• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

$16,000,000,000,000 And counting....

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,919
8
81
"You know, Paul [O'Neil], Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney


So, either deficits don't matter (when it's under Republicans), or deficits do matter (when under Democrats).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,801
3,315
126
"You know, Paul [O'Neil], Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney


So, either deficits don't matter (when it's under Republicans), or deficits do matter (when under Democrats).
Yes, we're well aware that both parties take both positions on this issue.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,309
11,273
126
The economy thrived under Reagan, so maybe they do matter when under Republicans.

WHADDAYA THINK OF THAT?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
so what can we do to hide all the obama failures?? maybe a few more soaring rhetorical speeches?? A hologram of Ted Kennedy cheering on the crowd??
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
Maybe bring Bush out of hiding? His absence only affirms he is responsible for everything.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Just keep making the issues about stuff that really doesn't matter. The public will follow.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
Just keep making the issues about stuff that really doesn't matter. The public will follow.
Exactly what we got out of the GOP convention. No history or credibility, decisive us against them politics, do what bush did (without mentioning him) and everything will be great. (for the 1%)
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Exactly what we got out of the GOP convention. No history or credibility, decisive us against them politics, do what bush did (without mentioning him) and everything will be great. (for the 1%)
And the DNC about messages about Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness, all weighs heavily on the publics mind when the economy is in the shitter and we have 8%+ unemployment.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
And the DNC about messages about Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness, all weighs heavily on the publics mind when the economy is in the shitter and we have 8%+ unemployment.
I return you to post 88.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33927247&postcount=88

When you explain that and tell me how Romney will do better, you may get some credibility.

Edit: Especially when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut. I call shens.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
I return you to post 88.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33927247&postcount=88

When you explain that and tell me how Romney will do better, you may get some credibility.

Edit: Especially when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut. I call shens.
Divert much? Where is the added cost of 2 years of unemployment Obama added? All the departments of the Government that fall under discressionary spending that have seen 10-20% increases?
That graph is a heaping pile of flem and you know it.

Now, back on topicv. Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness is what the country cares about over Jobs?
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
Divert much? Where is the added cost of 2 years of unemployment Bush caused ?
Fixed.

Government that fall under discressionary spending that have seen 10-20% increases?
That graph is a heaping pile of flem and you know it.
No. I think it's kind of telling. Much more than you would like to accept.

Now, back on topicv. Abortion, HealthInsurance, Birthcontrol, Tax Returns, Fairness is what the country cares about over Jobs?
Dude this thread is about the Decifit. Not that. You are off topic.

Now answer!

How can you vote for Romney when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,107
1
81
No, it's called basic economics. Unless your family budget can increase its earnings whenever you want, either by raising (no good analogy to taxation) or in the worst case scenario by (no good analogy to printing money) at the cost of (there's no good analogy for slower economic growth, because it's a shit analogy to start)? Unless you're arguing that we're all family and so we have to support each other when we're broke and down no matter the cost? Unless there's no such thing as debt collectors or repo men when your family wracks up a debt? Unless the whole world is eager to lend you money at sub-inflation rates, despite the previous difference?

It's a shit analogy. Government debt is nothing like the kind of debt we experience day-to-day. It's still 100% possible to understand that and argue for eliminating the debt being very important for the government. It just requires talking about what it is rather than trying to oversimplify.
I can think of a great analogy for taxation and printing money it's called stealing but extortion works too.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
I can think of a great analogy for taxation and printing money it's called stealing but extortion works too.
Ugh yeah those are great analogies for household accounting, I know my house's income is entirely derived from extorting and stealing from my family members, and then I use that money for my family's benefit, that's a perfect 1 to 1 comparison that makes things easy to understand.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Fixed.



No. I think it's kind of telling. Much more than you would like to accept.



Dude this thread is about the Decifit. Not that. You are off topic.

Now answer!

How can you vote for Romney when he wishes to expand defense spending with an unpaid for tax cut?
Which Bush policy was it that cause the Housing Market to crash?

"Unpaid" is false - From Romney's Tax Plan - "revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. "
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,107
1
81
Ugh yeah those are great analogies for household accounting, I know my house's income is entirely derived from extorting and stealing from my family members, and then I use that money for my family's benefit, that's a perfect 1 to 1 comparison that makes things easy to understand.
Nothing in life is a perfect 1 to 1 comparison, life is as simple or as complex as you make it.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Ugh yeah those are great analogies for household accounting, I know my house's income is entirely derived from extorting and stealing from my family members, and then I use that money for my family's benefit, that's a perfect 1 to 1 comparison that makes things easy to understand.
Lets not bring what Gov does to those who pay a positive amount of Fed taxes to pay for all the sh1t Gov spends money on into the discussion...
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
The point being, it's a stupid analogy that's fundamentally broken. The only comparison is money in -> money out and the word 'debt.' Everything about how you get money in, what money out does, the consequences of that ratio, the relationship between revenue and future revenue, and the meaning of that debt are completely different.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments against having a big national debt, especially this big relative to GDP, and especially when the deficit problem seems so intransigent. Use those, not this one dumb common one.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
If the Pols know they should be living within their budget (when they bother to set one) berzerker, then they should already be designing into their budget a slight surplus from expected revenue. When the underlings under them report that revenue is going to be down, what they shouldn't do is giggle and vote on spending more, they should be in a lockdown figuring out what they're going to float, stop, modify, whatever to remain within budget.

This is what people who want Gov to live within their means expect, and why they use the simple household example because as members of a responsible household, when money is short (deficit), the responsible household a.) realizes this and b.) takes steps to live within their means.

It's difficult to say if A ever happens to the degree it should in Gov, and we can certainly see that B never happens.

People want to at minimum start seeing B. The problem is other people could care less about B (for varying reasons) and want to keep going on a drunken spending binge. We have arrived at an impasse, which unfortunately won't be solved this election as either Obamney or Robama will still allow drunkern sailor spending because not doing so is going to piss off significant portions of The Masses.

In short: Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Chuck
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
Which Bush policy was it that cause the Housing Market to crash?
I will say it was many factors.

Part (a lot) of the blame goes to Clinton with the 1997 lending mandates
and Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates way way way too low to make up for the dot com crash.



Lack of oversight from the comity to oversee Fanny and Freddie in 2003.

Edit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
It was known in 2006 things were getting out of hand yet bush commented...

Bush said:
If houses get too expensive, people will stop buying them... Economies should cycle
So in the end you can't fully blame him, but you can say he knew about it and his in action made it much worse. If you live by Laissez-faire you die by Laissez-faire.

"Unpaid" is false - From Romney's Tax Plan - "revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. "
Good luck with that math. No way you can ever make up the money. What's the term. Voodoo Economics?
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
You know the problem with this is, had Bush actually taken the steps necessary in that regulatory and economic period, he'd have had to take harsh steps to actually accomplish a reign in of housing purchases. You know what would have happend?

Everyone (short of his supporters) would have been railing on him for punishing the common man and allowing only 'the rich' to buy houses. That is precisely what would have happened. You'd have had Kanye up on stage again saying, Bush won't let Blacks buy houses, Bush doesn't care about Black people.

No Politician, even if they actually have the foresight to see the problem, is going to bite off something that large unless it's so blatant they could not ignore it. The crash wasn't blatant enough, or you'd have had a ton more people calling it out and preparing for it.

Chuck
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY