Really? The Nobel Prize?

floridafun wrote:that would only have to be explained to someone who is firmly determined to NEVER recognize anything positive or right about obama.

There are people like that. Just like the Bushwhackers. As far as I'm concerned he handled the somali pirate standoff very well. I thought that was positive. Aside from that, I don't see much of anything else he has done that's positive. He believes more government spending which directly results in more debt is the best way to stimulate the economy. WRONG. He's waffling on Guatanomo. He's waffling with Afghanistan. He'll waffle on Iraq. Aren't our troops supposed to be out of Iraq by next June? Saying something and doing something are two different things.

Kroman, so tax cuts DO NOT cause deficits but spending does?

I wish I still had the article, I think I quoted it in a different thread some where but $90 worth of government spending is the same as a $145 tax cut so it is in FACT cheaper for the govt to spend vs tax cuts to move the economy out of a recession or near depression this time.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Shouldn't Reagan have won for basically winning/ending the Cold War??? Oh wait, he was a Republican, so he wasn't eligible...

i heard they considered ronnie, but figured they would then have to give one to sylvia too..coulda been awkward splainin that

Bman wrote:Kroman, so tax cuts DO NOT cause deficits but spending does?

I wish I still had the article, I think I quoted it in a different thread some where but $90 worth of government spending is the same as a $145 tax cut so it is in FACT cheaper for the govt to spend vs tax cuts to move the economy out of a recession or near depression this time.

Bman, compare the economy when Reagon began his term following Carter to the way the economy looked after Reagon completed his 8 years. A total reversal and tax cuts credited by many for the economy's success.

Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:Kroman, so tax cuts DO NOT cause deficits but spending does?

I wish I still had the article, I think I quoted it in a different thread some where but $90 worth of government spending is the same as a $145 tax cut so it is in FACT cheaper for the govt to spend vs tax cuts to move the economy out of a recession or near depression this time.

Bman, compare the economy when Reagon began his term following Carter to the way the economy looked after Reagon completed his 8 years. A total reversal and tax cuts credited by many for the economy's success.

Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

Reagan inherited a recession like Obama and Reagan chose tax cut vs. spending to jolt the economy, he spent money (tax cuts, he gave away money that the govt previously had access too) just like Obama decided to SPEND money on projects for the greater good. Both men had to increase the deficit to jolt the economy. Keep cumming on Reagan's leg but he did exactly the same thing Obama did ... pump money into a frozen economy, increasing the deficit all along the way. So keep having wet dreams about your Reagan and I will have wet dreams about Obama.

Bman wrote:...I will have wet dreams about Obama.

You better hurry up before they're all sold out!

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/1333

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:...I will have wet dreams about Obama.

You better hurry up before they're all sold out!

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/1333

Creative genius there in Kokomo.

and bman bails...

Pez wrote:and bman bails...

Looks like he took his ball and went home.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

Pez wrote:and bman bails...

Looks like he took his ball and went home.

Is he off to Oslo?

Cincy, if you bail, I will be top poster.

LTRT wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

Pez wrote:and bman bails...

Looks like he took his ball and went home.

Is he off to Oslo?

Cincy, if you bail, I will be top poster.

Don't tempt me.

Kroman wrote:Fact: All Nobel Peace Prize nominations were due 11 days after Obama's inauguration.

Fact: Obama didn't do anything peace related during his first 11 days in office. He was too busy trying to ramrod a stimulas package through the house and senate.

Fact: Prior to Inauguration Day, all Obama contributed to the "Peace" process was rhetoric.

Conclusion: Obama hadn't done anything to deserve the award.

Hey, looks like Kroman and Obama probably agree on something~! He said the morning of... "I feel I do not deserve this... yadda, yadda... call to action." IMO, about the best way he could have handled this. I'm still of the opinion that this is something we, as Americans, should be free to congratulate him about, we don't scrutinize any of the other winners this badly. Bush didn't win one... so what?

One man's rhetoric is another mans crusade. I can make that statement keeping both ideas completely separate in my mind.

Kroman wrote:Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

the thing I will take issue with in these statements is that they sound like you're applying microeconomics to macro... the Deficit is nothing new. Please tell me how it seems you're suggesting THIS president must institute new/different methods on the path towards balancing the budget. Hehe, one of my pet peeve words is 'irrelevant'... quite possibly the shortest thought terminating cliche in existence. "...right now our government does not have money", so are you saying we should let it fail like Leaman Bros.? IMO, The cycles of tax cuts and tax hikes follow historical patterns as relative to the market and the economy.

its that long-time bubble economy obama has been talking about for the last 2 years..bubble and burst..bubble again burst again. there are other ways to do things and as he steps thru the muck he inherited as prez he is trying to change the economy game in the big picture.

floridafun wrote:its that long-time bubble economy obama has been talking about for the last 2 years..bubble and burst..bubble again burst again. there are other ways to do things and as he steps thru the muck he inherited as prez he is trying to change the economy game in the big picture.

I wonder if the "Bubble-Burst" has anything to do with Republican-Democrat, Republican-Democrat...???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama

OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.

Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.

The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

However, the decision stunned even the most seasoned Nobel watchers. They hadn't expected Obama, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Hmmm...

i dont really think so. i think some bills in the last 20 or 30 years were passed--either party-- with good intentions. and when some folks found and used loopholes not clearly spelled out it kinda slowly snowballed. it didnt happen overnite any of the times it happened. but bad decisions of intentionally ignoring what was happening (there were definately ignored warnings)..because those benefiting contributed to politicians to keep them on their side vote-wise is when the snowballs got bigger faster. not saying bush and clinton and bushdad and carter and whoever down the line didnt contribute. am saying the ignoring of almost everything except war funding in the last 8 years made the snowball become an avalanche more quickly than it might have otherwise happened.

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

the thing I will take issue with in these statements is that they sound like you're applying microeconomics to macro... the Deficit is nothing new. Please tell me how it seems you're suggesting THIS president must institute new/different methods on the path towards balancing the budget. Hehe, one of my pet peeve words is 'irrelevant'... quite possibly the shortest thought terminating cliche in existence. "...right now our government does not have money", so are you saying we should let it fail like Leaman Bros.? IMO, The cycles of tax cuts and tax hikes follow historical patterns as relative to the market and the economy.

Tax cuts are irrevelant. Spending more money than you take in is a big problem. Don't you remember your grandparents telling you that or were they too "simple minded"? If you think running up trillions of dollars of debt is the answer then you can keep your "macro" and "micro" economic theories.

Now apply your version of economics and explain how you are going to pay off the national debt?

i think nationally staying within spending no more than we have would be pretty easy. like operating an orphanage with 200 kids on a nice minimum wage salary and no other financial sources.

impeach obama because he, like our past presidents, finds it impossible to balance our national checkbook.

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

the thing I will take issue with in these statements is that they sound like you're applying microeconomics to macro... the Deficit is nothing new. Please tell me how it seems you're suggesting THIS president must institute new/different methods on the path towards balancing the budget. Hehe, one of my pet peeve words is 'irrelevant'... quite possibly the shortest thought terminating cliche in existence. "...right now our government does not have money", so are you saying we should let it fail like Leaman Bros.? IMO, The cycles of tax cuts and tax hikes follow historical patterns as relative to the market and the economy.

Tax cuts are irrevelant. Spending more money than you take in is a big problem. Don't you remember your grandparents telling you that or were they too "simple minded"? If you think running up trillions of dollars of debt is the answer then you can keep your "macro" and "micro" economic theories.

Now apply your version of economics and explain how you are going to pay off the national debt?

My grandparents fought in the war, worked in the factory, got/get a pension, and are living comfortably. My father taught me to spend less than I make and to aim to be self-employed as he was.

My solution would be untenable but it would work. Prove me wrong.

1. No Public health care option
2. We are free to die
3. Increase the estate tax

floridafun wrote:i think nationally staying within spending no more than we have would be pretty easy. like operating an orphanage with 200 kids on a nice minimum wage salary and no other financial sources.

impeach obama because he, like our past presidents, finds it impossible to balance our national checkbook.

If you blame the president for government overspending then you can impeach Barack. However, and I've said this repeatedly in the past, IT'S THE WHOLE FREAKING GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

the thing I will take issue with in these statements is that they sound like you're applying microeconomics to macro... the Deficit is nothing new. Please tell me how it seems you're suggesting THIS president must institute new/different methods on the path towards balancing the budget. Hehe, one of my pet peeve words is 'irrelevant'... quite possibly the shortest thought terminating cliche in existence. "...right now our government does not have money", so are you saying we should let it fail like Leaman Bros.? IMO, The cycles of tax cuts and tax hikes follow historical patterns as relative to the market and the economy.

Tax cuts are irrevelant. Spending more money than you take in is a big problem. Don't you remember your grandparents telling you that or were they too "simple minded"? If you think running up trillions of dollars of debt is the answer then you can keep your "macro" and "micro" economic theories.

Now apply your version of economics and explain how you are going to pay off the national debt?

My grandparents fought in the war, worked in the factory, got/get a pension, and are living comfortably. My father taught me to spend less than I make and to aim to be self-employed as he was.

My solution would be untenable but it would work. Prove me wrong.

1. No Public health care option
2. We are free to die
3. Increase the estate tax

So why is not what your father taught you good enough for the government?

BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!


(not trying to upset anyone, I thought this was hilarious)

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:Tax cuts or not. That is irrevelant. You don't spend money you don't have. And right now our government doesn't have money. If spending money you don't have is the answer to everything then their would be zero unemployment.

the thing I will take issue with in these statements is that they sound like you're applying microeconomics to macro... the Deficit is nothing new. Please tell me how it seems you're suggesting THIS president must institute new/different methods on the path towards balancing the budget. Hehe, one of my pet peeve words is 'irrelevant'... quite possibly the shortest thought terminating cliche in existence. "...right now our government does not have money", so are you saying we should let it fail like Leaman Bros.? IMO, The cycles of tax cuts and tax hikes follow historical patterns as relative to the market and the economy.

Tax cuts are irrevelant. Spending more money than you take in is a big problem. Don't you remember your grandparents telling you that or were they too "simple minded"? If you think running up trillions of dollars of debt is the answer then you can keep your "macro" and "micro" economic theories.

Now apply your version of economics and explain how you are going to pay off the national debt?

My grandparents fought in the war, worked in the factory, got/get a pension, and are living comfortably. My father taught me to spend less than I make and to aim to be self-employed as he was.

My solution would be untenable but it would work. Prove me wrong.

1. No Public health care option
2. We are free to die
3. Increase the estate tax

With 70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck and up to their eyeballs in debt the money from the estate tax would be used to pay off their debt, not national debt.

iberlingirl wrote: BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!


(not trying to upset anyone, I thought this was hilarious)

A friend of mine told me that one the other day and it's still just as funny reading your post!