|
|
On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument.
No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth).
Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars.
From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse.
It seems as though Romney's proposal -- further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would simply put the US further into debt.
I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how large it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it.
Edit: I understand Romney wants to cap spending to 20% of the GDP by the end of the first term, but the cuts would have to be massive in order to achieve this. Does anyone believe he has the fortitude, political support, or even the intent to keep this promise?
|
Richard Posner argues in "The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy" that the stimulus was, at best, very badly conceived & managed. It's a good read, I recommend it.
|
It's pretty obvious that if the economy does well, it is the fault of the hard working businessmen of america, and has nothing to do with the president (whichever one is in office) because he has no influence on the economy.
However, if the economy does poorly then it is entirely the fault of the president (whichever one is in office) because he is the sole person in charge of the economy, the one person charged with the duty of raising our GDP every year.
|
On June 13 2012 16:21 Saryph wrote:
It's pretty obvious that if the economy does well, it is the fault of the hard working businessmen of america, and has nothing to do with the president (whichever one is in office) because he has no influence on the economy.
However, if the economy does poorly then it is entirely the fault of the president (whichever one is in office) because he is the sole person in charge of the economy, the one person charged with the duty of raising our GDP every year.
This is what we call "nationalizing risk, and allowing reward to remain private"
|
On June 13 2012 16:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:21 Saryph wrote:
It's pretty obvious that if the economy does well, it is the fault of the hard working businessmen of america, and has nothing to do with the president (whichever one is in office) because he has no influence on the economy.
However, if the economy does poorly then it is entirely the fault of the president (whichever one is in office) because he is the sole person in charge of the economy, the one person charged with the duty of raising our GDP every year. This is what we call "nationalizing risk, and allowing reward to remain private"
Has American politics always been like this? It's like you're not voting for a president, you're voting for a messiah.
|
Who is it you think I'm voting for?
edit: I'll admit I don't really understand your comment.
|
On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it.
1. It's obviously political propaganda.
2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs.
3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone.
4. Maybe, maybe not.
5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue.
|
On June 13 2012 16:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Who is it you think I'm voting for?
edit: I'll admit I don't really understand your comment.
Sorry, I'm just agreeing with Saryph's comment ...
When you look at all the political propaganda and hyperbole that is thrown about -- that ONE person is to blame for everything, and only I CAN SAVE IT ... it's just ridiculous. Both candidates are marketing themselves as saviours.
It makes me wonder if politics in the US has always been like this, that's all.
|
On June 13 2012 16:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it. 1. It's obviously political propaganda. 2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs. 3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone. 4. Maybe, maybe not. 5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue.
When you look at the extent that Romney would have to cut in order to meet his budgetary goal of reducing spending to 20% of the GDP, than I think you have to be nuts to think he'll actually keep his word, or do anything other token cuts. It would either be political suicide, drive even more people below the poverty line, or both.
Overview of Romney Budget Proposal and Spending Cuts
EDIT:
No dude, seriously: the wars and bush tax cuts account for a major proportion of the deficit.
![[image loading]](http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201630595aac6970d-800wi)
|
Romney, Obama... or whoever becomes president will have to cut spending to <20% of GDP.
Because in the history of the USA, the federal government has only collected over 20% of GDP in 3 years. 1944, 1945, and 2000.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lMzlC.jpg)
|
On June 13 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Who is it you think I'm voting for?
edit: I'll admit I don't really understand your comment. Sorry, I'm just agreeing with Saryph's comment ... When you look at all the political propaganda and hyperbole that is thrown about -- that ONE person is to blame for everything, and only I CAN SAVE IT ... it's just ridiculous. Both candidates are marketing themselves as saviours. It makes me wonder if politics in the US has always been like this, that's all.
The problem of course is that Obama and his campaign portrayed him as exactly this; the next messiah who was going to save the economy. So yes, obviously he can't really influence it at anywhere near the level people say he is/should, but some of the criticism is justified, simply for his own overrating.
|
On June 13 2012 17:34 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:56 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it. 1. It's obviously political propaganda. 2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs. 3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone. 4. Maybe, maybe not. 5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue. When you look at the extent that Romney would have to cut in order to meet his budgetary goal of reducing spending to 20% of the GDP, than I think you have to be nuts to think he'll actually keep his word, or do anything other token cuts. It would either be political suicide, drive even more people below the poverty line, or both. Overview of Romney Budget Proposal and Spending CutsEDIT: No dude, seriously: the wars and bush tax cuts account for a major proportion of the deficit.
Once again, I could create a surplus without ever touching any of those. Sure it may make me unpopular to gut certain entitlement programs, but there is no doubt that it can be done. To say "This is the reason we are over budget" is dishonest. It is merely one way of solving the problem.
|
On June 13 2012 22:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 17:34 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 16:56 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it. 1. It's obviously political propaganda. 2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs. 3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone. 4. Maybe, maybe not. 5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue. When you look at the extent that Romney would have to cut in order to meet his budgetary goal of reducing spending to 20% of the GDP, than I think you have to be nuts to think he'll actually keep his word, or do anything other token cuts. It would either be political suicide, drive even more people below the poverty line, or both. Overview of Romney Budget Proposal and Spending CutsEDIT: No dude, seriously: the wars and bush tax cuts account for a major proportion of the deficit. Once again, I could create a surplus without ever touching any of those. Sure it may make me unpopular to gut certain entitlement programs, but there is no doubt that it can be done. To say "This is the reason we are over budget" is dishonest. It is merely one way of solving the problem.
I'd suggest the risks involved in the kind of cuts you're referring to would extend well beyond unpopularity. The cost in social and economic damage could well negate much of the gains.
|
On June 13 2012 12:56 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 06:59 Defacer wrote:On June 10 2012 13:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 10 2012 12:18 smarty pants wrote:On June 10 2012 11:21 paralleluniverse wrote:
Wow, you're a complete partisan hack who cares nothing about facts or the truth. Cool ad hominem attack. Don't mind him. If he wants to bend over backwards to defend Obama's stupid comment when not even Obama will dare defend it, that's his business. Everyone knows Obama jumped the shark, and no sane person believes that the private sector is in good shape, particularly as it appears that we are about to be dragged into another recession by the mess in Europe and slowdowns in China and India. I believe Obama was comparing the public sector to the private sector. Still, it's gaffe on par with Romney liking to fire people. The corporate sector is enjoying record profits since Obama took office. The problem is that small business and the middle class is getting crushed.  ![[image loading]](http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20163063b7d1f970d-800wi) Where's this socialist America all the Republicans are complaining about? HUR DUR DUR. Here is the same graph presented in a more precise reflection of the subject. And here is the historical continuation (trend). Lrn 2 statistics and not copy paste a graph that is horribly manipulated. Also anyone who uses references from the Federal Reserve should be removed from discussion. I wonder if you can comprehend the fact that the government cooks the books. [b] User was warned for HUR DUR DURing.
All of these graph show the same thing: private sector profits are back to normal.
Looking at the % change graph, you can fit a straight trend line through that, and the current profits would in fact be above that trend line.
You may argue that the increase is due to inflation, population growth, etc, but it's measuring the same thing throughout the x-axis, so all the past data points also include inflation, population growth etc, so taking all of these factors into account, compared to what's normal in the past, the current situation is normal, it's not below trend.
Therefore, the private sector is doing just fine.
|
On June 13 2012 16:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it. 1. It's obviously political propaganda. 2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs. 3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone. 4. Maybe, maybe not. 5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue.
The problem with Romney, Ryan (and you, given your post after this), is that you both have a magic asterisk about what you're going to cut.
You all claim that you're going to cut $X trillions, but fail to specify what in particular is going to be cut.
|
On June 13 2012 17:34 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:56 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 15:29 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 13:52 BluePanther wrote:On June 13 2012 13:21 Probe1 wrote:
It looks like in 2010 there was a 100% increase in corporate profits after Obama was elected. So I still don't know what the hell you're trying to say there. Wait, reread your post more carefully. You're saying that if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong. And if they disprove you then their evidence is wrong. If you honestly think Obama has anything to do with the American economy, you're being had. On either side of the argument. No. But I do think the "failure" of Obama's "socialist" agenda is grossly overstated (well, it's a fucking myth). Most of the current deficit can be attributed to the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the Stimulus package. I haven't read anywhere that the stimulus package hurt the economy or was unnecessary. And it's frankly puny compared to the tax cuts and the wars. From my perspective, it seems like Obama's policies won't fix the economy ... but the US economy seems so broken it will take a decade (or two) to recover, anyway. Meanwhile, Romney's policies seem like it would actually make the economy worse. I'm also unconvinced that Romney's policy -- to further cut taxes further and lower revenue -- would do anything put the US further into debt. I've still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the Romney/Ryan plan of decreasing revenue will somehow lower the deficit, considering how massive it is. And I'm not being facetious. I'd love to read a defense of it. 1. It's obviously political propaganda. 2. That's opinion. I could rephrase that same statement into "Most of the current deficit can be attributed to welfare spending." Just because you don't like those things doesn't mean "they" are the difference. It's the aggregate of all our spending of all different types of programs. 3. Eh, I think the more the President tries to do with the economy, the worse off it'll be. Just leave it alone. 4. Maybe, maybe not. 5. The Ryan plan is more about cutting spending than cutting revenue. When you look at the extent that Romney would have to cut in order to meet his budgetary goal of reducing spending to 20% of the GDP, than I think you have to be nuts to think he'll actually keep his word, or do anything other token cuts. It would either be political suicide, drive even more people below the poverty line, or both. Overview of Romney Budget Proposal and Spending CutsEDIT: No dude, seriously: the wars and bush tax cuts account for a major proportion of the deficit.
Where are the welfare payments and Medicare in that graph?
|
I am starting to like the meme of this election:
"Why vote for a lesser evil? Cthulhu 2012"
It seems he has got his own campaign:
Campaign headquarter?
Policy?
Given how much mud has hit Obama and Romney already, maybe a bigger change is a good idea? 
|
On June 13 2012 23:04 radiatoren wrote:I am starting to like the meme of this election: "Why vote for a lesser evil? Cthulhu 2012" It seems he has got his own campaign: Campaign headquarter?Policy?Given how much mud has hit Obama and Romney already, maybe a bigger change is a good idea?
Yes well, I'm sure the citizens of Earth are looking for someone a little less...earth-shattering.
|
|
|
On June 13 2012 21:53 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:On June 13 2012 16:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Who is it you think I'm voting for?
edit: I'll admit I don't really understand your comment. Sorry, I'm just agreeing with Saryph's comment ... When you look at all the political propaganda and hyperbole that is thrown about -- that ONE person is to blame for everything, and only I CAN SAVE IT ... it's just ridiculous. Both candidates are marketing themselves as saviours. It makes me wonder if politics in the US has always been like this, that's all. The problem of course is that Obama and his campaign portrayed him as exactly this; the next messiah who was going to save the economy. So yes, obviously he can't really influence it at anywhere near the level people say he is/should, but some of the criticism is justified, simply for his own overrating.
Have you seen Mitt Romney's 'Day 1' ads?
Both parties, and the American public at-large, are guilty of finger pointing, demonizing each other and propping makeshift halos over their own heads.
I blame Karl Rove swiftboating John Kerry. That set a new standard for political attacks. It wasn't enough to disagree with your opponent, you had to prove they were a piece of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=CP&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2012-01-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=pch&vintage_date=2012-06-12&revision_date=2012-06-12)
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=CP&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2012-01-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=pch&vintage_date=2012-06-12&revision_date=2012-06-12&nd=2007-12-01)
