This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Did Palin get pwned?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hasn't there been messes to clean up since before Clinton?
Technically speaking, yes.
But we're Canadians; do we really care about anything below our belt?
Eh, least Clinton had better relations with the Canadians heh... thought, that might have been due to the women lol.
Dear Canada,
Post by
Adamsm
Hasn't there been messes to clean up since before Clinton?
Technically speaking, yes.
But we're Canadians; do we really care about anything below our belt?
Eh, least Clinton had better relations with the Canadians heh... thought, that might have been due to the women lol.
Dear Canada,
That's Quebec... we don't really care about them lol.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
That's Quebec... we don't really care about them lol.
That's how my friends who have been to Canada feel =P
Post by
TheMediator
Then Newt will slide right in and hopefully....one can hope anyways, that he can fix the mess Obama is leaving us with. No one will be able to fix the debt but at least he will put us right back on track.
America's national debt when Bush left office was $10 trillion, IIRC. America's national debt right now is $12 trillion, IIRC. Based on these values, I think it's safe to say that Bush left Obama with the impossible-to-fix mess.
it was 5.727 trillion when Bush entered office. 8 years later it was at 10.2 trillion. That's ~4.5 trillion in 8 years. Bad.
It was 10.2 trillion when Obama entered office. 2 years later it's at 12.2 trillion. That's 2 trillion in 2 years. Worse.
The difference is that Obama is trying to get us out of the economic recession. Its not just about controlling the deficit. How much focus did Bush spend on the economy? Little to none. How much did Obama spend on the economy? A lot. Most of what Obama has spent has been to fix the economy, whereas what Bush spent was just bull#$%^. If Bush didn't ruin the economy, then we likely wouldn't have had so much spending by the Obama administration.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The difference is that Obama is trying to get us out of the economic recession. Its not just about controlling the deficit. How much focus did Bush spend on the economy? Little to none. How much did Obama spend on the economy? A lot. Most of what Obama has spent has been to fix the economy, whereas what Bush spent was just bull#$%^. If Bush didn't ruin the economy, then we likely wouldn't have had so much spending by the Obama administration.
Trying is a meaningless word. Everything Obama has 'tried' has been bull*!@# too. Revitalized companies that have proven themselves failures? Come on!
Secondly, if the problem is that we're spending too much, the solution is not going to be spend more.
Post by
TheMediator
Trying isn't a meaningless word at all. It says to me that he actually cares about the problem and is actively trying to fix it. I'd much rather have that than someone who turns their back to the problem period, because if there is a way to fix it, then its possible the one will fix it and the other will not.
At your other point, they are two separate problems. First the economy needs to be fixed, then we can focus on controlling the deficit. Its basic triage - we need to take care of what is in critical condition first (on the note of triage, you don't hold the doctor accountable for the patient who comes into the ER bleeding out, you hold the guy who put him into that condition responsible).
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
I believe our doctor at the moment (Obama that is) isn't killing the patient, he's just working less quickly and aggressively than many of us who hired him would like.
Right, I can agree with this statement 100%. He definitely isn't fixing things nearly as fast as people would like... but to say that he's hurting things is wrong. I can't find any reason to say Obama is a "bad" president... he just isn't a great president. Bush on the other hand, there are many, many legitimate reasons to say he's a bad president because he left things worse off than they were. You can't even compare the two.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I believe our doctor at the moment (Obama that is) isn't killing the patient, he's just working less quickly and aggressively than many of us who hired him would like.
Right, I can agree with this statement 100%. He definitely isn't fixing things nearly as fast as people would like... but to say that he's hurting things is wrong. I can't find any reason to say Obama is a "bad" president... he just isn't a great president. Bush on the other hand, there are many, many legitimate reasons to say he's a bad president because he left things worse off than they were. You can't even compare the two.
What is the problem?
We were spending ~0.5 trillion dollars too much every year.
What's Obama's solution?
Double that!
He's not fixing the problem...how is that not clear? He's making it worse.
Want to know what makes Obama worse? He's pretending he's fixing the economy, Bush wasn't.
Post by
524425
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There are two problems here:
1. The U.S. economy
2. The U.S. debt
Although they are related and affect each other, the economy is much more important than the debt. Obama is currently sacrificing work on the debt to help out the economy.
I think you're missing the distinction between deficit and debt. The debt's not the issue, it's the yearly increase of the debt (known as the deficit) that is the problem.
Our economic situation is tied hand-in-hand with our consistently large deficit.
No one's asking Obama to get rid of the debt. That's something that'll take decades. We're
asking
demanding that he get rid of the deficit.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
283199
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
There are two problems here:
1. The U.S. economy
2. The U.S. debt
Although they are related and affect each other, the economy is much more important than the debt. Obama is currently sacrificing work on the debt to help out the economy.
I think you're missing the distinction between deficit and debt. The debt's not the issue, it's the yearly increase of the debt (known as the deficit) that is the problem.
Our economic situation is tied hand-in-hand with our consistently large deficit.
No one's asking Obama to get rid of the debt. That's something that'll take decades. We're
asking
demanding that he get rid of the deficit.
Our whole country's overall strategy is to try to grow enough to the point that the real value of the debt is small enough to realistically pay off. We have to focus on the economy first if we're going to eventually pay off the debt. And no, our economic situation is not tied to to the deficit. Our economic situation is a result of negligence on the part of those who should have regulated various markets to prevent bubbles from appearing and growing, and greed (which is unavoidable, so the greed has to be controlled by regulation).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Our whole country's overall strategy is to try to grow enough to the point that the real value of the debt is small enough to realistically pay off. We have to focus on the economy first if we're going to eventually pay off the debt
Did you just read me say that the debt has nothing to do with the issue?
And no, our economic situation is not tied to to the deficit. Our economic situation is a result of negligence on the part of those who should have regulated various markets to prevent bubbles from appearing and growing, and greed (which is unavoidable, so the greed has to be controlled by regulation).
Overspending is
exactly
what got us into this mess.
Post by
TheMediator
Overspending is exactly what got us into this mess.
What mess are you talking about? The recession? Or are you saying overspending got us a higher deficit?
Of course overspending raised the deficit, but we needed spending to get us on the road to recovery or our debt would overwhelm us. I know it seems a bit backwards but that's the way economics is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What mess are you talking about? The recession? Or are you saying overspending got us a higher deficit?
Of course overspending raised the deficit, but we needed spending to get us on the road to recovery or our debt would overwhelm us. I know it seems a bit backwards but that's the way economics is.
No, that's not the way economics is. It's a silly notion that is being used to defend a silly president.
Post by
524425
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.