91 replies to this topic

[White Unicorn]

DieChecker, on 07 December 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

What I think is funny is that to Liberals, Bush is held up as a Fiend for spending and running a Deficit, but Obama is a Hero. Sure, Bush cut taxes, so what? So, he'd have had 3 Trillion of debt rather then 4. Do liberals really think that if the Bush cuts had never existed that we'd not be in a 6 Trillion MORE hole now? That somehow that rought trillion would have prevented that 6 trillion?

Obama = Democrat = Support crazed overspending
Bush = Republican = Overspending and cuts BAD

I think the biggest problem during the Bush years was the economic bubbles,  I'd call them  time bombs myself. No enforceable regulations. It was letting the foxes guard the hen house, you can't let the regulators or banks regulate themselves.  Spending did not hurt as bad even if wasteful or unneeded.  It was the structured fraud which was the backed by a government guarantee that was the big time bomb and it was only the first pop. As Pyridium said earlier the people at the top do know we could be in for a much deeper crash if it's not handled just right.  Unfortunately government guarantee means the revenues will come from all the taxpayers. It doesn't matter if your liberal conservative or other, the problem falls on all of our shoulders.

[THE MATRIX]

DieChecker, on 07 December 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

See... Right there. Stupid statements are what make you seem like you don't know what you are talking about.

More then a dozen times by Bush?? Really? Got any proof to back that up?


http://en.wikipedia....iling_increases

So wikipedia is a credible source now?

[DieChecker]

THE MATRIX, on 09 December 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

So wikipedia is a credible source now?

\
It is a thousand times better then just making up your own BS statements.

[Einsteinium]

-Mr_Fess-, on 06 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Sup Einstein? As for your opening you just summed up likely 98% of our elected officials. They run for office, at first, with us in mind and before too long they're working towards their own personal goals. That's why I believe in term limits to curb corruption. Maybe that's not a real solution but corruption does grow with time. At least a fresh new batch of hypothetically honest people every few years will limit the corruption imposed by old timers and incumbents. Maybe possibly I don't know.... As for the second part of your opening, I disagree. How many wise choices did Obama make with his stimulus? How many of those green companies did he blow billions on essentially gambling with our money?
You want the government to get money out into the economy? How about giving it back to whom it came from. I know I'd spend plenty in far more efficient ways than he did. For example let's assume that about half the country, 150 million people, is 18+ and a tax payer. I know those numbers are wrong but follow me. The first stimulus was $800 Billion and then some I believe. If you divide 800B/150M that comes to $5333.33 per person. That's a lot of money that could be spent somehow somewhere in far more economically boosting ways than how the elites and their pet pork projects spent it. They may well have just made a bonfire out of it. Just for the heck of it lets divide that by the actual population, approximately, which is 310,000,000. That comes to $2580.65 for every man, woman and child in all of America. Just think of how much good that would have done. Millions of people would have been able to get out of debts, pay bills, go out to eat, go to the doctor, buy TV's ect; all of which are capitalistic economy driving things. C'mon man, you don't think you could put $2500 to better use than a bunch of crooks who steal our money and give it to their friends or gamble it on wet dreams? Sure you could. Now times that by 310 million. Hell, think of the security blanket for all the kids whose parents would've had the good sense to put that into some type of compounding interest savings account for college or whatever they want when they turn 18. And for all the people who felt like blowing on something that wasn't helpful to them, so what? Now that money is somewhere in the market in somebody elses hands who is going to spend it somewhere else and so on unlike the black hole that Obama threw it into.
I have a question for everybody? Can you say for certain that you or anybody you know gained anything from the stimulus? And don't give me the administration bs that it saved the country from falling off a cliff. I heard that before and right now it's quite apparent that none of our elected officials really seem to care about falling off any fiscal cliff if avoiding it means they don't get their way.
Now for the underlying issues:

• I completely agree.
  
• Say what you will about George. He spent an awful lot of money. $4 trillion in 8 years and may be responsible for some debt during Obama’s reign of terror but certainly not all of it. Obama’s on the hook already for nearly $6 trillion in only 4 years. Completely insane and you want him to spend more? If Bush’s spending habit didn’t stop when he left office what makes you think it'd be any different for Obama’s successor. We are going to need the Scrooge in office when the Obama fiasco is over. Somebody so unwilling to spend money on anything but the bare necessities.
  
• I advocate a government that balances a budget the same way that we have to in order to get by. It makes freaking sense but many on the left will whine about how it’s different. Well the biggest difference is more bank accounts and balance sheets to keep track of and last I checked we hire plenty of people who are supposed to do just that but of course, they don’t.  Not only do they not but now the job is so hard that they don’t even want to worry about debts. Let’s just assume we have infinity dollars from now on. Yes, that’s what our elected officials are saying and the head of the treasury department of all people. Wouldn’t infinite $ just make his job irrelevant though? But you can’t advocate the government being fiscally responsible like you while at the same time advocate more spending when they’re broke. You can’t do that. Why? Because it leads to further debt.
  
• Well if it were to stay flat indefinitely it would surely be easier to figure out a plan for the future. Other than that, I’m depleted…

Holy smokes! Look what you made me do. That’s a long asss post. Welcome to UM!

Thanks for the response! I could not agree more on term limits for senators and house members. It would take away incentives towards corruption. I also agree that the govt. spent the stimulus money in a very inefficient way. I still believe that a govt. should spend at a deficit during recessionary times until the private sector is able to invest and generate growth yet again. I am absolutely against cutting social security benefits and medicare for the old. They worked for those benefits and deserve them. Our govt. is irresponsible and blaming Obama is easy to do, but it does not even begin to get to the root of the problem. The govt. has become corrupted and now it is up to us, the people, to make our voices heard that we will not stand for a deadlocked do-nothing obstructionist congress. We will not stand for our military being used to prop up dictatorships and pick and choose foreign governments. We will not stand for outrageous debts and an outrageous military budget. Where are the people? Why are we not rallying and forcing the govt. to hear us? Because we are as divided as they are. They have succeeded in splitting us and dividing us on so many issues that we are unable to unite and unable to force change. This is a dangerous situation and a dangerous time for the USA. Our debt...may be a small problem for us if we are unable to stop the corruption in our own govt.

[F3SS]

Einsteinium, on 11 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Thanks for the response! I could not agree more on term limits for senators and house members. It would take away incentives towards corruption. I also agree that the govt. spent the stimulus money in a very inefficient way. I still believe that a govt. should spend at a deficit during recessionary times until the private sector is able to invest and generate growth yet again. I am absolutely against cutting social security benefits and medicare for the old. They worked for those benefits and deserve them. Our govt. is irresponsible and blaming Obama is easy to do, but it does not even begin to get to the root of the problem. The govt. has become corrupted and now it is up to us, the people, to make our voices heard that we will not stand for a deadlocked do-nothing obstructionist congress. We will not stand for our military being used to prop up dictatorships and pick and choose foreign governments. We will not stand for outrageous debts and an outrageous military budget. Where are the people? Why are we not rallying and forcing the govt. to hear us? Because we are as divided as they are. They have succeeded in splitting us and dividing us on so many issues that we are unable to unite and unable to force change. This is a dangerous situation and a dangerous time for the USA. Our debt...may be a small problem for us if we are unable to stop the corruption in our own govt.

No, thanks for getting back to me. With you having only 2 posts I thought I fell for the longest troll post in history, lol. Anyhow, I disagree with a couple things you say but all in all we are on a similar page. Division has been a long term goal and divided we are.

[Einsteinium]

-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

No, thanks for getting back to me. With you having only 2 posts I thought I fell for the longest troll post in history, lol. Anyhow, I disagree with a couple things you say but all in all we are on a similar page. Division has been a long term goal and divided we are.

I apologize for taking so long I really enjoy this site and I love a good debate, but I work full time and I am a college student so I will usually take longer to respond as I have little time available to post on here. I am curious as to what you disagree with me on, and why?

[F3SS]

Einsteinium, on 13 December 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

I apologize for taking so long I really enjoy this site and I love a good debate, but I work full time and I am a college student so I will usually take longer to respond as I have little time available to post on here. I am curious as to what you disagree with me on, and why?

I think that was mostly stated in my initial response to your first post but without rereading everything I think my disagreement was about government spending during a recession simply meaning math is math and when you're broke you quit or cut spending. Ok, that's math but also I don't believe in stimulus because the gov doesn't know how to appropriate money, see the billions wasted on green companies alone. Also, they have no constitutional authority to make business investments on our dime and I think that if they'd have taken that $900B and evenly distributed a check to every tax paying citizen that we'd have stimulated the economy and our lives in far better ways. I've used the following a hundred times before: For the sake of simplicity, let's say that there are 150,000,000 tax payers, or about half the country. That would be $6,000 per person or $3,000 for every citizen tax payer or not. Don't you think you could spend $6,000 better than the gov? Now times that by 150,000,000 better ways to stimulate the economy and the conclusion is government sucks at making money. They're only good at taking it and wasting it. They are good at building an awesome military though, I'll give them that. In fact they're good at most of their constitutional duties. The problem arises when they cross those lines though.

[ninjadude]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 December 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

, see the billions wasted on green companies alone.

it was not http://grist.org/pol...chael-grunwald/

Obama promised that he would double renewable power generation during his first term, and he did. In 2008, people had the sense that renewable energy was a tiny industry in the United States. What they forget is it was a tiny dead industry — because these wind and solar projects were essentially financed through tax credits, which required people with tax liability, and everybody had lost money, so nobody needed [the tax credits]. By changing those to a cash grant, it instantly unlocked this industry. Another thing that’s helped to create the wind and solar industry were advanced manufacturing tax credits, which were a gigantic deal. I think there were about 200 factories that got these credits. The classic example is Abengoa [Solar], which had shut down projects in Illinois, Texas, some other places. The day the stimulus passed, their chairman announced they were pouring $6 billion into U.S. projects.
For advanced biofuels, [the stimulus bill] created this $800 million program that essentially financed new refineries. And so you got the first 18 advanced biofuel refineries in the country just through that 1 percent of the clean energy funding. And there were some loan guarantees for that as well. There was also a whole geothermal technology program that went from about $20 million a year to $400 million. It’s leading right now to a real boom in geothermal production.
You can argue about this kind of green industrial policy, but it did what it was supposed to do. In 2008, I think 80 percent of the average U.S. wind turbine was made of imported parts. After the stimulus created all these factories — not just making the whole turbine, but making all of the 8,000 parts that go into a turbine — now it’s only 40 percent imported. That creates a constituency for wind power, and it also reduces the cost, because wind turbines are big honking pieces of equipment that you don’t want to be importing from abroad. It is true that a lot of these factories and a lot of these wind farms are owned by foreign companies, like Abengoa, but it really doesn’t matter whose corporate name is on the polo shirts. What matters is that these are American jobs and it’s producing green power in America.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 13 December 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

You can argue about this kind of green industrial policy, but it did what it was supposed to do.

I think the debate is over if the cost was worth the results. To make a over the top statement.... If I spent a trillion dollars and doubled the industry from 300 million dollars per year, to 600 million dollars per year, that is a really bad investment.

So... reading up on this some from your link... the Stimulous had 90 billion for Clean Energy, and doubled the existing industry, right? But... you just said it was a tiny dead industry. So... does that mean we have a slightly larger dead industry, or maybe a small living industry, or what? Was the value of the existing industry before 90 billion? How could that be... a tiny dead industry worth 90 billion? If it was not worth 90 billion, then why did it take 90 billion to double it?

Can you see that maybe the cost to results might be a point of discussion?

[Einsteinium]

DieChecker, on 14 December 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

I think the debate is over if the cost was worth the results. To make a over the top statement.... If I spent a trillion dollars and doubled the industry from 300 million dollars per year, to 600 million dollars per year, that is a really bad investment.

So... reading up on this some from your link... the Stimulous had 90 billion for Clean Energy, and doubled the existing industry, right? But... you just said it was a tiny dead industry. So... does that mean we have a slightly larger dead industry, or maybe a small living industry, or what? Was the value of the existing industry before 90 billion? How could that be... a tiny dead industry worth 90 billion? If it was not worth 90 billion, then why did it take 90 billion to double it?

Can you see that maybe the cost to results might be a point of discussion?

Government is not business. The taxpayers through the government spend billions per year on research and development grants. The majority of this money could be thought of as being wasted, as it does not produce any results. However, without this research and development we would not make discoveries and advance technology and society forward. Private industry is great at investing in things that have a high potential for monetary return, but private industry will not pour money into experimental research and technology that may not have any practical application. This is why government invests in green energy, medical research, biology research, etc. Govt. should not be in the business of investing to make profit, it should be in the business of investing to move technology and science forward. And in that regard they do an okay job.

I disagree that the government should have merely cut everyone a check for the stimulus. They should have invested in infrastructure. Private citizens would not have taken that money and pooled it together and paid for new bridges, roads, and schools. Only govt. can do that, and should have done that with our taxpayer dollars as that has been proven economically to boost the economy. In fact, this is what Obama meant when he said 'you didn't build that' he was referring to all the roads and infrastructure that all the taxpayers built, that we all helped collectively build through our taxes or through directly working the construction efforts.

[DieChecker]

Well there is Industry and there is Research, and sometimes a company does both, but my understanding was not that the Stimulous was going to improve Green Energy, but that it was going to double the capacity. If we are going to say, "That was to improve technology, improve research and also improve production, then I might reconsider, but that is not how it was sold. And even if we consider Research and Developement... did we get out 90 billions worth?

I'm not even saying that it should not have been done. I'm simply pointing out that it might have cost a bucket load more then if the money came from private investment.

If it like getting 20,000 in Pell Grants to go to College, or 20,000 in loans. The guy who got Pell grants is not scared of failing, because he doesn't have to pay a penny back. The guy with the loan tried harder (unless he is a fool) because he's going to have to pay that back.

Spending free government money to get no result is a lot easier for Industry then spending investor money. That is all I wanted to point out.

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 14 December 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

I think the debate is over if the cost was worth the results. To make a over the top statement.... If I spent a trillion dollars and doubled the industry from 300 million dollars per year, to 600 million dollars per year, that is a really bad investment.

no it's not. It's bad if you think about it in only business or economic terms. But as I've posted, terms of moving toward green energy, it's a great success. And that is why it was done.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 14 December 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

no it's not. It's bad if you think about it in only business or economic terms. But as I've posted, terms of moving toward green energy, it's a great success. And that is why it was done.

I agree it was a success. I'm only wondering if the success came at a high cost, or a reasonable cost. Throwing money for the sake of spending money is not something that should be supported.

Are you saying it is Bad because environmental and social concerns should overrule economic concerns?

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I agree it was a success. I'm only wondering if the success came at a high cost, or a reasonable cost. Throwing money for the sake of spending money is not something that should be supported.

Are you saying it is Bad because environmental and social concerns should overrule economic concerns?

Who in the world says they were spending money just for the sake of spend.. oh wait, the conservabubble, You've got to stop listening to these guys.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 18 December 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

Who in the world says they were spending money just for the sake of spend.. oh wait, the conservabubble, You've got to stop listening to these guys.

Good so you agree with me that spending just to spend is a bad thing?? That when ever there is evidence of a project or agency or department that serves no USEFUL purpose it should be gotten rid of?