• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Deficit Lies

BeAChooser said:
How about expect President Obama not to lie to us? After all, he promised us CHANGE during the campaign and a more truthful administration than the last one. Didn't he? And you bought into that promise when you voted for him. Didn't you? Am I being unreasonable?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Mainly because you haven't demonstrated him as being a liar. In fact, you've failed to admit you were wrong the last time you called Obama a liar.
 
How soon we forget that just 6 months ago Obama seemed to think it important to keep the deficit from increasing. And democrats in congress said they'd only preserve the Bush tax cuts if the budget was balanced:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...08/09/AR2008080901860.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 10, 2008

... snip ...

When Obama promises to cut taxes for the middle class without increasing the deficit, he is measuring his proposals against the large deficits that would result from Bush's plan to extend his signature tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date. ... snip ... Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance.
Click to expand...

I guess that no longer matters AT ALL to these folks. :D
 
I think it's a little late to be saying that Obama hasn't lied... unfortunately estimates made during the election campaigns weren't much different, and the same criticisms were levied on McCain.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
I'm surprised you even have to ask this question. Or should I call you Rumpelstilzchen and assume you slept through all the threads on that topic here at JREF the last year? :D

Let's see ... Wikipedia says



That sure sounds a lot like what Obama is advocating.

More from Wikipedia ...



Again, many of Obama's proposals would certainly fall within that description.

More from Wikipedia ...



Again, that sounds really close to what Obama is proposing.

You clear on this now, Darat?

Is it any wonder that socialist organizations around the country (and even overseas) supported Obama's election?

Any more question, Darat?
Click to expand...

Social democrat is closer, but it isn't socialism.

Socialism is the complete uprooting of the capitalist system. Where does Obama propose that? And no, higher taxes does not equal that. And bailing out companies that ask for it and allowing them to still be private and capitalist in nature does not equal that either.

Socialism is about restructuring social relationships, not about percent GDP spending.
 
BeAChooser said:
How about expect President Obama not to lie to us?
Click to expand...
And that will make it all better? Whew. That's easy. You've solved all our problems! You're my hero, BAC!


BeAChooser said:
After all, he promised us CHANGE during the campaign and a more truthful administration than the last one. Didn't he?
Click to expand...
Yep. So far, so good.


BeAChooser said:
And you bought into that promise when you voted for him. Didn't you? Am I being unreasonable?
Click to expand...
No, of course not. After all, now I know that the solution to the economic crisis is to expect Obama not to lie to us.


BeAChooser said:
Upchurch (prior to the election) - "Yeah, I am aware that cuts really need to be made across the board in order to balance the budget. The three biggest chunks of our budget goes to the DoD, Health and Human Services, and paying off our debt."

You still aware of that, Upchurch?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm also aware that balancing the budget, while important, means nothing if the economy falls to pieces. But that's okay. Now we know how to fix it.
 
But won’t the deficit be swollen by interest on the debt run-up over the next few years? Not as much as you might think. Interest rates on long-term government debt are less than 4 percent, so even a trillion dollars of additional debt adds less than $40 billion a year to future deficits. And those interest costs are fully reflected in the budget documents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Oh no, panic!
 
Why do I get the feeling that real socialists laugh at the accusations that Obama is a socialist?
 
BeAChooser said:
Obama was a liar when he claimed during 2008 that we were in the worst crisis since the Great Depression ... one that necessitated such drastic action ... one that the free market couldn't solve without unparalleled government spending.
Click to expand...
Yep, stuck on stupidtm. Did you miss those 4th quarter GDP revisions? 6.2% drop?

Obama is also a liar when he claims his proposal will only "add to our deficits in the short term". The OMB predictions prove that is nothing but a lie. His proposal is going to significantly increase deficits over the long term. He must have known about those predictions long before he uttered that claim. Which makes him a certified, baldfaced, socialist liar.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should re-read the paragraph above and consider how "predictions" are not "proof." The OMB is not the oracle at Delphi. What are the 95% confidence limits of those OMB predictions? Is it possible that other economists have different models making different predictions? All of which, quite frankly, are not better than an educated guess, as we are truly in uncharted water here.

For example: What is your prediction for the price of a barrel of imported oil in 2011? Do you think you can make one with any degree of accuracy? Do you think the growth rate of the US economy might be significantly different if it is, say, $30 a barrel or $230 a barrel? If we cannot even forecast the price of something as basic to the economy as oil with any certainty, how can we make anything but estimates? And how do you call someone a liar if their estimates disagree with yours?
 
BeAChooser said:
They may permanently destroy the productivity of this country ...
Click to expand...

Permanently? That's a pretty extreme claim isn't it? I mean, I look back at history and I might thing about Germany and Japan in 1945. Let's see, they had state control of resources and economic mismanagement for years and, oh yes, most of their cities were rubble and a significant fraction of their population, including a disproportionate share of young men, were dead.

And yet, they recovered. They did fairly well. A lot of our economic problems are related to the fact that they make pretty good cars and sell them here.

So, I'm thinking that no matter how bad Obama is, it won't be as bad as that. If those economies weren't permanently destroyed, ours won't be either. Somehow we'll survive. As bad as things might be in Philadelphia, they were worse in Dresden, so, somehow, we'll get over it.

My point is that your over the top rhetoric makes people not take you seriously. Even if you were right all the time, and I assure you that you are not, such hyperbole makes most of us dismiss you.

Meanwhile, people, even politicians, who disagree with you are not lying. Even if they are wrong, they are not lying. Even if they are giving a biased presentation to advance a particular cause, in which they are selective about which facts to present, they are not lying. Even if they use words with connotations that create certain inaccurate associations, they are not lying. If those things made people liars, then I am afraid you would be marked down as the greatest liar on these boards. You are guilty, regularly, of all those sins, some of them in the opening post of this thread.

So, calm down. Come the year 2010, Obama's power will probably be significantly diminished by mid term elections. Come 2012, if things are as bad as you think they will be, we will still be a democracy, and there will be a new guy, probably a Republican, to try and undo the damage.


FWIW, I expected Obama to be more aggressive on deficit reduction, and am disappointed he is not. Four years later, to be half as bad as George W. Bush is an extraordinarily low standard. I wish he would do more, but he believes he can't due to economic conditions. I disagree. If I were President, things would be different. I promise you when I write my next letter to my congressman, I'll be sure to let him know how I feel.
 
So $1 trillions for Iraq is ok...but $1 trillion for the USA is bad?

What exactly did we get out of our $1 trillion investment in Iraq?
 
parky76 said:
So $1 trillions for Iraq is ok...but $1 trillion for the USA is bad?

What exactly did we get out of our $1 trillion investment in Iraq?
Click to expand...
When exactly have I said a $1 trillion is OK, ever? I criticized the Bush deficits and irresponsible spending, I certainly think the current spending is unwarranted and irresponsible.

I'm sure I can dig up plenty of posters here who were against the Bush budgets but will have no problem with the Obama budgets which are way above and beyond anything in the Bush years as far as deficit spending goes.

eta: TB was ready to become a Libertarian 8 months ago over the Bush deficits: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116767
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom