Democrats are insane... deficit deal must include stimulus! LOL!

False dichotomy. Most of the public and private debt is owed to the banks, which created the principle out of nothing. That can all be cancelled out with no harm to the economy. The US Treasury can pay off the rest of the US debt with debt-free Treasury dollars.

[link to www.webofdebt.com]

Last Edited by Gimme Some Truth on 11/14/2012 11:56 PM

Nice try, but the Democrats were elected to enact Democratic policies.
They are ALWAYS better for the economy and working people.

The Repulsicans have tripled the national debt and then doubled it again and saddled President Obama with trillion dollar deficits in their insane quest to transfer all the wealth of America to the top 1%.

Obama has a mandate and the repubs need to STFU and think about why they keep getting beat.

They are saying that you can't only make cuts, you idiot. There has to be job creation and cash to stimulate trade. THINK about it!

Bush tax cuts were responsible for $1.7 trillion of the "Obama debt", and the wars about $1.2 trillion. The stimulus was about $700 billion of it. The tax rates during the 1990s resulted in a balanced budget and solid economy. Also war and defense spending gives much less bang for the buck as far as the economy is concerned. Essentially much of the economic problems and debt were due to Bush policies.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with public school education...

Do you really believe this? For your benefit I will presume you are smarter than that and are just a paid shill. There is no other explanation for the absurdity of this statement.

Democrats are elected to enact Democratic policies which are always better for the economy and the people?!!!


Really? Well Zieg Heil for your Messiah, let's suspend all critical thinking and believe that our leaders from whatever party are there for our best interest.

You sound exactly like one of those Stalinist era party apparatchiks. Don't question authority, the party is always right.

Seriously it's not the party but the character of the leader and the policies he enacts. I have just shown you that the leaders with the best economic record adhered to conservative fiscal policies. That is a simple statement of fact, I don't care what party they are from.

It is also true that none of the current crop of democrats will follow those principles, the principles of JFK or the Gingrich republican congress during the Clinton presidency. They will not reduce the load on small businesses and they will not reign in spending.

So under your Messiah look forward to economic collapse, a Greek style austerity induced death spiral, hyperinflation, riots and martial law. After that the skys the limit, we could get a Marxist dictatorship or become a vassal state of China once the nuclear clouds disperse.

it worked here.

twice.

Sure why the fuck not, that 2009 Stimulus did such a great fuckin' job for our economy...that was a humdinger wasn't it?!?!?

At one time cutting taxes on the top tier did actually have the effect of stimulating things. But for it to work at all, there needs to be a general feeling of confidence in the stability of things like money, banking and credit policy, gov't fiscal responsibility, etc. It's not as simplistic as most of today's "conservatives" blather on about. Sunlight by itself won't grow a garden. You need good soil, just the right amount of water, etc, etc. Unfortunately, all the proper ingredients for success have been blown all to hell over the last 30 years or so where we have allowed an untouchable elite mob write the laws and then bust out the store. And yes, IMO, it's no accident. Collectivism is the goal. Global serfdom is what is coming.

The rich? Well, until they have enough confidence in the system to risk their capital, they'll just go down to their villas in Paraguay (or somewhere else where you can't tax them) and hunker down in style. Who knows, maybe if you were rich, you might do the same yourself... naww, not YOU!

So, yeah, regrettably, I'd have to agree with your statement.

It's an investment in deficit reduction!

Only if you subscribe to the theory that prosperity is the ability to consume more needless crap than the next person. What happened with being content with healthy/happy family and simple life living off the land.

go stimulate yourself than, wanker

$1 trillion in stimulus will get you a couple percent bump in GDP and greater long term problems.

If they were serious, we'd be talking something more like $100 trillion in stimulus involving rebuilding America to 21st century standards. Superconducting electrical grids. Maglev train. Space elevators. LFTR reactors. New schools. Vertical farms. More investment in science.

Instead, the proposal is likely nothing more than repaving some roads and a few more Solyndras. In this case, we're better off without it and crash sooner rather than later.

keep on rearranging the deck chairs.

Stimulus needs to be in the form of a gift card , and must be used withIn a set amountof time. This would prevent people from saving it , or paying off bills. It would also prevent politicians from payIng off there contributors

Ah, no that's not the point he made. I've bolded it again:

As long as our money is debt-based, deficit spending (borrowing) is the only way to put new money in circulation.

And that's true even if you treasure a happy and healthy simple family life on the land.

Yes this is the problem we've had in Obama's first term: shovel-ready projects. Little crap like that doesn't do much.

The thing that kept many men employed in the Depression was the building of a whole new National Parks system, building the Hoover Dam, etc. (yes I'm mixing Hoover projects and FDR projects, they were all important.)

You do realize we are fucked either way right? When you have trillions of dollars of debt it doesn't matter anymore. Like I said before its like the game monopoly. Whoever has the most funny money wins. Being that our currency is based on the USD we all use funny money. Its the only thing we have.

Ever heard of the adage you have to spend money to make money? Well its true and sometimes the government has to spend money a.k.a stimulate the economy to raise the GDP. This is basic economics.

I'm not saying the way they are going about it is the best but i am saying stimulus' isn't always bad. Sometimes it is necessary. Some of you folks need to keep an open mind and be bipartisan.