|
|
On April 20 2012 02:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot.
Even 2001-2005 period had big debt increase. Out of bounds was maybe too strong, but even in the first term debt was increased significantly. And since the poster I responded to is accusing Obama of mishandling the economy worse than Bush, 2005-2009 period is Bush's fault in the same way 2009-2011 period is Obama's fault. 2009-2011 the debt increase was lower than in 2005-2009. So he seems to have wrong impression.
|
I'm not happy with either candidate =(.
|
To be honest, I'm very liberal on social and ethical policies and I don't know a huge amount regarding economic policy (although, quite frankly, I don't think the candidates are going to differ as widely in this respect- either in hypotheticals or in true practice) and so I'm probably going to vote for Obama. I'll vote for the candidate who attempts to repeal DADT and doesn't believe he's wearing magical underwear because those are small progressive steps and the mindset that I generally agree with.
|
On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ?
Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this:
-You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good?
-You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes.
On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:
You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid.
Its a global downturn, maybe if you didnt depend on our money so much then you wouldnt be so angry about it right now, same goes for the rest of the world. As for anyone claiming that there was no crisis during the Bush admin, remember September 11th? I sure am glad that we didnt have a pansy like Obama in controll then or we would really be in trouble now. I hope we can get him out before something else threatens us, like north korea or iran.
|
Well of course I'm going to vote for Obama because the conservatives in this country are so detached from reality that it's not even worth considering them as reasonable adults anymore. Although I live in Georgia so my vote won't matter at all :\. Maybe I'll vote for the Green party just for the hell of it. I mean Obama has enacted some good social policies such as repealing DADT (which was opposed vehemently by John McCain in the senate). Economically his policies have led to steady growth over the last few months:
+ Show Spoiler +
the stimulus worked but probably would of worked better and faster if it was bigger.
But see Romney has a real good shot because the republicans are so good at pandering to their base and repeating lies over and over again causing so many to join their delusion. CUT TAXES MORE. CUT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.
The bush tax cuts, one of the biggest reasons for the deficit, has been in effect for years now and haven't worked at all. Instead of boosting the economy they have just made the top 1% richer. Somehow though the republicans are able to make a tax increase on people making > $200,000 a year look like a huge tax increase on everyone, and so we get people like this:
On April 20 2012 02:33 josephmcjoe wrote:
I will vote for anyone in the slot that doesn't say "Obama". Romney's a bit of a chump, but I know he won't take half the money I plan on making someday, or fine me for not buying government health care. Or spend us into oblivion. How are 80% of you voting Obama???
Ideally with the internet it will be harder for all politicians (not just republicans, but mostly republicans) to flat out lie and pander to the electorate all the time and within a few years the republicans will be less insane and people will stop believing all these failed policies can work. But I guess the internet also makes it easier to spread false information as well :\.
As mentioned before, the most important reason to re-elect obama is that he will hopefully be able to appoint another supreme court justice. The power of a conservative-leaning supreme court is detrimental (super PACs, allowing cops to strip search anyone for any crime they are accused of, etc).
For a lot of people i know it's hard to care about obama because he has a lot of weird shit policies (specifically against whistle-blowers and national defense), but honestly it would be way worse with a republican. if you consider obama an evil, romney (or any republican) is way more evil.
also romney is a total slime-ball millionaire, who can barely beat fucking santorum by outspending him 9 to 1 or whatever. he supports ryan's budget proposal which just gives the rich even more tax cuts and cuts a bunch of entitlement programs that keep those in poverty afloat. Ryan's budget would actually ADD to the deficit because it decreases revenue more than it cuts spending -_-. Obama's tax plan DECREASES the deficit. but somehow 45% of this country will never accept that the republican policies are fucking crazy and that obama ISNT trying to take all of your money and give it to black people on welfare.
Romney wanted the auto-industry to go bankrupt, and it turned out the bailout of GM was one of the best decisions made during the stimulus days. Romney worked at Bain capital, probably one of the most ethically revolting businesses there can be (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/09/400404/romney-bain-bankrupts-billions/). Romney is the epitome of what is wrong with politics today: he is a morally reprehensible, extremely rich person who spends a shitload of money to change his public image and enter high office (have you ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns runs for governor?). He changes his views whenever necessary to pander to an audience. He is the 1% that have been screwing the middle and lower class for the last 30 years.
So yea, vote Obama, not Romney.
|
On April 20 2012 02:42 Son of Gnome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:33 josephmcjoe wrote:
I will vote for anyone in the slot that doesn't say "Obama". Romney's a bit of a chump, but I know he won't take half the money I plan on making someday, or fine me for not buying government health care. Or spend us into oblivion. How are 80% of you voting Obama??? Have you seen the republican candidate... I'm super liberal but many of my conservative friends will be voting democrat simply because Romney is for lack of a better phrase completely out of touch with a majority of Americans.
If my friends are voting for president of the United States based on who is more "in touch," then I need some less retarded friends...
|
On April 20 2012 03:06 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
You've dodged half the post.
It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up.
It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work.
For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility. Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this? If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production. You are are saying this the same as: Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss. ??? Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies. The loss part is the sum of all the customers of these companies. When a consumer buys a product the company makes a gain, and the consumer makes a loss. This makes profit and loss for the economy a useless measure. GDP is the best measure, because it measure production, ultimately people want products, which is why it's used. What do you mean by "gain"? Net profit? I'm describing a situation where a company operates at a loss. This is your GM's, etc. Production /= prosperity. GM made many cars that no one was buying. It operated at a loss. So you are saying this is the customer's gain? So in your view a country with many high priced goods that people can't afford is still good. You must like Venezuela's economy then.
No. I'm saying that profit and loss is rubbish, as I've proven.
Profit and loss is rubbish because it sums to 0 by definition, and you look like a fool for suggesting it be taken seriously.
People want products doesn't mean people want every product. But regardless, GDP is still the best measure we have, and includes a consumption component too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp#Expenditure_approach
In economics, most things produced are produced for sale, and sold. Therefore, measuring the total expenditure of money used to buy things is a way of measuring production. This is known as the expenditure method of calculating GDP. Note that if you knit yourself a sweater, it is production but does not get counted as GDP because it is never sold. Sweater-knitting is a small part of the economy, but if one counts some major activities such as child-rearing (generally unpaid) as production, GDP ceases to be an accurate indicator of production. Similarly, if there is a long term shift from non-market provision of services (for example cooking, cleaning, child rearing, do-it yourself repairs) to market provision of services, then this trend toward increased market provision of services may mask a dramatic decrease in actual domestic production, resulting in overly optimistic and inflated reported GDP. This is particularly a problem for economies which have shifted from production economies to service economies.
Your fixation on high prices and hyperinflation is completely out of touch with the fact of below 2% inflation. Although I see that you've given up on that argument.
|
On April 20 2012 02:56 Sweepstakes wrote:
Here's why I will not be voting for Romney:
Republicans sign a pledge refusing to EVER raise taxes.
Republicans infuse religion into legislation.
Republicans force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Republicans are against gay marriage (solely because of the Bible)
Republicans lie (moreso than Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong)
Republican congressman apologized to BP during their oil spill hearing
Republicans blah blah blah, etc.
Mitt Romney = Republican
The economy will fix itself, its issues are greater than Republican vs. Democrat. The social issues are what need to be fixed. It is absolutely appalling that in the year 2012, GLBT people cannot be married solely because it goes against what is written in a certain book. I have always found it funny that Christians are the ones who seem to forget the Golden Rule most often.
Yeah, and we can produce an equally ridiculous list that Democrats have also supported.
You sound like a blind partisan.
|
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him.
|
On April 20 2012 02:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot.
Ever heard about the Irak and Afghanistan wars? Do you know how much they cost? Do you know that W cut the taxes on the rich (people with an annual income of more than $250k) by a huge margin at the same time? Did you know that the US was running a surplus at the time Clinton left office (as in: reducing the debt), which Bush Jr. quickly turned around?
Of course I am not from the US (maybe that's why I don't have access to Fox News which surely would remedy my opinion on the aforementioned facts), so just disregard this if you want, but in my opinion (and I bet the majority of fellow Europeans would say similar) Bush was the worst President the US have had in a long time.
|
On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:
-You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes.
Describing the BBC as "liberal" is interesting. They're certainly not rabid conservatives but as an organisation they're also definately not liberal. The BBC has also, to my knowledge, not portrayed Bush or republicans in a negative light through it's news service.
|
On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ? Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this: -You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good? -You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:
You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Its a global downturn, maybe if you didnt depend on our money so much then you wouldnt be so angry about it right now, same goes for the rest of the world. As for anyone claiming that there was no crisis during the Bush admin, remember September 11th? I sure am glad that we didnt have a pansy like Obama in controll then or we would really be in trouble now. I hope we can get him out before something else threatens us, like north korea or iran.
Funny how you accuse foreign posters of not knowing much about America, even though they actually know more than you it would seem, and at the same time pretend to know more about our countries than us.
You reply to my argument saying that I know nothing and I am biased and mean in general. Great counter-argument. That is no an argument it is a logical fallacy. And how does my country depend on your money ? Where did I claim there was no crisis during Bush times ? My point was that crisis was during Bush times and during Obama times. Yet you are saying Obama was doing economically worse than bush even though everything points to the opposite or at best (for your argument) that they did similarly poorly. Frankly your grasp of your own country's politics seems extremely poor and looks exactly like it was taken from a propaganda pamphlet.
|
On April 20 2012 03:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:53 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot. Even 2001-2005 period had big debt increase. Out of bounds was maybe too strong, but even in the first term debt was increased significantly. And since the poster I responded to is accusing Obama of mishandling the economy worse than Bush, 2005-2009 period is Bush's fault in the same way 2009-2011 period is Obama's fault. 2009-2011 the debt increase was lower than in 2005-2009. So he seems to have wrong impression.
But the debt wasn't really uncontrollable. No President wants to preside over a government surplus, even in this climate. Sure, in hindsight with the debt problems we have now, we look back at the surplus Clinton left us and think, "How do you screw that up?" But even now, Republican debt solutions don't provide a surplus. They cut government spending, then lower taxes, which keeps a deficit in the budget.
|
For me, just reading about poor Seamus meant Romney would basically have to be the most progressive, eloquent and forward thinking motherfucker on the planet to win my vote back. That's a fucked up thing to do to a dog man.
|
On April 19 2012 18:33 Szordrin wrote:
I don't like the opening post so biased...
Yes, it's pretty distasteful. Mitt's only won the nomination and has already generated dozens of gaffes and exposed some significant weakness.
|
I will never vote for Obama again.
Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.
|
On April 20 2012 03:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:06 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:
[quote] numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this!
That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility. Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this? If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production. You are are saying this the same as: Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss. ??? Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies. The loss part is the sum of all the customers of these companies. When a consumer buys a product the company makes a gain, and the consumer makes a loss. This makes profit and loss for the economy a useless measure. GDP is the best measure, because it measure production, ultimately people want products, which is why it's used. What do you mean by "gain"? Net profit? I'm describing a situation where a company operates at a loss. This is your GM's, etc. Production /= prosperity. GM made many cars that no one was buying. It operated at a loss. So you are saying this is the customer's gain? So in your view a country with many high priced goods that people can't afford is still good. You must like Venezuela's economy then. No. I'm saying that profit and loss is rubbish, as I've proven. Profit and loss is rubbish because it sums to 0 by definition, and you look like a fool for suggesting it be taken seriously. People want products doesn't mean people want every product. But regardless, GDP is still the best measure we have, and includes a consumption component too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp#Expenditure_approachShow nested quote +In economics, most things produced are produced for sale, and sold. Therefore, measuring the total expenditure of money used to buy things is a way of measuring production. This is known as the expenditure method of calculating GDP. Note that if you knit yourself a sweater, it is production but does not get counted as GDP because it is never sold. Sweater-knitting is a small part of the economy, but if one counts some major activities such as child-rearing (generally unpaid) as production, GDP ceases to be an accurate indicator of production. Similarly, if there is a long term shift from non-market provision of services (for example cooking, cleaning, child rearing, do-it yourself repairs) to market provision of services, then this trend toward increased market provision of services may mask a dramatic decrease in actual domestic production, resulting in overly optimistic and inflated reported GDP. This is particularly a problem for economies which have shifted from production economies to service economies. Your fixation on high prices and hyperinflation is completely out of touch with the fact of below 2% inflation. Although I see that you've given up on that argument.
In regard to your last statement. Obviously there is no Hyperinflation now, the conditions for it occurring are taking place. And Inflation is understated because Core Inflation does not include food energy. No one disagrees with you that inflation as currently stated is under 2%.
You seem to be singing the same old Keynesian song that profit is not necessary for growth and that government printing and spending is all you need to keep an economy afloat (because GDP rises brooo!!!!)
You have nothing to back this up but I acknowledge your religious adherence to these principles.
|
On April 20 2012 03:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:07 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:53 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot. Even 2001-2005 period had big debt increase. Out of bounds was maybe too strong, but even in the first term debt was increased significantly. And since the poster I responded to is accusing Obama of mishandling the economy worse than Bush, 2005-2009 period is Bush's fault in the same way 2009-2011 period is Obama's fault. 2009-2011 the debt increase was lower than in 2005-2009. So he seems to have wrong impression. But the debt wasn't really uncontrollable. No President wants to preside over a government surplus, even in this climate. Sure, in hindsight with the debt problems we have now, we look back at the surplus Clinton left us and think, "How do you screw that up?" But even now, Republican debt solutions don't provide a surplus. They cut government spending, then lower taxes, which keeps a deficit in the budget.
Correct, but this has nothing with my original point of pointing out that if you consider Obama economic management fiasco due to height of deficits, then you have to consider Bush economic management even bigger fiasco. It seems you are arguing against things that have not much to do with my original post.
|
On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ? Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this: -You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good? -You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes.
I'm an American (and it hurts me to say this), and I'm pretty sure that we're generally the most ignorant group of people regarding most international subjects, and that even includes our own politics. Hell, a ton of our people watch Fox news, which is one of the most unreliable sources you can possibly get news from on television. That's far more biased than the frickin BBC.
Maybe you should listen to what they have to say.
|
On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him.
mitt romney was born rich. obama was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/UsJobs_200709_201112.jpg)
