Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Bob Woodward] Obama's madness
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
What cuts?

Even with sequestration, the Feds will spend more this fiscal year than last.

I have heard this a couple of times now. I believe it, but would like to see the numbers. Do you have a source?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I really don't think that the current deficit is a big enough problem to warrant this stand.

You think borrowing one-third of the money you spend year after year after year is "not a big problem"?

I am not sure why you put that in quotes, since it is not what I said. I do think that running a deficit is a big problem, any time it is done.

Quote:
Do you believe what is happening to Greece can't happen to us?

I don't believe that what is happening to Greece can happen to us, since the specific circumstance preventing their recovery (lack of control over the currency) does not apply to us. I do believe that bad things can happen to the US if we don't get our debt under control, but I also believe that we are a long ways from the threshold of those events occurring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I really don't think that the current deficit is a big enough problem to warrant this stand.

You think borrowing one-third of the money you spend year after year after year is "not a big problem"?

I am not sure why you put that in quotes, since it is not what I said. I do think that running a deficit is a big problem, any time it is done.

I see. Just "not a big enough problem" to warrant budget cuts to slow down the growth of government spending. Is that it?
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I really don't think that the current deficit is a big enough problem to warrant this stand.

You think borrowing one-third of the money you spend year after year after year is "not a big problem"?

I am not sure why you put that in quotes, since it is not what I said. I do think that running a deficit is a big problem, any time it is done.

I see. Just "not a big enough problem" to warrant budget cuts. Is that it?

Not big enough to warrant poorly designed and implemented budget cuts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I really don't think that the current deficit is a big enough problem to warrant this stand.

You think borrowing one-third of the money you spend year after year after year is "not a big problem"?

I am not sure why you put that in quotes, since it is not what I said. I do think that running a deficit is a big problem, any time it is done.

I see. Just "not a big enough problem" to warrant budget cuts. Is that it?

Not big enough to warrant poorly designed and implemented budget cuts.

The main problem with them is that nobody has been getting ready for them, because they were promised they wouldn't happen. There is nothing wrong with the magnitude of the cuts (3% of the budget), and they are sufficiently vague to allow lots of room for the affected agencies to find ways to achieve them without having to reduce service levels. There is so much waste and inefficiency in our Federal Government that it should be able to achieve 20% or 30% reduction in spending without reducing service levels. The problem is that the culture is broken, and they don't know how to do it. So they'll fire contractors and cancel weapon systems, because the only thing they have time to figure out.

And the reason nobody is prepared is because the Obama Administration has had almost no emphasis on cost-cutting and efficiency and believes any spending is good spending.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
The main problem with them is that nobody has been getting ready for them, because they were promised they wouldn't happen. There is nothing wrong with the magnitude of the cuts (3% of the budget), and they are sufficiently vague to allow lots of room for the affected agencies to find ways to achieve them without having to reduce service levels. There is so much waste and inefficiency in our Federal Government that it should be able to achieve 20% or 30% reduction in spending without reducing service levels. The problem is that the culture is broken, and they don't know how to do it. So they'll fire contractors and cancel weapon systems, because the only thing they have time to figure out.

And the reason nobody is prepared is because the Obama Administration has had almost no emphasis on cost-cutting and efficiency and believes any spending is good spending.

Actually, I agree with pretty much all of that, with the exception of the second half of the last sentence. There is no evidence, in words or deeds, that Obama is in favor of big spending.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
There is no evidence, in words or deeds, that Obama is in favor of big spending.


8O

Obama's Now Added $6 Trillion to the National Debt


Either retract what you said, or you're admitting to being a sycophant.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
richk449 wrote:
There is no evidence, in words or deeds, that Obama is in favor of big spending.

8O

You know, if you keep making that face, it might get stuck.

Quote:
Obama's Now Added $6 Trillion to the National Debt

Either retract what you said, or you're admitting to being a sycophant.

You can start by explaining how Obama added any money to the deficit, when congress controls the budget.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's only one person in the US government, and that is Obama. He makes all the decisions, micromanaging the entire federal government to a man. He replies to all emails, telephone calls, memos, attends all meetings, is present in all offices of the federal government. If anything is done in federal government, it's because Obama was there.

Except that's silly. Isn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
There is no evidence, in words or deeds, that Obama is in favor of big spending.

Are you serious? :?

A trillion dollars a year in deficit spending (five years running), 1.86 Trillion in scheduled tax hikes (none of it to reduce the deficit but entirely connected to new spending), the bastardization of the stimulus into his personal $787 billion government expansion program, his flagrant violations of "pay as you go", his complete lack of emphasis on efficiency, his refusal to cut spending (to the point of having to be forced into it) and his repeated insistence that "we do not have a spending problem" all say you're wrong.

You better ease up on whatever Ministry of Truth propaganda hookah you'ge been smoking crack out of. :lol:
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
There's only one person in the US government, and that is Obama. He makes all the decisions, micromanaging the entire federal government to a man. He replies to all emails, telephone calls, memos, attends all meetings, is present in all offices of the federal government. If anything is done in federal government, it's because Obama was there.

Except that's silly. Isn't it?

Just like there was only "Bush".

However, Obama had to practically use thumb screws on his own party to get his biggest spending increase passed (Obamacare), so he does indeed deserve personal responsibility for that, as well as the year he didn't even do a budget and decided to freeball it and ha e a series of gladiatorial spectacles over it, for demagoguing purposes. Oh, and he does draft the budget, of course (and spend the money, sometimes with or without Congressional approval).
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
You can start by explaining how Obama added any money to the deficit, when congress controls the budget.


1. The democrats had absolute control of the legislature for the first two years of his administration (degradation).

2. The democrat party act as if they are his bitches.

3. The Senate is the roadblock from the house for all budgets (record setting, daily... they have yet to pass a real budget because they would have to sign their own names to the wasteful bullshit they actually champion, and they won't even take to a vote the budgets from the house), and they do so according to his influence.




To think otherwise is to admit to being a retard.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wake TF up
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan Carlin on JRE podcast gave one of the best summaries of current political process that I've heard in a while:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nvqwztjcSNg#t=745s
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Federal spending: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FGEXPND

I realize it isn't as dramatic as writing in big, bold letters, or swearing a lot, but it does have the advantage of being actually true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Federal spending: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FGEXPND

I realize it isn't as dramatic as writing in big, bold letters, or swearing a lot, but it does have the advantage of being actually true.

It looks like things cost more as time passes, in a fairly constant fashion. What a shocker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Federal spending: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FGEXPND

I realize it isn't as dramatic as writing in big, bold letters, or swearing a lot, but it does have the advantage of being actually true.


It doubles a lot. Are you sure that's not manbearpig's hockey stick?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Federal spending: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FGEXPND

I realize it isn't as dramatic as writing in big, bold letters, or swearing a lot, but it does have the advantage of being actually true.

It looks like things cost more as time passes, in a fairly constant fashion. What a shocker.

Wrong. What it looks like is steadily increasing spending increases, and then the rate of increase goes almost fucking vertical when Obama took over and stays that way until the Democrats lost control of Congress.

This is followed by a correction forced by the Tea Party movement and Republican House. You can manipulate the graph to investigate what I'm saying; at a finer degree of resolution it's more obvious.

Furthermore, spending does not occur in a vacuum. How do you decide whether you are "spending too much"? Is it based on some arbitrary benchmark? Is it based on how much you spent last year? No, only a fucking idiot would do that. You decide whether you are spending too much based on how much you earn. Using the same tool, you can investigate this aspect of Obama's mismanagement by graphing debt as percentage of GDP.

The problem is that Democrats don't see the big picture and see everything from the perspective of Daddy Government. They don't see it as America's earnings and America's spending. They see it as the Government's earnings and the Government's spending. And, they like to play shell games substituting these apples and oranges when it suits them. That's why they can look at an unprecedented and growing deficit largely induced by a drop in America's earnings and instead of making the logical conclusion (that we must therefore reduce what we're spending), they instead want to keep spending as much (nay, actually increase spending), but to offset that, increase what they see as the "earnings" that justify it (the tax revenue "earned" by the Government).

This is utter bullshit. What needs to increase in order to justify continuing this level of spending (or increasing it) is not Government "revenue" (i.e. taxes); it's the Country's earnings -- the People's earnings. Increasing the percentage of the people's earnings that the Government takes away from them (which actually reduces the people's earnings) only hurts the economy, because, unlike the people, the Government is a high-friction spending machine.

Get this straight: trying to fuel an economy with government spending is a form of perpetual motion machine, and all such machines grind to a halt. Not only that, Government is a highly inefficient machine. Democrats want to believe in a perpetual motion machine with octagonal wheels on a muddy road. It just doesn't fucking work. The economy must grow, not the Government. The Government is a millstone around the neck of the economy.

Now, it is true that borrowing money can indeed help grow the economy over the short term, but there is no reason that borrowed money must be spent by the government, or on the government (which is what we did with the stimulus). Put that money in the hands of the people, and it might just work.

We are borrowing 30% of our budget on an ongoing basis. So why isn't this stimulating the economy? This is why: because instead of reducing spending by the appropriate amount, so that the borrowing relieves taxpayers of their burden enabling economic growth, Obama is using it to fund the Government and keep it inordinately fat, bloated, and protected from the recession.

Important point: there are two ways to shrink the deficit: raising taxes and reducing spending. The difference between them, in a context where we have an ongoing trillion-dollar deficit, is that raising taxes effectively puts the borrowed money in the hands of government (where it fails to grow the economy but keeps Government apparatchiks and bureaucrats well-fed and happy and lets us fight wars), while reducing spending puts the borrowed money in the hands of the people (where it not only improves their welfare but stimulates the economy by being rapidly and multiplicatively tranformed into demand and capital accumulation.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can spin it however you want, but the numbers don't lie.

From the chart:
Spending increase over a four year period:
Reagan I: 55%
Reagan II: 27%
Bush Sr: 31%
Clinton I: 17%
Clinton II: 10%
Bush Jr I: 28%
Bush Jr II: 28%
Obama I: 23%

Since 1980, the only president under which spending increased less than Obama was Clinton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're the one spinning it. What do "spending increases" have to do with anything? Spending does not occur in a vacuum. Why aren't you looking at what matters most: deficit, contribution to debt, etc. The #1 fiscal responsibility is balancing the checkbook.

What does "four years" have to do with anything? He was only unrestrained for two, and you can clearly see the big vertical line on the chart. Unless a President has his party controlling both houses, what you said earlier is a major factor -- it is Congress that sets the budget (i.e., the parties must work together to set a budget, unless such a situation exists).

Why do you feel the need to cherry-pick, distort, and re-frame the facts and carefully construct the argument you want to attack? Are you trolling? Or did you just have an overdose of Kool Aid recently or something.

Also, I don't think you read my post.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
You're the one spinning it. What do "spending increases" have to do with anything?
Good point. I guess I was spinning this whole time. Clearly, spending increases have nothing to do with how much spending increases.

Silly me, thinking that you could judge spending by the actual numbers. A long rant is a much better way to evaluate it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16106
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Silly me, thinking that you could judge spending by the actual numbers.
So if theoretical current spending is at 1% of collected taxes, and spending increases by 55%, why is that the important factor? OVER spending is the problem. (Ignoring the merit of taxes.)
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
You can spin it however you want, but the numbers don't lie.

From the chart:
Spending increase over a four year period:
Reagan I: 55%
Reagan II: 27%
Bush Sr: 31%
Clinton I: 17%
Clinton II: 10%
Bush Jr I: 28%
Bush Jr II: 28%
Obama I: 23%

Since 1980, the only president under which spending increased less than Obama was Clinton.

Clinton benefited from the Peace Dividend and a fiscally responsible Congress, and I'll bet this leaves out the first year of the Obummer Presidency's budget.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys crack me up. Even with the data right in your face, you keep insisting that black is white. As BK would say, keep drinking the koolaide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
You guys crack me up. Even with the data right in your face, you keep insisting that black is white. As BK would say, keep drinking the koolaide.


Obama's had trillion+ dollar deficits every year. No president in history has racked up so much debt so quickly. He'd already spent more money in his first term than GWB spent in 8 years.


Your blindness to this is ridiculous.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum