jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Just like Benghazi would be her downfall before this, and travel gate and Lewinsky/impeachment for her husband before that.
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Just like Benghazi would be her downfall before this, and travel gate and Lewinsky/impeachment for her husband before that.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Dead serious. The hyperbole in the referenced post is ridiculous.
Your reply hit on at least three angry person talking points. Nice job.
From where I sit, Obama has been a sea of rationality and reasoned measures since taking office, notwithstanding the tempest of excessive irrationality and un-reason dominating the opposition party since he took office.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
from the article
Yep, but then look at the last graph, which shows that Obama has increased debt at a slower rate than Reagan or Bush. So, what does that suggest as to why debt/GDP is rising at the given rate, given the % rate increase in debt?
Answer: Obama faced a situation not faced by past presidents since Reagan, taking office in the midst of a severe and prolonged recession in which (1) GDP stagnated, (2) tax revenues fell and (2) expenditures went up due to TARP and other fiscal stimulus spending. A triple whammy that contributed to a rising debt/GDP ratio. Hardly Obama's fault.
Again, would you have preferred that there was no TARP (which was actually a Bush policy holdover, so he gets some of the blame, as well as what ever blame he deserves for the recession) or fiscal stimulus spending?
As I said, context matters.
I agree. His demeanor has be exceptional in my opinion. You can tell his frustration runs deep with the continual partisan politics that have plagued his terms yet he hasn't lost his cool. Every President has had to deal with it(Lincoln's letters are fascinating), but the forces you mentioned have been the overarching theme of Obama's presidency.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
omg
This graph
Does not show this
It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.
This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)
I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.
I find it funny (sad actually) that out of 319 million people in this country these are the two best candidates we can come up with. Not to go all tinfoil hat on everyone but it almost makes one believe that there is something going on behind the curtain that we can't see. Seriously, how is it that a lady who may or may not be indicted and Trump (do I need to say more?) are the best options?
Serious question, is it possible for the US to pay off the national debt?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Oh, you've really opened my eyes with your crafty use of graphs and stats. Thank you for nearly doubling our already out of control debt, President Obama. Special thanks for more than doubling the publicly held portion.
And BTW, you know who holds most of that publicly held portion? Hint: It's not the American public.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I can't bring myself to click the "like" button on your post because I dislike everything you are saying, but I agree with it completely. And as for "how is it that..." Do you know anyone who would want to run for that job? We've created a system that favors narcissists and liars while sending every legit candidate with an ounce of common sense running for the hills.
TLDR: There are many better potential candidates out there, but none of them are stupid enough to run.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
omg
This graph
Does not show this
It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.
This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)
I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.
omg
This graph
Does not show this
It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.
This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)
I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.
Oh right, I see your point. I mis-spoke on that point. Whoops. I was in a hurry and didn't pay close enough attention to what I was writing. Sorry.
But, my larger point remains correct. Debt/GDP is, in my view, the best measure of debt. The rise in debt/GDP under Obama did rise at a fast rate, but it was to a large degree the result of forces outside Obama's control, that is, the three-headed monster of (1) slower GDP growth, (2) falling tax revenues, (3) rising spending--all due in large part to a serious and pro-longed recession. Much of the increase in spending, moreover, under TARP was put in motion under Bush and was inherited by Obama. So, my main point (which holds even thought I messed up) is that to simply take a rise in debt or debt/GDP under Obama and use this to condemn his Presidency, or make a broader statement about "tax and spend liberal", or something like that, fails to take into account the context that Obama assumed the presidency during a serious and pro-longed recession, and this type of economic data needs to be understood in that light, which the original poster did not do.
One interesting thing in the last graph is that the rise in debt/GDP rose at a faster rate under successive Republican Presidents during the 80s, flattened out under Clinton in the 90s, more or less, than picked up again under Bush after 2000. I don't pretend to understand all of the factors that have contributed to these trends (the early 80's recession Reagan inherited and the tremendous GDP growth under Clinton certainly offer themselves as likely contributors), but the certainly belie any argument on their face that Democrats are liberal tax and spenders (which I think the original poster was trying to suggest), while Republicans are fiscally prudent guardians of the public treasury.
I'm not being partisan. I'm perfectly happy to blame Obama for his shortcomings (not imagined ones by hyperventilating ideologues), I would argue the same thing if we were talking about a Republican President.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
So your point is that being corrupt is okay because she is a Clinton? Did you watch the video?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Laughable. I don't deny that I'm partisan. You want to pretend you aren't by claiming that you would argue the same thing if we were talking about a Republican. If this really is the case please point me to a single post where you have defended a Republican for anything.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
If our national debt really was such a concern for you right wingies, why don't you ever suggest cutting down on the blank checks we're sending to our offensive defense budget and raise taxes? Why must we outspend #2 China 4 times in defense? Or #3 Russia 8 times? Can't we defend ourselves by just spending 2 or 3 times as much as China?
We have one of the lowest effective corporate taxes in the world. Estate taxes are near all time lows.
We have one of the lowest effective corporate taxes in the world. Estate taxes are near all time lows.
I'm gonna bind it to the same reason the rich should be paying a higher tax rate; they have more to protect.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
If our corporate taxes are so favorable then how come the government just had to jump in at the last moment to prevent Phizer from relocating their corporate headquarters to Ireland for tax reasons? If you raise the corporate taxes further get ready for a mass corporate exodus.
As for the defense budget, I don't know the numbers but I've heard Trump ranting about how we are paying to defend all of these other countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) and that has got to stop. Maybe it's time you jumped aboard the Trump Train.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Companies outsource for a variety of reasons. Labor costs, health care costs, regulations, subsidies (corporate welfare handouts).
The truth of the matter is that among the industrialized world, the effective corporate tax rate in our country is among the lowest. And with good reason. Ya think that government would be immune to the millions of free speech corporate lobbyists bribe I mean contribute to their campaigns?
Btw, Phizer moved using a trick called inversion. It allows them to more easily socialize the costs to the American public while privatizing its profits. We could use some tax reform to make this sort of thing illegal/more costly.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Of course it's possible and we will pay it. It's in the Constitution that we have to. It would take a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing so. We actually pay off our debts all the time. Currently we just get new loans to pay back the old ones.
I'm sure though that you're wondering if we could pay it all off. It isn't necessary but it's possible. There are 2 questions that I think are more important. The first question is at what point does the interest on the debt become too much of a burden to taxpayers, because right now the interest is all we are effectively paying anyway. So far this fiscal year we have spent 219 billion dollars on interest service. LINK The answer to this question is basically "Deal with it". Like I said we have to pay it. If we don't want to pay a larger portion of our GDP in the future to interest then we either balance the budget or stimulate growth now. (<between those two is where the political argument lies)
The second question is when do bondholders lose faith in our ability to pay them back faster than inflation eats up their investment or they believe the likelihood that we will ignore/change the Constitution in order to avoid paying them is high enough that they quit buying them at a reasonable interest rate. The answer to this question in Greece(iirc)was about 120% debt to GDP ratio but Greece doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee, Brussels is less fond of Athens than Washington is of Washington, the US doesn't have the kind of social spending that Greece has, and Greece doesn't have the 18 Trillion dollar economy that gives us an economy of scale advantage. The answer to the second question is we don't know at what level the bond market will get spooked but we don't want to find out we have hit our limit in the middle of the next financial crisis, war, or whatever.
I think most people agree that our debt to GDP ratio is too high and needs to come down so that we have a little more breathing room. How we get there? As far as I can tell vitriol seems to be the path most people believe in.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It's not just trump who has suggested that we slash our offensive budget spending, but Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. It's outrageously out of control.
"The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.
U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined."
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/