|
|
On June 15 2012 10:59 snailmouth wrote:
Obama is doing a great job of spending us into bankruptcy.
Oh come now. Its not Obamas fault you have such a huge debt, but its the sum of all the junk which his predecessors dumped on him. The financial crisis made it NECESSARY to spend a lot more OR have additional companies go bankrupt. The debt was really built by Reagan and the two Bushes ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
It is the usual stupidity of people to ignore history and blame todays politician for the mistakes / mismanagement of the past ones. Oh and ignoring special conditions - like the financial crisis which has affected all of Obamas time as President, but which had occured before his time - is also a typical way to come up with populistic phrases to blame the president for things he had no control over.
This really proves my theory that a long term dictatorship with a dictator without ego would be a much better form of government compared to those 4-year-cyclic democracies which we have right now. Their focus is on the short term while a true government needs to look 20, 30 or more years ahead and shape the country for that time instead of doing nothing to prevent those who are able to from exploiting todays population.
|
sc2superfan101 I triple dog dare you to back up anything you've said with [citations]. A third of the country thought he was behind 9/11.
Right.
|
On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
Imagine playing basketball and coming in the fourth quarter down by 100 points... that's the position Obama had coming into office, and those statistics are actually much less than the CIA and Federal Reserve predicted. I hate people who play this type of number game without looking into the numbers. Numbers without history and purpose are just numbers and meaninless stats.
|
On June 15 2012 18:54 Probe1 wrote:
sc2superfan101 I triple dog dare you to back up anything you've said with [citations]. A third of the country thought he was behind 9/11.
Right.
http://bogusstory.com/911_inside_job.html
This will show you some of those statistics, with people either believe they lied about knowing prior about it, or had direct impact on the event itself.
(written by a Ph.D, NOT alex jones hahaha)
|
|
|
On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats.
I followed the legislative development somewhat closely, but I don't remember this being the case. Do you have a citation with some sort of evidence for this (or indirectly, analysis that suggests this was the case)?
On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:
That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans.
Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else, but I'm not a liberal. If you take a look at my posting history in politically-oriented threads, you'll find my positions trend moderate while leaning slightly libertarian.
|
On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
scary statistics, GJ, now go and do the same research on the Bush administration, or any administration these past 30-40 years, save for Bill Clinton's.
????
Profit
|
It's really quite scary how widespread the misinformation and fearmongering of the right pervades "news" sources. I keep coming into work and hearing about how it's so bad that our "interest payments are 100% funding the Chinese army!" Or how "we can't keep spending millions and not paying for it!"
|
On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
Firstly, Bush is responsible for like more than 2/3 of the deficit. Also from my older post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=121#2412
The problem with the debt debate is that everyone throws around big numbers, for no reason other than shock value.
The US is a big economy, everything is big.
You might think $200 billion in interest is big. But the US produces $15 trillion in GDP per year. $200 billion is peanuts.
I think you all need to take a step back. Why is high government debt bad? The only reason is because it can potentially lead to higher government borrowing costs, i.e. increasing interest on government bonds. But that has not happened yet, and not even remotely close to happening.
So what's the yield on US government bonds? 1.5% and falling.
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND/chart
That's lower than the rate of inflation (~2%), i.e. the US government can borrow money at negative real interest rates.
This shows that high debt is a very long run issue. For some perspective, the US's debt to GDP is 100%, Greece blew up at 160%, and Japan's government bond yields are even less at 0.8%, while having 220% debt to GDP. (Debt to GDP numbers are from Wikipedia.)
|
On June 15 2012 13:33 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:13 Lightwip wrote:
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing. No. That's a bold, unsourced statement, and it flies in the face of history. Have you forgotten the "permanent majority?" The Democratic Congressional leaders during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations would not have agreed with that sentence; all Republican policy achievements before Bush 43 were passed with Democratic compliance. The attitudes expressed in your post date back only to Gingrich and the 1994 midterms (And the Do-Nothing Congress of 1946-48, but that was an aberration and the Republicans paid dearly for it); the idea that the opposition should actively obstruct the majority is a parliamentary one that has no place in American government. Indeed, the design of American government is such that an obstructionist attitude from either party inevitably leads to gridlock.
Which is exactly what I said would happen?
I do think this is a more recent development for the US, but a despicable one at that.
|
On June 15 2012 23:58 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:33 imareaver3 wrote:On June 15 2012 13:13 Lightwip wrote:
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing. No. That's a bold, unsourced statement, and it flies in the face of history. Have you forgotten the "permanent majority?" The Democratic Congressional leaders during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations would not have agreed with that sentence; all Republican policy achievements before Bush 43 were passed with Democratic compliance. The attitudes expressed in your post date back only to Gingrich and the 1994 midterms (And the Do-Nothing Congress of 1946-48, but that was an aberration and the Republicans paid dearly for it); the idea that the opposition should actively obstruct the majority is a parliamentary one that has no place in American government. Indeed, the design of American government is such that an obstructionist attitude from either party inevitably leads to gridlock. Which is exactly what I said would happen? I do think this is a more recent development for the US, but a despicable one at that.
Sorry, because you said "goal" I thought you were defending the obstructionism as a part of our government.
EDIT: Interesting article that echoes the points of conservatives in this thread, in a more intelligent manner: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/brooks-what-republicans-think.html?src=me&ref=general
|
On June 16 2012 00:43 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 23:58 Lightwip wrote:On June 15 2012 13:33 imareaver3 wrote:On June 15 2012 13:13 Lightwip wrote:
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing. No. That's a bold, unsourced statement, and it flies in the face of history. Have you forgotten the "permanent majority?" The Democratic Congressional leaders during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations would not have agreed with that sentence; all Republican policy achievements before Bush 43 were passed with Democratic compliance. The attitudes expressed in your post date back only to Gingrich and the 1994 midterms (And the Do-Nothing Congress of 1946-48, but that was an aberration and the Republicans paid dearly for it); the idea that the opposition should actively obstruct the majority is a parliamentary one that has no place in American government. Indeed, the design of American government is such that an obstructionist attitude from either party inevitably leads to gridlock. Which is exactly what I said would happen? I do think this is a more recent development for the US, but a despicable one at that. Sorry, because you said "goal" I thought you were defending the obstructionism as a part of our government.
Here's a article summarizing a bunch of predictions Krugman got right and Austerians, Austrians, and Republicans got wrong:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/still-a-phantom-menace/
|
On June 16 2012 00:43 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 23:58 Lightwip wrote:On June 15 2012 13:33 imareaver3 wrote:On June 15 2012 13:13 Lightwip wrote:
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing. No. That's a bold, unsourced statement, and it flies in the face of history. Have you forgotten the "permanent majority?" The Democratic Congressional leaders during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations would not have agreed with that sentence; all Republican policy achievements before Bush 43 were passed with Democratic compliance. The attitudes expressed in your post date back only to Gingrich and the 1994 midterms (And the Do-Nothing Congress of 1946-48, but that was an aberration and the Republicans paid dearly for it); the idea that the opposition should actively obstruct the majority is a parliamentary one that has no place in American government. Indeed, the design of American government is such that an obstructionist attitude from either party inevitably leads to gridlock. Which is exactly what I said would happen? I do think this is a more recent development for the US, but a despicable one at that. Sorry, because you said "goal" I thought you were defending the obstructionism as a part of our government. EDIT: Interesting article that echoes the points of conservatives in this thread, in a more intelligent manner: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/brooks-what-republicans-think.html?src=me&ref=general
There isn't a shred of evidence in that article. He's just spewing his ideological beliefs, backed up by... nothing. His point is that Republicans want to radically change government and society because the welfare state is collapsing. But again, he cites no evidence for this, while ignoring the fact that what Republicans are doing isn't radical at all. It's the already tried and failed Bush policy of more tax cuts for the rich, and the Reagan/Clinton/Bush policy of deregulating banking, finance, and everything.
|
On June 15 2012 20:53 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
scary statistics, GJ, now go and do the same research on the Bush administration, or any administration these past 30-40 years, save for Bill Clinton's. ???? Profit
Exactly my point! It doesn't matter who wins. But here's the deal, we owe 3.5 trillion in interest for the year of 2012 SO FAR.. its going up by a rate of 287,000 dollars a minute. On top of that we have a budget deficit so large that we need to borrow another 1.5 trillion. The real problem is we only have about 2 trillion dollars of tax revenue coming in (which is slowly decreasing by 700 dollars a minute GO OBAMA!! GET THE PHAT CATS!!) so how do you pay those bills? You dont YOU BORROW MORE and then you're interest GOES UP!! Before you know it ladies and gents our national debt will far outweigh our GDP. YOU CAN EXPECT A DEFICIT OF AT LEAST 18 TRILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR! It's never going down its just going to keep growing and when it dwarfs the GDP our currency will crash.. Imminent collapse people.
|
On June 16 2012 05:56 snailmouth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 20:53 Geo.Rion wrote:On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
scary statistics, GJ, now go and do the same research on the Bush administration, or any administration these past 30-40 years, save for Bill Clinton's. ???? Profit Exactly my point! It doesn't matter who wins. But here's the deal, we owe 3.5 trillion in interest for the year of 2012 SO FAR.. its going up by a rate of 287,000 dollars a minute. On top of that we have a budget deficit so large that we need to borrow another 1.5 trillion. The real problem is we only have about 2 trillion dollars of tax revenue coming in (which is slowly decreasing by 700 dollars a minute GO OBAMA!! GET THE PHAT CATS!!) so how do you pay those bills? You dont YOU BORROW MORE and then you're interest GOES UP!! Before you know it ladies and gents our national debt will far outweigh our GDP. YOU CAN EXPECT A DEFICIT OF AT LEAST 18 TRILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR! It's never going down its just going to keep growing and when it dwarfs the GDP our currency will crash.. Imminent collapse people.
The real interest on our debt is negative right now. People are paying us for the privilege of borrowing their money.
|
On June 15 2012 18:54 Probe1 wrote:
sc2superfan101 I triple dog dare you to back up anything you've said with [citations]. A third of the country thought he was behind 9/11.
Right.
oh ye of little faith:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-2242387.html
According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.
|
On June 16 2012 05:56 snailmouth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 20:53 Geo.Rion wrote:On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
scary statistics, GJ, now go and do the same research on the Bush administration, or any administration these past 30-40 years, save for Bill Clinton's. ???? Profit Exactly my point! It doesn't matter who wins. But here's the deal, we owe 3.5 trillion in interest for the year of 2012 SO FAR.. its going up by a rate of 287,000 dollars a minute. On top of that we have a budget deficit so large that we need to borrow another 1.5 trillion. The real problem is we only have about 2 trillion dollars of tax revenue coming in (which is slowly decreasing by 700 dollars a minute GO OBAMA!! GET THE PHAT CATS!!) so how do you pay those bills? You dont YOU BORROW MORE and then you're interest GOES UP!! Before you know it ladies and gents our national debt will far outweigh our GDP. YOU CAN EXPECT A DEFICIT OF AT LEAST 18 TRILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR! It's never going down its just going to keep growing and when it dwarfs the GDP our currency will crash.. Imminent collapse people.
How do I protect myself from the collapse? Do you think I should buy a bunker or sell my house and put into gold?
|
On June 16 2012 05:56 snailmouth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 20:53 Geo.Rion wrote:On June 15 2012 17:50 snailmouth wrote:
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
scary statistics, GJ, now go and do the same research on the Bush administration, or any administration these past 30-40 years, save for Bill Clinton's. ???? Profit ... YOU CAN EXPECT A DEFICIT OF AT LEAST 18 TRILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR! ...
Budget deficit of at least 18 trillion next year, interesting....
|
On June 15 2012 18:23 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 17:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Bush didn’t give a fu*k about us. He just really, really didn’t. everyone wants to forget that one. Bush was considered by 1/3 of the country to have had foreknowledge or some involvement in 9/11. he was once asked in a press conference if he had known about the attacks beforehand, and had let them go on for political purposes. that is something Obama has not had to deal with at all. ever. he and his supporters like to talk about hate? he hasn't seen hatred from almost anyone except ridiculous fringe groups. find me a picture of a tea party burning an effigy of Obama, as happened at countless Anti-Bush rallies. when was the fake documentary about what would happen if Obama was assassinated made? that happened to Bush. and lets not forget almost every celebrity on earth (who all now fawn over Obama or mildly scold him) calling Bush "Hitler" on television, or sometimes worse. Dude, are you fucking shitting me? These images are all from Tea Party rallies. + Show Spoiler +Come on now. Lot's of people hated Bush. Some of them are crazy. But some of them hated him because he started a zillion dollar war with bad intelligence, stopped looking for Osama Bin Laden, presided over a horrible emergency response to Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans is still recovering from, presided over the mortgage crisis which led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, and pretty much signed off on torture being A-OK. He did a shitty job, man
a couple of those images were proven to be faked by outside sources, the others were mild compared to what Bush got, i notice that you didn't post a single image of Obama being burned in effigy, because it never happened. when was Obama accused of mass murder by reporters in a press conference?
http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html
yeah... see if someone had a sign like that about Obama, they'd probably be arrested.
(point being, Obama hasn't gotten sh!t compared to what Bush got.)
|
On June 16 2012 07:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 18:54 Probe1 wrote:
sc2superfan101 I triple dog dare you to back up anything you've said with [citations]. A third of the country thought he was behind 9/11.
Right. oh ye of little faith: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-2242387.htmlShow nested quote +According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.
1/3 of respondents != 1/3 of Americans. Sadly, when you target stupid people for your survey, you get a lot of stupid answers. I wish people could get this. No group of people except an all-inclusive group of ~305M people can speak for ~305M people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NpbfK.png)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2b_SPCr78uQ/Sq2YtN3xxGI/AAAAAAAALyg/JihKjGHAvw8/s400/tea+party++7+dc+anichrist.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/racist_tea_party1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blueridgemuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/032110protestafp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tea-party-racist-signs-01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID46551/images/jewsinovers.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/signswerwr32.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bradblog.com/Images/TeaPartyComix_ObamaSmoking.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tea-party-racist.jpg)
