Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

Sorry, the budget was balanced the last time a Democrat was President, by a fuckin' Republican Senate. And sure, you could argue that was because of the economic boom at the time, but we had one of those during Bush's 2 terms as well, yet he still grew the debt faster than FDR did during the Great Depression.

Now, are you going to argue facts, or are you going to keep joining the trolls in ignoring them and play little straw men games?

Fixed for accuracy.

Get off the "Im ignoring how much he spent" bullshit. Ive never justified it, nor have I excused it. In fact, unless YOU want to make a $100 paypal bet, I will prove I've called Bush out for it. Dont be an asshat.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

Sorry, the budget was balanced the last time a Democrat was President. And sure, you could argue that was because of the economic boom at the time, but we had one of those during Bush's 2 terms as well, yet he still grew the debt faster than FDR did during the Great Depression.

Now, are you going to argue facts, or are you going to keep joining the trolls in ignoring them and play little straw men games?



No it wasn't balanced. If your company had the same books...there is no way your books would have been balanced.... but that'sl a completely different subject since this thread was supposed to be about Obama and his long list of spending promises(not Bush, Republicans, or McCain).
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

Sorry, the budget was balanced the last time a Democrat was President. And sure, you could argue that was because of the economic boom at the time, but we had one of those during Bush's 2 terms as well, yet he still grew the debt faster than FDR did during the Great Depression.

Now, are you going to argue facts, or are you going to keep joining the trolls in ignoring them and play little straw men games?



No it wasn't balanced. If your company had the same books...there is no way your books would have been balanced.... but that'sl a completely different subject since this thread was supposed to be about Obama and his long list of spending promises(not Bush, Republicans, or McCain).

Than maybe you guys shouldn't deflect?

The OP's topic was already answered, this thread has spawned into whatever it goes too now.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

Sorry, the budget was balanced the last time a Democrat was President. And sure, you could argue that was because of the economic boom at the time, but we had one of those during Bush's 2 terms as well, yet he still grew the debt faster than FDR did during the Great Depression.

Now, are you going to argue facts, or are you going to keep joining the trolls in ignoring them and play little straw men games?



No it wasn't balanced. If your company had the same books...there is no way your books would have been balanced.... but that'sl a completely different subject since this thread was supposed to be about Obama and his long list of spending promises(not Bush, Republicans, or McCain).

Than maybe you guys shouldn't deflect?

The OP's topic was already answered, this thread has spawned into whatever it goes too now.

Deflection? Buahahahaha :p That's what the obamabots keep trying to do to this thread by duhverting to Bush, McCain, Republicans. You'd see that if your koolaid glass wasn't tipped back and covering your eyes.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

Sorry, the budget was balanced the last time a Democrat was President. And sure, you could argue that was because of the economic boom at the time, but we had one of those during Bush's 2 terms as well, yet he still grew the debt faster than FDR did during the Great Depression.

Now, are you going to argue facts, or are you going to keep joining the trolls in ignoring them and play little straw men games?



No it wasn't balanced. If your company had the same books...there is no way your books would have been balanced.... but that'sl a completely different subject since this thread was supposed to be about Obama and his long list of spending promises(not Bush, Republicans, or McCain).

Than maybe you guys shouldn't deflect?

The OP's topic was already answered, this thread has spawned into whatever it goes too now.

Deflection? Buahahahaha :p That's what the obamabots keep trying to do to this thread by duhverting to Bush, McCain, Republicans. You'd see that if your koolaid glass wasn't tipped back and covering your eyes.

Actually, Blackangst was the one who brought the republicans up. There is no need to "deflect" either, the op's issue was addressed with no follow up at all or even a comment on fact from anyone arguing against the spending.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: RichardE

Actually, Blackangst was the one who brought the republicans up. There is no need to "deflect" either, the op's issue was addressed with no follow up at all or even a comment on fact from anyone arguing against the spending.

Hi. My name is RichardE. I wear a bike helmet for safety.


Look at the second post in the thread. Dumbass. Did I post it? no. I didnt post until the 4th page. By then at least 10 references, by at least 10 dumbasses who deflected the original OP, had been made.

 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I am amazed that republicans continue to use the phrase "tax and spend liberal" without turning red-faced in shame. Given the choice between democrats who want to increase spending on domestic programs we can't afford, and republicans who want to freeze domestic spending but spend three times that amount on the military and on nation building, it seems an easy choice to pick the democrats.

Then again, I heard some of them don't wear flag pins, so we can't trust them...

Completely agreed. I rather have fiscal liberal spending on domestic services than grossly fiscal foreign spending.

While taxes are lower, the neo-cons are spending about twice as much as Clinton did in his final years, and I'm no fan of Clintons. The money comes from our currency. The Federal Reserve just buys bonds and increases the money supply.

Besides, when adjusted for real value, peace time has had historically higher returns in the market. War time just appears higher due to inflation. When money is worth less, the nominal cash flow of a stock increases, which drives up it's price. Simple economics.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE

Actually, Blackangst was the one who brought the republicans up. There is no need to "deflect" either, the op's issue was addressed with no follow up at all or even a comment on fact from anyone arguing against the spending.

Hi. My name is RichardE. I wear a bike helmet for safety.


Look at the second post in the thread. Dumbass. Did I post it? no. I didnt post until the 4th page. By then at least 10 references, by at least 10 dumbasses who deflected the original OP, had been made.

Does that still negate the fact you were the ones who brought up the republicans on this page?

No, it doesn't. Quit acting like a spoiled partisan brat. Seriously, you did nothing to contribute to this thread, you didn't discuss the topic or the responses at all besides trolling. You added nothing whatsoever than act all offended when someone calls you on it. "I wear a bike helmet for safety!" What did you do? Just graduate middle school?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Does that still negate the fact you were the ones who brought up the republicans on this page?

Actually what it does is negate your response.

Originally posted by: RichardE
No, it doesn't. Quit acting like a spoiled partisan brat. Seriously, you did nothing to contribute to this thread, you didn't discuss the topic or the responses at all besides trolling.
Oh you mean like the 20 or so fuckin' OT remarks before mine? Is that what you meant? In case you havent actually read the OP, it has nothing to do with Republicans. So me asking WTF Republicans have to do with the thread is trolling? Really?

Originally posted by: RichardE
You added nothing whatsoever than act all offended when someone calls you on it. "I wear a bike helmet for safety!" What did you do? Just graduate middle school?

Im not offended at all. Im amused at dumbasses like you and a few others who put words in my mouth, and claim I say things Ive NEVER said, especially in this thread! I fucking offered to paypal $100 to prove it...and no one has.

Who's the hack again?
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Does that still negate the fact you were the ones who brought up the republicans on this page?

Actually what it does is negate your response.

Originally posted by: RichardE
No, it doesn't. Quit acting like a spoiled partisan brat. Seriously, you did nothing to contribute to this thread, you didn't discuss the topic or the responses at all besides trolling.
Oh you mean like the 20 or so fuckin' OT remarks before mine? Is that what you meant? In case you havent actually read the OP, it has nothing to do with Republicans. So me asking WTF Republicans have to do with the thread is trolling? Really?

Originally posted by: RichardE
You added nothing whatsoever than act all offended when someone calls you on it. "I wear a bike helmet for safety!" What did you do? Just graduate middle school?

Im not offended at all. Im amused at dumbasses like you and a few others who put words in my mouth, and claim I say things Ive NEVER said, especially in this thread! I fucking offered to paypal $100 to prove it...and no one has.

Who's the hack again?

Negates my response? Seriously, are you drunk or just unable to follow a conversation?

Did I mention the OT remarks before yours? Or do you feel justified in continuing the OT statements while at the same time condemning them? That is pretty hypocritical.

I didn't ask you to prove anything, I said you have contributed nothing, who is putting words into whose mouth now?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Does that still negate the fact you were the ones who brought up the republicans on this page?

Actually what it does is negate your response.

Originally posted by: RichardE
No, it doesn't. Quit acting like a spoiled partisan brat. Seriously, you did nothing to contribute to this thread, you didn't discuss the topic or the responses at all besides trolling.
Oh you mean like the 20 or so fuckin' OT remarks before mine? Is that what you meant? In case you havent actually read the OP, it has nothing to do with Republicans. So me asking WTF Republicans have to do with the thread is trolling? Really?

Originally posted by: RichardE
You added nothing whatsoever than act all offended when someone calls you on it. "I wear a bike helmet for safety!" What did you do? Just graduate middle school?

Im not offended at all. Im amused at dumbasses like you and a few others who put words in my mouth, and claim I say things Ive NEVER said, especially in this thread! I fucking offered to paypal $100 to prove it...and no one has.

Who's the hack again?

Originally posted by: RichardE
Negates my response? Seriously, are you drunk or just unable to follow a conversation?
Yes. Because you accused me of, and I quote, "you were the ones who brought up the republicans on this page?". Now, were you including me this in your response? If so, youre completely wrong, as the proof I provided shows such. I didnt bring up Republicans first. One of our esteemed Senior people did, on the first page.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Did I mention the OT remarks before yours? Or do you feel justified in continuing the OT statements while at the same time condemning them? That is pretty hypocritical.
I never made OT remarks. I was calling out those that were. Is that OT asking why someone isnt staying on topic? How the fuck does your mind work anyway?


Originally posted by: RichardE
I didn't ask you to prove anything, I said you have contributed nothing, who is putting words into whose mouth now?

No, you didnt ask me to prove anything. I never implied you did. If you actually read what I posted, you would know that. You would actually see I was explaining my amusement at your dimwitted responses, as well as other's attempt to put words into my mouth and claim I'd said something I never did. You werent very good at english, were you.


Bah. Me continuing to point out your lack of comprehension is gonna lock this thread. If we had more discussion about how Obama might handle the budget, which is the OP, and less Bush/GOP bashing, we might actually get somewhere, eh?
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This thread is a gem. Can't defend his spending proposals so you call the poster stupid or a hypocrite.

;)

We did defend them multiple times to no avail. You guys didn't want a discussion you wanted to fear monger. Try posting something of substance?

So when you accuse the Republicans of something the Dems are guilty of we can call you a hypocrite also?

I'll remember that.

This is where you went offtopic Blackangst1. Maybe you didn't mean it as such, but perhaps you should express your views more clearly than.

As for discussion on the budget, that has been discussed and ignored. You can go back to the beginning of the thread if your actually serious about that and we can discuss those points. I don't think you really care for them though.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ericlp
I'm confused about your post in general. How does this excuse bush from spending trillions of dollars and still nothing to show for it.


Answer that I guess....

You should be happy he is spending money on the military and education. I mean you have a degree right? Forget about the $$ issue what problems do you have with the items in your post? I mean, tell us how they aren't good for "America"...
Where did I 'excuse' Bush for his spending?

Didn't even mention Bush in this thread. And you should know that spending is the one thing that conseratitives are most annoyed about when it comes to Bush. Bush's record on spending SUCKS.

Now back to Obama... does a balance budget matter anymore?

What the 'ell is that bolded ??? up there? Got a little med problem going there?
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,192
44
91
I had a great reply to PJ typed up but realized I couldn't top the responses already made.

The $TRILLION to be spent in Iraq buys us what?

Borrow and spend Rebublicans says it all.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
The Republican party cannot just expect Americans to forgive them for the past 7+ years. Perhaps if the party would not have excused Bush for his horrendous actions while in office, things would be different.

But how the Republicans can expect the rest of America to stay on board the sinking ship is beyond me. While McCain has shown some disapproval in how the war in Iraq was handled, he has otherwise had his head up Bush's ass.

The Republican party badly needs to learn a lesson. Voting for McCain doesn't do that.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
In case anyone's wondering what Obama's actual policies are, here you go:

Barack Obama's Plan

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

While he doesn't specifically talk about balancing the budget in X years, his policies, if implemented, would certainly help.
Paygo is flawed as it is atleast partially based on the faulty notion that taxcuts are a "cost" when they clearly are not.
How exactly does BHO think he's going to repeal the rich tax cuts?
Pork? Haven't you people been claiming pork is a drop in the bucket when we point it out?
Competitive bid sounds all nice and gives people warm and fuzzy feelings but it may not be the most efficient manner of doing things - not to mention the speed aspect of the bid process.
Subsidies for oil companies? What specific subsidies are these?
Tax system more "fair" - Yeah, sure... meaning raise taxes.
Tax havens? Any specifics here or just more generic platitudes that get people to nod when they haven't a clue what the specifics are.
Again with the oil and gas - got specifics or just playing to the crowd that doesn't understand profit margins(ie - gross dollars vs %)

But this has what to do with his long list of spending proposals?

So 1 guy came close and the rest duhvert... wow. I also fail to see how the one that came close refutes the tax and spend idea as stated in the OP. It sounds exactly like what it is even with this attempt.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,070
55,595
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
In case anyone's wondering what Obama's actual policies are, here you go:

Barack Obama's Plan

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

While he doesn't specifically talk about balancing the budget in X years, his policies, if implemented, would certainly help.
Paygo is flawed as it is atleast partially based on the faulty notion that taxcuts are a "cost" when they clearly are not.
How exactly does BHO think he's going to repeal the rich tax cuts?
Pork? Haven't you people been claiming pork is a drop in the bucket when we point it out?
Competitive bid sounds all nice and gives people warm and fuzzy feelings but it may not be the most efficient manner of doing things - not to mention the speed aspect of the bid process.
Subsidies for oil companies? What specific subsidies are these?
Tax system more "fair" - Yeah, sure... meaning raise taxes.
Tax havens? Any specifics here or just more generic platitudes that get people to nod when they haven't a clue what the specifics are.
Again with the oil and gas - got specifics or just playing to the crowd that doesn't understand profit margins(ie - gross dollars vs %)

But this has what to do with his long list of spending proposals?

So 1 guy came close and the rest duhvert... wow. I also fail to see how the one that came close refutes the tax and spend idea as stated in the OP. It sounds exactly like what it is even with this attempt.

How are tax cuts not a 'cost'?
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
They represent a decrease in government income, not an increase in government spending.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,070
55,595
136
Originally posted by: venkman
They represent a decrease in government income, not an increase in government spending.

Right.

So, how are they not a cost? Decreasing income and increasing spending are exactly the same thing as far as your bottom line is concerned. Since Paygo is only concerned with the bottom line....

?
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
Your confusing cost with opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a tax cut is the loss in revenue (and the related loss in social services) but it isn't an actual accountable cost. If you say you are cutting taxes, spending does not increase or decrease, it is just the revenue for that spending decreases and more of the difference has to be financed with borrowing.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: venkman
Your confusing cost with opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a tax cut is the loss in revenue (and the related loss in social services) but it isn't an actual accountable cost. If you say you are cutting taxes, spending does not increase or decrease, it is just the revenue for that spending decreases and more of the difference has to be financed with borrowing.
tax-cuts are at best(for libs) a POTENTIAL REDUCTION OF INCOME. I'm no accountant but would an accountant put the reduction of wages on the "cost" side of the ledger? Nope.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Nice dance, CSG- the fact remains that revenue reduction has the same effect on the bottom line as increased spending. Deficits are deficits, no matter the mechanism used to achieve them...
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Yeah, BHO is to balance the budget. I guess that's why the WSJ editor called his economic plan Nanny State on Steroids.



And for those complaining about government support of education, between them Yale and Havard alone controls an endowment account of over 40 billion dollars. I wonder how many people they could pay for with just the yearly interest on that.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice dance, CSG- the fact remains that revenue reduction has the same effect on the bottom line as increased spending. Deficits are deficits, no matter the mechanism used to achieve them...

The only dance here is by libs that call reductions in increases "cuts" and think tax-cuts have "cost" as if that money is supposed to be their(the gov't) instead of the people actually earning it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,070
55,595
136
Originally posted by: venkman
Your confusing cost with opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a tax cut is the loss in revenue (and the related loss in social services) but it isn't an actual accountable cost. If you say you are cutting taxes, spending does not increase or decrease, it is just the revenue for that spending decreases and more of the difference has to be financed with borrowing.

Right. None of this matters in the slightest.

You're soaring way over the head of that legislation. The only idea in it is that if you increase spending or decrease revenues, you have to offset that somewhere else with reductions in spending. They use the word 'cost' because it is by far the most generally applicable word to the transaction that is occurring. This is a word game.