Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 45141 - 45160 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:04am PT
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Aug 7, 2014 - 09:37am PT
I'd say historically typical...but a partisan view would certainly call that 'horrible'.

You're using four year averages to make your point.

If you look at 6th Summer, Obama is keeping company with Truman (who had just committed us to the Korean War), Nixon and Dubya.

Impressive.
jammer

climber
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:07am PT
LOL! People are talking about Obama's approval ratings without taking into account the FACT that everything Obama does gets spun negatively in the press, whereas somehow bush and cheyney conducted a war which personally netted them billions of dolllars and killed millions of innocents and civilians, but somehow the news and media left that almost entirely alone.

And despite that, Obamas approval numbers still CREAM bush's. LOL!


Those approval number arguments against Obama are the biggest joke in the world, concocted by the densest people in the world. It's a pathetic troll and a total distraction from what is really going on, and it does NOT give an accurate picture of what is going on unless you take it in it's proper context, which none of the folks like scetch tend to do, because doing so entirely negates their argument and points out that if anything they should be supporting Obama. IMO, a more accurate comparison would be given by doubling Obama's approval rating, and halving bush's.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:07am PT
Apogee - No. No.

Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM

Aug 7, 2014 - 09:53am PT
"If you're going to pin the 2008 collapse on Bush, tell us how you feel about Obama's inability to get laws passed."

Congress passes laws, Obama signs off on them.

Get it?

Sketch..thanks for pointing out how the republicans have done nothing to get Americans back to work. Love you, man.

Obama is one man..."Congress has 535 voting members: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. The members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms representing the people of a district."

Well shucks, Bob. It sounds like you're saying it's not all Obama's fault. Kind of like 2008 collapse wasn't all Bush's fault.

Go figure.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:08am PT
Congress needs to do it's job...period.

From the CBO...What Effects Would Alternative Fiscal Policies Have?
Most of the projections in this report are based on the assumption that laws governing federal taxes and spending will remain generally the same over time—not because CBO expects that to occur but because the budgetary and economic implications of current law are a useful benchmark for policymakers when they consider changing laws. If tax and spending policies differed significantly from those specified in current law, budgetary and economic outcomes could differ substantially as well. To illustrate some possible differences, CBO analyzed the effects of three additional sets of fiscal policies.

Under one set of alternative policies—referred to as the extended alternative fiscal scenario—certain policies that are now in place but are scheduled to change under current law would be continued, and some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period would be modified. With those changes to current law, deficits excluding interest payments would be about $2 trillion higher over the next decade than in CBO’s baseline; in subsequent years, such deficits would exceed those projected in the extended baseline by rapidly growing amounts. The harmful effects on the economy from the resulting increase in federal debt would be partly offset by the lower marginal tax rates that would be in place under that scenario. Nevertheless, in the long term, economic output would be lower and interest rates would be higher under that set of policies than under the extended baseline. With those economic changes incorporated, federal debt held by the public would exceed 180 percent of GDP in 2039, CBO projects.

Under a different scenario, budget deficits would be smaller than those projected under current law: Deficit reduction would be phased in such that deficits excluding interest payments would be a total of $2 trillion lower through 2024 than in CBO’s baseline, and the amount of deficit reduction as a percentage of GDP in 2024 would be continued in later years. In that case, output would be higher and interest rates would be lower in the long term than under the extended baseline. Factoring in the effects of those economic changes on the budget, CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would equal about 75 percent of GDP in 2039, close to its percentage in 2013.

Under yet another scenario, with twice as much deficit reduction—a total decrease of $4 trillion in deficits excluding interest payments through 2024—CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would fall to 42 percent of GDP in 2039. That percentage would be slightly above the ratio of debt to GDP in 2008 and the average ratio over the past 40 years (both 39 percent). As in the preceding scenario, output would be higher and interest rates would be lower in the long term than under the extended baseline.

Such alternative fiscal policies would have differing effects on the economy in the short term as well as in the long term, reflecting the short-term impact of tax and spending policies on the demand for goods and services. The spending increases and tax reductions in the alternative fiscal scenario (relative to what would happen under current law) would increase the demand for goods and services and thereby raise output and employment in the next few years. The deficit reduction under the other scenarios, by contrast, would decrease the demand for goods and services and thus reduce output and employment in the next few years.

How Uncertain Are the Long-Term Budget Projections?
Even if future tax and spending policies match what is specified in current law, budgetary outcomes will undoubtedly differ from CBO’s projections because of unexpected changes in the economy, demographics, and other factors. To illustrate the uncertainty of its projections, CBO examined how altering its estimates of future mortality rates, productivity, interest rates on federal debt, and federal spending on health care would affect the projections in the extended baseline. For that purpose, CBO projected budgetary outcomes with those factors varying by amounts that are based on their past variation as well as on CBO’s consideration of possible future developments. Those estimates show the following:

In cases in which only one of those factors varies from the values used for the extended baseline, CBO’s projections of federal debt held by the public in 2039 range from about 90 percent of GDP to 135 percent, compared with 111 percent under the extended baseline including the economic effects of future fiscal policies.
In a case in which all four factors vary simultaneously in a way that raises projected deficits, but they vary only half as much as in the individual cases, federal debt is projected to reach about 160 percent of GDP in 2039. Conversely, in a case in which all four factors vary in a way that lowers deficits but, again, vary by only half as much as in the individual cases, debt in 2039 is projected to equal 75 percent of GDP, about what it is now.
Those calculations do not cover the full range of possible outcomes, nor do they address other sources of uncertainty in the budget projections, such as the risk of an economic depression or major war or the possibility of unexpected changes in birth rates, immigration, or labor force participation. Nonetheless, CBO’s analysis shows that the main implication of the central estimates in this report applies under a wide range of possible values for some key factors that influence federal spending and revenues. That implication is that if current laws remained generally unchanged, federal debt, which is already high by historical standards, would be at least as high and probably much higher 25 years from now.

What Choices Do Policymakers Have?
The unsustainable nature of the federal tax and spending policies specified in current law presents lawmakers and the public with difficult choices. Unless substantial changes are made to the major health care programs and Social Security, spending for those programs will equal a much larger percentage of GDP in the future than it has in the past. At the same time, under current law, spending for all other federal benefits and services would be on track to make up a smaller percentage of GDP by 2024 than at any point in more than 70 years. Federal revenues would also represent a larger percentage of GDP in the future than they have, on average, in the past few decades. Even so, spending would soon start to outpace revenues by increasing amounts (relative to GDP), generating rising budget deficits. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to grow faster than the economy starting a few years from now, and because debt is already unusually high relative to GDP, further increases could be especially harmful.

To put the federal budget on a sustainable path for the long term, lawmakers would have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies: reducing spending for large benefit programs below the projected levels, letting revenues rise more than they would under current law, or adopting some combination of those approaches.

The size of such changes would depend on the amount of federal debt that lawmakers considered appropriate. For example, lawmakers might set a goal of bringing debt held by the public back down to the average percentage of GDP seen over the past 40 years—39 percent. Meeting that goal by 2039 would require a combination of increases in revenues and cuts in noninterest spending, relative to current law, totaling 2.6 percent of GDP in each year beginning in 2015 (without accounting for the economic effects of the reduction in debt or of the policy changes that might be used to achieve it); in 2015, 2.6 percent of GDP would equal about $465 billion. If those changes came entirely from revenues, they would represent an increase of 14 percent from the revenues projected for the 2015–2039 period under the extended baseline. If the changes came entirely from noninterest spending, they would represent a cut of 13 percent from the amount of noninterest spending projected for that period. A similar level of debt in 2039 would result under the third scenario discussed above (a $4 trillion total reduction in deficits excluding interest payments through 2024, with the amount of deficit reduction in 2024 as a percentage of GDP continuing in later years).

In deciding how quickly to carry out policies to put federal debt on a sustainable path, lawmakers face trade-offs:

The sooner significant deficit reduction was implemented, the smaller the government’s accumulated debt would be, the smaller policy changes would need to be to achieve a particular long-term outcome, and the less uncertainty there would be about what policies would be adopted. However, if lawmakers implemented spending cuts or tax increases quickly, people would have little time to plan and adjust to the policy changes, and those changes would weaken the economic expansion during the next few years.
Reductions in federal spending or increases in taxes that were implemented several years from now would have a smaller effect on output and employment in the short term. However, waiting for some time before reducing federal spending or increasing taxes would result in a greater accumulation of debt, which would represent a greater drag on output and income in the long term and would increase the size of the policy changes needed to reach any chosen target for debt.
If lawmakers wanted to minimize both the short-term economic costs of reducing deficits quickly and the longer-term costs of running large deficits, they could enact a combination of changes in tax and spending policies that increased the deficit in the next few years relative to what it would be under current law but reduced the deficit thereafter.

Even if policy changes to shrink deficits in the long term were not implemented for several years, making decisions about them sooner rather than later would offer significant advantages. If decisions were reached sooner, people would have more time to alter their behavior to be prepared for the time when the changes would be carried out. In addition, decisions about policy changes that would reduce future debt relative to the amounts projected under current law would tend to increase output and employment in the next few years by holding down longer-term interest rates, reducing uncertainty, and enhancing businesses’ and consumers’ confidence.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:09am PT
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin

Aug 7, 2014 - 09:59am PT
so Sketch

explain why Fox's numbers are so important to you for you to post them

what is your point, are you a proud shareholder of Fox?

otherwise, why do you care?


secondly, why do you care about the President's approval numbers anyway?

he was elected twice now and can't run again, why do you care about Obama's numbers?

post after post, why are you so fixated, so obsessed with President Obama?

You must admire him very much, you act like a little girl with a boyfriend crush.......

Quid pro quo, b!tch.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:13am PT
Obama's policies haven't been the problem. It's been the obstructionist Congress (Republican, esp.) and Obama's less-than-stellar political tactics that have resulted in such middling performance.

In any case, it wouldn't have mattered what kind of policy he had brought forward...even if it had been a carbon-copy of a Republican policy...the Republican Congress would have obstructed it, for nothing more than political power purposes to make Obama a 'one term POTUS' (right, McConnell?).
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:23am PT
Sketch wrote: Well shucks, Bob. It sounds like you're saying it's not all Obama's fault. Kind of like 2008 collapse wasn't all Bush's fault.


No is wasn't all his fault.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:25am PT
Regardless of how it's turned out, though...I'd take today's economy any day over the smouldering shithole that Bush II left behind.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:26am PT
DMT..yes we did.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/27/_why_did_we_invade_iraq_117683.html
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:27am PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/obama-let-delphi-avoid-taxes-in-tactic-president-assails.html
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Aug 7, 2014 - 10:53am PT
Quid pro quo, b!tch.

explain that, Sketch

again, I asked two simple questions:

1) explain why Fox's numbers are so important to you, what is our point?

2) explain your fixation, your obsession, with President Obama

and I will add a third questions:

Explain why you have chosen to be so tragically lazy intellectually

Explain why you ask stupid questions constantly, questions that a high school kid could do a quick internet search and the answer in seconds

you come across as factually both ignorant and personally lazy, prove otherwise
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 7, 2014 - 11:24am PT
norton - its a troll....


but, god luck


Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Aug 7, 2014 - 11:25am PT
Obama's policies haven't been the problem. It's been the obstructionist Congress (Republican, esp.) and Obama's less-than-stellar political tactics that have resulted in such middling performance.

And I would advocate that we'd want nothing other than Obama's tactics.

What I saw was Obama reaching out, being accommodating, looking for middle ground, inviting Congressional leaders to his office to try to work things out. Over and over again.

He had the ability to do many things through executive orders, such as allowing gays in the military, but he chose to work out a process with Congress.

In many ways, he is the left-of-center equivalent to the right-of-center Reagan, famous for his compromises.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 11:40am PT
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin

Aug 7, 2014 - 10:53am PT
Quid pro quo, b!tch.

explain that, Sketch

again, I asked two simple questions:

1) explain why Fox's numbers are so important to you, what is our point?

2) explain your fixation, your obsession, with President Obama

and I will add a third questions:

Explain why you have chosen to be so tragically lazy intellectually

Explain why you ask stupid questions constantly, questions that a high school kid could do a quick internet search and the answer in seconds

you come across as factually both ignorant and personally lazy, prove otherwise

Oh my!

Looks like someone's got his panties bunched.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 11:46am PT
What I saw was Obama reaching out, being accommodating, looking for middle ground, inviting Congressional leaders to his office to try to work things out. Over and over again.

Opinions vary.

Obama began his presidency with control of Congress. He/they shut out the Republicans on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I seem to recall Obama telling Republicans something along the lines of "sit there and be quiet" when the Dems controlled Congress.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Aug 7, 2014 - 11:46am PT
Look, Sketch, if you want to continue your petty little back & forths, that's fine.

Would you please stop quoting the entire post of the person you are sniping at every time you reply? It's an annoying waste of space.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 7, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
Oh my!

Looks like someone's got his panties bunched.

 Like I said..... Troll!

All too familiar troll, at that.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not Skip T
Aug 7, 2014 - 12:08pm PT
Like I said..... Troll!

Norton's been a trollish turd, lately.

But he's a fellow traveller... so it's all good, right?

It's only bad when the other guy's do it.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 7, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
[quote]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson[/quote]

Victor Davis Hanson IS a f*#king idiot.
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
Aug 7, 2014 - 12:16pm PT
Shouldn't the conservatives be obsessed with who's going to represent their party in 2016, rather than focused on Obama's pedigree and numbers? Or do they already concede defeat in that there is no good, competent Republicans to run, only neocon chickenhawks and armchair warriors from Texas?
Messages 45141 - 45160 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews