Obama's "Plan"

[Bonestorm]

Just so we're clear, according to Dixie and El Duderino, there were no spending cuts in the 1990s.

 

[apple0154]

How many rooms does your home have, excluding the kitchen and bathroom(s) and do you have an attached garage?
How many people live in your house and of these what is the breakdown of male and female? Ages are unnecessary.
With this response, I will be better able to point out what you are so apperently missing.

It's a 3-bedroom house with a full, finished basement incorporating a single car garage. I had started out detailing the contents of each room, however, felt that wasn't wise to post on the net. Suffice to say my son and his girlfriend are visiting in a few weeks to tour the Province so they will be sleeping on the queen sofa bed in the living room for a night before moving on as neither spare bedroom has a bed. One is my office and the other my wife's dressing room.

The large rec room in the basement is my workshop adjacent to the garage which holds my little car. My other two cars and the wife's car sit in the driveway.

The garden shed has the snow blower, lawn mower, weed whacker, hedge trimmer, chain saw and other assorted garden tools so no room in there. However, I suppose one could pitch a tent in the back yard between the fruit trees or under one of the mature maples. I’d have to check city by-laws to see if I could have someone living in my yard.

Now that I think about it I was going to build one of these as a supplemental garden shed to store plant pots, soil, my wheelbarrow, lawn roller, etc.

I thought it would add a rustic look to the yard. And if things took a turn for the worst I suppose I could stock my fish pond so my "guest" could catch dinner although the pond is quite small. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Any suggestions you can offer are greatly appreciated.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just do the arithmetic. The spending increases under the plan are about 1.9% per year. That's certainly lower than inflation + population growth.

Please link us to the DATA you are using. Where are you getting the 1.9% spending increase number from?

Hilarious:

yes, quite hilarious....

Next time, try going to the source and not reading what some journalist 'read' from the report.

https://mm.jpmorgan.com/stp/t/c.do?i=19642-7A9&u=a_p*d_645537.html*h_-1ni8eo3

A few quick macro thoughts on the debt deal



As you are no doubt aware, a deal appears imminent to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Our Washington colleagues believes this will pass in the Senate and, with some arm-twisting by party leadership, in the House as well. The main points of the plan are:

* A $2.1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, which should tide the Treasury over until sometime after the November 2012 elections

* Around $900 billion of spending cuts over the next 10 years through reductions in discretionary outlays, including what appears to be more defense spending cuts than were in prior proposals

* Creates a bipartisan, bicameral commission tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions, including through entitlement and tax reform, by November 23, which would receive and up-or-down vote in Congress by December 23.

* Requires Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment. Like most economists, we think this is a terrible idea and would, for example, have made the last downturn much worse. In the event, we don't think this will achieve either the required approval of 2/3rds of the Congress or 3/4ths of state legislatures needed to amend the Constitution.

We see four main economic implications of this deal

1) No default. This had always been a low probability (<1%) very high cost outcome, which now seems off the table.

2) An eventual S&P downgrade is still more likely than not, though we think this would occur after the fiscal commission completes its task later this year. We don't think a downgrade is of first-order importance for economic growth: conditional on fiscal metrics such as debt-to-GDP ratios, we see no major implications for borrowing costs due to the actions of one or more rating agencies.

3) No stabilization in longer-run fiscal outlook. A stable debt-to-GDP ratio, commonly associated with sustainable fiscal policy, is not achieved within the ten -year horizon. Thus, this agreement should be seen more of a first step toward sustainability.

4) Impending fiscal drag for 2012 remains intact. The deal does nothing to extend the various stimulus measure which will expire next year: we continue to believe federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5%-points from GDP growth in 2012. Its possible the fiscal commission could do something to extend some measure such as the one-year 2% payroll tax holiday, though we think unlikely, as it would need to be paid for, which would be tough. If anything, the debt deal may add modestly to the fiscal drag we have penciled in for next year.

On points 3) and 4) we will have a better sense of the magnitudes when CBO completes its score of the deal, which should occur sometime today.

Bottom line, they were already expecting fiscal policy to reduce by 1.5%. The debt deal may be the reason for the other .25. But it is entirely hacktackerific to claim the deficit reduction deal is the reason for the decline.

Of course, it may be that me and JPMorgan Chase's chief US economist (and investors generally) are wrong and you are right, but I doubt it.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busine..._drainer_5JBLtRtGBkRkbqoyPljZ6I#ixzz1U4XvrLZi

Or more realistically, it is shown that you shouldn't trust journalists to understand economics or to cite the reports they read accurately. It is further evidence that you shouldn't trust partisan hacks such as yourself. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Looks like SF is thoroughly PWNING the Hubbinator!

 

[apple0154]

You're going to have to repeat it from now until the day you die, fucktard... and it's still not going to resonate, because you won't give an example that is valid. I have repeatedly asked you for ONE EXAMPLE of a country the size of the US, who has a successful government-run health care system, who can rival the US in medical technology, cure rates for disease, success rates for recovery, success rates of major operations (brain and heart), vaccine development, or anything else... you can't name ONE! Meanwhile, you clamor for an example of people "reverting back" to something that no longer exists! You do this, as you point out that Canada is inundated with lawsuits trying to return portions of health care back to the private sector! It's un-fucking-believable!

Dixie, Dixie. There are countries all over the world, large populations and small populations, large land mass and small land mass, rich and poor....it doesn't matter. It doesn't make any difference. Each country fine-tunes their plan to suit the country. Compare The United Kingdom with a land size of 244k sq. km to Canada with almost 10 million sq km and half the population or France with 550k sq. km to Australia with 7.5 million sq km and 1/3 the population. (http://alldownunder.com/australian-facts/compare-size.htm) They have nothing in common, yet, all those countries have a government health plan.

As for "medical technology, cure rates for disease, success rates for recovery, success rates of major operations (brain and heart), vaccine development, or anything else" let's look at longevity. Australia: 80.50, Canada: 80.22, France: 79.73, United Kingdom: 78.54, United States: 77.85. (http://longevity.about.com/od/researchandmedicine/p/lifeexpectancy.htm) Why do the citizens in those four countries which differ greatly in size and population all live longer than US citizens even though the US leads in "medical technology, cure rates for disease, success rates for recovery, success rates of major operations (brain and heart), vaccine development, or anything else"? Ask yourself why, Dixie.

Again, for the thick-head... what about Canadians suing to re-introduce private measures? Doesn't sound like EVERYONE in Canada want to keep the government-run system, does it? I mean, why would they be suing to re-introduce capitalist private enterprise, if they were giddy about what they have? It doesn't make rational or logical sense.

Of course it makes sense. The same reason the people who are making money off the sick and dying fought ObamaCare. The US may be exceptional but it's not when it comes to blood-sucking vultures who would take a dying person's last penny.

Again... NO THEY DON'T INSIST ON ANY SUCH THING! THEY ARE INSISTING IN CANADA ON CHANGING THE LAWS SO THEY CAN HAVE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INVOLVED AGAIN IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM!!!!

Mostly the vultures along with those who think they're special and to hell with everyone else. Fortunately, they're the small minority. Unfortunately, they have a big wallet and a bigger mouth.

The proof is out there, Dixie. The statistics are there. The citizens in those countries that you think are doing so poorly are living longer and when it comes to medical care life and death are the two most important factors to consider, are they not? And don't forget the added bonus of 1/3 savings.

You've got no argument, Dixie. None. Sorry.

 

[Bonestorm]

Please link us to the DATA you are using. Where are you getting the 1.9% spending increase number from?

From this dipshit:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/budget-deal-doesnt-cut-spending/

yes, quite hilarious....

Next time, try going to the source and not reading what some journalist 'read' from the report.

https://mm.jpmorgan.com/stp/t/c.do?i=19642-7A9&u=a_p*d_645537.html*h_-1ni8eo3



Bottom line, they were already expecting fiscal policy to reduce by 1.5%. The debt deal may be the reason for the other .25. But it is entirely hacktackerific to claim the deficit reduction deal is the reason for the decline.

So, like I said, the debt deal is drag on growth.

Or more realistically, it is shown that you shouldn't trust journalists to understand economics or to cite the reports they read accurately. It is further evidence that you shouldn't trust partisan hacks such as yourself. Thanks for playing.

Um, your link supports my point.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, in Dixieland, economics doesn't factor in population increases & inflation? That's fascinating.

No, because you also don't factor in employment trends, new governmental regulations and mandates, change through innovation, and capitalist expansion over that time, why would you factor other things? Kind of wopsided perspective there, isn't it? The bottom line is, a CUT in Washington/Liberal parlance, is a reduction in rate of increase, plain and simple, and you goofballs have illustrated that nicely for the people, I thank you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ApplesaucePeckerhead: Dixie, Dixie. There are countries all over the world,[but I can't name even one!] large populations and small populations,[except I can't name one the size of the US!] large land mass and small land mass,[except I can't name one like the US!] rich and poor....[except I can't name one comparative to the US!]it doesn't matter.[I still can't name one!] It doesn't make any difference.[I can't name one!] Each country fine-tunes their plan to suit the country. [except I can't name one that rivals the US system!]

:foreveralone:

 

[apple0154]

ApplesaucePeckerhead: Dixie, Dixie. There are countries all over the world,[but I can't name even one!] large populations and small populations,[except I can't name one the size of the US!] large land mass and small land mass,[except I can't name one like the US!] rich and poor....[except I can't name one comparative to the US!]it doesn't matter.[I still can't name one!] It doesn't make any difference.[I can't name one!] Each country fine-tunes their plan to suit the country. [except I can't name one that rivals the US system!]

:foreveralone:

You forgot to add this little guy to your post.

No, Dixie, There isn't a country exactly like the US just like there isn't a country exactly like Canada or Australia or France or the United Kingdom but if we look at the following chart we see that the US falls between Australia and the United Kingdom in regards to people per square kilometer.

Australia: 2.66
Canada: 3.34
France: 117.10
United Kingdom: 248.25

USA: 31.27 people per square kilometer.
http://alldownunder.com/australian-facts/compare-size.htm

So, you see Dixie, it does not matter what size the country is or how many people live there. From just over two people per square kilometer to over 250 people a country is not only able to implement a government plan but the people live as long or longer.

You've got no argument, Dixie. None. Sorry.

Anyway, it's just about moot. Obama has set you on a road to health and happiness and one day when you're at your doctor waiting for your semi-annual Alzheimer's check-up you'll turn to your granddaughter who accompanied you and tell her if it wasn't for Obama you'd have to return home because you forgot your wallet.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

From this dipshit:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/budget-deal-doesnt-cut-spending/

Hey DIPSHIT... asking you to link us to whatever you were using allows us to be discussing the SAME thing. As it was, you originally commented that spending under the plan was increasing 1.9%. You did NOT state you were referring to only the discretionary spending.

THIS is why I asked you for your data link. You fucking moron.

So, like I said, the debt deal is drag on growth.

yes... but ONLY because he thinks the debt deal should have KEPT THE TAX CUTS as stimulus. He also stated that it was the fiscal POLICY of Obama that was creating the drag to the tune of 1.5%, the remaining portion .25% due to the debt deal.

YOU tried to play it off as the entire 1.75% was due to the debt deal based on the article. Which once again shows your complete propensity to be a parrot rather than actually attempting to think on your own.

Um, your link supports my point.

No, it shows you don't know how to fucking comprehend what you read.... the same problem the author of your article had.

 

[Bonestorm]

Hey DIPSHIT... asking you to link us to whatever you were using allows us to be discussing the SAME thing. As it was, you originally commented that spending under the plan was increasing 1.9%. You did NOT state you were referring to only the discretionary spending.

THIS is why I asked you for your data link. You fucking moron.



yes... but ONLY because he thinks the debt deal should have KEPT THE TAX CUTS as stimulus. He also stated that it was the fiscal POLICY of Obama that was creating the drag to the tune of 1.5%, the remaining portion .25% due to the debt deal.

YOU tried to play it off as the entire 1.75% was due to the debt deal based on the article. Which once again shows your complete propensity to be a parrot rather than actually attempting to think on your own.



No, it shows you don't know how to fucking comprehend what you read.... the same problem the author of your article had.

Why don't we limit this discussion to the other thread?

 

[The Dude]

the dude does not consider slowing growth rate to be a cut.
But the dude is a finance guy not a gov tool.

 

[Bonestorm]

the dude does not consider slowing growth rate to be a cut.
But the dude is a finance guy not a gov tool.

So El Duderino (I'm not into the whole brevity thing) doesn't think any cuts were made in the 1990s?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's a 3-bedroom house with a full, finished basement incorporating a single car garage. I had started out detailing the contents of each room, however, felt that wasn't wise to post on the net. Suffice to say my son and his girlfriend are visiting in a few weeks to tour the Province so they will be sleeping on the queen sofa bed in the living room for a night before moving on as neither spare bedroom has a bed. One is my office and the other my wife's dressing room.

The large rec room in the basement is my workshop adjacent to the garage which holds my little car. My other two cars and the wife's car sit in the driveway.

The garden shed has the snow blower, lawn mower, weed whacker, hedge trimmer, chain saw and other assorted garden tools so no room in there. However, I suppose one could pitch a tent in the back yard between the fruit trees or under one of the mature maples. I’d have to check city by-laws to see if I could have someone living in my yard.

Now that I think about it I was going to build one of these as a supplemental garden shed to store plant pots, soil, my wheelbarrow, lawn roller, etc.

I thought it would add a rustic look to the yard. And if things took a turn for the worst I suppose I could stock my fish pond so my "guest" could catch dinner although the pond is quite small. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Any suggestions you can offer are greatly appreciated.

Then you obvioiusly have room for at least 8 to 16 homeless that if you really cared, you could share your house with.
Until you make the decison to stop being selfish and share the property wealth that you have; please keep your opinions of what others should be doing, to yourself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You forgot to add this little guy to your post.

No, Dixie, There isn't a country exactly like the US just like there isn't a country exactly like Canada or Australia or France or the United Kingdom but if we look at the following chart we see that the US falls between Australia and the United Kingdom in regards to people per square kilometer.

Australia: 2.66
Canada: 3.34
France: 117.10
United Kingdom: 248.25

USA: 31.27 people per square kilometer.
http://alldownunder.com/australian-facts/compare-size.htm

So, you see Dixie, it does not matter what size the country is or how many people live there. From just over two people per square kilometer to over 250 people a country is not only able to implement a government plan but the people live as long or longer.

You've got no argument, Dixie. None. Sorry.

Anyway, it's just about moot. Obama has set you on a road to health and happiness and one day when you're at your doctor waiting for your semi-annual Alzheimer's check-up you'll turn to your granddaughter who accompanied you and tell her if it wasn't for Obama you'd have to return home because you forgot your wallet.

As I said, you can't give a proper comparative example. And YES it certainly DOES matter that you can't give a comparative example. It means, there isn't one. The reason there isn't one, is because Socialist systems of ANY kind, do not work with large population countries, they never have. You see, too much corruption and collusion and bilking the system occurs in a large population, there is no way to catch it all. Some good examples of countries the size of the US, with government-run systems, are China and the former Soviet Union... both are way sub-par to quality with the US health care system, both are (were) inadequate in dealing with the demand. Aside from those two examples, no other country of our size has even attempted a government-run system.

And in 2013, Obamacare will be completely repealed, so I don't know how you think I am going to have such a conversation with my granddaughter, she can't even drive yet!

 

[apple0154]

Then you obvioiusly have room for at least 8 to 16 homeless that if you really cared, you could share your house with.
Until you make the decison to stop being selfish and share the property wealth that you have; please keep your opinions of what others should be doing, to yourself.

What room? I just told you my son and girlfriend have to sleep on the living room sofa because we only have one bed in the house. The house is full.

When my wife (then girlfriend) and I combined homes my aunt and mother had both passed away a year previously and I had furniture from them, plus my own, plus what my wife (girlfriend) had. Even after getting rid of stoves and fridges and beds and TVs and sofas and chairs and dining room sets and, and, and, .............just keeping the antiques and personal stuff filled the home.

There's no room. The house is FULL.

Besides, I never said anyone should open their home to the homeless. Simply pay sufficient taxes so the government can help them. That's all.

 

[Liberty]

And in 2013, Obamacare will be completely repealed, so I don't know how you think I am going to have such a conversation with my granddaughter, she can't even drive yet!

Have you heard anything on when the supreme court will rule?

 

[apple0154]

As I said, you can't give a proper comparative example. And YES it certainly DOES matter that you can't give a comparative example. It means, there isn't one. The reason there isn't one, is because Socialist systems of ANY kind, do not work with large population countries, they never have. You see, too much corruption and collusion and bilking the system occurs in a large population, there is no way to catch it all. Some good examples of countries the size of the US, with government-run systems, are China and the former Soviet Union... both are way sub-par to quality with the US health care system, both are (were) inadequate in dealing with the demand. Aside from those two examples, no other country of our size has even attempted a government-run system.

And in 2013, Obamacare will be completely repealed, so I don't know how you think I am going to have such a conversation with my granddaughter, she can't even drive yet!

That's the problem when people talk about social programs. They always give examples of countries that are not free or democratic. People don't vote or there are restrictions on for whom they can vote.

Corruption and collusion and bilking the system is only possible with a one party system. The corruption and collusion of Party "A" and their friends end when Party "B" is elected. Maybe Party "B" and their friends engage in corruption and collusion. When people see that they vote for Party "A". That puts and end to the corruption and collusion of Party "B".

In a "free" country the people see who is abusing the system and vote them out.

I do agree corruption and collusion is possible considering the mindset that has pervaded US society. Refer to Alan Greenspan and Brooksley Born. Greenspan was aware of the financial mess but believed it would straighten itself out as once people realized the scam they would stop investing and things would correct itself. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way.

Greenspan didn't want controls because his philosophy, his idea of how the world should work, was people should try all sorts of scams and let the people deal with it.

Did you see his testimony before Congress? Did you watch the video "The Warning"? Greenspan's idea of the perfect world was let people scam whomever they could and, sooner or later, people would catch on and the scam would stop on it's own. With that kind of philosophy is that, people are encouraged to try and rip others off?

Look at the way white collar crime is punished compared to other forms of crime. Look at the disgusting loan practices the banks ran.

That perverted philosophy is not unique to the US. Other countries faced the same thing although not to the same degree because restrictions were in place.

What kind of sick philosophy tolerates, if not promotes, taking advantage of others?

There would be a lot less corruption and collusion and bilking the system if the consequences were strict and enforced. Today, bilking the government is looked upon as something noble. Good, ol' cash under the table. Do some fancy accounting when filing income tax. Start a business, rip off the people, then declare bankruptcy.

Maybe it's time to take a different approach.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What room? I just told you my son and girlfriend have to sleep on the living room sofa because we only have one bed in the house. The house is full.

When my wife (then girlfriend) and I combined homes my aunt and mother had both passed away a year previously and I had furniture from them, plus my own, plus what my wife (girlfriend) had. Even after getting rid of stoves and fridges and beds and TVs and sofas and chairs and dining room sets and, and, and, .............just keeping the antiques and personal stuff filled the home.

There's no room. The house is FULL.

Besides, I never said anyone should open their home to the homeless. Simply pay sufficient taxes so the government can help them. That's all.

Buy several bunkbeds and put one each in the extra bedrooms, one in the living room, one in the dining room, and one in the basement.
This way you could help to provide shelter for 10 homeless individuals.

There really is no need for you to live in such opulence, when there are poor with nothing like you have.

What's the difference between you actually doing something and expecting others to pay higher taxes?

 

[Damocles]

Apple, the places where people vote are currently undergoing downgrades because they've been borrowing too much to provide the programs you believe that only government can provide. Italy was the latest, Greece who is two steps away from full default, Spain, etc... And we only drive on trying to replicate that failure here. Why should we copy the failed policies of Europe rather than learn from them?

The ability to ignore the actual failure of ideology is a sign of mental illness.