Obama is a deceiver! (more appropriate)

[Suntelia Aion]

Hawaii is America. I believe citizens from every country deserve the right to be president by my standards,. I don't get why this matters

It tends to come down to a fallacious claims made by Conservatives, and I really do not want to see this s**t..

Americans are people from other countries because they are immigrants and descended from immigrants. This is the Melting pot.

If Obama really hates America then he wouldn't be a National Socialist, since Hitler loved Germany and was more of a Conservative in his views...

He was a fascist like Bush, militant, and outlawed abortion and feminism... He aimed at religious freedom by persecuting Zionists, occultists, and anybody who didn't agree with his agenda..

He was a Nationalist, which means, he was anti-world, and pro-German.... He wanted a "supreme" white race ...

Hell, even Americans were praising Nazism during WWI and WWII! Conservatives...

You all act like Hitler. You are all Nazis. There's no difference between Conservative behavior and Nazism.

[Twilight Scribe]

Romeigh

Obama is all about bullshitting.
He just keeps talking and talking, but nothing really gets done.
He 'promises' to stop spending, but look where we are now!
In trillions of debt!!!

The debt isn't his fault - he inherited the crappy economy, you can mostly thank Bush for that. As well, there was just a big problem with the American economy in general - the credit and the mortgaging especially.

All in all, I am finding this to be hilarious. Your ignorance amuses me.

@Suntelia: The Nazis are at the far right end of the political spectrum, the right is conservatives, whereas, the Soviets would be at the far left end. However, it is quite funny to look at how similar the two of them are.

[Florabora]

@Twilight: If it isn't partly Obama's fault, I wonder why he suddenly makes this promise of "no longer spending trillions."
It came out of his own ******** mouth. rolleyes
Your ignorance amuses me even more, love.

Also, all those commas you have everywhere in your post aren't at all necessary.

[Florabora]

Phukking Writch

Romeigh

Leprechaun and the Voices

[ L E P R E C H A U N ]

Romeigh, original poster... I just can't hold my tongue.
I don't mean to offend, or oppress you. You never have to reply, and I won't bother you any more than the following message:

You (along with anyone like you) are slowly decaying any faith I have in the success of the human race.
I firmly believe that you (plural) are causing the downfall of society.
I'm sorry to be acquainted to you.

Thanks for your time.

rofl

Glad to hear, "sir".
No offense taken.
I feel the exact same way toward every person that is supporting Obama- which will somehow 'lead' to the downfall of America and the human-race overall razz

And the cycle continues.

[Headybear]

Romeigh

@Twilight: If it isn't partly Obama's fault, I wonder why he suddenly makes this promise of "no longer spending trillions."
It came out of his own ******** mouth. rolleyes
Your ignorance amuses me even more, love.

Also, all those commas you have everywhere in your post aren't at all necessary.

Political banter. Every time an opposing party in the past has called for "fiscal responsibility," a leader or party chairman has said "We'll spend less."

Means nothing.

What is most concerning is that the party politics of America ignores mechanisms of public spending and merely compares an entire country to personal debt.

[Florabora]

Get Heady

Romeigh

@Twilight: If it isn't partly Obama's fault, I wonder why he suddenly makes this promise of "no longer spending trillions."
It came out of his own ******** mouth. rolleyes
Your ignorance amuses me even more, love.

Also, all those commas you have everywhere in your post aren't at all necessary.

Political banter. Every time an opposing party in the past has called for "fiscal responsibility," a leader or party chairman has said "We'll spend less."

Means nothing.

What is most concerning is that the party politics of America ignores mechanisms of public spending and merely compares an entire country to personal debt.

But according to Obama's plan, he will be spending at least $800 billion by the end of his presidency term.
I know I exaggerated the amount to "trillions," but I'm saying I simply disagree with his decisions and plans in order to make America (and it's economy) grow and succeed.

[Headybear]

Romeigh

Get Heady

Romeigh

@Twilight: If it isn't partly Obama's fault, I wonder why he suddenly makes this promise of "no longer spending trillions."
It came out of his own ******** mouth. rolleyes
Your ignorance amuses me even more, love.

Also, all those commas you have everywhere in your post aren't at all necessary.

Political banter. Every time an opposing party in the past has called for "fiscal responsibility," a leader or party chairman has said "We'll spend less."

Means nothing.

What is most concerning is that the party politics of America ignores mechanisms of public spending and merely compares an entire country to personal debt.

But according to Obama's plan, he will be spending at least $800 billion by the end of his presidency term.
I know I exaggerated the amount to "trillions," but I'm saying I simply disagree with his decisions and plans in order to make America (and it's economy) grow and succeed.

The mechanisms of debt and public financing are the mechanisms man. It's a debt-double-standard - and the debts incurred by financing health insurance reform are self-incurred, circular, and put no burden on future generations due to the fact that they will be making assets, something that's equitable, and structural, and not completely liquid (money is the liquid asset).

$800 billion in context to the $14.2 trillion US GDP is only 0.0563380282 = 5.634% of our entire output, which, by comparison is minor due to the fact that $2,414,000,000,000 is currently spent on health, which is 17%.

5% to bring down a large 17% chunk? That's worth pursuing.

[Florabora]

Get Heady

Romeigh

Get Heady

Romeigh

@Twilight: If it isn't partly Obama's fault, I wonder why he suddenly makes this promise of "no longer spending trillions."
It came out of his own ******** mouth. rolleyes
Your ignorance amuses me even more, love.

Also, all those commas you have everywhere in your post aren't at all necessary.

Political banter. Every time an opposing party in the past has called for "fiscal responsibility," a leader or party chairman has said "We'll spend less."

Means nothing.

What is most concerning is that the party politics of America ignores mechanisms of public spending and merely compares an entire country to personal debt.

But according to Obama's plan, he will be spending at least $800 billion by the end of his presidency term.
I know I exaggerated the amount to "trillions," but I'm saying I simply disagree with his decisions and plans in order to make America (and it's economy) grow and succeed.

The mechanisms of debt and public financing are the mechanisms man. It's a debt-double-standard - and the debts incurred by financing health insurance reform are self-incurred, circular, and put no burden on future generations due to the fact that they will be making assets, something that's equitable, and structural, and not completely liquid (money is the liquid asset).

$800 billion in context to the $14.2 trillion US GDP is only 0.0563380282 = 5.634% of our entire output, which, by comparison is minor due to the fact that $2,414,000,000,000 is currently spent on health, which is 17%.

5% to bring down a large 17% chunk? That's worth pursuing.

I was told otherwise sweatdrop (about the tax burdens on future generations.)
If what you claim is true, then I suppose there is nothing to worry about.

[Headybear]

Romeigh

I was told otherwise sweatdrop (about the tax burdens on future generations.)
If what you claim is true, then I suppose there is nothing to worry about.

From economist Dean Baker, and echoed in almost every modern Macroeconomics textbook:

Quote:

It is easy to see that the national debt is not really a measure of intergenerational burden. While the taxpayers collectively can be seen as owing the debt, taxpayers (or at least some of them) also own the debt. This is not a payment across generations; it is a payment within generations.

Whether or not the debt has made future generations poorer will depend on how it was incurred. If we ran up debts so that we could finance schools and colleges, and make sure that our children and grandchildren were well educated, then we probably made them richer than if we didn’t run up debt but left them illiterate. Similarly, if we ran up the debt to construct a modern physical and information infrastructure, then we probably made future generations much wealthier than if we had handed them a country that was debt free, but had no Internet and no computers.

In short, the debt is not an accurate measure of whether we have been generous to or short-changed the generations that come after us. The answer to that question depends on the economy and society that we pass on. There are many scenarios in which we would have impoverished future generations, even if we were to hand them a government that is free of debt or alternatively left them very wealthy, even if there is a substantial government debt.

Quote:

The measure of the deficit’s impact on the living standards of future generations is not the size of the debt in dollars or even the size of the debt relative to the size of the economy. The impact of the deficit on future living standards would be reflected in the rate of productivity growth. If the deficit has actually hurt the living standards of future generations, then it would be because deficits lead to slower productivity growth than the country would have otherwise seen.

The other thing people cry is that "China will be owed more debt," but since any social program will be borrowed and funded internally (mind you, China will still be owed more debt thanks to trade policy, which is mutually exclusive from the debt incurred from health insurance reform).

[Florabora]

@Get Heady: Just bringing up the topic about the education that the U.S.A. provides (located within the quote you gave): While I admit the education the U.S.A. gives to it's students aren't exactly poor, I can shamefully admit our system is falling behind compared to other countries' systems (like Japan and Pakistan.)
Many kids within my grade level do not even know what a noun is, nor do they know how to multiply numbers with more than two digits. Sad, yes? (I'm a freshman in high school.)
Not only that, they also have very poor reading skills, and I'll let you know I'm not exaggerating. neutral
I honestly think they spend way too much time reviewing things from 3 years ago, rather than teaching us new material. Not a good thing at all.

As for the rest of the quote you have provided, it is well appreciated. I can actually understand our situation a little better after reading.
Thanks.