jmog;1047191 wrote:I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm just telling the truth.

Stretching out cuts off of baseline spending over more than a decade and never actually cutting any spending at all is just a fact of his proposal, it is not "moving the goal posts".

Yes you are. You said Obama was a keynesian and I said no he was more focused on deficit reduction in 2011 which is not what a keynesian would say should be done. I then pointed out how he wanted to focus on deficit reduction...with more revenue included and now you're saying..."Obama has never been for massive spending cuts."

I never said he was for massive spending cuts. You changed your argument. You were saying he was not for deficit reduction. He did put forth a plan that the ratings agencies and the cbo agreed would cut the deficit over the next 10 years even though you're saying there was no "actual spending cuts" but that was not what I was arguing.

QuakerOats;1047193 wrote:Dear Dad,

Today at school we learned that you should spend more than you take in; it always makes the economy work really well, and just no never mind about the Fed printing a few extra trillion dollars at the behest of Mr. President, it really isn't going to be wasted on extra spending in non-reprodcutive sectors, plus, it doesn't have to really be paid back anyway. And those deficits are not a big deal either since the ratings agencies said we just needed to cut $4 trillion over the next decade, and sure enough Mr. President is going to do just that, even though it sounds really harsh; hopefully he won't have to cut any benefits or entitlements because that is what really spurs economic growth -- we found that out too. As long as the top 10% pay more in taxes everyone else can be on holiday most of the year and that really helps with their well being and outlook on life; and that all translates into economic activity; heck, it wasn't until a week ago that I learned how extending unemployment benefits stimulates economic expansion, but that was a building block I guess to today's lessons. Anyhow, you are not supposed to worry that just this year our household was saddled with another $29,000 in debt, because supposedly Mr. President has this all figured out. Looking forward to school tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Your Son

That might be strange if the son was taught that in Family Resource Management but we're talking about Introduction to Macroeconomics here.

BoatShoes;1047138 wrote: And yes, Obama for the entire year in 2011 was in support of contractionary fiscal policies saying that it was time for us to eat our peas. This is Obama in July during the deficit debate:

[LEFT]"Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."[/LEFT]

You won't find a quote of Obama saying, "we need to stimulate aggregate demand in a depressed economy..." etc.

lulz

He says one thing and does the other! It's called smart politics!

Did you not watch the election? Where is our change? Where is his hand to the Republicans? Where is the "line-by-line" reading of the budget?

GTFOOH with the shit you just said. Seriously.

"Cutting budgets NOW and firing millions of government employees and putting them on unemployment insurance is not fiscal sanity but fiscal madness and it would only make the deficit worse. This is not in dispute. How many times do we have to have this conversation? "

That only makes sense if we can keep printing money and our currency and ability to borrow won't suffer. How is it fiscal sanity to pay a postal employee $30/hour (with pension and benefits) to sit on his rear when you pay that from either taxing a productive private sector employer/worker or by borrowing from China?

I understand the Keynesian theories, but it should be obvious at this point that we can't as a country survive by the government employing people to dig holes and employing more to fill them up. We have a bloated bureaucracy.

BoatShoes;1047198 wrote:Yes you are. You said Obama was a keynesian and I said no he was more focused on deficit reduction in 2011 which is not what a keynesian would say should be done. I then pointed out how he wanted to focus on deficit reduction...with more revenue included and now you're saying..."Obama has never been for massive spending cuts."

I never said he was for massive spending cuts. You changed your argument. You were saying he was not for deficit reduction. He did put forth a plan that the ratings agencies and the cbo agreed would cut the deficit over the next 10 years even though you're saying there was no "actual spending cuts" but that was not what I was arguing.

So 2.5 years of Keynesian and now a couple speeches of future taxes for deficit reduction for political expediency and now he is not a Keynesian? Come on Boat, even you can't believe this stuff.

jmog;1047377 wrote:So 2.5 years of Keynesian and now a couple speeches of future taxes for deficit reduction for political expediency and now he is not a Keynesian? Come on Boat, even you can't believe this stuff.

Believe it.

Pass This Bill! Pass This Bill! Pass This Bill! Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31419.php

Except...of course...when George Soros and other Obama-investors need to feed at America's trough. From a different viewpoint: Why, oh why, would the Obama Administration PREFER a Brazilian company over an AMERICAN company to build weapons to protect Americans?

Equally important...why isn't this story on the AP, Reuters, CBS, MSNBC, etc.? The media isn't biased now are they? This same media wouldn't cover-up a lavish Hollywood Halloween party for our King and Queen, now would they?

BGFalcons82;1048190 wrote:Pass This Bill! Pass This Bill! Pass This Bill! Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31419.php

Except...of course...when George Soros and other Obama-investors need to feed at America's trough. From a different viewpoint: Why, oh why, would the Obama Administration PREFER a Brazilian company over an AMERICAN company to build weapons to protect Americans?

Equally important...why isn't this story on the AP, Reuters, CBS, MSNBC, etc.? The media isn't biased now are they? This same media wouldn't cover-up a lavish Hollywood Halloween party for our King and Queen, now would they?

That is so half the story. Is it perhaps the other company had a better proposal? Companies think they have won a contract and have it snatched up by another company all the time. It happens to SAIC, CSC, CACI, etc. Perhaps the Contracting Office and Program Office made the award because the other company can meet the exact same specifications, but at a cheaper price? Unknown, really nice we can't view their proposal.

You also can't jump to the conclusion that the administration directed the Program Office to bypass the FAR and make this award just because of political favors.


I'm not saying the story isn't true, but really, there are a ton of facts left out. The author does not make the direct link from Soros to this company.
Contracting and the rules are shady, but you cannot automatically link this with shady dealings. Companies feel like they are robbed of a job they thought they won all the time.

You don't become as wealthy as Soros by being the bleeding heart liberal his public persona indicates.

His fund has made major investments in the developing markets where environmental and labor laws are far from progressive. I worked on one of the deals myself back in the day, SFM put up most of the money but we weren't supposed to talk about their role at all.

ptown_trojans_1;1050054 wrote:That is so half the story. Is it perhaps the other company had a better proposal? Companies think they have won a contract and have it snatched up by another company all the time. It happens to SAIC, CSC, CACI, etc. Perhaps the Contracting Office and Program Office made the award because the other company can meet the exact same specifications, but at a cheaper price? Unknown, really nice we can't view their proposal.

In my construction business, we bid federal projects fairly routinely. In each and every one of their Requests for Proposals, they state several times, in several specification section, in large boldface type, that all steel to be used on their projects MUST be domestically produced. Foreign-made steel products will not be allowed and there are severe penalties should they discover the contractor violates these specifications. So, it's perfectly OK for the federal government to award ENTIRE contracts to foreign corporations, but it's not OK to use steel from say...China (which quite likely would have a better price proposal as you say)...on one of their projects. What an overflowing load of horseshit.

ptown_trojans_1;1050054 wrote:You also can't jump to the conclusion that the administration directed the Program Office to bypass the FAR and make this award just because of political favors.

Sure I can jump to that conclusion when the United States of America awards an American Defense Contract to a Brazilian firm in lieu of an American company. The fact that they won't answer why they did it is also a clue to their agenda. IF it was lower price....then wouldn't that be an easy answer to tell them? In my business we hear it all the time when we aren't successful in landing a project. Why can't they tell them the truth? In the end, under the Freedom of Information Act, it will be revealed. However, it will likely occur after the next election and the corrupt horse turds currently in power won't be held to any form of payback.

ptown_trojans_1;1050054 wrote:I'm not saying the story isn't true, but really, there are a ton of facts left out. The author does not make the direct link from Soros to this company.
Contracting and the rules are shady, but you cannot automatically link this with shady dealings. Companies feel like they are robbed of a job they thought they won all the time.

OK...so some facts are left out. Where's the press digging into it, especially in today's unemployment environment where 1400 jobs sure would take some of the sting out for Americans? Where's the scrutiny? Why aren't questions being answered? Remember, it's Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs...except when Uncle Sam is doling it out....then it's hushed up, obfuscated, and hidden when political donors are paid back with taxpayer funds.

Obama seeks power to merge agencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apnewsbreak-obama-to-seek-power-to-merge-agencies-first-up-would-be-commerce-trade/2012/01/13/gIQApszdvP_story.html?hpid=z1

Barack is shitting his pants that the one who can beat him is now surging, and once the tidal wave of liberty starts, no state media or big government tyrant can stop it.

Cleveland Buck;1050772 wrote:Obama seeks power to merge agencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apnewsbreak-obama-to-seek-power-to-merge-agencies-first-up-would-be-commerce-trade/2012/01/13/gIQApszdvP_story.html?hpid=z1

Barack is ****ting his pants that the one who can beat him is now surging, and once the tidal wave of liberty starts, no state media or big government tyrant can stop it.

I hope you're right Cleveland Buck.

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
In fact, the U.S. national debt did not eclipse the $6.195 trillion level—the amount Obama is on pace to increase it in one term—until August 19, 2002, during President George W. Bush’s second year of office.
The national debt was $10.6 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08) on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. As of the close of business on Jan. 11, 2012, it was $15.2 trillion ($15,236,307,075,631.58.) In Obama’s first 1,087 days in office, the debt increased $4.6 trillion ($4,609,430,026,718.50)—or an increase of $4.24 billion ($4,240,506,004.34) per day.
At that daily rate, the debt would increase a total of $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) over the entire 1,461 days of Obama’s four year term.
At the close of business Aug. 19, 2002, the total national debt was $6.195 trillion.


Change we can believe in .........

QuakerOats;1050828 wrote:(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
In fact, the U.S. national debt did not eclipse the $6.195 trillion level—the amount Obama is on pace to increase it in one term—until August 19, 2002, during President George W. Bush’s second year of office.
The national debt was $10.6 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08) on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. As of the close of business on Jan. 11, 2012, it was $15.2 trillion ($15,236,307,075,631.58.) In Obama’s first 1,087 days in office, the debt increased $4.6 trillion ($4,609,430,026,718.50)—or an increase of $4.24 billion ($4,240,506,004.34) per day.
At that daily rate, the debt would increase a total of $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) over the entire 1,461 days of Obama’s four year term.
At the close of business Aug. 19, 2002, the total national debt was $6.195 trillion.


Change we can believe in .........

So... What's your point.

When GWB took office the debt was 5.727 trillion
when he left it was 10.626 trillion. The national debt rose 85%

When Clinton came into office the debt was 4.188 trillion

When he left it was 5.727 trillion. The debt rose 36%

The House has been in Republicrat control for an entire year. It is the only body of our gubmint that can spend money. Why has spending not been fixed? An entire tear has passed and the deficit continues to clime exponentially.

You rag and rag about BHO and how he has not fixed anything in three years, But you fail to rail the republicrats for what they have always done: Blame the Libs for taxing and spending when they are behind the scenes doing the same damn thing.

Until we have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and another limiting terms of the house and senate...This will go on and on until we are the United Debtors of the World.

President Obama will ask Congress on Friday for the power to consolidate parts of the federal government, proposing a first step of combining several trade- and commerce-related agencies under a plan that the White House said could eliminate more than 1,000 jobs and save $3 billion over 10 years.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/13/obama-tries-to-copy-paul/

LOL. Save $3 billion over 10 years. We borrow $4.3 billion per day.

Devils Advocate;1050943 wrote: The House has been in Republicrat control for an entire year. It is the only body of our gubmint that can spend money. Why has spending not been fixed? An entire tear has passed and the deficit continues to clime exponentially.


Until we have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and another limiting terms of the house and senate...This will go on and on until we are the United Debtors of the World.

You can't blame the House republicans, they DID pass a cut/cap/balance law. The Ds in the Senate refused to vote on it and Obama said he would veto it.

Cleveland Buck;1050947 wrote:http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/13/obama-tries-to-copy-paul/

LOL. Save $3 billion over 10 years. We borrow $4.3 billion per day.

Don't worry. The great gubmit job-creator will find 2000 news jobs for each of them and a friend.

If Bush deficits were "unpatriotic", as labeled by obama: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/13/obama-called-smaller-bush-debt-rise-unpatriotic/

.... then obama deficits would have to be tyrannical, or socialist (at best).

Under obama, the size of federal spending is now nearly DOUBLE what it was just 10 years ago. Simply unfathomable!

QuakerOats;1051059 wrote:If Bush deficits were "unpatriotic", as labeled by obama: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/13/obama-called-smaller-bush-debt-rise-unpatriotic/

.... then obama deficits would have to be tyrannical, or socialist (at best).

Under obama, the size of federal spending is now nearly DOUBLE what it was just 10 years ago. Simply unfathomable!

Man, Obama has so much power. The House is irrelevant right?

derek bomar;1051205 wrote:Man, Obama has so much power. The House is irrelevant right?

Are you unfamiliar with what happened this past August? When the House tried to put the brakes on spending, they were called terrorists.

jmog;1047377 wrote:So 2.5 years of Keynesian and now a couple speeches of future taxes for deficit reduction for political expediency and now he is not a Keynesian? Come on Boat, even you can't believe this stuff.

No. He spent about 2 months passing a bill that even Martin Feldstein decried for not being an adequate fiscal stimulus. No Keynesian thought that bill that you call keynesian was large enough. Calling Obama a keynesian for passing the Recovery Act would be like calling Ohio State's offense this year the Air Raid because they passed a couple times a game.

Then, he spent over year trying to get Republicans to come on board with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's private sector solution to universal coverage and then turned to deficit reduction using real business cycle type talking points that keynesians don't agree with.

A true Keynesian would even say he was wrong to try to reform healthcare when he did because reforms of those kind, no matter how urgent, can all contribute to holding back recovery which is the most important thing to address.

Real Keynesian economists would not consider Barack Obama much of a keynesian. So yes, even an idiot like myself can believe this stuff.

jmog;1051030 wrote:You can't blame the House republicans, they DID pass a cut/cap/balance law. The Ds in the Senate refused to vote on it and Obama said he would veto it.

Which would have made both our deficit and unemployment problems worse which know because similar laws are making unemployment and deficit problems worse as we speak in Europe. But who cares right?

Manhattan Buckeye;1047313 wrote:That only makes sense if we can keep printing money and our currency and ability to borrow won't suffer.

The Federal Reserve has tripled the monetary base, we almost defaulted on our national debt and our debt was downgraded and we have a weak president and House that would be happy to see the world burn and yet people with actual money on the line are practically willing to let us borrow for free. The Wall Street Journal has been saying for years now that the bond vigilantes were going to arrive and punish us and this could not have proven more incorrect.

Even if we have a bloated bureacracy it makes no sense to fire them now and put them on unemployment insurance. This is happening in real, actual countries and it has proved disastrous. If you want to pay him to do something more productive like build a road then ok. But making him get in the resume' line when the private sector doesn't demand his labor and we could basically borrow for free to put him to productive use is what is actually silly.

Even a Postal Worker being overpaid is still at a middle class or lower income putting all of that money into the economy. Cutting that overpriced salary, while noble, is only going to make the problem, depressed demand for goods and services, worse.

BoatShoes;1051672 wrote: Even a Postal Worker being overpaid is still at a middle class or lower income putting all of that money into the economy. Cutting that overpriced salary, while noble, is only going to make the problem, depressed demand for goods and services, worse.

It'll make it worse in the short term, but in the long term we will be better off. Apparently, Democrats in particular love pushing the problem down the road more than anyone. It's time we "eat our peas" so this country has a fighting shot of not being the next Russia or Zimbabwe.

derek bomar;1051205 wrote:Man, Obama has so much power. The House is irrelevant right?

The house has actually passed a budget since the Rs took over, when's the last time a D led house or senate passed a budget?

Come on DB, you can do better than that.