The senate cost about a billion with less than a quarter of the members.also.....................1.3 billion dollars to run the fucking House per year?
But would you expect, we let them set their own budget.
The senate cost about a billion with less than a quarter of the members.also.....................1.3 billion dollars to run the fucking House per year?
Now that he's not running for office, you're not obliged to make a discrete good vs. bad call about him.Yet another reason why I'm conflicted on George W. Bush. Stuff like this doesn't diminish all of the shit he was directly or indirectly responsible for, but man, he did do some good stuff.
Yeah, it makes honest appraisals of his presidency complex, at the very least. I'm trying to think of comparisons, but only Grant is popping in my head oddly. I also think Dick Cheney trolling like a motherfucker at the end and Bush not, helped, especially the way he transitioned to Obama.Yet another reason why I'm conflicted on George W. Bush. Stuff like this doesn't diminish all of the shit he was directly or indirectly responsible for, but man, he did do some good stuff.
It's actually designed to put democrats in red states in trouble. People in those states hate Obama/Obamacare. What would a democrat do?The Senate slaps it down with a yawn, and the house takes their ball and goes home to try again later.
If you mean the national debt, there really isn't one.
If you mean the annual deficit, well, you could argue that a larger deficit implies higher spending and lower taxes, both of which improve the economy. Which would mean that the relationship is larger deficit->stronger economy/higher job growth.
The only connection ever put forward is the confidence story - that businesses don't hire because they're worried that the us will default, or something else bad happen.This is gonna sound incredibly goddamn stupid, but I think I have to ask this question now: What's the relationship between the national deficit and the economy/job growth?
Sources on this?
The only connection ever put forward is the confidence story - that businesses don't hire because they're worried that the us will default, or something else bad happen.
Which is not really backed by facts, or common sense for that matter, at all.
Originally it was the bond vigilantes who were suppose to raise the rates and create a budget Armageddon, the confidence theory was only put forward after that didn't materialize.
If you mean the national debt, there really isn't one.
If you mean the annual deficit, well, you could argue that a larger deficit implies higher spending and lower taxes, both of which improve the economy. Which would mean that the relationship is larger deficit->stronger economy/higher job growth.
Okay. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing commercials asking Obama to improve the economy by reigning in the debt. I know they're attack ads, but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?
Nope. You can have an ad that says Obama should improve the economy by eliminating leprechauns. Doesn't matter.but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?
I would just vote for it, Obama will veto it regardless...if it somehow passed. I think the Dems can think strategically and not get too pissy over someone voting for repeal when it's meaningless if it helps the claim to be independent/win reelection and keep the seat D.It's actually designed to put democrats in red states in trouble. People in those states hate Obama/Obamacare. What would a democrat do?
That's exactly what those 6 or 7 democrats did. Others didn't feel it was that much of a threat.I would just vote for it, Obama will veto it regardless...if it somehow passed. I think the Dems can think strategically and not get too pissy over someone voting for repeal when it's meaningless if it helps the claim to be independent/win reelection and keep the seat D.
I give him credit for having the balls to do it. I mean this is like Obama speaking at the NRA convention, an audience that's not open minded and is totally hostile to the speaker.The part where he gets booed for promising to eliminate "Obamacare".
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012...t_booed_at_naacp_over_obamacare_comments.html
I almost feel sorry for him.
Makes perfect sense to me.That's exactly what those 6 or 7 democrats did. Others didn't feel it was that much of a threat.
Those usually are designed around what can influence voters the most.Okay. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing commercials asking Obama to improve the economy by reigning in the debt. I know they're attack ads, but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?
And how is that austerity working for them?Wait wait. So what's with Europe's austerity plans as a response to the economies over there? Dept causing the EU crisis?
Stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging. .And how is that austerity working for them?
Can you back that assertion with any sort of data?Stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging. .
Well the Euro hasn't completely collapsed yet and riots don't seem to have overtaken Greece anymore, so that's some type of improvement.Can you back that assertion with any sort of data?
That's not a real argument though.Well the Euro hasn't completely collapsed yet and riots don't seem to have overtaken Greece anymore, so that's some type of improvement.
I don't think Bush was racist, but I'll go to my grave believing the response would have been handled faster and more respectable if Katrina hit some predominantly poor white city in Louisiana or Florida
Yes, it isThat's not a real argument though.
As opposed to the rock solid evidence an unsourced chart hosted on imgur?You can't explain a mechanism and you can't show correlation.
This is like saying that the Eurovision saved them.
The numbers are from here, knock yourself out.As opposed to the rock solid evidence an unsourced chart hosted on imgur?
Of course it's going to take awhile for people to adjust to their new economic reality, especially with the end of unsustainable entitlements and tax evasion. No one said it would be pretty.
I give him credit for having the balls to do it. I mean this is like Obama speaking at the NRA convention, an audience that's not open minded and is totally hostile to the speaker.
So neither of us have proof, fine, my background isn't on economics, its either law or foreign policy, or countries blowing up other countries/sub nation states stuff, so I concede you have a mechanism, but I also don't expect recovery to occur for a while, but as spending and debt is managed better, it will.The numbers are from here, knock yourself out.
Now correlation is not proof, but at least I can show a correlation and I can also explain a mechanism.
Its a expedient way to end the European Welfare state which in the end with demographic shifts and expectation of new and more benefits will kill Europe's economy.Can you at least explain why you believe that austerity works or that it stopped the hemorrhaging in Europe?
Not the same. A liberal dem at an NRA con, it's the same as a Repub. appearing at the NAACP. Special interest groups very hostile to the other side vs some US version of Question Time.Obama ain't scared of no one.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...3A7C23469A7A&first=0&qpvt=obama+gop+lions+den
also.....................1.3 billion dollars to run the fucking House per year?
Considering all the people working there at all levels, it is a sizable employment source of the public.Consider it stimulus. If there's anything that should be well run, it's the House of Representatives, the best part of American government, anywhere.
When you present an argument, the onus is on you.So neither of us have proof, fine, my background isn't on economics, its either law or foreign policy, or countries blowing up other countries/sub nation states stuff, so I concede you have a mechanism, but I also don't expect recovery to occur for a while, but as spending and debt is managed better, it will.
Oh, so it's not about "stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging".Its a expedient way to end the European Welfare state which in the end with demographic shifts and expectation of new and more benefits will kill Europe's economy.
They're in the withdrawal period or the addiction treatment, bottoming out. It will spur the need for people to create new revenue sources as they can't depend on handouts.When you present an argument, the onus is on you.
Especially when you present an argument as counter-intuitive like that less money in people's hands can spur economic growth.
No, it is, it's simply dual purpose. It's cut unsustainable spending.Oh, so it's not about "stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging".
Not at all.It's about using an opportunity to advance unrelated political agenda.
I think the past year or so proved it nicely.And just to save you time, yes, if you want to put forward the assertion that Europe welfare system is causing those troubles, you'll have to prove it too, or at the very least explain why you think that.
Sweden has 9 million people and tons of natural resources to work with and Germany just exploits Southern Europe.Manos you're wrong. And stop cherry picking your states. If entitlements led to problems, then explain Sweden, which is not on the Euro, or just Germany which has a better system than America.
Sweden has 9 million people and tons of natural resources to work with and Germany just exploits Southern Europe.
You still refuse to put a shred of evidence to your assertion, and still refuse to explain why you believe it.They're in the withdrawal period or the addiction treatment, bottoming out. It will spur the need for people to create new revenue sources as they can't depend on handouts.
No, it is, it's simply dual purpose. It's cut unsustainable spending.
Not at all.
It's the first part of the process.
I think the past year or so proved it nicely.
Why do you think that welfare is more difficult in bigger countries?LOL - "Sweden can do it, why can't we take care of 311M people!?"
Now that he's not running for office, you're not obliged to make a discrete good vs. bad call about him.
Jimmy Walker just called Obama a "Tony Robbins" on O'Reilly, LOL.
"He makes you feel good. You leave one of his speeches, you're fired up, then you get home and your house is still being foreclosed on and you're worse off than you have been in years."
Dy-no-mite!
I did explain why I believed so.You still refuse to put a shred of evidence to your assertion, and still refuse to explain why you believe it.
ClarificationIf you want to discuss austerity, let's do it, but what's the point of stating and re-stating your unsupported position?
No not at all, who argues on the Internet thinking they can convince or convert people.Yeah, I get it, you like austerity.
You think that if people knew just how awesome you thought it is they will be persuaded?
Except Sweeden is a unique country with low population and natural resources. Resource rich states can afford it, look at the Gulf States.Why do you think that welfare is more difficult in bigger countries?
Common sense suggests the opposite - welfare is effectively an insurance system, and insurance is more effective the bigger your insured base.
Spain doesn't get to abuse Southern Europe like Germany, and lack of political will to see the job doneAs for unsustainable spending, please explain why Spain had a lower government spending to GDP ratio than Germany prior to the economic collapse, but, is now on the verge of bankruptcy and are reversing austerity cuts.
Well you're also getting Speculawyer back as his 3 month ended with mine today. Truthfully I have a crap ton of stuff coming up and will be infrequent, but I decided a little fun and debate would be a nice way to relax. Besides I normally am more topic based than the Poli catch all thread as my interests tend to go towards foreign, law, and stuff blow up analysis. That said I'm not going into any Iran threads.It turns out all we needed to make PoliGAF interesting again was getting Manos back
About right, ya. They attempt to fix it with more austerity, it pushes back the situation a little, but eventually ends up in the same place. We saw this very recently with Spain (except I don't think the latest announced cuts are going to prolong much of anything anymore). People that believe the EU should continue this are wrong. There are serious problems with the Euro right now that will need to be met with serious solutions. The current trend of austerity is not one of those.My shallow op ed understanding is that austerity was demanded by the markets to prevent bond prices spiraling out of control. But now bond prices are edging up into danger territory in some Mediterranean countries despite austerity. Austerity promoters say this is temporary and a necessary step to reform. Keynesians disagree and see it as the beginning of a major contraction that was preventable.
They're in the withdrawal period or the addiction treatment, bottoming out. It will spur the need for people to create new revenue sources as they can't depend on handouts.
I must've missed it.I did explain why I believed so.
So I cover population (in the very post you replied to by the way), unless you have a counterpoint, I'm going to ignore it.Except Sweeden is a unique country with low population and natural resources. Resource rich states can afford it, look at the Gulf States.
Not the same. A liberal dem at an NRA con, it's the same as a Repub. appearing at the NAACP. Special interest groups very hostile to the other side vs some US version of Question Time.
Well you're also getting Speculawyer back as his 3 month ended with mine today. Truthfully I have a crap ton of stuff coming up and will be infrequent, but I decided a little fun and debate would be a nice way to relax. Besides I normally am more topic based than the Poli catch all thread as my interests tend to go towards foreign, law, and stuff blow up analysis. That said I'm not going into any Iran threads.