Ohio Chatter DEV

believer

majorspark;824397 wrote:I agree. When it comes to congressional spending and deficits he is as scared of the veto pen as Reagan and Bush.

Time to implement a line-item veto then?

fish82

I Wear Pants;824389 wrote:Valid point there majorspark although back then logic and reason and scientific thought weren't really the standards they are now.

Defaulting will not be a good thing and to make it seem like a simple matter like a bankruptcty is distorting what will happen.

Logic/reason/scientific thought haven't changed at all. We simply have the ability to obtain much larger quantities of information to use when formulating theories/decisions.

I Wear Pants;824361 wrote:You're insane in this regard.

That's exactly like saying that Bush was just out to finish his dad's fight and only wanted oil and knew about 9/11. Bat**** crazy.

Unless there are actual quotes of Dubya saying those things...then it's not the same at all.

BGFalcons82

I Wear Pants;824361 wrote:You're insane in this regard.

That's exactly like saying that Bush was just out to finish his dad's fight and only wanted oil and knew about 9/11. Batshit crazy.

Yep. I'm batshit crazy alright.

Looks like Krauthammer sees through the "conservative" disguise as well - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/08/2011-07-08_obama_remembers_the_national_debt_but_the_reversal_is_purely_political.html
Is he batshit crazy, too?

Barry spends money that doesn't exist...and I'm the crazy one. Steals it from the unborn to spend today, but I'm a right wing nut job for noting his actions.
Barry equates those making $250,000 per year to millionaires...and I'm nutty.
Barry states that his ultimate goal is the single payer health care system and his legislation is the means to that end. It might take 10-15 years, but we'll get there, he says. And I'm the loon for noticing such trivial matters, eh?
Barry writes legislation that creates up to 350 new federal agencies to administer his ObamaKare and I'm a nut for pointing out that he wants to increase governmental control in our lives.
Barry approves hiring thousands of new IRS agents to "help us" pay our fair share. But I'm a zealot for pointing out further intrusions into our privacy.
Barry agrees with the Patriot Act, thus making sure he can act in ways that the framers of our Constitution warned us about.
Barry creates a "Compensation Czar" to monitor/suggest/control how much people make and I'm equal to batshit complaining that this is an infringement in areas that don't concern the government.
Barry creates a whole host of unregulated and un-vetted czars, hires socialists and communists to place therein, and gives them power to write regulations, assist in legislation, and confab with him. But...his actions don't count and I'm a fruitcake for thinking these folks have his ear.

I could go on, but what's the point. He sounds like your average everyday American in front of a teleprompter, but does things that make the average everyday American scratch his/her head and wonder what the hell is he doing. Although, to question what's going on is purely a sign of a radical, astro-turfin, redneck, inbred, homophobic, white, racist, Tea-bagging, Birch-lovin, bat-shit crazy fool....so you say.

I Wear Pants

majorspark;824397 wrote:I agree. When it comes to congressional spending and deficits he is as scared of the veto pen as Reagan and Bush.

Valid point.

BGFalcons82;824601 wrote:Yep. I'm batshit crazy alright.

Looks like Krauthammer sees through the "conservative" disguise as well - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/08/2011-07-08_obama_remembers_the_national_debt_but_the_reversal_is_purely_political.html
Is he batshit crazy, too?

Barry spends money that doesn't exist...and I'm the crazy one. Steals it from the unborn to spend today, but I'm a right wing nut job for noting his actions.
Barry equates those making $250,000 per year to millionaires...and I'm nutty.
Barry states that his ultimate goal is the single payer health care system and his legislation is the means to that end. It might take 10-15 years, but we'll get there, he says. And I'm the loon for noticing such trivial matters, eh?
Barry writes legislation that creates up to 350 new federal agencies to administer his ObamaKare and I'm a nut for pointing out that he wants to increase governmental control in our lives.
Barry approves hiring thousands of new IRS agents to "help us" pay our fair share. But I'm a zealot for pointing out further intrusions into our privacy.
Barry agrees with the Patriot Act, thus making sure he can act in ways that the framers of our Constitution warned us about.
Barry creates a "Compensation Czar" to monitor/suggest/control how much people make and I'm equal to batshit complaining that this is an infringement in areas that don't concern the government.
Barry creates a whole host of unregulated and un-vetted czars, hires socialists and communists to place therein, and gives them power to write regulations, assist in legislation, and confab with him. But...his actions don't count and I'm a fruitcake for thinking these folks have his ear.

I could go on, but what's the point. He sounds like your average everyday American in front of a teleprompter, but does things that make the average everyday American scratch his/her head and wonder what the hell is he doing. Although, to question what's going on is purely a sign of a radical, astro-turfin, redneck, inbred, homophobic, white, racist, Tea-bagging, Birch-lovin, bat-shit crazy fool....so you say.

I said "in this regard" for a reason. You aren't crazy. But pretending that Obama is out to ruin America on purpose is crazy.

jhay78

majorspark;824397 wrote:I agree. When it comes to congressional spending and deficits he is as scared of the veto pen as Reagan and Bush.

believer;824416 wrote:Time to implement a line-item veto then?

Good point. Reagan used the line-item veto frequently as governor and lamented the fact he couldn't use it as President. Now he still deficit spent, although I don't see how you can compare his to Obama's.

believer

I Wear Pants;824609 wrote:But pretending that Obama is out to ruin America on purpose is crazy.

I don't think he's out to ruin America on purpose. I believe he honestly feels his policies are the right policies. However I do believe he sees a vastly different America than most of us and a nation certainly different than our Founders intended.

But the great thing about our Constitution is he'll only have at max 6 more years to screw things up.

coyotes22

believer;824741 wrote:I don't think he's out to ruin America on purpose. I believe he honestly feels his policies are the right policies. However I do believe he sees a vastly different America than most of us and a nation certainly different than our Founders intended.

But the great thing about our Constitution is he'll only have at max 6 more years to ruin America.

Fixed,

majorspark

believer;824416 wrote:Time to implement a line-item veto then?

Sounds tempting when congress sends the president 3,000 page pork laden bills filled with nothing short of bribes and kickbacks that would land the average person in prison.

The article 1 section 7 of the constitutuion says Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. The constitution does to give the president the power to alter it in anyway. He can only accept or reject the whole bill. If he rejects it the president sends it back with the parts he object to. You would need an amendment to get the line item veto.

Though the founders would be equally as appalled as you and I with the pork laden bills that hit the presidents desk, giving the president line item veto power is not the way to solve the problem. Were a president empowered to cancel provisions of legislation, what he would be doing would be indistinguishable from legislating. He would be making, rather than executing, laws, and the separation of powers would be violated - George Will. Will is right. I would not want this in the hands of any president.

If we are going to anything I would shoot for an amendment to limit congress's power to draft such grotesque bills. Perhaps bills can only contain single acts. A bill for defense appropriations is just that. If congressman X wants federal funds for his bridge to nowhere draft a single bill and put it up for vote. Don't attach it to the defense appropriations bill. But this will never happen. You got a better chance of finding gold at the end of a rainbow.

believer

majorspark;824763 wrote:If we are going to anything I would shoot for an amendment to limit congress's power to draft such grotesque bills. Perhaps bills can only contain single acts. A bill for defense appropriations is just that. If congressman X wants federal funds for his bridge to nowhere draft a single bill and put it up for vote. Don't attach it to the defense appropriations bill. But this will never happen. You got a better chance of finding gold at the end of a rainbow.

Probably the most plausible but least possible solution.

Footwedge

believer;823882 wrote:I'm not going to defend Reagan's spending habits because there's no question he spent money, but to claim he slaughtered Obama's record breaking spending habits is just plain nuts.

Yes, yes this is a link to Heritage.org but all the charts are from government sources: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending

I don't need to look at any charts. Like I said, when it comes to spending, Reagan smashed Obama on a percentage basis.

believer

Footwedge;825001 wrote:I don't need to look at any charts. Like I said, when it comes to spending, Reagan smashed Obama on a percentage basis.

Barry is certainly well on his way to making Reagan seem like a fiscal genius. Let's hope he only has 1.5 more years to prove me wrong.

queencitybuckeye

Footwedge;825001 wrote:I don't need to look at any charts. Like I said, when it comes to spending, Reagan smashed Obama on a percentage basis.

Percentage of what? If GDP (the only percentage I can think of that makes sense), you are 100% incorrect.

Government spending as percent of GDP:

2009 41.76%
2010 39.97%

HIGHEST percent of GDP in Reagan presidency: 1983 36.31%

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s#copypaste

queencitybuckeye

ccrunner609;825124 wrote:the guy is flat wrong.

There are only two options, dumber than hell or serial liar.

Footwedge

queencitybuckeye;825130 wrote:There are only two options, dumber than hell or serial liar.

The only serial liar around here are people like you....that never....and I mean NEVER check their facts before they vomit. Under RR, the spending increase as a percentage over the previous budgets increased 14.7% over his first 4 fiscal years..... signed into budgets in 1981 through 1985.....Fiscal years 82-through 86.

Obama's first fiscal year showed a "whopping" increase from W's last budget of 1.4%. Extrapolate that over 4 years and you have delta 5.6%. Comparing the 2 presidents....increasing spending, Reagan definitely slaughtered Obama's ass.

In fact, Reagan's percentage of spending increase was damn near twice that of Obama in his first year.

What you and your little toadies fail to understand.....percentages to GDP or GNP for that matter has very little to do with reckless increases on spending.....because spending counts towards GDP. Buying 2 billion dollar bombers are viewed as both spending...and additions to the GDP.

Read it....learn it...then watch your manners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

queencitybuckeye

Weak sauce. You've been caught in another lie and attempt to cover it with a meaningless factoid. How many baldfaced lies is this for you? Better go back to incorrectly explaining what a stock option is. You're a clown, boy. A clown and a liar.

Footwedge

queencitybuckeye;825290 wrote:Weak sauce. You've been caught in another lie and attempt to cover it with a meaningless factoid. How many baldfaced lies is this for you? Better go back to incorrectly explaining what a stock option is. You're a clown, boy. A clown and a liar.

Is that it? LOLOLOLOL. You've been busted once again. What's really sad....you deal in percentages for a living. No wonder our country is in the shape it's in.

Before you post, do your homework...maybe you should go hide from this place and lick your wounds.

Footwedge

ccrunner609;825124 wrote:the guy is flat wrong.

Stick to running gym classes. I am flat out right.

majorspark

Last I heard Ronald Reagan is dead. He has been dead for seven years. Foot he has been out of power since you and I were chasing high school girls in short skirts. His individual impact on our current economic situation this country faces in 2011 amounts to nothing more than a gnat on a hippos ass.

gut

believer;825030 wrote:Barry is certainly well on his way to making Reagan seem like a fiscal genius. Let's hope he only has 1.5 more years to prove me wrong.

What Reagan did largely worked. Remember we had the gas crisis/recession around '82(?), double-digit inflation and then Black Friday in '87. There's nothing wrong with a LITTLE deficit spending and it does temporarily prop up the economy...BUT you have to eventually pay it back.

I also don't think FDR's approach was terrible...We continue to enjoy benefits from many of those infrastructure projects. My main beef with the stimulus is that it funded crap boondoggle projects, practically flushing money down the drain.

believer

gut;825337 wrote:What Reagan did largely worked. Remember we had the gas crisis/recession around '82(?), double-digit inflation and then Black Friday in '87. There's nothing wrong with a LITTLE deficit spending and it does temporarily prop up the economy...BUT you have to eventually pay it back.

I also don't think FDR's approach was terrible...We continue to enjoy benefits from many of those infrastructure projects. My main beef with the stimulus is that it funded crap boondoggle projects, practically flushing money down the drain.

Oh I don't disagree. I just scratch my head at the reasoning behind why Footie wants to point fingers at Reagan for Obama's stimulus boondoggle. As anal as he is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm surprised Footie hasn't found some way to pin that one on Reagan as well.

Meantime, Buchanan's take on this is just about spot on:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/08/an_establishment_in_panic_110501.html

believer

Buchanan's take on this is just about spot on:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/08/an_establishment_in_panic_110501.html

coyotes22

Didnt Regan also introduce the largest tax cuts of his time?

Regan also had the money then to spend. Obama doesnt.
Regan was not out killing jobs. Obama has killed 2.5 million jobs since taking office.
Regan was not out devaluing our dollar. Obama is.
Regan fought unions. Obama wants more unions.

Am i wrong?

derek bomar

coyotes22;825359 wrote:Didnt Regan also introduce the largest tax cuts of his time?

Regan also had the money then to spend. Obama doesnt.
Regan was not out killing jobs. Obama has killed 2.5 million jobs since taking office.
Regan was not out devaluing our dollar. Obama is.
Regan fought unions. Obama wants more unions.

Am i wrong?

more or less.

Footwedge

gut;825337 wrote:What Reagan did largely worked. Remember we had the gas crisis/recession around '82(?), double-digit inflation and then Black Friday in '87. There's nothing wrong with a LITTLE deficit spending and it does temporarily prop up the economy...BUT you have to eventually pay it back.

A little deficit spending? Reagan's spending as shown IS the reason that the GDP grew at that time. Under his watch the US became a net trader deficit nation for the first time as well. I voted for Reagan twice...and he was a great leader..... and at that time was finally happy with a president. I admit....I was a huge partisan hack from the early 70's until the late 80's. Doesn't change the fact that he took our country to the point of no return regarding the national debt.

I also don't think FDR's approach was terrible...We continue to enjoy benefits from many of those infrastructure projects. My main beef with the stimulus is that it funded crap boondoggle projects, practically flushing money down the drain.

The stimulus project is just another temporary stopgap to keep the masses employed while millions of jobs have been permanently sent overseas. What Obama did is no different than what McCain would have done. It's been going on since the 80's....with only a short interruption for the dotcom bubble. Nobody, with the possible exception of David Walker, is willing to publicly say, that the migration of jobs across the seas is THE reason why we will never see a true economic recovery.

Footwedge

coyotes22;825359 wrote:Didnt Regan also introduce the largest tax cuts of his time?

He also concommitantly raised the payroll tax at an unprecedented level at that time

Regan also had the money then to spend. Obama doesnt.

Laughable statement. What money did Reagan have laying around? Under Reagan's watch the national debt tripled. Obama's pace is far less than that.

Regan was not out killing jobs. Obama has killed 2.5 million jobs since taking office.

Another laughable statement. How did Obama "kill" those jobs?

Regan was not out devaluing our dollar. Obama is.

Another misinformed and laughable statement. You don't think the dollar was devalued in the 80's? Are you kidding?

Regan fought unions. Obama wants more unions.

True in that Reagan fought against the unions and Obama was supported by the unions. Whether you agree philosophically with unions or not, the courts have recognized the right of workers to bargain collectively.

In reviweing the history of our country, the victories of unions in the early part of the 20th Century laid the foundation for a truely prosperous middle class. And it did not come without a lot of blood shed.

Archive

David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end