You can't even keep the arguments straight, let alone the facts...

Lol no you said Obama called raising the debt limit unpatriotic. I pointed out this was horrendously wrong and factually incorrect.

We have already covered debt levels in detail. I presented full Obama vs Bush facts in [77] and lots of other posts in here.

There is a huge difference between DEBT (arguments over revenue and expenditure) and DEBT CEILINGS (a procedural process to pay the bills).

However, debt ceiling raises are one way of analysing how crazy a President has borrowed. The fact Reagan had to do this 18 TIMES in 8 years is testament to why he is the no.1 worst President the US has ever seen in terms of deficit building.

Once again, you change the argument when you get slammed down..

I said Obama raised the DEBT, not the Debt Limit..

You can't even keep the arguments straight, let alone the facts...

Michale

My bad ;)

Silence. Has my point about who is the worst borrower finally sunk in??

These are the facts that no amount of spin will change..

Actually Bush raised the debt ceiling around 7 times. The debt ceiling was raised under Reagan 17 times. Obama is at 4 times.

As I've mentioned before, Obama is MILES BEHIND Reagan and Bush in terms of adding to the debt/destroying the surpluses a President inherits.

Oh and the debt ceiling has been raised (since 1960) 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents.

But of course you probably knew that since Republicans are the party of borrow and spend...

THOSE are the facts on the debt ceiling.

Semantics..

Even still, you are wrong..

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Debt+Ceiling%22+Obama+Bush+Unpatriotic&oq=%22Debt+Ceiling%22+Obama+Bush+Unpatriotic&gs_l=hp.3...179923.180817.1.181321.5.5.0.0.0.1.274.853.0j4j1.5.0.les%3Bcpsugrpq2high..0.0...1.1.F66V00aFWGc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&fp=31229be95c8561f6&bpcl=40096503&biw=1920&bih=890

This is another loser of a position for ya'all..

Obama slammed Bush for raising the debt/debt ceiling..

Yet Obama has raised the debt TWICE as much in 3 years as Bush AND Reagan raised it in EIGHT years...

These are the facts that no amount of spin will change..

Michale

I agree. But to think that you can just borrow money, whilst cutting revenues at the same time, to pay for your 'doing the right thing' is idiotic behaviour of the highest level. THIS is the problem with the current GOP: revenues are ALWAYS off the table even when they want to create massive gigantic expenditure on wars.

To make it clear, I have no problem with justified wars - as long as you have no problem with raising taxes to pay for them.

*I* didn't say that raising the debt limit is unpatriotic...

OBAMA said it...

Complete and utter nonsense of the highest level of nonsense-land.

I think you are confusing 'debt' with 'debt ceiling'. As David and I have pointed out countless times (see our analogies), the two are totally different things.

Debt = controlled by Congress and the budget they set
Debt ceiling = paying the bills, absolutely nothing to do with the level of debt.

At no point did Obama ever say that raising the debt CEILING was unpatriotic.

I'm pretty sure I get your point. Maybe it's all those "I hate Obama" bumper stickers :)

-David

Once again, you are missing my point..

*I* didn't say that raising the debt limit is unpatriotic...

OBAMA said it...

If you have a problem with that argument, take it up with your guy...

Michale

But the kind of borrowing that Obama has caused is simply unpatriotic and is a threat to national security.

So when you say something is unpatriotic, that is ok. When anyone else says it, it's not ok.

Am I getting this about right?

-David

One of the few things that we all agree on here in Weigantia is that questioning an American's patriotism simply because of a political agenda is wrong as wrong can be..

Yet, that is EXACTLY what Obama did.

And, once again, he gets a pass....

Michale

You are arguing with Obama.. :D

Sorry, posted that as I was walking out the door in my shop..

The "Raising the debt ceiling is unpatriotic" argument is not *MY* argument.

It's Obama's argument..

So, when ya'all are arguing that raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do, ya'all aren't arguing with me..

You are arguing with Obama..

And, ironically enough, you are also arguing with yourselves..

Because, when Bush was POTUS, raising the debt ceiling was evil bad wrong and being delinquent on our debts was the right thing to do...

Michale

Yer not arguing with..

You are arguing with Obama.. :D

Michale

w/o fuss???

Shirley, you jest...

Calling President Bush "unpatriotic" is hardly "w/o fuss"...

p.s. I'm still picturing you trying to say to your daughter that not paying her credit cards is the patriotic thing to do :)

That's just it....

*I* NEVER said that not paying debts is patriotic..

Your guy, Obama, said it..

Michale..

BTW- I joke about this only because I don't believe you would do it. I could see you giving the lecture about spending more than you earn. But I can't see you ever telling a child of yours not to honor a commitment.

But that's just it ... the debt ceiling was raised w/o a fuss by Democrats under Bush.

Democrats never threatened to destroy the country if they didn't get what they wanted.

I'm sorry, Michale, but the Republicans of today look like a bunch of spoiled a-holes.

-David

p.s. I'm still picturing you trying to say to your daughter that not paying her credit cards is the patriotic thing to do :)

For the same reason that your guy, Obama said that paying the bills was "unpatriotic"...

As always, ya'all can't escape Obama's own words.. :D

Michale

If you are dying of a heart-attack, why not pay your portion of the medical bill up front??

After all, if it's important, why not pay for it?? :D

Why be such a-holes and threaten to not pay our bills?

For the same reason ya'all DIDN'T want to pay the bills when Bush was president... :D

Michale

If it was so important, why not pay for it?

Why be such a-holes and threaten to not pay our bills?

I look forward to your next change of subject anti-Obama rant :)

-David

Geee, I wonder why that is?? :D

Michale

We were both wrong. There were actually 4 Brosnan Bonds.

Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day

I had assumed you were mistaking the two Timothy Dalton Bond movies for Brosnan Bonds..

The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill

Aprobos of absolutely nothing.

Robert Davi, who played the very chilling bad guy in LICENCE, was also a very chilling bad guy as Commander Koyla, a long running nemesis of LT Colonel John Shepard in STARGATE: ATLANTIS.

Michale

Amazing this guy got re-elected...

Michale.

WOW..

Talk about voting against one's interests...

Obama's biggest supporters are also the biggest losers in the jobs market...

Serves them right..

Michale

This is absolutely spot on Michale. Could not agree more.

OK, this is getting too scary!! :D

For example, if you're going to invade another country, you should be willing to raise the revenue to pay for it;

See my post to David..

Sometimes doing the right thing is more important then anything else...

Michale

The people in Iraq being brutalized by Saddam Hussein and the people in Afghanistan being brutalized by the Taliban might disagree with you..

Hopefully, we'll never see another dictator like Hitler come to power..

Apparently there doesn't seem to be much stomach for doing the right thing amongst the Left these days..

p.s. Now I will go back to thinking about double oh seven. Because we're getting near the point where we'll just have to disagree.

Oh that point was passed a year or so ago.. :D

But, I agree.. Back to Bond...

What were the 2 other Brosnan Bonds?? I know Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day..

Michale

There I can't argue. We should never have gotten into those 2 idiotic wars.

But the fact is we did purchase. And we don't have a time machine. Yet.

So if it's true that you won't learn w/o a price, I find it strange that you're advocating not paying.

-David

p.s. Now I will go back to thinking about double oh seven. Because we're getting near the point where we'll just have to disagree.

This is absolutely spot on Michale. Could not agree more.

For example, if you're going to invade another country, you should be willing to raise the revenue to pay for it; if you're going to give out massive tax cuts loaded to the top earners, you should be able to substantiate how you're going to pay for it (and 'the tax cuts pay for themselves' does not count lolololol). And cutting revenue whilst increasing spending (i.e. both these together = BORROWING TO PAY FOR STUFF THAT DOESN'T IMPROVE YOUR COUNTRY) should be BANNED.

Furthermore, being fiscally responsible includes SAVING for when times get tough, not running up MASSIVE TRILLIONS OF DEBT when times are not so bad so that when they get really, really bad your starting point is TRILLIONS OF DEBT not a balanced budget.

Then one shouldn't have purchased..

It's THAT simple...

Michale, what would you do with a customer who bought a security system and refused to pay you?

It wouldn't happen because I get all my $$$ up front.. :D

I would tell him that if he can't afford a security system, he shouldn't be buying one..

If he said it was life and death and that could be confirmed, I would gladly GIVE him the system, free of charge...

:D

How can this country learn fiscal responsibility if there are no consequences from being fiscally irresponsible??

Michale

Yea, THAT's the problem...

Maybe it was likely they expanded to fast and too far beyond their means.

THAT is a much more likely scenario....

I honestly can't BELIEVE ya'all are advocating living outside one's means with reckless abandoned...

Michale

Sure. But once you buy, you don't simply not pay.

That's called delinquency. It leads to things like bankruptcy, terrible credit scores, and economic failure.

The time to not buy is when you're buying. Not after you've already bought. That's simply loony.

Michale, what would you do with a customer who bought a security system and refused to pay you?

Would you say "why that's very patriotic of you, sir"?

I'm guessing not.

Employee:(Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?

Good question.

-David

What IS it about praise from Obama being the kiss of death for companies???

Michale

Employee: I'm sorry this is crazy. I need more explanation for this nonsense.
Employer: Sure, what would you like to know?
Employee: Well how did we run up such MASSIVE losses during the better economic years before the massive economic recession hit? Why weren't we better prepared for it??
Employer: Good question. Well you see the first reason is that the new board that took over in 2001 decided that they didn't like revenue and wanted to cut revenue.
Employee: Why would they do that??
Employer: Well strangely enough, they believed that cutting revenue would increase revenue.
Employee: You can't be serious.
Employer: Oh I am. Even worse - although that old board is now a laughing stock, many of the current board actually still believe in these principles!
Employee: Wow. But surely just cuts to revenue couldn't have created this mess?
Employer: You're right! In fact the 2001 board decided to take over some other companies - 2 other companies in fact. Except that these other companies were both loss making, added nothing to the company and required masses of resources to take over!
Employee: So why did they do it?
Employer: They managed to persuade a bunch of people that these companies were a major threat to ours. But then when we took a look at the books of the companies, we found there was no threat at all.
Employee: But how did we pay for all this?
Employer: Oh we just put it on the company credit card.
Employee: So THAT'S how we had such massive debts before this recession hit??
Employer: Yes, I am afraid so.
Employee: So what you are going to do about the loss levels now? Can we raise revenue and cut these unnecessary costs??
Employer: Well no. Remember a bunch of the board still believe in the philosophy of the old board. They have decided that they are going to just stop paying employees. Oh and stop paying the credit cards for all that stuff we did.
Employee: Won't that have dire consequences??
Employer: Oh yeh, in fact the entire world will suffer a large recession, millions of people will lose their jobs, the company $ will plummet in value...
Employee: So why do it then??
Employer: Well you probably are not going to believe the reason. You see we've been spending money on employee healthcare and a bunch of the board have decided that it is solely this spending that is to blame for our mess. The other half keep talking about the revenue cuts and company take-overs but they are basically talking to a wall.
Employee: You're right, I don't believe it. How on earth can they actually seriously believe this?
Employer: Oh they're very clever and have a big propaganda machine. In fact the board have convinced people that the old 1990s board, which ran profits for a decade, were actually the irresponsible ones with money and stopped them from completely taking over again!
Employee: This is unbelievable. You can't be serious? So you are saying that almost half the board want to create a massive recession across the world, cost millions of people their jobs and create economic chaos just because they aren't allowed to cut the company healthcare plan that didn't even cause the mess in the first place??
Employer: That would be correct.
Employee:(Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?

Huh?

Actually more like

Employee: Can I get my pay-check now?

Employer: No, we've decided to stop paying our employees.

Employee: Why?

Employer: Well, after making a bunch of profit during the 90s we have been running at a loss now since the new board took over in 2001. In fact, even during good times we were running up MASSIVE losses such that when the bad times hit our losses got worse.

Employee: Oh that sucks, can't we raise more revenue and that will lead to higher profits? I have a few ideas how we could do that actually. In fact a vast majority of the employees believe that you can use taxes to raise revenue and they want you, who represents them, to do this.

Employer: We could have got more revenue in but a big chunk of the board decided they don't like revenue. So they decided we just won't pay our employees any more and that will solve things.

Employee: But won't all the employees stop working and then the company will collapse?

Employer: Oh that's ok, we'll just blame Obama when that happens. Plus we never really liked the company very much anyway, in fact many of our board are ironically anti-company, so screwing over the company is fine with us...

Employee: (Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?

This is absolutely true. Here is my analogy:

Military: Can we get our $800 billion that you promised for 2013? We have soldiers to pay in countries that we invaded, as well as instalment payments due for the billions and trillions of orders for equipment that you've been placing for the past 10 years. Oh and all the loan interest on all the borrowing we took out to pay for that equipment.

Congress: No, we have decided that not paying these bills we signed into law is the best deficit reduction plan.

Lololol.

No, responsibility is not buying unnecessary things that we CAN'T pay for...

Michale

Saying 'we bought it, now we're not going to pay for it' is saying we're a crappy customer and letting the world know they shouldn't do business with us.

How would you treat a customer who bought a security system from you and then simply refused to pay?

-David

That's just it though.

Congress has already spent the money. If they wanted to spend less they should have simply spent less.

It's more like this:

Child: "I have to pay the interest on my credit card this month"

Parent: "Don't pay it. That way you will spend less."

Huh?

The money has already been spent. It's insane to say we're not going to honor our obligations.

That's why credit agencies want to lower our rating because it is absolutely insane.

-David

No, it's more like a parent and a irresponsible child..

Parent: "No, Barry. I am not going to raise your allowance. You need to learn responsibility. Running up bills you can't pay is not patriotic."

Parent: "Well, you should have thought about that before you ran up all those bills. It's simply irresponsible and un-patriotic"

You see the point?? :D

Michale

LOL!!!

Agreed. But is it any more nonsensical than the misunderstanding about the 'debt ceiling'?

Many people believe the debt ceiling is authorizing more spending when not raising the debt ceiling is really more like saying 'we're not going to pay our bills' - 'we're just going to default'

-David

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/debt-ceiling-coin_n_2404653.html

-David

I know Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day...

The other 2???

Michale

The 'new style' Bond under Craig is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, as movies go they are good movies but as for BOND MOVIES go they have to be up there with the worst.

The end of days are amongst us!! Michty and I agree!!! :D

David,

That, my friend, is a loaded question. Would you rather be 'right' or would you rather be 'happy'? :)

Touch`!! :D

THAT was funny!! :D

I have to confess I never saw any of the Remington Steele ... err, Brosnan movies.

Oh, then you are missing a treat!!

For action and humor, the Brosnan Bonds cannot be missed..

If I wasn't such a Connery fan (not the least of which we share the same name :D) Brosnan would be the best Bond...

Michale

Connery is undoubtedly the best Bond (although I am biased most people recognise this ;)) but Moore had a bunch of really good movies - although Goldfinger is generally recognised as the best (for good reason :))

That, my friend, is a loaded question. Would you rather be 'right' or would you rather be 'happy'? :)

That said, it's an interesting question. My guess is that it's because gas is largely a commodity. Therefore, prices are not going to vary too much from supplier to supplier. As far as I know there are no regulations mandating certain prices.

I do know that most gas stations/convenient marts do not make much money off of gasoline. They make their money from sodas and other things they sell to customers buying gas. This would lend itself to the commodity theory as individual station owners are largely just passing on the cost of the commodity with little markup.

They saw the success of Jason Bourne and decided Bond must be more like this - less of the smiling and charm of Bond, more of the growling and brutal force of Bourne.

Maybe that's what I miss in Craig. The worldliness. The sharp wit. The flirtiness and humor. I still like Craig and especially loved the Parkour scene in Casino Royale, but he plays the character very cold. I have to confess I never saw any of the Remington Steele ... err, Brosnan movies.

Heheh.

-David

When you have dug yourself into a financial hole, the VERY FIRST THING you must do is... STOP DIGGING!!!

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh on your if this is your understanding of what has happened.

Without too much into macroeconomic theory, is completely wrong and very common basic economic ignorance. When you have a recession, especially one so large, the WORST thing you can do is to stop spending. Even Republicans knew this (see the Bush bailouts, for example). Stopping spending during a recession IS continuing to dig yourself deeper into a hole by making the recession considerably worse. That is, your understanding is completely the opposite of economic reality.

The problem with this particular Great Recession was quite unique in that beforehand, when the economy was better, the US (and other) Governments were still borrowing MASSIVE chunks of money as Western Governments everywhere continually reduced taxes for the past 30 years and replaced the lost revenue with borrowings.

So the size of deficits they held were MASSIVELY inflated to the strength of the economy. Then the recession hit and all these Governments already had MASSIVE deficits, but they had no choice but to make them even more massive because doing anything else would be catastrophic and lead to hyper-inflation esq levels of despair. This is the reason they were calling what happened this month the 'Fiscal Cliff' because it was exactly this - shutting off spending and Government during the recovery from a recession - that is economic suicide.

So when we continually harp on about the problems of the past 10 years and where the debt came from this is with good reason - because if the US wasn't so highly debt leveraged when the Great Recession hit then you wouldn't have the SUPER MASSIVE deficits you see now.

Now the sad thing - as I have repeated many times - is that neither side is prepared to fix the areas that made the US so highly debt leveraged before the recession hit (tax, military spending in particular). So until you fix these problems, the expanding costs of social programmes (which will be a problem IN FUTURE) is the least of your worries.

The 'new style' Bond under Craig is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, as movies go they are good movies but as for BOND MOVIES go they have to be up there with the worst.

The motus operandi for the Daniel Craig Bond has been that Bond is more of a thug-like character with none of the charm and sophistication of the previous Bonds. They saw the success of Jason Bourne and decided Bond must be more like this - less of the smiling and charm of Bond, more of the growling and brutal force of Bourne.

Also the theme of every Craig movie has been that Bond is completely inadequate in some way - to the extent that in Craig's first Bond movie he was supposed to be 'too inexperienced and learning' and 'naive' by falling in love (they already tried this before with On Her Majesty's Secret Service - universally recognised as easily the worst Bond movie ever) to the latest movie where apparently he was 'old and past it' and needed help from M to hide this fact. Riiiiiiiight. Casino Royale was just about passable as a Bond movie, definitely Craig's best.

But Brosnan/the previous Bond writers have to share the blame for what they did to Craig. Brosnan's 1st movies were excellent (Goldeneye - his 1st and best) but his last 2, the last 1 in particular, were just ridiculous. It had so much nonsense, for example the invisible car, that the reaction of the writers was to over-correct (for example, their correction to this was to completely take out Q branch for the next 2 movies). Sigh.

/Bond rant ;)

As it is, all you have is Obama-love kool-aide drunkeness fantasy...

That's funny I couldn't have said it better myself.... About your points. All your (several times) repeated points have been about in this discussion is comparing the Bush 1st term to the Obama 1st term. Of course you COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact Bush inherited a surplus and actually ran a surplus budget in his 1st year, since this was what was forecast when he began (his surplus was $100b below forecast); where as Obama inherited a MASSIVE deficit with a MASSIVE deficit forecast for his 1st year. You want to live in this make believe world where these things didn't happen and that Obama inherited the most amazing economy ever where as Bush didn't inherit the strongest economy ever seen in decades and destroy it through BORROW AND SPEND.

The figures are out there if you bother to look in official sources. For example, you can see the debt figures to the EXACT DAY at http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

But all this is lost on you because you live in lalalalalalalala land so discussing the FACTS that I presented in [77] is impossible because you don't want to admit that >$11t of debt existed before Obama even came to office, never mind the economic circumstances and consequences inherited by a President.

Once you change your mind about this and are open to actually discussing the facts then I'm all ears. Until then I'll leave you and your fantasy lalalaland to yourself...

Are there business regulations in practice here in the US that regulate what Gas Station owners can charge for gas??

The wife and I had this discussion on the way to work this morning..

We have several gas stations right across the street and next to each other by my shop. Their gas prices have always been the same.

I always thought that there are business regulations in place for Gas Station owners that require them not to undercut competitors in proximity. Ergo a big station chain cannot undercut a competitor to force them out of business..

My wife thinks it's because they just want to get the maximum $$$ they can w/o being more expensive than what's next door...

Who's right??

Michale

So, we agree..

It's not significant..

Imagine how much better the growth would be if Obama and the Democrats exercised a little less Leftist agenda and a little more common sense..

When you have dug yourself into a financial hole, the VERY FIRST THING you must do is... STOP DIGGING!!!

As I've said, I'd be happy to call it a Democratic economy if Republicans would just get out of the way.

And I would be happy to call it Republicans National Security if Democrats would just get out of the way...

Once again, it works both ways.. :D

My one nit on Craig would be that he seems a bit emotionless. Connery (and even more so Moore) were a little more playful and fun as Bond.

Agreed on Craig. He would make a great Vulcan... But I think that Brosnan was the most "playful" Bond..

Moore was too "presidential".. He had presence... But that's the WORST thing in the world for a spy to have...

Brosnan & Connery looked equally comfortable in a tux at a baccarat table as they do in jean cutoffs and a tank top at the beach...

Michale

My one nit on Craig would be that he seems a bit emotionless. Connery (and even more so Moore) were a little more playful and fun as Bond.

-David

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-gdp-102612.gif

While this is small, it is growth, not the deregulation caused financial collapse. And growth would also have been greater with more stimulus.

Now Republicans know this. And choose to block it anyways.

As I've said, I'd be happy to call it a Democratic economy if Republicans would just get out of the way.

-David

It's funny how NONE of you ever acknowledge Obama's OWN words in this issue..

{{{cchhiiiirrrrrp}}} {{chirrrrrrppppp}}

:D

Michale

Rice told the detectives that one of their weapons, specifically a female detective’s gun, was making another diner feel uncomfortable.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/dennys-kick-out-belleville-police-for-being-armed/

Do you know how much business LEOs brings to Dennys???

It's this kind of ignorance and stupidity that hallmarks the Left's view of guns..

I don't have a problem with people's opinions about guns, even if they are negative opinions..

I DO have a problem when those opinions are borne of ignorance and fear-mongering and are THEN used to make policy...

Michale

Really?

Really?? which??

That I don't know much about it? Or don't care much about it??

The answer to both is yep..

My ignorance of the topic is there for all to see. :D It's like many here trying to argue about guns.

And, while I know I SHOULD care about the economy, it's important and all that, I just can't seem to gumption up any enthusiasm over the topic.

No matter what happens, we all get screwed over anyways, so......

It's the Vulcan discipline of Kaiidth...

Loosely translated it means "Mastery Of The Unavoidable"..

In other words, if worrying about it won't change it, then why worry about it??? :D

Michale

I think what you mean is we have finally found a topic that we both can agree on.. :D

hehehehehehehehe

Michale

It's just my luck that the topic de jour has been something I know the least about. And, frankly, care the least about...

Really?

Sure. If you want growth, you need to invest for growth instead of focusing on cutting programs. This is almost the definition of economic growth.

And yet, there has not been ANY significant growth under Obama and the Democrats.. Tax & Spend with aplomb, abandon and w/o any controls or restraint simply does not work.

If you were truly a fiscal conservative, you would see this..

For the record, I think there are very good arguments to make for this Bond being the BEST BOND EVER! And, the new M isn't so bad himself, either. Or ... is he???

The nice thing about Bond flicks is they are interchangeable. SKYFALL was actually a prequel that introduced us to Moneypenny.. It was a nice touch putting the gun barrel blood flow thingy at the end of the movie rather than the beginning.. Kinda said (to me anyways)... "And so it begins...."

Kewpie to anyone who can (w/o Google) state what other blockbuster movie franchise the new Moneypenny played in..

Although Sean Connery will always be Bond (James Bond) to me, I have to admit a certain affinity for the Brosnan Bond flicks. In other words, Goldeneye, World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day were great movies, but Connery is the only Bond.. :D

I think we may have finally found a topic you know something about. :)

Oh, there are a few other things. If Obama and the Democrats make good on their threat to go after Americans' guns, you'll see another topic that I am an expert on.. In spades.. :D

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/

Or we could always talk about what a hypocrite Al Gore is for selling his Current TV to one of the biggest oil exporters in the world... Which simply proves that all the Climate Change is to Gore is a way to make money.. My expertise shines thru there as well..

It's just my luck that the topic de jour has been something I know the least about. And, frankly, care the least about...

Michale

I think we may have finally found a topic you know something about. :)

I haven't seen all of the Bond films yet but, I would suspect that Casino Royale, Craig's first one, would be in my top three.

What are your favourites?

So, you finally went to see the latest Bond flick. I've been meaning to see it again. Did you know that it is the first Bond film in 50 years of the franchise to go over one billion dollars at the box office? And, that's not counting what its take will be in China!

For the record, I think there are very good arguments to make for this Bond being the BEST BOND EVER! And, the new M isn't so bad himself, either. Or ... is he???

Sure. If you want growth, you need to invest for growth instead of focusing on cutting programs. This is almost the definition of economic growth.

You can't get any more focused on a policy.

On the flip side, you don't seem to be able to name a single Democratic policy and explain how it's the problem.

For example, I haven't seen one argument from you about what problems our deficit has actually caused. Just a lot of screaming about Obama and debt.

-David

That's because your points are garbage and have absolutely NO substantiation or basis in reality...

All you spew is completely false garbage...

If you would provide links, as I do, then you might have an argument..

As it is, all you have is Obama-love kool-aide drunkeness fantasy...

Michale

No I used the Treasury Direct website for the debt levels, CBO for the deficit forecasts.

I like how you completely ignored all the points and focussed on the graph though as that indicates you can't find any fault anywhere and have finally recognised my point (I only included the graph because some people aren't very good with numbers and need to see things in graphical form - the graph is also little out of date as Obama should be at 55% - i.e. tied in 3rd with Bush senior as I mentioned earlier in these comments)

SKYFALL is a way kewl flick!

I am not a fan of Daniel Craig as Bond, but the movie itself is likely in the top 3 of BBFs....

Michale

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Who-Increased-The-Debt-Revised-Front.jpg
(only shows up to end of 2011)

Yer substantiation is MOVE ON!!!?????

SERIOUSLY!!!????

:D Now THAT's funny!!! :D

David,

Economically conservative doesn't mean ignoring when something doesn't work - for example, supply side economics.

As opposed to economic liberals who embody the very definition of insanity... :D

If the Republican Congress would pass a liberal agenda and stop pushing cuts, I'd be happy to "own it".

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the Democrat's responsibility towards the problem.

Everything is all the Republican's fault..

Democrat's ONLY culpability is that they weren't hard enough on the Republicans..

Gotcha.... :D

Hasn't it occurred to ANY of you that it's the POLICIES that are the problem??

Of course not.. It's much easier to indulge in the Left v Right meme, now that Democrat's balls are safely ensconced from the vice... :D

Michale

Nah ... I'd rather run surpluses every year ;)

Economically conservative doesn't mean ignoring when something doesn't work - for example, supply side economics.

You want to go on record??? :D

If the Republican Congress would pass a liberal agenda and stop pushing cuts, I'd be happy to "own it". Even so, we're still far better off than we would have been under a return to Romney tax cuts for the wealthy.

-David

Obama
US Debt at start of term = $10.6t
US Debt at present = $16.4t
US Forecast Budget at start of term = -$1.4t
US Forecast Budget at present = -$0.9t
Increase in debt = $5.8t
Increase in debt = 55%
Effect on annual deficit = Turned -$1.4t forecast to a -$0.9t forecast (a shift of +$0.5t)

Those are the ACTUAL facts.

So the impact of Bush was to take a $300b surplus and turn it into a $1.4t deficit - that is DESTROY the annual budget by NEGATIVE $1.6t over the course of his Presidency; so far the affect of Obama has been to DECREASE the forecast surplus by POSITIVE $0.5t. This is what I mean when I say you can't assess them as if they started with zero. This is why looking at proportional debt increase is more accurate. Or in graphical form, if this damn link will work:

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Who-Increased-The-Debt-Revised-Front.jpg
(only shows up to end of 2011)

And, for the record, my links aren't locked so no one else can read them... :D

Transparency is my middle name...

"Mine's Cornelius. You tell anyone, I'll kill ya."
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOY SCOUT

:D

Michale....

President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Unlike you, michty, I provide substantiation for all my facts..

You don't...

It's THAT simple....

Michale

Despite all evidence to the contrary.. :D

If you were economically conservative, you would buy into the trickle down theory...

It doesn't appear to worry the economic ratings agencies at all.

Then you should have no problem stating unequivocally and for the record that this economy is Obama's and the Democrat's economy now..

No more blaming Bush..

You want to go on record??? :D

Michale

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Another classic Michale 'fact'. Must've been that Obama and his time machine. DAMN YOU TIME TRAVELLING OBAMA!!!!

It doesn't appear to worry the economic ratings agencies at all.

In fact, it doesn't worry economists. Not until it's at a level where it's disproportionate to GDP.

It really isn't a problem at all right now. Except ... that conservatives want to cut social programs.

To do this, they need to sell it. To sell it, they're using deficit fear.

Quite simple really. And you know this as well as I, Michale. You just want to cut social programs so entire the hyperbole "it's a disaster for National Security" blah blah blah.

Really? It doesn't look like it's caused any issues whatsoever yet. It's still at sustainable levels.

-David

Au contraire. It's exactly why there is compromise :)

Democrats/Republicans are the political reality of our Congress. People, however, don't tend to be 100% Republican or Democrat.

For example, I consider myself a very economically conservative person. Yet socially, I identify with liberals.

-David

It wasn't Republicans that ran up the debt by over FIVE TRILLION Dollars...

It was Obama and the Democrats..

They made the bed.. Now we all have to lie in it..

Spin it all you want, but the facts are clear.. This is Obama's and the Democrat's economy now..

You said so yourself..

Michale

The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?

Com'on David.. If I can't play the "aw shucks" card, neither can you! :D

You know as well as I do that amassing such a huge amount of debt is not only bad for the economy, it's a disaster for National Security...

Sure, a little borrowing is a good thing.. A high tide lifts all boats and all that..

But the kind of borrowing that Obama has caused is simply unpatriotic and is a threat to national security....

How do I know??

BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF SAID SO!!!

It's funny how NONE of you ever acknowledge Obama's OWN words in this issue..

I know why.. Because Obama's OWN words totally decimate ya'alls arguments...

Utterly and complete decimation...

Michale

It's actually the country's economic well-being that may be caught in the vice ... again ... at the hands of the congressional Republicans ... AGAIN!

And Republicans still have the Debt Limit card...

And you wonder why there can be no compromise in Congress..

Apparently you have gone from "there is no Right v Left" to "Democrats still hold the sequestration card. Great!!" in record time... :D

Ya ever notice how ya'all only complain about the Right v Left meme when it's the Democrats balls that are in the vice?? :D

Michale

True they're not the same debate. However, it may be good that they're timed similarly.

Because there is incentive for Republicans to not face sequestration. See also: military cuts.

Otherwise, my guess is that they'd simply use the debt ceiling to try to force through as many cuts as possible. They may do it anyways but this is where point 3 comes in:

"Third, there is a division among Republican lobbies, political organizations and interest groups that surfaced in the wake of the election and once again this week."

If Republicans lose the military lobby, they are indeed doomed.

-David

But as long as Democrats are firm that raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with sequestration (which it doesn't) then it should be good.

As far as I'm concerned if I was a Democrat I'd say to Republicans: either give us a good offer or sequestration happens. The debt ceiling ball is in your court, you can decide if you want to start another recession or not, we are going to vote 100% as a party to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a recession, the rest is up to you.

What I think will happen is that Republicans will put forward a laughable bill that guts every programme that helps poor/elderly/veteran/sick people and attach a debt ceiling extension to it. Basically it's the fiscal cliff position in reverse.

Help me understand sequestration. This sounds like the across the board budget cuts which had been part of the fiscal cliff.

Would this happen again if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

Interested because this could impact the negotiating position of both parties. That's what I'm trying to understand.

-David

But, I do think part of the plan is to take the silly debt ceiling debate right out the picture. And, I also like the part about the Republicans meeting their rude awakening in 2014. :)

- Republicans refuse to raise debt limit.
- Markets crash, world freaks out, stock prices plummet and another recession begins.
- In a bid to fight off the recession, Obama takes executive action to raise the debt limit.
- Said action is taken to court, but buys the US Government some time.
- Republicans, seeing the back-lash, raise the debit limit but the damage is already done and they proceed to get absolutely destroyed in the 2014 elections.
- In 2015 Democrats take debt ceiling increases out of the control of Congress.

I mean I guess they showed they weren't completely bat shit crazy enough on Jan 1st to block vote and avoid raising taxes but they are going to be spitting the dummy out big time if they get stuck with sequestration and not the massive cuts to poor/elderly/veteran/sick programmes that they want (which is not going to happen, since Democrats can now sit back and laugh at Republican attempts to obliterate these programmes when the new worst case scenario for them is sequestration - which has much more balanced cuts).

It's going to be very interesting indeed to watch over the next few weeks to see how it all unfolds.

I hope so, Liz. Keep using the bully pulpit. Do what Reagan did and go around Congress.

Just read a great article from, believe it or not, the New Republic on a couple of the things we've been talking about ...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111573/obama-didnt-get-rolled-the-fiscal-cliff-in-fact-he-won?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=8d433b6674-TNR_Daily_010313&utm_medium=email#

Here's another ...

"Third, there is a division among Republican lobbies, political organizations and interest groups that surfaced in the wake of the election and once again this week. It’s not easy to define, but it runs between pro-business conservatives, on the one hand, and the right-wing libertarians of the Tea Party and Club for Growth and their billionaire funders."

-David

This is a great question. I'm curious about this as well.

I think we may have had a glimpse of how Obama is going to approach the next couple of months with respect to dealing with the nonsense of the congressional Republicans. Remember his mini rally the other day when he gathered supporters just before the vote in the House? He has to continue to cultivate support from the American people in an effort to marginalize a Republican Party that is seemingly already at war with itself.

I think if Obama handles this fight over the debt limit and the sequester like a very tough campaign, enlisting the support of the middle class en masse and calling out the nonsense of the Republican cult of economic failure at each and every turn, then the economy may be in very good shape in the wake of these "fiscal cliff" negotiations.

But, he needs to start the campaign yesterday and keep it up until the end.

I love it.

I even more love how you framed it: "Deficit reduction should be tied to economic recovery"

This sets the priorities straight.

1. Fix the economy
2. Worry about the deficit

Liz, this may be your answer. This is the type of thing the Democrats need to be able to frame.

Why this is so important is that Republicans are going to come hard w/ "cuts". And cuts will not help the economy.

-David

Well said. You want to borrow where there is the most significant return on investment.

But, how do the economists you read suggest we grow the economy without talking about tax and fiscal policy?

Fiscal policy absolutely, Liz. I just want all fiscal policy to be included.

Republican strategy is to focus on this tiny piece called "deficit" because of their agenda to cut social programs.

How does this have anything to do with the economy? Answer: it by and large doesn't.

Do you know how Obama et al. are going to be able to do what they say in this regard?

This is a great question. I'm curious about this as well.

-David

Btw I have come up with a very simple way to link economic recovery and deficit reduction together. It is called the 'michty6 plan' (or 'M6 plan' as of today ;)) and it goes like this:

- Unemployment hits 7%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $200k.
- Unemployment hits 6.5%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $150k.
- Unemployment hits 6%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $100k.
- Unemployment hits 5.5%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $50k.

Oh and there is also a Part (B): STOP INVADING AND RUNNING OTHER COUNTRIES. This is also an important part to deficit reduction, as the fewer countries you have to run the lower your spending ;)

Now this is not to say that deficits are not an issue. They're just not THE issue. And the time to be dealing with them is when the economy is strong.

Exactly!

However, we can no longer discuss economic growth and financial crises like they are just cyclical components of what makes the world go round. All that sort of thinking really had to change in the aftermath of the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

I know full well what congressional Republicans and the Norquists of this world are up to and it has precious little to do with debt and deficits.

But, how do the economists you read suggest we grow the economy without talking about tax and fiscal policy?

By the way, I hope President Obama meant what he said when he wasn't going to debate the Republicans when it comes to the debt ceiling or that we're not nearly done with making the tax system more equitable. Because if we are subjected to a repeat of what happened last summer, then it's hard to know how the economy won't suffer even more than it did the last time around.

Do you know how Obama et al. are going to be able to do what they say in this regard?

The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?

Borrowing can be good for the economy, especially when rates are low. The rates afforded to Governments are the lowest possible, so it'd be stupid for them not to borrow something - especially if you spend it on infrastructure, education, science and research or other +EV projects - the future economic growth you will get from these will offset your borrowing costs (otherwise they wouldn't be +EV and you shouldn't do them ;)).

However, if you borrow to fund tax cuts, military spending, invading a few countries and Corporate welfare (cough cough cough) then the ROI on all of these investments is going to lead you to have massive deficits in future unless you fix these problems (cough cough cough). And if the economy tanks you're going to be in big deficit trouble having borrowed to finance these things (cough cough cough cough cough).

Ergo, the amount DID start at zero!!!

Lololol no. Just so so so so so wrong.

In fact you can look at the ACTUAL REAL$ starting points:
- Obama STARTED with a $600b deficit, a $1.2t forecast deficit and >$11t in debt (you know that debt requires interest payments right?)
- Bush STARTED with a $100b surplus, $6b of surpluses forecasted for the next 10 years and ~$4t in debt.

I know. You LIKE to think this isn't true and they magically started at zero (or that Obama went back in time machine and is responsible for the trillion in debt he inherited because of his 'orgasmic spending'). But this is because you don't live in reality.

But I know numbers aren't your thing, that's why a provided a much simpler, clear analogy in [30]. If this isn't clear (or simple) it's only because you don't want it to be clear (or simple) because you don't want to recognise reality as it doesn't suit the world your right-wing sites have tried to create...

Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower. Since we can't find any stats for that

Lolol I added the bold. You can find stats for that. Try Google, Wikipedia or anything. Here I'll even give you a formula:
= (Amount of debt at end of term-Amount of debt at start of term)/Amount of debt at start of term

The person with the highest %age is the highest borrower. Clue: you are not going to like the numbers because they show which party is the party of 'borrow and spend'.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/private-sector-adds-215-000-132243664.html

The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?

-David