For all you Obamamaniacs: I have some questions for you

Supply side economics do not work.

I highly recommend reading Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch to get an idea of how the Reagan presidency is really the root of our current economic problems.

 

In practice, they do. We're out of practice ATM.

I highly recommend talking to people who lived those years

 

Conservatives would kill you if you said anything against Reagan. They only reason they'd probably support cloning is to bring him back.

The government needs to consider how to cut back expenses. For one, they need to look at welfare. It is good but too many undeserving people get welfare. They need to cut back on that.

Joe Biden said that certain wastage is expected. That is weak. The government needs to do what they can to cut that wastage instead of just expecting it. They are voted in for a reason.

 

Considering the fact that conservative believe in preserving the sanctity of life, I'd gather your claims are overly optimistic.

Gee, you sound an awful lot like one of those "conservatives" that want Reagan cloned.

Anything Biden says should not be taken seriously. He's an idiot and a drunk.

Again, you sound like a Reagan Conservative... You probably had no idea you were NOT a democrat.

 

Honestly, I'm an independent. I think that Republicans are right on the money on certain things and the same for Democrats. In the same vein, I think that the GOP right now is in complete disarray and focusing on the wrong things. They have become very petty and often abandon their own beliefs in order to cater to their base.

As far as the welfare comment is concerned, i say that because i worked at a housing project for a while and was pretty upset to see the attitude of certain people. I understand and support welfare for the elderly, the handicapped and for single mothers. however, most of the recipients of welfare were young healthy people who actually said that they didn't want to look for a job because they would loose their welfare. Many of them deal drugs from their homes and indulge in a lot of criminal activity, and actually drive better cars than I do and wear better clothes. So why should they get welfare? They certainly don't need it considering that they can afford a lot of expensive stuff. This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal beliefs. I think that the government should take care of people who need it, but shouldn't not babysit people who abuse the system.

 

They certainly love the Gipper. But it's funny how much they distort his legacy in order to fit the reality of his Presidency into their myth of what he did.

For example they like to pretend he was this tough guy (in the W meaning of no diplomacy) on foreign policy but he was actually anything but. He spoke with his enemies all the time. In fact he even traded weapons with terrorists (ie Iran-Contra) --- I'd say trading weapons with terrorists is one huge step beyond simply speaking with them!

Another example is they always talk about Reagan's tax cuts, but how often do they talk about his many tax raises?

And of course they love to talk about Reagan ending the cold war but the truth is he had very little to do with ending the cold war.

Oh yeah and there's that whole deal with them liking to talk about governmental spending yet it was their hero Reagan that brought unprecendent deficits to the US (while Clinton brought us a surplus.)

And how about that biz with Reagan supposedly shrinking the government? Sure that was a campaign promise but in reality he increased the number of federal employees (and Clinton was the one to shrink the size of government.)

It's funny how often it was their anti-hero (Clinton) who actually did the things their hero (Reagan) said he was going to do but never followed through with.

Reagan was a failure.

 

Completely agree. Reagan was overrated. I just hope that Obama goes the Clinton way rather than the Reagan or Bush way.

 

So what you are saying is you want things more f'd up?

 

No. When Clinton left office, we didn't have a huge deficit like we did when Bush left office. So, I hope that Obama goes the Clinton way rather than the Bush way. Everyone has an opinion, just like you do, but no one wants things to get more f'd up, whatever side they are on, so your question here is really dumb.

 

For one Obama's already spent more money than any other president did.......that deficit Bush ran up..thats nothing compared to what its going to be after Obama's first 4 years, especially if this health care bull crap passes. Or maybe the bi-partisan budget committee doesn't know what they're talking about .

For 2, increasing government employees is not the same as increasing government. Increasing government is things like increasing their powers. Don't try to pin republican title on me, they're a bunch of idiots too. Both parties are the same, people just are too dumb to realize it anymore.

And the government is not the answer to our problems, again, people are too dumb to realize it anymore.

 

So, Obama has really done a great job in making the US economy grow. Since we are facing this global financial crisis, what are the strategies do you think he is doing to make an immediate economic recovery.

 

He is going to run US car companies and Financial institutions better than their previous capitains!

 

I always love that one... "Deficit"... I wonder if anyone that bought into that buzz word even remotely understand what that really meant?

Let me help you.

You're wife goes shopping. She has a budget of $200.00 to spend on groceries. She has some coupons and finds some things we DO NOT need on sale, hence she is able to spend $150.00 instead of the budgeted $200.00.

(lets keep in mind for a second that when we do the shopping, we typically only spend $50, so technically the wife is really $100 over what is normally spent, even though the budget was $200... FORGET ABOUT THIS PART)....

So, since the wife only spent $150 instead of $200, there is a "savings" of $50, which she then spends $25 of on something that we really DO NOT need.

At the end of the day she come home with $25 left over. Did we really save money? Or did we just not spend what we OVER-BUDGETED for?

I mean really?

Now, lets take into account that we only really had $50 in the bank. So in reality, we budgeted to spend $150 more than we spent, but we only spent $125 of the over budgeted amount. Did we really have a SURPLUS of anything? NO!!!

Keep in mind, the man (in this example the conservative) would only have spent what we could cover, ie., $50, not $125 more than we had.

You cannot count money not spent (which you do not have to begin with) as money saved, or even worse, as a "surplus" of money with which we could spend - even though, again, we DO NOT have it to begin with.

I really feel sorry for people that fell into that trap of mis-information? I still cannot believe people still believe this "surplus" crap... Unbelievable..

 

It may not work, but that does not mean that Keynesianism does either.

Personally, I don't think that Reagan was the best president ever, but I certainly don't think he was the worst either. Same goes for Clinton, he too was not the worst. I will leave this debate to your thread about Reagan though...

What I do want to hear about in this thread is answers to my questions in this thread. Instead of continuing your Reagan bashing why don't you tell me why Obama is good for the economy? Or is the real issue here that you don't know enough about economics or Obama's policies to argue for them?

Well he isn't. Clinton was actually free market capitalist in many ways as is shown by his reduction of the capitals gains tax and his handling of some regulations. Obama clearly isn't in line with Clinton in those areas and he has even said he is for raising capital gains taxes even if it means less government revenue.