|
|
On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked.
Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are.
|
|
|
On April 25 2012 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked. Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are.
Again, Obama / Romney thread. Romney hasn't said anything. Empty statements mean nothing. He hasn't said what he would cut and by how much while he has said he will increase spending elsewhere. Also calling things 'entitlement' programs is a bit weasel wordy.
|
On April 25 2012 10:54 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked. Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are. Again, Obama / Romney thread. Romney hasn't said anything. Empty statements mean nothing. He hasn't said what he would cut and by how much while he has said he will increase spending elsewhere. Also calling things 'entitlement' programs is a bit weasel wordy.
It would help if you took the time to read all of the pages of posts to which I was responding before throwing out stuff like this.
|
On April 25 2012 11:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 10:54 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:
[quote]
The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto.
In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked. Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are. Again, Obama / Romney thread. Romney hasn't said anything. Empty statements mean nothing. He hasn't said what he would cut and by how much while he has said he will increase spending elsewhere. Also calling things 'entitlement' programs is a bit weasel wordy. It would help if you took the time to read all of the pages of posts to which I was responding before throwing out stuff like this.
Could you point me to a specific post? I have seen news coverage of Romney's cuts which are never set in stone and I have seen where he is confirmed he will be increasing defense spending. I also think that is still a bit of weasel word statement either way.
|
On April 25 2012 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked. Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are.
That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino.
|
On April 25 2012 09:14 DannyJ wrote:
Yeah presidential debates are usually pretty boring, at least compared to party primary ones.
At least the Vice Pres debate HAS to be better this time, whoever it is. Last time it was just Biden trying to not look mean and Palin regurgitating her memorized statements.
I dunno, the primary debates might be more entertaining but watching them was pretty much unbearable for myself. With 4+ people on the stage, it's very easy for one person to get away with an outlandish statement or an outright lie that doesn't always get followed up on. At least when it's one on one, they both get a chance to give a rebuttal if the other person makes an attack.
|
That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino.
"Gambling on the free market casino" is a misleadingly simplified characterization of what Republicans have proposed when it comes to diverting the money paid into Social Security into personal investment accounts. Here is a good link explaining just what actually has been proposed in general terms:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-idea
Also, I haven't seen a specific reform proposal that has suggested diverting even half of what is paid in into personal investment accounts.
|
I can't wait until the first Obama-Romney debate. It's going to be interesting to see the two completely different images of the current reality clash together. They often seem to claim the exact opposite thing is happening to the country.
|
On April 25 2012 12:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino. "Gambling on the free market casino" is a misleadingly simplified characterization of what Republicans have proposed when it comes to diverting the money paid into Social Security into personal investment accounts. Here is a good link explaining just what actually has been proposed in general terms: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-ideaAlso, I haven't seen a specific reform proposal that has suggested diverting even half of what is paid in into personal investment accounts.
LOL CATO. "Hey, let's assume that they can't fix SS and young people are screwed! Wouldn't you rather put money into the private market?!"
|
On April 25 2012 12:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 12:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino. "Gambling on the free market casino" is a misleadingly simplified characterization of what Republicans have proposed when it comes to diverting the money paid into Social Security into personal investment accounts. Here is a good link explaining just what actually has been proposed in general terms: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-ideaAlso, I haven't seen a specific reform proposal that has suggested diverting even half of what is paid in into personal investment accounts. LOL CATO. "Hey, let's assume that they can't fix SS and young people are screwed! Wouldn't you rather put money into the private market?!"
Or you could just, you know, give people the option to control their own retirement funding?
|
On April 25 2012 12:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino. "Gambling on the free market casino" is a misleadingly simplified characterization of what Republicans have proposed when it comes to diverting the money paid into Social Security into personal investment accounts. Here is a good link explaining just what actually has been proposed in general terms: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-ideaAlso, I haven't seen a specific reform proposal that has suggested diverting even half of what is paid in into personal investment accounts.
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on October 27, 2010.
:D
Admittedly, I'm not an expert in economics, but it sounds too risky and uncertain. Seems like it would create another bubble and nothing is mentioned in the article what (if any) effect that would have. The article also seems to assume a (generally) stable market and sustained growth pre '08. There may be some ideas worth considering, I'm just not sold on it yet I guess.
|
|
|
On April 25 2012 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 10:33 MattyClutch wrote:On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready. In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan). Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either. The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked. Getting serious about our fiscal problems necessarily entails reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Some republicans are willing to do this. No democrats are.
Disagree with your premise, why is that a necessary part of getting serious about solving our fiscal problems? America was running a surplus in the 1990s with no reform to these, and we didn't have serious budget problems before Bush was president, but we had both of those programs.
|
On April 25 2012 12:26 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 12:24 aksfjh wrote:On April 25 2012 12:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:That's because Republicans want to privatize safety net programs and reforming them means gamble them on the free market casino. "Gambling on the free market casino" is a misleadingly simplified characterization of what Republicans have proposed when it comes to diverting the money paid into Social Security into personal investment accounts. Here is a good link explaining just what actually has been proposed in general terms: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-ideaAlso, I haven't seen a specific reform proposal that has suggested diverting even half of what is paid in into personal investment accounts. LOL CATO. "Hey, let's assume that they can't fix SS and young people are screwed! Wouldn't you rather put money into the private market?!" Or you could just, you know, give people the option to control their own retirement funding?
Indeed. I'm no fan of either the fascist or socialist SS schemes. Let me opt out of SS all together and keep my own money and property. Thanks.
|
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
|
On April 25 2012 12:53 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do." It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
|
On April 25 2012 13:10 Avatar Korra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 12:53 Oreo7 wrote:On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do." It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious. I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
|
On April 25 2012 13:13 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 13:10 Avatar Korra wrote:On April 25 2012 12:53 Oreo7 wrote:On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do." It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious. I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself. It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
|
On April 25 2012 13:13 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 13:10 Avatar Korra wrote:On April 25 2012 12:53 Oreo7 wrote:On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do." It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious. I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself. It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
Is that going to be the excuse again 4 years from now? All his stimulus bills have failed because the policy does not work. He bombed Libya and killed US citizens overseas. Eh I'm too tired to write up much more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
