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

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Iriemon, May 19, 2012.

  1. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As per usual, when you're losing, you resort to personal insults. And you just love assuming things about people that you just do not know. I never once mentioned the NWO nor the Illuminati. If it doesn't hurt your brain too, too much, you may want to take a look at some of the links I provided. Notice that they are all news sources, Inforwars not being among them.

    Funny how you're advocating more stimulus due to our stagnant economy being, in your own words, a crisis. I thought you said earlier the previous stimulus sparked a recovery. So, which is it? If it's the former, why would anyone think, if $800 Billion in stimulus only led to a stagnant economy, that throwing good money (that we don't have) after bad would yield a different result?

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...-new-oil-trade-system-challenges-us-currency/

    http://articles.economictimes.india...news/27570340_1_currency-isna-dollar-and-euro

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-from-euro-for-oil-sales-oil-daily-says.html#

    http://beyondmoney.net/2011/11/16/did-libyas-gadhafi-threaten-the-global-power-structure/

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/85424/20101124/china-russia-drop-dollar.htm

    http://topics.scmp.com/news/iranshe...-Iran-drive-up-China-trade-tenfold-in-decade1

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/16/c_13989112.htm

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/07/the-russia-china-friendship-and-cooperation-treaty
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since when? There wasn't a strong economy during the 90's?

    It bears repeating

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
    You mean the tax cuts that produced a strong economy, full employment and a 44% increase in revenues that along with restrained spending had the deficit at $161 billion which Obama and the Democrats then increased to $1,600 billion?
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The economy was good in both. Clinton had the fortune of coming in on a strong recovery, his mistake was passing a tax increase which slowed that recovery and the growth he inherited. Revenue growth had hit 9% headed for double digit, his rate increase slowed it to 7%. He even admitted it when he began to take flak for the recovery slowing down.

    Clinton Angers Friend and Foe In Tax Remark


    President Clinton made an offhand confession on Tuesday night that he had raised taxes "too much" in his first budget in 1993, and the remark drew mockery from Congressional Republicans today. Angry Democrats accused him of repudiating a package they had stuck their necks out to pass without a single Republican vote.

    Speaking at a campaign fund raiser in Houston, Mr. Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html

    It was after Clinton was forced to sign the Gingrich/Kasich tax cuts that the economy not only continued to grow when in fact a slowdown was due, but finally revenue growth hit double digits. And no unemployment was not "significantly" lower, there was full employment during both eras. With Bush at the lower tax rates.

    Yes from the low point in the recession Bush inherited.

    From the BOTTOM of the recession he inherited. Almost 30% over the last Clinton era budget.

    Yes the slowdown and recession which began before he was even elected.

    Yes as the economy was still recovering and then the 2003 tax rate cuts hit and revenues soared.

    2005

    1999 1,827,452
    2000 2,025,191
    2001 1,991,082
    2002 1,853,136
    2003 1,782,314
    2004 1,880,114
    2005 2,153,611
    2006 2,406,869
    2007 2,567,985

    And you want to see what tax rate cuts do to revenues? Compare the rate cuts during Reagan with the rate increase the Democrats passed during Bush1 and the Clinton increase on top of that with the Bush rate cuts.

    [​IMG]

    Not after it had fallen so low. And your assumption is fallacious. There WAS a recession, that is why revenues dropped. The tax cuts eased that recession and kept unemployment low for a recession, particularly compared to Obama's policies for dealing with the one he inherited.

    That was Gingrich and Kaisch's budget, Clinton opposed the spending cuts and welfare reform and tax cuts that brought it about.

    '

    ROFL, his budget was DOA, there was no budget in 2009 the Democrats controlled the budget and did not pass one.

    2007 deficit, last year of Republican control, deficit $161 billion. Three years of declining deficits. Where did the Deomcrats take it $1,600 billion deficits.
     
  4. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry for the curt reply, but I thought that merited being pointed out right away. I'll read the articles and give you a proper reply later.

    As I have already explained repeatedly in detail, three years ago the economy was on the verge of complete collapse. As in 25% unemployment. The Recovery Act helped pull us back from the brink and got us back to growth. It's a testament to just how deep a hole we were in that we only have a stagnant economy now, not a commentary on how effective stimulus is. I would expect a new round of stimulus to produce pretty much the same sort of improvement in the economy the first one did. If we started at -10, the Recovery Act got us up to +1. Another stimulus should get us up around +12. Or is that math too complicated for you? Considering that you're still saying that since the fire extinguisher didn't put out the fire, we should throw gas on it instead, that would seem to me to be a distinct possibility.

    No, it doesn't bear repeating. It was complete fantasy the first time you said it, and it still is. You're gonna have to get me my rainbow unicorn before you can expect numbers you pulled out of your butt to be greeted with anything other then derisive laughter.
     
  5. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bush inherited a 236 billion surplus and promptly squandered it.

    $1,600 billion deficit? Making stuff up again, are we?
     
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that conservatives like to pretend that is the case.

    But the facts are not in dispute.

    It wasn't the Democrats (excepting a handful of "boll weevils" who joined with the Republicans) who passed the Reagan tax cuts and military build up that tripled the deficits and quadrupled the debt by 1992.

    It wasn't the Republicans who passed a large tax increase in 1993 that wiped out the then record deficit and left the nation with a surplus budet in 2000.

    And it wasn't the Democrats who passed huge tax cuts in 2001 that tanked revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars, squandering a surplus and creating new record deficits.

    History does not support your position.
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clinton's "mistake" of raising taxes was followed by the best economy since the 1960s and revenue growth that far exceed GDP growth and turned a then record deficit into a surplus.

    Clinton later retracted and clarified his statement.


    The economy under Clinton was growing robustly before the minor tax cut.

    You can certianly argue that the capital gains tax cut in that Republican bill was a big factor in the first bubble in tech stocks as well as the real estate bubble under the Republicans in 2000-2006.


    ROFL there was no "low point" because the economy Bush inherited consistental grew.


    Way too low. Did not even keep up with inflation, much less the economy. Had tax revenues under Bush simple grew with the economy we'd have trillions less debt right now.

    Yes, that was certainly a factor in the large deficits Obama inherited.

    They grew but because of the huge and unprecedented hole from the tax cuts never even caught up with inflation.

    Sure thing:

    Year - Revenues 2005$:

    Reagan
    1980 1197.6
    1988 1421.1
    % growth revenues: +18.6%
    Cinton
    1992 1467.5
    2000 2310..0
    % growth revenues: +57.4%

    Bush
    2000 2310.0
    2008 2286.8
    % growth revenues: -1.0%

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    As anyone can see, there is no comparison. The Clinton tax increase generated far more revenues, as anyone with an iota of knowleged about macroeconomics would expect.

    Feel free to prove it. There was nominally a "recession" but the economy grew by at least 3% each year. Which doesn't explain why revenues dropped.

    Which was still $394 billion worse than what he inherited, it includes SS tax receipts, and doesn't include the costs of his wars.

    And that was in part thanks to the housing bubble, which blew up on the Republicans' watch.
     
  8. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it's obvious. The last thing the GOP cares about is free market prosperity.

    What fiasco? They agreed to raise the debt ceiling with very basic, minimal cuts on future spending. Every time. Default is inevitable because all fiat currencies fail. But you won't have to worry about that because neither of the two parties would ever actually consider a real default. You're chasing the boogeyman if you believe otherwise.

    You mean raise the debt ceilling? I agree that is exactly what's going to happen.

    That collectivist solution will get nowhere until we get folks into office who put the Individual ahead of their own "partisan" politics.
     
  9. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, that's what I mean. Bush took a balanced budget and turned it into a giant ball of snot, even with horrific borrowing (that he thought we wouldn't notice). Gotta give the man his due.
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fiasco was they waited until beyond the last minute to perform an act that was performed perfunctorily when Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush were presidents, resulting in a downgrade of US credit and shattering confidence that took most of a year to recover from.

    Without or without the extortion and hyperbole? We shall see.

    They do put the individual ahead. They put those who support them ahead.
     
  11. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fiasco was they waited until beyond the last minute to perform an act that was performed perfunctorily when Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush were presidents, resulting in a downgrade of US credit and shattering confidence that took most of a year to recover from.

    Without or without the extortion and hyperbole? We shall see.

    They do put the individual ahead. They put those who support them ahead.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong a $128 billion surplus which had fallen from the $236 billion and a slowdown and a recession, your claims otherwise having just been thoroughly trounced in another thread.

    No that was the estimate, I see it actually came in at $1,300 billion versus the last Bush/Republican of $161 billion...............OH WOW THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING ROFLMAO, grasping at straws I see.
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The shattering of confidence and downgrade came from the Democrats refusal to address the core issues as they plan to do again.



    Oh Obama and the Democrats will engage in it once again and if they have their way what little confidence there is will be eroded even further.
     
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see.

    So when it comes to Obama, you use Bush's best year as a benchmark.

    But when it comes to Bush, you ignore the fact that the budget ran a $236 billion surplus the year before took office.

    Double standard, once again.


    Your false statement has been exposed.

    But using your own argument:

    Wrong a $1.3 trillion deficit which had increased from the $642 billion deficit and the greatest recession in 80 years, your claims otherwise having just been thoroughly trounced in another thread.
     
  15. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice try.

    The debt ceiling was raised scores of times for Republican presidents almost perfunctorily.

    The Tea Party Republicans extortion fiasco was a clear attempt to create uncertainty they know is the biggest threat to economic growth. And they know economic growth is the worst thing for their political ambitions.

    Which is why we see Boehner raising that flag up so early on but in the midst of the election campaigns.


    It wasn't Obama and the Dems holding up the bill, sorry.
     
  16. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably ignored here, but last August China downgraded the US's credit rating. They listed 4 reasons. This story was written before the S&P action. As you can see from the article, political posturing was not the sole cause for this downgrade.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    US Credit Rating Downgraded

    Aug 3rd 2011, 9:04 by Buttonwood

    The Western ratings agencies may not have downgraded the US yet but that hasn't stopped Dagong, China's rating agency, from doing the deed. The agency already rated the US as less than AAA. But today, it has pushed the rating down from A+ to A, and placed the rating on negative watch (indicating the potential for a further cut).

    The agency, which seems to have some shaky translation software, cites four reasons for the decision on its website. First:


    at this crucial juncture, neither the Democratic Party nor Republican Party has shown any consideration for the general interest in order to argue for their own partisan interest; they had a hard time making the correct choice in a timely manner leaving the world in terror, which highlights the negative role of the US political system on an economic basis. This incident will definitely exert its continuous impact on investors’ confidence in US Treasury bonds, affecting the stability of the US debt income.

    Second,

    the fact that the US Congress approves the raising of the debt limit further indicates that the multiple factors affecting the national debt service capability will not change positively in a considerable long term, and that no substantial change will occur to the severe imbalance between the real wealth creation capability and huge national consumption.

    Third,

    The pace of the US deficit cut is far lower than that of new debt growth and the fiscal policy of revenues falling short of expenditures will surely keep pushing the US government debt to a higher level. Dagong predicts that the deficit level of the US government will remain moderately high in the future and the size of federal debt will exceed the GDP by the end of 2012.

    Finally, Dagong says that

    the US Congress has not come up with a positive resolution on how to address the problem of insufficient driving forces for national economic growth, which indicates that the US government cannot resolve the fundamental influence of low economic growth, high deficit and increasingly higher debt to the debt service capability through increasing real wealth creation, with the declining national solvency irreversible. It is natural that QE3 monetary policy will be enabled for the next step, which will throw the world economy into an overall crisis; the status of US dollar will be essentially shaken in this process.

    Of course, there is a certain amount of political posturing and wish fulfilment in these opinions. Nevertheless, China does own a lot of Treasury bonds so its opinion does matter. And other big investors are critical too, notably Bill Gross of Pimco who says that

    even though the US has managed to avert a debt crisis and perhaps a ratings downgrade, there remains a stain on our reputation, a scarlet A for budgetary abuse that will not disappear.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/08/debt-ceiling-crisis-1
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  18. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is nothing wrong with the analysis you provide. I agree with your sentiments. The United States needs a comprehensive deficit and debt reduction proposal. No politician has provided such. However, there is a difference between comprehensive deficit and debt reduction, and "starving the beast". Comprehensive deficit and debt reduction encompasses knowing what to cut, when to cut, and by how much without hindering short-run economic growth in the name of long-run economic stability. "Starving the beast" is the concept that massive cuts in taxes and government spending in the short-run will lead to fiscal sanity and generally speaking, economic growth in the short-run and long-run. This concept has never been proven to work.

    Therefore, what we need is a combination of expansionary and contractionary fiscal policies with a "bang for the buck", proper phase-ins and phase-outs, and a prioritization of what is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of well-being and Constitutional duties. This will require the implementation of policies both parties abhor. It will be necessary to get creative and be innovative in terms of policy-making. Either way, a grand solution will have to be the result.
     
  19. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That sounds wonderful but fanciful. Barring that, I'll take expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
     
  20. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  21. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is beyond a partisan problem. It is an American problem with world wide implications.

    Largely un-noticed was the $1.2 Trillion increase in the debt ceiling to $16.4 Trillion in January of this year. It was uneventful due to its being part of the deal agreed to last year. However, the upcoming debate is due to our going beyond that higher limit. We cannot continue to raise the debt every 6 months to the tune of 1 Trillion +. On our present course, the debt will rise to over $20 trillion during the next POTUS's term. Even with the ridiculously low current interest rates, the annual interest on servicing that debt will be over $600 Billion and probably closer to $700 Billion.

    It's against that backdrop that solutions must be devised. I have no idea what it will take to muster the political will to confront this issue, but it's not coming from our current leadership.
     
  22. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    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.
     
  23. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Republicans have boxed themselves in with Grover Norquist's 'no new taxes' pledge. The Dems seem to want to follow the European socialist model. Both parties are spendthrifts for their own agendas, despite any rhetoric to the contrary.

    A piece on Norquist's influence:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Norquist's influence over the GOP began in 1985, when Ronald Reagan tapped the little-known staffer at the Chamber of Commerce to head up Americans for Tax Reform, a pressure group organized to push a comprehensive tax package through Congress. With backing from the Chamber, Norquist – a Harvard MBA and former head of the College Republicans – challenged GOP candidates to take a two-part pledge: that they would never raise taxes, and that they would only close tax loopholes if the additional revenue was used to pay for further tax cuts. Before long, he had 102 congressmen and 16 senators signed up.

    Today, GOP politicians who have signed Norquist's anti-tax pledge include every top Republican running for president, 13 governors, 1,300 state lawmakers, 40 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate, and 236 of the 242 Republicans in the House. What's more, the GOP's Tea Party foot soldiers are marshaled by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – a veteran of Norquist's farm team, who first signed the pledge as an ambitious member of the Virginia legislature. Under Cantor's leadership, Norquist's anti-tax pledge was directly responsible for last summer's debt-ceiling standoff that wrecked the nation's credit rating by leading the nation to the brink of default.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/grover-norquist-the-billionaires-best-friend-20111109
     
  24. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think anyone claims it is the sole reason for it. Obiviously the trillions of debt that was run up over most of the past 30 years was a big factor as well.
     
  25. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It will take voters electing folks who will compromise for the good of the country instead of rigid ideologues who would rather see the nation go down in flames rather than compromise their positions or break some silly pledge they signed.
     

Share This Page