BF2S Forums State of the Union

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

youre against the US being better than Germany or China?

Hot air. We already have the biggest GDP in the world by a very wide margin.

Technically the communist EU have the biggest GDP in the world.

Macbeth wrote:

Spark wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Isn't all that data from January 2010 forward projections?  Today is still the 27th of January.

Actually it's all projections from the end of last October (as I'm not sure if Q4 09 data is out yet), but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably correct. The trend is quite clear.

[url=http://wallstreetpit.com/13069-stiglitz-us-economy-may-contract-in-the-second-half-of-next-year]Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warns that there’s a “significant” chance the U.S. economy will recede in the second half of 2010, and urged Washington to prepare a second stimulus package to spur job creation.

AP: “The likelihood of this slowdown is very, very high,” Stiglitz told reporters in Singapore. “There is a significant chance that the number will be in the negative range.”[/url]
A good few economist are warning a contraction could happen in 2010, mind you they want a second stimulus.

DonFck wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hot air. We already have the biggest GDP in the world by a very wide margin.

Technically the communist EU have the biggest GDP in the world.

This is true. Also, GDP per capita is more important, where the U.S. Falls out of the top 10. Then again, what a citizen can buy for their munnies is even more important (I.e. Purchasing power parity / The Big Mac-index) where the nation places about halfway into the top 10, but above EU countries. I.e. Americans get more bang for their buck when it comes to. On the other hand there's a lot of services which Euros get for their tax money which is not included in a medium price index.

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Wouldn't the fastest way to get out of a recession to lower the income tax significantly?  People would see the extra money in their next paycheck instead of authorizing all these government spending programs that only benefit government workers and companies with fat government contracts?

The last two porkulous bills I believe where mostly a waste.

Yes. Lowering the income tax does more than keeping taxes high and throwing money around. The latter just leads to corruption and graft.

Think you got it the wrong way around Galt ... keeping taxes high prevents throwing money around and most importantly borrowing money to throw it around ...

A lower income tax with a lesser debt would nomally do the trick for ya but the seriousness of the trouble you have now is not solved by increased personal spending ... you with an economic education should know this better than most ...

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-28 06:00:54)

Spark wrote:

As for the speech, I didn't even know it was on today. Can someone give me an objective and reasonably detailed overview of what was said? (I realise that this akin to asking someone to build a bridge across the Atlantic)

So much for all of that Washington talk about a midcourse change of political direction. If President Obama took any lesson from his party's recent drubbing in Massachusetts, and its decline in the polls, it seems to be that he should keep doing what he's been doing, only with a little more humility, and a touch more bipartisanship.

That's our reading of last night's lengthy State of the Union address, which mostly repackaged the President's first-year agenda in more modest political wrapping. "Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved," he said, in his most notable grace note.

He also showed more willingness to engage with Republicans than he or his party have shown during the last year of bending to the left on Capitol Hill. But whether this outreach is anything more than rhetoric will depend on a change of policy. And on that score, we heard mostly what Democrats used to say about George W. Bush and Iraq: Stay the course.

That was especially true on the two most important domestic issues of his Presidency—health care and the economy.

On health care, Mr. Obama offered a Willy Loman-esque soliloquy on his year-long effort, as if his bill's underlying virtues and his own hard work haven't been truly appreciated by the American public. He showed no particular willingness to compromise, save for a claim that he was open to other ideas.

And he re-pitched the health bill now in Congress with the same contradiction—covers more people but saves money too—that all but the most devoted partisans long ago dismissed as unbelievable. The President sounded to us like a man who is still hoping Democrats will find a way to sneak this monstrosity into law despite its unpopularity.

Mr. Obama's economic pitch also differed little from last year, when the jobless rate was 7.2%. He offered a spirited defense of the stimulus, though the jobless rate is now 10%, and he promised more of the same this year, especially on "green jobs." He also offered some minor if welcome tax cuts for small business, and $30 billion in handouts for "community banks" to be able to lend more.

Yet at the same time, he couldn't resist more banker baiting, and he promised that he's determined to see tax rates rise for millions of Americans next year when the Bush rates are set to expire. He also pushed more exports while saying he'll raise taxes on some of our biggest exporters, otherwise known as multinationals that "ship our jobs overseas." Mr. Obama believes he can conjure jobs and a durable expansion from the private sector while waging political war on its animal spirits. It can't be done.

This reflects a larger problem, which is his belief that economic growth springs mainly from the genius of government. Thus Mr. Obama presented a vision of an economy soaring to new heights on "high-speed railroad" and "clean energy facilities" and 1,000 people making solar panels in California. He seems not to appreciate that what really drives growth are the millions of risks taken each day by millions of individuals, far from the politicking and earmarks of Congress or the Department of Energy.

Many of the President's opponents will welcome this failure to change because they sense partisan opportunity. But our guess is most Americans will be disappointed because they sense a Presidency that began with such promise but now finds itself at a crossroads and doesn't really know what to do—except to stay on the same road that got it into trouble. This could be a long year.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-28 06:34:03)

Varegg wrote:

When your politicians is more than willing to stab eachother in the back over the common good of the country this is what you get ... your reps and dems is at a stalemate, one side is more horny for a failure from the other side that the well being of it's citizens ...

I'm amazed ...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

When your politicians is more than willing to stab eachother in the back over the common good of the country this is what you get ... your reps and dems is at a stalemate, one side is more horny for a failure from the other side that the well being of it's citizens ...

I'm amazed ...

Now you understand why I'm always yelling about states rights and a reduction of the federal government?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Now you understand why I'm always yelling about states rights and a reduction of the federal government?

Local government is also ruled by politicians and if the power shifts so will the mechanism that fucked up federal government ...

It's easier to replace those that lead the country than it is for those that lead to find a new country to govern

Sure it is, but it's much easier to hold local politicians accountable. And, worst comes to worst, you can always pack up and move to another city or state if the government gets out of control.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sure it is, but it's much easier to hold local politicians accountable. And, worst comes to worst, you can always pack up and move to another city or state if the government gets out of control.

You will NEVER be able to hold politicians accountable, if they fuck up they just leave politics and enter a private corporation in need of the very skills that got them in political trouble ... moving to another state is not an option for most people ...

This is one of the drawbacks with only two political parties ...

Eh, we've thrown plenty of dirty and corrupt politicians in jail over the years. Just never been done at the national level.

ATG wrote:

Sorry bud. You need to get up to speed somewhat on your own.

burnzz wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That was idiocy, yeah. He was never actually impeached though.

i thought he was impeached, not convicted. the charge wasn't "blowjob", it was lying in the Paula whatshername case.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-01-28 08:31:10)