Obama Taking Us Over the Fiscal Cliff As He Proposes MORE Spending

I hope obama doesn't signal any compromise to republicans. I don't see any way of slowing you folks down other than to send the economy into a tailspin.

 

Guaranteed if Obama gets his way. Drain the economy for more poorly chosen spending increases by bureaucrats.

Obama is now even arguing against himself. Before when he extended the current tax rates GDP growth rate was better than it is now. But you know, he has that promise to (*)(*)(*)(*) people over some more to make.

 

History shows us that more than ten years of massive spending is necessary to get out of a Republican Depression.

 

History tells us that America only came out of the Great Depression as a result of WWII.

 

And that democrat spending policies extended the depression for at least 7 years.

 

Your views are the definition of partisan, you give Obama a pass by looking for any possible tiny silver lining in a horrible record. Your statements below prove it.

He did not inherit a pre-passed whole yearly budget in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

I have linked this before, but since then some partisan got a hold of it and edited Reid/Pelosi and 110th congress in there as much as they could to try and pin the blame solely on democrats. Obama signed part of the 2009 FY budget, he is responsible for part. Bush did not sign the whole $3.1 Trillion dollar spending. It was a joint effort. No partisan crap there, the truth.

What I do give Obama credit for is increasing the budget from FY 2009 to FY 2010.

Spending decreased twice in the past three years because of expiration of large one time spending booms such as stimulus and TARP, not because of decrease in budgets. The deficit may have decreased by a record amount but the deficit was still one of the largest on record as well. Spending is still larger than revenue as a percentage of GDP has ever been. They always say one can twist statistics to prove ones point. Like I said earlier you look for only the positive and avoid the glaring negative because of your partisan views.

Stuck in the poor sad partisan war. I hated Bush as president, i thought he was the worst that i lived through hands down until president until Obama came around. Im surprised you dislike Bush since hes so much like Obama. I didn't like Bush for $400 billion dollar deficits you think I am going to support a guy almost 3 times as bad? I didn't like Bush because of the patriot act and the founding of the DHS, you think I am going to support a guy who resigns it, passes the NDAA, and allows drone assassinations of US citizens without due process? I didn't like Bush because of Iraq and Afghanistan, you think I'm going to support the guy who surges in Afghanistan and spends billions in Libya?

In all the major things I see Obama as being worse then Bush and I though Bush stunk. I guess the reason you hated Bush was because he didn't have bigger deficits, more Middle East BS entanglements, and didn't ignore the 4th amendment to the constitution enough. Explains why you support Obama.

You don't know what I mean when I say Obama resigned the Bush tax cuts? I mean he made them law again instead of allowing them to expire. Employers pay unemployment insurance tax to the government so people can obtain unemployments for a set benefit, extending them was not needed, it just adds to the deficit.

 

The Iriemon I have known for three years would not have written anything so vapid, shallow, illiterate, and simple-minded as this. Moreover, Iriemon, unlike many who post here, is a literate, fact-based person! Like anyone else who has had even a high-school level education, Iriemon knows the difference between, "there", and "their". I suspect that someone has hijacked your forum identity, Iriemon. You are a respected, valued opponent, but whoever wrote the laughable one-liner above, and posted it under your name, is not....

 

The federal debt, so long as it does not become unsustainable, is unrelated to the economy. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that austerity and low deficits have actually hurt not only America but a great many European countries! So long as government debt remains something which can be paid back and bonds hold their value (which, I think it's worth remembering, has never not been the case in the US, and shows absolutely no sign of changing any time soon) and remain a valuable commodity, the debt has no direct effect on the economy.

Stopped reading right about here.

Right, because a household which is deep in debt automatically has one problem, and one problem only: a spending problem. There are arguments to be made that we have fact a spending problem. This... is not one of them.

 

Facts and truth continue to elude the right wing.

 

It is hard to believe that anyone could believe this. What do you imagine "unsustainable" to be? We have been in a death-spiral plunge into debt since August 2007, and there is absolutely no stopping it now! Even as I write this, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben "Bailout" Bernanke is blowing $40 Billion more dollars every month on mortgage-backed securities to protect and enrich his client banking cartels. Don't you Liberals SEE this...?!

Think: if debt were not a factor in the economy, then countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, et al, could simply run up big debts on social programs and welfare and then, with a simple "decree", declare that all the debt has just disappeared! Vanished! All the bonds and all the mortgage-backed securities cease to exist and nobody owes anyone anything! This is the very essence of Socialist hyperliberal utopian "fairyland"! Just run up huge piles of debt that can never be repaid, and then just walk away from them.... I don't know of anyone in history but socialists, communists, and fascists who have ever been delusional and tyrannical enough to actually believe this nonsense....

 

Boehner and McConnell, sporting Speedos® as they take their synchronized Acapulco swan dive, present a disturbing image that will certainly not win their gobsmacked party the Hispanic vote.

Their threat to raise taxes on 100% of American earners vs exempting 98% from their increase?


It's a coordinated GOP bellyflop that will inundate faster than even global warming!

 

Bernanke's QE3 is intended to start up inflation. Inflation has been really low in the past years, and this is furthering the stalled economy by making it more profitable to sit on one's money, and increasing the risk of investment. You know, macroeconomics 101.

Note the condition I stated:

"So long as government debt remains something which can be paid back and bonds hold their value".

...Huh. Might wanna read more carefully. In fact, Argentina essentially did this. The result? Nobody lent them any more money! Meanwhile, US T-bills are still seen as one of the most secure investments in the world, and as long as that remains the case, the debt does not matter, as we can just keep paying our interest off with more debt, until the time comes where we can afford to deal with it (say, when we aren't in the middle of a gigantic demand-starved recession!).

Obviously, there's more to it than that, though; you'll notice how none of the three countries you mentioned can inflate their currencies, and none of them have the credibility of the USA when it comes to paying back that debt. So they're incredibly poor examples.

Actually, nobody believes that nonsense. Because it's nonsense! You made it up!

 

Its time to go back to Clinton era tax rates and for the 47% to pay their fair share. I look forward to the fiscal cliff if the Democrats are not serious about the deficit.

 

The democrat plan so far:

A tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese.

 

Oh, goodie! A genuine economist! Maybe you'll be the one who can finally explain how "Obamanomics" (really, "Bernanke-nomics"), will pay off the national indebtedness, given the dynamics of the economy that has been reality in this country since about the year 1999? I know you'll bear in mind that Obama/Bernanke/Geithner are adding over a TRILLION dollars to the National Debt every year, so this will be both educational and entertaining. Let me make some popcorn and get a beer! You've got the floor and the podium -- enlighten us!

 

Insanity. The starting point from the "waster Democrats" should be the Simpson Bowles position. The ending point from the "saver Repubicans" should be a BALANCED BUDGET as espoused by Paul, Johnson, Coburn and a few others. Not in 50 years or 100 years but in 2013. The compromise should be between the Simpson Bowles "minimalist" attempt at CUTTING the deficit to the maximalist full blown BALANCED BUDGET with an emphasis on a fiscal surplus to offset the last 10 years.

 

I agree. Leftists who deny the damage done by excessive national debt and the burden of debt service are like flat earthers denying the world is round. They don't understand the connection between national debt, the value of the dollar, and the likelihood of inflation.

 

Republican plan so far:

Keep making stuff up and telling outrageous lies and hope maybe this time it works.

 

How much did bush the failure/Bernanke/Geithner add per year??
Or should I say how much did they add but not put on the books so idiots would think they really didn't spend it?

 

Try again. The democratic plan is to end the horrific Bush tax cut for the rich which were suppose to end last year, that the GOP trash promised would create jobs and lower the deficit, but it did the complete opposite. On top of proposing massive spending cuts as well, it's a solid plan to get the fiscal mess in order.

You go with what works and that's democratic plans. All the GOP wants to do is spend, spend, spend. That has never, and will never help the economy.

 

I agree that the Bush-era tax cuts should be ended. I also will state that all increases in welfare, food stamps, EITC, public housing and Medicaid should be ended for the bribery associated with getting Obama elected (i.e. go back to at a maximum 2006 expenditures or less). The military occupation of hundreds of other countries should be reduced to 20-30. The active war against Afghanistan should be ended. The Guantanamo prisoners should be executed immediately and the site should be shut down yesterday.

 

LOL, this will be just like the deal the democrats made with Reagan and Bush I where they promised spending cuts for raising taxes. Of course the spending cuts never happened and you all still blame Reagan and Bush I for the spending the democrat Congress did.

 

Oh. I thought you were going to enlighten us as to how Obamanomics/Bernanke-nomics is going to pay off the National Debt and propel the nation into REAL prosperity again, and not this "fraud-balloon recovery", funded with imaginary trillions pulled out of thin air, that the Libocrat cattle have become such ardent believers in....

No? I don't blame you -- because it CAN'T BE DONE! Welcome to the outskirts of reality.

And, like I said, we've been in a headlong plunge into debt starting in August 2007! Yes, Idiot Bush was president then, and he was as much a stupid puppet for Henry Paulson and Bernanke as Obama has been for the past four years for Bernanke and his evil pupil, Tim Geithner (another crony from the Federal Reserve).

But, shucks, can't I do anything to get you even try to tell us how Messiah Obama is going to "save" the economy of the United States in his final four years and get us out of over SIXTEEN TRILLON DOLLARS IN DEBT? You do know, I hope, that SIX TRILLION of it, a 50% increase, is all on Obama's watch!

But the hyperlibs don't care in the slightest as long as the welfare checks and food stamps hit the mailbox on time every month. Shame on the rest of us for ever letting these stupid parasites and leeches take over what once was the greatest nation on Earth!

 

Two words: "Double Down"
http://www.kfc.com/doubledown/images/doubledown.jpg

 

Obama doesn't know how to negotiate with an opponent if his true objective is to reach a compromise agreement. If one seeks to reach agreement it is never a good idea to make an offer the other side considers a personal insult. This is basic.