Thread: Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama? Read more: http://www.newstimes.com

Originally Posted by Iriemon

What confuses me is how you use Bush's last budget when you post data about Obama, but ignore the first 1-3 years when you post data about Bush.



t.

And what confuses me is how someone can defend "W" and atttack Obama or defend Obama and attack "W". They are joined at the hip in terms of massive entitlements we can't pay for and spending and wars abroad and illegal immigration etc.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

...as would any decent American...we don't want a communist, or socialist country, but Obummer does and you will be crying with everyone else in about 2 years if you re-elect that horrible excuse for a politician.

So your definition of a decent American is someone who would keep millions of people out of work so their favored party would have a better chance in the next election? Funny, because that's not my definition of a decent anything. In fact, if I had to settle on a single adjective for someone who gleefully causes massive suffering for millions of people to advance their ideology, I think I'd have to go with "evil."

Incidentally, why do I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what "communism" and "socialism" actually mean? And that the fact that they don't mean at all the same thing is totally lost on you?

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

So your definition of a decent American is someone who would keep millions of people out of work so their favored party would have a better chance in the next election? Funny, because that's not my definition of a decent anything. In fact, if I had to settle on a single adjective for someone who gleefully causes massive suffering for millions of people to advance their ideology, I think I'd have to go with "evil."

Incidentally, why do I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what "communism" and "socialism" actually mean? And that the fact that they don't mean at all the same thing is totally lost on you?

You are so twisted that replying is near to impossible. I don't want to keep people from working, I'd like to see more people working and off the public dole. Social programs don't do that; the public sector does. As for communism and socialism I do know the difference...they are first cousins, one applying social programs to begin the process of making everyone equal and the other being a government that utilized those programs and went one step further having a ruling elite class and peasants. The government of any nation can't take care of everyone if everyone is unwilling or incapable of fending for themselves. Capitalism is the answer to a better future.

Originally Posted by thediplomat2.0

Once again, I agree. As I stated, a solution to our economic issues will encompass solutions both parties abhor. For people who understand economic theory and policy, the solutions are relatively simple, although when they need to be concocted into legislation, they become much more complex. Unfortunately, our political leaders are not well-grounded in basic economic theory or policy. Their political rhetoric is all they have, which means any of their solutions defy economic principles, no matter which school of economic thought one endorses.

I think our politicians understand the budget issue. But they choose to pander to an ignorant eletorate rather than stand up and compromise for the good of the nation.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

Originally Posted by Iriemon

So what is more important to you?

Reducing the huge deficits that threaten our nation with ruin?

Or keeping taxes at their current decades low levels?

Well the latter won't happen as he is going to wipe out the Bush tax cuts, so X that out. I would like to see my fellow Americans back at work instead of looking for jobs. I would like to see raises again like we use to, finally I would like to see Obama no more.

Thanks for sharing your opion as to what you think will happen.

How about answering my question?

Originally Posted by montra

And what confuses me is how someone can defend "W" and atttack Obama or defend Obama and attack "W". They are joined at the hip in terms of massive entitlements we can't pay for and spending and wars abroad and illegal immigration etc.

They are vastly different in a number of important ways.

We can pay for the entitlements easily.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

You are so twisted that replying is near to impossible. I don't want to keep people from working, I'd like to see more people working and off the public dole. Social programs don't do that; the public sector does. As for communism and socialism I do know the difference...they are first cousins, one applying social programs to begin the process of making everyone equal and the other being a government that utilized those programs and went one step further having a ruling elite class and peasants. The government of any nation can't take care of everyone if everyone is unwilling or incapable of fending for themselves. Capitalism is the answer to a better future.

I'm twisted? I'm not the one who suggested that any decent American would try to keep the recession going in order to try to prevent Obama from being re-elected. Since you seem to have forgotten what you yourself just said, allow me to refresh your memory.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

This has been their plan from day 1. It became obvious to anyone paying attention after about 6 months that the entire focus of the Republicans in Congress was to keep the recession going and doing everything they could to prevent any of Obama's agenda passing.

Their refusal to compromise on anything is frankly unamerican. Without compromise, there would have been no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no United States.

...as would any decent American...we don't want a communist, or socialist country, but Obummer does and you will be crying with everyone else in about 2 years if you re-elect that horrible excuse for a politician.

Just to make things perfectly crystal clear - keeping the recession going means keeping millions of people out of work. Or did you think that the unemployment rate is just some abstract number? Did you think that wrecking the economy wouldn't have consequences for real people? Do you really think that ruining people's lives to try to hurt one politician you don't like is anything less then evil? Do you only care about your political ideology to the point that you see people as nothing more then disposable pawns to be used in advancing that ideology?

Actions have consequences in the real world, for real people. Playing political games with the economy by its very nature will always mean crushing people's lives underfoot. Is that sort of person you are? Is that sort of person you want to be? If you have a choice between taking a political loss in the process of helping people and wining a political victory at the cost of hurting people, which is the moral choice to make?

Being a moral adult means understanding the consequences of your actions and doing your honest best to make those consequences as positive for everyone as you can. And yes, that's a hard thing to do. Yes, that means putting a lot of work into thinking and questioning and understanding. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to make personal sacrifices. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to change ideas that you hold near and dear. and yes that means putting cold, hard, unpleasant reality above how you think things ought to be. It's not easy. But that's what it means to be a good person.

If you really want to see more people working and off the public dole, the way to accomplish that is by getting the economy going again. And the way to do that is with stimulus. That's not an opinion, that's not a political view, that's a fact. 80 years of economic history prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

And no, you don't have the faintest idea what socialism and communism actually mean. Socialism is the idea that society as a whole has a responsibility to its members. It's the idea that people working together as a whole can accomplish more then individuals all acting purely in their own self interest. It's the idea that organizations supported by and accountable to society as a whole can do real and lasting good. Socialism does not envision a classless society where everyone is equal. Nor does it wish to abolish private property or private employment. What socialism does advocate is using government (or an analogous organization) to correct the problems and injustices caused by a completely unrestrained free market.

Communism, on the other hand, wants to do away with government completely. "In the end, the state shall wither away." Communism wands to get rid of elites and aristocracies. It wants to put control of the means of production in the hands of the people who actually do the producing. Communism is actually the logical extreme of egalitarianism and libertarianism. It's also (in my opinion) completely impractical and unworkable, but that's another discussion.

We've tried pure, unrestrained laissez faire capitalism, in the late 19th and early 20th century. The result was an economy that spent 45% of the time in recession, compared to 15% of the time since WWII. It gave us the Long Depression - a roughly twenty year period of a stagnant to receding economy. It gave us the Great Depression. It gave us grinding poverty and precious little social mobility. It gave us child labor and horrendous working conditions where people were routinely maimed or killed by their work. There's a reason the period is called the Gilded Age. The shiny exterior was only skin deep.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason you find it nearly impossible to respond to me is not because I'm twisted, but because you haven't put the thought and effort into your positions to make them able to stand up to a critical analysis. There may be nothing more tragic then the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact, but there is also nothing more essential to successfully dealing with the real world.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

...as would any decent American...we don't want a communist, or socialist country, but Obummer does and you will be crying with everyone else in about 2 years if you re-elect that horrible excuse for a politician.

You allegation that Obama is a Socialist of any kind is pure fantasy. He is a slightly left leaning centrist. The problem for the Ultra Right wingers is that they have gone so far to the Right that they think the John Birch Society is a leftist group.The tea party fanatics would destroy this nation if we were ever to see them actually gain control of our government. The people who are financially backing them, such as the Koch Bros. have no desire to see a middle class even exist in this nation, they want only the very wealthy and serfs who provide cheap labor and if they aren't needed, then they would prefer to see the poor starve to death and decrease the surplus population.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

They are vastly different in a number of important ways.

We can pay for the entitlements easily.

No, we can't.

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Alex Brandon, AP

The Capitol in Washington, D.C., is seen with a marble chimera rhyton that stands in front of the Rayburn House Office Building in the foreground.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

STORY: Government's mountain of debt

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.

USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.

The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.

The socialist policies of the New Deal had a good long life, but it's time to put them to rest before they bankrupt the country. We can't afford them.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

No, we can't.



The socialist policies of the New Deal had a good long life, but it's time to put them to rest before they bankrupt the country. We can't afford them.

With $480 trillion in income we could afford them easily.