Teabaggers

[BroomJockey]

But if the DNC is going to be so blind and ignore something like this

Dear GOD! You mean they're ignoring a report generated by a think-tank geared to producing materials slanted to support GOP policies and desires?! The FIENDS!

[Boozy]

During the 90's, Japan had several "stimulus" attempts to help. None of them worked.

Stimulus packages during the Lost Decade in Japan were far too puny to be of any use. They sadly chose to end the stimulus and aggressively cut spending in the mid-90's, just before economists had predicted an explosion of growth. They lost their nerve and lost over ten years instead of five.

Many economists point to Japan's experience as a lesson of how not to do stimulus. Rather than pointing to the ineffectiveness of stimulus, it shows that stimulus packages can be immensely helpful -- as long as they are large and we commit to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/wo...a/06japan.html

[Fashion Lad!]

We've elected a President who is going to spend nearly $10 trillion dollars in 8 years. Now while, I was mad about Bush's spending, I am outraged at what Obama is proposing. $10 trillion dollars. I gave everyone what the previous 4 presidents spent during their time in office, this was all adjusted for inflation in 2008. Now, with Obama spending like he is, we can definitely predict a much higher inflation rate. So that $10 trillion dollars, that's probably being very generous.

Stimulus packages during the Lost Decade in Japan were far too puny to be of any use. They sadly chose to end the stimulus and aggressively cut spending in the mid-90's, just before economists had predicted an explosion of growth. They lost their nerve and lost over ten years instead of five.

Many economists point to Japan's experience as a lesson of how not to do stimulus. Rather than pointing to the ineffectiveness of stimulus, it shows that stimulus packages can be immensely helpful -- as long as they are large and we commit to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/wo...a/06japan.html

I couldn't read the argue, and I refuse to sign up for it. But, I don't dispute what you read. When did they start the stimulus spending? In the mid-90's, the world was doing a lot better financially than it is now. You have to learn from history, but at the same time you have to look at all the conditions at that time. We're trying to save the U.S. like it's the great depression all over again when in fact it's not.

[lordlundar]

Well, obviously. The GOP are their representatives.

Except it's the GOP that's started the fear mongering, then gather their listeners up, let the listeners parrot everything they said, word for word, then "report" that the public has been saying it all along.

The GOP aren't their representatives, they're engineering a prophecy of their own making, and using anyone who can't think for themselves to do it.

[Fashion Lad!]

Except it's the GOP that's started the fear mongering, then gather their listeners up, let the listeners parrot everything they said, word for word, then "report" that the public has been saying it all along.

Well, then you have the DNC that saying "everything is peaches and puppies. The stimulus is working" but we're losing more jobs now than ever. Fewer people are paying an income tax because they aren't earning an income and the government is spending more. It's happening on both sides.

[HYHYBT]

Hell, if you really want to blow their minds: Point out the American economy historically does better under Democratic Presidents. That'll really fark with them. Of course they'll probably just call you a socialist commi and tell you Jesus hates you.

I believe the more usual answer is lag time. Much of a President's term is under the rules put in by the previous administration, and even after changes are implemented it takes time for the results to show and by then we've switched parties again. I'm not saying that that's how it works, because I don't know, but that's the reason usually given.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm talking about Cap and Trade.

Cap & trade is a legit concern, but any talk of is being buried in all this whargarbl nuttery. Although, Obama's proposed Cap & Trade was reamed into a pale shadow of its former self anyhow if I recall right. Until we see the final bill its still in the air. Honestly I don't think it will survive with its original intention intact anyhow.

But at least its a legit topic to discuss, unlike this whole Obama = Hitler thing >.>

Increased debt by (2008 Inflation Adjusted):
Reagan - $2,342 Billion
Bush Sr - $1,494 Billion
Clinton - $858 Billion
Bush Jr - $2,989 Billion
Obama - $9,979 Billion

Source? The only thing I could find using those exact figures was a reader comment on the website of an Oklahoma newspaper. I need something a little more concrete than that.

Bush Jr created the budget deficit to begin with and left it at a tune of 1.18 trillion when he left office. Remember he inherited a budget surplus from Clinton that was projected to be about 5.6 trillion over 10 years which according to your numbers would have easily covered Clinton's spending his own spending and even Obama's. >.>

If you want something particularly maddening, Bush's tax cuts to his rich buddies alone ( the upper 2% ) could have paid for Obama's health care reform AND stimulus package.

Obama's in a suck ass position really, I don't envy him. He basically inherited an economic death spiral + TARP 1.0 and is attempting New Deal 2.0 to save it. Its a good approach, mind you, but its certainly scary to watch and its a balancing act of the highest order. So I can understand the valid concerns. Not the crazy ones. But the valid ones. Sadly I don't hear too many valid ones.

Health care reform would help reign in spending, which is what he's banking on I think. But I don't think he was prepared for this abject lunacy that discussing it triggered. Still, his options were limited. If he did nothing it would have failed, and people would be even more pissed.

As for the stimulus, it is actually working whether Republicans want to admit it or not.

[lordlundar]

Well, then you have the DNC that saying "everything is peaches and puppies. The stimulus is working" but we're losing more jobs now than ever. Fewer people are paying an income tax because they aren't earning an income and the government is spending more. It's happening on both sides.

I never said the Dems weren't guilty of this, and I'm not turning this into a left vs right debate like you seem to be intent on doing. The topic is if the people screaming for Obama's head know what they're talking about and the answer is no, they are just spewing the same crap that the GOP pundits is telling them what to say, with those same pundits using the very gathering the organized as proof of their point, when all it is is proof that they can feed their brainwashed followers whatever bullshit they want and it will be swallowed in full.

[Fashion Lad!]

Source?

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm
For inflation
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Obama's Budget Tables
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf
History from the U.S. Treasury
A calculator
And Obama's budget forecast.



I really like this article for those not concerned with Obama's spending

[gremcint]

One of these guys is another board I go to, quite frankly he scares me, half of what he writes seems really kneejerk to me. I'm betting he's gonna do something stupid soon.

here's a video his group supports, note the words: this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c84p...eature=related

[Gravekeeper]

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm
For inflation
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Obama's Budget Tables
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf
History from the U.S. Treasury
A calculator
And Obama's budget forecast.

I really like this article for those not concerned with Obama's spending

First link and third link are 404's ><

As for Politifact ( <3 that site ), yeah, same thing happened with New Deal 1.0 and World War 2. Right down to accusations of communism and fascism. Obama's attempting a sort of New Deal 2.0 and you've got two wars on your hands.....annnnd he's being called a communist and a fascist.

It's going to come down to whether or not he can steer the ship through the course he's plotting. If he succeeds it'll pay off, it not, you're all fucked. But you were fucked before too. But I can understand the cause for alarm and concern.

Still, this isn't what Teabaggers are on about really. I doubt they grasp any of the points we're discussing and would likely beat both of us with badly spelled "patriotic" cardboard signs.

[Fashion Lad!]

First link and third link are 404's ><

As for Politifact ( <3 that site ), yeah, same thing happened with New Deal 1.0 and World War 2. Right down to accusations of communism and fascism. Obama's attempting a sort of New Deal 2.0 and you've got two wars on your hands.....annnnd he's being called a communist and a fascist.

It's going to come down to whether or not he can steer the ship through the course he's plotting. If he succeeds it'll pay off, it not, you're all fucked. But you were fucked before too. But I can understand the cause for alarm and concern.

Still, this isn't what Teabaggers are on about really. I doubt they grasp any of the points we're discussing and would likely beat both of us with badly spelled "patriotic" cardboard signs.

Meh, sorry. They worked when I had a composition paper due.