"...don't call my bluff..."

[Grim Reaper]

Of course, that ignores the trillions of dollars wasted in the just-past Congress by an entirely Democrat federal government in the name of "stimulus." Money that - we were promised - would stimulate the economy and keep unemployment below 8%.

And the trillions pissed away by President Bush magically don't count since they happened under a Republican president. At least the Democrats are trying to help people.

And it ignores the fact that the Democrat Congress funded the two costly wars that they now bemoan as wasted money - and the the Democrat President seems to have pretty much bought into the rationale that the previous, much maligned President put forth. I don't see us pulling out of Afgannistan or Irak, either one, within my lifetime, and that's based on Barry's assessment.

I suppose reality is a touchy subject for you? President Obama has reduced the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq by half.

And it ignores the fact that ALL of the Democrat proposals put forth for spending reductions are - in the usual Democrat fashion - no actual cuts now, but "if you follow my projections out there for the next ten or twelve years, we'll be saving trillions in the out years."

Which would actually be cuts since we'd be spending less money. You're just splitting hairs to keep arguing. Do you do maintenance on your car? Then you're just as bad as a filthy Democrat for spending a little money now to avoid spending a lot of money later.

And it ignores the fact that the size of this deficit is so horrific that one would have to tax high earners (or, in Democrat parlance, "The Rich") at a rate of approximately 500% to put a significant dent in it.

Fear and lies are the only tools at your disposal.

The fact is that spending would have to be drastically reduced, even if the Bush tax cuts were rolled back retroactively to the first of the year. By demagoging the tax issue, the Dems avoid having to make the painful decisions that they know will hurt them in the coming 2012 elections, so WHAT IS THE PLAN, ANDREW?

Where is it? Where are these Democrat "cuts"? And exactly what tax increases are they proposing that will make a significant dent in the deficit without precipitating a depression?

The Dems propose NOTHING. They propose ephemeral "cuts" that won't materialize for years and accept no duty to take responsible action now.

Here's a tip: Defining something so narrowly that nothing can reach the definition of it is no way to argue a point.

They have proposed cuts. You not liking how those cuts work does not magically mean that they have proposed nothing. All it does is make you look like a baby crying over spilled milk.

I think it's now pretty much official: Barry has succeeded in supplanting Jimmy Carter as the worst President since the Civil War.

President Bush already won that title by sending us into two countries, wasting trillions of dollars, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives (American and foreign), and not even getting the person who started the whole mess.

[dgs49]

Gobster:

The reasons why the various projections "don't add up" is that they are necessarily based on growth projections (for the overall economy) that are mere speculation. Differences in projections are the result of the Congressional Budget Office using a different assumed growth rate. Since the U.S. has (for now) a graduated income tax that is not indexed for inflation, even modest growth projections invariably fconclude that with the entire population growing into higher tax brackets year after year, overall Federal revenues ramp up dramatically, especially in the later years.

But this is all puffery. NOBODY has any idea what the growth rate will be, or even if there will be any economic growth. With the current principle resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, any projection of growth is based on nothing but vain hope.

This is why any "promised" spending "cuts" must be tangible and substantial and imminent. Which is where the Dems fall short. They don't want to even address cuts to any entitlement programs, because those entitlement programs are the currency of their bargain with the voters. Government goodies = votes.

MR GRIM REAPER PERSON, don't bother responding to my posts. You are an idiot, not worth engaging in a dialog.

[quaddriver]

Of course, that ignores the trillions of dollars wasted in the just-past Congress by an entirely Democrat federal government in the name of "stimulus." Money that - we were promised - would stimulate the economy and keep unemployment below 8%.

And the trillions pissed away by President Bush magically don't count since they happened under a Republican president. At least the Democrats are trying to help people.

A false comparison and a false argument. Strawman is the term I beleive...

No one is denying moneys spent under bush.

What I, Dave and others have pointed out is that the rate of expenditure has increased by not 10%, 20% etc, but by over 100% per year.

How much debt was wracked up while bush was president?

How much is being racked up now in a shorter term.

THAT is the issue. The rate of increase in bond issuance is the issue. The rat of increase in foreign investment is the issue.

Democrats helped many people - that is true. They bailed the financial houses that caused the meltdown, 100 cents on the dollar.

How much stimulus did *you* get?

Under Bush, for his faults, I recall getting not one, but 2 checks, both of which were used to purchase hard goods and hence stimulate the economy. Objective met.

Where was our Obama stimulus? I have read that he would like to increase business taxes on corporations and investment taxes on private business owners. Yeah, that'll create some jobs. I have read where 5000 or so rocket scientists were thrown out of work, along with the expected service sector drag. And my state alone laid off FOR GOOD over 3500 teachers. But McDs hired 50000 nationwide. That should help.

Defense of any Bush economic actions at this point is assinine. He has been out of office for almost 3 years. Defense of any Obama economic actions is irrational. Its like giving the 'nice guy award' to the person currently punching you in the face.

[Liberty1]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but BO and his cohorts have poured gasoline on the fire.

This is what's already happend, not even talking about the future.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... was-decad/

doubling the 2001 outlays over 10 years would have meant a 2011 figure of $3.72 trillion. Since the actual figure is higher than that, Coburn is right that the cost of government has doubled over the past decade.

What about Coburn’s second claim, that government expenditures are 30 percent bigger than they were when Obama became president?

For this one, it depends when you start the clock.

If you use fiscal 2008 as the baseline -- which we confirmed with Coburn’s staff was his intention -- then the comparison is just about right. Federal outlays increased by 28 percent between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2011, which is just below the 30 percent Coburn cited.

[liberty]

This crap has got to stop; I don’t care who the President or which party is in power. We can not stand for unemployment near ten percent and a runaway debt. We need more people working and taking less government money and paying more taxes. Obama has one year to turn it around and I don’t care what he has to do or he faces unemployment. He is so intelligent he has no excuse; it looks to some people likes he is destroying the economy on purpose.

[Long Run]

Since the U.S. has (for now) a graduated income tax that is not indexed for inflation, even modest growth projections invariably fconclude that with the entire population growing into higher tax brackets year after year, overall Federal revenues ramp up dramatically, especially in the later years.

As a point of clarification, general income tax rates are indexed to inflation and have been since the 1980s. The indexing is set to sunset at the end of 2012, but will almost certainly be renewed (for whatever limited time period is necessary to meet Congressional budgetary gimmicks). The amount of income subject to the alternative minimum tax (generally only paid by the top few percent of taxpayers) has not been indexed and is subject to Congress's will to increase it from time to time.

[Gob]

Nice graphic of the amounts being discussed.

If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now...but ~$700 billion- same amount the banks got during bailout.

[Grim Reaper]

What I, Dave and others have pointed out is that the rate of expenditure has increased by not 10%, 20% etc, but by over 100% per year.

Wrong. What you've done is repeatedly lie when reality doesn't suit your purposes. Which is why you only replied to a single part of my comment that you labeled a "strawman" argument because you didn't like what I said.

Democrats helped many people - that is true. They bailed the financial houses that caused the meltdown, 100 cents on the dollar.

You mean the stimulus that President Bush started? Good job covering a veil over what actually happened just to make an utterly pathetic attempt at a point.

Under Bush, for his faults, I recall getting not one, but 2 checks, both of which were used to purchase hard goods and hence stimulate the economy. Objective met.

Just because you got some cash doesn't mean it actually helped the economy. Especially since the economy went down the drains during President Bush's tenure. So, objective not met.

Where was our Obama stimulus? I have read that he would like to increase business taxes on corporations and investment taxes on private business owners. Yeah, that'll create some jobs. I have read where 5000 or so rocket scientists were thrown out of work, along with the expected service sector drag. And my state alone laid off FOR GOOD over 3500 teachers. But McDs hired 50000 nationwide. That should help.

Well decreasing taxes on businesses hasn't done much for increasing jobs either. They just pocket the money as pure profit. They have no motivation to hire more people if they can get away with fewer.

it looks to some people likes he is destroying the economy on purpose.

Only to the people who get their talking points from the Republican Party.

[quaddriver]

apparently 'haubscaby' has a better grasp of what is going on in the economy than grim reaper. nuff said.

[Grim Reaper]

apparently 'haubscaby' has a better grasp of what is going on in the economy than grim reaper. nuff said.

Childish response. Expected though since you frequently resort to lies and misinformation to keep your argument going.

[quaddriver]

apparently 'haubscaby' has a better grasp of what is going on in the economy than grim reaper. nuff said.

Childish response. Expected though since you frequently resort to lies and misinformation to keep your argument going.

no, I am not going to respond to your 'posts' when it deals with the economy. problem is, you are not even TRYING to understand what the problem is, and hence have nothing of value to say about which direction is good or bad. You are not even TRYING to gather the most basic of information, which is sad because I have more than once told people EXACTLY where to look. priveledges of working for the man perhaps, but everything I link out is public domain. it is every citizens duty to read and understand this stuff ESPECIALLY before they comment or they end up sounding like a douche.

I didnt think you were an Obama demagogue, but perhaps I was wrong.

just as it was pointed out a decade ago that people cannot justify Bush 2's actions by saying 'clinton did this', you cannot justify Obamas action by pointing at Bush.

Repeating: for all his faults Bush had a better grasp and better plan than obama does. Better here, is relative.

and fwiw: it does no good to point out how many 'wars' bush started (and congress paid for without question) as defense outlays under obama are LARGER and the number of countries we have boots on the ground or planes in the air is larger.

furthermore, while obama can only recommend budget items, the democratic controlled legislature passed the spending bills. the gop might have fingers in the ears,stomping the feet going 'nah nah nah', but this is entirely a DIFFERENT issue than the democrats spending every dollar in existence and over $1T of them yearly that aint in existance. if we were to continue on this path with a dem president and dem congress, in 4 years there would be a very real possibility that the yearly defecit will exceed the funded part of the budget. AND. THEY. DONT. CARE.

as I have pointed out numerous times (and no one has refuted simply because it cannot be refuted) a 100% tax on 250K and above earners, plus a zero defense budget STILL equals a defecit. the most basic implication of this fact does not hint, but STATES that the entire democratic plan is worse than vaporware.

in fact, one could do 5 minutes of calculator math and find out that NO TAX RATE POSSIBLE on EVERY earner in the US can solve the debt problem. well maybe thats not true, we can try the 100% on everyone and govt hands out all of lifes neccessities...mebbe thats the plan.

as for your now 2nd quip about tax rates of corporations and hiring: you demonstrate you dont have a clue and you dont care that you dont have a clue. in fact I will state with certainty that you demonstrate that you dont understand exactly what a corporate tax rate is and how it affects the balance sheet, hence hiring

dunno what you do for a living but some truths are evident:

a) it aint in finance. from the local bank level to budget department of anything to CFO of anything to CBO staffer
b) you have no desire to read, research or comment about actual items dealing with our economy or lack thereof.

so I should consider what you write on the subject as interesting why?

[Grim Reaper]

no, I am not going to respond to your 'posts' when it deals with the economy.

Acting like a baby is no way to go through life.

just as it was pointed out a decade ago that people cannot justify Bush 2's actions by saying 'clinton did this', you cannot justify Obamas action by pointing at Bush.

You have utterly misunderstood my posts on such a magnitude that I question your ability to understand the English language at all.

You people were utterly silent when President Bush was in charge. But now that a Democrat is in office, you're suddenly crying and bawling your eyes out over a deficit that you never cared about before.

Which coincides with the tantrum thrown by New Gingrich back when another Democrat was in office.

Repeating: for all his faults Bush had a better grasp and better plan than obama does. Better here, is relative.

President Bush is the one who took us from a surplus and dropped us down a deep deficit hole. Stop trying to whitewash history.

as for your now 2nd quip about tax rates of corporations and hiring: you demonstrate you dont have a clue and you dont care that you dont have a clue. in fact I will state with certainty that you demonstrate that you dont understand exactly what a corporate tax rate is and how it affects the balance sheet, hence hiring

And I can judge by your responses that you refuse to debate me and instead come up with condescending replies that mean absolutely nothing.

so I should consider what you write on the subject as interesting why?

The truths that you believe are so evident apply to yourself more than to me.

[Joe Guy]

as I have pointed out numerous times (and no one has refuted simply because it cannot be refuted) a 100% tax on 250K and above earners, plus a zero defense budget STILL equals a defecit. the most basic implication of this fact does not hint, but STATES that the entire democratic plan is worse than vaporware.

This 'quad' character that you've created is dumber than a box of rocks. You don't think anyone actually believes that there is somebody who is really that stupid, do you?

[liberty]

[ THEY. DONT. CARE.[/b]

?

Quad, I have great respect for Grim, but in this case I have to agree with you. Why can’t people see the danger here, we could loss everything we have; we could fall like the Soviet Union. This thing could destroy us. We have a great social welfare system; we take care of our people. But we only have it because we can pay for it. We have to turn this around. Besides taking in more money in taxes we have find places to save money.

One obvious place to save money is Puerto Rico. We should just get out without any kind of vote for statehood and give them their independence. We need to stop spending money there. All Puerto Ricans that are not in the US and have not declared their US citizenship by the date of separation would lose it and all rights and privileges that go with it. And those that do declare US citizenship would not be able visit Puerto Rica for the ten years. If they did they would lose their US citizenship. Those Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico that paid into Social security would get their money back in installments but would have no other claim on the social security system. We could save billions by getting rid of Puerto Rico.

[rubato]

"Quad, I have great respect for Grim, but in this case I have to agree with you. Why can’t people see the danger here, we could loss everything we have; we could fall like the Soviet Union. This thing could destroy us. We have a great social welfare system; we take care of our people. But we only have it because we can pay for it. We have to turn this around. Besides taking in more money in taxes we have find places to save money.
"

We have a crappy social welfare system and a bloated military budget.

We can cut $300 billion per year from the latter and not risk invasion by anyone. And we can cut the $200 billion we borrow to give to the rich in tax breaks.

Stupid. Republicans are like chickens. So stupid they are evil.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

Why can’t people see the danger here, we could loss everything we have; we could fall like the Soviet Union.

And instead of acknowledging and adjusting for that danger, people keep pointing to minor expenditures.

Balancing the budget should be like triaging a patient. You start with the big stuff first before moving on to scrapes and bruises.

Really, how much does the US spend on Puerto Rico? How much more could they cut by going after the bloat in the Department of Defense? Which one should be the priority? Because I bet by the time you work your way down the list to wherever Puerto Rico is, that it wouldn't be a problem anymore at that point.

[Liberty1]

Really, how much does the US spend on Puerto Rico? How much more could they cut by going after the bloat in the Department of Defense? Which one should be the priority?

So what are you european leftests gonna do when we stop keeping your but protected.

[liberty]

Why can’t people see the danger here, we could loss everything we have; we could fall like the Soviet Union.

And instead of acknowledging and adjusting for that danger, people keep pointing to minor expenditures.

Balancing the budget should be like triaging a patient. You start with the big stuff first before moving on to scrapes and bruises.

Really, how much does the US spend on Puerto Rico? How much more could they cut by going after the bloat in the Department of Defense? Which one should be the priority? Because I bet by the time you work your way down the list to wherever Puerto Rico is, that it wouldn't be a problem anymore at that point.

I got to go Lake Providence, will reply later. But let me say just this: Clearly they don’t want to join with us so why should we be there?

[Grim Reaper]

So what are you european leftests gonna do when we stop keeping your but protected.

You're going to have to come up with a better insult than that. Try to work in the fact that I have fifteen years of service with the United States military.

I got to go Lake Providence, will reply later. But let me say just this: Clearly they don’t want to join with us so why should we be there?

That doesn't answer my question at all. How much money would we actually save by cutting off Puerto Rico?

[quaddriver]

"Quad, I have great respect for Grim, but in this case I have to agree with you. Why can’t people see the danger here, we could loss everything we have; we could fall like the Soviet Union. This thing could destroy us. We have a great social welfare system; we take care of our people. But we only have it because we can pay for it. We have to turn this around. Besides taking in more money in taxes we have find places to save money.
"

We have a crappy social welfare system and a bloated military budget.

We can cut $300 billion per year from the latter and not risk invasion by anyone. And we can cut the $200 billion we borrow to give to the rich in tax breaks.

Stupid. Republicans are like chickens. So stupid they are evil.

yrs,
rubato

according to a recent poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, about 55 percent of registered voters say an annual household income of at least $250,000 qualifies as wealthy.

A good baseline for defining rich.

We have what a GDP some 14.7T. since GDP should = GDI, there is the sum of wages from EVERYONE, personal, buisiness surplus etc.

If business accounts for half of the amount, and if the rich have 30% of the income we find that if the rich paid ALL income in tax, we have a defecit.

until you surmount that problem, any solution you propose or support is vapor.