El Presidente In 2012?

You'll never catch me claiming that deficits of 10% of GDP are sustainable in the long run. Three to 3.5% is what it should be in any normal year if you run a deficit at all in a normal year. However, 10% of GDP for two to four years may be necessary during the most severe economic down turn the past three quarters of a century.

TTH,

Politically we are often on the same page. I do feel the need to point out that just as Afghanistan is not Obama's war as claimed by Michael Steele it also is not Bush's war.

But the US had to go into Afghanistan in 2001. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I disagree that Afghanistan isn't Bush's war. Yes, it was probably a wise decision to go into Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002. However, Bush bungled the initial invasion, especially at Tora Bora. He also bungled the aftermath of the initial invasion by failing to get out of Afghanistan quickly; by failing to have any idea about setting up a stable government before leaving; and by creating the Iraq fiasco, which insured that we would not devote the resources necessary to do the job correctly in Afghanistan.

You'll never catch me claiming that deficits of 10% of GDP are sustainable in the long run. Three to 3.5% is what it should be in any normal year if you run a deficit at all in a normal year. However, 10% of GDP for two to four years may be necessary during the most severe economic down turn the past three quarters of a century.

. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't know what the right numbers should be but I'll agree that higher deficits during truly extraordinary times make some sense and should be expected. That said they should primarily result from lower revenues (taxes) than the prior period vs. taking on new spending programs that when the economy recovers will be tough to cut, practically speaking.

. I'd spend 90% of my personal GDP to protect my family if the threat was real and imminent. Frankly, I think so would you. So, it is more important to discuss what you are trying to accomplish...than % of GDP.

. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Well it appears that we are try to accomplish world (oil) dominance so that 10% of our population can enjoy 90% of that benifit and then turn around and bitch about the % of taxes they pay to continue their quest to stay in power!


You do realize that giving those poor ignorant folks the right to vote means you gotta take care of them enough so they won't turn on the wealthy by raising their taxes enough to actually pay for the Defense they are getting.

Running around talking as a major topic about % of GDP related to defense is like running around talking about how much we spent on our pick-up related to ranching. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

If by that you mean that running around in a army of trucks that made the difference between your operating profit being in the black or red then it might be worth taking a look at. I gurss you could reduce the feed and healthcare to your ranchhands but IMHO that is not a long term outlook that I would want my Boss man to consider. Rancher ain't careful he'll have plenty of shiny new trucks and his ranch will be in hock to some ranching chinamen! He might just run'em off with his shiny new trucks but not sure if the gas man will take to much more of his funny money without a all out war.

We used to fight over water right, now its oil. That is what this is all about and for the last hundred years we been coming out ahead. Never know what the future holds other than no country stays on top forever.

I disagree that Afghanistan isn't Bush's war. Yes, it was probably a wise decision to go into Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002. However, Bush bungled the initial invasion, especially at Tora Bora. He also bungled the aftermath of the initial invasion by failing to get out of Afghanistan quickly; by failing to have any idea about setting up a stable government before leaving; and by creating the Iraq fiasco, which insured that we would not devote the resources necessary to do the job correctly in Afghanistan. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No this is Obama's war. Bush knew enough not to send a shit load of troops. Obama raised the stakes there because that is what he needed to do to get elected. One of two really stupid things he promised while trying to get elected, the other was not taxing the so called caddy healthcare plans.

Obama is charging in like Gen. Custard. We care about the Middle East people just like we cared about the Indians. Give us what we want or else.

Fuc Obama on this point, I'll not defend him.

Well it appears that we are try to accomplish world (oil) dominance so that 10% of our population can enjoy 90% of that benifit and then turn around and bitch about the % of taxes they pay to continue their quest to stay in power! Originally Posted by WTF

And the problem is???

...Three to 3.5% is what it should be in any normal year if you run a deficit at all in a normal year. However, 10% of GDP for two to four years may be necessary during the most severe economic down turn the past three quarters of a century. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

For what?

To squander it on phony "stimulus" packages that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with stimulating favored political constituencies? Very little of the money even went toward needed infrastructure maintenance or development.

Arguments in favor of this type of "stimulus" spending program are undergirded by thoroughly discredited economic doctrine. The only reason such arguments are enjoying a renaissance is that they give politicians an excuse to do what they like to do best, which is buy votes with other people's money.

...taking on new spending programs that when the economy recovers will be tough to cut, practically speaking. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

That cuts to the heart of another very big problem. Favored constituencies, once they get big tastes of government cash, are going to come back to demand refills time and again. Liberal politicians will be glad to oblige them if they can get away with the argument that the economy needs more "stimulus." There are more campaigns to run and elections to win. It's like the gift that keeps on giving, but in a negative sense.

Was anyone really surprised that Obama economic advisor Christina Romer announced her resignation? She was perhaps the leading cheerleader for the squandered stimulus package. This followed soon after budget director Peter Orszag decided to quit. You can hardly blame them. Who wants that sort of failure on his/her record?

These people are in a good position to smell the smoke. It's understandable that they want to get the hell out of the building before everybody realizes it's on fire.

Romer/Ostag? No surprise given that Summers was advocating different policies and Obama was listening to him. That was not Summers job but he has bureaucratic experience and made it that way.

No this is Obama's war. Bush knew enough not to send a shit load of troops. Obama raised the stakes there because that is what he needed to do to get elected. Originally Posted by WTF

Bush bungled it by going off to Iraq and letting Afghanistan fester. Afghanistan is a war both administrations are responsible for.

No surprise given that Summers was advocating different policies and Obama was listening to him. That was not Summers job but he has bureaucratic experience and made it that way. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Summers is well known to be very condescending to his colleagues and difficult to get along with. This is likely a factor, but I suspect that Romer found it distasteful to essentially be tasked with going out and making claims regarding the "success" of the stimulus package and all the jobs it was supposedly creating or "saving."

It's pretty hard to do that without looking like a laughingstock.

Multiple viewpoints on why Romer left; (NYT but it covers the various opinions out there in case anyone is interested) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...economists/?hp

Summers is well known to be very condescending to his colleagues and difficult to get along with. This is likely a factor, but I suspect that Romer found it distasteful to essentially be tasked with going out and making claims regarding the "success" of the stimulus package and all the jobs it was supposedly creating or "saving."

It's pretty hard to do that without looking like a laughingstock. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I've severed ties with more than one business partner/organization because I was no longer comfortable with the "company/party line" and didn't want my name associated with it because anyone that took the time to vet claims they could see they're BS.

I doubt I'm they only one here that's been in that position. If your most valuable asset is your reputation you can't afford to bastardize it.

No this is Obama's war. Bush knew enough not to send a shit load of troops. Obama raised the stakes there because that is what he needed to do to get elected. One of two really stupid things he promised while trying to get elected, the other was not taxing the so called caddy healthcare plans.

Obama is charging in like Gen. Custard. We care about the Middle East people just like we cared about the Indians. Give us what we want or else.

Fuc Obama on this point, I'll not defend him. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not sure that Obama is really doubling down. I know he sort of had to do so for appearance sake give than he ran right of HRC in the primaries. But he may be smart enough to quit listening to the generals and declare victory and retreat after 2012. At least I hope so. If not, he's is a fool and he will indeed have that much more blood on his hands. All that being said, however, we could have been out of Afghanistan before Obama ever started running for President had Bush not fucked up and gotten in the clusterfuck in Iraq.

Obama will win in 2012. And then we will have to have a revolution (a real revolution) to save America.

Sittin on the most boring conf call everand started scanning some social meda, blogs, etc. (& yes I do have quite a few liberal friends...)

I guess war spending is the big buzz topic....but here is what I don't get about a lot of liberals.....(and I'm not lumping WTF into this group)...is instead of just cutting war spending they just want to divert that money into other pressing needs: healthcare, education, social security etc.

I know this isn't new news...it just reinforced the fundamental difference between liberals and everyone else: the idea of actually just cutting spending is just foreign them.

Yep. Reducing their proposed enormous pork spending = budget cuts.