The Best Liberals can hope for after 2012 is 4 more years of gridlock

I support obstructionism as well. It's a valid tool for BOTH parties to use. Just remember if the Republicans get the presidency and such, Not to complain when the Democrats become Obstructionist as well, Ok?

Thank you for your time.

 

compete with who? they are harming the same market they make the most money from if americans aren't buying their things they cannot sustain their businesses overseas there is no market there we have the biggest middle class

asia aren't consumers yet businesses are doing nothing but sapping the average americans wallet dry with their outrageous profit margins

its simple they either hire americans or get out of our country and stop profiting from americans

 

Sorry to rain on your parade but in America, you don't tell businessmen "its my way or the highway". Businessmen built this country.

 

small businessmen who don't outsource built this country not those big business slobs

 

I can go back even further. I'm sure they would love a feudal system. Where the wealthy land owners exploted the serfs under them. No regulations, no welfare, and the law was only limited by how merciful the land owner was.

 

No, hard American labor built this country. Labor beats capital every time.

 

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

We've seen what Republican politics can do to an economy. I'd gladly take 4 years of gridlock by a bunch of petulant right-wing children than leave them in control of things again. The US can't afford another war...

 

So why just not admit it? As a country, We are royally SCREWED. We either compete with china by ending those nice environmental regulations, workers rights, and drop pay to the point where we are living like a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, Which will allow us to compete, But the average person will live a much horrible living standard compared to now.

Or we as a country keep our rights and pay, And companies continue to outsource our jobs to other countries to compete, And thus we have no jobs here to live on.

Don't you see a problem with this? NEITHER option is really going to work for us as a country. There is NO way the average American will agree to live like an average person in CHINA. On the other hand, Corporations will continue to outsource, Hire illegal immigrants, Etc. as things are now.

Do you have any ideas to correct the issue that DON'T screw us as a country? The reason I ask is because I don't really have any faith in humanity at this point. I believe most people will subscribe to the basic premise: If I go down, I'll take everyone else down with me.

Thank you for your time.

 

Pretty much. This would be like the GOP defunding Planned Parenthood. Sure, it could be considered a "cut", but it's ultimately driven by nothing more than partisanship, and will not accomplish much in the way of actual deficit reduction. I'd expect Obama to take the savings from the military and spend it elsewhere. I don't think he has any desire to shrink the debt.

This is liberal speak for "we need to raise taxes". That is not what I was saying, at all. I want these programs significantly reformed, as they are unsustainable according to the chief actuaries who work for these programs. Reform them now, or wait until they completely collapse, and then there will be no welfare for anyone.

This is a crock. You really expect us to believe that if taxes were higher, the "deficits would be paid off in quick order"? Not a chance. The extra tax revenue will simply allow Obama and his cronies to spend more money. Then, when things get worse, he'll ask for more tax increases. It's a never ending cycle.

The highest revenues ever to the Government occurred during the Bush Administration, when the tax cuts were in full effect. The Laffer curve shows that Government revenues can actually increase with lower taxes, since lower taxes generally result in more jobs, and therefore, more taxable wage earners. Shortly after Reagan lowered taxes across the board, Government revenues nearly doubled from where they were with Carter.

Were you just fine with the Government wasting billions of dollars on "Green Energy" companies that went belly up in less than a year? What about giving money to a company to build hybrid cars in Finland? 240 million for penis pump research for the elderly?

I want spending reduced in virtually every area. That includes military spending. I think we need to increase defense spending, though, like securing the Southern border. Aside from that, I really can't think of an area of Federal spending I want to see increase.

As the recent payroll tax situation demonstrated, liberals are not into comprising or meeting anybody halfway.

What, exactly, are you referring to? Tax increases? We are just agreeing what Senator Obama said in 2007-2008, you don't raise taxes in a down economy and/or a recession. Not unless you want to increase unemployment. Spending is what has gone out of control; there is no issue with revenue aside from the recession happening. The wise thing to do in a recession is for Government to cut back, like everyone in America has to do. Instead, it spends more and more and asks us to pay for it. Sorry, I don't have any interest in that, especially with how wasteful and inefficient Government is nowadays.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? How is having 15 trillion in debt not worse than having 10 trillion? It's 5 trillion dollars more that we will have to pay off eventually. He took a 10 trillion dollar debt and increased it by 50% in less than 3 years. Does that concern you even a little bit?

Ok, then how do you explain the long history of tax cuts leading to decreased unemployment? The more people working increases the amount of taxes to the Government. The 90's boom was not the result of having higher taxes. The 90's were the result of an upturn, using your logic.

My position is actually that tax cuts do not create a revenue problem for the Government. If that was the case, we would have record low revenues going to the Government. Instead, we have a history that shows that low taxes can actually increase revenues to the Government. The problem is spending. Always has been, and always will be, until the system eventually collapses.

Barack Obama, GWB, and Carter are pretty good examples. And I'm sure there are a ton of non-Keynsian economists that you can research if you want to learn more about Adam Smith's vision of the free market.

 

Prove that anything he said was a lie. I can see now why he has certain people on ignore.

 

They are lending. Now what's your excuse?

QE1 and QE2 is still increasing the money supply, regardless if it is being used on goods and services. Increasing the money supply causes inflation. Money should be like gold, where you have a certain amount of it and you can't simply make more once you run out.

A debt-ridden welfare state? I'd say there is plenty of common ground between the two. According to some estimates, we'll be in Greece's shoes in just a few years, if we stay on the course we are on.

Yes, the same people who caused the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression are a fine group for you to hang your hat on. They sure know what they are doing! lol

So, Obama lied then when he fooled his loyal sheep into thinking we were going to default on our debt if we didn't raise the debt ceiling?

I want us to not raise the debt ceiling. It will force the Government to cut back on its spending, since interest on the debt has to get paid, regardless. Obama just wants more of a limit so he can continue his spending spree.

Actually, you've simply dismissed the several valid reasons presented in this thread so far because they refuted your preconceived notions. Logic has no way of getting through to some people.

 

Increasing the money supply does not increase inflation. Increased demand increases inflation. Go back to econ 101. And do you research anything you say or do you just make stuff up on the fly?

We are nothing like Greece. The fact you compare us to Greece makes me realize you really do not have any clue of what you are talking about.

These are just words with no proof. Congrats! You must be a conservative.

We would have defaulted on our debt because they would have chosen to not make payments.

Then we will go through a depression. Simple as that.

These aren't valid reasons. They are ridiculous. Every President since the 1940s has done exactly the same thing during recessions. You are literally arguing against America. I'm simply stating why they do what they do. And it's amazing that you guys actually think you are smarter than the economists that control the largest economy in the history of mankind!!

It is comedy gold at its finest!

 

Yes it does: you're not looking beyond the moment. If Government intervention into a recession causes favorites to emerge post-recession, you've raised the stakes subsequently. It really doesn't matter that there is excess labor and supply in the short term: what matters is long term trends towards stratifying only a select few.

Same problem. You're looking only to "get out of a recession" without caring whether we emerge more healthy, or simply emulate a "dead man walking".

No. There should be NO stimulus: it is stimulus which exaggerates the existing FED policy of pumping money into the economy at large: it is automatically going to favor the connected, at the expense of the rest.

You should not prioritize "getting out of a recession" over ensuring that the healthy aspects of a recession - clearing out chaff - is accomplished.

There is a major aspect to recessions that you're ignoring.

Of course. But you're completely ignoring Government manipulation of the market which created the opportunities to screw with. Without them, this problem never takes place.

Non sequitur: the housing construction industry can pop back as strong as ever, as long as economic fundamentals remain in place. What we've harmed long term is those fundamentals. As a result, home builders will be far more reticent to proceed with expansion, etc.

Not if we remain on the path which ensures continually larger and more intrusive Government, and anyone can see that we are. I believe Obama's Regime has roughly doubled any prior Administration's addition of business regulations. This is not what we need at the moment.

"Going extinct" is a poor synonym for 'transforming'.

Not in the slightest.

 

LOL - akphidelt simply repeats the "it's basic math" and "that's only your subjective opinion" lines, and thinks that those are - somehow - solid rebuttals.

I got tired of it.

 

You really do not have the first clue about what you're talking. There really has been no such thing as an economy purely driven by Republicans, much less Conservatives. All past examples are consequences of some form of "compromise", and - to whatever degree - these concessions either favor left-wing, or right-wing ideology.

But I know this: if oil "compromises" with sand in an engine, your engine is going to be royally focked up.

So I suggest you dedicate yourself to delving far more deeply than you do: the answers are not as simple as you claim.

 

Republicans just don't seem to get it; they are supposed to be working for the people of the United States and not their political agenda. Its already on the record that the republicans had no intention of working with the current administration and as usual, the American people were to ones who lost.

 

How simplistic.

What if the Republicans believe that their political agenda is that which works best for the United States?

The Republicans chose to work against this Regime's goals because they identified those goals as contrary to the best interests of the American People.

 

Its common knowledge that in politics each side has to compromise in order to function.

When Senator McConnell said that his main goal was to see that Obama was a one-term President, that set the tone for the next 2 years of getting nothing done and that's a fact.

 

It's the most cowardly thing on the Internet to ignore someone and talk about them constantly. That is a true sign that you were outmatched. Absolutely embarrassing!!

 

I never ignore people on purpose! These threads sometimes grow fast, or I am busy doing something else so I don't respond. But if you annoy me really bad, I'll still read what you say .

 

95% of these people on this forum annoy me, but I don't have a single person on ignore because I'm not a child. It's fine if you ignore me, but to constantly talk about me with out giving me a chance to defend myself is a true sign of cowardice.

And the funny thing is, he would come in to my threads and I would respond in full to everything he said. I have nothing to hide. The truth needs to be told, lol!

 

You should ware it like a badge of honor

 

Wrong again.

Even on a common sense level, it makes sense. Diamonds are valuable because they are a scarce resource. Same thing with gold. They cannot be reproduced and are finite in quantity. Money should be the same way. The more of it we have, and the fact that we can always simply print more if we want more, devalues the currency and lowers purchasing power, which results in higher prices.

And the fact that you continually demonstrate your inability to explain why I'm incorrect is very telling.

What proof have you brought forth in this discussion? Oh yeah, you haven't presented anything besides your insistence that you are right. Sorry, it's not very convincing.

Obama didn't say that, though, did he? He lied to his guillible followers. Thanks for the admission.

Thank you for admitting that we'd be in a recession if it wasn't for Obama's record deficit spending. I love how you seem to believe that the Government spending at an accelerated rate to artificially keep the GDP positive is a good thing, though. Liberals just don't understand economics. That's why they take worthless liberal arts classes like "Gender Studies" in college instead of useful subjects.

No President has ever racked up over 5 trillion in less than 3 years besides Obama, with the possible exception of FDR's inflation-adjusted economy during WWII. To say every President has done what Obama has done shows how truly lost some people are in these kinds of discussions.

 

Posting a wikipedia on the money supply is pathetic! There is more to inflation than quantity of money. I think instead of making comments you should just start asking questions.

No, they are valuable because there is a demand for them. I could care less about gold or diamonds. Give me your useless paper cash please!

I've demonstrated it numerous times.

You are the one who is making the claim that we would be better off with out $5 trillion in additional debt. Now the burden is on you to explain why. So far your explanation has been abysmal.

Sure he did... he said if WE do not raise the debt ceiling we will default on the debt. How is that a lie?

Explain to me how it is "artificially" keeping the GDP positive. What is artificial about people getting incomes and spending them on real goods and services? Do military members artificially buy iPhones or cars? Are the cars the military members buy artificially created? I'm not a liberal. And what I espouse isn't liberal policies. Two of the biggest culprits of spending were Reagan and George Bush.

Comparing nominal levels of spending just shows your complete lack of knowledge of economics.

Please go read some books, get educated, and in 4 years maybe we can have a grown up discussion!