Thread: Obama National Debt

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by fly351

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5277695921912#

*

And we think our country is better than everybody elses.

Of course the French think that way.

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

I think it is time to put the breaks on and let's focus on stabilizing and protecting our allies and supporting our troops on their mission and stop adding programs and laws and just WHOA for a little bit.

I support putting 65-70% of our Armed forces in Afghanistan to get the job done but lets not forget what is going on in our home turf.

We can protect ourselves from terrorist from here on U.S. soil without having to spend another 8 years fighting a war in a different country.
I am sure you saw the news of the raids in NYC and a man found in CO.

We can get the job done here so dont go off on that red tangent that we are fighting the Afghan war for terrorism and the CHILDREN.

OH ME OH MY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

If you're busy fighting with me on your own lawn, then you have no time to come over to my house and fight on my turf. Granted you would most likely say screw it and BBQ some odd assortment of chickens with some weird sauce you came up with. :9

Like Rock Lobster says, keeping them busy and disrupting their network in there homeland, so they do not have the leisure of openly planning attacks on our homeland, has made a big difference.

If they are always ducking a bomb or trying to avoid a raid, then they don't communicate as well and are busy hiding, instead of carrying out attacks in our yard, that they were able to plan in there's.

Keep hunting them down and keep bringing them in, dead or alive. We are winning this war on terror.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Well, there are alot of "tools" in the government.Business goes beyond the banks...which had become far to political for their own good. We should have let them fall and allowed smaller regional banks to bid for the accounts and assets. Who was supposed to be watching the banks?

But if you allowed the banks to fail, you will induce runs on the banks because no one feels their money is secure. This will lead to more banks failing, and next thing you know we are in another great depression. If the government had nationalized them, I would have supported them being broken up and sold off regionally. No more "too big to fail" and we save ourselves from a depression. By bailing them out like we did, all we did was save ourselves from a depression but the banks still remain too big to fail. So we agree on what the end result should have been, just disagree on the manner to get to that end.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

I would only support a temporary tax increase if the baseline budget of the fed was capped (permanently) to prevent the bureacracy from growing, consuming any positive fiscal gains in the process. Otherwise I would prefer the reevaluation of the many federal agencies for duplicity of jurisdiction and a reevaluation of their existing charters. Although the question as to how I would fund it appears to be mute point (as currently it is so much funded but leveraged) but I would attempt to fund it similar to war bonds of WW2 as well as measure to insure small business has a favorable business climate. Do not get me wrong, deficit spending is not a problem when its neccessary such as the above stated. The trouble is...EVERYTHING is an emergency when it is politically expedient...which judging from the CBO's projections this was.

One reason for the use of war bonds was to take money OUT of the system because the government was putting so much in to fund the war. If no money was taken out, there would have been mass inflation. If you take money out during a depression or recession and put the same amount back in, you are really left with zero gain. I disagree about the stimulus being just "politically expedient" and the CBO projections all projected a positive effect from it. From January, 2009, when the bill was first getting thrown around: Tuesday, it took a look at the overall economy, and found it badly in need of the stimulus. The bill, Elmendorf said, "would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60822.html

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Well, this is where we vary alot spending helps in the short term but you must build the climate to carry you long term. I say that dropping the tax rates for small businesses as defined by the SBA to say 25% of their current levels would do quite a bit. Secondly, I thought the stimulus was supposed to support "shovel ready projects" (does bullshit apply?) , if so then why are the jobs not coming in until 2010 or 2011? As far as whether or not we needed the stimulus and the projected recovery time...might I direct your attention to slide 15 of the CBO's presentation on the implementation lag of fiscal policy. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10255/06-02-IMF.pdf

Cutting taxes for small businesses will not do anything to stimulate growth. It won't sustain growth, and all it does is add even more to the debt. A lot of money has gone out for shovel-ready projects. I know for a fact at least one road being redone by my house is a result of the stimulus. But for other projects, it takes time to get the money out and everything implemented. The projections for the most jobs being created has always been 2010 or 2011.

As for the GDP Gap, your slide proves the positive effect of the stimulus. It stops the gap from decreasing as much and having an even worse recession.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Free market is a myth...much like the socialists utopia. It is not "The Jungle" out there. Never, have I argued for market purity, simply for efficiency out of those who have none but, do have MY tax dollars. I have enough experience with the fed to determine that for myself the less active they are the better, with few exceptions naturally. Sorry for the wall of text.

Nothing wrong with arguing for efficiency and the like. I know you weren't arguing for a pure free market, and I wasn't advocating for a socialist utopia, but like I said before, our differences stem from how we view the role of government.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

If you believe that cutting taxes for the majority of businesses in the country would have no effect...then I have to ask where do you think wealth comes from ?

We are talking about bringing an economy out of a recession, right? Cutting taxes does extremely little to stimulate anything. It will not get them more customers, it will not allow them to hire new people, the amount they would save would not be an extreme amount, etc. What it will do, however, is put us into more debt that people like to clamor about. The idea that cutting taxes can magically fix everything is a myth.