TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
Mithridates's Avatar
 

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 02:59 AM

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday. The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month — a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.
In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, but the eye-popping deficit numbers threaten to swamp his ambitious agenda of overhauling health care, exploring new energy sources and enacting scores of domestic programs.
The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or else pare back his agenda."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/...h/obama_budget





   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:10 AM

Children of the future will suffer greatly


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Pandamonium Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Pandamonium's Avatar
 
Name: Steph
Gender: Female
Location: US

Posts: 1,613
Blog Entries: 4
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:13 AM

I'm really not all that surprised. It's really easy to say things and do something entirely else.

He can be as charismatic as he wants, but I'm seriously starting to harbor a lot of doubt and frustration with him.
  Send a message via MSN to Pandamonium  
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Hyper Sonic Offline
Banned
I can't get enough
*********
 
Hyper Sonic's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: England

Posts: 2,374
Blog Entries: 23
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:18 AM

I'm not surprised tbh, the economic stimulus package will demand it. It was his bad luck to inherit Bush's legacy
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
Mithridates's Avatar
 

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steph View Post
I'm really not all that surprised. It's really easy to say things and do something entirely else.

He can be as charismatic as he wants, but I'm seriously starting to harbor a lot of doubt and frustration with him.
Starting!?

His Democrats will back him up regardless, right or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic View Post
I'm not surprised tbh, the economic stimulus package will demand it. It was his bad luck to inherit Bush's legacy
This goes beyond Bush, if you had any actual education in the matter instead of just following what the media has told you. It goes back to Reagan, Nixen, and Wilson. Sure Bush didn't do anything but prolong this, but it isn't his fault completely, blame the American people. This whole "stimulus package" is a joke.



   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
primus diddy Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
primus diddy's Avatar
 
Name: Mike
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: Maine

Posts: 141
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:26 AM

Of course it could. It's a massive gamble. The New Deal could have left us in even grater shambles than we already were too. Those were much tougher times though. To be perfectly honest I don't have any real reason to doubt him yet. Most of his critics have spoken only of what could happen, things that really aren't his fault, and minor lapses in judgment. A few were over legit campaign promises that weren't kept. That's to be expected with any president.

I'm looking forward to finding out how everything turns out.

Quote:
This goes beyond Bush, if you had any actual education in the matter instead of just following what the media has told you. It goes back to Reagan, Nixen, and Wilson. Sure Bush didn't do anything but prolong this, but it isn't his fault completely, blame the American people. This whole "stimulus package" is a joke.
There was a surplus of almost 2% of our GDP at the end of Bill Clinton's last term. In the past 40 years we've seen nothing like the deficit we have now.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc...dentBudget.pdf


Searching my heart for its true sorrow,
This is the thing I find it to be:
That I am weary of words and people,
Sick of the city, wanting the sea;

Wanting the sticky, salty sweetness
Of the strong wind and shattered spray;
Wanting the loud sound and the soft sound
Of the big surf that breaks all day.

-Exiled, Edna St. Vincent Millay

Last edited by primus diddy; March 21st 2009 at 03:33 AM.
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Hyper Sonic Offline
Banned
I can't get enough
*********
 
Hyper Sonic's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: England

Posts: 2,374
Blog Entries: 23
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
Starting!?

His Democrats will back him up regardless, right or wrong.



This goes beyond Bush, if you had any actual education in the matter instead of just following what the media has told you. It goes back to Reagan, Nixen, and Wilson. Sure Bush didn't do anything but prolong this, but it isn't his fault completely, blame the American people. This whole "stimulus package" is a joke.
That's party politics for you but Obama has done well so far although since English media loves Obama it's hard to say with any neutrality. To be honest my US politics suck, can you explain why it started with them?
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
Mithridates's Avatar
 

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

March 21st 2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by primus diddy View Post
Of course it could. It's a massive gamble. The New Deal could have left us in even grater shambles than we already were too. Those were much tougher times though. To be perfectly honest I don't have any real reason to doubt him yet. Most of his critics have spoken only of what could happen, things that really aren't his fault, and minor lapses in judgment. A few were over legit campaign promises that weren't kept. That's to be expected with any president.

I'm looking forward to finding out how everything turns out.
The New Deal would've destroyed us if it wasn't for World War 2.

And I can already tell you how everything will turn out.

Like paying 100$ for a loaf of bread? Well to be honest the government will try having price-controls first, then will realize that no one will invest in us then. Then the U.S dollar will lose almost all value all together. Yay hyperinflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic View Post
That's party politics for you but Obama has done well so far although since English media loves Obama it's hard to say with any neutrality. To be honest my US politics suck, can you explain why it started with them?
Wilson-For starting the Federal Reserve. This unbalanced the US dollar and started the path to fiat money, money with no actual value.

Nixen-Due to being unable to pay for Vietnam and other costs, fiat money is introduced. Yay! No more gold standard!

Reagan-Mmmm. Reaganomics, gone bad. Lower regulations and create an unstable housing market! Hey hey hey! Everyone can afford a house! Can't afford this mortgage!? Don't worry! Thanks to Clinton we have these amazing new mortagages for people just like you!
"Hey, Mr. Appraiser, jack up the price of this value artificially, here's a little money for the job!" Instead of slowly collecting the money on our mortgages, lets sell our mortgage-backed securities and make the money instantly! Insurance? Hey! That will raise the value, thanks AIG! Hey, let's take out more credit! Buy more cars, tvs, furniture, WOOOOO IT'LL NEVER GO DOWN! JUMP ON THE TRAIN EVERYONE!!! WOO-*screeeeetch*-OH SHIT! Help us! You have to help us! If we fall you fall!(hush, don't tell them if we declare bankrupcy we can just restructure and others can pick up our assets)!!!!




Last edited by udontno; March 21st 2009 at 08:06 PM. Reason: merge
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
primus diddy Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
primus diddy's Avatar
 
Name: Mike
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: Maine

Posts: 141
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 04:07 AM

Those policies didn't create real problems until the Bush administration fouled it up. We've had a fairly static debt since then, but nothing even remotely close to what we have now. The only big changes occurred during the Clinton and Bush administrations. You could probably attribute that to a lack of major wars. It's also interesting that for much of that time we still had a pretty solid level of industrial employment in America, that is...before outsourcing became the norm. Clinton and Bush Sr. might have just inherited the tail end of what we gained from that time. I'm not really sure.

It's really easy to say that "Our economy has been this way since such-and-such a date and everything's been going down hill since then." and make it believable sounding, but you're not really backing it up with numbers. There's no real reason to believe you other than the fact that you're using a lot of economic jargon that most of us don't really understand. That doesn't make you right.

The fact is that we were doing fairly well until the George Bush administration got us into a "war" without victory conditions, that had two major fronts, and no (enemy) national army other than the Iraqi one (but we already knew how to handle that). He was bad for our economy. Whether or not Barack Obama is doing anything right is still open to debate, but you'll only be debating theories and philosophies on how he should be handling the situation he inherited. It's all a moot point until at LEAST (in my opinion) four or five years from now.

For the source of my claims refer to my above post.


Searching my heart for its true sorrow,
This is the thing I find it to be:
That I am weary of words and people,
Sick of the city, wanting the sea;

Wanting the sticky, salty sweetness
Of the strong wind and shattered spray;
Wanting the loud sound and the soft sound
Of the big surf that breaks all day.

-Exiled, Edna St. Vincent Millay
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
Mithridates's Avatar
 

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 04:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by primus diddy View Post
Those policies didn't create real problems until the Bush administration fouled it up. We've had a fairly static debt since then, but nothing even remotely close to what we have now. The only big changes occurred during the Clinton and Bush administrations. You could probably attribute that to a lack of major wars. It's also interesting that for much of that time we still had a pretty solid level of industrial employment in America, that is...before outsourcing became the norm. Clinton and Bush Sr. might have just inherited the tail end of what we gained from that time. I'm not really sure.

It's really easy to say that "Our economy has been this way since such-and-such a date and everything's been going down hill since then." and make it believable sounding, but you're not really backing it up with numbers. There's no real reason to believe you other than the fact that you're using a lot of economic jargon that most of us don't really understand. That doesn't make you right.

The fact is that we were doing fairly well until the George Bush administration got us into a "war" without victory conditions, that had two major fronts, and no (enemy) national army other than the Iraqi one (but we already knew how to handle that). He was bad for our economy. Whether or not Barack Obama is doing anything right is still open to debate, but you'll only be debating theories and philosophies on how he should be handling the situation he inherited. It's all a moot point until at LEAST (in my opinion) four or five years from now.

For the source of my claims refer to my above post.
We weren't doing well, it was false prosperity! This would've happened regardless of Bush or Obama.

More the the blame is on the American people then any policy makers. They were the ones who thought that our "prosperity" was permanent.

My "jargon" is too confusing? How so? Those are basic things anyone should know.

Our debt is nothing. We NEED debt for economy to even work, how do you think lending and the banks work? If you don't understand that then you're just another parrot of the media. Lusting for how great the false 90's were. Give me some solid data to show I'm wrong.

Let's talk about this. Why did outsourcing become the "norm" as you put it? Well if you believe the democrat-controlled media it's because of big evil money-hungry corporations just wanting to turn a quick buck. But maybe it could be because of outrageous taxes on them and the Unions twisting their nipples blue?
Regardless, this all almost happened in 2001, but Bush pushed it off again with more bail-outs. Now it's come against and it's too large to just push off again.




Last edited by Mithridates; March 21st 2009 at 05:20 AM.
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
primus diddy Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
primus diddy's Avatar
 
Name: Mike
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: Maine

Posts: 141
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
We weren't doing well, it was false prosperity! This would've happened regardless of Bush or Obama.
How? That doesn't make any sense. George Bush inherited a surplus. That is irrefutable, it's on the books. A lot of things happened during his administration that were not on the budget, but his administration could have handled things a much more cost effective manner.

Quote:
More the the blame is on the American people then any policy makers. They were the ones who thought that our "prosperity" was permanent.
There is a glaring difference between our national budget and how well the stock market is doing. The American people deserve much of the blame for how poorly we're doing as far as our national economy is concerned. Not much less should be placed on policy makers though.

Quote:
My "jargon" is too confusing? How so? Those are basic things anyone should know.
I didn't say it's confusing. I said that most of us don't understand it. Big difference there. You get confused when something doesn't make sense at first. You don't understand it when you don't know what the words mean.

Quote:
Our debt is nothing. We NEED debt for economy to even work. If you don't understand that then you're just another parrot of the media. Lusting for how great the false 90's were. Give me some solid data to show I'm wrong.
You see? Now THAT'S confusing. Why would it be good for our government to spend more than it should without somehow making up the difference? Our debt is most certainly not "nothing" adjusted for inflation (2000 dollars) was almost 7 trillion dollars in 2005. It has gone up since then. So no, our debt isn't huge compared to the last 20 years or so but if you look at the graphs it's a prominent spike. Otherwise I'm not sure what to say to what I've quoted. It ventures into how the our national budget interacts with how well our economy is doing so far as it affects how most people spend their money. I don't know how that works. Perhaps you can educated me. http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Between the two of us I'm the only one who has actually cited anything.

Where do you draw the line between the debt of a government and a debt of the people?

Quote:
Let's talk about this. Why did outsourcing become the "norm" as you put it? Well if you believe the democrat-controlled media it's because of big evil money-hungry corporations just wanting to turn a quick buck. But maybe it could be because of outrageous taxes on them and the Unions twisting their nipples blue?
The only thing I have to say to this is that we've both made it quite clear that we aren't impartial. You're pretty obviously a conservative at hear. I'm obviously a liberal at heart. Don't blame the liberal controlled media. News Corporation (owned by Rupert Murdoch) owns far more of the news media than people like Ted Turner. I think it would be more accurate to say that news media is conservative controlled. Note that I said more accurate. It's still an inaccurate statement. An outsourcing debate is for another thread. PM me if you would like to talk about it though.


Searching my heart for its true sorrow,
This is the thing I find it to be:
That I am weary of words and people,
Sick of the city, wanting the sea;

Wanting the sticky, salty sweetness
Of the strong wind and shattered spray;
Wanting the loud sound and the soft sound
Of the big surf that breaks all day.

-Exiled, Edna St. Vincent Millay
   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
Mithridates's Avatar
 

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 06:23 AM

The reason the 90's were so "great" was because of an artificially created housing bubble that was unsunstainably propped up by the Bush administration, created by Clinton. Do I need to go into details explaining this? I wouldn't mind.

If you don't want to listen to me, at least listen to Peter Schiff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

Also I should say populist media, not liberal. It's a business, it tells what people want to hear. And people don't want to be blamed for what's happening, they wan't to blaim individuals and corporations, which isn't totally right, but w/e.



   
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Hi_ImJordan Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Hi_ImJordan's Avatar
 
Age: 30

Posts: 145
Join Date: January 26th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
The reason the 90's were so "great" was because of an artificially created housing bubble that was unsunstainably propped up by the Bush administration, created by Clinton.
It's true. The source of our failing economy can be traced back to the Clinton administration. Granted, he didn't do much to help the situation, it isn't entirely George Bush's fault, no matter how much people want to scapegoat him. The point here is: People will always pin the blame on whoever is in office at the time of a crisis, even if it is logically implausible to blame them.
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
primus diddy Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
primus diddy's Avatar
 
Name: Mike
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: Maine

Posts: 141
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 21st 2009, 05:32 PM

Again, I think you're talking about two different things. I don't really know how they interact though. There's the national budget, meaning how much of a our government can spend in this fiscal year and then there's our economy, which deals with how our country produces; consumes; and distributes what we produce.

This thread was meant to deal with the former. Again, how our national budget depends on our economy (other than us being able to "pay back" what we've "borrowed") I don't know. It's hard to argue that bush didn't contribute in a major way to raising our deficit.

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong otherwise. I'll concede that Clinton didn't help our economy. I still won't blame him for it obviously since there are so many other factors involved.


Searching my heart for its true sorrow,
This is the thing I find it to be:
That I am weary of words and people,
Sick of the city, wanting the sea;

Wanting the sticky, salty sweetness
Of the strong wind and shattered spray;
Wanting the loud sound and the soft sound
Of the big surf that breaks all day.

-Exiled, Edna St. Vincent Millay
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 26th 2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by primus diddy View Post
The New Deal could have left us in even grater shambles than we already were too.
It did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by primus diddy View Post
To be perfectly honest I don't have any real reason to doubt him yet. Most of his critics have spoken only of what could happen
Which is what any good political analyst should do. It's absurd to think we should ignore the possible future implications of policy and just wait around for the inevitable negative outcomes before we criticise bad policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by primus diddy View Post
Again, I think you're talking about two different things. I don't really know how they interact though. There's the national budget, meaning how much of a our government can spend in this fiscal year and then there's our economy, which deals with how our country produces; consumes; and distributes what we produce.
And the government budget has a strong influence on what is produced and how it is distributed. You can't assess things like these as if they are two completely isolated things.
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 26th 2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGE View Post
Children of the future will suffer greatly
Would it have been better to let the country fall to pieces?
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Hyper Sonic Offline
Banned
I can't get enough
*********
 
Hyper Sonic's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: England

Posts: 2,374
Blog Entries: 23
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 26th 2009, 11:07 PM

His "buy American" policy is short-sighted patriotism. What good does a strong us economy do if they can't export their goods?
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 27th 2009, 01:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyper Sonic View Post
His "buy American" policy is short-sighted patriotism. What good does a strong us economy do if they can't export their goods?
It does good by making it even. Do you realize that for the past decade we (America) have been playing by "free trade" while Asian countries have been trying to make sure that their countries get the better end of the deal.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Tomb Offline
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Tomb's Avatar
 
Age: 31

Posts: 319
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 27th 2009, 06:05 PM

"Change you can believe in"

What does he means by change?

Change... that means you have less then a dollar left LOL!
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 28th 2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Would it have been better to let the country fall to pieces?
False dichotomy. The stimulus package won't stop this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
It does good by making it even. Do you realize that for the past decade we (America) have been playing by "free trade" while Asian countries have been trying to make sure that their countries get the better end of the deal.
Another false dichotomy. "Getting the better end of the deal" isn't accompliched through protectionism.
   
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 28th 2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
False dichotomy. The stimulus package won't stop this.
Most top economists disagree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Another false dichotomy. "Getting the better end of the deal" isn't accompliched through protectionism.
Works for China.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 29th 2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Most top economists disagree with you.
And most top economists are wrong. Appeal to authority much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Works for China.
What exactly are the protectionist measures china uses, and how do these work to a net economic benefit?
   
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
peaceSRC Offline
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
peaceSRC's Avatar
 
Age: 30
Gender: Female

Posts: 211
Join Date: February 11th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 29th 2009, 10:43 PM

Give it time. Jesus the guy hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet.
   
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 29th 2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
And most top economists are wrong. Appeal to authority much?
They aren't the authority. They were ignored by the Bush administration which let right wing idiots push economic policies which have lead to increased poverty and lowered wages.

The point is that they have spent their entire lives learning about economics and I would rather listen to them than to right wing ideologs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
What exactly are the protectionist measures china uses, and how do these work to a net economic benefit?
Controlling currency value http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0411/p08s01-comv.html

Preventing buyouts http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/605260
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 30th 2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by peaceSRC View Post
Give it time. Jesus the guy hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet.
So? That doesn't mean we can't point out bad policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
They aren't the authority. They were ignored by the Bush administration which let right wing idiots push economic policies which have lead to increased poverty and lowered wages.
Who were these right wing idiots, what were the policies they supported, and how do these qualify as supposedly extreme right wing policy (I'm assuming you mean extreme free market by this)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
The point is that they have spent their entire lives learning about economics and I would rather listen to them than to right wing ideologs.
Again, appeal to authority, not to mention with a fair dose of false dichotomy thrown in for good measure. You really think there are no people who have spent years studying economics who have come to any conclusion other than 'huurrr throw money at any problem'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Great, now for the second half of my question...
   
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 30th 2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post


Who were these right wing idiots, what were the policies they supported, and how do these qualify as supposedly extreme right wing policy (I'm assuming you mean extreme free market by this)?
Pretty much all of the Republicans in Congress. Allowing China to increase imports without increasing tariffs considering the fact that China was purposely controlling its currency values which prevented competition.

And yes, free market capitalism. People already knew that we had a housing bubble. Some people wanted to deal with it earlier now. The Republicans answer: Let the market take care of it.. well, it's taking care of it alright with the cost of millions of job losses around the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Again, appeal to authority, not to mention with a fair dose of false dichotomy thrown in for good measure. You really think there are no people who have spent years studying economics who have come to any conclusion other than 'huurrr throw money at any problem'?
I'm sure you could find a few just like you can find a few scientists that believe in creationism.

Last edited by Gram Negative; March 30th 2009 at 03:04 PM.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - March 31st 2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Pretty much all of the Republicans in Congress. Allowing China to increase imports without increasing tariffs considering the fact that China was purposely controlling its currency values which prevented competition.
If china wants to subsidise exports by keeping it's currency at a low value that's their problem, and the gain of anyone who purchases said subsidised exports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
And yes, free market capitalism. People already knew that we had a housing bubble. Some people wanted to deal with it earlier now. The Republicans answer: Let the market take care of it.. well, it's taking care of it alright with the cost of millions of job losses around the world.
Some people? Perhaps you are referring to politicians like Ron Paul and a wide range of scholars from the Austrian school who have been warning about the bubble and the coming collapse for years, along with advocating the abolition of the causes of said bubble (i.e. FM and FM, the fed etc.)? And you don't even seem to understand what it means to support the free market. It isn't supporting the status quo under the biggest federal government in history, it's actually supporting free markets (amazing revelation I know). Those I listed can certainly count as doing this, the big government republicans you are referring to, not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
I'm sure you could find a few just like you can find a few scientists that believe in creationism.
And unlike creationists, they would have solid arguments behind their beliefs. Something you actually have to argue against, as opposed to saying 'lol most economists say the bailout is good so there'.
   
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 1st 2009, 02:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
If china wants to subsidise exports by keeping it's currency at a low value that's their problem, and the gain of anyone who purchases said subsidised exports.
Fact still still stands that it hurts Americans...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Some people? Perhaps you are referring to politicians like Ron Paul and a wide range of scholars from the Austrian school who have been warning about the bubble and the coming collapse for years, along with advocating the abolition of the causes of said bubble (i.e. FM and FM, the fed etc.)? And you don't even seem to understand what it means to support the free market. It isn't supporting the status quo under the biggest federal government in history, it's actually supporting free markets (amazing revelation I know). Those I listed can certainly count as doing this, the big government republicans you are referring to, not so much.
The Republicans don't even like Ron Paul. During the early Republican debates he wasn't liked that much by his "peers".

And if we really followed all of his ideas then America would cease to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
And unlike creationists, they would have solid arguments behind their beliefs. Something you actually have to argue against, as opposed to saying 'lol most economists say the bailout is good so there'.
Most top economists do argue against them and that is why Obama is following the top economists.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
Omar the Lobster!
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Oiseau the Little Bird!'s Avatar
 
Name: Bernadette
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 457
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 13th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 1st 2009, 07:48 AM

Siiigh honestly, I was really into the whole, "omg obama's bad news bears" thing, but now it just seems like people are trying to look for problems that haven't even happened yet. I can understand worrying about the economy under his direction, among a number of other things, but shit. That article is blatantly biased, doesn't offer any sources for these claims... I can't really respect an article that sounds that way. When I want news, I want something that gives me both sides of the situation, followed by sources I can look at and evaluate.


Hey guys, like jewelry that can withstand the blow of a sword? Jewelry that can put up a fight? Check out ChainCreations!

When you whisper, you must be absolutely as sincere as when you scream.


  Send a message via AIM to Oiseau the Little Bird!  
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 1st 2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Fact still still stands that it hurts Americans.
What americans? Certainly not those purchasing cheap imported goods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
The Republicans don't even like Ron Paul. During the early Republican debates he wasn't liked that much by his "peers".
How does that counter what I said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
And if we really followed all of his ideas then America would cease to exist.
How so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Most top economists do argue against them and that is why Obama is following the top economists.
And as far as I'm concerned they fail at arguing against them. Are you going to try and convince me otherwise or just continue with your blatent appeals to authority?
   
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 1st 2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
What americans? Certainly not those purchasing cheap imported goods.
Have you been to America? Just because something is cheap doesn't mean your entire life is easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
How does that counter what I said?
You used him as an example of Republicans when he is not. Which further points to the fact that you never refuted me considering the fact that Republicans are the right wing ideologs that screwed everything up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
How so?
Loss of fed govt, loss of military power, some states would go to shit since they wouldn't be able to get funds. You forget that the Feds kept America UNITED?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
And as far as I'm concerned they fail at arguing against them. Are you going to try and convince me otherwise or just continue with your blatent appeals to authority?
What you are concerned about is irrelevant. Until you can directly refute a top economists ideas then you can speak.

And how are they the authority when the damn ideologs and free market capitalist economists have been running the show for a decade? Which in turn gave us this bs.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 2nd 2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Have you been to America? Just because something is cheap doesn't mean your entire life is easy.
Nice strawman. Another one to add to your list of logical fallacies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
You used him as an example of Republicans when he is not.
No, I used him as an example of an advocate of free markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Which further points to the fact that you never refuted me considering the fact that Republicans are the right wing ideologs that screwed everything up.
That's only a fact if you consider running the bigggest federal government in history to be consistant with free market idealogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Loss of fed govt, loss of military power, some states would go to shit since they wouldn't be able to get funds. You forget that the Feds kept America UNITED?
And to that I say; so what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
What you are concerned about is irrelevant. Until you can directly refute a top economists ideas then you can speak.
I'm fairly confident I could. You want to give me a few economic fallacies from these 'top economists' and try me out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
And how are they the authority when the damn ideologs and free market capitalist economists have been running the show for a decade? Which in turn gave us this bs.
We haven't had free market capitalism, which is the fallacy your entire argument is based on. Subsequently, to your second sentance, no, it hasn't.
   
  (#33 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 2nd 2009, 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Nice strawman. Another one to add to your list of logical fallacies.
How so? The wages of a lot of Americans are falling while those of executives are sky rocketing. More Americans are going into poverty.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
No, I used him as an example of an advocate of free markets.
If I remember correctly the Republicans said that free markets would prevent this problem. Democrats wanted to intervene and stop banks from pouring some much money into bs. Republicans wanted the banks to be... free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
That's only a fact if you consider running the bigggest federal government in history to be consistant with free market idealogy.
If you are gonna have a war then you will have a big government.

And yes the republicans are morons for doing all that bs. Therefore they or any1 that supports their views has any credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
And to that I say; so what?
So you want America to fall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I'm fairly confident I could. You want to give me a few economic fallacies from these 'top economists' and try me out?
Go ahead and do it yourself if you are so confident. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you are a Rush Limbaugh talking about bs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
We haven't had free market capitalism, which is the fallacy your entire argument is based on. Subsequently, to your second sentance, no, it hasn't.
There have been less restrictions on companies in the past decade. That was the goal of the supporters of free markets. They failed. Even China told US to stop being radical free market retards.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#34 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
How so?
It's a strawman because I never said that life in the usa was easy, just that subsidised exports from china benefit consumers as it is a transfer of wealth from the chinese to those consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
The wages of a lot of Americans are falling while those of executives are sky rocketing. More Americans are going into poverty.
The relevance of that statement without some sort of argument as to why this is the result of chinese exports and why protectionism would help avert this problem = 0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
If I remember correctly the Republicans said that free markets would prevent this problem. Democrats wanted to intervene and stop banks from pouring some much money into bs. Republicans wanted the banks to be... free.
Free to operate under a quasi-socialist system of government credit expansion and government backed entities intervening to vastly increase demand for bad investments? Yeah, but that's not really support for a free market at all. I direct you again to my examples of those who actually advocated a free market and pointed out the problems which just so happen to be cases of government intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
If you are gonna have a war then you will have a big government.
In the defense department, yes. But firstly that is still a big government, and secondly defense spending is around a fifth or a quarter of the total federal budget, making your implied argument that republicans have been pushing a small government outside of defense false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
And yes the republicans are morons for doing all that bs. Therefore they or any1 that supports their views has any credibility.
Wait, you think that running the biggest government in history is consistant with free market idealogy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
So you want America to fall?
If by america you mean the american federal government, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Go ahead and do it yourself if you are so confident. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you are a Rush Limbaugh talking about bs.
I'm happy to do so if and when it is relevant to do so. I'm not about to run this thread off topic by going off on some rant against mainstream economists if thats what you're suggesting I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
There have been less restrictions on companies in the past decade.
What restrictions were removed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
That was the goal of the supporters of free markets.
Who were these people? Are you again referring to mainstream republicans? Again, they are not supporters of free markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
They failed.
What failed? And how?
   
  (#35 (permalink)) Old
Gram Negative Offline
Student
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Gram Negative's Avatar
 
Age: 33
Gender: Male

Posts: 219
Join Date: February 1st 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 02:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
It's a strawman because I never said that life in the usa was easy, just that subsidised exports from china benefit consumers as it is a transfer of wealth from the chinese to those consumers.
The word "benefit" is irrelevant when Americans are going into poverty even with the cheap products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
The relevance of that statement without some sort of argument as to why this is the result of chinese exports and why protectionism would help avert this problem = 0.
I thought you would already know the problem. If there were less subsidies in China then Americans could compete to make the same products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
Free to operate under a quasi-socialist system of government credit expansion and government backed entities intervening to vastly increase demand for bad investments? Yeah, but that's not really support for a free market at all. I direct you again to my examples of those who actually advocated a free market and pointed out the problems which just so happen to be cases of government intervention.
The companies themselves were giving out too many loans, no1 put a gun to their head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
In the defense department, yes. But firstly that is still a big government, and secondly defense spending is around a fifth or a quarter of the total federal budget, making your implied argument that republicans have been pushing a small government outside of defense false.
Have you ever thought that as the population increases so will the government?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
Wait, you think that running the biggest government in history is consistant with free market idealogy?


Have you ever thought that as the population increases so will the government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
If by america you mean the american federal government, yes.
Who kept America together in the past?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
I'm happy to do so if and when it is relevant to do so. I'm not about to run this thread off topic by going off on some rant against mainstream economists if thats what you're suggesting I do.
Then stop talking about the "authority".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
What restrictions were removed?
Not monitoring financial institutions, less oversight of spending, where the money went, etc. All of that was removed during the Bush years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
Who were these people? Are you again referring to mainstream republicans? Again, they are not supporters of free markets.
They still supported less regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
I
What failed? And how?
Less regulation failed. Didn't prevent the financial crisis.

This is basic info here in the states. Even Bernanke stated that AIG found a damn loop hole that should have been looked at prior to its collapse.

Last edited by Gram Negative; April 3rd 2009 at 03:05 AM.
  Send a message via AIM to Gram Negative  
  (#36 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 05:04 AM

The Stimulus Package he pushed was crap. And now my great-grandchildren are going to have to deal with this massive debt he is creating. There is no way this is going to work out. First of all, some of the states don’t even want the money. How is everything supposed to work when some parts of your country don’t even want to be a part of it? Not to mention he is spending tons of money on tons of little projects. The original idea that this came from was the bridge built in Sydney. The reason it worked was because it was one giant bridge that gave thousands of people job. If he had made 20 large projects, instead of a million little ones this would have worked. But because he did it to too large of a degree, we will probably never see that money again. Might as well of thrown in the Pacific if you asked me.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#37 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 05:23 AM

Americans should have a choice if they want a stimulas check I don't want money I don't need I have a good job and don't need Gov assistant.


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
  (#38 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
The word "benefit" is irrelevant when Americans are going into poverty even with the cheap products.
Again, irrelevant unless you can show that cheap products put people into poverty (hint: they don't).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
I thought you would already know the problem. If there were less subsidies in China then Americans could compete to make the same products.
Yeah, but so long as the subsidies do exist american consumers can benefit at the expense of the chinese while producing other goods/services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
The companies themselves were giving out too many loans, no1 put a gun to their head.
Did you even read what I posted there? I clearly gave examples of government intervention causing this irresponsible lending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Have you ever thought that as the population increases so will the government?
The size of government rose as a percentage of GDP, not just in absolute terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Who kept America together in the past?
America as in the nation-state? The government. America as in the sum of individual interaction and cooperation within this territory? The people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Not monitoring financial institutions, less oversight of spending, where the money went, etc. All of that was removed during the Bush years.
Give me actual concrete examples, not the same empty pro-regulatory rhetoric that has come out of the mouth of every politician and almost every economist since this crisis started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
They still supported less regulation.
Examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Less regulation failed. Didn't prevent the financial crisis.
Saying it doesn't make it so. There was no deregulation, and I've already given examples of regulation/intervention which was the actual cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gram Negative View Post
Even Bernanke stated that AIG found a damn loop hole that should have been looked at prior to its collapse.
I like how you say even bernanke, as though the head of the government monopoly on the production of money, one of the monopolies which played a large role in creating this crisis mind you, is somehow representative of free market idealogy.
   
  (#39 (permalink)) Old
Adean Offline
Almost 4000 posts.
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Adean's Avatar
 
Name: Mary
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Columbus, Ga

Posts: 392
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 03:12 PM

Part of Clinton's surplus was from cutting military spending so that screwed over Bush. And not to be a jerk, but honestly, how many can actually remember the years following after September 11? (Not necessarily directed to this thread) Most of the users here were in elementary schoo. People wanted war back then.

The world is changing, but it's not nearly as bad as people claim it to be. Hysteria sells.


Beware of the cats.
   
  (#40 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits - April 3rd 2009, 03:58 PM

People didnt want Usa to go to Iraq that wasn't are concern.


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
$93, bring, budget, deficits, obama, trillion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.