Obama's legacy so far (2008-2013)

[rudeguy]

You are aware that half of Bush's entire Presidency was with a full Republican Congress right?

just trying to figure out how Bush did all this by himself

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm sorry if you don't like what the economics literature says. I understand that information that tells you things you don't want to hear can be frightening.

Like I said, up is down, down is up, good is bad, bad is good. The proof is in the pudding, we've seen where that path has taken us (> 17 trillion in debt, weakening middle class etc). No amount of blathering by elitist idiots changes reality.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, up is down, down is up, good is bad, bad is good. The proof is in the pudding, we've seen where that path has taken us (> 17 trillion in debt, weakening middle class etc). No amount of blathering by elitist idiots changes reality.

lol. This is a perfect example of the know-nothing stupidity of the extreme right these days. "I don't care what economics says, I know what I know".

How embarrassing for you.

 

[Texashiker]

lol. This is a perfect example of the know-nothing stupidity of the extreme right these days.

I suspect eskimospy will be posting insults by the middle of page 2. That is what he does when he is losing the debate.

Told you he would be posting insults by the middle of page two.

 

[PokerGuy]

lol. This is a perfect example of the know-nothing stupidity of the extreme right these days. "I don't care what economics says, I know what I know".

How embarrassing for you.

Yeah, embarrassing for me that reality is exactly as I would expect it to be. You just don't like the fact that reality doesn't comply with your dumb ideas 😀

Like I said, no amount of blathering changes > $17 trillion in debt.

You are basically the modern equivalent of scientists who came up with all sorts of 'proof' that the earth was at the center of the universe. All the blathering in the world didn't change the fact that it wasn't.

 

[fskimospy]

this is gonna be good....


What economics literature should I look into?

Literature on the IS-LM model when interest rates are trapped at the zero lower bound.

Specifically, budget deficits generally increase interest rates, which lowers private investment. Under normal circumstances this makes government deficits a wash in terms of increased output, but saddles the government with future debt obligations. This is a bad use of resources.

When stuck in a liquidity trap with interest rates at the zero lower bound, government deficits do not increase interest rates, therefore crowding out doesn't happen. This should be blindingly obvious how correct this is from our experience over the last four years. This means government spending truly IS stimulative in these circumstances, with a fiscal multiplier greater than one. This is a good use of resources.

 

[Thebobo]

Pro:
Nothing

Cons:
Killing US citizens without due process
Affordable health care act
Signed NDAA
More free trade agreements
Spending too much time on vacation
Easing sanctions on Iran
Allowing iran to import smart phones
Not closing gitmo
Turning back on isreal
Giving military equipment to egypt
Killing bin laden without bringing him to trial
Using children as props to promote gun control
Not enforcing immigration law
Suing states who enforce immigration law
17+ trillion national debt
Delaying the employer mandate of the aca
Bowing to king abdullah of saudi arabia

Honestly, I can not think of a single thing obama has done that I approve of.

There a some things he has screwed up on many of these are wrong. You really need to do some research on your allegations

These are the Gems tho... I am trying hard not to word this as a personal attack but the real world just works different than you think. I'm not going to provide links just simple search will do for.

Giving military equipment to egypt - USA been doing that for decades :\
Killing bin laden without bringing him to trial - 😱
Spending too much time on vacation - 😱
Allowing iran to import smart phones 😱
Not closing gitmo 🙄
Turning back on israel 😕

And I'll bet if he closed Gitmo all the republicans and your self would be complaining about that now.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, embarrassing for me that reality is exactly as I would expect it to be. You just don't like the fact that reality doesn't comply with your dumb ideas 😀

Like I said, no amount of blathering changes > $17 trillion in debt.

You are basically the modern equivalent of scientists who came up with all sorts of 'proof' that the earth was at the center of the universe. All the blathering in the world didn't change the fact that it wasn't.

It takes a pretty amazing lack of self awareness for the guy who is rejecting research and science to claim that his opponent is practicing geocentrism.

You're descending into self parody now.

 

[rudeguy]

Literature on the IS-LM model when interest rates are trapped at the zero lower bound.

Specifically, budget deficits generally increase interest rates, which lowers private investment. Under normal circumstances this makes government deficits a wash in terms of increased output, but saddles the government with future debt obligations. This is a bad use of resources.

When stuck in a liquidity trap with interest rates at the zero lower bound, government deficits do not increase interest rates, therefore crowding out doesn't happen. This should be blindingly obvious how correct this is from our experience over the last four years. This means government spending truly IS stimulative in these circumstances, with a fiscal multiplier greater than one. This is a good use of resources.

Again...what literature?

 

[Texashiker]

Giving military equipment to egypt - USA been doing that for decades :\
Killing bin laden without bringing him to trial - 😱
Spending too much time on vacation - 😱
Allowing iran to import smart phones 😱
Not closing gitmo 🙄
Turning back on israel 😕

As for bin laden, I would like to have seen him put on trial for the world to see. I would like to see what evidence we had against him, and "exactly" what roll bin laden played in the 9/11 attacks.

I compare bin laden to the Nuremberg trials. The nazi war criminals received a trial, the evidence was laid out for the world to see, and then the criminals were executed.

Now we just kill them without any evidence, trial or jury. We have become the monsters we once hunted.

 

[PokerGuy]

It takes a pretty amazing lack of self awareness for the guy who is rejecting research and science to claim that his opponent is practicing geocentrism.

You're descending into self parody now.

Translation "only a fool would believe such nonsense about the earth orbiting the sun, when all of our scientists agree that the earth is at the center of the universe". Again, all the blathering and insults can not change the reality , no matter how hard you try. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[fskimospy]

Again...what literature?

No problem! Here are two to get you started, let me know if you want more.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rebelo/htm/multiplier.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15714.pdf?new_window=1

 

[fskimospy]

Translation "only a fool would believe such nonsense about the earth orbiting the sun, when all of our scientists agree that the earth is at the center of the universe". Again, all the blathering and insults can not change the reality , no matter how hard you try. The proof is in the pudding.

Right, and the pudding has shown that this economics research is actually right.

You're EXPLICITLY rejecting science and then calling other people geocentrics, when fundamental to geocentrism was a... you guessed it... a rejection of science.

Seriously, no self awareness from you.

 

[PokerGuy]

Right, and the pudding has shown that this economics research is actually right.

Riiiiiight... and so our 40 years of deficit spending has resulted in tremendous growth and huge surpluses. Oh wait, no, we're 17 trillion in the hole with a shrinking middle class. That's the proof. All the other drivel doesn't change those facts.

You're EXPLICITLY rejecting science and then calling other people geocentrics, when fundamental to geocentrism was a... you guessed it... a rejection of science.

Seriously, no self awareness from you.

No, I'm NOT rejecting "science", I'm rejecting one particular conclusion and failed policy that is obviously the result of a "more government is always better" worldview. That is not "rejecting science". If economics was a simple science with no unknown and unquantified factors, there would be no problems maintaining a healthy economy. Obviously that's not the case.

You are the one rejecting the obvious reality in favor of your belief in more spending. If others share those delusions it doesn't make them any more real.

 

[fskimospy]

Riiiiiight... and so our 40 years of deficit spending has resulted in tremendous growth and huge surpluses. Oh wait, no, we're 17 trillion in the hole with a shrinking middle class. That's the proof. All the other drivel doesn't change those facts.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what economics says.

No, I'm NOT rejecting "science", I'm rejecting one particular conclusion and failed policy that is obviously the result of a "more government is always better" worldview. That is not "rejecting science". If economics was a simple science with no unknown and unquantified factors, there would be no problems maintaining a healthy economy. Obviously that's not the case.

You are the one rejecting the obvious reality in favor of your belief in more spending. If others share those delusions it doesn't make them any more real.

This is a combination of so many straw men and basic flaws of understanding I'm genuinely unsure where to start. I would suggest reading the papers I linked for rudeguy. Hopefully reading them will bring you back into the camp of accepting science, but I am not hopeful.

 

[Sonikku]

Obama ran for president and the economy went into a permanent tail spin.

Coincidence?

 

[Texashiker]

Oh wait, no, we're 17 trillion in the hole with a shrinking middle class. That's the proof. All the other drivel doesn't change those facts.

You forget eskimospy has stated several times the government should have no debt limit.

If the government needs to spend 20 trillion or 200 trillion, the debt is designed to never be paid down.

So what if china owns a good portion of our debt, which gives them considerable influence over government financial policies. So what if china could cause panic in our markets by mentioning they were going to dump their bonds.

The fact is, and something eskimospy will deny to his dying day, the government can not borrow this nation to prosperity. We have to work our way out of this economic slump. But since we have no jobs to support the middle class the only way is down.

 

[fskimospy]

You forget eskimospy has stated several times the government should have no debt limit.

I'm not aware of many policy experts that disagree with me. Most countries in the world do not have debt limits.

If the government needs to spend 20 trillion or 200 trillion, the debt is designed to never be paid down.

This is a nonsensical statement.

So what if china owns a good portion of our debt, which gives them considerable influence over government financial policies. So what if china could cause panic in our markets by mentioning they were going to dump their bonds.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Chinese-American trade and investment policy. We control the Chinese, not the other way around.

The fact is, and something eskimospy will deny to his dying day, the government can not borrow this nation to prosperity. We have to work our way out of this economic slump. But since we have no jobs to support the middle class the only way is down.

Straw man.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is a combination of so many straw men and basic flaws of understanding I'm genuinely unsure where to start. I would suggest reading the papers I linked for rudeguy. Hopefully reading them will bring you back into the camp of accepting science, but I am not hopeful.

Of course, in your world "accepting science" means joining your faith and failed conclusions. In fact, it's actually very similar to the whole global warming "science" discussion. It's not the "science" that's the problem, it's the idiotic conclusions and failed policies derived from the science that are the problem.

You're basically arguing that right now, under these specific circumstances, increased deficit spending would be beneficial. While that is theoretically possible, the actual outcomes depend on a multitude of things and are far from certain. $17 trillion in the hole is an inescapable fact. Spending more in the hope that at some point it helps you dig out of the hole is a theoretical possibility. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to understand that. Oh, and no need to point to Dunning-Kruger, I'm well aware of your status as the poster boy for that phenomena. 😀

 

[Texashiker]

I'm not aware of many policy experts that disagree with me. Most countries in the world do not have debt limits.

If your neighbor jumps off a bridge does are you are going to follow him?

Straw man.

Aint no straw man about it.

The more the government spends, the worse the economy gets. We are now $17+ trillion in debt, and a record percentage of the population are on welfare.

The federal reserve is having to print money out of thin air because middle class jobs have gone to china. The only way out of this tail spin is to abolish free trade, which wall street will not allow.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course, in your world "accepting science" means joining your faith and failed conclusions. In fact, it's actually very similar to the whole global warming "science" discussion. It's not the "science" that's the problem, it's the idiotic conclusions and failed policies derived from the science that are the problem.

You're basically arguing that right now, under these specific circumstances, increased deficit spending would be beneficial. While that is theoretically possible, the actual outcomes depend on a multitude of things and are far from certain. $17 trillion in the hole is an inescapable fact. Spending more in the hope that at some point it helps you dig out of the hole is a theoretical possibility. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to understand that. Oh, and no need to point to Dunning-Kruger, I'm well aware of your status as the poster boy for that phenomena. 😀

None of what your saying even fits together into a coherent thought. Seriously, this is just nonsensical rambling now.

Your response to public policy is almost entirely emotional and tribal in nature. That's why you have so much trouble accepting inconvenient facts.

 

[fskimospy]

If your neighbor jumps off a bridge does are you are going to follow him?

You of course ignored the part where just about every policy expert agrees that the debt ceiling is stupid and should be abolished.

Aint no straw man about it.

The more the government spends, the worse the economy gets. We are now $17+ trillion in debt, and a record percentage of the population are on welfare.

I'm sorry but that's just flatly contradicted by reality.

 

[First]

Yeah, embarrassing for me that reality is exactly as I would expect it to be. You just don't like the fact that reality doesn't comply with your dumb ideas 😀

Like I said, no amount of blathering changes > $17 trillion in debt.

You are basically the modern equivalent of scientists who came up with all sorts of 'proof' that the earth was at the center of the universe. All the blathering in the world didn't change the fact that it wasn't.

What's your background in economics again? Education, experience?

It's just funny to hear people sound so sure of themselves about subjects they have no background in or haven't bothered to do any research on.

 

[Texashiker]

You of course ignored the part where just about every policy expert agrees that the debt ceiling is stupid and should be abolished.

I wonder if those experts have more debt than they can ever pay back? Have they financially enslaved their grandchildren?

Do those policy experts make money off government debt? Maybe through military contracts?

I'm sorry but that's just flatly contradicted by reality.

You are fast to ignore the root of my post.

The government can not borrow this nation back to prosperity, we have to work our way out.

The jobs that supported the economic policies of the 1950s, 60s and 70s are gone. There is nothing left to tax. The middle class is dying, and the nation is going into debt at a $1 trillion a year. Sooner or later something will have to give.

Unlimited debt with no tax base will end badly. It is just a matter of time.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder if those experts have more debt than they can ever pay back? Have they financially enslaved their grandchildren?

Do those policy experts make money off government debt? Maybe through military contracts?

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. This is just babbling.

You are fast to ignore the root of my post.

The government can not borrow this nation back to prosperity, we have to work our way out.

The jobs that supported the economic policies of the 1950s, 60s and 70s are gone. There is nothing left to tax.

The middle class is dying, and the nation is going into debt at a $1 trillion a year. Sooner or later something will have to give.

I encourage you to read some of the economics papers I linked earlier. Long story short, you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.