58% Say Release of CIA Memos Endangers National Security

Attempting to make up for the slack in demand that has resulted from the failure of the conservatives who ran the federal government for most of this decade. President Obama is not padding the pocketbooks of the rich and big corporations and then hoping that some of it will trickle down to the middle and working classes like the Bush administration disastrously did.

 

The government can't create demand. Obama is not trying to do that. He is spending money ... more than Bush spent. Why don't you admit that? Everyone knows it. You even know it. Just say it.

The conservatives weren't running the government and you know it. And now, Obama is doing just what Bush did: cutting taxes and raising spending.

Which do you deny? That he is cutting taxes? He promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He claims he did. If you say he didn't, then you are saying he is a liar. If you say he did, then you are saying that he did what Bush did.

Do you deny that he is spending money? In his first thirty days in office, he spent over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Bush didn't expand the deficit by that much for several years. If you say Obama isn't spending more than Bush, then the facts prove you wrong. If you look at his projected budgets, it dwarfs Bush's outrageous spending. No one denies that Obama is spending more than Bush.

So again I ask, "Where's the change?" Bush cut taxes and raised spending. Obama is cutting taxes and raising spending.

How is that different?

That's not true either. The "rich" are paying a larger percent of taxes today than they were previous to Bush.

Look at this chart and see the facts: http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/sidebar/2108202/

So Ken, again, the numbers just don't support you. The facts aren't on your side. And you are still not keeping the promise you made to us.

You are trapped yet again. You started off on a Saturday night making a silly argument, and you didn't back out of it soon enough. You kept pressing it and backing yourself farther into a corner and everyone sees it but you. And you probably see it too.

 

Yes, it can. It does all the time. If the government spends money on asphalt, or concrete, or cement, or building supplies, etc., etc., etc., it creates demand. The Great Depression was finally ended for good due to the demand that government created in military spending for World War II.

President Franklin Roosevelt had made progress during his first term in mitigating the Great Depression by ramping up government spending until he started backing off on it at the start of his second term. Then the spending for World War II ended the Great Depression for good.

BTW, I have recently posted information about the budget deficit: www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58601

 

Artificial demand however.

Most historians and economists seem to agree that Roosevelt extended the Great Depression with his actions.

Which confirms that you are wrong. Obama is doing just what Bush did, only more of it.

You have been asked specific questions. If you are going to continue to break your word, at least answer the questions:

Which do you deny? That he is cutting taxes? He promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He claims he did. If you say he didn't, then you are saying he is a liar. If you say he did, then you are saying that he did what Bush did.

Do you deny that he is spending money? In his first thirty days in office, he spent over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Bush didn't expand the deficit by that much for several years. If you say Obama isn't spending more than Bush, then the facts prove you wrong. If you look at his projected budgets, it dwarfs Bush's outrageous spending. No one denies that Obama is spending more than Bush.

So again I ask, "Where's the change?" Bush cut taxes and raised spending. Obama is cutting taxes and raising spending.

How is that different?

 

1) Not so. Demand is demand is demand, regardless of the source.

2) No, most do not.

 

No. Creating demand with make-work jobs when you have no money to pay for it is artificial demands. Aren't you in finance? You should know this stuff. I am really surprised, though I probably shouldn't be.

Um, no. Again, I think you are wrong.

But you are still not answer the key questions. Why not? You scared because you know you have to contradict yourself?

Which do you deny? That he is cutting taxes? He promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He claims he did. If you say he didn't, then you are saying he is a liar. If you say he did, then you are saying that he did what Bush did.

Do you deny that he is spending money? In his first thirty days in office, he spent over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Bush didn't expand the deficit by that much for several years. If you say Obama isn't spending more than Bush, then the facts prove you wrong. If you look at his projected budgets, it dwarfs Bush's outrageous spending. No one denies that Obama is spending more than Bush.

So again I ask, "Where's the change?" Bush cut taxes and raised spending. Obama is cutting taxes and raising spending.

How is that different?

 

1) Not so. Rebuilding our nation's infrastructure is not artificial demand.

2) And I think you are wrong.

 

But you are still not answer the key questions. Why not? You scared because you know you have to contradict yourself?

Which do you deny? That he is cutting taxes? He promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He claims he did. If you say he didn't, then you are saying he is a liar. If you say he did, then you are saying that he did what Bush did.

Do you deny that he is spending money? In his first thirty days in office, he spent over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Bush didn't expand the deficit by that much for several years. If you say Obama isn't spending more than Bush, then the facts prove you wrong. If you look at his projected budgets, it dwarfs Bush's outrageous spending. No one denies that Obama is spending more than Bush.

So again I ask, "Where's the change?" Bush cut taxes and raised spending. Obama is cutting taxes and raising spending.

How is that different?

 

How did you derive at most? I agree some make this assertion but I would have to see proof of most.

However, that is no different from today. There are economist on both sides of the remedy to the current crises. Both philosophical and ideological systems were on the ballot this last Nov. and Obama won. So if the nation or global economy tanks, it is because the majority of voters chose this course in the last elections and not because of any one person (Obama).

 

From my reading, that seems to be the consensus. Without surveying all of them, it would be impossible to be firm. that's why I said "seems."

But not because both systems (and other competitors) were analyzed and chosen. But because we are a nation of idiots, who believe five second sound bytes that go unchallenged are true. There are people who actually believed that Obama was promising to help them pay their house payment, car payment, gas, etc. I don't want to be mean, but that's just stupidity. It underlines the problem with popular voting. Unqualified people are doing it.

I have often said that the president has little to do with the economy. He gets way too much credit when it is good, and way too much when it is bad. He can, through taxation, have an effect, but it is rather minimal compared to other things until he makes substantial changes which I don't think he can do.

 

Who put him on the ticket? If he wasn't conservative, why was he on the conservative ticket? Do the conservatives make a habit of putting liberals on their ticket? And we are to trust their advice???

 

Exactly my point, you don't think Obama has economist on his staff and don't you think he has studies from economic experts supporting his policies? You really think what he is doing is contrary to the consensus of economist or just contrary to the consensus of economist whose views you agree with? There are a large number of economist who thinks he is spending too little and that a second stimulus plan will be needed.

When we have trained professionals and industry experts at such odds about how to resolve the problems, it says this is not as easy and strait forward as you make it appear or they would all come to one conclusion if it was that obvious.

So anyone who disagrees with your views is an idiot? Pride commeth before a fall is all I can say.

Those were the talking points from the right. No one who supported Obama had visions of the government paying for their home, car etc... Those were the allegations and insertions the right made trying to portray Obama as a wasteful spender.

However, the truth is the stimulus package would have been more than half the price if he had of given each citizen $1 million. So those assertions you say are stupid could have saved the tax payers a ton of cash.

Lastly, I guess you and anyone who thinks like you are the only ones who are qualified to vote.

This why are you so critical on Obama if what he is doing has little effect on the economy? He is doing what he can but as you say, in the end the free market will have to save the day.

I don't deny that. Lowered taxes would normally do a lot of good except the corruption and mindset of those at the top has voided the results of trickle down economics. I wished you guys would see that. There is nothing trickling down. So we are not trying to stimulate from the bottom up by giving lower and middle class workers the tax cut which should stimulate the economy by higher consumption.

Why don't we give this idea a try and see if it works? We gave supply side economics a try and where it had some good results, greed at the top kept those at the bottom from their portion of the formula...

 

That's all I need. He ran as a conservative, conservatives voted him in so he and his legacy is theirs. I am positive you won't let the liberals deny Obama's legacy by simply saying, "he's not liberal". Sure you will...

 

So you're saying the conservatives voted in a non-conservative on their ticket... Good luck with selling that...

 

That "large number" is, quite frankly, dumb. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to know that spending this kind of money won't solve the problem.

Actually, it is pretty easy in a constitutionally based system ran by semi-intelligent people.

No, you need to read closer. As usual, you miss the obvious in your effort to defend a point at all costs. I said nothing about people who disagree with my view in that comment. I was referring to people who make voting decisions off of soundbites. Please pay more attention if you are going to try to add something of substance here.

I think you missed the news.

Isn't that amazing. And people still think he is doing a good job. You could have a million dollars to invest and spend. And he spent more than twice that to do nothing of much consequence.

No, again, that is just a silly statement. I have never said anything remotely close to that, and if you read my words even half awake, you would know that. But it seems you would rather try to make a political point than handle someone's word fairly.

Because he is spending too much money, making bad domestic policy decisions, making bad foreign policy decisions, running the WH like he is running a frat house listening to all the wrong people. He is playing politics when he should be leading.

No it hasn't.

Everyone who has a job has it because someone with more money is trickling down that money to pay you and I. Trickle down works just fine. It's increased government spending that doesn't work. That is what kills it.

What do you mean "their portion of the formula"? No one has a portion of the formula. Everyone has to go out and work hard and make money.

 

But we did prosecute war criminals from other countries for waterboarding after WW2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

April 22, 2009
In Adopting Harsh Tactics No Look at Past Use
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?th&emc=th


Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose it's always wrong for our enemies but anything we do is right.