The 'Teleprompter' President

**HoustonRaven** · 04-05-2009, 09:14 AM

We have $15 Trillion in printed money right now.

And now a debt load that's around, depending on which side you listen to, $15 to 20 Trillion by the end of 2011.

Yet, Galen and others are still in their man crush, never seeing the forest through the trees.

Or maybe they do and actually want the ramifications of such a debt load.

Economics if not a left-right issue. Two plus two still equals 4, yet those on the left are trying to convince that it equals 5 with all these pie in the sky notions that all this spending will somehow work itself out into a greater economy.

**Galen Sevinne** · 04-05-2009, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

We have $15 Trillion in printed money right now.

And now a debt load that's around, depending on which side you listen to, $15 to 20 Trillion by the end of 2011.

Yet, Galen and others are still in their man crush, never seeing the forest through the trees.

Or maybe they do and actually want the ramifications of such a debt load.

Economics if not a left-right issue. Two plus two still equals 4, yet those on the left are trying to convince that it equals 5 with all these pie in the sky notions that all this spending will somehow work itself out into a greater economy.

ok so the debt matters this year because of a democratic president? talk about tired old arguments. Did it matter with Reagan? Bush?

The important thing now it will provide the spending necessary to move money get the economy going. There are few economists out there right now that are pushing a spending freeze...unless of course you are boner-brains.

Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, who happens ot be on the cover of Newsweek this week and is the economist getting the most exposure in the past couple of weeks is complaining that the spending is far less than what will be needed. I tend to think he knows a bit more than even you. which I am sure is hard for you to integrate into your world view.

But what do you want? Tax breaks and no spending. Ok like that never failed before.

**4G63** · 04-05-2009, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, who happens ot be on the cover of Newsweek this week and is the economist getting the most exposure in the past couple of weeks is complaining that the spending is far less than what will be needed. I tend to think he knows a bit more than even you. which I am sure is hard for you to integrate into your world view.

Didn't Al Gore win a Nobel for something?

http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/...-creation.html

**Galen Sevinne** · 04-05-2009, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by 4G63

Didn't Al Gore win a Nobel for something?

http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/...-creation.html

he did...for his illuminating work on climate change.

of course, conservatives don't believe in climate change because of exxon and other major oil companies funding Cato and Heritage foundations who happen to be the origins of the climate change denial industry. but that's a whole 'nother thread.

**4G63** · 04-06-2009, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

he did...for his illuminating work on climate change.

of course, conservatives don't believe in climate change because of exxon and other major oil companies funding Cato and Heritage foundations who happen to be the origins of the climate change denial industry. but that's a whole 'nother thread.

....while he flies around the world in private planes and spends more in energy bills in 1 month than you'll spend all year. He's a hypocrite and he's wrong. He did invent the internet though.... :liar:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/20...hts-on-for-ya/

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/..._id=367&cat=10

But I digress. This isn't about the idiot Gore. This is about your assertion that Paul Krugman wants to spend more. You, Krugman, nor anybody else, has said how they intend to pay for this deficit. (I know!!) Where is the money coming from? You also questioned Houston about Obama's spending and (as usual) you retort with a "well Bush did it!?!." Obama has spent more in 100 days in office than EVERY President before him COMBINED! That is a fact.

**Galen Sevinne** · 04-06-2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by 4G63

....while he flies around the world in private planes and spends more in energy bills in 1 month than you'll spend all year. He's a hypocrite and he's wrong. He did invent the internet though.... :liar:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/20...hts-on-for-ya/

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/..._id=367&cat=10

But I digress. This isn't about the idiot Gore. This is about your assertion that Paul Krugman wants to spend more. You, Krugman, nor anybody else, has said how they intend to pay for this deficit. (I know!!) Where is the money coming from? You also questioned Houston about Obama's spending and (as usual) you retort with a "well Bush did it!?!." Obama has spent more in 100 days in office than EVERY President before him COMBINED! That is a fact.

I didn't say Bush did it too...what I said was that when Republicans run a deficit then deficits are not a big deal. When a democrat runs a deficit then its the end of the world. Thats a double standard. Trust me that Obama and his team are quite aware that they are pushing the deficit but see no other solution. What is your solution? So far the Republicans have gone form the "Party of No" to the "Party of Nothing".

**Rochardrik** · 04-06-2009, 10:52 AM

NOT Spending is NOT an option. That was Herbert Hoover's approach. He didn't think the stock market should be messed with... He said the "Free Market" approach was the answer, and the market would work itself out... How did that work out? The conservatives, over the last few years have rewritten history, and said that the "New Deal' did not help the economy,.... but the recession would have never been the disaster it was if something was done sooner.. By that I mean the "New Deal" .. In addition, , when FDR started listening to his more conservative advisors, and stopped the flow of money in '37 and '38, the recession deepened (the situation HAD been improving), and did not start to turn around until the money started flowing again.. Then there was the biggest socialistic shot in the arm ever... WWII, and the subsequent "affordable housing " program for returning vets. which officially ended the depression.

**Galen Sevinne** · 04-06-2009, 11:20 AM

People are not spending money right now...if the government also stops spending then no one is spending and the economy tanks worse.

Spending is stimulus...investment until people start feeling confident enough to spend on their own. The only way this confidence will come is if people think it is safe to start spendinng again.

How does the government sending the the message that spending is not okay instill confidence?

**jonboy79** · 04-06-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

he did...for his illuminating work on climate change.

of course, conservatives don't believe in climate change because of exxon and other major oil companies funding Cato and Heritage foundations who happen to be the origins of the climate change denial industry. but that's a whole 'nother thread.

He invented climate change to gross immense profits from. Check the geologic record.