2012 Begins Now

Separating Lewk's GOP rally out of his pot thread (Positive Trend).

<Special request to Lewk --- PLEASE use the quote function as it was intended, and include the poster's name. It's actually easier than copying and pasting, or however you're doing what you do. :bulb: That way we can all know who said what, in case we want to reply to them without scrolling up or paging back. Consider it a courtesy to all readers here, and not just to whose post you're replying.>

Pasting Lewk's last reply in the Positive Trend thread:

Quote:

---

As it was for the last two years, all legislation that is passed is only done so by Democrat consent. Now however they will need to compromise with Republicans and can not simply ram down far left legislation. Personally I'm hoping for gridlock with someone like Romney winning in 2012. Then we can start working on the massive increase in deficits Obama and Democrats have given us.

Democrats controlled the legislative branches from 2007 through 2010. I wonder what most Americans think of when they think of the last four years of the economy...

---

and my reply.....

I think of the last ten years. Even recent decades, actually. When I hear Republican leadership announce their primary goal is making sure Obama is a one-term President, and there will be NO compromise with Democrats......that sounds clearly obstructionist to me.

Quote:

---

As it was for the last two years, all legislation that is passed is only done so by Democrat consent. Now however they will need to compromise with Republicans and can not simply ram down far left legislation. Personally I'm hoping for gridlock with someone like Romney winning in 2012. Then we can start working on the massive increase in deficits Obama and Democrats have given us.

Democrats controlled the legislative branches from 2007 through 2010. I wonder what most Americans think of when they think of the last four years of the economy...

---

Couple of things. First, I'm not American, but I can recall what one American thought of the economy when Bush was in his last few months as president. That one American was convinced that the economy was doing a-ok. Those lefty scaremongers and their tales of impending doom were chicken littles seeing the sky fall. That one American changed his tune when Obama became president. I don't think that American is looking at the economy objectively but through partisan goggles. I bet he calls it the Obama recession. I feel that American is unfit to comment subjectively on the economy.

Then there's the quote: "I wonder what most Americans think of when they think of the last four years of the economy..." and "Then we can start working on the massive increase in deficits Obama and Democrats have given us.". So, he recognized that the fall of the economy started 4 years ago, but Obama and the Democrats are responsible for it. Holy backwards in Time Traveling Policy Making Batman, this Obama is more of a witchdoctor than I thought.

To summarize Lewk's comments in a way he can understand: To the Whaaaaambulance! "Whaaa Whaaaa!!!!! Democrats and Liberals destroying the economy the Republicans so skillfully made successful!!! Whaaaa!"

I predict that, since America is already crawling out of the recession, in two years time the rhetoric will be: Look, we got into the House and the economy got all better, yay us! Just like they said: Obama got elected and the economy busted. It's all so predictable and transparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I predict that, since America is already crawling out of the recession, in two years time the rhetoric will be: Look, we got into the House and the economy got all better, yay us! Just like they said: Obama got elected and the economy busted. It's all so predictable and transparent.

---

I was thinking the same thing. Then they'll get power and set about fucking everything up again. Crazy shit. :down:

Lewk is honestly coming in here and saying "the massive increase in deficits Obama gave is?" :confused:

ONCE AGAIN:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

Notice who initiates big increases in debt. Also, let's recall that of those who substantially increased debt, none faced anywhere near the existential crisis that Obama face.

So Lewk, you prefer that Obama and W had let our financial system collapse? That would have been GREAT for growth! :noob:


PS Look at the fracking inflection points!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

and my reply.....

I think of the last ten years. Even recent decades, actually. When I hear Republican leadership announce their primary goal is making sure Obama is a one-term President, and there will be NO compromise with Democrats......that sounds clearly obstructionist to me.

---

Who was obstructing Obama when the Democrats had 60% of the Senate and control of the House and presidency? I'm amazed how otherwise intelligent people can fall this idiotic spin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I was thinking the same thing. Then they'll get power and set about fucking everything up again. Crazy shit. :down:

---

If Obama wasn't so incompetent, he could have been making that argument in 2010.

Loki, you have absolutely no evidence of Obama's "incompetence" except campaign boilerplate and unsupported innuendo. We've asked you over and over to back up your claims, and you just snake off by distorting what WE, say, what SOURCES say, or usually both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Who was obstructing Obama when the Democrats had 60% of the Senate and control of the House and presidency?

---

Democrat spinelessness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Loki, you have absolutely no evidence of Obama's "incompetence" except campaign boilerplate and unsupported innuendo. We've asked you over and over to back up your claims, and you just snake off by distorting what WE, say, what SOURCES say, or usually both.

---

Remind me what he has accomplished when he had control of all branches of the government. And for someone who reflexively attacks anything remotely Republican or conservative, you really shouldn't be talking. FFS, stop projecting your own morality upon others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Democrat spinelessness.

---

If a president can't even "convince" members of his own party, what use is he?

Well, he's not a Republican. So there's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If Obama wasn't so incompetent, he could have been making that argument in 2010.

---

Yes, the inability to remind everyone how bad the Republicans fucked the country up is mind boggling. But that's what Republicans get with their right wing media network and unlimited, secret source money-speech. :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Yes, the inability to remind everyone how bad the Republicans fucked the country up is mind boggling. But that's what Republicans get with their right wing media network and unlimited, secret source money-speech. :down:

---

Odd that you weren't making the same complaint in 2008, when the media was firmly on Obama's side, and the left raised far more money than the right. I guess it's only a problem when your idol doesn't benefit. It's also interesting that when the Republicans are in charge, any economic problem is their fault. When the Democrats are in charge, any economic problem is the fault of either the Republicans or the markets. Do you even try to be consistent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Well, he's not a Republican. So there's that.

---

I.E. He gave money to anyone and everyone to avoid hard decisions and made absolutely no moves at genuine financial reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Remind me what he has accomplished when he had control of all branches of the government. And for someone who reflexively attacks anything remotely Republican or conservative, you really shouldn't be talking. FFS, stop projecting your own morality upon others.

---

Holy Moly Lok, he got health reform and financial reform passed. Hate them or not, those are both gigantic milestones. :confused:

Quote:

---

If a president can't even "convince" members of his own party, what use is he?

---

What use is checks and balances when the party is so lock-step it short circuits the system? The necessity to convince is how the system is supposed to work.

I'm curious how the (un)employment problem will come up for 2012, it was used againist Obama's policies a lot in this election when making Democrats seem to liberal, but the problem is that most job losses happened before Obama's policies came into effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Remind me what he has accomplished when he had control of all branches of the government.

---

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

And, of course, the democrats being complete pussies, who just let the Republicans completely frame and dominate the debate because they're cowering in fear of a shrill minority of retards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Odd that you weren't making the same complaint in 2008, when the media was firmly on Obama's side, and the left raised far more money than the right. I guess it's only a problem when your idol doesn't benefit. It's also interesting that when the Republicans are in charge, any economic problem is their fault. When the Democrats are in charge, any economic problem is the fault of either the Republicans or the markets. Do you even try to be consistent?

---

#1. How the fuck do you know what argument I was making in 2008? What else are you going to pull out your ass today?

#2. I will always make that argument no matter who is in power. Money does not = speech. Corporations and institutions do not = citizens. And the source of political advertising should never be secret. Period.

#3. Please argue for my amusement that the current economic troubles were caused by the Obama administration's policy. You might as well argue the wars were caused by the Obama Administration too. And global warming too, don't forget. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

---

Good to know that he kept such major promises as "changing standards for determining broadband access" and "increasing minority access to capital", while doing nothing to deal with: the gigantic fiscal deficits (and in fact, making them far, far worse), the ridiculous trade deficit, the exponentially expanding entitlement programs, financial reform that's not based on simply demonizing businessmen and cutting some of their wages, immigration, public sector pensions, military priorities (yay, he took tens of thousands of troops from one theater and put them into an even worse one), or generally make any tough decisions. But you're right, he did say a lot of things that made people happy knowing that Obama cares about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

#1. How the fuck do you know what argument I was making in 2008? What else are you going to pull out your ass today?

---

You were around in 2008. You weren't attacking the Democrats for taking advantage of their huge fund-raising superiority.

Quote:

---

#2. I will always make that argument no matter who is in power. Money does not = speech. Corporations and institutions do not = citizens. And the source of political advertising should never be secret. Period.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

#3. Please argue for my amusement that the current economic troubles were caused by the Obama administration's policy. You might as well argue the wars were caused by the Obama Administration too. And global warming too, don't forget. :rolleyes:

---

No, it's not Obama that has passed a massive stimulus package, increased spending on every program under the sun, and seems to show no sign of taming the deficit. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

And, of course, the democrats being complete pussies, who just let the Republicans completely frame and dominate the debate because they're cowering in fear of a shrill minority of retards.

---

Ah yes, the Democrats don't act because they're good-natured but cowardly. The Republicans are the spawn of Satan trying to destroy the US and the world. Attempting to have a rational argument with you people is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Good to know that he kept such major promises as "changing standards for determining broadband access" and "increasing minority access to capital

---

I'm actually surprised you read to item #4, when their are 20 items per page, and 7 pages, of whats been accomplished. You usually post without reading the links at all.

Maybe it would have been better if you reframed the question to exclude legislation that would make you look stupid/wrong?

I feel like I'm back in AtariCC :heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I'm actually surprised you read to item #4, when their are 20 items per page, and 7 pages, of whats been accomplished.

---

I skimmed all seven pages. The quality of that website is about the same as that of my torn socks. Apparently Obama promising to do something (i.e. no permanent bases in Iraq) is an example of him keeping his promise. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You were around in 2008. You weren't attacking the Democrats for taking advantage of their huge fund-raising superiority.

---

No, in fact I railed against all the secret money that backed the democratic candidates. Oh wait- :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

See above.

---

Kiss my ass Loki, I just laid out for you exactly what I believe whatever the fuck you think you remember from 2008. Lets have some links to threads where I supported secret political spending just so long as it benefited democrats. Any evidence at all would be nice.

Quote:

---

No, it's not Obama that has passed a massive stimulus package, increased spending on every program under the sun, and seems to show no sign of taming the deficit. :bored:

---

At least with Obama's horrific spending there's an actual point to it - instead of pissing away surplusses with completely unnecessary tax cuts, handing allies to Iran and trying to build violent tribal backwaters into nations all at a cost of trillions of dollars. Or would you have preferred an economic depression right now instead? You should pick your arguments better, like something you have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Holy Moly Lok, he got health reform and financial reform passed. Hate them or not, those are both gigantic milestones. :confused:

---

What financial reform? I must have missed something, because I don't recall any financial reforms. Just some not particularly impressive partial tax increases and increases to spending which are keeping the alarming rise of deficit spending that Bush 2 initiated. How is keeping that rapidly rising deficit either reform or a milestone?

As for health reform, this leads us back to the fundamental disagreement you and I have. You think expansion and coverage is reform, and is the first step to fixing the system. It's not, it's simply extension of something very broken, and makes any attempt to actually FIX things harder. Reform would have involved cost-containment, reduction of the massive amount of middle-men and delay, efforts to expand the pool of health-care providers, removal of the excessive overhead and restrictions on actual patient care which are driving specialists out of their fields, etc. Health care reform wasn't passed, it was made incredibly more difficult, because that was easier to do politically. That is not political leadership, and it's only a milestone if you think mandating everyone have insurance is more important than trying to fix what's been pricing them OUT of the damned, incredibly expensive, and underperforming system.

I'm mostly ignoring Loki, but he and Hazir have one thing right. Whatever Obama was like on the campaign, in office he's been a political coward. He's avoided every hard choice that has come his way in the last two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What financial reform? I must have missed something, because I don't recall any financial reforms.

---

He managed credit reform, which protected both consumers and businesses from some of the more abusive and deceptive practices of the industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Or would you have preferred an economic depression right now instead? You should pick your arguments better, like something you have a leg to stand on.

---

I automatically assume that anyone who makes this argument is an idiot. There's absolutely no proof that not having a stimulus would have led to a depression. In fact, Germany didn't really have a stimulus, and it has seen its unemployment rate plummet and has one of the highest growth rates in Europe now. All the stimulus did was temporarily keep some people in their jobs at a monumental cost to the economy. Look to Japan if you want to see what happens when the government tries to keep companies from laying off workers at all cost. The reality is that the only thing that promotes long-term employment is solid economic growth, and Obama has undermined the prospects of that growth with his fiscal policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I automatically assume that anyone who makes this argument is an idiot.

---

Well, coming from you I will take no offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I automatically assume that anyone who makes this argument is an idiot. There's absolutely no proof that not having a stimulus would have led to a depression. In fact, Germany didn't really have a stimulus, and it has seen its unemployment rate plummet and has one of the highest growth rates in Europe now. All the stimulus did was temporarily keep some people in their jobs at a monumental cost to the economy. Look to Japan if you want to see what happens when the government tries to keep companies from laying off workers at all cost. The reality is that the only thing that promotes long-term employment is solid economic growth, and Obama has undermined the prospects of that growth with his fiscal policy.

---

Um, Germany has some of the highest government subsidies in most of the free world. I guess you don't have to call that stimulus if you don't want to but...:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Well, coming from you I will take no offense.

---

Care to tell me your rationale for making that argument other than once again stealing the talking points of leftist talking heads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Care to tell me your rationale for making that argument other than once again stealing the talking points of leftist talking heads?

---

Like Being said, in might depend on what you want to call stimulus. On the other hand, until not so long ago (less than a year iirc), Germany was the largest exporter in the world. The US is not even close despite being a much larger economy. Clearly our two economies are very different so maybe your comparison between the two is as sensible as apples and oranges. Numbers are juicy on the surface, though, arn't they? As long as you don't think too much about it, it makes your case, eh? How very conservative of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Like Being said, in might depend on what you want to call stimulus. On the other hand, until not so long ago (less than a year iirc), Germany was the largest exporter in the world. The US is not even close despite being a much larger economy. Clearly our two economies are very different so maybe your comparison between the two is as sensible as apples and oranges. Numbers are juicy on the surface, though, arn't they? As long as you don't think too much about it, it makes your case, eh? How very conservative of you.

---

What that means is that Germany was more affected by the global recession than we are. Despite that fact, it's in far better shape than we are now (both short-term and long-term). So again, give me an actual reason why throwing a trillion dollar in the garbage can actually helped us. According to Obama's own (false) estimates, the stimulus prevented the unemployment rate from rising 1-2%. Is that what you want to sacrifice the American economy for? Two years of a slightly lower unemployment rate? And you'll of course ignore the fact that the terrible economic climate fostered by Obama is directly responsible for companies being unwilling to hire new workers. That has had a far more profound effect on the unemployment rate than the stimulus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What financial reform? I must have missed something, because I don't recall any financial reforms. Just some not particularly impressive partial tax increases and increases to spending which are keeping the alarming rise of deficit spending that Bush 2 initiated. How is keeping that rapidly rising deficit either reform or a milestone?

---

Seems like the credit card rules were reforms. (I know there were significant changes in requirements for mortgage approvals too. :o But that's a different story).

Here's what the Senate's web site says:

Quote:

---

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW BILL

Consumer Protections with Authority and Independence: Creates a new independent watchdog, housed at the Federal Reserve, with the authority to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, and protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.

Ends Too Big to Fail: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.

Advanced Warning System: Creates a council to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the economy.

Transparency & Accountability for Exotic Instruments: Eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated - including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.

Federal Bank Supervision: Streamlines bank supervision to create clarity and accountability. Protects the dual banking system that supports community banks.

Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance: Provides shareholders with a say on pay and corporate affairs with a non-binding vote on executive compensation.

Protects Investors: Provides tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses.

Enforces Regulations on the Books: Strengthens oversight and empowers regulators to aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the system that benefit special interests at the expense of American families and businesses.

---

Sounds like reform to me, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I suppose if you want to hate the bill, hate Democrats, or if you're getting regulated by the bill you'll wave your hand and call it bullshit tax increases. And maybe some or a lot of it is bullshit. I don't know. But I'm not going to take your word for it either.

Quote:

---

As for health reform, this leads us back to the fundamental disagreement you and I have. You think expansion and coverage is reform, and is the first step to fixing the system. It's not, it's simply extension of something very broken, and makes any attempt to actually FIX things harder. Reform would have involved cost-containment, reduction of the massive amount of middle-men and delay, efforts to expand the pool of health-care providers, removal of the excessive overhead and restrictions on actual patient care which are driving specialists out of their fields, etc. Health care reform wasn't passed, it was made incredibly more difficult, because that was easier to do politically. That is not political leadership, and it's only a milestone if you think mandating everyone have insurance is more important than trying to fix what's been pricing them OUT of the damned, incredibly expensive, and underperforming system.

---

Again, this goes back to what you want to call reform. There's a lot of consumer protections in the bill and cost reduction or not, that's a reform. And so is coverage expansion.

Yes, cost is the #1 problem in US health care. But the Powers in health care are not willing to give up their money, and with every single Republican on their side, they could have stopped the bill if they chose to. So if Admin had gone after that, the bill would never have passed. The choice the Administration had to make was do we go after cost containment (and fail, again) or do we pass consumer protections and coverage extensions and kick the cost ball downfield? Right or wrong, they kicked it.

Now, regarding both of these bills, you might disagree they are sufficient or good in any way, but you can't possibly make the argument that in the last two years the Dems did nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

What that means is that Germany was more affected by the global recession than we are.

---

And we are dependant on consumer spending for what, 70% of our economy? You think Germany is like that? You think the fact that the US had a gigantic realestate bubble burst that was fueling consumer spending has anything to do with why our recession here might be longer and deeper than Germany's when their economy actually makes and exports things? Come on, don't be purposefully dense just to try and win an argument. :rolleyes:

And regarding the stimulus, prove to me the stimulus did not stop a depression. And before you cry foul, that's the exact same thing you're asking me - and, because you won't say it, the honest answer is its impossible to answer either way.

Y'know, this debate about Germany is funny and everything. See, the US is closer to pre-recession GDP than Germany, despite their remarkable growth, mostly because the recession hit them very hard (notably due to world trade that was drastically cut). However, to argue this happened in the absence of government stimulus is a total crock. Germany had one of the most generous fiscal stimulus packages in the Western world, and it furthermore had gone longer than in most of Europe, where they're already pushing austerity (all rhetoric aside, Germany's announced austerity plans don't phase in until 2011-2012). In particular, they spent quite a bit on subsidized work hours schemes to prevent unemployment (the German labor market never had as deep unemployment as the US due to this), a cash-for-clunkers style program, tax credits, infrastructure building, etc. It added up to at least 1.5% of GDP in 2009 and 2% of GDP in 2010, and there are still some lagging expenses they're paying.

So, bottom line: you're both wrong. Germany is not some shining example of recovery since their GDP was trashed in the recession (notably because they rely on exports and didn't encourage enough domestic demand to make up the difference), but they also didn't show some remarkable fiscal restraint in avoiding a large stimulus package. Of course, some would argue the stimulus should have been larger and austerity postponed a little more, but that's a difference of degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Ah yes, the Democrats don't act because they're good-natured but cowardly. The Republicans are the spawn of Satan trying to destroy the US and the world. Attempting to have a rational argument with you people is pointless.

---

Attempting to have an honest argument with you is pointless, because your sole rhetorical trick is to try and reword other people arguments into some absurd caricature. It's gotten to the point where any paragraph you write is guaranteed to be fucking stupid if it starts with the word "So" and a comma, though I admit "ah yes" and then a comma provides some welcome variation on theme which is becoming deeply, deeply tedious.

For the record, this technique is well known enough to have a name - which you know perfectly well - and appears on probably every single list of fallacies put on the web since the dawn of the Internet. So, maybe, just maybe your ruse of rephrasing someone's words to make them sound stupid/partisan/self-interested/something else is actually a little more transparent that you perhaps like to think, hmm? The repetitive phraseology you use ("So, you support [fucking stupid extrapolation from someone's words that only a demented and pathologically dishonest ideologue could possibly find plausible]") just makes the whole thing even more obvious and irritating. So stop it.

No, the Republicans aren't the spawn of Satan trying to destroy the US (though letting themselves be co-opted by the breathtakingly loony tea party movement might well have that effect), they're the right wing party of the US. As such, it's their fucking job to make the case for right wing policies and the right wing agenda. Which they do, and which is fine. The Democrats are the left wing party of the US, and it's their job to make the argument for left wing policies and advance the left wing agenda. Instead, they are so terrified of the idea that the US is populated entirely by stupid, bigoted Glenn Beck alikes and that if they offend them they'll be wiped off the face of US politics forever that they just concede vast swathes of the argument to the repubs just like that. Well, Dems, if it seems that US public opinion is dominated by tea party mouthbreathers it's probably because you let the right wing movement completely set the agenda and tone of the debate. Because you're fucking pussies. They should be out there making the argument that small government is not automatically a good thing, that privitised e.g. health-care is not magically more efficient, that actually it isn't morally acceptable to deny health care to one person in order to give state of the art care to someone else and that actually, hey, health care is a basic human right?

I know you and I disagree on all of the above, but surely you can agree that it should be the job of one party to make such argument and another to oppose them? If the dems are just going to concede everything and pretend to be right wing in order to avoid offending Joe Sixpack Fuckwit, who wasn't going to vote for them anyway, do they have any surprise when their own supporters won't turn out to vote for them? And do their own supporters have a right to be surprise when one day they find they have an actual witch-doctor as their senator when they don't turn out to vote because they're butthurt that Obama didn't have actual magic powers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I know you and I disagree on all of the above, but surely you can agree that it should be the job of one party to make such argument and another to oppose them? If the dems are just going to concede everything and pretend to be right wing in order to avoid offending Joe Sixpack Fuckwit, who wasn't going to vote for them anyway, do they have any surprise when their own supporters won't turn out to vote for them? And do their own supporters have a right to be surprise when one day they find they have an actual witch-doctor as their senator when they don't turn out to vote because they're butthurt that Obama didn't have actual magic powers?

---

The Democratic Party has always been more heterogeneous than the Republican Party. That means it's always had difficulty agreeing on a single agenda and following through on it. The instances when it did manage to do those things, it had an overwhelming majority in Congress. It's not terribly surprising that a party that includes a decent amount of social conservatives and a decent amount of fiscal conservatives (though not too many fiscal and social conservatives) would have to compromise to its own Congressmen.

Why don't you respond to the first paragraph? You claimed to have put me on ignore for saying the same fucking thing.

Do NOT expect people to be civil to you when you are so unceasingly rude and manipulative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Y'know, this debate about Germany is funny and everything. See, the US is closer to pre-recession GDP than Germany, despite their remarkable growth, mostly because the recession hit them very hard (notably due to world trade that was drastically cut). However, to argue this happened in the absence of government stimulus is a total crock. Germany had one of the most generous fiscal stimulus packages in the Western world, and it furthermore had gone longer than in most of Europe, where they're already pushing austerity (all rhetoric aside, Germany's announced austerity plans don't phase in until 2011-2012). In particular, they spent quite a bit on subsidized work hours schemes to prevent unemployment (the German labor market never had as deep unemployment as the US due to this), a cash-for-clunkers style program, tax credits, infrastructure building, etc. It added up to at least 1.5% of GDP in 2009 and 2% of GDP in 2010, and there are still some lagging expenses they're paying.

So, bottom line: you're both wrong. Germany is not some shining example of recovery since their GDP was trashed in the recession (notably because they rely on exports and didn't encourage enough domestic demand to make up the difference), but they also didn't show some remarkable fiscal restraint in avoiding a large stimulus package. Of course, some would argue the stimulus should have been larger and austerity postponed a little more, but that's a difference of degree.

---

You're comparing 1.5% of GDP to America's ~6% (which doesn't seem to be falling)? Any Western government is going to engage in counter-cyclical spending. 1.5% is not on unusual in that regard.

By the way, the German deficit for 2010 was 4%:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...this-year.html

That's in comparison to about 9% for the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Why don't you respond to the first paragraph? You claimed to have put me on ignore for saying the same fucking thing.

Do NOT expect people to be civil to you when you are so unceasingly rude and manipulative.

---

He must not be very busy with school right now because he hasn't been this bad In a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're comparing 1.5% of GDP to America's ~6% (which doesn't seem to be falling)? Any Western government is going to engage in counter-cyclical spending. 1.5% is not on unusual in that regard.

By the way, the German deficit for 2010 was 4%:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...this-year.html

That's in comparison to about 9% for the US.

---

I'm not talking about deficit spending, but specifically stimulus-related spending. If you just take ARRA, it was about 2.75% of GDP in 2010 (~$400 billion), with similar rates in late 2009 and a lower rate in 2011. That's not much higher than German stimulus, especially when chunks of the US stimulus were essentially waste and not particularly effective.

Fiscal stimulus-related spending in the US is most definitely falling - very little new money has been authorized for 2011. Deficits are high because receipts are low and we already had structural deficit issues. That hardly equates to a stimulus plan. The German fiscal house was just in much better shape before this all started, so their current deficits are still pretty low (though well above eurozone standards, still).

edit: FYI, German fiscal stimulus was about half of the entire eurozone's, despite the fact that their share of eurozone GDP is quite a bit less. Their European neighbors were stingy, but the Germans were not. That's ignoring some of the automatic systems in place that didn't need special legislation, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I'm not talking about deficit spending, but specifically stimulus-related spending. If you just take ARRA, it was about 2.75% of GDP in 2010 (~$400 billion), with similar rates in late 2009 and a lower rate in 2011. That's not much higher than German stimulus, especially when chunks of the US stimulus were essentially waste and not particularly effective.

Fiscal stimulus-related spending in the US is most definitely falling - very little new money has been authorized for 2011. Deficits are high because receipts are low and we already had structural deficit issues. That hardly equates to a stimulus plan. The German fiscal house was just in much better shape before this all started, so their current deficits are still pretty low (though well above eurozone standards, still).

---

I fail to see why you're focusing on single acts. We've spent an extra $1.4 trillion since Obama came to power (over the 2008 figures). Discretionary spending has increased from $930 billion in 2008 to $1.38 trillion in 2011, and a lot of the non-discretionary spending could have been frozen. Meanwhile, Germany had a deficit of 4% of GDP in 2010 and that deficit is projected to decrease in 2011. Please tell me how the situations are remotely comparable.

US Spending Figures:
2008 - $2.90 trillion
2009 - $3.52 trillion
2010 - $3.72 trillion
2011 - $3.83 trillion

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...get/tables.pdf (page 3; ignore estimates after 2008)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/tables.pdf (page 2)

Meanwhile, revenues are flat since 2009 and are even predicted to increase by $400 billion in 2011 (note that outlays are projected to keep increasing). So no, the reason for our deficit is continued increases in spending. How exactly is a $900 billion increase in spending since 2008 a consequence of structural problems?