The Incessant Irrational Fear of Debt continues by Republican's even amidst Good News

in reality, he built it way up from where bush left it

of course, the gop could't abide by that, so they obstruct everything they can

you can't seem to get anything right

 

Less employment and less money then before, bigger debt and bigger obligations in the future. What metric are you using? Are you counting the pelosi Reid clinton and Obama congress years against bush?

 

Of course they are, despite the fact that Fannie Mae collapsed, they won't tell you that it was Republicans who warned about it, and the brought and paid for Democrats blocked it.

[video=youtube;BMPPGlOpUiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMPPGlOpUiM[/video]

And on Democratic Spending:

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/07/01/business-as-usual-democrats-load

This is largely why Americans went for "tea party" politicians. 47% of America is fed up with a leading party that seemingly has no solutions but to force us to spend on their behalf.

 

I find it funny how little conservatives actually understands America's debt circumstances. This is quite evidently demonstrated when they compare it to using a credit card, except for the analogy to be accurate the credit company would be paying you interest for your debt since the US has negative interest rates.

 

The policies he voted for as Senator Obama are very much in play now including the HUGE increase in the deficits and resulting HUGE increase in debt. Now all of a sudden that doesn't matter.

So are you on record for applauding the Bush43 policies which kept the deficit to a one year high of just $400B, my what we would give for that, unemployment to a one month high of 6.5%, you seem to the think 7.5% is good you must think that was great. Or do you attack the 52 months of full employment and the lower of the deficit down to a measly $161B?

Let me know when we have real sustained positive news on jobs.

And your evidence that lower the debt caused the Great Depression is..........

Nope, he requested less spending that the Democrats in Congress passed every year he was in office. And even then the last three years he was in office the deficits were $150B and had Congress passed his budget request they would have been a paltry $100B. But then you just said that the debt doesn't matter and we shouldn't fear it so it seems you should be praising Reagan. Let's hear it.

Nope, the huge increase came after the Democrats, including Senator Obama, soared the deficits and resulting debt. But then again you on the one hand say the debt increase is good if a Democrat is in office but bad when a Republican is in office.

Total hypocrisy.

 

Democrats are super brilliant. Only they know that you have to take about 40% or so of the money that would end up in the hands of the people and give it to our wise rulers. Wonderful people like nancy pelosi, harry reid and Barack Obama. They dont make anything, but they dish out cash in many industries they have no experience in and regulate more they have never worked in. That is the best thing g for the economy and stupid conservatives will never understand it because they think doctors know about medical care and engineers know how to make things etc...

 

After tremendous cost, but since that is your opinion that natural disasters are a way to grow the economy can we assume you oppose any measures to curb so-called global warming? Just think how prosperous we will be if the predictions of disaster come true.

One the same as others and my spending has the same effect as the spending of people whom you want to send my money to so they can spend it. And no I am an independent.

You tell me it's your theory not mine.

As opposed to the money the government would either print or take from me and give to someone else to spend? Yes. It took my human capital to add value to something which produced that wealth which came to me as earnings as opposed to your plan.

And you are crazy about not working and living off the money of someone who does?

 

The job losses bottomed out the month he took office and the recession ended before his stimulus went into effect. He saved nothing while in the process preventing us from entering a full recovery creating the worst economic period since the Great Depression.

 

How so? POTUS has obligated the individual taxpayer. More collective thinking? Please explain to me how POTUS domestic policy has built up America.

What I do see is liability.

 

Earth to [well, whatever] NO economic system is set up to absorb the SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt that President Obama has deliberately allowed to occur on his watch. Sure, some people are not worried about that . . . but then some people also need keepers.

 

there's not less money than before, corporate profits are at an all-time high

the gop has obstructed the recovery, the budget, legislation, et al

it would probably be easier to name all the things they haven't obstructed

 

As expected, thanks.

 

you can always expect the truth from me

 

More no way for sure, they printed a mountain of it. Just less wages. Corporations make record profits every year. You can jut carry that complains forward as they grow.

Thankfully they did curb all that extra new spending. What do you think was worth 850 billion out of the obama bucks cash giveaway and what we would we get if we do it again?

Lets hear them. Also, name a few from the last 850b spent. It isn't chump change you know. Could have built a few panama canals at that price.

 

That's ridiculous logic.

Spending is spending regardless of who is spending

Nothing is different

So if you own a restaurant and some government employee comes in and gives you money they got from the government which they took from the people... is that your money or the tax payers money?

No, I'm not an ideologue. I believe in hard work, but I also believe in educated based monetary system that increases our productive abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it about $16 trillion that is so scary to you? Do you just have a fear of large numbers?

 

That doesn't answer the question. That is just philosophical nonsense.

 

I thought so too when you presented it, I only highlighted it futher.

Yes giving my money to someone else to spend doesn't do anything for the economy.

You>> What's the difference of you working for $100k and spending it versus you not working and spending $100k?
Me>> You tell me it's your theory

Where did I get the $100K, that's the difference.

Neither, it's the employee's money if it was for work provided. If we, the people of whom the government is, hired him to do a job and paid him it is his money. Now if it is someone on welfare who did not work for it it is taxpayer, including me, money they are spending not their own.

me>> And you are crazy about not working and living off the money of someone who does?

Non-sequitur.

OK free market then where people invest in ways to make labor more productive and create jobs so people can work and with the least involvement of government.

- - - Updated - - -



What is it about $16 trillion that is so scary to you? Do you just have a fear of large numbers?[/QUOTE]

 

By bringing up global warming? Lol. Only conservatives would find that a logical equivalent to a natural disaster like a hurricane.

Doesn't matter at all whether you got it from your mom, the lottery, the coal mines, gambling, investing, found it on the sidewalk, etc.

Not at all. It doesn't matter where people get their money from

Yes, which they do by exchanging money. Something conservatives seem to not want people to have.

 

You brought in natural disasters not me. So since you believe natural disasters are good for the economy surely you oppose measures to curb so-called global warming so we can have more of them.

Sure it does, if I earned it it is because my endeavors created it, if I didn't earn where did it come from but from someone else who did who would have also spent it. So where is the net gain to the economy if it comes from someone else?

Yes it does, if they aren't spending money they earned but from someone else who did they add nothing to the economy.

You make no sense try again.

 

I didn't bring up natural disasters. And natural disasters isn't a false dichotomy. If an asteroid hit us and destroyed the earth it wouldn't help the economy. You guys are just desperate.

It does not matter where you got your money from when you spend it.

Doesn't matter.

I make perfect sense. Just hard for you to grasp because you have a weird failed ideology.

 

You now you post have no credibility at all when you deny your own statements

And yes it does matter where you get your money from and the effect on the economy as I demonstrated and you have nothing to refute it. If I make $100,000 this year and they take half and give it to you so we both spend $50,000 there is a BIG difference to the economy than had we both earned $100,000 and both spent $100,000.

 

I'm not the one who brought up natural disasters. I made a statement about GDP growth and someone brought up how GDP is misleading and their example was a natural disaster. I have 100% credibility and never lie. That's what happens when you have a complete understanding of the monetary system.

Now you are changing the goalposts

 

I notice you didn't actually deal with the fact that our "out of control borrowing" actually makes us money hand over fist.

 

i already said them and do you think the gop isn't obstructing?

 

Of course we are. Try figuring out what our service payments on the debt are now, increase interest rates to normal levels and check that against income tax receipts. In as little as 5 years we could be spending as much as 1 trillion a year just to pay interest on the debt if interest rates rise. This year, with low interest rates, we will be spending over 400 billion to service the debt.