believer;1295332 wrote:When real wealth dwindles and there's nothing left to redistribute, you simply crank up the printing presses and pump a trillion or two phony dollars out of thin air into the economy.

Problem solved right Boatshoes?

BGFalcons82;1295346 wrote:Certainly!!

Money has never been more free than today. Fire up the damn presses and print trillions! We only owe it to ourselves, so why would we ever pay it back? The whole national debt thing is just fuzzy math. We'll just default and no one will care.

I think I'll try that one on my mortgage holder.

BoatShoes;1294155 wrote:This has already been explained. Sherrod Brown for example, would be fully behind that budget offered by President Obama. Is there any doubt about that? Josh Mandel is calling him the most liberal senator in America...do you really doubt he is ideologically behind Obama's budget? But, despite it being a sound decision to support the budget...the government is running anyway without him voting for it and it would have hurt him politically to have voted for a tax raise on the wealthy going into the election. It is a no brainer in political calculus. Right now he's winning slightly for the time being...he could definitely still lose...but I have a hunch he'd be in deeper **** if he'd voted for it.

BoatShoes;1293756 wrote:Look, I don't think it's so outrageous to interrupt when Paul Ryan repeats, disingenuously, again, that Alice Rivlin and Ron Wyden would support the medicare premium support on the table for Romney/Ryan. That is your guy masquerading and obfuscating and Biden stopping it. That is just one example.

The proper response is exasperation and disgust...not head nodding and mild refutation.

When a guy says your fiscal policy didn't create jobs but sent you letters so he could take part in it to create jobs in his district. The proper response is laughter and indignation.

[They have a record to run on as far as the economy goes that is as good as Ronald Reagan's when he ran in 1984. You continuing to say no despite things turning around doesn't make what you say true.

BoatShoes;1293975 wrote:1. Weird, that's inflation that is still higher than the inflation we have today, Lol. Moving the goalposts. Ronald Reagan earned a second term thanks in large part to Paul Volker (who was the reason for the decrease in inflation) and on the same standard Obama has earned a second term thanks in large part to Ben Bernanke acting when Congress would not.

BoatShoes;1294170 wrote:That list is a joke and it won't be worthwhile trying to refute them to a true believer. But I will refute the last one. The New York Times is reporting today that the security requests in Libya were primarily with regard to Tripoli and not Benghazi and nonetheless those decisions were made by mid-level state department officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/cables-show-requests-to-state-dept-for-security-in-libya-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This should be end of the ridiculous hand-wringing by Republicans and Conservatives (for those who always vote for Republicans but claim you're not a Republican) over this issue and trying to turn it into 1979 Iran.

gut;1294389 wrote:LMAO, look how confidently and comfortably Biden lied about Benghazi. Ask yourself, if he can do that with such a blatant lie, how much else is he lying about that you aren't savvy enough to spot?

The entire Obama/Biden campaign is one of serial deception and deflection because they have no ideas and no record to run on. People will only vote for Obama for some emotional reason, because it can't possibly be about anything he's done or will do or accomplished.

ccrunner609;1294834 wrote:You can
t possibly believe that the unemployment figure is that low do you? Its more like 11%.

BoatShoes;1295738 wrote:That is the U3 unemployment number that has been used to measure all presidents. "Real Unemployment" is always higher than that number.

gut;1294412 wrote:Good lord, for like the millionth time NO ONE is calling for a balanced budget tomorrow. 25% of GDP (that Obama is targeting as "sustainable") is completely idiotic. That's deficits of $1T+ for as far as the eye can see.

Get it thru your head and let go of the strawman: all the economic pain is a direct result of unsustainable deficit spending - the extreme austerity is imposed by investors, a scenario that must be avoided by taming the deficit.

I'm not hard-headed on the issue. Quite the opposite, I used to support Keynesian economics but evidence the past 10 years in the US and globally shows it isn't working. Unlike you, I evaluate new evidence and change my opinion.

Your solution is just spending more with no end in sight. That's clearly unsustainable. And when it's not working, you just double-down and say they didn't spend enough. You need to remove your nose from Krugman's arse and wake-up to the stench of failed keynsian policies globally. Uncontrolled spending is what has gotten these countries into trouble - you can't spend your way to prosperity. It doesn't work, and it's blatantly obvious.

Manhattan Buckeye;1295745 wrote:Indeed, but we've "moved the goalposts" with this administration when even a hair of a move in the positive direction is considered a great accomplishment by the MSM. In 2004 (and I remember this well) W was killed by the press for a much lower U3 rate.

More to the point, I wish in the VP debate Ryan would have pressed Smiling Joe(ker) on the real unemployment rate. We have the fewest people participating in the labor market in decades, despite high college and high school graduates not finding any type of employment at all.

This isn't progress. And it isn't just simply economic, there's a sociological aspect to this. Many people under 30 aren't getting married, not having children, not buying houses, are moving back into their parents basements because in the Obamaconomy the private sector that employs so many people is the enemy.

HitsRus;1294437 wrote:Congratulations...you posted the spin coming out of the White House! Not that any of that is going to make a differnece to a true kool-aid drinker.

Manhattan Buckeye;1294920 wrote:"There's nobody living in tent cities called "Obamavilles"

You need to get out more. There are tent cities in Virginia, one of the wealthiest states in the U.S. The Richmond media has covered this often. Whether they call it an Obamaville is beyond me, but the idea that the state of the U.S. economy is healthy is pure idiocy.

jmog;1295455 wrote:So in other words, the budget was SO bad that the Ds couldn't even consider voting for it because their constituents would have voted them out of office?

I'm sorry Boat, but that doesn't make it sound better, it still sounds just as bad as saying that it got ZERO VOTES!

jhay78;1295459 wrote:The proper response is to be a statesman and wait your turn, not act like a 7th grader at the lunchtime cafeteria.



This is utterly astounding. Reagan's economy was growing at around 6% from late 1982 to 1984. Right now we're barely above 1% GDP growth.

Must be Bush's fault. :rolleyes:



Reagan could run on "Morning Again in America". Obama campaigns like he hasn't been president the past 4 years.



Breitbart = right-wing kook blog

NY Times = straight down the middle, fair, objective, unbiased

:laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:

BoatShoes;1295748 wrote:I agree with all of this and that's why Congress needs to act by doing things like passing the American Jobs Act, etc. etc.

BoatShoes;1295753 wrote:No, the budget wasn't "bad" in the minds of most democrats...it was an adult budget that had tough choices and that always plays worse than fantasy budgets that promise the world without costing anybody anything like the Ryan budget.

BoatShoes;1295755 wrote:1. The economy is growing instead of contracting. If we had a Ronald Reagan inflation rate it'd actually be growing faster but alas. It's not enough but it'd be better if Congress had cooperated in the last two years. Obama was also facing a worse scenario than Reagan.

2. We're not talking about the NY times editorial page here which is maybe in the right wing fantasy world in which you live...analogous to the Breitbart editorializing you cited. So yes, down the middle, fair, objective and unbiased for the most part.

jmog;1295765 wrote:Then you have no logical answer as to why it had 0, yes ZERO, votes in the democtratic controlled Senate then do you?

Most democrats said it "wasn't bad" but no democrat voted for it.

It was terrible Boat, just admit it for once that Obama failed on that budget proposal, it was so bad that he didn't even try again after that.

jmog;1295772 wrote:Come on Boat, that is just factually incorrect.

The unemployment rates in 1980 vs 2008 was higher the whole year of 1980. The GDP retraction was eerily similar and the recession was farther along (meaning it started earlier in 1980 than it did in 2008) when Reagan took over.

So please share by what metric you are saying it was worse, U3 and GDP don't agree with you.

BGFalcons82;1295783 wrote:Here's a link to the U6 unemployment rates - http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

According to the Left, you'd think the numbers during the Obama years would be half of Bush 43's. Now, let's wait for Boat's acceleration graph showing the rate of change is the best in 200 years or something like that.

BoatShoes;1295791 wrote:LOL. Unemployment never went that high because Obama and the democrats acted with the Recovery Act. And, everyone agrees that it was the worst crisis since the Great Depression...except partisans who don't want to give Obama credit...a financial crisis to boot which are harder to recover from than a recession imposed by the Federal Reserve like the 1980 recession which Paul Volker caused essentially to attack inflation.

jmog;1295805 wrote:Only partisans and the facts...you forgot that the facts say Reagan came into a worse situation.

But hey, don't let the facts interfere with those "non-partisan" media folks.

BoatShoes;1295788 wrote:Yes I do. It made sense politically. And it's looking like it paid off because the Dems could retain control of the Senate. There'd be no chance of that if Sherrod Brown or John Tester would've went balls to the wall for the President like John Boccieri did.

It was in no way "bad" in the minds of most democrats, ideologically.

To say otherwise would be to say that a liberal like Sherrod Brown disagrees with it ideologically. If so, then he's not the liberal Mandel is claiming he is.

BoatShoes;1295808 wrote:Ronald Reagan absolutely, clearly, did not come into a worse situation than Obama. NOBODY THINKS THIS. Reagan was heading into a FED caused recession with ample room to use conventional monetary policy to end it. Obama inherited a financial crisis with interest rates at zero and a trillion dollar budget deficit.

IT. IS. NOT. UP. FOR. DEBATE.