GDP numbers in. They are ugly (1.3%)

[BoberFett]

And Republicans want to cut government spending by 5% of GDP in the middle of a recession.

Keep trying to reinflate that bubble fool, I'm sure it will work eventually.

 

[dullard]

If you were intelectually honest you would include all the sections including the one where the 18% cap on expenditures equal to GDP only takes place after the balanced budget amendment is ratified by the States. Until then, the provisions of the cut and cap sections are in effect.

In other words, everything you said about an "immediate" 5% reduction in expenditures is inaccurate. BTW, that is a nice way of saying you are being shall we say selective with the facts.

When does the debt limit need to be raised? Within a week. The balanced budget amendment must happen before the debt limit is raised (less than a week). That pretty much makes the drop to 18% almost as immediate as politics get.

Alternatively, we can simply not raise the debt limit, in which case we won't balance the budget, in which case the whole bill is useless as it comes down to minimal cuts and caps that will be ignored.

 

[dphantom]

When does the debt limit need to be raised? Within a week. The balanced budget amendment must happen before the debt limit is raised (less than a week). That pretty much makes the drop to 18% almost as immediate as politics get.

Alternatively, we can simply not raise the debt limit, in which case we won't balance the budget, in which case the whole bill is useless as it comes down to minimal cuts and caps that will be ignored.

Do you understand how an amendment to the US Constitution is done??? It has to pass the House, Senate and be signed by the President. Then it is submitted to the States for ratification generally over a several year period.

That 18% does not take effect when the bill is passed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't have the link handy but it seems that this is not a final figure but subject to revision. Likely final figure will be around 0.4%

 

[spidey07]

Do you understand how an amendment to the US Constitution is done??? It has to pass the House, Senate and be signed by the President. Then it is submitted to the States for ratification generally over a several year period.

That 18% does not take effect when the bill is passed.

Umm, the president has no role at all in amending. Zero, even though BHO, supposedly constitutional lawyer, has said many times he will veto such an amendment.

That dumbass doesn't even know he has zero say in it.

 

[a777pilot]

Umm, the president has no role at all in amending. Zero, even though BHO, supposedly constitutional lawyer, has said many times he will veto such an amendment.

That dumbass doesn't even know he has zero say in it.

...and some of you wonder why I call him Bobo, the Post Turtle. LOL!

 

[HendrixFan]

Umm, the president has no role at all in amending. Zero, even though BHO, supposedly constitutional lawyer, has said many times he will veto such an amendment.

That dumbass doesn't even know he has zero say in it.

Link? Source?

Only thing I read was Obama saying he would veto a bill that would require congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling can be raised. Not the actual amendment (that wouldn't pass anyway).

 

[werepossum]

Actually you are way, way off base (and I'm a bit surprised werepossum fell for it also). Production without consumption is absolutely worthless and never will amount to anything. What we need is business that can compete against Chinese and other third world factories while fostering the growth of the middle class, who are the engine of any consumer spending economy. The two goals are not mutually exclusive but require smart, nondoctrinaire and not simplistic solutions.

Relying on the GOP's trickle down economics alone will result in a few very rich capitalists with factories in China and Vietnam (along with the occassional five pension leftovers) and the great masses left with no opportunity or economic role.

Production without consumption is certainly not worthless as long as that surplus production can be exported to healthier economies. Our most fundamental problem at the moment is that we consume far more wealth than we produce, relying on borrowing to make up the difference. Contrary to progressive dogma, a nation cannot borrow its way to prosperity, nor even attempt to do so forever. Our second most fundamental problem is that most of our consumer products are now imported; putting more money in the hands of consumers, while it does have benefits in making the economy move, also exports money out of the nation. We then have to borrow that money back. Our third most fundamental problem is probably the divergence in wealth, which is greatly influenced by our free trade policies. As you say, those with wealth to invest find it more profitable to invest that money in other nations with healthier economies at the moment, but with systematically lower wages, fewer regulations, and lower taxes. Using government to seize that wealth for redistribution is one solution, but that empowers government (bad thing), accustoms people to think of government as entitled to seize and redistribute wealth (bad thing), and is a powerful incentive to the wealthy to simply keep all production and its profits out of the USA as much as possible - thereby exacerbating the first two problems.

Relying on the GOP's trickle down economics alone will result in a few very rich capitalists with factories in China and Vietnam (along with the occassional five pension leftovers) and the great masses left with no opportunity or economic role. Relying on the Democrats' trickle down economics alone will result in a few very rich politicians and the great masses left with no opportunity or economic role.

 

[dphantom]

Umm, the president has no role at all in amending. Zero, even though BHO, supposedly constitutional lawyer, has said many times he will veto such an amendment.

That dumbass doesn't even know he has zero say in it.

You are correct. The amendment process bypasses the President. However, the cut, cap, balance act would need to be signed by the President. My error and good catch.

 

[First]

I was mistaken. There is simply no way to get out of this with him still in the white house as his policies are still in action.

lmao backtrack.

Have you not been paying attention to a huge number of businessmen saying until he gets out of the way we won't grow? This is purely based on his attack on capitalism and business and libtards insanely cheering him on - "yeah! Go get those evil businesses, get'em Obama, yeah! Oh, and coal/oil - get them to!"

How can businesses be scared of Obama when he gets more donations from big business and Wall Street than any other presidential candidate? Think before speaking.

How about his energy policies? have you not been paying attention to them and what it's doing? "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under my plan" - BHO

He never said that the way you believe he did.

 

[thraashman]

Link? Source?

Only thing I read was Obama saying he would veto a bill that would require congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling can be raised. Not the actual amendment (that wouldn't pass anyway).

Which is what he did say. And why despite us wondering about a77pilot and his nicknames, no one wonders why most of us call him and spidey idiots.

 

[dullard]

Do you understand how an amendment to the US Constitution is done??? It has to pass the House, Senate and be signed by the President. Then it is submitted to the States for ratification generally over a several year period.

That 18% does not take effect when the bill is passed.

Clearly you don't understand how an amendment is done. The president, if he signs, is simply doing it as part of ceremony as it isn't required. The point is by August 2nd, 2011, the house would have to vote for the balanced budget. That vote is for 18% spending. That vote comes almost immediately. The whole discussion is about them voting for 18% soon. I mean, if they didn't want it, why would they vote for it? They'd be voting for a 5% cut in spending during this difficult part of the economy (technically not a recession, so I guess the whole debate is wrong from the start).

 

[a777pilot]

Which is what he did say. And why despite us wondering about a77pilot and his nicknames, no one wonders why most of us call him and spidey idiots.

LOL!

Read that again, what you quoted and see if your reply isn't funny.

 

[piasabird]

They were looking at employment costs. The reason the costs rose was a direct result of the O'Bammah Communist Health Care. Cant fix stupid.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wut. Corporate earnings are at record levels. They continue to outsource everything they can. It's like the only thing manufacturers in this country care about.

That's his point. Corps are sitting on huge piles of cash instead of investing that cash. One of the reasons for not spending that cash is uncertainty about the regulatory environment and the government. That's not just speculation, some of those making the decisions have openly said so.

The only way to fix it and restore confidence is to get rid of the post turtle.

 

[dphantom]

Clearly you don't understand how an amendment is done. The president, if he signs, is simply doing it as part of ceremony as it isn't required. The point is by August 2nd, 2011, the house would have to vote for the balanced budget. That vote is for 18% spending. That vote comes almost immediately. The whole discussion is about them voting for 18% soon. I mean, if they didn't want it, why would they vote for it? They'd be voting for a 5% cut in spending during this difficult part of the economy (technically not a recession, so I guess the whole debate is wrong from the start).

Clearly you cannot read. I already corrected that misstatement. And you continue to fail to understand what the bill would have done.

CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:
■Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
■$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
■Defense budget at President’s level.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:
■2012, 22.5% of GDP.
■2013, 21.7% of GDP.
■2014, 20.8% of GDP.
■2015, 20.2% of GDP.
■2016, 20.2% of GDP.
■2017, 20.0% of GDP.
■2018, 19.7% of GDP.
■2019, 19.9% of GDP.
■2020, 19.9% of GDP.
■2021, 19.9% of GDP.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.

 

[her209]

If you were intelectually honest you would include all the sections including the one where the 18% cap on expenditures equal to GDP only takes place after the balanced budget amendment is ratified by the States. Until then, the provisions of the cut and cap sections are in effect.

In other words, everything you said about an "immediate" 5% reduction in expenditures is inaccurate. BTW, that is a nice way of saying you are being shall we say selective with the facts.

/facepalm

Do the Teabaggers want 18% or not?

 

[First]

That's his point. Corps are sitting on huge piles of cash instead of investing that cash. One of the reasons for not spending that cash is uncertainty about the regulatory environment and the government. That's not just speculation, some of those making the decisions have openly said so.

The only way to fix it and restore confidence is to get rid of the post turtle.

Not really, all polls have suggested the uncertainty of gov't has played very little part in businesses hoarding cash and that's a fact you'll just have to deal with at some point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The only way to fix it and restore confidence is to get rid of the post turtle.

I finally got around to figuring out what "post turtle" was and found this:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama as our president. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'Post Turtle''.

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'. The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with'.

 

[dank69]

That's his point. Corps are sitting on huge piles of cash instead of investing that cash. One of the reasons for not spending that cash is uncertainty about the regulatory environment and the government. That's not just speculation, some of those making the decisions have openly said so.

The only way to fix it and restore confidence is to get rid of the post turtle.

Those same corps said if we cut taxes, they would create more jobs, yet you still believe anything they say.

 

[dank69]

I finally got around to figuring out what "post turtle" was and found this:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama as our president. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'Post Turtle''.

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'. The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with'.

Nice, you finally caught on to a 10+ year old meme

 

[KlokWyze]

I finally got around to figuring out what "post turtle" was and found this:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama as our president. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'Post Turtle''.

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'. The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with'.

LMAO..... that's hilarious. Sounds like a valid moniker for any president TBH.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nice, you finally caught on to a 10+ year old meme

Lol...I generally don't keep up with such things...please forgive me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Those same corps said if we cut taxes, they would create more jobs, yet you still believe anything they say.

Not exactly. What he's referring to is the sentiment of small businesses. In NY we're seemingly bent on eliminating them by these means. Permits and other fees are staggering and are constantly changing such that they are becoming a significant barrier to making a profit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Those same corps said if we cut taxes, they would create more jobs, yet you still believe anything they say.

Are you talking about all the tax cuts given in the stimulus package to create jobs? I didn't believe that horseshit either.