Why you can't blame Obama for everything...

UncleBob

UncleBob

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Thanks, former-president Bush...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/29/defending-obama-again/?123123

At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total — about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.
Click to expand...

I get accused of sucking at the Republican teat - this is why I don't. I've never voted for a Republican (except this past election in the primaries) for President, and, at this rate, I never will. This is why.
 
I guess time will tell how much money the Obama administration spends, but i can't imagine it being more than Bush. I wouldn't even care if they did, if it was for something worthwhile, unfortunately we're still sinking money into Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
I don't doubt we are still suffering from Bush's spending. It's just sad that about the biggest "change" we needed (fiscal) we clearly are not going to get from our current POTUS.
 
As much as I hate running up the deficit, all I've read lately is that the stimulus packages (Bush's and Obama's) have been largely successful in preventing a depression, keeping unemployment from skyrocketing even higher etc.

Not perfect by any means as a lot of money has been mis-allocated, only 25% of stimulus funded projects are under construction etc. But everything seems to point that we're in much better economic shape now than we would have been without the stimulus packages.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As much as I hate running up the deficit, all I've read lately is that the stimulus packages (Bush's and Obama's) have been largely successful in preventing a depression, keeping unemployment from skyrocketing even higher etc.

Not perfect by any means as a lot of money has been mis-allocated, only 25% of stimulus funded projects are under construction etc. But everything seems to point that we're in much better economic shape now than we would have been without the stimulus packages.[/QUOTE]

How much of it prevented disaster and how much is delaying the inevitable? Guess we'll find out....
 
Yep, time will definitely tell in the long term.

It will all be pointless if financial institutions aren't hit with regulations limiting the amount of debt (especially toxic debt) they can have in ratio to their cash reserves, putting tighter requirements on qualifying for loans etc. etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']yep, time will definitely tell in the long term.

It will all be pointless if federal reserve isn't hit with regulations limiting the amount of debt (especially toxic debt) it can have in ratio to its cash reserves, putting tighter requirements on qualifying for loans etc. Etc.[/quote]

:d
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As much as I hate running up the deficit, all I've read lately is that the stimulus packages (Bush's and Obama's) have been largely successful in preventing a depression, keeping unemployment from skyrocketing even higher etc.

Not perfect by any means as a lot of money has been mis-allocated, only 25% of stimulus funded projects are under construction etc. But everything seems to point that we're in much better economic shape now than we would have been without the stimulus packages.[/QUOTE]

Please provide proof. Unemployment was estimated to stay below 8 percent with the "stimulus" per Obama's economic advisers. It's at 10.2 percent and is likely to climb higher when jobs numbers are released for November. I've seen no proof of positive effects other than the fraudulent claims on recovery.gov of jobs created in mythical geographic areas, and certainly nothing indicating that these supposed positive effects outweigh the huge negative of the debt taken on and the money removed from the private sector to fund government monstrosities.
 
Dow Jones avg. the week the ARRA was signed = 7,365.67
Dow Jones avg. yesterday = 10,471.58


Figure this: Much of the ARRA was to be spent on infrastructure. OK, great, no more collapsing bridges. So, you've got a bridge in North Dakota that needs serious overhauling. You petition for some ARRA funds. After a month, you get approved, great! Then you have to take bids for an engineer to work up some plans. That'll take a month, then you have to give him some time to actually draw them up, another few months, then you have to take bids on the actual work, another few months and now it's the middle of the winter and you can't start the work because it's 40 below.

Unemployment will drop after businesses shore themselves with the rising stock market and the actual deployment of the ARRA funds.
 
When you have the government basically manipulating the financial markets and practically forcing money into equities the markets are bound to go up. Pointing at the Dow and saying that the stimulus package is working is just foolish.

I'm not saying the stimulus has been a failure but I am certainly saying that virtually NOTHING has been done to address the core problem that led us down this road and that had been building for several decades.....the massive over-use of credit and leverage. All we have done is basically shifted the leverage off of the books of many public companies and on to the books of the Federal government....or more accurately, the taxpayers.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']When you have the government basically manipulating the financial markets and practically forcing money into equities the markets are bound to go up. Pointing at the Dow and saying that the stimulus package is working is just foolish.

I'm not saying the stimulus has been a failure but I am certainly saying that virtually NOTHING has been done to address the core problem that led us down this road and that had been building for several decades.....the massive over-use of credit and leverage. All we have done is basically shifted the leverage off of the books of many public companies and on to the books of the Federal government....or more accurately, the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
Quoted for God's honest truth.

And let's be real here. We're eating shit pies so often now that no one even really notices anymore. Yep, that happened yesterday. Ready for a warm thought to get you through the cold day? Creditors get paid before preferred shareholders in bankruptcy.

We just allowed AIG, a company that exists only because we say it does, to downgrade our claim to assets. Bravo Fed.

edit: Ya. Bush sucks too tho.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Cheese']Dow Jones avg. the week the ARRA was signed = 7,365.67
Dow Jones avg. yesterday = 10,471.58


Figure this: Much of the ARRA was to be spent on infrastructure. OK, great, no more collapsing bridges. So, you've got a bridge in North Dakota that needs serious overhauling. You petition for some ARRA funds. After a month, you get approved, great! Then you have to take bids for an engineer to work up some plans. That'll take a month, then you have to give him some time to actually draw them up, another few months, then you have to take bids on the actual work, another few months and now it's the middle of the winter and you can't start the work because it's 40 below.

Unemployment will drop after businesses shore themselves with the rising stock market and the actual deployment of the ARRA funds.[/QUOTE]

I do hope you are right. However, the "stimulus" did not focus on infrastructure, as you claim. The biggest categories were government (surprise), health and education, and tax cuts. Unemployment is far above anticipated levels without the "stimulus" bill, and I would argue that part of that is as a result of the "stimulus" sucking money out of the private sector and injecting said dough into the federal government and state governments (while conveniently giving the federal government more control over the states). Most experts expect unemployment to hit 11+ percent next year. I hope they are wrong and you are right.
 
the current economic crisis has a far reaching history, to simply blame a president or two is foolish at best and just plan stupid at worst. We're talking about unplanned consequences from plans and programs that were put into place in the 60's and earlier.
It's one thing to complain and point fingers, but nobody (and I don't mean the board, I'm talking the world in general) seems to want to stand up and say "here's an idea" because they fear reproach.

Well, here's an idea.
Let the housing market collapse and get the hands of regulators out of it entirely. This will hurt, but it's the same problem that occured with the tech industry back in the Clinton years. Too many people trying to jump on a bandwagon that had no sustainable value. What was clear with that bursting bubble is apparently not clear for people at the moment with the housing bubble. When you have goods far outpacing inflation and cost (in terms of appreciation), someone is pulling your leg.
Those that survived the tech collapse are still around for a reason, they actually had a product and they fought through the lean times. To bring the parable over to the housing market, basically anyone holding crappy assets (sub-prime mortgages that have been repackaged and resold) are going to lose their ass. Hey, there's risk in investing, tough shit. The positive effect of this will be a reduction in loan rates (more guaranteed and secured loans will drive the interest rates down), a reduction in balloon house prices (face it, houses cost too much based on a supply/demand scale, there will be more supply when people who aren't paying for their house are kicked out of said house) and a more equal playing field for investors.
Foreclosures will continue to rise in my idea, but this creates a whole new industry. Banks don't give a shit about the house, they just want it off the books. In certain areas (take MN for instance) where houses need certain maintenance throughout the winter, this creates a need. If someone went into a bank with a decent business plan, they could easily gain the business of the bank for house maintenance while the house is in the sale process.

So that's the housing idea. Now the business idea:

Reduce corprate income taxes. Look at Ireland (or was it Iceland?) for a demonstration of the practicality behind this. Hell, look at the Dakotas. They have some of the lowest taxes in the country and the states are growing...
 
Like reducing taxes would do anything but lead to bigger salaries and bonuses for executives.

You're naive if you think they'd hire many more peons to do the real work with any tax breaks they got.
 
[quote name='nasum']Reduce corprate income taxes. Look at Ireland (or was it Iceland?)[/QUOTE]

I hope you don't mean Iceland. You do realize the entire country is bankrupt? Businesses are fleeing like a dike from dick. Even McDonald's shut down shop.
 
[quote name='nasum']
Foreclosures will continue to rise in my idea, but this creates a whole new industry. Banks don't give a shit about the house, they just want it off the books. In certain areas (take MN for instance) where houses need certain maintenance throughout the winter, this creates a need. If someone went into a bank with a decent business plan, they could easily gain the business of the bank for house maintenance while the house is in the sale process.[/quote]

Yes, an awesome business startup where you only have to walk over the frozen bodies of a houses former tenants to clean it up for newcomers who may never come at all! A cash cow if ever I saw one, all it takes is a total lack of humanity!

So that's the housing idea. Now the business idea:

Reduce corprate income taxes. Look at Ireland (or was it Iceland?) for a demonstration of the practicality behind this. Hell, look at the Dakotas. They have some of the lowest taxes in the country and the states are growing...
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bush already did that and they didn't hire anyone, the companies just kept it, or worse, moved their accounts off shore cheating the American public out of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in taxes and they still didn't hire more people.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I hope you don't mean Iceland. You do realize the entire country is bankrupt? Businesses are fleeing like a dike from dick. Even McDonald's shut down shop.[/QUOTE]

I took it as a bit tongue in cheek, because frankly it isn't as if Ireland is doing so hot right now.
 
Ya know, all this talk of taxes has given me a great idea. Corporate taxes keep companies from innovating and creating jobs, and raising taxes on the rich only discourages and punishes people for making more money.

So I say we go straight to the problem and start heavily taxing the poor. I don't know why nobody has thought of this. Just like more taxes on the rich discourages them from making more money, taxing more the poorer someone is will be the perfect incentive to get them making more! The poor are lazy, unproductive, and don't create any jobs, so why do they get away with paying so little? They're probably just using most of their money for drugs anyway.

I'm not heartless, so I say we start at 70% on the bottom bracket and decrease by 10% every $5,000 increase in income. And of course it would work the same way as the current tax system, so if you're making $15,000 you're taxed 70% on the first $5k, 60% on the next, etc. so it's effectively only a 60% tax at the $15k level. That way the poor will be encouraged to get better educations and move up in the tax brackets. And besides, only teenagers have minimum wage jobs anyway, so everybody paying 60% or more in taxes is going to be supported by their parents, who are probably only paying around 40%, and if they've worked really hard I'm sure they've moved up even higher. And since the rich are paying so little in taxes they'll be paying workers more anyway.

Since the brackets are at $5,000 intervals and dissipate so quickly, by the time you're making enough money to be productive and create jobs your taxes will be basically nothing, and remember that the harder you work and the higher you get, the less you have to pay!
 
[quote name='SpazX']Ya know, all this talk of taxes has given me a great idea. Corporate taxes keep companies from innovating and creating jobs, and raising taxes on the rich only discourages and punishes people for making more money.

So I say we go straight to the problem and start heavily taxing the poor. I don't know why nobody has thought of this. Just like more taxes on the rich discourages them from making more money, taxing more the poorer someone is will be the perfect incentive to get them making more! The poor are lazy, unproductive, and don't create any jobs, so why do they get away with paying so little? They're probably just using most of their money for drugs anyway.

I'm not heartless, so I say we start at 70% on the bottom bracket and decrease by 10% every $5,000 increase in income. And of course it would work the same way as the current tax system, so if you're making $15,000 you're taxed 70% on the first $5k, 60% on the next, etc. so it's effectively only a 60% tax at the $15k level. That way the poor will be encouraged to get better educations and move up in the tax brackets. And besides, only teenagers have minimum wage jobs anyway, so everybody paying 60% or more in taxes is going to be supported by their parents, who are probably only paying around 40%, and if they've worked really hard I'm sure they've moved up even higher. And since the rich are paying so little in taxes they'll be paying workers more anyway.

Since the brackets are at $5,000 intervals and dissipate so quickly, by the time you're making enough money to be productive and create jobs your taxes will be basically nothing, and remember that the harder you work and the higher you get, the less you have to pay![/QUOTE]

Hear, Hear!

This idea is almost as good as the per head tax system proposed by UncleBob.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Hear, Hear!

This idea is almost as good as the per head tax system proposed by UncleBob.[/QUOTE]

What can I say, the people who are so quick to point out that others aren't paying their "fair share" are too often the ones not paying much of anything their selves.
 
re: my apparent lack of humanity
So if I sign a contract where i have to pay for something, and I don't pay, I should be able to keep whatever I purchased and not have to pay?

That's kind of ridiculous...
 
[quote name='nasum']re: my apparent lack of humanity
So if I sign a contract where i have to pay for something, and I don't pay, I should be able to keep whatever I purchased and not have to pay?[/QUOTE]

Only if you're receiving stimulus money. Then, you aren't required to repay it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Only if you're receiving stimulus money. Then, you aren't required to repay it.[/QUOTE]

Or if you are a successful CEO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top