Bachmann flubs

[Onceler]

Pretending that cutting spending will have no adverse consequences on the economy and employment is just plain bullshit.

To be fair, there is a tipping point at which you have to go from a stimulus-oriented philosophy, to a philosophy of fiscal responsibility & contraint. Too much debt can be just as damaging to an economy in terms of the value of the dollar & market confidence as some of the job loss that would come from cuts.

It's a guessing game as to when that tipping point is, but I personally think the time for stimulus has passed. Most indicators are up, and the economy is back on track to a small degree - it's time to hand it off to the private sector, and start attacking the debt...

 

[Bonestorm]

To be fair, there is a tipping point at which you have to go from a stimulus-oriented philosophy, to a philosophy of fiscal responsibility & contraint. Too much debt can be just as damaging to an economy in terms of the value of the dollar & market confidence as some of the job loss that would come from cuts.

It's a guessing game as to when that tipping point is, but I personally think the time for stimulus has passed. Most indicators are up, and the economy is back on track to a small degree - it's time to hand it off to the private sector, and start attacking the debt...

That's fine it that's your position, but just be honest about what the immediate impact of your preferred policy will be: lower economic growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. If you want to argue that the long term benefits are worth the short term costs, go ahead. You don't get to just pretend that the costs don't exist.

 

[Onceler]

That's fine it that's your position, but just be honest about what the immediate impact of your preferred policy will be: lower economic growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. If you want to argue that the long term benefits are worth the short term costs, go ahead. You don't get to just pretend that the costs don't exist.

Anytime you cut, it's going to have an effect on jobs, certainly, and have a negative effect on short-term growth. But you can say that anytime, and it's true. The question has to be, is our economy back on track enough that cutting now poses no real risk to steady growth going forward? Is it more important to start concerning ourselves with the negative economic impact of bloated debt & unbalanced budgets?

Like I said, I think we've hit that point. I see immense danger in choosing to not reign things in at this time, and continuing down a path of spending much more than we have...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

To be fair, there is a tipping point at which you have to go from a stimulus-oriented philosophy, to a philosophy of fiscal responsibility & contraint. Too much debt can be just as damaging to an economy in terms of the value of the dollar & market confidence as some of the job loss that would come from cuts.

It's a guessing game as to when that tipping point is, but I personally think the time for stimulus has passed. Most indicators are up, and the economy is back on track to a small degree - it's time to hand it off to the private sector, and start attacking the debt...

In general I agree but attacking the debt has to be fair and balanced across the board and ecnomic classes. Spending cuts alone will not get the job done. There are to many spending programs that are to popular (SS, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense). More then likely the solution will be a combination of targeted spending cuts, tax increases and political reform. The solutions for a budget woes are not difficult to find. It's the political will to implement them that is.

For example. A reduction of 20% in defense spending (We'd still be spending more then the rest of the world combined), an increase on the pay roll tax ceiling and completing HC reform to implement the standards used by the other wealthy industrialized nations would fix our budget woes.

To be honest, now would probably not be a good time to reduce 20% in defense spending as that would probably put thousands of people out of work and they could not be quickly absorbed by the private sector. So the timng for that probably isn't best now but will have to be addressed in the near future. Defense spending cuts would have to be phased in over a period of time (say ten years). Same with completing HC reform. SS is the easiest fix of all with a modest increase in the pay roll tax ceiling.

However, we've seen how vitriolic even a small increase in the marginal tax rate can be not to mention the modest Health Care reforms presently being implemented sent a large # of people berzerk. I just don't see the political will for these easy fixes being present until some sort of crises occurs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF: I have no interest in arguing the merits with you. I understand your position, stupid as it is. It just strikes me as more than a little dishonest to claim that significantly cutting federal government spending will not have an adverse impact on the economy and jobs. It's bullshit.

You have no interest in arguing the merits, because you know your preferred method of 'spend spend spend no matter what spend spend spend' is profoundly ignorant.... yet you continue supporting it because your masters tell you to.

You continue to pretend that the money the government is spending is actually a plus for the economy. As I stated, it is nothing more than a continuous stop gap. One that continues to spiral out of control as the interest burden has dramatically increased since 2007 given the insane levels of debt being run up.

Since 2007, we have seen a 50% increase in our nations debt. What does that do to our future debt burden?

No matter WHEN we stop the insane levels of spending, it will have a short term cut. But the long term benefits to this country are far greater than the short term. All your philosophy does is prolong time frame we must suffer by delaying the inevitable.

You and the other morons that believe as you do seem to think that no one looks to the future when making plans. While that is certainly true of the buffoons in DC, intelligent people look to how things WILL be 1,3,5 and 10+ years down the road.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Anytime you cut, it's going to have an effect on jobs, certainly, and have a negative effect on short-term growth. But you can say that anytime, and it's true. The question has to be, is our economy back on track enough that cutting now poses no real risk to steady growth going forward? Is it more important to start concerning ourselves with the negative economic impact of bloated debt & unbalanced budgets?

Like I said, I think we've hit that point. I see immense danger in choosing to not reign things in at this time, and continuing down a path of spending much more than we have...

Again, I agree but it's really a question of the magnitude of cuts. We could afford to cut our military spending in half and we would still spend more on defense then the rest of the world combined but it would also put between 250,000 and 500,000 people out of work and the private sector, at this moment, could not absorb those persons with comprable paying jobs. That would certainly plunge us into a deeper recession that would not be good for all. Now if we did those kind of cuts over ten or twenty years (and I"m not advocating a 50% cut, just making a point here) then the private sector could absorb those jobs over time with out to much burden on the over all economy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In general I agree but attacking the debt has to be fair and balanced across the board and ecnomic classes. Spending cuts alone will not get the job done. There are to many spending programs that are to popular (SS, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense). More then likely the solution will be a combination of targeted spending cuts, tax increases and political reform. The solutions for a budget woes are not difficult to find. It's the political will to implement them that is.

Congrats. You finally said something intelligent. At this point it will absolutely require spending cuts and tax increases.

For example. A reduction of 20% in defense spending (We'd still be spending more then the rest of the world combined), an increase on the pay roll tax ceiling and completing HC reform to implement the standards used by the other wealthy industrialized nations would fix our budget woes.

Damn... you were doing well, then you went and fucked it up. The HC 'reform' is a complete joke. Moving towards universal care is a colossally stupid thing to do.

Take a look back at when health care WORKED in this country. It was when the majority went out and qualified and bought insurance on their own. It was when we shifted to the mentality that HMO's and corporations paying for health care for employees with guaranteed coverage for all that prices began escalating out of control.

To be honest, now would probably not be a good time to reduce 20% in defense spending as that would probably put thousands of people out of work and they could not be quickly absorbed by the private sector. So the timng for that probably isn't best now but will have to be addressed in the near future. Defense spending cuts would have to be phased in over a period of time (say ten years). Same with completing HC reform. SS is the easiest fix of all with a modest increase in the pay roll tax ceiling.

To be honest, the above is the type of stupidity that keeps us in the spend spend spend mode of thinking. No one EVER wants to feel any of the pain. They keep wanting to push the problem into the future. We have been doing that since Ike left office. It is completely irresponsible to continue along that path.

However, we've seen how vitriolic even a small increase in the marginal tax rate can be not to mention the modest Health Care reforms presently being implemented sent a large # of people berzerk. I just don't see the political will for these easy fixes being present until some sort of crises occurs.

Which is why the insanity that is our current tax code needs to change. It needs to be simplified dramatically.

Flat tax. High standard deduction to protect the low and lower middle income families. All income taxed at same level. (cap gains, income, dividends etc...)

But you are correct in stating that it is finding politicians with the political will to get it done.

That will never happen as long as the public remains selfish and votes out (or refuses to elect) anyone who does have such fortitude.

 

[Onceler]

In general I agree but attacking the debt has to be fair and balanced across the board and ecnomic classes. Spending cuts alone will not get the job done. There are to many spending programs that are to popular (SS, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense). More then likely the solution will be a combination of targeted spending cuts, tax increases and political reform. The solutions for a budget woes are not difficult to find. It's the political will to implement them that is.

For example. A reduction of 20% in defense spending (We'd still be spending more then the rest of the world combined), an increase on the pay roll tax ceiling and completing HC reform to implement the standards used by the other wealthy industrialized nations would fix our budget woes.

To be honest, now would probably not be a good time to reduce 20% in defense spending as that would probably put thousands of people out of work and they could not be quickly absorbed by the private sector. So the timng for that probably isn't best now but will have to be addressed in the near future. Defense spending cuts would have to be phased in over a period of time (say ten years). Same with completing HC reform. SS is the easiest fix of all with a modest increase in the pay roll tax ceiling.

However, we've seen how vitriolic even a small increase in the marginal tax rate can be not to mention the modest Health Care reforms presently being implemented sent a large # of people berzerk. I just don't see the political will for these easy fixes being present until some sort of crises occurs.

To me, cutting is ALL about the pie chart for spending. I always laugh when conservatives start talking about the endowment for the arts or other peanuts like that.

Yes, it all adds up, and there is much that we can cut across the board. But there can't be a meaningful discussion about getting the fiscal house in order without talking about significant changes to defense & social security.

I think the minimum for cutting defense is 1/3; we're talking about a new world from 50 years ago; national security is more tied to economic health than military prowess, imo. We'll much more easily lose our superpower status with a continued state of enormous debt than by any threat of force.

As for SS, it's days are numbered as a viable, sustainable public program. If people want to talk seriously about security for seniors in the next generation, they have to start considering privatization.

 

[Bonestorm]

Anytime you cut, it's going to have an effect on jobs, certainly, and have a negative effect on short-term growth. But you can say that anytime, and it's true. The question has to be, is our economy back on track enough that cutting now poses no real risk to steady growth going forward? Is it more important to start concerning ourselves with the negative economic impact of bloated debt & unbalanced budgets?

Like I said, I think we've hit that point. I see immense danger in choosing to not reign things in at this time, and continuing down a path of spending much more than we have...

You see immense danger of what exactly? When will we suffer this immense danger?


We can all agree that deficit spending of this level for the foreseeable future is a bad idea, but cutting $61 billion in FY12 (or substantially more than that under SF's "plan") with the resultant short term costs on growth and jobs and negligible long-term debt reduction while we can borrow money at rates that are quite low from a historical perspective is foolish. And not just a little foolish.

 

[christiefan915]

Obama, the President of the United States, [/B]"I've been in 57 states, (with) I think one left to go."[/B]

Think about that!

Saying "57 states" instead of "47 states is a slip of the tongue.

Getting elementary school history wrong is just plain ignorance.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Saying "57 states" instead of "47 states is a slip of the tongue.

Getting elementary school history wrong is just plain ignorance.

while it is silly for people to continue quoting the 57 states...

It is not simply a slip of the tongue. If the phrase was 57 with one to go... then he was wrong on both counts. The mind can play tricks.

Confusing Concord with Concord is not to surprising given the shitty state of our public education system.

 

[Onceler]

while it is silly for people to continue quoting the 57 states...

It is not simply a slip of the tongue. If the phrase was 57 with one to go... then he was wrong on both counts. The mind can play tricks.

Confusing Concord with Concord is not to surprising given the shitty state of our public education system.

57 was campaign fatigue. The mileage righties have gotten out of that is absurd.

It's just an attempt to equalize things with the Bush years. Unfortunately, when it comes to syntax & gaffes, the math doesn't exactly work out...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

57 was campaign fatigue. The mileage righties have gotten out of that is absurd.

It's just an attempt to equalize things with the Bush years. Unfortunately, when it comes to syntax & gaffes, the math doesn't exactly work out...

which is why I stated it is silly to continue quoting it.... that said... assuming he meant 47 .... he still misspoke saying he only had one to go. That was my point. Either way... it does not add to 50.

I would personally go with Friday's Obama quote where he tries to pretend his admin has not been getting in the way of domestic oil production. Because that is an outright lie.

 

[Onceler]

which is why I stated it is silly to continue quoting it.... that said... assuming he meant 47 .... he still misspoke saying he only had one to go. That was my point. Either way... it does not add to 50.

I would personally go with Friday's Obama quote where he tries to pretend his admin has not been getting in the way of domestic oil production. Because that is an outright lie.

My understanding of the "57" is that it actually did correspond to his campaign coverage, which included U.S. territories not considered among the official states...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My understanding of the "57" is that it actually did correspond to his campaign coverage, which included U.S. territories not considered among the official states...

Yes, but you are a lefty leaner... thus your 'understanding' is generally limited.

 

[christiefan915]

which is why I stated it is silly to continue quoting it.... that said... assuming he meant 47 .... he still misspoke saying he only had one to go. That was my point. Either way... it does not add to 50.

I would personally go with Friday's Obama quote where he tries to pretend his admin has not been getting in the way of domestic oil production. Because that is an outright lie.

He said he had one to go because he also said his staff wouldn't justify a visit to Alaska and Hawaii (whatever "justify" means). So it was about the continental states.

 

[zappasguitar]

which is why I stated it is silly to continue quoting it.... that said... assuming he meant 47 .... he still misspoke saying he only had one to go. That was my point. Either way... it does not add to 50.

I would personally go with Friday's Obama quote where he tries to pretend his admin has not been getting in the way of domestic oil production. Because that is an outright lie.

How can you be certain Obama didn't mean 48 "contiguous"?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How can you be certain Obama didn't mean 48 "contiguous"?

I honestly do not give a shit what he meant. As I stated, it is OLD....

It should not be used as a throw back... no matter how many times the left threw the same Bush quotes out time and again, it doesn't justify doing it with Obama. Especially for that quote.

That said, I would again look to his outright lie on Friday if I were a righty looking to bitch about the anointed one.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Awww! Does this mean you're going to go away all butthurt again Don? Who will your next brother be?

Job?

i noticed that you did not answer my question

 

[Jarod]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk