|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| lithium wrote: |
| young_clinton wrote: |
| I can't believe it, now the question is what effect will a government default have? I hope Americans remember the correct party that has brought this idiocy about. I am pretty sure they will. |
I hope so too. Obama and the dems have not passed a budget in 5 years because they would have to let the American people know just how the are spending money like drunken sailors. |
FACT:::: Republicans always have the high deficits = big spenders, and democrats always come in to clean up their mess. Clinton cleaned up Reagan and Bush's huge deficits and turn them into surpluses. Obama is slowing fixing the damage that Bush Jr. did. The deficit has been getting smaller since Bush Jr. left office.
. |
And the DEBT has been getting bigger.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/04/chain-email/obama-has-added-more-national-debt-previous-43-pre/
Remember that claim that Obama has added more national debt than all previous presidents combined?
Well it's not accurate (yet) but even this article which is defending Obama admits
| Quote: |
| Still, the national debt is projected to keep increasing. The amount of added debt held by the public may exceed Obama’s predecessors by October 2013, according to White House projections. |
| Quote: |
| On Jan. 20, 2009, the date of Obama's inauguration, the debt held by the public -- as accrued by Obama’s predecessors -- stood at roughly $6.307 trillion and the total debt was about $10.6 trillion, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s "Debt to the Penny" calculator. |
| Quote: |
Next, we'll show how much both forms of debt had increased as of April 27, 2012 -- the last date available at the time we received the chain e-mail.
By that date, the debt held by the public was about $10.8 trillion and total debt had climbed to roughly $15.6 trillion.
So, under Obama’s watch, debt held by the public had increased by about $4.5 trillion, or roughly 72 percent. Total debt had increased by nearly $5 trillion, or about 47 percent. |
Single-handedly he increased the total debt by nearly 50%...and this is an article that defends Obama by debunking the claim that he spent more than all other presidents combined. |
There was real threat of deflation in the economic collapse of 2008. The high spending otherwise know as stimulus was needed in the following years. The stimulus was largely given to banks which I don't support but the stimulus in principle was needed to stop a depression. This why deficits were so high in the beginning of his Presidency. The democrats had to fix Bush Jr. and the republicans handing of the government. The deficits are coming down now as things return to normal. As I said before democrats always have to come in and clean up the republican mess. The republican party is based on the principle that government is the problem and when they are in power they prove it. It is not the same party that I respected in the past with great republicans like Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Grant.
Why did Bush Jr. and republican congress which is supposed to be a conservative, take the surplus under Clinton and turn it into a deficit?
BTW No one can single handedly do anything in democracy but the President does have most power of anyone in politics.
Last edited by No_hite_pls on Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I agree that our country’s financial situation needs to be addressed. I also believe this cannot be achieved as long as either side insists their way is the only way. Democrats want to overspend on social programs and Republicans want to overspend on Defense/National Security. Neither wants to give up their goodies. Too bad. Everything should be subject to reduction. The social welfare programs need to be overhauled, as we continue to focus too much attention and resources on symptoms and not enough on the root causes. Likewise, our Defense budget has turned into a jobs program (just another form of welfare). Our elected officials make the military purchase items that aren’t desired or needed so that districts gain or keep jobs. That isn’t national defense. That is just another type of handout (and don’t get me started on corporate subsidies). ObamaCare is just another government program riddled with holes and special interest influence. Why is this THE ONE that conservatives are willing to go to the mat over? I find it ridiculous that this is the place the line is drawn and that this is how they choose to do it.
I also find it ridiculous that Congressional Republicans are trying to do through the budget process what they could not achieve through other legislative means. Again, this comes across like House Republicans are children throwing a fit. Here’s a thought; instead of trying to kill the whole thing, why not put forward ideas on how to improve it and (here comes a novel idea) debate and vote on it before September 18, 2013? It isn’t as though the health care reform was a surprise coming back in 2010 nor is it now. I guess hijacking the legislative process like a bunch of Somali pirates on a bender makes them feel tough.
One final note, while I believe in fiscal conservatism, I am not ignorant enough to believe that tax savings are going to the middle/working classes. This is the part that has soured me on the Republican party over the past couple of decades. The tax rates for those making millions and billions have diminished substantial over the years (especially capital gains) so I grow tired of my political leaders and their wealthy sponsors acting as though they have been losing over the past 30 years. You’ve been winning; and winning BIG. The wealthiest among us have gained so much more while the rest of the country has been fairly stagnant (at best). The idea that NOW, THIS TIME, trickle down/supply side economics will benefit the rest of the country is just a falsehood. Fight for lower taxes (as we all should) but please stop treating me like an idiot while trying to further enrich yourselves. If corporations and the wealthy were that altruistic, then a minimum wage would have never been necessary. The truth is, if companies paid more, then demand for goods and services would be higher in this country because households would have more disposable income. This would lead to more jobs, which would lead to more spending and so on. Conversely, the continued consolidation of wealth and disposable income into the hands of the few will contract demand and perpetuate a cycle of economic decline. That is just common sense (and math). In the end, the consumer base will dwindle which means that companies will need to cut costs (jobs) to retain or improve revenues. This will lead to a smaller consumer base and so on. It really isn’t that difficult to understand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| There was real threat of deflation in the economic collapse of 2008. The high spending otherwise know as stimulus was needed in the following years. The stimulus was largely given to banks which I don't support but the stimulus in principle was needed to stop a depression. |
It didn't really "stop" anything though, just delayed the pain, and amplified the future pain. ^^
Would have let em all fail, and let the depression happen. Depression is a natural part of the economic lifecycle, corrects things which are out of balance instead of letting them get further out of balance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| There was real threat of deflation in the economic collapse of 2008. The high spending otherwise know as stimulus was needed in the following years. The stimulus was largely given to banks which I don't support but the stimulus in principle was needed to stop a depression. |
It didn't really "stop" anything though, just delayed the pain, and amplified the future pain. ^^
Would have let em all fail, and let the depression happen. Depression is a natural part of the economic lifecycle, corrects things which are out of balance instead of letting them get further out of balance. |
An argument can be made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
