Obama Budget Speech Lays an Egg!

[Phantasmal]

And he's gone through it TWICE for you! Does he need to give you a coloring book?

Why don't you just bust out one of your capital letters in color post for him, that will straighten him out once and for all!

 

[Topspin]

My only point is that, had the economy continued to tank, it would have cost MUCH more than the stimulus. Damo keeps talking about what we're saddling future generations with; in those terms, spending is not really any different from revenue loss.

Damo's other point is that things started turning before stimulus money even hit the streets. My thing w/ the stimulus is that it doesn't even matter where they spent it for the most part. Just the passage of that bill alone was important for confidence. We were at a point where things were in a perpetual cycle of constriction - people getting laid off, spending less, corps making less, and laying more people off. Capital expenditures were almost non-existent. Someone had to start spending again, period.

I know, I know - oil is fine, and you never saw any problems. It's good to step out of your own job once in awhile and take a look at the rest of the country, though...

This is the most conspiracy theory as I will ever get. Democrats love to rant Main street is not recovering like Wall Street. Duh!!! But like Billy Hoyle in White Men can't jump not hearing Jimmy, Dems won't hear me either.
Main street was not going to go down a fraction of what wall street did and what loss did occur was caused by fear mongering on both parties elites at the table.
Tell me a mainstreet business (forget oil for the moment). The shoe store, the grocery store, video, mall etc. Which one of them was tighly connected to bullshit loans made by bear sterns and Wamu's thieves/bankers?

 

[Topspin]

further, if our econimics was 10%ish fluff from phoney loan activity. What economic principle state you need to replace cooked numbers instead of settling down at real business activity?

 

[Damocles]

All I am asking you is to show me what spending you are talking about. You want to pretend that all government spending is "stimulus" spending because it suits your agenda. But it just isn't true. So instead of cutting the bullshit and specifying exactly what you are talking about when you referred to the "Trillions," you play these stupid games.

You also focus only on the spending side of the ledger while ignoring the revenue side of the ledger when you focus on the $4 trillion. That isn't all increased spending. The bulk of it is declining revenues brought about by the tax cuts that supported and continue to support.



It's like arguing with yourself?




If you would take your head out of your ass you'd realize that I never trumpeted the Obama's economic policies as a success. In fact, I think they fucked up lots of things. I'm just calling out your bullshit. You don't have to misrepresent the figures to be critical of Obama and his economic policies, but for some reason you choose to.

So, it is still your contention that of the $4 Trillion we've put ourselves in debt, the only portion of that spending that was to "fix" this crappy economy was contained in one minimal bill? I call BS. This is BS on the level of See BS News creating their own "memos"...

 

[Topspin]

word, much of the hole Obama couldn't wait to dig was continued unemployment etc. What do you know, that was also in the stimulus.

 

[Onceler]

This is the most conspiracy theory as I will ever get. Democrats love to rant Main street is not recovering like Wall Street. Duh!!! But like Billy Hoyle in White Men can't jump not hearing Jimmy, Dems won't hear me either.
Main street was not going to go down a fraction of what wall street did and what loss did occur was caused by fear mongering on both parties elites at the table.
Tell me a mainstreet business (forget oil for the moment). The shoe store, the grocery store, video, mall etc. Which one of them was tighly connected to bullshit loans made by bear sterns and Wamu's thieves/bankers?

You won't get any argument from me that the crash was 90% FEAR. There was a legit issue w/ housing & loans, but it was amplified to the nth degree, and never should have gone as far as it did.

But main street is more connected to wall street than you're portraying. Everyone is wall street now; everyone has investments, a 401K, or works for or with a business that does. When the market crashes, everyone is affected - everyone freaks, and stops spending.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, it is still your contention that of the $4 Trillion we've put ourselves in debt, the only portion of that spending that was to "fix" this crappy economy was contained in one minimal bill? I call BS. This is BS on the level of See BS News creating their own "memos"...

No, it's my contention the bold below is horse shit:

Seriously, you have to deliberately ignore the miserable state of the economy to pretend that we've gotten our value from the Trillions we have spent to supposedly "stimulate" the economy. We spent trillions to get thousands in value...

What Trillions did we spend to stimulate the economy?

 

[Topspin]

agreed, without the fear mongering (again billionaires club of dems and repubs) you'd have had Bear go under Wamu and maybe a couple others.
Shit research tulip bubble. Thing go up they go down. 20 years ago wall street firms were a much smaller percentage of the market. We'd have had them at thier historic levels.
Yes local banks might have had to keep mortgages on thier books like they used to. We would not have gone into depression without fear mongering. Is oligarchy the right word, that's what we have, the elite making the calls.
But, for the poor people out their. What's wrong with if you can't beat them join them. I have benefited a lot from the reflation caused by the stimulus.

 

[Damocles]

No, it's my contention the bold below is horse shit:



What Trillions did we spend to stimulate the economy?

So, you are saying that of the $4 Trillion we overspent, that a larger portion was spent towards the economy than you've been admitting? Thanks. I've stated it repeatedly, pointed out that almost all of the overspending has been "blamed" on the economy and is a function of "stimulus"... You contend that the only spending that could possibly be considered spending on "stimulus" is part of one Bill and no matter how many times I point out how much we've spent in regard and because of this economy you'll continue to pretend that because you don't want to just admit you were making a stupid argument based on nothing except a poor assumption.

At least you finally admit we've spent more than the one bill on "stimulus"... Now, to drag you into the reality that of the $4 Trillion in debt, the bulk was spent because of and to "fix" this economy while blaming Bush as much as possible and buying the result with your own 900 Billion specific "stimulus"....

On and on. We're finally getting somewhere now. Thank you for finally admitting that more than that one bill has been spent on stimulus.. or was your "no" just fake so you could pretend your question hasn't been answered?

 

[Bonestorm]

So, you are saying that of the $4 Trillion we overspent, that a larger portion was spent towards the economy than you've been admitting? Thanks. I've stated it repeatedly, pointed out that almost all of the overspending has been "blamed" on the economy and is a function of "stimulus"... You contend that the only spending that could possibly be considered spending on "stimulus" is part of one Bill and no matter how many times I point out how much we've spent in regard and because of this economy you'll continue to pretend that because you don't want to just admit you were making a stupid argument based on nothing except a poor assumption.

You crack me up. I'm not "admitting" anything other than the fact that you're full of it. Your position is that every dollar spent over the amount of revenue brought in is "stimulus." That's just laughably absurd. I'm asking you what particular spending you include in your "Trillions" and your response is "all of it." It's silly.

At least you finally admit we've spent more than the one bill on "stimulus"... Now, to drag you into the reality that of the $4 Trillion in debt, the bulk was spent because of and to "fix" this economy while blaming Bush as much as possible and buying the result with your own 900 Billion specific "stimulus"....

Again, what are you talking about? What was "the bulk" spent on? What programs and policies?

On and on. We're finally getting somewhere now. Thank you for finally admitting that more than that one bill has been spent on stimulus.. or was your "no" just fake so you could pretend your question hasn't been answered?

No, we aren't getting anywhere. You've gone from unspecific "Trillions" to "the bulk of $4 Trillion" without any specification whatsoever. My question still hasn't been answered.

 

[Damocles]

You crack me up. I'm not "admitting" anything other than the fact that you're full of it. Your position is that every dollar spent over the amount of revenue brought in is "stimulus." That's just laughably absurd. I'm asking you what particular spending you include in your "Trillions" and your response is "all of it." It's silly.




Again, what are you talking about? What was "the bulk" spent on? What programs and policies?



No, we aren't getting anywhere. You've gone from unspecific "Trillions" to "the bulk of $4 Trillion" without any specification whatsoever. My question still hasn't been answered.

So, I was right. Saying "No it was not your contention" that the only stimulus spending we have done is in that one bill was a falsity so you could excitedly get to repeating the dimly-based mantra of "It really was!"

I have explained to you several times why I believe we have spent Trillions trying to "fix" this economy and by what measure it is full of fail and all you have tried to do is say it is "emotional" and then repeat the same inanity.

Again, is it your contention that the only money we have spent in regard to the economy is in only one bill?

Now don't say "no" unless you really mean it this time. Your circular nonsense reasoning isn't working here. The conversation will progress once I can nail you down to some measure of what you think "stimulus" spending is. It doesn't matter how much you try to pretend that your question hasn't been answered, I have made it clear where I get "Trillions" from, your purposeful and deliberate "misunderstanding" is just fallacy.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, I was right. Saying "No it was not your contention" that the only stimulus spending we have done is in that one bill was a falsity so you could excitedly get to repeating the dimly-based mantra of "It really was!"

I have explained to you several times why I believe we have spent Trillions trying to "fix" this economy and by what measure it is full of fail and all you have tried to do is say it is "emotional" and then repeat the same inanity.

Again, is it your contention that the only money we have spent in regard to the economy is in only one bill?

Now don't say "no" unless you really mean it this time. Your circular nonsense reasoning isn't working here. The conversation will progress once I can nail you down to some measure of what you think "stimulus" spending is. It doesn't matter how much you try to pretend that your question hasn't been answered, I have made it clear where I get "Trillions" from, your purposeful and deliberate "misunderstanding" is just fallacy.

I didn't say your contention that any dollar spent in excess of revenue is "emotional," I said it was laughably absurd. And it is. Maybe I'm not picking up what you're putting down, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to me.

In reality, I think you could probably cobble together close to $1 Trillion in Obama "stimulus" spending if you include the actual stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, TARP (even though it was Bush), GM, unemployment extensions and the like, but "Trillions" plural isn't even close by a long-shot.

 

[Damocles]

I didn't say your contention that any dollar spent in excess of revenue is "emotional," I said it was laughably absurd. And it is. Maybe I'm not picking up what you're putting down, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to me.

In reality, I think you could probably cobble together close to $1 Trillion in Obama "stimulus" spending if you include the actual stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, TARP (even though it was Bush), GM, unemployment extensions and the like, but "Trillions" plural isn't even close by a long-shot.

And now you are playing more deliberate "misunderstanding" as wisdom. I never said that all spending was part of the stimulus, I said a great portion of the $4 Trillion was. There is a difference.

Your contention has been to pretend that the only spending was in one bill, you repeat that bills number and then pretend to ask a question, then when it is answered pretend you didn't hear it and ask the same question. I understand that deliberate obtuseness is your normal means of "argument", but in this one it's rather lame.

Can you tell me what portions of that $4 Trillion were not spent in some form because of and in relation to "fixing" this economy?

 

[Bonestorm]

And now you are playing more deliberate "misunderstanding" as wisdom. I never said that all spending was part of the stimulus, I said a great portion of the $4 Trillion was. There is a difference.

What portion and what was it spent on?

Your contention has been to pretend that the only spending was in one bill, you repeat that bills number and then pretend to ask a question, then when it is answered pretend you didn't hear it and ask the same question. I understand that deliberate obtuseness is your normal means of "argument", but in this one it's rather lame.

I wasn't making contentions. I was asking questions.

Can you tell me what portions of that $4 Trillion were not spent in some form because of and in relation to "fixing" this economy?

All of it except the items mentioned above.

 

[Damocles]

What portion and what was it spent on?



I wasn't making contentions. I was asking questions.



All of it except the items mentioned above.

Then you are mistaken. I would say that almost all of it other than the portions spent on the growing number of wars in the ME was spent in some measure because of and to "fix" the economy. That the argument today is that we "must" continue to spend like idiots or the economy will "tank"...

Said with a straight face at the same time as making a speech saying we have to get the deficit under control. And you were "asking" leading questions because you believe that all stimulus is limited to a bill (or a few of them) that actually mention it. I think that is a simplified and silly way to look at it as I have explained repeatedly in this thread.

 

[Taichiliberal]

For those interested in what the President actually said regarding the deficit, here's the transcript from April 13, 2011:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/

And for the mentally challenged neocon/teabaggers and willfully ignorant oathers, birthers, libertarians, etc., here's a recorded off the cuff Obama addressing his base putting it in plain language:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7362843n

 

[Bonestorm]

Then you are mistaken. I would say that almost all of it other than the portions spent on the growing number of wars in the ME was spent in some measure because of and to "fix" the economy. That the argument today is that we "must" continue to spend like idiots or the economy will "tank"...

So, every dollar spent in excess of historically low revenues, with the sole exception of money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a dollar of stimulus spending? That's fucking stupid. It's completely insane. it's the kind of thing that someone says when they get bullshit called on them.

Said with a straight face at the same time as making a speech saying we have to get the deficit under control. And you were "asking" leading questions because you believe that all stimulus is limited to a bill (or a few of them) that actually mention it. I think that is a simplified and silly way to look at it as I have explained repeatedly in this thread.

You're an idiot. You can't back up your bullshit so you go on a rant full of generic platitudes. How typically Republican of you.

 

[Damocles]

So, every dollar spent in excess of historically low revenues, with the sole exception of money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a dollar of stimulus spending? That's fucking stupid. It's completely insane. it's the kind of thing that someone says when they get bullshit called on them.

Again, flat making up something that I didn't say to argue against isn't making you right, just deliberately obtuse.

You're an idiot. You can't back up your bullshit so you go on a rant full of generic platitudes. How typically Republican of you.

Repeatedly answered your question, your answer... "I'll say the same thing and hope people don't notice that I am intellectually bankrupt and haven't produced an argument other than what Damocles said."

Your assertion in this thread that no spending whatsoever, unless labeled in a specific "stimulus" bill, could be in any measure because of or to fix the economy is flat intellectually dishonest especially when considering the argument brought forth by the Administration and your Party as to why we "must" continue to spend money that we don't have.

Disingenuous is your default setting for "argument" but it is obvious and easy to dismiss.

 

[Onceler]

"flat making up something that I didn't say to argue against isn't making you right"

What is he making up? Because a few posts up, it looks an awful lot like you're saying that everything we spend except war money is "stimulus."

What a flat-out embarassment this thread is for you, Damo. Know that you are fooling absolutely no one with your "logic." Your partisanship has gotten the best of you on this one....