WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

Yes. I was estimating dork. It's still a pretty significant jump in spending.



Even if I accepted your blame of Bush for the economic collapse of 2008 (I don't), it didn't cause the current debt crisis. See. That's the part that I keep pointing out and you all keep failing to see. The reason we're in so much trouble right now is because our federal government spent too much money in response to that crisis. We made it worse by overreacting to it. Had we just done TARP and stopped right there, the banks would have recovered and paid us back (just as they did), the market would have recovered (just as it has), and businesses would have gone back to expanding and creating new jobs and unemployment would have come down (as it hasn't).

Why didn't that last piece happen? Because business investors (as opposed to commodity investors or market players) are worried about the spending/deficit and whether and how much our tax laws are going to change to pay for it. This is keeping them from investing in ventures which tie their money down in businesses with offices and work sites and jobs. That's why we haven't recovered fully. It's because we didn't stop at TARP. We went on with the stimulus bill, and added tons of new spending in the 2009/2010 omnibus bills, and tossed in yet more spending in our energy bills, and tossed even more spending in every direction we could in nearly ever bill that came through congress in 2009/2010.


That's what caused this current crisis. By all measurable factors in the finance market, we are fully recovered from the crisis which started this. One has to wonder why the rest of the economy, and specifically the job market, hasn't. It's not because of mortgage securities failing, or banks going under. It's because of the debt problem. And that's because we spent too much. It's not really that complicated.



It's funny because it really wasn't that fucked up. TARP fixed it pretty easily. Had we left it alone, the impact to middle and working class america would have been minimal. It would have been a two to three year dip in our economic fortunes from which we'd recover and move on, just like any of a number of similar economic crashes we've had over the last 30 years or so. Interestingly enough, the last time we got "stuck" in a hole like this was in the late 70s. Which was also the last time that the Dems so completely controlled the government. That's not a coincidence btw.


It's interesting you talk about the 30s though. There's a lot of good arguments, that the New Deal policies of FDR, while they did address the symptoms of the economic problems of the day, actually dramatically lengthened the time it took to recover because it put the government in the front seat of the economy and it struggled to get out of the same tax and spend cycle it's going into right now. That's exactly where we're headed. The initial economic crash isn't what caused the Great Depression. It was bad fiscal/spending policies by the government in response to that crash which did. Similarly, it was no single crash or event in the 70s which led us into such dire straights by the end of that decade, but a series of bad fiscal decisions (again involving spending our way out of it) that caused it. And the Obama administration is repeating the exact same mistake again. It's like the left never learns the lessons from history.


Actually, as I've stated on this forum in the past. The left does know this. But they also know that they can't use the tools needed to actually recover the economy fully. Their social ideology gets in the way of what needs to be done economically. They cannot ever acknowledge that money held in the hands of private industry is what grows the economy and creates jobs (even though that should be obvious to us all really), thus they can't implement the correct solution to an economic downturn like this (stop spending on government programs and let the free market correct the problem on its own). They're like a kid with ADHD trying to push a ball down a hill. They can't help but constantly push it this way and that way, and cant trust that if they just let it roll on its own, it'll get to the bottom faster.



What mandatory spending increases were created pre-2008 and are affecting us today and causing this debt crisis? Do you know? Or are you just repeating something you heard and hoping no one will call you on it?

I've run the numbers in two different threads now. The *only* mandatory spending increase you could possibly blame on Bush would be increases in Medicare and that was like an $85B/year increase. That's hardly what's causing us to have over $1T in increased yearly deficit. So what mandatory spending increases are you talking about? And what the hell do you think the Dems were doing for two years? I mean, the GOP attempted to oppose bill after bill warning that the Dems were spending too much money. And now we find out that we're spending too much money and are in a debt crisis. Are you seriously saying you can't put 1 and 1 together here?

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 4:39pm by gbaji

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

Ah, so if you want to avoid taxation you should break the law. See, it sounds so much less stupid when you phrase it correctly.

Only people trying to avoid the fact that they're not smart enough to play.

I could post criticisms of Tajikistan here. But it would be pretty fUcking pointless as I dont think there are any Tajiks who post here..

And as a point of order. I am not attacking the 'US'. I'm attacking its practices especially the ones that effect the rest of the world in a detrimental way, and particularly the way in which its practices are set forth as some sort of 'benchmark' for the rest of the world to aspire to.

Believe me, I've got a whole load of criticisms that are directed at New Zealand and the way it is run, not least of which is its bloody awful Social Security programmes.

But do you think I should post about those here? I post here for the random entertainment it provides me whilst between things at work, not because I think I'm going to change anything or anyone.

I do post what I think as opposed to what I think will make me popular.

I don't know tax law that well, but I would imagine that to a large extent, taxation on bartering is not something that can be enforced. My main point, though, is that it would be easy to avoid taxation, and if you don't think those taxes SHOULD be the law, then what's stopping you? Most people who reluctantly pay taxes do so for fear of consequence, not in order to fulfill the social contract or contribute to the general welfare.



What a fun way of saying, "The people who think I'm not very bright aren't very bright." No, I already got that about you, just like I'm sure you got that it was a rhetorical question. You're a classic case of wit over substance, which is less of a compliment than it seems.

Fixed!

Yes, but Moe has a certain wit that you lack.