Claims Of Obama Spending Binge False

[LovingKayla]

Af is still alive? I thought some monkey butt fucked him to death. Welcome back jiggie!

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Af is still alive? I thought some monkey butt fucked him to death. Welcome back jiggie!

butt-fuckin monkey? no, i dont know ur baby-daddy FatKKKayla, or care 2 hear bout how u miraculously got knocked up thru anal. ill just 4give u becuz i know u uneducated-disgustingly-obese-trailer-park-trash get all irritable this time-o-da-month after ur welfare benefits run out & ur waitin 4 ur EBT card 2 b reloaded so u can go shopping @ 12:01 am on June 1st. LOL! wit people like u, no wonder all the overnight cashiers @ the super walmart wanna call in sick on the 1st ov da month.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Your graph above is flawed and not accurate..and does not take everything into account. Nice job but only a very right wing biased person would believe a chart like this.

Future projected spending and debt are always rough estimates. Look back at estimates from fifteen and twenty years ago. The vast majority of them weren't accurate in predicting where we are today. So yes, no doubt this graph is likely to be flawed.

I don't know what sort of projected estimates were used, in preparing this graph, for the future interest rates paid on the debt. My guess is the estimated interest rate is probably too low.

As we go further and further into debt, we become a greater risk to the investor. In the next few years our debt will reach a tipping point that triggers investors to demand a higher rate of return. Every investor knows, that if America doesn't get spending under control, they will be forced to inflate the currency. Investors know that America will be paying back the interest on the debt with a dollar that has lost so much of its value, that the interest paid is inadequate.

Inevitably, we will be financing the national debt at much higher interest rates. That will baloon the deficit and trigger even higher interest rates which will further increase the deficit and debt. It becomes a viscous cycle, that leads to economic ruin. We're headed for Weimar-America, unless we substantially cut spending.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm concerned about AF; he has all the signs of having suffered a stroke. He is unable to process logic, his statements are disorganized and nonsensical. AF, if you're still able, go see a doctor at once...and a psychiatrist as well.

[LovingKayla]

Mine has an opening but he doesn't speak Ebonics.


I'm going to deny your satisfaction affy. I did not read your reply. But THANKYOU for making my day a little brighter by reading mine. Muah birdie.

[Af-Freakin]

[]

I'm going to deny your satisfaction affy. I did not read your reply. [/quote]



FatKKKayla, i know & u know u read my reply. Everybody knows u read my reply.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Dove doesn't read everything before he posts huh?

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I'm going to deny your satisfaction affy. I did not read your reply. But THANKYOU for making my day a little brighter by reading mine. Muah birdie.

A+

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Has nothing to do with the tax rate it is the economy stupid.
I have made less money since Obama came into office than the years Bush was in office.

And i make more money. A million billion times more money. So tough shit for you. Find another job, loser.

As a result I am paying less taxes like a lot of people due to the fact I am making less money.

Funny...though i'm making more money, i'm also paying less in taxes than i did under Bush. Funny how that works.

Your idea that raising the tax rates will bring in more money so that they can continue to spend in excess it in a large part what is wrong with where we are now. It does not matter what the tax rate is if you have fewer and fewer people in the work force, the businesses are hurting, those that once supplied tax revenue are not taking tax dollars, the amount goes down.
How hard is that to understand?

And how hard is it to understand that, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP being the lowest they've been in decades, pretty much obliterates all your anecdotal mumbo jumbo?

[Texas Contrarian]

Sexyeccentric1, someone else already posted a thread devoted to this very subject:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840

Please note post numbers 10 and 14, in which I debunked this piece of disingenuous demagoguery.

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Critics on the left have argued that the Obama administration has not spent enough because more government stimulus is needed to remedy the impacts of the Great Recession. Paul Krugman and other economists came to this conclusion before the stimulus was passed 39 months ago. Christine Romer, former chairperson of the Council on Economic Advisers, also wanted more stimulus, but her ideas in this regard never made it to the president's desk. The counter-argument was that while more would probably be better, politically more was impossible because an unwilling Congress stood in the way.

No, the counter-argument is that such spending binges do not increase the prosperity of a nation, unless something of value is created or sustained patterns of production are altered. Scattershooting money everywhere can always make the economy look a little better in the short run, even if it's foolishly and wastefully spent. But when you withdraw the spending, the economy slows down again and all you have left to show for your effort is more debt. That's why our debt-fueled, consumption-dependent economy isn't looking very healthy. It would have been far better to spend less money, but wisely direct it toward useful projects -- rather than gimmicky, supposedly "temporary" tax cuts, political payoffs, and entitlement expansions.

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

...Suppose that the stimulus package had been double what it was, rounded off at $1.6 trillion...

Yes, let's suppose that!

The happiest face you can put on the $800 billion "stimulus" package was that it may have made the economy a little less bad in 2009-2010 than it otherwise would have been. It did almost nothing in the way of producing anything at all of lasting value. What's 2X "almost nothing?" Hard to quantify it exactly, but I think it's safe to say that it lands a little short of being worth $1.6 trillion.

Speaking of Paul "the stimulus package was too small" Krugman, please note that he's the one who said that if we had to borrow and print trillions of dollars to mobilize against the possibilty of an alien invasion, it would force us to spend money on a scale that would end our slump.

Check this short (less than 2-minute) video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEmlgfEGYo

Harvard economics professor Ken Rogoff looks like he couldn't quite believe what he was hearing!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sexyeccentric1, someone else already posted a thread devoted to this very subject:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840

Please note post numbers 10 and 14, in which I debunked this piece of disingenuous demagoguery.

And also please note post 12, where his debunking was debunked.

[Texas Contrarian]

Really?

I'm not impressed by confused non sequiturs served up by those who have demonstrated no understanding of the subject under discussion, and I doubt that anyone else is either.

If you truly believe that you "debunked my debunking", then why didn't you respond to post #14 in that thread?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If you truly believe that you "debunked my debunking", then why didn't you respond to post #14 in that thread?

Why? You made a point, i debunked it, and you then threw out all this tangential mumbo jumbo that did nothing but show everybody how smart you are. Which, i'm guessing, was your main intent.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by Doove

And also please note post 12, where his debunking was debunked.

LMAO! Of course it was.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Really?

I'm not impressed by confused non sequiturs served up by those who have demonstrated no understanding of the subject under discussion, and I doubt that anyone else is either.

If you truly believe that you "debunked my debunking", then why didn't you respond to post #14 in that thread?

Because everyone but you saw it as the foolish attempt it was in the first place!

Originally Posted by Doove

Why? You made a point, i debunked it, and you then threw out all this tangential mumbo jumbo that did nothing but show everybody how smart you think (editor's correction) are. Which, i'm guessing, was your main intent.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Why? You made a point, i debunked it, and you then threw out all this tangential mumbo jumbo that did nothing but show everybody how smart you are. Which, i'm guessing, was your main intent.

Doove, you completely failed to debunk anything.

You're the one who posted non sequiturs, but they hardly even rise to the level of being classifiable as "tangential."

Since you couldn't respond in a cogent way to post #14, you didn't even try. When your ignorance is exposed, all you usually do is resort to hurling little barbs. Typical.



Little Stevie, is there some point you were trying to make? If so, I suggest that you try expressing yourself in an adult manner, if that's possible. If you disagree with anything I posted, how about telling us why?

Perhaps you could make an attempt to post something showing that you actually have some understanding of this issue. (Of course, I doubt that you will do anything of the sort.)

[CuteOldGuy]

Stevie and Doofe joining forces to promote idiocy. Talk about the blind leading the blind!