Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Obama, 2012-2016 President of the United States of America

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 4:56am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

Is this fiscal cliff a small deal? Jon Stewart is worried about it. Perhaps it doesn't matter if The USA goes over this cliff at the end of this year. I understand little about economics. I am aware that Obama is working on this problem now. I worry when I get news of America shutting down because the government has failed to agree on a budget.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 5:04am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

s this fiscal cliff a small deal? Jon Stewart is worried about it. Perhaps it doesn't matter if The USA goes over this cliff at the end of this year. I understand little about economics. I am aware that Obama is working on this problem now. I worry when I get news of America shutting down because the government has failed to agree on a budget.

No, it's a really big deal. If the US goes over it, the US could go into recession. The fiscal cliff isn't the deficit, the fiscal cliff is a point where spending cuts agreed in 2011 will automatically go into effect, cutting 1000 government programs, and at the same time seeing an increase an increase in taxes due to a reduction in tax cuts. Whilst it may sound nice because it immediately reduces the deficit, many economists argue that this will adversely affect the economy overall, by such a vast decrease in spending. In the end, it boils down to balancing long and short term goals together.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 9:33am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

Nic I highly doubht you know more about American politics to me. I've lived here my whole life and I know just how corrupt the governemnt is and how it works. And don't you find it interesting? All that money he pushed into those solar companies and they all failed? They seemed to be doing fine before, why is it that they go broke when they get money? And why are we bailing out the banks? We should do exactly what iceland did, or was it greenland? Sorry, can't remember which, memory gets fuzzy in the morning. One of them told the banks to F off and it seemed to work wonders for them. And why is it that we are allowing a private corperation to print our money and then FEE us for doing it when we can create our own? Seems like somebody had to much moonshine that night.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 9:57am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

is 404011xz the same number guy that was blasting the forums a month or 2 ago?
he sure sounds like him. (just as brainwashed)

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:02am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

've lived here my whole life and I know just how corrupt the governemnt is and how it works. And don't you find it interesting? All that money he pushed into those solar companies and they all failed?

And just where do you learn your politics from? Hearsay, or actually spending an hour daily, going through the news and political sites?

And why are we bailing out the banks? We should do exactly what iceland did, or was it greenland? Sorry, can't remember which, memory gets fuzzy in the morning.

It is a myth that Iceland didn't bail out its banks. It did bail out some smaller financial institutions to quite a cost but it didn't bail out its three big banks " Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki " in October 2008. From early 2008, the Government (a coalition of the Independence Party, conservative and the social democrats, who now lead the Government) and the Central Bank did try to get loans from all and sundry to prepare for this eventuality " it did get a credit swap from the Scandinavian central banks of  Euro 1.5bn " but not enough to save the banks. That's why they did not bail the banks out.

The Icelandic Government has posted what amounts to 20-25% of GDP in bailing out " or trying to bail out " various other financial institutions and one insurance company. Virtually all nations have bailed their banks out when needed, to a certain extent.  Iceland never had an option to adopt the too-big-to-fail policy that led governments in the U.S. and Europe to prop up their banks. Assets held by Iceland’s three largest lenders had swelled to nine times the size of the economy, simply too large for the government to cope with, which led them to simply weather it out. After they defaulted on $85 billion in debt, the government seized control of them.

Anyhu, the Icelandic government did the opposite of what the Reps will ever do. The government  provided means-tested subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support.

In addition to easing consumer debt, Iceland reduced government spending and increased revenue by raising taxes and cutting deductions that mainly benefited the well-off. Does it sound like something the Reps are going to do? No.

All that money he pushed into those solar companies and they all failed?

Another common Romney attack, was that Obama spent 90 billion on solar energy. Well, Solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra and electric-battery maker Ener1, which got stimulus-backed help, qualified for less than $700 million in grants and loan guarantees, and didn't use it all.

Fisker and Tesla " troubled electric-car companies that got loan guarantees funded with money appropriated under President George W.Bush " had nothing at all to do with the $90 billion.

So, just what did make up the $90 billion?

The Council of Economic Advisers report cited by the Romney campaign breaks the spending into eight categories. Here’s the majority of it:

-About a third of the money, $29 billion, was for energy efficiency, such as '$5 billion to pay for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes.' States and local governments directed a lot of the money. Grabell’s book on the stimulus says about 600,000 low-income homes were made more energy efficient " with, say, new furnaces, thermostats, windows, insulation or repairs.

- About 20 percent of the money, $18 billion, was for traditional transit and high-speed rail. The money went to more than 30 states for infrastructure projects.

- More than 10 percent of it, $10 billion, was marked for modernization of the electrical grid. Utilities used the money to install digital meters to track energy usage in real time, and for things like sensors and substation devices.

Romney used the number '$90 billion' five times in the first presidential debate, claiming, "In one year, (Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world...into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1.'

That is incorrect in several ways. That $90 billion, as described in a report provided by the Romney campaign, wasn't provided in one year, wasn't distributed primarily via tax breaks, wasn't primarily provided directly to companies, wasn't primarily spent on solar and wind, and wasn't spent at all on Fisker or Tesla.

In reality, more than 60 percent of it was directed to state and local governments and utility companies for energy efficiency, transportation and electrical infrastructure .

And why is it that we are allowing a private corperation to print our money and then FEE us for doing it when we can create our own?

Only the Treasury prints money, where did you hear such a farcical rumor again, almighty political master who knows much simply because he has lived there?

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:12am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

no party I found the forumms 1 month ago and have recently crossed over from video game section. And I'm not brainwashed, I know the facts. Just so you know I was backing romney, I was hopping for Rhon Paul, now he would of helped the country, one of the few Non-corrupt people in the government. I'm sorry to inform you but the treasury doesn't print the paper monopoly money we have decided to use. It USED to be backed by gold, but now it's backed by air. And so you know I get all my info from my dad who when he gets home from a hard day at work READS all this from his many different sources. You really must question stuff more. Don't ever accept the "official" answer because there is always more to it than that.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:13am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

sorry for double post. I meant to say I wasn't, went through a little fast and forgot the 't

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:15am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

it didn't bail out its three big banks

it didn't bail out icesave and Landsbanki was bailed out by other european countries, up to 100.000 euro per costumer.
(or was icesave part of Landsbanki. i dont remember it that good anymore)

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:23am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

I'm sorry to inform you but the treasury doesn't print the paper monopoly money we have decided to use. It USED to be backed by gold, but now it's backed by air.

These are two different things. The Treasury's main duty is to print the money via the US mints. If you claim it isn't them, then find me what you think is priting all the money.

Secondly, yes the gold was backing the currency at a fixed rate of 35 dollars to an ounce. Unfortunately, a fixed exchange rate system means you have to constantly ensure a supply of gold, and sustain enough funds to maintain the system, preventing any increase or decrease in value. By the late 1970s, the US dollar was NOT worth as much as the 35 dollars to the ounce, due to a myriad of reasons, such as the sluggish US industrial growth, the growing cost of the Vietnam war, and the rise of the economies of other nations, such as Japan. The US had to lower the value of their currency, and take off the dollar from the gold value, as other nations threatened to turn in US treasury bonds for gold, of which the US had NOT enough to implement.

Guess who did it too? Nixon. Why are you then not blaming your own government?

And so you know I get all my info from my dad who when he gets home from a hard day at work READS all this from his many different sources. You really must question stuff more. Don't ever accept the "official" answer because there is always more to it than that.

It seems to me you are not ''questioning'' but using ''questioning'' as a convenient excuse to bash at anything we give you, and then to put forth a second opinion (of which no evidence has been given, only plain assertions), and we have to accept it, because by virtue, it is an opinion outside of Washington.

one of the few Non-corrupt people in the government.

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been named one of the most corrupt members of Congress in a new report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The report says Paul 'double-billed' his travel expenses a number of times over the last decade, meaning he may have been reimbursed for the same flights both under his official allowance as congressman, and by either non-profit groups under his control or his campaign committee. This has been confirmed by the libertarian group the Liberty Committee which conducted its own audit of Paul's finances shortly after the story, and found that 60 percent of the travel Paul had billed to the committee had been doubled-billed.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 10:23am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

your own government?

Your own party.

 
Reply to Obama, 2012-2016 President of the United States of America

You must be logged in to post a reply!