PDA

View Full Version : The Economic Blame Game


UndertakerFreak1127
April 26th, 2010, 07:17 AM
Well, since my atheism thread went relatively troll and conflict free (with the exception of one unfortunate user), I figured I'd keep it right on moving.

This one is much simpler - is it fair to pin some of this country's fiscal problems on George Bush?

Personally, I'd say yes. People seem to forget that Bush passed bailout after bailout before he left office - including one for $700 billion. People say Obama is spending out of control, when Dubya spent nearly $1.8 trillion towards the end of his term alone.

Plus, the money Obama gave to GM has been repaid in full, so there's a sign of recovery; however trivial.

So, what's your opinion? All trolls will be demeaned and sent home from school early with no TV and no Playstation.

Arcanine1993
April 26th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Until Obama causes WWIII or sends nuke to china or spends more than a bizzilion dollers thats when he will exceed dubya!

NarutoActor
April 26th, 2010, 11:57 AM
The amount of spending bush did in 8 years is equal to the amount of spending Obamma did in one year. Due the math we are headed in the wrong direction. I didn't like bush, but Obamma is worse than bush.

Kauai
April 26th, 2010, 12:19 PM
Just a few notes to any Republicans who will come here.

Note 1: The biggest long term deficit & debt increase in the U.S.? Reagan.

Reagan managed to more than triple the debt which took WWI, WWII, the great depression and every president since Andrew Jackson to create. In other words, over the course of eight years, he tripled a debt that took centuries to create.

Note 2: The biggest short term deficit & debt increase in the U.S.? The Iraq War.

The Pentagon gets somewhere in the ballpark of 700 billion. The Iraq War has costed about 1 trillion, not counting millions of lives. Public Education gets something like 40 billion.

Note 3: The only two presidents to actually put the U.S. on a path towards balancing the budget and eliminating the debt? Both Democrats. Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton.

I will take my leave now.

icomeanon6
April 26th, 2010, 01:01 PM
Note 3: The only two presidents to actually put the U.S. on a path towards balancing the budget and eliminating the debt? Both Democrats. Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton.
There's actually a simple reason why Clinton reduced the deficit and was more economically successful than our last president: Clinton was actually fiscally conservative. Clinton did what no president had been able to do in something like forty years: establish a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. As far as federal spending goes, Clinton was conservative, Bush was liberal, and Obama is hyper-liberal. We're in for trouble.

Kauai
April 26th, 2010, 01:10 PM
There's actually a simple reason why Clinton reduced the deficit and was more economically successful than our last president: Clinton was actually fiscally conservative. Clinton did what no president had been able to do in something like forty years: establish a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. As far as federal spending goes, Clinton was conservative, Bush was liberal, and Obama is hyper-liberal. We're in for trouble.

It's a bit to early to brand Obama. Most of Bush's spending was put into tax cuts for the rich, foreign wars and corporate welfare. Obama inherited a massive economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen since the great depression. While I've never taken economics, I admit this. [I'm fifteen after all] I am fairly familiar with Keynesian economics which clearly states that countercylical spending is the most effective way of bringing an economy out of recession.

Not to mention the Health Care bill will save many billion in it's first ten years and hundreds of billions every year after that.

PokemonLeagueChamp
April 26th, 2010, 01:19 PM
Bush, I was no fan of him. Let's get that straight. While his economic policies, were...not so great, I'd say that one worked well: tax cuts. You want a stimulus to the economy? Stop sending taxes into outer space, bring them down a bit, and you'll see people spending like crazy. Plus, besides that, I actually felt my country was safe under Dubya, something I cannot say with Obama in office.

As was said before, Bush may've spent a lot in his 8 years, but how much has Obama spent in his first year? I don't have the exact figure(as it changes every SECOND), but it's just way too much. And I believe China is holding far too much of it. And I have no idea how the health Care plan will save any money when it's one of the biggest entitlement programs(therefore lots of spending)our country has ever seen. Besides that they have taxes on almost everything, and Congress is now moving on a Value-Added Tax(taxation of EVERY last step in production processs, as well as purchase tax, paid by consumer). The economy, Bush may not've helped it in the long run, but is making it even worse really the way our country should go?

Kauai
April 26th, 2010, 01:30 PM
Bush, I was no fan of him. Let's get that straight. While his economic policies, were...not so great, I'd say that one worked well: tax cuts. You want a stimulus to the economy? Stop sending taxes into outer space, bring them down a bit, and you'll see people spending like crazy. Plus, besides that, I actually felt my country was safe under Dubya, something I cannot say with Obama in office.

As was said before, Bush may've spent a lot in his 8 years, but how much has Obama spent in his first year? I don't have the exact figure(as it changes every SECOND), but it's just way too much. And I believe China is holding far too much of it. And I have no idea how the health Care plan will save any money when it's one of the biggest entitlement programs(therefore lots of spending)our country has ever seen. Besides that they have taxes on almost everything, and Congress is now moving on a Value-Added Tax(taxation of EVERY last step in production processs, as well as purchase tax, paid by consumer). The economy, Bush may not've helped it in the long run, but is making it even worse really the way our country should go?

Oh god. Health Care. You just had to bring that up? :P

I support the Healthcare bill simply because I find it a disgrace that we let our own people live their lives out under a bridge because they got a heart attack because there isn't one food product left in the USA that doesn't get fat and sugar or artificial sugar injected into it. But beyond my own Opinion: If I had a neutral opinion and was watching this debate I would still feel the same way I do now: the Republicans are moronic idiots. They are actually crying foul over a bill that costs less then 100 billion dollars a year to implement but is actually expected to eventually save 1.3 trillion dollars in a decade and even more after that.

They spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year funding a war that they themselves created on lies and fraudulent claims and don't give a damn, but then all of a sudden scream murder when there's a comparatively not so very expensive bill on the table that actually takes care of the sick.

What annoys me even more is that they're acting as if it is equal to the Soviets invading on the East Coast and the Chinese on the West Coast and establishing communist Dictatorship. From Senators and Congressmen I've heard things like: "This is the end of the country" to "We're one step away from communism".

Seriously, I've heard 14 year old girls dressed up like barbie dolls be less of drama queens....It's pathetic.

Also, fun fact: America is currently the only modern economy on earth without a national health care system of some type. Indeed, even the majority of third world countries have national health care systems.

PokemonLeagueChamp
April 26th, 2010, 01:36 PM
Yeah, well did you ever notice that either a: those third world countries are small enough that it's affordable there and b: everywhere else it fails sooner or later? No, I do not believe it's THE END OF THE WORLD or even a step towards communism; the proper term is socialism. And that ain't much better. Incidentally, do you know how high your taxes will go up soon? Like this year-soon? And this bill doesn't start coverage until, oh, I don't know, 2014?! And there's a passage in there that says the bill cannot be repealed by future Congresses? Hmm, unconstitutional much? As if that's not enough, need I quote Nancy Pelosi's ever infamous statement "we need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it"? Honest to God, if they don't even have a clue WHAT is in the bill they got passed, how can that in any way be good?

Kauai
April 26th, 2010, 01:47 PM
Yeah, well did you ever notice that either a: those third world countries are small enough that it's affordable there and b: everywhere else it fails sooner or later? No, I do not believe it's THE END OF THE WORLD or even a step towards communism; the proper term is socialism. And that ain't much better. Incidentally, do you know how high your taxes will go up soon? Like this year-soon? And this bill doesn't start coverage until, oh, I don't know, 2014?! And there's a passage in there that says the bill cannot be repealed by future Congresses? Hmm, unconstitutional much? As if that's not enough, need I quote Nancy Pelosi's ever infamous statement "we need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it"? Honest to God, if they don't even have a clue WHAT is in the bill they got passed, how can that in any way be good?

I find it funny how you guys use Socialism as a dirty word. America is the only nation on earth where it is used as such. In the rest of the world, Socialist parties regularly win elections on the national scale. Socialism is nothing but another day of government built roads. Also, quick news flash. Medicare? Socialist. Minimum Wages? Socialist. Public Education? Socialist. Public Infrastructure? Socialist. The fact is Socialism is already here, and you benefit from it every day, the only difference is that Americans have been fooled by years of the cold war into thinking Socialism somehow equals the end of democracy.

Although, if you want to get technical, the majority of "Socialist" parties these days are Social Democratic rather than actual Socialist parties. Social Democrats of course don't seek to replace the Capitalist system, but rather eradicate it's perceived inequalities through a mixed economy.

On to the next premise of your post! :shocked:

The Bill includes no tax increases on anyone making less than 250k a year. Considering these people already proceeded to get massive tax cuts under Bush, I really don't feel all that bad for them. Newsflash: Trickle-Down Economics simply doesn't work, never has and never will. Furthermore, theres the little bit where Warren Buffet, the second richest man on earth, admits the tax system is unfair:

http://flimjo.com/warren-buffetts-tax-rate-is-lower-than-his-receptionists/

Summarized; Buffet pays about 17% in taxes, his secretary pays 32%.

He even issued a challenge to anyone in the Forbes 400, offering them a million dollars if they could prove that they paid more taxes than their receptionists. No one took him up on the offer.

On to the next premise of your post! :shocked:

No it doesn't. That's the same as death councils. It's an out and out lie and deserves no more discussion than that.

Furthermore, the parts of the bill that immediately go into affect are things like no more pre-existing condition clause for children. Lower Drug Prices for Seniors, a ban on lifetime insurance caps. Revoking the bill now is political suicide as that would cause just as much, likely more upheaval.

Forever
April 26th, 2010, 08:54 PM
This thread is racist against Australians.

Also, yes. I blame Bush for America's ~economic~ problems.

NarutoActor
April 27th, 2010, 12:00 PM
Just a few notes to any Republicans who will come here.

Note 1: The biggest long term deficit & debt increase in the U.S.? Reagan.

Reagan managed to more than triple the debt which took WWI, WWII, the great depression and every president since Andrew Jackson to create. In other words, over the course of eight years, he tripled a debt that took centuries to create.

Note 2: The biggest short term deficit & debt increase in the U.S.? The Iraq War.

The Pentagon gets somewhere in the ballpark of 700 billion. The Iraq War has costed about 1 trillion, not counting millions of lives. Public Education gets something like 40 billion.

Note 3: The only two presidents to actually put the U.S. on a path towards balancing the budget and eliminating the debt? Both Democrats. Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton.

I will take my leave now."President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/03/The-Real-Reagan-Economic-Record

If it wasn't for Reagan the country would of went into worse spending and economic downfall.

Also Thomas Jefferson doubled America's economy; please learn your history. :P

PokemonLeagueChamp
April 27th, 2010, 12:15 PM
"President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/03/The-Real-Reagan-Economic-Record

If it wasn't for Reagan the country would of went into worse spending and economic downfall.

Also Thomas Jefferson doubled America's economy; please learn your history. :P

This. I rest my case.

And the constant demonazation of Reagan(mainly because he was a conservative and ACTUALLY STOOD UP TO the Soviet Union)really needs to stop.

lx_theo
April 27th, 2010, 03:20 PM
This. I rest my case.

And the constant demonazation of Reagan(mainly because he was a conservative and ACTUALLY STOOD UP TO the Soviet Union)really needs to stop.


Why? You're free to demonize socialism and its main philosophy of equality. Irony, eh?


I know I'm not helping at all, but I can see this thread becoming bad, fast.

Shadow
April 27th, 2010, 04:25 PM
Why? You're free to demonize socialism and its main philosophy of equality. Irony, eh?


I know I'm not helping at all, but I can see this thread becoming bad, fast.

That's the purpose of a two party system.

You're free to demonize the other party, but if anyone so much as says one bad thing about your party? They mocked your elephant/donkey/whatever! They must go down! Who cares what the actual policies are?

My opinions on Bush are rather poor. His oil war was stupid and it was pretty obvious he was trying to be a famous president like his daddy. He rode on a tragedy and tried to become a huge hero; which failed horribly and everyone is paying for it. My opinions on Obama are that he does need to spend money to make money for the country, but I'm not certain he's doing it in the best way possible. He's trying too much too quickly, but that can also be blamed on him knowing the legislature will draw everything out...

lx_theo
April 27th, 2010, 04:34 PM
That's the purpose of a two party system.

You're free to demonize the other party, but if anyone so much as says one bad thing about your party? They mocked your elephant/donkey/whatever! They must go down! Who cares what the actual policies are?

My opinions on Bush are rather poor. His oil war was stupid and it was pretty obvious he was trying to be a famous president like his daddy. He rode on a tragedy and tried to become a huge hero; which failed horribly and everyone is paying for it. My opinions on Obama are that he does need to spend money to make money for the country, but I'm not certain he's doing it in the best way possible. He's trying too much too quickly, but that can also be blamed on him knowing the legislature will draw everything out...

I'd hardly call it a purpose, more one of the major flaws of it. The purpose is more so that we have a majority on one side.

Shadow
April 27th, 2010, 04:38 PM
I'd hardly call it a purpose, more one of the major flaws of it. The purpose is more so that we have a majority on one side.

I apologize; sarcasm doesn't translate well in posts. I meant it in jest that it was the purpose. I know it is a major flaw.

Yusshin
April 27th, 2010, 04:47 PM
I just blame the banks. From what I understand, they toyed with a lot of American money, and that caused them to collapse and go into a type of debt. The economy then was screwed for everyone.

I'm not sure of any more details other than that. I know America funds Israel a lot, and America spends more money on its army than any other country (not to mention, will replace funds for child health care to build more tanks). Where that money went into that was initially upholding the economy, I'm not sure.

Feel free to fill me in.

lx_theo
April 27th, 2010, 04:51 PM
I apologize; sarcasm doesn't translate well in posts. I meant it in jest that it was the purpose. I know it is a major flaw.

Ah, yeah I hate how it doesn't translate well. Sorry about that.