BoatShoes;1486338 wrote:Obama's budget may have had more spending and more taxes and may not have been sufficiently hawkish enough for conservatives...but it was nevertheless a budget that was meant to keep our deficits w/in an acceptable percentage of gdp....which is acceptably fiscally conservative enough to Central Banks, Ratings agencies, etc.

which is why our credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever ..........

BoatShoes;1486338 wrote:You know how you're always like "You realise that is an opinion Boat?" This is an opinion...one that the CBO happened to disagree with. The consumption oriented taxes in the ACA make it possible to achieve higher than average levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP (as in Euro countries w/ VATs etc.)

Obama's budget may have had more spending and more taxes and may not have been sufficiently hawkish enough for conservatives...but it was nevertheless a budget that was meant to keep our deficits w/in an acceptable percentage of gdp....which is acceptably fiscally conservative enough to Central Banks, Ratings agencies, etc.

Unfortunately keeping deficits "acceptable percentage of gdp" is not a deficit hawk. A deficit hawk is someone who wants a 0 deficit or even a surplus.

You have your definitions wrong.

BoatShoes;1485931 wrote: Funny that you chose that sentence. YOU should not be all that upset that this alleged big spending liberal has chained himself to fiscal restraints. You should be much happier than the alternative considering spending has gone down under his watch than was ever conceivably imagined by conservatives. I am the one who has the better cause for grief...a good president doesn't "accidentally and unintentionally" get roped into the wrong policy.

Obama hasn't done anything related to deficit reduction willingly or intentionally. That has been spelled out pretty clearly. He'll sometimes talk a good game when he's actually getting some criticism, but when push comes to shove he has time and again anchored to more spending and more taxes. He's like you, doesn't think deficits matter. Obama has no interest or desire to actually reduce the deficit, only that he appear to care for political purposes. You can actually look at his track record, which after nearly 5 years I would think is what is important vs. trusting in empty promises and campaign lies/spin.

As for Moore illustrating why you should be disappointed with Obama...again, more evidence that you externalize his failures. You're not really at all unhappy with Obama, you're unhappy with the results and in an extraordinary bit of bias you don't or assign any accountability to Obama for his shortcomings and failures.

Like I said, the internal conflict/handwringing is peppered all over your posts. It's become such a struggle for you to actually support and believe in Obama that you can't see just how biased and detached from the real world you've become. You're a pretty smart guy, but you've so fallen onto the shortbus that you've loss any objectivity or ability to recognize how much you have to distort reality to continue to blindly defend Obama.

Obama is a bad POTUS, and so was Bush. Obama is also a bad leader, divisive and polarizing (one that even his own party frequently struggles to follow) - because that's just Chicago politics. And this is a Democratic party that picked Pelosi and Reid as leaders - so for Obama to sometimes struggle to find support in his own party is nothing short of remarkable, especially for someone you try to claim is more moderate.

BoatShoes;1486338 wrote:...but it was nevertheless a budget that was meant to keep our deficits w/in an acceptable percentage of gdp....which is acceptably fiscally conservative enough to Central Banks, Ratings agencies, etc.

You do understand what happens to our budget/deficits when interest rates return to normal levels? Please tell me you do, because some of your prior posts (and this one) seem to indicate you don't really understand the mechanics and implications.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/355667/irss-lerner-used-personal-e-mail-conduct-official-business-investigators-say-eliana



re: phony scandal #3

gut;1486404 wrote:Obama is a bad POTUS, and so was Bush.

Not sure I agree with the latter part, but regardless, obama makes Mr. Bush look like George Washington.

http://freebeacon.com/whistleblower-attorney-benghazi-attack-was-about-400-sam-missiles-stolen-by-some-very-ugly-people/



re: phony scandal #1

gut;1486406 wrote:You do understand what happens to our budget/deficits when interest rates return to normal levels? Please tell me you do, because some of your prior posts (and this one) seem to indicate you don't really understand the mechanics and implications.

The Fed controls the interest rate. It is a policy variable. They can hit any rate that they want with OMO's. Why is the FED going to purposefully raise interest rates on Tsy securities that will have all these terrible things happen that Conservatives warn us about when they can achieve the exact same result ADDED: of nullifying any harm (dubiously claimed by conservatives who just can't stand low rates) that is caused by low rates simply by raising the Interest rate on Reserves now that we're living in a world wherein Reserve Accounts are interest bearing?

If that happens it was a deliberate choice and it would be a stupid one. A categorically stupid one. But I suppose it wouldn't be too surprising with all this silly Taper talk.

QuakerOats;1486385 wrote:which is why our credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever ..........

Well...Obama and Co's budget offering and the Bowles Simpson plan all were satisfactory for rating's agencies....but it's worth pointing out that all of these groups are doofus'. The rating's agencies downgrading the debt of monetary sovereign nation's is laughable. Just ask Alan Greenspan, we can always make the payments? There is no solvency risk lol.

jmog;1486386 wrote:Unfortunately keeping deficits "acceptable percentage of gdp" is not a deficit hawk. A deficit hawk is someone who wants a 0 deficit or even a surplus.

You have your definitions wrong.

LOL. No it isn't. Please refer to the concept of a spectrum. Your argument is just like a Ron Paul supporter saying that only a person who supports the Gold Standard is a conservative. Everyone else is a liberal.

It's a matter of degree. Obama is a more of a tax oriented deficit-hawk light.....Ron Paul is a hardcore spending cut oriented deficit hawk. Obama is not a dove like I am.

gut;1486404 wrote:Obama hasn't done anything related to deficit reduction willingly or intentionally. That has been spelled out pretty clearly. He'll sometimes talk a good game when he's actually getting some criticism, but when push comes to shove he has time and again anchored to more spending and more taxes. He's like you, doesn't think deficits matter. Obama has no interest or desire to actually reduce the deficit, only that he appear to care for political purposes. You can actually look at his track record, which after nearly 5 years I would think is what is important vs. trusting in empty promises and campaign lies/spin.

Yes Obama wants more taxes. I don't want more taxes. Although it is not your preferred method of deficit reduction, it is nevertheless a call to reduce spending > "revenue". The guy has been trying to form a "Grand Bargain" for five years dude. Your opinion that he doesn't care about the deficit is simply belied by the facts. He'd have to be lying all of the time when that is all he talks about. You admit he wants to raise taxes and then also claim he doesn't actually want to close the deficit when he has offered no significant spending programs...rather he has offered to play ball on entitlement reform.

You are not evaluating obama based on what he actually says and does. You have this caricature of him in your mind because of your opinion that he's this woeful incompetent with no talent, etc.

gut;1486404 wrote:As for Moore illustrating why you should be disappointed with Obama...again, more evidence that you externalize his failures. You're not really at all unhappy with Obama, you're unhappy with the results and in an extraordinary bit of bias you don't or assign any accountability to Obama for his shortcomings and failures.

Like I said, the internal conflict/handwringing is peppered all over your posts. It's become such a struggle for you to actually support and believe in Obama that you can't see just how biased and detached from the real world you've become. You're a pretty smart guy, but you've so fallen onto the shortbus that you've loss any objectivity or ability to recognize how much you have to distort reality to continue to blindly defend Obama.

Frankly these posts of yours are just getting weird. Why do you think a self-proclaimed Post-Keynesian deficit dove anti-war liberal like myself would be so happy with Obama? Just because I don't pile onto to the weird Obama hate fests that go on here and defend the guy against the loony claims made by you (i.e. using NSA data to beat Romney w/ no evidence lol) and others that he is "the worst president in U.S. history" etc. doesn't mean I'm having an existential crisis lol.

I mean it is just weird. Why not just take me at my word? When do I ever accuse you of such weird things? Really? Can't we just have a conversation?

I don't blindly defend Obama. I defend him (and whoever else comes up) when warranted. For example, I defended John Kasich against the lame attacks by Big Dogg...one of the few other liberal posters. I am not going to vote for Kasich next fall but I defended him where it was warranted lol.

This alleged "internal conflict" that I am experiencing is made up in your head. You have more reason to support Obama than I do. He has pursued policies closer to Bowles-Simpson than FDR/Hubert Humphrey/John Maynard Keynes/Hyman Minsky. But, we live in a world wherein Obama is considered a lefty-lib and the opposing party is dominated by right-wing ideologues who think they're "serious fiscal conservatives".

I mean just step back for a second. I am arguing that he has proposed policies too close to your views for my liking. If I clearly wouldn't be a fan of you as president, why would I be all in on Obama? Just because I voted for him? That's silly. He was just the lesser of two evils and I made that pretty clear back then when you guys kept asking me why I was sticking with this Woeful Failure, lol.

Again. It isn't difficult to understand. I don't think Obama has been a good president. But, I don't think he's the unmitigated disaster that you and everybody else does. At the rate the deficit is closing though it's just going to erupt into a recession like the end of Clinton and Bush Jr's terms though.

BoatShoes;1486457 wrote:LOL. No it isn't. Please refer to the concept of a spectrum. Your argument is just like a Ron Paul supporter saying that only a person who supports the Gold Standard is a conservative. Everyone else is a liberal.

It's a matter of degree. Obama is a more of a tax oriented deficit-hawk light.....Ron Paul is a hardcore spending cut oriented deficit hawk. Obama is not a dove like I am.

You know you are doing the same thing you are accusing all of us conservatives of doing right?

You are a dove, Obama is to the "right" of you so he is a hawk. Maybe he is a dove but just less of a dove than you are?

jmog;1486484 wrote:You know you are doing the same thing you are accusing all of us conservatives of doing right?

You are a dove, Obama is to the "right" of you so he is a hawk. Maybe he is a dove but just less of a dove than you are?

Maybe you would have a point if he was constantly arguing for a bigger deficit to stimulate aggregate demand. For instance, suppose I was arguing to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion with a large tax cut/tax rebate checks....and he wanted to increase the deficit by $300 billion with infrastructure spending that wasn't offset by tax raises like a gas tax increase....then he would be a Dove-light.

However, he has never argued to increase spending to stimulate aggregate demand, etc. in half a decade now. Instead, he does things like invoke the confidence fairy just prior to the debt ceiling fight;

I do think that if the country as a whole sees Washington act responsibly, compromises being made, the deficit and debt being dealt with for 10, 15, 20 years, that that will help with businesses feeling more confident about aggressively investing in this country, foreign investors saying America has got its act together and are willing to invest. And so it can have a positive impact in overall growth and employment.

And rambles on about how the FED has a "duel mandate" and needs to keep inflation in check....as if anybody forgot that??? and gives lip service to the employment mandate when we have a catastrophic unemployment crises.

Maybe he has it in his heart to be a dove but he hasn't done it or used the bully pulpit to fight for stimulus and the unemployed and workers if he does and he has failed the country for it. I'm inclined to believe that he's sincere in thinking that reducing the deficit is the right thing to do.

BoatShoes;1486452 wrote:The Fed controls the interest rate. It is a policy variable. They can hit any rate that they want with OMO's. Why is the FED going to purposefully raise interest rates on Tsy securities that will have all these terrible things happen that Conservatives warn us about when they can achieve the exact same result ADDED: of nullifying any harm (dubiously claimed by conservatives who just can't stand low rates) that is caused by low rates simply by raising the Interest rate on Reserves now that we're living in a world wherein Reserve Accounts are interest bearing?

Again, you don't really understand the dynamics or the functioning of that market - interest rates are a function of supply & demand as you roll over the debt, and what is happening is the fed is monetizing the debt, which works only as long as reflation remains tame. But, in fact, that growing non-intergovt debt is a ticking time bomb for future budgets and deficits.

You also completely ignore the impact on retirees - and for that matter, pension funds - in artificially and absurdly low interest rate environments.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote: Just because I don't pile onto to the weird Obama hate fests that go on here and defend the guy against the loony claims made by you (i.e. using NSA data to beat Romney w/ no evidence lol) and others that he is "the worst president in U.S. history" etc. doesn't mean I'm having an existential crisis lol.

I never made that claim. I said it was certainly possible given the way this administration treats firewalls as a convenience and tramples the constitution as it suits him. And, in fact, if you knew much about Project Narwhal in all likelihood the database was more comprehensive then the NSA. Yeah, I'm probably wrong that the firewall was breached - Google and Facebook were all to happy to contribute info to the campaign that probably puts what NSA has to shame.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote:
I mean it is just weird. Why not just take me at my word? When do I ever accuse you of such weird things? Really? Can't we just have a conversation?

It's not weird. You can claim I've mischaracterized you, you probably even honestly believe that. But what you post and write indicates otherwise. You can't see the transformation you've undergone that is obvious to everyone else here reading your posts. You're simply in denial that your increasing desperation to cling to your beliefs has obliterated any sense of objective and rational insight.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote:
I don't blindly defend Obama.

Again, you may believe that but your posts betray you. I've rarely seen you criticize Obama without making qualifications and exceptions. At best it's a backhanded criticism, a technique used by people who want to appear objective but are actually attempting to shift blame and accountability to other parties.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote:
This alleged "internal conflict" that I am experiencing is made up in your head. You have more reason to support Obama than I do. He has pursued policies closer to Bowles-Simpson than FDR/Hubert Humphrey/John Maynard Keynes/Hyman Minsky. But, we live in a world wherein Obama is considered a lefty-lib and the opposing party is dominated by right-wing ideologues who think they're "serious fiscal conservatives".

LMAO, more of "the world of Boatshoes" in a reality exclusively his own. I believe Obama is an economic lightweight - my main concern back in 2008, and I think he's proven that entirely valid. I think he's an absolute failure as a leader. This is just another example of how you try to distance yourself from Obama, but you are actually defending him by attempting to create a false reality where Obama somehow pushes policy or believes something I ever supported.

LOL, I've pointed out similar to you numerous times, and you continue to deny you are doing it while doing it again in practically the next sentence. You've become a caricature of yourself.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote:
I mean just step back for a second. I am arguing that he has proposed policies too close to your views for my liking.

Just stop. Look at the actions and look at the results. That's how I judge - not the occasional position he might pretend to have in a speech. Even if I believed, as you do, that he shared my views...then he would still be an abject failure. And, yet, you're the one defending him.

BoatShoes;1486473 wrote:
Again. It isn't difficult to understand. I don't think Obama has been a good president. But, I don't think he's the unmitigated disaster that you and everybody else does. At the rate the deficit is closing though it's just going to erupt into a recession like the end of Clinton and Bush Jr's terms though.

Again Boatshoes you distort reality to attempt to portray Obama as some sort of deficit hawk. Why do you continue to do that, distort facts and reality to make a point? Spending has only continued to increase. What was intended to be one-time stimulus/bailout money shouldn't be painful to eliminate and shouldn't be given credit as some great deficit reduction. The reality is he's still running nearly double the largest deficit of the Bush years.

BoatShoes;1486455 wrote:Well...Obama and Co's budget offering and the Bowles Simpson plan all were satisfactory for rating's agencies....but it's worth pointing out that all of these groups are doofus'. The rating's agencies downgrading the debt of monetary sovereign nation's is laughable. Just ask Alan Greenspan, we can always make the payments? There is no solvency risk lol.

Borrow dollars; repay with dimes ...... works until figured out ..... then insolvency

BoatShoes;1486489 wrote:Maybe he has it in his heart to be a dove but he hasn't done it or used the bully pulpit to fight for stimulus and the unemployed and workers if he does and he has failed the country for it. I'm inclined to believe that he's sincere in thinking that reducing the deficit is the right thing to do.

In the former I tend to agree Obama is a weak leader in inspiring the public to pressure their political representatives in congress to get behind those policies. On the latter I'm inclined to think its about political expediency. Obama said Bush was unpatriotic for accumulating national debt. Marriage is defined as one man and one women. He has spoken in favor of single payer. Just to name a few. I don't have the time to list them all. Some are outright lies some are truths that come from the heart. He has reversed course in short order for political reasons. Reasonable and educated people that follow politics closely and pull back from their ideological differences for a minute can separate the truths from the lies.

Truth is the average American elects the POTUS like he has dictatorial powers. When in reality more than 2/3 of the shit they promise is going to be flushed down the toilet by the other two branches. This is why elected leaders of the executive branch naturally push their powers beyond their intent in an attempt to accomplish what is politically nearest and dearest in their limited time under the average voter's radar. Boat if you and Obama sat down over a couple of beers and had an ideological heart to heart you would want to hump his leg before the conversation was over.

I know Obama has not delivered the touchdown pass across the Keynesian goal line you hoped for. Now all of us seated right of the goal line need realize he is quarterbacking for our team.

DC Obamacare Exchange Awards $375K Grant to PLANNED PARENTHOOD...

NBCNEWS: Businesses, Unions, Colleges all say employee hours being cut...

White House says 'no evidence'...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/love-obama-played-cards-during-osama-raid-i-can-t-watch-entire-thing-obama-said_748413.html



obama's predecessor's must be cringing at this jackarse

Calif. economist says real US debt $70 trillion
- Poll: Obama approval on economy sinks to 35 percent

MSM is starting to get it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obamacare-0818-jm-20130818,0,5666959.story

Until I hear talk of something to replace ACA with instead of just yelling about repealing it then I don't believe the right is playing anything but politics with their objection to it.

I Wear Pants;1488819 wrote:Until I hear talk of something to replace ACA with instead of just yelling about repealing it then I don't believe the right is playing anything but politics with their objection to it.

The article he cited was not from "the right". Hope this helps.

jmog;1488823 wrote:The article he cited was not from "the right". Hope this helps.

It might shock you but papers and news networks can employee people of more than one political persuasion.

But I wasn't really concerned with the article. I was talking more broadly. You all hate the ACA and want it gone but never specify what you'd do to fix our healthcare system. ("Open it up across state lines" does not count as a solution. That's been done before).