The Stimulus Seems to have failed

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/hyperinflation_is_a_small_pric.html

February 11, 2011

Hyperinflation is A Small Price to Pay?

… snip …

Despite government propaganda every shopper knows inflation is already a serious problem. The Financial Times presented annual price increases for various items, which included the following:

• heating oil +41%
• copper +59%
• silver +91%
• palladium +212%
• corn +91%
• wheat +79%
• cotton +143%

These data indicate that inflation is upon us. The magnitude of these numbers suggests hyperinflation.
Click to expand...

Don't say you weren't warned this would happen. :D
 
I doubt anyone needed a warning that American Thinker would claim US economic statistics were a government conspiracy and try to redefine inflation in a way that supported their far right ideology.
 
Piggy said:
This thread's still going?
Click to expand...

Of course it is, Piggy. Because Obama and his administration are Stuck On Stupid where jobs and the economy are concerned. Just look at Obama's latest budget proposal. Just look at what the CBO said regarding the effect of ObamaCare which Obama & Company are still pushing. You really think Obama cares about jobs or the economic health of this country? LOL!
 
BeAChooser said:
Of course it is, Piggy. Because Obama and his administration are Stuck On Stupid where jobs and the economy are concerned. Just look at Obama's latest budget proposal. Just look at what the CBO said regarding the effect of ObamaCare which Obama & Company are still pushing. You really think Obama cares about jobs or the economic health of this country? LOL!
Click to expand...

You know, you're right. Even though he knows 5% unemployment would guarantee him a second term, he hates America so much that he's willing to sacrifice his own career to keep people out of work. That serves his purpose as an evil mastermind. ;)

But seriously... right now I don't see either party knuckling down to meet the challenge. It's all a few billion here, a few billion there, while we face over $14T in debt.

Obama's recently proposed budget still runs deficits every year, and if we were to buy into it, we'd owe more than $21T within 10 years! The interest alone would break the country's back.

No, that budget it entirely untenable. It's a joke.

So now we've got to see what Congress does with it.

If they're serious, they're going to have to make serious reductions in the Big Three -- Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending -- and raise taxes. Not all at once, but it's gotta be phased in.

This penny-ante stuff gets us nowhere.

But I fully expect the boys on Capitol Hill to approve a budget equally as ridiculous as the one floated by the White House.
 
Piggy said:
It's all a few billion here, a few billion there, while we face over $14T in debt.

Obama's recently proposed budget still runs deficits every year, and if we were to buy into it, we'd owe more than $21T within 10 years! The interest alone would break the country's back.
Click to expand...

Like I said. STUCK ON STUPID.
 
This topic really should be locked or something. At this point in time, BAC is just spamming links that support his position and ignoring any and all counter-arguments, which are few and far between as people are sick of trying to counter BAC's goal-post switching and incessant hand-waving.
 
Hide and LIE.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/16/white-house-stretches-truth-national-debt-claim/

February 16, 2011

The Obama administration's statement that the government will not be adding to the debt by the middle of the decade clashes hard against the facts, Republicans say, leaving officials straining to justify the budget claim they've pushed repeatedly over the past few days.

As it turns out, the administration is not counting interest payments. That means the budget team plans to have enough money to pay for ordinary spending programs by the middle of the decade. But it won't have the money to pay off those pesky -- rather, gargantuan -- interest payments. So it will have to borrow some more, in turn increasing the debt and increasing the size of future interest payments year after year.

… snip …

Anyone who gives the budget chart a cursory glance can see the debt will continue to skyrocket under the White House proposal. In fact, the long-term outlook shows the public debt -- which isn't even the entire debt -- soaring from about $11 trillion this year to nearly $19 trillion in 2021. Driving that increase is the fact that annual deficits will never fall below $600 billion.

… snip …

If the government does what the Obama administration is recommending, net interest payments will go from about $200 billion this year to $844 billion in a decade. That's more than the country spends now on Social Security.
Click to expand...

Gee … didn't Obama and Company boast how they were going to halve the deficit from what it was under Bush? Indeed, he even admitted as much on Valentine's Day when he said:

(W)hen I was sworn in as President, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term," he reminded the audience. The budget I’m proposing today meets that pledge -– and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade.
Click to expand...

But only FOOLS (and democrats) would be taken in by such a transparent lie. Because here is what the deficit was under Bush:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30851

In the first seven fiscal years overseen by the high-spending President Bush, the annual federal budget deficits were truly obscene. Yet, they never exceeded $500 billion.

In fiscal 2002 through 2008, according to the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget last fall, the annual deficits were $157.7 billion, $377.5 billion, $412.7 billion, $318.3 billion, $248.1 billion, $162 billion and $410 billion. (The Congressional Budget Office has since calculated that the fiscal 2008 deficit actually ended up being $454.8 billion.)
Click to expand...

Only in the last year of Bush's administration did the deficit rise above $500 billion and then that was due to a recession, plus a banking bailout and a stimulus both of which Obama supported as a Senator. In fact, Obama, as President, was responsible for the $787 billion stimulus that created most of the $1.3 trillion deficit the last fiscal year of Bush's term.

So thanks for nothing, Obama. Halving a deficit you credited is nothing to be boasting about. And your proposal now is nothing but smoke and mirrors which will only make the collapse even more dramatic. And as the latest news proves, the HumanEvents article was right when it said

President Obama is planning to permanently increase the scale of government borrowing -- even before we are hit by the fiscal tidal wave that will come when the bulk of the baby boom generation retires and begins collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Obama and company are Stuck On Stupid. Or doing this deliberately.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
This topic really should be locked or something. At this point in time, BAC is just spamming links that support his position and ignoring any and all counter-arguments, which are few and far between as people are sick of trying to counter BAC's goal-post switching and incessant hand-waving.
Click to expand...
I would phrase it somewhat differently. Although I disagree with some of BaC's arguments, I would say that on the whole his Democratic opponents have given up in frustration, unable to counter his position.
 
I wish I could be that simple and ignorant. Must be nice to have such a narrow world-view to make one's choices based on bleating rhetoric and not bother thinking about any other choices. Maybe I'll start running around saying people I don't like are Stuck On Stupid, Stuck On Stupid and see how long it takes before someone tells me to shut up.
 
Vermonter said:
I wish I could be that simple and ignorant. Must be nice to have such a narrow world-view to make one's choices based on bleating rhetoric and not bother thinking about any other choices. Maybe I'll start running around saying people I don't like are Stuck On Stupid, Stuck On Stupid and see how long it takes before someone tells me to shut up.
Click to expand...

So, Vermonter (now why do i suspect you're a liberal/leftist? :)), what's your other "choice" to explain the lie I noted in post 1411? You do have a choice, don't you? :D
 
Marcus said:
I would phrase it somewhat differently. Although I disagree with some of BaC's arguments, I would say that on the whole his Democratic opponents have given up in frustration, unable to counter his position.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can't be countered when you simply push the goal posts back each time someone answers you.
 
BeAChooser said:
So, Vermonter (now why do i suspect you're a liberal/leftist? :)), what's your other "choice" to explain the lie I noted in post 1411? You do have a choice, don't you? :D
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how Fox got those numbers to begin with, then I'd like to see how they compare to numbers that the White House put together. Whether or not I'm a liberal or a leftist isn't really your concern, but I'm certain you'll be more than willing to lump me in with the people that you don't like simply because they disagree with you.
 
Vermonter said:
I'd like to see how Fox got those numbers to begin with, then I'd like to see how they compare to numbers that the White House put together.
Click to expand...

LOL! Are you so far to the left that you are unreasonably distrustful of anything Fox News reports? Or are you just uninformed? Surely you don't deny that the current debt is at least $11 trillion? Indeed, many would say Fox News was being generous … that it's now really over $14 trillion (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ). And given that, surely you won't deny that to reach almost $19 trillion in ten years will only require a cumulative deficit over ten years on the order of $8 trillion? In which case, look near the top of the first table (S-1) in this source from the Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf . Notice that it indicates a cumulative deficit based on the budget from 2012 to 2021 of $7.205 trillion dollars. Fox did say "nearly" $19 trillion. And as to Fox News' claim that deficits will not fall below $600 trillion in any given year of that period, just look at the first table in that Whitehouse source … the fourth row. The lowest deficit is $607 billion. And regarding the claim that interest on the debt will go from $200 billion to over $844 billion over the next decade, just look at the bottom of Table S-4 in that Whitehouse link. It lists the net interest in 2011 as $207 billion and in 2021 as $844 billion. See? You just have to stay informed, Vermonter, to lose your automatic distrust of anything FoxNews. :D

Vermonter said:
Whether or not I'm a liberal or a leftist isn't really your concern
Click to expand...

Oh I disagree. I think your political persuasion has a lot to do with how uninformed and unreasonably distrustful you are. I just hope that my pointing that out gives you reason to perhaps reassess your politics. I'm trying to help you. :D
 
Marcus said:
I would phrase it somewhat differently. Although I disagree with some of BaC's arguments, I would say that on the whole his Democratic opponents have given up in frustration, unable to counter his position.
Click to expand...


First of all what makes you think his opponents are Democrats? In most cases int this thread his opponents have been centrists.

Second his arguments have been debunked repeatedly and there is only so many times people want to counter the same week argument or wade though the radical right wing lunacy he posts links too.
 
Vermonter said:
I'd like to see how Fox got those numbers to begin with,
Click to expand...

By disregarding reality the same way BaL does. They attribute Bush's Last Budget deficit to Obama so they can absolve Bush of all the consequences of the economic collapse that occurred under his watch. (Bushes last Budget came in at a $1.4 trillion deficit.)

They then ignore the fact US spending hasn't increased significantly. The biggest single increase to the US budget under Obama has been including the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which Bush was running off the books.

They then ignore the fact most of the deficit came from revenue shortfalls caused by the economic slowdown and tax cuts that Republicans insisted on as part of the stimulus (then voted against anyway)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom