PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Limited capitalism is not socialism. Our government was born from limited capitalism, found great power and success under limited capitalism, and no legitimate candidate wants us to switch from limited capitalism to any other economic system.

Socialism involves government-owned and distributed businesses and economies based on need. In that regard, it is so far removed from either of the main parties today it isn't even a factor. Romney and Obama's economic differences are negligible compared to socialism, and to claim that Obama is even remotely close to socialism is to display true ignorance of politics, and is merely repeating rhetoric from the late 18th century when anti-slavery proponents were labeled "socialists".

If you're going to make claims like "we're switching to socialism so our country is fucked", you might try and make it a little more believable.


Oh, also I found this picture

I'm pointing out the irony of you claiming we're putting words in your mouth, after you spent three pages doing the same to everyone else.

Way to go, you ruined the joke, thanks a lot.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to admit you're wrong, harmonic, but it would be nice if it actually inspired you to do some political research, because many of your claims are unfounded or misguided, and many are just mud-slinging.

author=harmonic
European nations (as well as the US) make promises they can't keep into perpetuity. These entitlements are not sustainable. We borrow from future generations in order to pay for the promises of politicians today. That's morally wrong - most of us prefer to leave this world a better place for our descendants than we had it.

It would appear Mr. Obama agrees with you.

And I suppose this isn't Obama's fault? (2008-2012)

And when it's 20+ trillion in a few years, that won't be Obama's fault either?

First of all, I would note that the debt has been going up pretty steadily since the 1980s. I might note that the national debt nearly doubled under both Bush and Bush Sr. (in one term, no less!), and nearly tripled under Reagan. =) So far, Obama is pretty par for the course. But let's focus on the last ten years or so.



As you can see, this catastrophic spiral of debt started well before Mr. Obama took office. It started to see dramatic spikes around 2002. The largest increases happened in 2009 and 2010 in response to the market crash at the end of 2008.



The most notable thing about this graph is that the catastrophic growth has slowed down. This indicates less spending is taking place, not more, as you posited above. As I pointed out, the deficit has been steadily decreasing since 2009, which shows that the government is in fact taking action against this cascading debt. I suppose maybe your issue is it isn't slowing down fast enough for you?

author=Solitayre
The most notable thing about this graph is that the catastrophic growth has slowed down. This indicates less spending is taking place, not more, as you posited above. As I pointed out, the deficit has been steadily decreasing since 2009, which shows that the government is in fact taking action against this cascading debt. I suppose maybe your issue is it isn't slowing down fast enough for you?

Yeah, that's right. It's not slowing down fast enough. Under Obama's tenure, we surpassed 100% debt-to-GDP. First time since WW2, and that's during peacetime. There is responsibility to be shouldered for that, and none is taken. There is no end in sight to the neo-keynesian binge. Obama's victory will be interpreted as a "renewed mandate" to borrow, print, and spend even more.

My laughably low political IQ and inability to articulate coherently will steer clear of this topic for now on...but I'll just say that Solitayre's chart is pretty clear. But in fairness to the right, that number better be negative in Obama's second term or we're in trouble. I would say the conservatives are the best choice to balance the budget, as some of them are elite money makers...but that chart doesn't support such logic. Hmm...of course, being the pleb I am, I should really look at other sources too. Like most sheep, I didn't even really dig into the term "fiscal cliff" until recently :)

I will say, as a wannabe centrist pleb who is prone to emotional reactions and who has no real political know-how, that I find it ironic that the conservatives have increased spending at higher rates than the liberals. I wonder if this supports Kentona's theory that Obama is actually right of the global center, at least fiscally. This could, of course, just be a product of the times and not the philosophy. I'm glad we gave Obama 4 more years: Bush had 8 years, so it's only fair, right? :)

It's cool to see some of the politicians supporting bipartisan discourse. Haven't heard that since November of 2008! Hmm.

author=harmonic

author=Solitayre
The most notable thing about this graph is that the catastrophic growth has slowed down. This indicates less spending is taking place, not more, as you posited above. As I pointed out, the deficit has been steadily decreasing since 2009, which shows that the government is in fact taking action against this cascading debt. I suppose maybe your issue is it isn't slowing down fast enough for you?

Yeah, that's right. It's not slowing down fast enough. Under Obama's tenure, we surpassed 100% debt-to-GDP. First time since WW2, and that's during peacetime. There is responsibility to be shouldered for that, and none is taken. There is no end in sight to the neo-keynesian binge. Obama's victory will be interpreted as a "renewed mandate" to borrow, print, and spend even more.

Really? I mean, it's possible, but I don't think we'll see major increases in spending in the next four years. I'm pretty sure that "fiscal cliff" is one of the most trending phrases out there right now. People on both sides of the aisle are getting scared. I doubt many people on the left are eager to spend a whole bunch of money at this point. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of leaping off the cliff?

balance the budget

This is not what we need. America (the entire world, really) is in a recession. You could call it a depression, depending on your definition.
To get out of a depressed economy, you spend money and get things moving again. In today's situation, the problem is not that money is being borrowed/printed (same thing), but that it's being given to people who use it to speculate in stock/commodity markets. Current economic policy is to throw good money after bad, and even children know where that leads.
Besides. There are zero historical examples of austerity (budget balancing) leading to growth.

fiscal cliff

Don't let this term fool you. It's just the scary catchphrase du jour to help politicos advance their policies/bills. When the time comes, and we "fall off" down to where its all going down, there will still be lots of time to straighten out the US budget before we go hyperinflation/deflationary-crash.

author=S. F. LaValle
The efficacy of Obama's stimulus is debatable; the efficacy of the auto bailout is pretty irrefutable. None of these are things he wanted to do. The economy was in great recession, and these things were needed. Most economists agree his actions saved jobs.

Yet, while spending this money, he still managed to slow government spending by a significant amount. The deficit is what it was when he took office; when's the last time that happened? How can his spending be considered anything but responsible? I'd seriously like to know what policies of his are killing businesses.

I doubt even the Republicans know the answer to that one. The Republicans were debating with a massive straw man for the entire campaign. Never heard so much BS spewed by a political candidate in my life. Hence why I think a lot of people voted for the lesser of two evils.

Also, Dythalo, I'm not sure if throwing money into a fire is a good course of action. At some point we have to pay off our debts. I mean, yeah, you have to spend money to make money, but it's up to the private sector to sack up as well.