And why is he lying to us about halving the deficit?

I'm all for big picture, but the increased spending gives me pause. I'll give him a chance and see where it goes, but it is not a happy sign.

Yeah...but he gave a time frame so I am willing to wait and see.

At least he is trying things rather then taking the stance of "Don't worry; be happy"

I'm all for big picture, but the increased spending gives me pause. I'll give him a chance and see where it goes, but it is not a happy sign.
The one thing that ought to be settled out of all this spending is the question that FDR just didn't spend enough... I can't imagine that argument being made about Obama's spending.

Actually infants are rather particular about what they eat.

Indeed; the rhetoric must have irresistible appeal to the ear.

He has postponed their withdrawal to a deadline made in Bush's terms; in other words, he is not moving any faster than McCain would. 19 months is a lot faster than 100 years.



What excuse does he have to wait this long? And why is he lying to us about halving the deficit? He's lying about something that we won't know the veracity of for another three years? That's a neat trick.

His budget is making his goal harder, but not impossible.

He has postponed their withdrawal to a deadline made in Bush's terms; in other words, he is not moving any faster than McCain would.

Under Bush the agreement between the Iraqi government would have allowed US troops to remain beyond 2011. I've seen nothing serious from the Bush administration about a withdrawl by Fall 2010.

What excuse does he have to wait this long?
What excuse does he have to wait this long to do WHAT? Cut the deficit? Maybe because we can't afford to do so yet?

And why is he lying to us about halving the deficit?

So he's lying about something he said he'd do 4 years from now, based on what he does today?

Right, ok.

19 months is a lot faster than 100 years.

Whatever McCain said, he still would have been bound by the deadline.

He's lying about something that we won't know the veracity of for another three years? That's a neat trick.

Where do you think he will cut spending in the next three years?

His budget is making his goal harder, but not impossible.

Unless he reduces the budget by massive amounts later (unlikely), it is impossible.

Unless he reduces the budget by massive amounts later (unlikely), it is impossible.

Wow. Did you seriously just pull off a "it's impossible to do what he says he'll do, unless he does what he says he'll do"?

Seriously?

Wow. Did you seriously just pull off a "it's impossible to do what he says he'll do, unless he does what he says he'll do"?

Seriously?

He has not talked at all about where he will cut spending, except the military (increased). He has only talked of cutting taxes on the middle-class, while raising them on the upper-class--this is acceptable, but I doubt it will cover the expenses. Obama is speaking of cutting spending while showing commitment to increasing spending.

Where do you think he will cut spending in the next three years?

I dunno, my crystal ball is busted, can I borrow yours?

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....

After two months we're a bit more tame than after 8 years of failure. Though let's be charitable and say six years of failure.

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....

If Bush was doing the exact same thing, Id agree with it.

It would only take him, you know, abandoning everything he believed in.

Your little 'I bet you wouldnt like it if Bush did it!' is stupid that way.

Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts
Massive Budget Marks Largest Ideological Swing Since the Reagan Era

Battle lines are rapidly hardening over the broad policy shifts, massive deficits and tax increases President Obama unveiled last week in his first budget request, a 10-year spending plan thick with political friction points.

Yesterday, the president used his weekly radio and Internet address to declare his budget plan a fundamental reordering of federal priorities that would deliver "the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

The budget proposal "reflects the stark reality of what we've inherited: a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession," Obama said. He warned off lobbyists and other critics, who, he said, "are gearing up for a fight as we speak."

"My message to them is this: So am I," he said. "The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don't."

Republicans and Democrats alike say the budget request, which seeks $3.6 trillion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, marks the biggest ideological shift in Washington since the dawn of the Reagan administration. Fierce clashes are likely on an array of fronts, from Obama's plan to spend at least $634 billion to expand health care for the uninsured to his proposal to raise a similar sum by taxing industries that generate greenhouse gases.


The central political battle so far, however, centers on cost. The White House budget request seeks to increase federal spending by at least $500 billion over the next decade, excluding the cost of health-care reform. While Obama would pay for that initiative as well his plan to lower taxes for the middle class by raising taxes on high earners and corporations as well as cutting federal health spending, his budget would not generate enough cash to finance the additional spending he seeks for routine government programs.

As a result, his plan would produce annual deficits far larger in dollar terms than any recorded before the recession. As a percentage of the overall economy, the budget gap is projected to settle down to a more manageable 3 percent by the end of Obama's term. But Washington would continue to borrow heavily, and the national debt would double over the next five years.

As Congress this week begins reviewing Obama's request, Republicans are blasting the proposal as a historic and irresponsible enlargement of the federal bureaucracy that ultimately will force Obama to break his pledge to avoid a broad-based tax increase.

"If you think with this kind of incredible growth in government that they're going to only tax wealthy people, then I have some old lottery tickets I want to sell you," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Democratic congressional leaders say they expect to endorse Obama's agenda in April. But they warned that it will not be easy and predicted that a proposal to limit tax deductions taken by the wealthy for charitable giving, mortgage interest and other items may not survive.

"Folks are a little skittish. It's asking a lot," a senior Democratic aide said. "This is a tax-and-spend budget the likes of which we haven't seen in years."

In his radio talk, Obama did not address the charge that his plans are simply too expensive. But he reasserted his commitment to fiscal discipline, saying his budget team has "identified $2 trillion worth of deficit reductions over the next decade" by scouring the budget "line by line" for wasteful and inefficient programs.

Obama first made that claim in his address to Congress on Tuesday. But administration officials have since acknowledged that his budget plan does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts. It includes $1.5 trillion in "savings" generated by comparing Obama's plan to wind down the war in Iraq against a scenario many consider unrealistic -- one in which war spending consumes more than $200 billion a year for much of the next decade. Because Obama wouldn't be borrowing to pay for a war that costly, he also says he would save more than $300 billion in interest on the national debt.

The claim of $2 trillion in savings is "easily blown apart," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group, and one of several deficit hawks briefed on the plan by White House budget director Peter R. Orszag.

Administration officials say they intend to identify additional spending cuts when they deliver their final budget to Congress in April. But they acknowledge that any savings generated by eliminating ineffective programs is likely to be plowed back into programs that work better or represent the president's priorities.

For example, in the Agriculture Department, Obama proposes to cut $15 billion in subsidies to big farms and crop insurance. But he would spend an extra $10 billion on child nutrition. In the Education Department, Obama would slash $54 billion from student loan programs, in large part by cutting private banks out of the system. But he would spend an extra $120 billion expanding the Pell Grant college aid program and creating a new "college access and completion fund."


"The president honestly lays out that he'll be spending more than in the past and more than projections would be," said Richard Kogan, a senior adviser to Orszag. "This is a reordering of priorities from defense, particularly the war budget, to domestic priorities. That's what President Obama campaigned on and won on."

The result is a federal government that would expand from about 20 percent of the nation's overall economy before the recession to about 22 percent after, a level matched only eight times since the end of World War II, primarily during the Reagan administration, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation. With revenue projected to grow to about 19 percent of the economy, the Treasury would be forced to add to the massive borrowing it is doing now to finance various financial-sector bailouts.

Obama's budget plan projects that the Treasury will borrow a record $2.6 trillion this year, and another $1.1 trillion in 2010, leaving the nation deeper in debt than at any time since the 1950s.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a deficit hawk who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said he is "very uncomfortable with the buildup of debt" and urged Obama to make good on his promise to overhaul federal retirement and health-care programs. Also, Conrad said, "More discipline on the spending side is also going to be required."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022801960.html?nav=rss_email/components

Well, I don't like it. This is a ridiculous amount of money and an extreme (for America) expansion of the size and role of government (and thus, bureaucracy).

Also, I dislike the administration's, for the benefit of the doubt, 'bending of the truth' about trillions of dollars in savings that actually won't be saved, the huge increase in our debt and the Obama administration's philosophy of spending that, well, to be honest reminds me of Dick "Deficits don't matter" Cheney.

Comments? Concerns?

Not exactly the same . . . and mine has alot of statements and facts in the article that I have bolded and brought to be discussed. Not to mention it also brings into play whether people favor small government or large government in general.

And you need to relax. Go run around outside for a few minutes, God.

Not exactly the same . . . and mine has alot of statements and facts in the article that I have bolded and brought to be discussed. Not to mention it also brings into play whether people favor small government or large government in general.

And you need to relax. Go run around outside for a few minutes, God.

But you aren't a liberal, the collective of NSG must crush you into the ground and divide your wealth equally amongst ourselves!

But you aren't a liberal, the collective of NSG must crush you into the ground and divide your wealth equally amongst ourselves!

While the hypocritical conservatives pull out the soapboxes they carry around on their backs and then find a piece of real estate around the hole in the ground and preach fiscal responsibility and self-reliance before driving off in their limos.

But you aren't a liberal, the collective of NSG must crush you into the ground and divide your wealth equally amongst ourselves!

:rolleyes:


His budget addresses many things that need to be funded and addressed. I am against the increase in military spending, but Ill gladly deal with it for healthcare reform and education funding.


America's current feelings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116242/Initial-Reaction-Obama-Budget-Tilts-Positive.aspx

Whether or not FDR prolonged the depression is probably an arguable point. It has been so since 1932.

One of those questions that is hard to answer is whether or not spending public money on unnecessary projects is a good idea.

One of the easy to answer questions is more related to those anti-competitive policies that I mentioned. Those certainly did hurt the economy and did prolong the depression. One of the more recent articles on the subject is out of UCLA. It concludes with a conclusion that I very much like, but one that would be almost impossible for politicians to accept.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?

While the hypocritical conservatives pull out the soapboxes they carry around on their backs and then find a piece of real estate around the hole in the ground and preach fiscal responsibility and self-reliance before driving off in their limos.
So both (All three if you count the Libertarians on here) sides are flawed! The only obvious solution is a robocracy! :D
:rolleyes:

Admit it, you liberals on here really are a bit harsh on the Conservatives here for things you'd let anyone else get away with with a slap on the wrist

I am against the increase in military spending, but Ill gladly deal with it for healthcare reform and education funding.


Especially since healthcare reform would save us billions of dollars - the US pays more per capita for healthcare than nations with comprehensive systems.


Admit it, you liberals on here really are a bit harsh on the Conservatives here for things you'd let anyone else get away with with a slap on the wrist

"The pot demands that kettle stop being black!"

Admit it, you liberals on here really are a bit harsh on the Conservatives here for things you'd let anyone else get away with with a slap on the wrist


Anything aside from your persecution complex to back that up?

"The pot demands that kettle stop being black!"
Damned kettles! Only the pots are allowed to be black!:p
Anything aside from your persecution complex to back that up?

...And then accuse them of having a persecution complex. How could I forget that. If you can't see it, you aren't looking.

America's current feelings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116242/Initial-Reaction-Obama-Budget-Tilts-Positive.aspx
Yeah, I see that. Although this is just my opinion, I strongly doubt that most Americans, in general, comprehend the scope and magnitude of Obama's plan.

I also believe that, most Americans in general favor a weaker federal government with a smaller state than a larger state.

Of course I don't have the facts in front of me, so take it as you will. :p

Actually:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days

I found exactly what I meant!

The poll also finds that most voters (60%) prefer a government that imposes lower taxes and provides fewer services, while 28% would prefer higher taxes with more government services. The number who want more services is up slightly from last month, when 25% felt that way.

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?
That's two more than I see you offering...

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....

Wouldn't be the same budget and it would have even more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?
That is the textbook example of responding without actually saying anything.

Congratulations. :rolleyes:

...And then accuse them of having a persecution complex. How could I forget that. If you can't see it, you aren't looking.

So, you have nothing to back it up? There is some big liberal conspirecy and double standard to keep conservatives on NSG down, but you dont have any proof, and me pointing out that youre paranoid somehow reaffirms this.

But I guess Im just not looking:rolleyes:

So, you have nothing to back it up? There is some big liberal conspirecy and double standard to keep conservatives on NSG down, but you dont have any proof, and me pointing out that youre paranoid somehow reaffirms this.

But I guess Im just not looking:rolleyes:

I'm paranoid? This for merely pointing out that the liberals on this forum are a bit harsher on the Conservatives they disagree with?

I'm not seeing how holding that opinion makes me "paranoid", and makes me believe in some "big liberal conspirecy". Everyone holds a double standard for some people/groups, and many (but not all) of the liberals on this forum seem to have taken to the small number of Conservatives on here as their target.

Please, stop overreacting.

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?

If you want to read his paper.

http://hlcole.bol.ucla.edu/HLCresearch.htm

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....
well as i recall there was a similar response when bush's treasury secretary said that we were in a crisis and needed immediate action. except for where to place the blame, the liberals were as likely to support the idea as they are now with a new president.

That is the textbook example of responding without actually saying anything.

Congratulations. :rolleyes:
That is the textbook example of responding without actually saying anything.

Congratulations. :rolleyes:


Hey it even works on you! :D

Well, I don't like it. This is a ridiculous amount of money and an extreme (for America) expansion of the size and role of government (and thus, bureaucracy).


If it takes a shitload of money to take all things either broken under Bush, or left unfixed - that's cool.

The idea that this spending is especially large is maintained only by virtue of the fact that everything that has been NEEDING to be fixed, has been being put off till tomorrow.

Well, tomorrow has to come sooner or later.

And anyone that has worked in any kind of infrastructure can tell you that preventative maintenance costs less than replacement of a write-off.

You know, just for the lulz, I would like to see what posters on NSG would be saying about this if it was Bush instead of Obama....

If Bush had been trying to fix healthcare? I'd have backed him on it a hundred percent.

If it takes a shitload of money to take all things either broken under Bush, or left unfixed - that's cool.

The idea that this spending is especially large is maintained only by virtue of the fact that everything that has been NEEDING to be fixed, has been being put off till tomorrow.

Well, tomorrow has to come sooner or later.

And anyone that has worked in any kind of infrastructure can tell you that preventative maintenance costs less than replacement of a write-off.

And I think thats why most Americans support it atm. Because I think (hope) Americans have finally figured out just how bad things are and are sick of putting off fixing things.

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?

It states that FDR allowed trusts if they would pay their workers more. Such things led to a higher rate of unemployment, and a slowing of the economy. This is 2 + 2 as far economics go. Did you read the whole article?

If you want to read his paper.


I know it has a period at the end, but that seems to be the only way it resembles a complete sentence.

I know it has a period at the end, but that seems to be the only way it resembles a complete sentence.

Are you unable to attack the facts he cited?

Halving the deficit is incredibly unlikely. I don't know enough about economics to make a prediction on the turnaround for the economy, but I certainly hope it works. I think he's picked some decent advisers overall, so here's hoping things improve. Otherwise things are going to get very uncomfortable.

Well you may know that Reagan spent like a drunken sailor his first term to have the economy turn around in the late 3rd and early 4th year of his first term. The result was a crushing defeat for Mondale. We may be looking at the same thing. As much as I dont like the government spending like a bunch of Japanese at a strip club I think that the amount of money being pumped into the economy will eventually provide results.

"The pot demands that kettle stop being black!"

Surely you agree that just because conservatives wrecked things, that does not mean liberals should not be reprimanded for the same behavior?

I think that the amount of money being pumped into the economy will eventually provide results.

The same results Reagan and Bush brought us?

Anything aside from your persecution complex to back that up?

This thread? it seems everyone hates Bush for the debt he accumulated, but when it comes to Obama doing the same thing, the main response is (quotes) "Meh."

NSG has certainly has a double standard, and I say that as a liberal.

This thread? it seems everyone hates Bush for the debt he accumulated, but when it comes to Obama doing the same thing, the main response is (quotes) "Meh."

NSG has certainly has a double standard, and I say that as a liberal.

Oh for the love of-

We care about Bush's debt because of what he spent the money on.

People who dont get this are the same people who think we are mad at Bush because he didnt fly over New Orleans during Katrina.

No double standard. Just a lot of people not grasping the real issue and fighting with phantoms.

Are you unable to attack the facts he cited?

I wouldn't know. Are you - like me - incapable of working out what the part I quoted is supposed to mean?

Oh for the love of-

We care about Bush's debt because of what he spent the money on.

People who dont get this are the same people who think we are mad at Bush because he didnt fly over New Orleans during Katrina.

No double standard. Just a lot of people not grasping the real issue and fighting with phantoms.

You are not hypocritical, KoL, but if you will notice, other liberals defended Obama's increase in military spending.

You are not hypocritical, KoL, but if you will notice, other liberals defended Obama's increase in military spending.

This is possible.

I wouldn't know. Are you - like me - incapable of working out what the part I quoted is supposed to mean?

Just as incapable as I am of understanding why you dismissed detailed research full of facts as the mere opinion of "two people".

This is possible.

This is true:

Right now military service is also an excellent job choice for the unemployed.

And it was implied that the largest proposed budget in history was smaller than previous ones:

Compared to the Republicans.........

Added to this, I fully agree with your statement that money spent on health care is far more admirable than money spent on an already large military.

I know it has a period at the end, but that seems to be the only way it resembles a complete sentence.

:D

Well if you don't want to read the paper, then just say so.

Just as incapable as I am of understanding why you dismissed detailed research full of facts as the mere opinion of "two people".

Ah. So - instead of being helpful, you'll intrude on my conversation with another, where I was requesting some kind of elucidation?

I'm aware of the subject matter. What I'm not understanding is the posters meaning or intent. If you've nothing helpful to add, then feel free not to hijack my responses to that person.

:D

Well if you don't want to read the paper, then just say so.

I've seen it before. If for no other reason than it's approximately bi-yearly outings on this forum.

I was inquiring as to your meaning.

I have no major problem with the budget itself, but I think the projections for future deficits becoming that much smaller are unrealistic and he shouldn't be shouting these numbers from the rooftops.

I've seen it before. If for no other reason than it's approximately bi-yearly outings on this forum.

I was inquiring as to your meaning.

Oh I know. I was just trying a joke at your WTF are you trying to write comment. ;)

Ah. So - instead of being helpful, you'll intrude on my conversation with another, where I was requesting some kind of elucidation?

I'm aware of the subject matter. What I'm not understanding is the posters meaning or intent. If you've nothing helpful to add, then feel free not to hijack my responses to that person.

His meaning is obvious: if you want more detail and proof, here is a link.

You are not hypocritical, KoL, but if you will notice, other liberals defended Obama's increase in military spending.
did you look to see what the increase is for? (i havent) there are things to spend more money on...like military pay, military hospitals, family services. probably others.

if he follows through on ditching the stupid things in the military budget (not an easy task since the big ticket wasters are spread over a majority of states) and gets us the fuck out of iraq, i can handle a temporary increase.

I've seen it before. If for no other reason than it's approximately bi-yearly outings on this forum.

You have done little to respond to the article's points, which are relevant to this discussion. The writers came to a conclusion based on research. If you disagree with the conclusion, please explain why, and provide with the reason you think it is flawed. If you ask why I am singling you out, then I provide your quote:

Pretty conclusive. Two people said something in 2004, what more could you need?

You sarcastically implied an article was meaningless, when its message is very important.

did you look to see what the increase is for? (i havent) there are things to spend more money on...like military pay, military hospitals, family services. probably others.

It includes that and:

"The defense budget would increase the number of standing Army and Marine troops by the end of this year[...]" -Article.

It includes that and:

"The defense budget would increase the number of standing Army and Marine troops by the end of this year[...]" -Article.
we are still in 2 wars. i dont have a problem with that.

our soldiers need to be well protected. one of the things that enraged me about the bush administration was their willingness to send troops into combat without the necessary protections.

If you ask why I am singling you out, then I provide your quote:

You sarcastically implied an article was meaningless, when its message is very important.

I 'sarcastically implied' something other than that, actually.

I sarcastically imply that a grand total of two dissenting voices against a consensus of economists might be something worth listening to... but then again, why believe two voices over the consensus?

Myrmi didn't trot it out as a question, or an alternative to conventional wisdom. Myrmi trotted it out as though this one piece had somehow overturned conventional wisdom - as though the debate were over.

we are still in 2 wars. i dont have a problem with that.

our soldiers need to be well protected. one of the things that enraged me about the bush administration was their willingness to send troops into combat without the necessary protections.

Surely you jest?

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png

So one of Bush's problems was that he failed to spend enough on defense?

I 'sarcastically implied' something other than that, actually.

I sarcastically imply that a grand total of two dissenting voices against a consensus of economists might be something worth listening to... but then again, why believe two voices over the consensus?

Because the consensus believe in guardian angels?

Myrmi didn't trot it out as a question, or an alternative to conventional wisdom. Myrmi trotted it out as though this one piece had somehow overturned conventional wisdom - as though the debate were over.

You could simply have tried to find a hole in the article, rather than saying it is invalid because the majority do not agree.

Surely you jest?

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png

So one of Bush's problems was that he failed to spend enough on defense?
no. that wasnt the problem at all.

he spent plenty on stuff that the big corporations could build. tons on mercenaries, lots on no bid contracts that went to haliburton and its subsidiaries.

but he rushed us into a (stupid and useless) war without providing our troops with body armor and properly armored vehicles. he sent in too few to safely occupy the country causing thousands of extra dead soldiers.

as was his wont, he took good care of the rich and left the soldiers to fight and die with limited support.

Because the consensus believe in guardian angels?


And you believe they are wrong?


You could simply have tried to find a hole in the article, rather than saying it is invalid because the majority do not agree.

I didn't say that. I said WHY accept the dissenting opinion of one article. Look back in the thread, read what Myrmi posted, and see whether you think what he posted was objectively sound... because that's what I was initially responding to.

As I've said - this dissenting opinion could be right - although I think that it picks and chooses it's numbers, and renders them down to the point where they're almost nonsensical. I don't agree with their methodology, and I don't agree with their conclusions - but what I mostly don't agree with... is how people trot out the same thing every time The Great Depression is even mentioned, as though this were the new gospel.

no. that wasnt the problem at all.

he spent plenty on stuff that the big corporations could build. tons on mercenaries, lots on no bid contracts that went to haliburton and its subsidiaries.

but he rushed us into a (stupid and useless) war without providing our troops with body armor and properly armored vehicles. he sent in too few to safely occupy the country causing thousands of extra dead soldiers.

I would say the far higher rate of civilian casualties was much more tragic. I also would say we have some of the most expensive military equipment on the planet as it is.

And you believe they are wrong?

Yes.

I didn't say that. I said WHY accept the dissenting opinion of one article. Look back in the thread, read what Myrmi posted, and see whether you think what he posted was objectively sound... because that's what I was initially responding to.

As I've said - this dissenting opinion could be right - although I think that it picks and chooses it's numbers, and renders them down to the point where they're almost nonsensical. I don't agree with their methodology, and I don't agree with their conclusions - but what I mostly don't agree with... is how people trot out the same thing every time The Great Depression is even mentioned, as though this were the new gospel.

It is gospel that has not yet been addressed. This entire thread concerns Obama's massive spending plan, and that article points out how that type of plan can damage the economy--that article may be the greatest argument used against Obama's plan so far, and you have impugned it with nothing more than a sigh for its triteness, a claim of distaste for its opinions, and the fact that many others share your feelings.

Wanted to repost this because I felt it got lost in the merge:

America's current feelings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116242/Initial-Reaction-Obama-Budget-Tilts-Positive.aspx
Yeah, I see that. Although this is just my opinion, I strongly doubt that most Americans, in general, comprehend the scope and magnitude of Obama's plan.

I also believe that, most Americans in general favor a weaker federal government with a smaller state than a larger state.

Of course I don't have the facts in front of me, so take it as you will. :p

Actually:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days

I found exactly what I meant!

The poll also finds that most voters (60%) prefer a government that imposes lower taxes and provides fewer services, while 28% would prefer higher taxes with more government services. The number who want more services is up slightly from last month, when 25% felt that way.
Americans in general vastly favor a limited government and lower taxes and I strongly feel that Obama is taking advantage of people's fears of economic stability to implement big government policies.

Actually:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days

I found exactly what I meant!


Americans in general vastly favor a limited government and lower taxes and I strongly feel that Obama is taking advantage of people's fears of economic stability to implement big government policies.

Im not buying it. Rasmussen is unreliable, and the majority not only supported the stimulus bill, but also the new budget. Something doesnt add up:p

Im not buying it. Rasmussen is unreliable, and the majority not only supported the stimulus bill, but also the new budget. Something doesnt add up:p
So Rasmussen, probably the most exaustive, credible and comprehensive public opinion site's statistics are unreliable in comparison to your lack thereof? :p

Come on KoL . . .

Does it frighten you that the vast majority of your compatriots strongly prefer a small government and less taxes? :D

People are supporting the bill and the budget because they are scared that if they don't the country will be ruined. It's fear politics, except where Bush did it based on terrorism Obama is doing it based on economics. He's doing it to get his policies passed, quickly. It's understandable on his part but that doesn't mean I like it.

Does it frighten you that the vast majority of your compatriots strongly prefer a small government and less taxes? :D

If the uneducated were removed from that poll, it would probably read much differently. KoL might have noted this.

Edit: Is "vast" accurate?

So Rasmussen, probably the most exaustive, credible and comprehensive public opinion site
Yeah...this is where I have to disagree.


statistics are unreliable in comparison to your lack there of? :p

Its funny. People consistantly poll to favor democratic policies (at least lately). The Gallup poll I showed with the budget is only one example. Im just saying that something doesnt add up. Id wadger that people favor things like health care reform. But they also favor lower taxes. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Itd be interesting to do a "which would you prefer" poll.

Yeah...this is where I have to disagree.
You don't find Rasmussen to be reliable??? That could pose a problem for you because alot of national surveys are that are directly linked to current event politics are from Rasmussen.


Its funny. People consistantly poll to favor democratic policies (at least lately).

The Gallup poll I showed with the budget is only one example. Im just saying that something doesnt add up. Id wadger that people favor things like health care reform. But they also favor lower taxes. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Itd be interesting to do a "which would you prefer" poll.
Well the interesting is not just that they voted that they would prefer a smaller government and less taxes, but they also voted that they want the government to provide less services. . .

President Obama is proposing the largest budget in US history while we have the largest deficit and debt in history. This comes with promises of cutting the deficit and bolstering the economy. What's you're view on it?
"Oh ffs"

You don't find Rasmussen to be reliable??? That could pose a problem for you because alot of national surveys are that are directly linked to current event politics are from Rasmussen.


Most I see are from Gallup or AP.


Well the interesting is not just that they voted that they would prefer a smaller government and less taxes, but they also voted that they want the government to provide less services. . .

Interesting, considering they support a budget that will expand government services.

Like I said, something isnt adding up.

Halving the deficit is incredibly unlikely. I don't know enough about economics to make a prediction on the turnaround for the economy, but I certainly hope it works. I think he's picked some decent advisers overall, so here's hoping things improve. Otherwise things are going to get very uncomfortable.

The belt has already been tightened a couple of notches.. methinks that 'uncomfortable' won't be an appropriate descriptor once this shitstorm hits land full force..

If the uneducated were removed from that poll, it would probably read much differently. KoL might have noted this.
Not only is that unfair, but ridiculously hypothetical. :p And it could alter it either way. Many uneducated blacks for example, are big fans of government services, while many uneducated Whites may be the "get the government out of my life" kind of people. It can go either way, like a bisexual.

Edit: Is "vast" accurate?
I'd say so:
60% to 28%
(60%) prefer a government that imposes lower taxes and provides fewer services, while 28% would prefer higher taxes with more government services.

Like I said, something isnt adding up.

Not if we factor the equation, and discover the variable is fatuity.

Not if we factor the equation, and discover the variable is fatuity.

I leave that to someone who is capable of math more advanced then long division.

Most I see are from Gallup or AP.
Them too..but I would never claim any of them are unreliable.


Interesting, considering they support a budget that will expand government services.

Like I said, something isnt adding up.
Well, I gave you my take on it:

People are supporting the bill and the budget because they are scared that if they don't the country will be ruined. It's fear politics, except where Bush did it based on terrorism Obama is doing it based on economics. He's doing it to get his policies passed, quickly. It's understandable on his part but that doesn't mean I like it.
---------------------------
I have to get to bed, I'll check back tomorrow.

Well, I gave you my take on it:

People are supporting the bill and the budget because they are scared that if they don't the country will be ruined. It's fear politics, except where Bush did it based on terrorism Obama is doing it based on economics. He's doing it to get his policies passed, quickly. It's understandable on his part but that doesn't mean I like it.
---------------------------
I have to get to bed, I'll check back tomorrow.

Distinct possibility. But that means they clearly dont believe that strongly in small government, because they are ready to sacrifice their principles at the first sign of trouble.

Either way, Ill be watching this stimulus bill very closely as it travels through congress.

Distinct possibility. But that means they clearly dont believe that strongly in small government, because they are ready to sacrifice their principles at the first sign of trouble.
It's not the first sign. Come on, people wake up in the morning and get the news of the shitty economy, they go to lunch with their friends and talk about the shitty economy, they watch/hear about the layoffs at their workplaces, they head home to tell their families that the'll have to spend less because they just don't have the extra money around anymore, and then they turn on the news at night and hear Obama saying that this is the worst crisis of our time capable of turning into a full blown disaster, unless we act now and pass my budget which will save us.

Now bed, sorry for lying. lol

I leave that to someone who is capable of math more advanced then long division.

The Bible teaches me all I need to know of mathematics.

π = 3

no. that wasnt the problem at all.

he spent plenty on stuff that the big corporations could build. tons on mercenaries, lots on no bid contracts that went to haliburton and its subsidiaries.

but he rushed us into a (stupid and useless) war without providing our troops with body armor and properly armored vehicles. he sent in too few to safely occupy the country causing thousands of extra dead soldiers.

as was his wont, he took good care of the rich and left the soldiers to fight and die with limited support.

Indeed. I heard one amputee soldier on the radio who commented they ate like kings but they all couldn't get body armor and many of the Humvees were without armor.

The Bible teaches me all I need to know of mathematics.

π = 3

Lies!

π = Tasty.

i find his budget and economic plan to be horrendous and to threaten the world with a decade long depression. most concerning of all is his protectionist rhetoric seems to have some substance behind it.

i find his budget and economic plan to be horrendous and to threaten the world with a decade long depression. most concerning of all is his protectionist rhetoric seems to have some substance behind it.

Thats why youre going to South Korea where you wont have to pay taxes.

Thats why youre going to South Korea where you wont have to pay taxes.

dont bring that thread over here. it will be nothing but hijack.

President Obama is proposing the largest budget in US history while we have the largest deficit and debt in history. This comes with promises of cutting the deficit and bolstering the economy. What's you're view on it?

Consider the following...

1. The US will be increasing military commitments in Afghanistan, while Iraq is at least a couple years away from being off the budget...

2. Obama is making a full-fledged effort to reform health-care in the US, something that was always expected to be expensive in initial implementation, even if the long term savings make it worthwhile.

3. Obama is also taking the first steps towards changing our patterns of energy use, something which I fully expect to add plenty of additional cost before we see a payoff.

...frankly, I'm surprised the budget wasn't even higher. As it is, we'll see how things play out over the coming year.

Yes.


Which is your right. On the other hand - if there are a grand total of two people saying they've counted all the things THEY think contribute to the 'heavenly being' roster, and they've decided that there can't be any angels because it wouldn't add up with their math... it wouldn't be the MOST inspiring defence.


It is gospel that has not yet been addressed. This entire thread concerns Obama's massive spending plan, and that article points out how that type of plan can damage the economy--that article may be the greatest argument used against Obama's plan so far,


The article points out how TWO PEOPLE say that type of plan can damage the economy - and if that's the best argument against Obama's plan that can be mustered... well, it doesn't say much.


...and you have impugned it with nothing more than a sigh for its triteness, a claim of distaste for its opinions, and the fact that many others share your feelings.

I didn't claim distaste for its opinions - I said I don't agree with their methodology or the conclusions that leads them to. Liking or disliking it is irrelevent, and it's either clumsy of you to phrase it that way, or deliberately disingenuous.

I'm not a world-prominent economist. I don't much care for the model they construct and the results they claim. I also see that most of the people that ARE world-prominent economists don't care for it much - so I don't really worry that I'm missing the boat, and I've not been shown a good reason TO think that.

Distinct possibility. But that means they clearly dont believe that strongly in small government, because they are ready to sacrifice their principles at the first sign of trouble.

Either way, Ill be watching this stimulus bill very closely as it travels through congress.

On the other side, when Bush made it possible to wiretap people without warrants etc. due to the threat of terrorist the people of USA didn't seem to be to angry (at least not from my view point across the pond), despite the fact that it goes against a lot of the principles of freedom. People will sacrifice a lot if you promise them salvation.

By this I don't mean that i don't agree with you, from my limited understanding (after all I am euro trash :)) he have said that he would cut the deficit in four years. And you have to spend money to make money.

The question is if he will spend them wisely, but that is a thing we will not be able to see right away. The problem is if he f*cks up the whole world will suffer. Quite a lot of responsibility...and despite what a lot of people almost seem to believe he is no more then a human.

On the other side, when Bush made it possible to wiretap people without warrants etc. due to the threat of terrorist the people of USA didn't seem to be to angry (at least not from my view point across the pond), despite the fact that it goes against a lot of the principles of freedom.
I don't know what gives you this impression.

Either way, Ill be watching this stimulus bill very closely as it travels through congress.
Stimulus has already gone through congress and was signed into law and (largely for show) projects have already begun (there were photo op literal 'shovel ready' projects that started immediately as Obama signed the bill).

This is the annual budget. Which is larger due in part to the fact that Obama doesn't leave huge expenditures like the wars off the books.

The fact that Obama is increasing the defense budget by 4% (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-defense227.artfeb27,0,7297556.story) shows me he is irresponsible; that was the one area I really expected a cut-back in.

Which is larger due in part to the fact that Obama doesn't leave huge expenditures like the wars off the books.

just putting these two very related things into closer proximity.

Which is your right. On the other hand - if there are a grand total of two people saying they've counted all the things THEY think contribute to the 'heavenly being' roster, and they've decided that there can't be any angels because it wouldn't add up with their math... it wouldn't be the MOST inspiring defence.

Theology is a realm in which arguments are not fact-based.



The article points out how TWO PEOPLE say that type of plan can damage the economy - and if that's the best argument against Obama's plan that can be mustered... well, it doesn't say much.

I still do not understand why the number of persons is important. The majority once was sure the world was the center of the universe. Can we not just examine the argument?



I didn't claim distaste for its opinions - I said I don't agree with their methodology or the conclusions that leads them to. Liking or disliking it is irrelevent, and it's either clumsy of you to phrase it that way, or deliberately disingenuous.

No, it does matter, because you attacked it without any factual argument, just a laugh how how only two persons wrote it; how can anybody here ever expect to defend himself if you claim his argument invalid because the many disagree? If it were not for the fact that you disliked the article's conclusions, you would not have made such a point.

I'm not a world-prominent economist. I don't much care for the model they construct and the results they claim. I also see that most of the people that ARE world-prominent economists don't care for it much - so I don't really worry that I'm missing the boat, and I've not been shown a good reason TO think that.

So you accept the opinions of the majority, and refuse the consider the words of any dissenters?

Such important paragraphs as:

"The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA."

...are pooh-poohed by you simply because you "[...]don't much care for the model they construct and the results they claim." Please provide us with some detail. Are you here to debate? If so, freely indulge.