Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Told you soFollow

#27 Feb 18 2010 at 5:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
You 'mericans really need to learn more about that nebulous art of Economics in school. I can tell, cause we Aussies do too. We're currently making the same mistake. Except in our case, suddenly everyones' in love with the Opposition (20%) approval rating jump overnight) purely because the new Opposition leader went swimming and he looks GREAT in budgie smugglers. For a polly he's got a fabulous body and would make a great Chippendale. For a polly he's got a mind that would make a great Chippendale.

But nuuuu, everyone loves him, because they can follow his 8 syllable sentences, and he looks so "one of us".

Aargh.
#28 Feb 18 2010 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Budgie smugglers. Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#29REDACTED, Posted: Feb 18 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#30 Feb 18 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Still waiting for you to explain to me if the stimulus bill is working why we need another jobs bill.

Really? That was a serious question?

I'll tell you what -- you say "I'm too stupid to figure out why we'd need another jobs bill if the stimulus is working so I need Jophiel to explain it to me" and I'll answer. Note the quotes now; I'm not looking for a paraphrase.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31REDACTED, Posted: Feb 18 2010 at 1:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#32 Feb 18 2010 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Oh I know what you're thinking but I want hear you say it.

So it wasn't a serious question. Well, I'm glad I didn't waste either of our time on it Smiley: smile

Edited, Feb 18th 2010 1:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Feb 18 2010 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Going back to the OP, new polling match-ups!
Quote:
A new Public Policy Polling survey finds President Obama leading all of his potential 2012 Republican challengers.

He leads Mitt Romney, 45% to 43%, tops Mike Huckabee, 46% to 43%, beats Sarah Palin, 50% to 43% and crushes John Thune, 46% to 28%.


There's a difference between saying "He doesn't deserve re-election" and "I'd rather have this Republican in charge", it seems.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34REDACTED, Posted: Feb 18 2010 at 4:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#35 Feb 18 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Just wait until Obama runs unemployment to 20%.

Sure. I'll wait for that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Feb 18 2010 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:
When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.

The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.

The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)

As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely.

With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and an advocate of supply side economics, fearing future deficits "as high as $200 billion," urged the president to cut taxes.

While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored, and by the November presidential election, it was hard to believe that a second term was ever in doubt.


just for some historical perspective

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#37 Feb 18 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
I had to google Thune

Republicans are already scraping the bottom of the barrel?
#38 Feb 18 2010 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:

just for some historical perspective

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html


Not surprising for PBS, but that's an incredibly subjective view of the events of the first few years of the Reagan administration. What that bit fails to mention is that interest and inflation rates had been in the double digits for years before he took office. The increase in unemployment rate in the first couple of years had little to do with his cuts and a whole lot to do with the horrible direction things were going in before he took office.

The recovery, which started in 83 was 100% the result of his actions though. He stopped reacting to the economy the way the previous administration had and pushed through with sane fiscal policy. He realized something that was true then and is still true today: Balancing the budget is less important than reducing the burden of government on the economy (and the people).

Democrats today still play the "we must balance the budget" game out of some weird belief that by doing so, all the money they've spent doesn't really count or have any negative effect. Reagan understood that government spending isn't the solution, it's the problem. That is just as true today as it was back then and to twist things around to imply that Reagan was somehow responsible for the economic problems of the early eighties is quite the revision of history...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Feb 18 2010 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Democrats today still play the "we must balance the budget" game


You mean fiscal conservatives, right?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#40 Feb 18 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Democrats today still play the "we must balance the budget" game


You mean fiscal conservatives, right?


Fiscal conservatism not only does not require balancing the budget, but the definition specifically requires one to allow deficits if done in the process of reducing total tax burden. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people simplify the position down to "eliminating debt", which then becomes "eliminating deficit", which becomes "balancing the budget".

The objective of fiscal conservatism is to reduce the burden of the government on the people. Obviously, debt is a burden, but direct taxes are even more of one. In the longer term, if you have to run a deficit to allow for the cutting of spending, it is in line with fiscal conservative principles. Doubly so if (as during the Bush years), the total "debt burden" on the economy doesn't grow while doing this.

Edited, Feb 18th 2010 4:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Feb 18 2010 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Cutting spending doesn't increase debt.

Cutting taxes while not accounting for it in equivalent spending cuts does.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#42 Feb 18 2010 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fiscal conservatism not only does not require balancing the budget, but the definition specifically requires one to allow deficits if done in the process of reducing total tax burden.
You're not even trying.

lolwiki wrote:
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#43 Feb 18 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Democrats today still play the "we must balance the budget" game out of some weird belief that by doing so, all the money they've spent doesn't really count or have any negative effect.

Not really, but whatever. I suppose when your party spends money and keeps their books in a way that we'd give any homeowner shit for (and tell them it's their deserved fault when they go bankrupt), you need some way to rationalize it and tell yourself it's all okay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Feb 19 2010 at 1:53 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,969 posts
Jophiel wrote:
John Thune


Why would the GOP even consider this douche-nozzle? He's a know-nothing, party-line-spouting....oh, wait



This is the moran who got elected by claiming that he was in the favor of GW and could bring great things to South Dakota and after he was elected couldn't even get more that a 2 minute audience with King George.

Edited, Feb 19th 2010 12:53am by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 236 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)