Has President Obama spent TOO much money or NOT ENOUGH??!!
BlueRepublican
2012/06/12 17:17:02
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
67 votes
|
|
72% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
4% | ||
|
11 votes
|
|
12% | ||
Whose money is it? It's We the People's money that's being spent. President Obama has come under criticism from both sides regarding the recovery effort.
The Left has criticized President Obama for NOT spending ENOUGH to stimulate the economy. Paul Krugman has stated in his book and on interviews that Obama needs to spend MORE! Keep spending until the economy bounces back. He states that in times of recession, the govt needs to SPEND!! He praised the Obama auto bailouts as just right, while criticized him for not spending near DOUBLE in the Wall Street bailouts. Pundits, surrogates and other DNC leaders have said the same thing.
The Right has declared a WAR on SPENDING. They argue for austerity in light of some difficult budget challenges and the MASSIVE national debt. They disagree with the Keynesian Economics model of "spending your way out of the recession." They push for cutting spending, reducing govt size, reforming entitlements, etc...The GOP and specifically the Tea Party has made fiscal responsibility and the economy the central issue of this election.
While Congress cannot agree on what to do, the deficits continue to skyrocket. The Federal Reserve continues inflating the currency and ignoring unemployment. The jobs numbers are disappointing and the economy keeps sliding downward. In this battle of ecomic ideologies, our country's future is on the line.
Has President Obama spent TOO much money or NOT ENOUGH??!!
The Left has criticized President Obama for NOT spending ENOUGH to stimulate the economy. Paul Krugman has stated in his book and on interviews that Obama needs to spend MORE! Keep spending until the economy bounces back. He states that in times of recession, the govt needs to SPEND!! He praised the Obama auto bailouts as just right, while criticized him for not spending near DOUBLE in the Wall Street bailouts. Pundits, surrogates and other DNC leaders have said the same thing.
The Right has declared a WAR on SPENDING. They argue for austerity in light of some difficult budget challenges and the MASSIVE national debt. They disagree with the Keynesian Economics model of "spending your way out of the recession." They push for cutting spending, reducing govt size, reforming entitlements, etc...The GOP and specifically the Tea Party has made fiscal responsibility and the economy the central issue of this election.
While Congress cannot agree on what to do, the deficits continue to skyrocket. The Federal Reserve continues inflating the currency and ignoring unemployment. The jobs numbers are disappointing and the economy keeps sliding downward. In this battle of ecomic ideologies, our country's future is on the line.
Has President Obama spent TOO much money or NOT ENOUGH??!!
Or too much, he's spent money to prop up donors, friends and other accomplices of the liberal redistribution schemes. Failed green energy fiasco's. He's sworn to kill off energy production in this nation. I'm wondering just who he expects to tax when we're all sitting around in the dark, starving to death because we cant afford to heat our homes, turn on the lights, or grow food to sustain ourselves?
they need it all don't they?
Barack Obama, March 2006
National debt clock, April, 2008
The debt ceiling has been raised on three occasions under President Barack Obama. The debt ceiling was $11.315 trillion when the Democrat was sworn into office in January 2009 and increased by nearly $3 trillion or 26 percent by summer 2011, to $14.294 trillion.
I would say Obama has put us, our children, our grandchildren and beyond - in debt, if our country is still up and running by then. He's either clueless, or depraved.......
When you lower taxes as we have to rock bottom, you do not spur growth. You kill it.
It works like this and history shows the truth of it:
When you tax corporations at a higher rate they spend money to avoid paying it in taxes. They will build onto a business, buy new equipment, train their workers, etc. to write off as much as possible. Rich individuals will also spend to find deductions to avoid paying taxes.
This causes a ripple effect, as the demand for things to offset taxes for the rich makes hiring new people necessary, growing the tax base and cutting unemployment. This happens quickly and smoothly.
The rich (Democrats AND Republicans) simply lie about it to make and hoard more money while convincing the radio sheeple that a rising tide lifts all boats. What actually happens is a tidal wave destroys the underpinnings of society, collapsing the middle class built on just such a system as I spoke of above. This creates a country divided into the rich and everyone else.
Economics.
Billions to banks, green energy, wall street, unions and etc., will not promote shovel ready/manufacturing jobs any where and so there will be little or no recovery.
I think coons and dogs have the same age span. I think? So maybe a coons' age is approx 7 years? Don't really know though.
To get the economy going we need purchasing by the middle class as the biggest bang for the buck. With all the housing foreclosures and other financial pressure the middle class slowed its spending sharply. This along with the banking issues slowed down the economy.
Once the economy picks up we should also edge the tax rates up in to get the debt down.
If we go after the debt now we will choke off the economic gains we have received slowly.
FDR proved the US can not spend it's way out of a recession!
As for how much to spend to get recovery going, it's not just the amount spent, but the who, what, where, when, why and how of it that matters and all that matters in light of the myriad of factors and dynamics that go into the mix, some of which can vary. That means any "insert here" blanket statement mentality doesn't make sense. It doesn't work. The following only compounds that problem.
Claims that "the" left wants more spending and "the" right wants austerity plans doesn't hold up under close, in-depth examination. These are deep topics and there's no consensus reached. Explore that on your own (results may vary).
Also, not all money spent during his presidency was decided by Obama.
As for people's vision of spending, even austerity plans can vary quite a bit in their aftermath or benefits. Walker's austerity program here in WI was so effective (myopic and problematic) that we recently were last in jobs in the nation and pr...
As for how much to spend to get recovery going, it's not just the amount spent, but the who, what, where, when, why and how of it that matters and all that matters in light of the myriad of factors and dynamics that go into the mix, some of which can vary. That means any "insert here" blanket statement mentality doesn't make sense. It doesn't work. The following only compounds that problem.
Claims that "the" left wants more spending and "the" right wants austerity plans doesn't hold up under close, in-depth examination. These are deep topics and there's no consensus reached. Explore that on your own (results may vary).
Also, not all money spent during his presidency was decided by Obama.
As for people's vision of spending, even austerity plans can vary quite a bit in their aftermath or benefits. Walker's austerity program here in WI was so effective (myopic and problematic) that we recently were last in jobs in the nation and probably still are. It's not all his fault, phenomena can have varying half-lives, but because his plan was so myopic and corporate-ass-kissery, well, it isn't going very well and is bound to yeirld negative fallout for years.
http://www.bizjournals.com/tw...
http://minnesota.publicradio....
Could someone else's vision of an austerity plan have worked though? Yes, but only to a degree. I don't think there's an across the board answer for recovery and I certainly don't think any liberals vs. conservative false dilemma is the lens with which to even start looking at the issues.
Elements of recovery have to be looked at, issue by issue, in a way that isn't so austere that it's myopic and undermines recovery.