Obama On National Debt

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Considering the deficits and addition to the national debt by Reagan,Bush and Bush neither does the republicans

Obama added more to our debt than all previous presidents combined you lying racist cockroach.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Which should have been countered by spending cuts. But that of course takes balls and leadership. Odumbo has neither.
Should we have entered WWII? It was financed with deficit spending, and sharply increased the national debt (admittedly, we mostly owed the money to ourselves). Is there truth to the old claim, that WWII got us out of the Great Depression? If so, how? Is there such a thing as an economic multiplier, such that if I spend a dollar on your product, you spend the dollar on someone else's product, and so on, and the end result is an increase to GDP > $1?
 
Quote from Ricter:

Sure, in nominal terms. However, as a percent of GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

<img src="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_debt_200.png">

Unless my math is off If Obama came into office with 10.6 trillion in debt and today its 15 he still didn't add more then every President combined :confused:

Again I'll add that Obama didnt come into office with a balanced budget and turn it into 5 trillion in debt like Bush did
 
Quote from Ricter:

Should we have entered WWII?
I think so
It was financed with deficit spending, and sharply increased the national debt
True. Are you OK with the fact that $20B of that was for the Manhattan Project?
(admittedly, we mostly owed the money to ourselves).
I fail to see how that matters. Whether the treasury owes the citizens or a foreign country it stills owes.
Is there truth to the old claim, that WWII got us out of the Great Depression?
It's my understanding there is at least some truth to it. If I'm not mistaken we were already starting to slowly grow out of it and then even before we entered the war we were already producing arms for the countries already engaged.
If so, how?
I assume this is where you hope I'll say government deficit spending
Is there such a thing as an economic multiplier, such that if I spend a dollar on your product, you spend the dollar on someone else's product, and so on, and the end result is an increase to GDP > $1?
If I understand how GDP is calculated, yes.

Although I don't think your analogy holds water if you're comparing it to our current situation.
The government spent money during WWII with greater efficiency than we do now.
The government was MUCH smaller than it is now.
For some time after the war the US was the top producer of many goods and services, allowing us to earn our way out of debt. For several reasons including global competition this is NOT true today.
Also I think we started out with the magnitude of debt we have now.

IOW I don't see us deficit spending our way to prosperity, not like we did then.
Probably not at all.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

you lying racist cockroach.


----



Quote from 377OHMS:
silence you filthy arab or I shall taunt you again!

Quote from 377OHMS:

Just ignore him phenomena. You've already shown him to be a fool repeatedly. Evidently he has no pride, kind of an arab trait .

Quote from 377OHMS:


The arabs are a backwards people and have grown to resent the progress of western civilization.

Quote from 377OHMS:

There are exceptions but arabs largely live in squalor adheering to a brutal cult they claim is a religion. That cult has remained static for over 1200 years holding the arabs back while the rest of the world advanced.


To be honest sammy, I make friends with black people no problem but wouldn't piss on an arab if he were on fire.


Quote from 377OHMS:

Your irrationality is impressive to all. But rationality isn't really part of the arab character either . That is probably the reason why your people end up ruled by dictatorships and 12th century theocracies while the rest of the world moves into the new millenium.



Quote from 377OHMS:



An arab cannot earn enough university degrees or attain enough honors or achievements to ever be considered to a gentleman.


Quote from 377OHMS:

If you boyz keep it up over there it may be the Arab that is exterminated or at least culled .


Quote from 377OHMS:

He evidently didn't obtain much of an education in Dearborn or whatever arab slum he is from.


Quote from 377OHMS:

Its just that you folks seem to *require* a police state. There doesn't seem to be much in the arab or persian character as far as self-regulation of behavior or any self-imposed civilized norms. You seem to require someone with a baton to keep you from doing really awful things to one another.


I'm just trying to think if there is any arab country on earth that exhibits the least bit of civility . I just can't come up with any. Perhaps you know of one.


Quote from 377OHMS:



You aren't kidding anyone. You lack horsepower upstairs my little arab street urchin friend.

You should climb out of that cab occasionally and go to the self-improvement section in Barnes&Nobel and pick yourself out a book, something like "How I renounced Islam and became a Human Being" or "10 Easy Steps to Personal Hygiene".


Quote from 377OHMS:



I picture Sammy as this tall thin arab man wearing a filthy dishdashahthe and probably married to a huge fat digusting arab woman who sports a mustache and exudes that "not so fresh" scent as she waddles up and down the main dirt road carrying water for the men.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

I think so True. Are you OK with the fact that $20B of that was for the Manhattan Project? I fail to see how that matters. Whether the treasury owes the citizens or a foreign country it stills owes. It's my understanding there is at least some truth to it. If I'm not mistaken we were already starting to slowly grow out of it and then even before we entered the war we were already producing arms for the countries already engaged. I assume this is where you hope I'll say government deficit spendingIf I understand how GDP is calculated, yes.

Although I don't think your analogy holds water if you're comparing it to our current situation.
The government spent money during WWII with greater efficiency than we do now.
The government was MUCH smaller than it is now.
For some time after the war the US was the top producer of many goods and services, allowing us to earn our way out of debt. For several reasons including global competition this is NOT true today.
Also I think we started out with the magnitude of debt we have now.

IOW I don't see us deficit spending our way to prosperity, not like we did then.
Probably not at all.

I have mixed feelings about the bomb, like the inventors did. But, the technology was emerging anyway, so I'm glad we have it.
It is a very important difference, from foreign debt, that we mostly owe (and owed) ourselves. Yes, the government still has to pay, but when it does pay, the money stays here. And don't forget, taxes were raised sharply because the war was, basically, a crisis that needed to be paid for.
I agree, conditions today are not like those of the '40s. Thanks to the Crash of 2008, the US will be very different for a long time (I hope, I mean I hope the lesson is not soon forgotten). Unlike after the end of WWII, we won't loan (big program) money to the world and have them pay it back in spades as they buy our stuff. I do think deficit spending today would be less effective for those reasons, but I don't think it's completely ineffective, in fact I think it's still quite important. As long as Americans can produce goods that it and world will buy, then all measures to keep them doing so should be taken, even if those measures cost money, because without the sales, without the revenue, there is no America, not like we've known. Some deflation (there's a fair chance it's more restructuring than decline) of empire is inevitable and already underway, but there is no fundamental reason to make it runaway.

[Re our "decline", I hope you read the pieces I linked to in the 'America is doomed (ver. 5.0) thread--they're good scholarship.]
 
Quote from Ricter:

I have mixed feelings about the bomb, like the inventors did. But, the technology was emerging anyway, so I'm glad we have it.
It is a very important difference, from foreign debt, that we mostly owe (and owed) ourselves. Yes, the government still has to pay, but when it does pay, the money stays here. And don't forget, taxes were raised sharply because the war was, basically, a crisis that needed to be paid for.
I agree, conditions today are not like those of the '40s. Thanks to the Crash of 2008, the US will be very different for a long time (I hope, I mean I hope the lesson is not soon forgotten). Unlike after the end of WWII, we won't loan (big program) money to the world and have them pay it back in spades as they buy our stuff. I do think deficit spending today would be less effective for those reasons, but I don't think it's completely ineffective, in fact I think it's still quite important. As long as Americans can produce goods that it and world will buy, then all measures to keep them doing so should be taken, even if those measures cost money, because without the sales, without the revenue, there is no America, not like we've known. Some deflation (there's a fair chance it's more restructuring than decline) of empire is inevitable and already underway, but there is no fundamental reason to make it runaway.

[Re our "decline", I hope you read the pieces I linked to in the 'America is doomed (ver. 5.0) thread--they're good scholarship.]

+1 Regarding the bomb. The tech race was on. If germany had gotten it first, they already had a delivery system, and we live in a different world today.

We had to win that race, and we did.
 
Back
Top