Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• BoatShoes

  The politics over the sequester are hilarious.
  
  Closeted Keynesians all around.
  
  Obama in 2010 proposes the idea to get the Tea Partiers to Stop holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage. He tells us we need a balanced approach and threatens a veto over it and that these types of spending cuts will restore confidence and consequently improve GDP. "It's time to Eat our Peas"
  
  Boehner bites and then makes a powerpoint trying to sway the nut bars to raise the debt ceiling in exchange...saying the same things as Obama.
  
  Now...neither of them want to touch it with a 5 foot pole. If spending cuts are good for the economy, why is Boehner giving Obama credit for this? If it's not going to hurt anything and is just a drop in the bucket as Krauthammer says, why is Boehner not owning this? If Spending cuts help the economy and restore confidence, why is Obama running from his claims 18 months ago?
• Belly35

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1393126 wrote:Yeah, that is the reality.
  The hope is the this will spur dialogue on smart cuts.
  But, as we have seen, this town usually does the opposite of what is logical.
  
  
  
  Nah, hope not, my company is alright. We have had some cutbacks last quarter, but I'm still peachy.

  If the OC can be of support to you if you’re going to be let go. I’m sure many on the OC will verify that the amount of time you spend on the OC is quality and enlighten. Who do we send the emails to?
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1393502 wrote:
  Now...neither of them want to touch it with a 5 foot pole. If spending cuts are good for the economy, why is Boehner giving Obama credit for this? If it's not going to hurt anything and is just a drop in the bucket as Krauthammer says, why is Boehner not owning this? If Spending cuts help the economy and restore confidence, why is Obama running from his claims 18 months ago?

  Wait, so you are admitting that it is BOTH Obama AND the Rs fault?
  
  Are you feeling ok BS? Typically everything you type is about how the liberals are doing it right and the Rs are always wrong.
• gut

  The reason the sequester is looking to go thru is because spending cuts ARE GOOD and many are tired of punting the issue. People that want to be re-elected, or just loved (like Obama), don't like to make spending cuts. That's not how you buy votes and reward constituents.
  
  Fortunately, if not ironically, we have the Tea Party finally bringing some sanity back to the fiscal house.
• BGFalcons82

  

  This whole "sequester" result is the closest thing we have to a Balanced Budget Amendment. We'll never get a majority of elitists to agree to a BBA, but they sure are squirming about how to "cut" $85,000,000,000 out of a $3,600,000,000,000 Continuing Resolution. I would have written, "budget", however we've not had one in over 3 years...right Harry?
  
  Spending will increase for the fiscal year as it has every year I've been on this rock. It's fun to watch the garbage being spewed by Obama and his bots as to how the world will end and the government will shut down next Friday. However, as always, it's Bush's fault for this mess.
• gut

  And that's the point of the debt ceiling - as somewhat of a "fail safe" lacking a balanced budget amendment. Either the liberal media doesn't get this or they've become completely deaf and dumb on political issues.
  
  Maybe instead of honoring gross overpromises Obama should be throwing Senators & Reps under the bus who have been passing this crap for the past 10-20 years. Heck, look at how they ram-rodded Obamacare thru and pushed/delayed the bulk of the costs until 2014 and later. So before that albatross really starts to do it's damage Obama be on his way out of office.
• fish82

  

  Watching Obie sit and cry about his own damn bill is pretty funny.
• QuakerOats

  obama is such a complete failure it is embarrassing. He has absolutely no idea how to manage anything; all he can do is cry like a baby when it appears he might not get all of your money that he wants. But, what else would you expect from someone who has never solved a problem, never built a widget, never met a payroll, never accomplished anything of his own accord. He is quite simply just a champion at blame, and the greatest disaster in the history of the U.S. presidency.
  
  
  362,000 first time jobless filers again this week .... just another horrific week of unemployment in the long, long, long string of horrific unemployment numbers under obama's watch. Yet, 65 million complete morons voted for it, again.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• QuakerOats

  How about his near-hilarious parading of teachers, firemen, policemen etc... in front of the cameras, lying about them losing their jobs due to his federal budget disaster. There are no such things as federal teachers, or firemen, or policemen. His disingenuousness is off the charts; he lies when the truth would serve him better. He is so, so, so, pathetic.
• gut

  The people who didn't vote for him were hopeful he'd finally stop campaigning and start leading. But you hit the nail on the head - he doesn't know how to do anything besides agitate. We elected a spokesperson POTUS. Twice.
  
  Was having lunch today with a colleague. We got knocked down with the internet bubble and got back up. Walked into the housing bubble but staggered back to our feet. Now we're inflating a fixed income/debt bubble and heading toward a TKO. Gubmit never learns.
  
  Americans want European-style socialism. They are not going to be happy when they get (already have?) the European economy that goes with it. Or maybe you prefer the Japan model - well into their second "lost decade".
• sleeper

  

  People just want the luxury of being rich without actually having to work for it. If they see someone who has worked for it, they feel they deserve a piece of their pie because no one needs $50,000+ a year when kids don't have the latest iPad to play with!
• stlouiedipalma

  fish82;1393627 wrote:Watching Obie sit and cry about his own damn bill is pretty funny.

  fish, it's good to see that you subscribe to the "Boehner talking points on the sequester". Funny, if it was Obama's bill then why did so many Republicans in the House vote in favor of it? That's kinda like blaming the Iraq war on all those who voted on it, but absolving those whose false evidence of WMD's brought it all about.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1393987 wrote:fish, it's good to see that you subscribe to the "Boehner talking points on the sequester". Funny, if it was Obama's bill then why did so many Republicans in the House vote in favor of it? That's kinda like blaming the Iraq war on all those who voted on it, but absolving those whose false evidence of WMD's brought it all about.

  I'm not subscribing to anyone's talking points. It's his bill. He proposed it, and he signed it. What's so hard to understand?
• gut

  fish82;1394416 wrote:I'm not subscribing to anyone's talking points. It's his bill. He proposed it, and he signed it. What's so hard to understand?

  Amazing. Obama's boot lickers don't hold him accountable for anything.
• BoatShoes

  Pretty strange watching pubs try to hand uncle barry the credit for spending cuts.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1394437 wrote:Pretty strange watching pubs try to hand uncle barry the credit for spending cuts.

  LOL. What spending cuts?
• tk421

  

  We have never had spending cuts before and we never will. Cuts in future increases on spending do not count as cuts. Until the budget for the next year is actually LOWER than the budget for the preceding year, we have never had cuts.
• BoatShoes

  fish82;1394439 wrote:LOL. What spending cuts?

  Why is it so hard for "you people" as u like to say to understand that cuts "in the rate of growth" are indeed cuts and as a percentage of gdp is what matters because that is how we compare economies of different sizes and across time. And either way.. even if youre saying theyre a drop in the bucket.. better than nothing eh?
  
  If cuts of any size are good why let obama and the dems gdt the credit the credit?
  
  This whole thing seems bizarre to me.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1394510 wrote:Why is it so hard for "you people" as u like to say to understand that cuts "in the rate of growth" are indeed cuts and as a percentage of gdp is what matters

  I'm glad you framed it that way, because over the past 10 years the increase in spending has grossly outpaced the growth in GDP. Even without adjusting for the downturns (because then it becomes a laughable comparison), 3-4% annual growth would be fairly robust, but spending increases have been even higher than that. Good to see that you've finally come to a rational understanding of the problem.
  
  We're spending nearly 25% of GDP. We need to return to AT LEAST the historical average around 20%, which still leaves us running a deficit.
  
  Cuts are needed, but we wouldn't have a spending problem if that wasn't what buys votes. So that's your answer why Repubs want to saddle Obama with the "credit". Obama, in typical fashion, is going to try to wipe his fingerprints off the shitty economy on the spending cuts. Repubs are just reflecting his bullshit back on to him.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1394510 wrote:Why is it so hard for "you people" as u like to say to understand that cuts "in the rate of growth" are indeed cuts and as a percentage of gdp is what matters because that is how we compare economies of different sizes and across time. And either way.. even if youre saying theyre a drop in the bucket.. better than nothing eh?
  
  If cuts of any size are good why let obama and the dems gdt the credit the credit?
  
  This whole thing seems bizarre to me.

  I knew you'd try and justify cuts in the rate of growth as actual spending cuts. Thanks for not disappointing me.
  
  Why doesn't Obie seem to want the credit for a proposal he wrote?
• believer

  

  gut;1394517 wrote:Obama, in typical fashion, is going to try to wipe his fingerprints off the shitty economy on the spending cuts. Repubs are just reflecting his bullshit back on to him.

  The crazy thing is these - um - "cuts" represent just 3 cents on the dollar with regard to the total deficit problem. This is not even close to what needs to happen, but as Boatshoes says something is better than nothing.
  
  I marvel over the political posturing in this circus sideshow....all the nonsense about less cops on the street, the Repubs want to kill grandma, retirees won't get their SS checks, the gubmint will come to screeching halt, blah, blah, blah is beyond ridiculous and the MSM is all too eager to assist in the stupidity.
  
  The immaturity and absurdity coming out of DC is precisely why I'm thoroughly embarrassed at the direction this once proud country is heading.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1394517 wrote:I'm glad you framed it that way, because over the past 10 years the increase in spending has grossly outpaced the growth in GDP. Even without adjusting for the downturns (because then it becomes a laughable comparison), 3-4% annual growth would be fairly robust, but spending increases have been even higher than that. Good to see that you've finally come to a rational understanding of the problem.
  
  We're spending nearly 25% of GDP. We need to return to AT LEAST the historical average around 20%, which still leaves us running a deficit.
  
  Cuts are needed, but we wouldn't have a spending problem if that wasn't what buys votes. So that's your answer why Repubs want to saddle Obama with the "credit". Obama, in typical fashion, is going to try to wipe his fingerprints off the shitty economy on the spending cuts. Repubs are just reflecting his bullshit back on to him.

  You fail to understand that the increase in spending as a percentage of GDP was not a systematic problem. It's to be expected in periods of high unemployment as more people get on medicaid, food stamps, etc. At a normal employment situation we're not looking at the same amount of government spending as a percentage of gdp. In the next decade it's going to creep up because of exploding healthcare costs but that's a different issue and that affects the whole economy and not just the government's budget.
  
  It's very simple G + I + C + (X-M) = GDP. When C and I go down in recessions and periods of high unemployment, it makes sense for G to go up automatically with automatic stabilizers like medicaid, food stamps and unemployment insurance. Just like the deficit, G is going down as the economy slugs along.
  
  Prematurely cutting G (as we're doing) is only going to make things worse and it makes no sense to do so because this "spending problem" is not imbedded and structural. It was simply a function of the poor economy.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1394641 wrote:The crazy thing is these - um - "cuts" represent just 3 cents on the dollar with regard to the total deficit problem. This is not even close to what needs to happen, but as Boatshoes says something is better than nothing.
  
  I marvel over the political posturing in this circus sideshow....all the nonsense about less cops on the street, the Repubs want to kill grandma, retirees won't get their SS checks, the gubmint will come to screeching halt, blah, blah, blah is beyond ridiculous and the MSM is all too eager to assist in the stupidity.
  
  The immaturity and absurdity coming out of DC is precisely why I'm thoroughly embarrassed at the direction this once proud country is heading.

  The payroll tax raise doesn't seem that large in the aggregate economy just like these "cuts" but it alone is going to shave points off of gdp just like these "miniscule" amount of cuts. We should not be raising taxes on working people or cutting spending right now because it means lower incomes which means lower spending power which means less economic activity which means slower gdp. It is the wrong time to do any of this. Real unemployment is still staggeringly high! Doesn't anybody care about that!?!
  
  The Dems and Pubs are fighting over ways to make the unemployment problem worse.
• BoatShoes

  fish82;1394614 wrote:I knew you'd try and justify cuts in the rate of growth as actual spending cuts. Thanks for not disappointing me.
  
  Why doesn't Obie seem to want the credit for a proposal he wrote?

  I agree based upon his talking points in the Summer of 2010. He certainly wasn't saying spending cuts would harm the economy back then...
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1394501 wrote:We have never had spending cuts before and we never will. Cuts in future increases on spending do not count as cuts. Until the budget for the next year is actually LOWER than the budget for the preceding year, we have never had cuts.

  This isn't right but it seems intuitive. Best way to think of the economy is a giant department store with all of the goods and services we produce in a year. In most years, the department store gets at least a little bigger, so it doesn't make sense to compare what the government buys in the department store from year to year in nominal dollars. If the government buys a smaller percentage from the department store than they did the year before that is indeed a reduction in government spending.