Obama's Plan to Fix the Economy

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yeah you’re right, we had no debt before Obama.

Farrrrrt.[/quote]I refuse to believe you’re really this simple. That’s like saying "yeah, you’re right we never had murder before Hitler.
[/quote]

Except not at all. The murders were entirely Hitlers fault. The debt is not entirely Obamas fault.

The OP was just looking for any reason to slander the president - oh, he even posted a picture of Obama “looking all muslim”, how cute, right?[/quote]I take it back. I guess you are this simple.
[/quote]

Thanks man, I’ll ask your invisible sky wizard to make me smarter.

In the meantime

“Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the countryâ??s indebtedness”

See how under Bush the debt went from 56.4 percent of GDP to 83.4? And remember how nobody on the right seemed to care because the president was someone they supported?

Go insult someone else, charlatan.[/quote]

None of these presidents reduced the debt to gdp.
The debt went up for all of them and the gdp figures are fraudulent because they don’t reflect inflation accurately(especially in the massive bubble Clinton had).
Obviously some of these presidents fucked up a lot more(BUSH) but Obama way overshadows anything these presidents did combined.

22

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Obviously some of these presidents fucked up a lot more(BUSH) but Obama way overshadows anything these presidents did combined.[/quote]

How so?

23

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It’s just part of the Socialist system. So what if you’re going to have to carry your cash around in a wheelbarrow and line up in bread queues to feed your family? Why not put all the fiscal conservatives into Alaskan gulags and ask China for a bail out?[/quote]

Here’s the funny thing about your comment. All of those things that you mentioned happened during the great depression and were not the result of socialism. Americans like to forget that a bit of socialism helped us win world war II. People in this country donated to the government all of their metal and canvas and other raw materials and allowed our government to go from producing 400 planes a year to 40K planes a year. Coming out of the war we saw huge prosperity with the creation of many social programs for example the one that allowed veterans to buy homes, and go to school. I say it again self reliance is a myth. Capitalism is a great system, but it is not the only system this country is founded on. [/quote]

Preach it bro Jackson
[/quote]

I was talking about nanny-state style Socialism, not Soviet-style Communism where people don’t have any money to invest and private enterprise is nonexistent.

Also, most the Socialist-led countries in Latin America are now heading towards hyperinflation. Argentina has announced it will increase money supply by 28 percent this year.

Zimbabwe’s ‘wealth redistribution’ is another case in point.

Also, Germany’s hyperinflation started after the First World War and the November revolution was a major factor. There were many other factors I couldn’t be bothered going into(reparation payments, French occupation of the Ruhr, borrowing to fund the war effort etc).

Lastly, the worst case of hyperinflation in world history was in Yugoslavia under Communist rule. This was avoidable however and resulted merely from fiscal idiocy.

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.

24

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Obviously some of these presidents fucked up a lot more(BUSH) but Obama way overshadows anything these presidents did combined.[/quote]

How so?[/quote]

  1. Regardless of war or political party, modern presidents have tended to double the national debt about every nine years.

[quote]Even as late as post-World War II (1945â??1960) the national debt increased at less than 1 percent per year. But since the Kennedy era and the Schlesinger poll, we have had four Democratic and five Republican presidents. Under these nine men, the national debt has doubled almost five times, from $289 billion in 1961 to a newly proposed ceiling of $9 trillion. Whether the issue has been hurricanes, farm subsidies, or medical care (none of which is a subject for federal aid, according to the Constitution), all these presidents have spent first and asked questions later.

Should that pattern of doubling the national debt every nine years continueâ??and there are very few politicians who wish to stop itâ??our debt by the end of the 21st century will increase to about $9 quadrillion, or (even if the U. S. population triples) about $10 million per person.?[/quote]

25

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Obviously some of these presidents fucked up a lot more(BUSH) but Obama way overshadows anything these presidents did combined.[/quote]

How so?[/quote]
The FED’s balance sheet has increased more than all of those presidents combined. Even though he’s not directly responsible, he reappointed Bernanke because “he was doing a great job”.
He continued and 1-uped Bush’s bailouts to corporations that should have failed.
He’s expanded military spending and both the size and scope of military entanglements.
He’s continued to support Saudia Arabia Petro-Dollar monopoly and terrorist support by selling them 300 billion dollars worth of weapons and being generally amicable towards them.
That’s not even counting the regulations and new programs like the Patriot act and healthcare entitlements that he’s expanded.

26

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?

27

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Also, Germany’s hyperinflation started after the First World War and the November revolution was a major factor. There were many other factors I couldn’t be bothered going into(reparation payments, French occupation of the Ruhr, borrowing to fund the war effort etc).

[/quote]

What November Revoution? Do you mean the Sparticists in 1919, the Kapp Putsch of 20 or the Hitler’s Beer hall putsch. The latter was an utterly inconsequential event. The main reason, as you correctly say, was the invasion of the Ruhr, where people refused to go to work so the government just kept printing money

Sorry just asking for some historical clarification.

As for the thread, from this viewpoint, Obama looks awfully like his predecessor.

28

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote: A post about the alleged religious convictions of previous presidents which missed my point so throughly it took me entirely off guard.[/quote]Saying that other presidents wasted money and increased the debt and deficit when in 2 years under the unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid it skyrocketed past the entire rest of the history of this nation combined is like saying that Hitler ain’t any worse than Jack the Ripper. They were both killers right? Come on man. In our short time together I’d come to expect more from you than this.

29

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Yep he’s a secret Muslim/communist plotting to abolish private ownership of property in America and ultimately install an Islamo-fascist puppet government in Washington that will take orders directly from the Kenyan overlords. He is also Banksy.[/quote]

Your hyperbole won’t change the facts. You have to be part of the MSLM in order to change the facts.

30

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Obviously some of these presidents fucked up a lot more(BUSH) but Obama way overshadows anything these presidents did combined.[/quote]

How so?[/quote]

For starters by increasing the debt higher than any President in the history of the country. And he did that in only two years. Hey, I’m not GW fan but even he was good compared to Obama. Obama constantly demonstrates that he’s not up to the task in either domestic or foriegn affairs.

What I said back in 08’ is proving to be true. Obama being the most liberal President of all time scares me less than him being the most inexperienced of all time. At least with Clinton we had someone who was politically pragmatic and well experienced. The American public bought the “we need change” mantra and are now paying for it.

31

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote: A post about the alleged religious convictions of previous presidents which missed my point so throughly it took me entirely off guard.[/quote]Saying that other presidents wasted money and increased the debt and deficit when in 2 years under the unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid it skyrocketed past the entire rest of the history of this nation combined is like saying that Hitler ain’t any worse than Jack the Ripper. They were both killers right? Come on man. In our short time together I’d come to expect more from you than this.
[/quote]

I believe that the two party system is a problem. It is coming blazingly more clear to everyone that their is a problem. However demon-izing the president and even supporting this BS that he is a Muslim, which should be irrelevant, and further more that he is from Kenya is over the line. The blame lies in the laps of the american people and we get the government that we deserve. The two party system is corrupted and no matter what race, creed, or dem or rep you put in there you are always going to see the agenda of the corporate-tocracy play out.

Here are a few ideas to help right the ship.

  1. term limits on all members of congress.
  2. mandatory military service.(This will help instill a sense of pride in being a citizen)
  3. repeal the recent supreme court ruling that corporations have no limits on campaign contributions. (Although # 1 may be sufficient)
  4. Close down the stock market for a system of corporate bonds. Single time payouts if and when investment pays off. Speculation and making money without contributing to production is a drain on the economy.
  5. Eliminate all lending by private banks to state and local governments. Have all of those loans come directly from the federal government at a low interest rate that would be paid back to the fed. Analyzing this simple interaction alone shows just how corrupt we have allowed this to become. The gov creates money by issuing bonds to the fed. The fed prints the money or simply enters it into a computer. They then give that money to banks to loan out to people at a higher interest rate. On top of that the gov pays interest to the fed on the bonds they give them? Why do we need the middle men when it is costing our state, local governments, and tax payers so much money???

Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.

32

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote: A post about the alleged religious convictions of previous presidents which missed my point so throughly it took me entirely off guard.[/quote]Saying that other presidents wasted money and increased the debt and deficit when in 2 years under the unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid it skyrocketed past the entire rest of the history of this nation combined is like saying that Hitler ain’t any worse than Jack the Ripper. They were both killers right? Come on man. In our short time together I’d come to expect more from you than this.
[/quote]

I believe that the two party system is a problem. It is coming blazingly more clear to everyone that their is a problem. However demon-izing the president and even supporting this BS that he is a Muslim, which should be irrelevant, and further more that he is from Kenya is over the line. The blame lies in the laps of the american people and we get the government that we deserve. The two party system is corrupted and no matter what race, creed, or dem or rep you put in there you are always going to see the agenda of the corporate-tocracy play out.

Here are a few ideas to help right the ship.

  1. term limits on all members of congress.
  2. mandatory military service.(This will help instill a sense of pride in being a citizen)
  3. repeal the recent supreme court ruling that corporations have no limits on campaign contributions. (Although # 1 may be sufficient)
  4. Close down the stock market for a system of corporate bonds. Single time payouts if and when investment pays off. Speculation and making money without contributing to production is a drain on the economy.
  5. Eliminate all lending by private banks to state and local governments. Have all of those loans come directly from the federal government at a low interest rate that would be paid back to the fed. Analyzing this simple interaction alone shows just how corrupt we have allowed this to become. The gov creates money by issuing bonds to the fed. The fed prints the money or simply enters it into a computer. They then give that money to banks to loan out to people at a higher interest rate. On top of that the gov pays interest to the fed on the bonds they give them? Why do we need the middle men when it is costing our state, local governments, and tax payers so much money???

Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.
[/quote]

Brother Jackson, you better be careful , they will call you a socialist and ignore you:)

33

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.
[/quote]

That’s why the republicans to a man tried to prevent the catastrophe of national health care. And also why the republicans constantly push for tax cuts for EVERYBODY.

Do you have any idea what this country would look like if the democrats controlled the white house and both houses of congress for a long period of time? Take a look at a couple of the blue states like California or New York to find out.

There is a huge difference between the two parties. But you actually have to fully understand what each party represents and then keep abreast of what they do to understand this.

34

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about?
It doesn’t matter if it’s for returning soldiers or for crippled children or the disabled, etc…
When you divert capital to “create jobs” where you feel it’s socially acceptable you have to first have prevented jobs from being created where there is existing demand in the market.
The boom after WW2 came from the END of the war. Where capital was being diverted and destroyed it was now being freed up for productive uses. The GI bill definitely took away from that a bit but it was minuscule compared to an end to the waste of war.

35

[quote]TooHuman wrote:<<< When you divert capital to “create jobs” where you feel it’s socially acceptable you have to first have prevented jobs from being created where there is existing demand in the market. >>>[/quote]This does not necessarily follow which I must say even though you and I probably agree on quite a bit. It is feasible for capital to be used for job creation (allegedly) and have there be no corresponding demand anywhere else in the market to be effected.

36

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.
[/quote]

That’s why the republicans to a man tried to prevent the catastrophe of national health care. And also why the republicans constantly push for tax cuts for EVERYBODY.

Do you have any idea what this country would look like if the democrats controlled the white house and both houses of congress for a long period of time? Take a look at a couple of the blue states like California or New York to find out.

There is a huge difference between the two parties. But you actually have to fully understand what each party represents and then keep abreast of what they do to understand this.

[/quote]

Yeah they are both ends to the same mean. You have the republicans short sightedness in privatizing and selling off programs and things that are already paid for or budgeted for through tax dollars. For example Rick Perry here in Texas trying to sell the state lotto or toll rights on a freeway that is already completed and paid for in exchange for a small percentage of what would be made by simply increasing the cost of those services as both corporations would stipulated in the contracts and which would yield them over 5 times their investment. We either have the dumbest public officials or the dumbest public and seeing who is going to benefit financially I think I know which one it is.

Or you have the democrats that pass a healthcare bill that violates my freedom of speech as was ruled by the supreme courts decision that money = Freedom of speech in the case that said no cap could be placed on campaign contributions by corporations because it would violate their freedom of speech.

Someone else mention that Obama kept the same players as Bush and Clinton and I posted a link showing that his financial cabinet did involve those same players. Both agendas have a complete disregard for the public welfare and the rights of the citizens of this country, while showing a favoritism to corporations and the ultra wealthy. Keep clinging to you Tea Bagger reformist hopes, what a bunch of winners came out of there in the election.

For the record the whole notion of Insurance was always a social welfare program even when run for profit. The idea is that you take a risk and spread it over a larger population to minimize the cost to the individual in the event that they suffer a loss. Doesn’t get more socialist. Companies like Blue Cross and Blue shield use to be non-profit insurance companies, and still are in a few parts of the country, but do to the ability of for profit insurance to cut the services and deny claims and deny eligibility it made it increasingly harder for them to stay competitive.

This is not necessarily a good thing since as well all know as we get old our likely hood to need these services increases greatly. The US has 1/3 of its population reaching the end of their life in the next 30 years and these costs are going to sky rocket. Private insurance is not going to continue to accept that exposure if given the opportunity to drop these people, and the current system will allow them all to receive the most expensive end term care by checking into the emergency room when they are sick or dieing. Health care reform as a discussing is not an option, it will bankrupt our country if we do not do something now. I agree that what was passed is insufficient and a blowjob to corporate america as Bill Maher put it, but the ideas I have heard thrown around by the republicans are a ridiculous fantasy. The most current being a voucher system with a 15K cap. What happens when they use up the 15K? I know as republicans you cannot think 3 step ahead to see what will happen, but you want to talk about a death panel being the decision maker in these peoples end of care fate, this is just telling them to fuck of and die. Which to be honest with, I am actually for, as I hate that whole generation of baby boomer’s, those greedy self entitled bunch of hypocrites.

Anyway, I am not a republican or a democrat and I think that accepting either a blanketing political view is lazy. I also think that it is pointless as I mentioned as both are being propped up with funding from the same corporations. Until we pass meaningful campaign reform or term limits it is a sinking ship that will not likely be saved no matter who you put in office. Greed seems to continually put immediate profit before the longterm success of both the companies and the populations. That is how the corporation is designed to work so it is really working perfectly.

37

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:<<< When you divert capital to “create jobs” where you feel it’s socially acceptable you have to first have prevented jobs from being created where there is existing demand in the market. >>>[/quote]This does not necessarily follow which I must say even though you and I probably agree on quite a bit. It is feasible for capital to be used for job creation (allegedly) and have there be no corresponding demand anywhere else in the market to be effected.
[/quote]

Thank you for saying that. Companies like GE are coming under fire right now because they did not pay any taxes and received huge returns from subsided for things like green energy. Government provided capital is the last tool to stop corporations from creating scarcity simply for profits sake in the above example. It could also be that GE has some leaders that realize a long term agenda can work with an immediate profit still being possible and provide for their success going forward. My fear is that these tax payer dollars have no strings to make those investments stay in the hands of Americans when the oil disappears or becomes to expensive to sustain a working economy.

Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized worldâ??no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

President Wilson, in advocating the Federal Reserve Act, said:

We must have a currency, not rigid as now, but readily, elastically responsive to sound credit, the expanding and contracting credits of everyday transactions, the normal ebb and flow of personal and corporate dealings. Our banking laws must mobilize reserves; must not permit the concentration anywhere in a few hands of the monetary resources of the country or their use for speculative purposes in such volume as to hinder or impede or stand in the way of other more legitimate, more fruitful uses. And the control of the system of banking and of issue which our new laws are to set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the Government itself, so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters, of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.

The issues we are facing are not partisan and cannot be solved with partisan ideologies.

38

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]

I think you’d have to prove those programs (which I know little to nothing about) contributed greatly to the economic growth following whichever period you’re speaking about. First, correlation =/= causation. Second, what types of job training was supplied and what type of economic growth was achieved (ie, if training was given related to some labor type job but the majority of growth was achieved in the finance sector…)? Third, if you can prove causation, were there any unintended consequences related to said programs? In other words, at what cost was this economic growth achieved?

You’re making a pretty big jump by connecting a couple things and any respectable economist would ask that you prove, at minimum, what I mentioned above before taking your theory seriously. :slight_smile:

39

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]

I think you’d have to prove those programs (which I know little to nothing about) contributed greatly to the economic growth following whichever period you’re speaking about. First, correlation =/= causation. Second, what types of job training was supplied and what type of economic growth was achieved (ie, if training was given related to some labor type job but the majority of growth was achieved in the finance sector…)? Third, if you can prove causation, were there any unintended consequences related to said programs? In other words, at what cost was this economic growth achieved?

You’re making a pretty big jump by connecting a couple things and any respectable economist would ask that you prove, at minimum, what I mentioned above before taking your theory seriously. :)[/quote]

Look up the the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill of Rights. and interpret it for yourself. You can tell me if I am wrong.

Just to throw a little gas on the fire since I feel like this is the source of so much of the disdain out there today.

â??“It’s a good time to remind fans that Ayn Rand HATED Christianity & died on Medicare & Social Security.” ~ John Fugelsang

The Truth About GOP Hero Ayn Rand - YouTube The truth about Ayn Rand

40

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]

I think you’d have to prove those programs (which I know little to nothing about) contributed greatly to the economic growth following whichever period you’re speaking about. First, correlation =/= causation. Second, what types of job training was supplied and what type of economic growth was achieved (ie, if training was given related to some labor type job but the majority of growth was achieved in the finance sector…)? Third, if you can prove causation, were there any unintended consequences related to said programs? In other words, at what cost was this economic growth achieved?

You’re making a pretty big jump by connecting a couple things and any respectable economist would ask that you prove, at minimum, what I mentioned above before taking your theory seriously. :)[/quote]

Look up the the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill of Rights. and interpret it for yourself. You can tell me if I am wrong.

Just to throw a little gas on the fire since I feel like this is the source of so much of the disdain out there today.

â??“It’s a good time to remind fans that Ayn Rand HATED Christianity & died on Medicare & Social Security.” ~ John Fugelsang

The Truth About GOP Hero Ayn Rand - YouTube The truth about Ayn Rand[/quote]

You seem like a bright guy, I’m going to assume you realize the burden of proof falls on you when you make an assertion. I can check out that bill and see what it was about, but you need to show that it improved the economy in the ways you say it does.

I know your 2nd comment wasn’t directed at me, but I’m not a bible thumper, am not a steadfast follower of Ayn Rand principles, and would also like to point out there is a difference between advocating certain principles and exploiting the system to one’s own benefit. :slight_smile: