What really eats me up... Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 11/7/2012 5:02:00 PM (view original):
You don't think a massive foreign debt we couldn't possibly pay off if called upon is a security issue?  Both candidates seemed to think it was, along with most people objectively viewing the issue...  If it were all tied up in bonds held within the country it's only a long-term economic risk, but when so much of it is owned by China and other nations that aren't particularly strong allies it is a long-term security risk.

It's not equity in the country. China owns something like 11% of our debt. That ties their future to ours. Attacking us doesn't help them.
11/7/2012 5:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:01:00 PM (view original):
It really isn't an either/or situation.   That's first grade-level deductive reasoning.

Cut spending.   Big Bird doesn't make the cut as Romney suggested.    Big Bird doesn't spend a dime to help the economy.

Simplified, I know, but that's the point.   Cuts can be made without affecting spending by the people.   It really can happen like that.
But that money is being used to employ people who use their paychecks to buy stuff.

That's economic activity that is eliminated. Cut enough of it to actual impact the deficit and it becomes a major drag on the economy. Even Romney said so.


There are a lot of shows on TV that aren't funded by the gov't, right?

Sink or swim on your own.   If nothing else, the producer of Big Bird has experience he can take into the private world.  Hell, he might produce the next 7 Rambos.
11/7/2012 5:06 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Completely different argument. I'm not saying the funding has merit, just that cutting it affects the economy.

And you'd have to cut significantly more than just PBS to have any sort of impact on the deficit.
11/7/2012 5:10 PM
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Cutting spending isn't going to slow the economy if the proper programs are cut.   The govt can't spend our way out of this.
Do you think you can cut a trillion dollars from the budget and not slow the economy?

Where are these cuts going to come from? I see you mentioned PBS which is 0.012% of the budget.
11/7/2012 5:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I simply picked one insignificant funded program and explained how it won't affect the economy because they can privatize or, if that's not feasible, take their skills to the private sector.   
11/7/2012 5:13 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I simply picked one insignificant funded program and explained how it won't affect the economy because they can privatize or, if that's not feasible, take their skills to the private sector.   
It's so insignificant that it won't help with the deficit.

Would you rather the president and congress focus on economic recovery or deficit reduction?

It is an either/or.
11/7/2012 5:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So you think that's the only program that could possibly be cut and/or reduced?

It's either/or if you lack a functioning brain.    Are you telling me that our deficit has always risen in times of economic growth?
11/7/2012 5:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Also, in case you don't know, you don't have to cut 16 trillion in spending.  You have to spend less than you get in "revenue" to start reducing the budget.   It won't happen overnight.
11/7/2012 5:48 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:46:00 PM (view original):
So you think that's the only program that could possibly be cut and/or reduced?

It's either/or if you lack a functioning brain.    Are you telling me that our deficit has always risen in times of economic growth?
OK.

Wow.

Obviously the deficit can go down during times of economic growth. It will, presumably, when the economy recovers because more people with have jobs and pay taxes.

But.

When the economy is slow because demand has fallen (what's been going on since 2008), cutting spending weakens demand further.

Even Mitt Romney thinks so.

Hopefully I used enough small words for you to follow.
11/7/2012 5:55 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Also, in case you don't know, you don't have to cut 16 trillion in spending.  You have to spend less than you get in "revenue" to start reducing the budget.   It won't happen overnight.
That's the debt, not the deficit. The deficit has actually shrunk under Obama from $1.4 trillion to $1.1 trillion. 
11/7/2012 5:57 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
Posted by stinenavy on 11/7/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 11/7/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Obama in 2008 - "If I don't cut the defecit in half I'll be a one-term president."  Oops.
He never said that, but feel free to be a dumbass.
Fine, here's what he said as a direct quote:

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.  Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

Still oops.
11/7/2012 6:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I simply picked one insignificant funded program and explained how it won't affect the economy because they can privatize or, if that's not feasible, take their skills to the private sector.   
It's so insignificant that it won't help with the deficit.

Would you rather the president and congress focus on economic recovery or deficit reduction?

It is an either/or.
I'd settle for one or the other.

Obama's first term, we got neither.
11/7/2012 7:35 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 56 251 107
Prospect
Posted by bistiza on 11/7/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
You're delusional.

Perhaps you're delusional.

"No I'm not, you are!"

We could do this merry-go-round all day, but the point is name calling doesn't demonstrate anything except you can act like a child.
I find it ironic that we can have people who claim they won't vote for Romney because he's not going to focus on the 47% of people who receive from the government and won't likely vote for him, take that to mean that somehow he doesn't care about them, but yet will turn around and vote FOR a leader who will ignore our overseas personnel's pleas for help from their commander in chief who then turns around and obfuscates the truth of what happened for political purposes.

I'd love to tell you I care about what happens with the troops overseas, but I'll be honest instead and tell you I don't care at all about it, so it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. I also won't waste time arguing with you if you try to tell me why I should care, because nothing you say will convince me to care, so please save us both time and don't try to argue that with me.
what is baffling to me is how every single poll shows that the biggest issue is the economy and people still voted for Obama.

That shouldn't be baffling at all. Obama was elected because people believed he was better for the economy than his Republican rival (John McCain) and he was re-elected partly because they still think he's better than his Republican rival (Mitt Romney).

I don't believe anything Romney CLAIMED he would do would actually create jobs. He has a five point plan he never explained. Maybe if he had, he might have won the election.
I think most young Americans think (to some degree) guys like Romney ruined the economy in the first place,

Exactly.

DING, DING, DING, we have a winner (and it's not ole Mittens, thankfully).
this is the last time I respond to you.... as you've been promoted to 'idiotic poster'. You and swamp are in an elite club together. congratulations!



"Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
11/7/2012 8:38 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/7/2012 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I simply picked one insignificant funded program and explained how it won't affect the economy because they can privatize or, if that's not feasible, take their skills to the private sector.   
It's so insignificant that it won't help with the deficit.

Would you rather the president and congress focus on economic recovery or deficit reduction?

It is an either/or.
I'd settle for one or the other.

Obama's first term, we got neither.
We actually got both. The economy is improving and the deficit is smaller.
11/7/2012 9:27 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Unemployment on election day 2008: 6.8%.
Unemployment on election day 2012: 7.9%

The annual deficit may be smaller, but it is still a deficit.  The national debt continues to get larger by the day.

Like I said: we got neither.
11/7/2012 9:35 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...34 Next ▸
What really eats me up... Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.