On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.
Your defiantly about to get fucked when all the new taxes come into law at the beginning of the year. Jackson's point was one made in ignorance and he knows it. Obama is NOT intellectually superior and his plan is crap there is a reason his budgets have gotten 0 votes.
Jesus Christ, how many times does it have to be repeated in this thread that the bills created by Republicans WERE NOT Obama's budget?!
It doesn't really matter. The democrats didn't bother to advance his budget because it was such a piece of shit.
1. It does matter, because I've seen countless people in this thread use as an argument against Obama's budget that it had been voted on. Since it's just not true, that argument of theirs is bogus. 2. No, it certainly wasn't "a piece of shit", unless you consider job and economic growth a bad idea.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.
Your defiantly about to get fucked when all the new taxes come into law at the beginning of the year. Jackson's point was one made in ignorance and he knows it. Obama is NOT intellectually superior and his plan is crap there is a reason his budgets have gotten 0 votes. Please your saying the community organizer who needs a teleprompter to speak properly is smarter than the multimillionaire multi successful business owner. I'll give Obama he is smart but to compare the two I don't think its close.
In terms of intelligence the two candidates are similar that being said, Romney's skill set and background is what makes him better. This is a guy that fixed broken companies for a living, then if that was not enough proceeded to fix the salt lake city Olympics. Some have complained that doesn't translate to political success, then again he was the governor of the most liberal state in the nation.
fixed broken companies for a living? I'm sorry but are we talking about the same firm? Bain investment did a lot of stuff but that is not how many people would describe him.
What bothers me the most about this discussion is not wether Romney is a good buisnessman, he obviously was or he wouldn't have made any money, but what exactly does that have to do with being a good politician? Frankly Obama tried his best but the way Republicans blocked him had nothing to do with his bills or their inherent quality. I have no idea how good Romney would be in Comparison, but what I do know is that the way the USA are split into two camps makes sensible compromise almost impossible.
Frankly I don't think either of them will manage to get much done, no matter who is elected the deadlock in Senate/House will remain.
The same question about translation of skills happened with Obama too. He had no political experience, and was mostly a lawyer. A huge amount of his administration has shown off his abilities as a lawyer. Perhaps getting a successful businessman to the front COULD help?
Both Obama and Romney passed the bar. Romney did next to nothing with his law degree. It was part of the JD/MBA program he was in. Obama as well... he never really was a practicing lawer. He did some research and taught some classes. But that's about it.
So what you had last night were two lawyers who were arguing in front of each other...who have never argued in front of a judge or a jury.
I wasnt talking about the debate, but about job experience leading into the Presidency. Obama passed the bar then taught it while doing local politics then surging to the national level. Having done law for so long (not necessarily in front of a judge) it has shown his lawyer abilities quite well in regards to passing law and other things.
Romney passed the bar then went into business. Will his experience with business lead him into running the country like one? Will it work?
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Wait a minute, Romney stated that he was absolutely against any form of revenue increase. The math just doesn't add up, of course Romney's plan would also put us even deeper in debt. It might not seem that way to you because he's never been forced to actually prove it mathematically (he just says, "we'll close loopholes), but just stop and think about it.
There are three ways to reduce the deficit.
1. Reduce spending 2. Raise revenue 3. Some combination of the two
Obama's plan (and that of every other president before) is 3 - cut some programs and trim inefficiencies, while raising taxes to help dig us out of the deficit hole. We can certainly disagree on the amount of taxes that should be levied against each tax bracket, but then we're already in "raising revenue" territory.
Romney's plan is 1 - he only plans on cutting programs, but doesn't want to raise any additional revenue. Note that he is also against cutting any defense spending - one of the biggest expenditures in the U.S. government, behind Medicare and Social Security (both of which also raise revenue to help pay for themselves). Short of cutting out the entire government, it's simply not possible for his plan to be even better than Obama's, speaking strictly in terms of debt reduction.
If he actually was willing to cut military spending I might actually start taking him seriously, but right now it's a bunch of fuzzy "math" that sounds good, but doesn't actually make any sense.
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote: [quote] The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
Could I see the fact checkers in question? The ones I've read indicate that Romney's tax plan, as currently stated, is mathematically impossible. If we take him at his words--20% tax cut on the wealthy, attempts to make it revenue neutral by eliminating deductions/loopholes--we still get a massive tax cut (Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center).. There just aren't enough deductions; the biggest ones (mortgage/children) are very popular, and cutting them would be tantamount to raising taxes on some segment of the middle class, while still cutting them on the wealthy (WSJ) . While it's true that Romney will likely not enact such a plan, the fact that his repeatedly stated proposals result in it, and the fact that he has no other (or more specific) proposal, casts doubt over his candidacy.
On October 05 2012 11:43 Sanctimonius wrote: People keep talking about how good Romney was as a businessman, and maybe that's what the US needs. Personally I'll be interested to see how firing, asset-stripping and shipping jobs abroad will do for the average American.
If you seriously believe that's how Bain worked you really need to not vote because your understanding is very limited.
All companies bought by Bain are failing and going out of business. Bain's job is to take the business and restructure it so it can A) Survive and B) Make a profit. Without Bain every person in every business they purchase would be out of work instead of only some. To say Bain just buys businesses and fires people is ignorant and stupid because they would have no job if not for Bain. I suppose your angry about them making a profit off of helping businesses survive as well?
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Wait a minute, Romney stated that he was absolutely against any form of revenue increase. The math just doesn't add up, of course Romney's plan would also put us even deeper in debt. It might not seem that way to you because he's never been forced to actually prove it mathematically (he just says, "we'll close loopholes), but just stop and think about it.
There are three ways to reduce the deficit.
1. Reduce spending 2. Raise revenue 3. Some combination of the two
Obama's plan (and that of every other president before) is 3 - cut some programs and trim inefficiencies, while raising taxes to help dig us out of the deficit hole. We can certainly disagree on the amount of taxes that should be levied against each tax bracket, but then we're already in "raising revenue" territory.
Romney's plan is 1 - he only plans on cutting programs, but doesn't want to raise any additional revenue. Note that he is also against cutting any defense spending - one of the biggest expenditures in the U.S. government, behind Medicare and Social Security (both of which also raise revenue to help pay for themselves). Short of cutting out the entire government, it's simply not possible for his plan to be even better than Obama's, speaking strictly in terms of debt reduction.
If he actually was willing to cut military spending I might actually start taking him seriously, but right now it's a bunch of fuzzy "math" that sounds good, but doesn't actually make any sense.
No Romney said he is against raising taxes. Taxes do not equal Revenue they are not the same the way you are using the word you are clearly misquoting him. His plan calls for lowering taxes in the lower class/middle class and keeping them the same for upper income. This would give stability for companies to hire workers. More workers=more taxes paid than just raising taxes= revenue+lower spending=better economy=lower debt
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote: [quote] The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
On October 05 2012 12:22 TheFrankOne wrote: Can someone explain to me why should we implement any sort of austerity when the economy is so bad and the bond market is acting the way it is?
because there are several problems with Keynesian solutions right now..
1. Keynesian works when you are experiencing temporary business cycles. This isn't' a cycle, it's a shift in economic reality. Keynesian may not be the best way to go about it here.
2. Our rates are already extremely low.
3. Austerity is about closing down the deficit. This is a problem for us regardless of the recession. Even if we recover, we still can't continue the way we are.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
Care to demonstrate things where he switched his stance?
White House Doesn't Want Layoff Notice Until After Election So They Look Better
These federal contractors are required by law to give 60 days notice to their workers that they will be let go. That happens to fall on November 1, just before the 2012 election. So the White House is requesting that they postpone the layoff notices -- breaking federal law -- and promising to pick up the tab for any potential lawsuits, at taxpayer's expense. In essence, Obama will spend taxpayer dollars so that employers can violate the law and help him get re-elected.
From ABC:
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today — one with political overtones — and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.
Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.
Such massive layoffs could have threatened Obama’s standing in the state he won in 2008 and is hoping to carry again this November.
But John McCain doesn't want to let them get away with this.
Sen. John McCain vowed Tuesday to block any money intended to help defense contractors elude the provisions of a layoff notification law.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Lol let's see that data please. I feel like this will be another republican "You got pregnant on year 16, you got pregnant on year 18... AT THIS RATE YOU'll HAVE 32 babies by the average mortality rate of 80!!!!.
On October 05 2012 10:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: [quote] nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
Care to demonstrate things where he switched his stance?
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Lol let's see that data please. I feel like this will be another republican "You got pregnant on year 16, you got pregnant on year 18... AT THIS RATE YOU'll HAVE 32 babies by the average mortality rate of 80!!!!.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
Care to demonstrate things where he switched his stance?
On October 05 2012 12:22 TheFrankOne wrote: Can someone explain to me why should we implement any sort of austerity when the economy is so bad and the bond market is acting the way it is?
because there are several problems with Keynesian solutions right now..
1. Keynesian works when you are experiencing temporary business cycles. This isn't' a cycle, it's a shift in economic reality. Keynesian may not be the best way to go about it here.
2. Our rates are already extremely low.
3. Austerity is about closing down the deficit. This is a problem for us regardless of the recession. Even if we recover, we still can't continue the way we are.
1. What makes this a "shift in economic reality" and what exactly do you mean by that?
2. Which rates? Also, aren't rates at the zero bound and/or near zero bond yields evidence that we should be engaging in fiscal stimulus because monetary stimulus is becoming more and more difficult?
3. When we recover, I agree we need to have some real fiscal changes, the details are not important, but why now? We can continue doing stimulus for a while, this is a horrible economic climate. The UK implemented significant austerity and as a first world nation with their own currency despite no real debt crisis, just a feeling that there was too much debt there are some obvious similiarities. That they slipped into a depression afterwards scares me since there's so much talk of it here as well.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.reagancoalition.com/images/other/top5excuses.jpg)
