It took 150 year for USA to build up a deficit of $6 Trillion. Bush doubled that in 8 years. Was static before 5 years before [that]
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
President Obama Meets With Tim Cook and Other CEOs to Discuss Fiscal Crisis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It took 150 year for USA to build up a deficit of $6 Trillion. Bush doubled that in 8 years. Was static before 5 years before [that]
That Fortune 100 CEO's paycheck isn't coming out of my wallet.
If it did, I certainly wouldn't be paying him based on title written on his office door.
Apples and oranges, baby!
I think you need to learn what the difference between debt and deficit [...]
Debt = The total amount owing creditors year over year.
Deficit = The current shortfall between expected expenses and expected revenue for the current fiscal period.
At the end of the year, the actual deficit contributes to the total debt along with the interest accrual.
Last edited by a moderator:
And again we have someone that thinks someone who doesn't like Obama is automatically a republican. Bush was an idiot. Obama is a bigger one.
I'm not a republican. I'm a very fiscally conservative libertarian who thinks the government as a whole is out of control.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman says that the cure to our economic problems IS more spending.
Obama follows Keynesian theory that when the private sector reduces spending due to austerity measures intended to reduce personal debt, the government has to step in to increase spending to mitigate recession and depression.
Krugman applauds Obama's stimulus, but says that it wasn't big enough. That stimulus stopped the downward slide into the Bush smoking economic crater, but we need a LOT more spending - the RIGHT kind of spending.
Unfortunately due to the GOP obstructionist bloc in Congress, Obama could only get so much stimulus the first term.
Austerity measures are what's ruining Europe, while the USA is recovering. Austerity right now would be our death knell.
Hooray Obama !!!
Placing blind faith in your government is one of the most frightening things if not the most frightening thing a society can do. Oh well, whatever happens or rather doesn't can only be attributed to his followers. If he cures the economy magically, he will get the credit by his followers in the short-term and in printed history books in the long term. If he makes it tank harder, he will get the blame but in the short term it will be "unwarranted" by his loyal apologists of course and somehow taken out of context or scope but then printed in textbooks as his fault.
Meanwhile, Bush botching things 4 years ago for the his 2 terms is really the reason we haven't seen any movement these past 4. And in another 4, Bush 8 years ago for his 2 terms will still have been what messed us up. Sigh. Plenty of blame to go around in all directions, but like Mitt or not, don't see how people could have hated him so much. He hadn't been the one in Oval Office to screw things up, no damage had been done up until that point? Sure, maybe you don't like certain views of his on his campaign, but that was his campaign, and all campaigns are lies to get you hyped up. Aren't you perceptive enough to realize an Obama ad or a Romney ad is to feed onto your emotions, targeted to your demographic, and not produced by facts in any way? If memory serves me right, the general population of college students/fresh into the workforce or hunting circa 2008 were convinced Obama would eradicate all Bush ugliness and would also extinguish class warfare as well as fix the economy and cure cancer (hell, why wouldn't he be able to? he was seen as some sort of messiah for the dirtiness and ineptitude of politics)
Mitt shouldn't have said that 47% comment, and he did run an awful campaign by alienating himself from the all minorities that collectively isn't quite as miniscule a "minority" as it would sound like. Living proof of Mitt's bad campaign is that we got a president re-elected in the poorest of modern economic times, even when popular vote was close the electoral vote was a blowout. Even if Mitt won, I'd say with those numbers (100 lead in electoral, and neck-in-neck in popular vote), our democratic system needs serious, serious reform. Oh and didn't matter anyways, but Florida took a week to get results? WTF??
I don't see how we can beat around the Bush here (pun intended), might as well have been in an Austin Powers cryo-chamber for the past 4 in terms of raw, unbiased results demonstrating improvement, let alone significant improvement.
Unemployment during the campaign was 7.8%, lowest its been in forever, down from 8.1% as the numbers just before that. I don't know about you, but to me, 7.8 and 8.1 is like arguing over pennies for an hour. It's still bad. "I just got a D+, and it's a plus not a minus so HOORAY" Plus I still don't "buy" into 7.8, that number was either cooked or it was falsely represented as a sign of a better economy because it didn't take into account the amount of people who dropped out of looking for jobs. If you aren't in the market, you don't count.
Can't remember ever saying "Hooray [insert president]"
It's concerning the amount of 'rock star' status the president has, no matter the party affiliation. It's a good thing he has a knack for meme worthy photos every 5 seconds as well instead of just doing his task at hand.
Oh and look, Pharrell too!
But why isn't anyone re-posting/getting all ecstatic about this?
As well as him signing NDAA (allows indefinite detention of citizens "under suspicion of undefined terrorism" without due process, signed on new years eve when everybody was getting drunk after he said he'd veto it, makes Patriot Act seem like child's play), and the bottom line of the Benghazi-gate in the making. I'm glad he defended Rice, who lied to the American people on national television, multiple networks, the day after the 9-11-2012 attack.
He said "if you're going to go after somebody, go after me" and got angry at people criticizing Rice during his press release, but I loved Graham's response: "Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack."
------
Additionally, as a direct response to the previous poster's argument:
You are arguing someone's argument that was filtered from Keynesian concept.
There's also classical economics that states the economy is guided by an "invisible hand," will correct itself naturally due to the laws of supply and demand, instead of regulating and intervening, much less all the time and without compromise.
The debate between Classical economists and keynesian economists is one that will never end like between the GOP and democratic party.
That bank bail out was really what we needed, too. What a prosperous stimulus package
Obamacare is more like Obamadontcare, or not-AppleCare, because tons of small businesses are shutting down since the marginal cost of hiring an additional worker is less than that of marginal product with the plan in effect. Denny's hasn't done it supposedly but it might be more common to see a 5% obama tax on your tab to cover the restaurant/facility's costs:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/dennys-pancakes-with-a-side-of-obamacare-tax-not-yet/
The DOW flopped 200 points the day after Obama's re-election, but somehow it wasn't at all stated in the news but rather that the European crisis heating up (as it always is) was the sole reason not the fact that Wall Street has/had little faith in Obama. I'm just growing tired of hearing blatant, going-out-of-one's-way to deny. It's an instant flag to me for diehard partisanship. Liberal media doing blackouts of crucial facts and perspectives can only be to blame as well.
Meanwhile, Bush botching things 4 years ago for the his 2 terms is really the reason we haven't seen any movement these past 4. And in another 4, Bush 8 years ago for his 2 terms will still have been what messed us up. Sigh. Plenty of blame to go around in all directions, but like Mitt or not, don't see how people could have hated him so much. He hadn't been the one in Oval Office to screw things up, no damage had been done up until that point? Sure, maybe you don't like certain views of his on his campaign, but that was his campaign, and all campaigns are lies to get you hyped up. Aren't you perceptive enough to realize an Obama ad or a Romney ad is to feed onto your emotions, targeted to your demographic, and not produced by facts in any way? If memory serves me right, the general population of college students/fresh into the workforce or hunting circa 2008 were convinced Obama would eradicate all Bush ugliness and would also extinguish class warfare as well as fix the economy and cure cancer (hell, why wouldn't he be able to? he was seen as some sort of messiah for the dirtiness and ineptitude of politics)
Mitt shouldn't have said that 47% comment, and he did run an awful campaign by alienating himself from the all minorities that collectively isn't quite as miniscule a "minority" as it would sound like. Living proof of Mitt's bad campaign is that we got a president re-elected in the poorest of modern economic times, even when popular vote was close the electoral vote was a blowout. Even if Mitt won, I'd say with those numbers (100 lead in electoral, and neck-in-neck in popular vote), our democratic system needs serious, serious reform. Oh and didn't matter anyways, but Florida took a week to get results? WTF??
I don't see how we can beat around the Bush here (pun intended), might as well have been in an Austin Powers cryo-chamber for the past 4 in terms of raw, unbiased results demonstrating improvement, let alone significant improvement.
Unemployment during the campaign was 7.8%, lowest its been in forever, down from 8.1% as the numbers just before that. I don't know about you, but to me, 7.8 and 8.1 is like arguing over pennies for an hour. It's still bad. "I just got a D+, and it's a plus not a minus so HOORAY" Plus I still don't "buy" into 7.8, that number was either cooked or it was falsely represented as a sign of a better economy because it didn't take into account the amount of people who dropped out of looking for jobs. If you aren't in the market, you don't count.
Can't remember ever saying "Hooray [insert president]"
It's concerning the amount of 'rock star' status the president has, no matter the party affiliation. It's a good thing he has a knack for meme worthy photos every 5 seconds as well instead of just doing his task at hand.
Oh and look, Pharrell too!
But why isn't anyone re-posting/getting all ecstatic about this?
As well as him signing NDAA (allows indefinite detention of citizens "under suspicion of undefined terrorism" without due process, signed on new years eve when everybody was getting drunk after he said he'd veto it, makes Patriot Act seem like child's play), and the bottom line of the Benghazi-gate in the making. I'm glad he defended Rice, who lied to the American people on national television, multiple networks, the day after the 9-11-2012 attack.
He said "if you're going to go after somebody, go after me" and got angry at people criticizing Rice during his press release, but I loved Graham's response: "Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack."
------
Additionally, as a direct response to the previous poster's argument:
You are arguing someone's argument that was filtered from Keynesian concept.
There's also classical economics that states the economy is guided by an "invisible hand," will correct itself naturally due to the laws of supply and demand, instead of regulating and intervening, much less all the time and without compromise.
The debate between Classical economists and keynesian economists is one that will never end like between the GOP and democratic party.
That bank bail out was really what we needed, too. What a prosperous stimulus package
Obamacare is more like Obamadontcare, or not-AppleCare, because tons of small businesses are shutting down since the marginal cost of hiring an additional worker is less than that of marginal product with the plan in effect. Denny's hasn't done it supposedly but it might be more common to see a 5% obama tax on your tab to cover the restaurant/facility's costs:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/dennys-pancakes-with-a-side-of-obamacare-tax-not-yet/
The DOW flopped 200 points the day after Obama's re-election, but somehow it wasn't at all stated in the news but rather that the European crisis heating up (as it always is) was the sole reason not the fact that Wall Street has/had little faith in Obama. I'm just growing tired of hearing blatant, going-out-of-one's-way to deny. It's an instant flag to me for diehard partisanship. Liberal media doing blackouts of crucial facts and perspectives can only be to blame as well.
Last edited:
As oppose to someone like Mitt right
Yes, someone who turned around a state economy, the winter olympics, and numerous companies is surely clueless about the economy. We'd be much better off with a career politician who has absolutely no leadership experience, never mind any economic experience.
Mitt will still be the best thing that could happen to the US in 2016, but I'm afraid that he probably won't be running again.
"And then you'll get massive protests of all the old people. They don't exactly have anything better to do."
So what, They have had more benefits and privileges than any previous generation, and now all this debt is hurting future generations. I doubt any previous government has given as much to their elderly. I also doubt my generation and any future generations will have nearly as much as they did (unless Americans willingly choose to be so stupid, which they might.) I'm grateful for their generation's contributions, but don't feel obligated to pay them back forever. We need to let go of the past now, so that future generations might have a glimmer of anything they have enjoyed.
I would tell them politely and respectfully to suck it!
Do you like your grandchildren? Great! Do you want them to have a bright and happy future? Wonderful. The only way we can have a realistic shot at that is to make some really difficult sacrifices right now. I know you don't like it, but you have to think about your grandchildren now. They need your help now.
Life moves on!
"This has already been tried under European communism, it doesn't really work."
Ok. I honestly didn't know that. What happened specifically? What do you suggest we do?
"Politicians are shockingly underpaid as it is - perhaps like every other job there is a correlation between low pay and poor performance."
No they aren't.
They are also "public servants" who should serve out of whatever national pride or personal duty they can muster. They should not be motivated by money.
Abraham Lincoln didn't take or serve office for monetary reward.
I say they should have a fair market value pay (capped at 75k-100k/year) conditional upon satisfying transparent performance metrics and reviews.
All pay raises are subject to citizen vote once every 15 years.
"So basically you're saying that the US president should be paid less than a software developer at Google."
These are two entirely different things.
Do you think he should make 50 million because Michael Jordan was paid a lot?!
Google pays what they want with their own private money. That's fine!
If my president's pay comes out of my wallet (which it does), I want to have a say in how much I think he deserves (which I don't and should. Not fine!)
For the record, I'd probably cap him at 150k/year because he honestly doesn't NEED any more to be comfortable and do his job well. If a president makes more than that, then people will likely want the job for monetary purposes (in addition to power.)
"So how are you going to balance the budget?"
Everything I said earlier.
So what, They have had more benefits and privileges than any previous generation, and now all this debt is hurting future generations. I doubt any previous government has given as much to their elderly. I also doubt my generation and any future generations will have nearly as much as they did (unless Americans willingly choose to be so stupid, which they might.) I'm grateful for their generation's contributions, but don't feel obligated to pay them back forever. We need to let go of the past now, so that future generations might have a glimmer of anything they have enjoyed.
I would tell them politely and respectfully to suck it!
Do you like your grandchildren? Great! Do you want them to have a bright and happy future? Wonderful. The only way we can have a realistic shot at that is to make some really difficult sacrifices right now. I know you don't like it, but you have to think about your grandchildren now. They need your help now.
Life moves on!
"This has already been tried under European communism, it doesn't really work."
Ok. I honestly didn't know that. What happened specifically? What do you suggest we do?
"Politicians are shockingly underpaid as it is - perhaps like every other job there is a correlation between low pay and poor performance."
No they aren't.
They are also "public servants" who should serve out of whatever national pride or personal duty they can muster. They should not be motivated by money.
Abraham Lincoln didn't take or serve office for monetary reward.
I say they should have a fair market value pay (capped at 75k-100k/year) conditional upon satisfying transparent performance metrics and reviews.
All pay raises are subject to citizen vote once every 15 years.
"So basically you're saying that the US president should be paid less than a software developer at Google."
These are two entirely different things.
Do you think he should make 50 million because Michael Jordan was paid a lot?!
Google pays what they want with their own private money. That's fine!
If my president's pay comes out of my wallet (which it does), I want to have a say in how much I think he deserves (which I don't and should. Not fine!)
For the record, I'd probably cap him at 150k/year because he honestly doesn't NEED any more to be comfortable and do his job well. If a president makes more than that, then people will likely want the job for monetary purposes (in addition to power.)
"So how are you going to balance the budget?"
Everything I said earlier.
Last edited:
I haven't read all this thread but so far I'm finding it enjoyable. So long as we don't curse each other out, I don't see the harm in a difference of opinion.
Or we could discuss/speculate whether or not Obama has a Verizon or AT&T LTE iPad mini
I agree Obama is/was doing a terrible job. BUT, the Republican keep putting up far right wing religious nuts. That's the problem.
Surely you jest. Romney was far from an open book. The only time he was even close to an open book was behind closed doors with rich donors. Not only was he extremely vague and wishy washy on his politics he refused to release his full tax returns. Rather ironic and hypocritical that he required 10 years of returns from Paul Ryan. Mitt's own father released 10+ years and stated that anything less was a farce upon the American people.
And you find time to gripe about a college transcript. What rock have you been under for the past 16 months?
Except that it does. We all spend money, and there are plenty of corporate CEOs whose over-inflated salaries have been funded by we, their customers. Although I will definitely agree with you on several points:
Certain Republicans would probably want to see you hanged for such "heresy", but I can hardly find anything to argue against in what you said.
Would that more people understood this. Containing spending is a good idea -- except when you're in the middle of a recession and no one else is doing any spending. To further contract the economy when it is already weak is insane.
I get it, I get that we're deep into debt -- but please, blame the dumbass who put us there by starting two major wars and giving out tax cuts without giving a damn about how he was going to pay for them. He hobbled the economy way before Obama ever got there. Without Bush's financial incompetence, Obama's stimulus spending would still put us in debt, but a more manageable one.
Getting mad at Obama is beyond pointless. Think of it this way. Imagine you and your wife are traveling. She's driving and insists she knows the way. But in reality she missed the turnoff 150 miles back and you've gone way past your destination. You take over driving, and turn the car around back toward where you're supposed to be. And she's yelling at you because now the gas tank is getting low and there are no gas stations around. Whose fault is this situation? And what else are you supposed to do?
Cleveland Browns fans would beg to differ.
Says the man with an avatar of an Obama O stacked on another, signifying two terms and 8 years total, and a quote from the unbiased Bill Maher boasting how he spent a million for an Obama Super PAC in his signature.
I'm so glad we continued the war in Afghanistan as well. That was so much cleaner than what Bush did. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cliche, but relevant as ever. It'll be fun to see if his "withdrawal completion of troops in 2014" statement holds true.
I think you might enjoy my post just a few scrolls up
You are just spoon-feeding me supporting evidence as a loyalist.
Last edited:
I wonder if the 99% of America realizes that 99% of that 99% are in the top 1% richest people of the world.
Not sure if this is true, but I agree with the general sentiment.
"Being poor" in the US is not equivalent to "being poor" in a developing country, in any shape or form. "Being poor" by one's standards in North America could translate as far as "being comparatively rich and privileged" by one's standards in many others.
I've criticized Obama before and will do it again. For your part, it appears to be a lot easier to assail my avatar and Bill Maher's jokes than it is to come up with a plausible rebuttal.Says the man with an avatar of an Obama O stacked on another, and a quote from the unbiased Bill Maher boasting how he spent a million for an Obama Super PAC in his signature.
I'm so glad we continued the war in Afghanistan as well. That was so much cleaner than what Bush did. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cliche, but relevant as ever. It'll be fun to see if his "withdrawal completion of troops in 2014" holds true.
I think you might enjoy my post just a few scrolls up
You are just spoon-feeding me supporting evidence as a loyalist.
That "invisible hand" part is always hilarious though. Sure worked on the housing and banking industries, didn't it?
But you choose to fund those "over-inflated" salaries of YOUR OWN FREE WILL! When you pay a tax, you have no choice but to pay. That's the difference.
I think neither exclusively Keynesian nor classical theory can be fully implemented in a non-perfect closed model of the economy, only something that would be an excercise for economics homework. Theoretical doesn't mean in practice. I also don't resonate being a republican or democrat, I find they both have their perks but blindly siding with a party no matter who represents your party is silly (and I'm not suggesting you do, as I don't know anything about your voting style prior to 2008 and now, your opinions over the span of time, just here and now in this thread and I can only draw conclusions from what you have provided via avatar and signature, if it cannot be discussed you should not post it. If I post that I have a 2011 MBA, iPhone 5 32GB Black, ipad 3 16gb black wifi jailbroken, apple tv 2 jailbroken, apple tv 3 in my signature then it should be expected that I want people to know the products I own and should not be offended if someone doesn't agree with the ones I've chosen in terms of size, color, generation, or even product line). For example, socially in terms of tolerance of people of different religion, sex, sexual preference, etc etc is as liberal as it gets whereas fiscally the conservative side usually resonates with me more often than not. If I had to put a label on myself, it would be libertarian on principle. But the world isn't so black and white, cut and dry. It's gotten too ugly to where ideals perfectly fit within the puzzle pieces of solving situations.
I've criticized Apple before too, still doesn't mean I'm not a fanboy overall. Living proof of that is that I've owned more Apple electronics than any competitors since the 2nd generation touch-wheel iPod despite my issues with Quality Control, innovation running dry, etc etc. It remains to be seen if I will be an Apple fanboy if serious competition arises in terms of what I enjoy. I tried an iRiver H320 back in the day because I liked that even with the small screen, it was color when iPods were still black and white and that I could load videos on it before iPod video came out... I also have a Nexus 7 I got as a handmedown when a family member moved onto the mini to dabble with another platform, and had a Galaxy Nexus for a while, but returned to iPhone with the 5 (between 4S and 5, went GNex with that price drop) and in the end I learned Apple products are usually for me more often than not. That said, if someone wants to bash Apple I'm not going to lose a second of sleep over it.
What are your thoughts on the Benghazi attack and Obama's involvement? It could very well lead to his demise. blatant terrorist attacks off-shore occuring on 9-11 no less being covered up a response to "offensive videos" and now Obama fully supports Rice in her decision to mislead the population and states that if he were to re-elect her so be it?
Last edited:
The invisible hand would have bankrupted every bank and overextended home owner. The government bailed out both parties. In fact, without those implicit guarantees, those very same banks wouldn't have taken said risks. Hardly the invisible hand at work. Learn some economics before making a comment like that.
Why don't we look to the best and happiest countries in the world to live and try to emulate them (all progressive socialist countries.) Libertarian ideas might sound good to your ears but it will fail in the real world where people aren't perfect. We have a huge income gap and right now we might as well be back in an aristocratic society but without the stupid religious nonsense. These leaders in business are out to take advantage of whatever they can, it is always short term gains over long term (which is why China happened.) There is a better way.
To thank him for his support...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
----------
Because we're NOT those countries seems like a logical starting point. Because it isn't all sunshine and Unicorns in those countries seems like a second point...
Actually they succeed because people aren't perfect. The reality is the only way to take away a chance of failure, is to take away an equal chance of success. There is NO other way to do it.
Exactly how much of that pesky worthless Constitution and Bill of Rights do you stand against?
As they.re supposed to.
Wait a minute. Your example of bad is China, a Socialist regime? And this is supposed to motivate me to be interested in Socialism?
You are right about that...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
Except, libertarian principles are written in clear ink in The Constitution. Libertarianism supports the constitution, which outlines the way the nation was founded and meant to be run. You can argue that it doesn't work, but I argue it WOULD work. We've gotten so far away from the principles outlined by our founding fathers, they'd be ashamed of the country in its current state.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
-Ben Franklin
You're correct about banks not taking the risk without bailouts. So this is why the option of bailouts shouldn't have existed. People that shouldn't have been buying quarter of a million dollar homes on 10.50 an hour wouldn't have been able to do it. Then no bail out would have been necessary.
Affordable housing would have had to have been built to get people into a home. People would have had to engage their brains and problem solve, instead of taking the lazy way out. People living within their means, would have bought a house they can afford instead.
This demonstrated how to cause failure in the system by NOT letting the "invisible hand" do its job. Maybe YOU should learn some economics?