Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

Originally posted by Annee
So you refuse to directly answer the question.

Was Bush's war expenses included in his official expenditures or not?

You answer it since it seems you know, AND is a big issue with you. I'm not in a debate with you, so I do not need to answer a question you already know.

Originally posted by wbf850
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

what a misinformed post. who controls congress right now, who controls the presidency. but besides that you dont even mention spending all you talk about is increasing revenue (tax increases). come on give me some balance. or focus on reducing spending. its just basic economics!

But if they reduce government spending it won't advance their Socialist One World government! You have to understand that there are those who wish to subvert the Republic and innate human rights(hence the attacks on spirituality).

These people are pathological liars, they are beyond rescue.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezzer, that is unquestionably the stupidest thing I have ever seen you say. Ever. And let's be fair, you've given yourself a lot of competition in this regards. You've just triumphed over yourself, and to be frank, i'm kind of looking on in awe. Your statement here was so utterly ridiculous that it went all the way around and became wildly impressive.

So bravo.

I think that if you look up facts, you'll see that the current administration's spending is about 1/8 that of the former Bush administration's. Granted, Obama's only had three years to Bush's eight, but if things remain constant, he'll still end up having spent less.

Now, I know you're not any sort of economic wizard. Nevertheless, I want you to run some math through your head.

If you take a gigantic paycut, is it a good time to buy that yacht you've always wanted? If you just spent all your savings account at the races at a total loss, should you seek a loan for a new home?

No, of course not, right?

That's what happened between 2001 and 2003, however. The Bush Administration, along with a complicit Congress, drastically cut the national income - their massive tax breaks. They then EXPLODED the spending. Massively so. Most of it went towards waste. Total, complete waste. Not just hte waste in those wars, but waste all around. Crony contracts. useless purchases. Loans and bailouts to buddies. Millions and millions and millions of dollars on pallets "lost" - with no investigation.

Yes, it #ing IS the Republicans' fault, and more to the point, it's YOUR fault for voting for the useless bastards.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Now the representative from the S&P goes on to point out specifically one of the issues that greatly contributed to the downgrade.. and it's the Bush Tax cuts...

What a steaming pile of propaganda. Because of the tax cuts our government generated more revenue than ever before. People spent the money that was given back to them. What "hurt" us was congress's SPENDING increases. I don't know about everyone else, but when I have an overdraft in the checking account I stop writing checks!!!! Spending more money to get out of debt is like an alcoholic going on a drinking benge to get sober.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

If the current administration had never spent they way they have, thn we'd not be in this mess in the first place.

Blaming republicans is a shallow and baseless argument.

ahem.



Bush spent more in his administration than Obama plans to for the next 8 years.

Obama may be spending, but bush spent more. Quit crying about republican vs. democrat threads please.

Edit:
Also, the reason he points out the bush tax cuts is because it lost us $1,812 Billion. So yes, the Americans who wanted to pay the government less ended up digging their own hole. Maybe some of those Americans were opposed to tax cuts, but I doubt it since no one wants to PAY the government, they want to KEEP what they make.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Nope... but he does blame the tax cuts... that originated in that admin.

He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.

Actually, he doesn't blame any one thing. In factm, he doesn't point to anything that is to blame.

He merely suggests one way to recoup less than one-fourth of the (entirely bogus) deficit "cuts" the deal pretends to have made.

4 trillion over a decade?

The debt at this very instant is ocer 14 trillion dollars and predicted to go up by 10 to 15 trillion over that same decade.

But 950 billion is gonna make the difference?

What a laff riot that claim is.

Harte

If I was Dictator the first thing I'd do is cut US Military spending. it makes up 42.8% of Global Military expenditures the next highest spender is China at 7.3% of the Global pie. I think we could trim this quite a lot and still be secure.

We spent 54% of our budget on this (not including wars and nuke programs) in 2009, 6.2% on education and 5.3% on health .....and sadly most of it is spent abroad.....

40% of Govt spending is financed by borrowing from the Fed, at this rate we could balance the budget and still spend 10% on Military (keep ahead of China) and use the other 4% to pay down the debt we have...thereby lowering the interest piece every year from here on out....not only that we could keep the please don't increase taxes folk happy as well ..... (they still won't like this....because in every international "free trade and investment" agreement one will find a clause which exempts government programs and policies deemed vital for national security. Here is the loophole that allows the maintenance of corporate subsidies through virtually unlimited military spending...and as we have our Corporations selling weapons, (for massive profits), we get concerned and up our own spending on Military because we know what they've sold to all these questionable countries.)


Thankyou ....

www.globalissues.org...
www.outsidethebeltway.com...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Really. That's why there was a recession after the tax cuts, right?

There was a recession after the "housing bubble" burst because of irresponsible lending practices.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The housing bubble burst in 2006. That added to the problem, but the Bush recession started in 2002.

"Trickle down" economics do not work as stated. Supply-side is as much a myth as Jonah and the Whale, and you have to be absolutely deluded to believe in either. Stop hitting yourself, and open the door to reality.

Wow, trying to distort much? The housing bubble burst in 08. Democratic controlled Congress of 06 were the ones to over inflate an already slightly inflated industry.

Trickle down could work to a degree, problem is for the last 20-30 years it has been trickling down to foreign nations.

P.S Clinton started this depression back in the 90's with NAFTA and then the Dot com bubble. You lefties sure are a pathological bunch...


-------------
Why does everyone forget that the Democrats and Acorn and company bullied the banks into giving those bad loans in the first place? Heck Obama's actions before he became a Senator have more to do with this Depression(he helped organize the anti-Bank protest's) then anything else.

iusbvision.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Now the representative from the S&P goes on to point out specifically one of the issues that greatly contributed to the downgrade.. and it's the Bush Tax cuts...

What a steaming pile of propaganda. Because of the tax cuts our government generated more revenue than ever before. People spent the money that was given back to them. What "hurt" us was congress's SPENDING increases. I don't know about everyone else, but when I have an overdraft in the checking account I stop writing checks!!!! Spending more money to get out of debt is like an alcoholic going on a drinking benge to get sober.

edit on 6-8-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

First off, that's not propaganda.. that is a quote from John Chambers of the S&P

Second off... When you have the same president slash the budget by 950 billion, and then start a money pit of a war at the same time, well to use a bushism "That's what we in Texas call swagger".... Yeah... it was total cockiness....and stupid....

Don't get me wrong... you want to slash those taxes.. ok then now that the wealthiest portion of our nation are now taking 950 billion dollars back each year this guy thinks it was a good idea to also start a war on the backs of who? Not the wealthiest... the poorest... Yep that's right it's as if he said "Boys, put your checkbooks away, this one's on the blue collar guy!"

And all the while, deregulating the markets.... basically sowing nothing but financial mayhem and economic instability....

The worst part about that 950 billion a year...how much is sent away off shore in the bahamas, and not reinvested in businesses? We can tell by the amount of jobs which have been created right?

There is the fruit of the Republican policies over the last 11 years

The 800 lb Gorrilla in the room here is our Military Spending people ... and neither party is putting this on the table .... hellloooo in 2009 it was $0.685 trillion a year and we borrowed about $0.501 trillion, that means if we didn't borrow at all we could still outspend the next biggest player China (who spends at least double of other countries) by $67 billion most folks are getting drawn up into the divide and conquer charade we have at government of the corporations, by the corporations for the corporations .... here in the good ol United States of Corporation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezzer, that is unquestionably the stupidest thing I have ever seen you say. Ever. And let's be fair, you've given yourself a lot of competition in this regards. You've just triumphed over yourself, and to be frank, i'm kind of looking on in awe. Your statement here was so utterly ridiculous that it went all the way around and became wildly impressive.

So bravo.

I think that if you look up facts, you'll see that the current administration's spending is about 1/8 that of the former Bush administration's. Granted, Obama's only had three years to Bush's eight, but if things remain constant, he'll still end up having spent less.


Yes, it #ing IS the Republicans' fault, and more to the point, it's YOUR fault for voting for the useless bastards.

edit on 6/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

OK this is SO incredibly WRONG, and you obviously won't look up the statistics for yourself - so here you go buddy.

BUSH YEARS
Year Total Federal Spending Deficit
2001 1.863Trillion -127 billion
2002 2.011 Trillion 158 billion
2003 2.160 Trillion 377 billion
2004 2.293 Trillion 412 billion
2005 2.472 Trillion 318 billion
2006 2.655 Trillion 248 billion
2007 2.729 Trillion 160 billion
2008 2.983 Trillion 458 billion
TOTALS 19.166 Trillion 2.004 Trillion
AVERAGES 2.397 Trillion 250 billion

OBAMA YEARS
Year Total Federal Spending Deficit
2009 3.5 Trillion 1.412 Trillion
2010 3.5 Trillion 1.293 Trillion
2011 3.8 Trillion 1.645 Trillion
TOTALS 10.8 Trillion 4.35 Trillion
AVERAGES 3.6 Trillion 1.45 Trillion


So that means the Obama administration has spent 150% of the bush administration per year, and it has run deficits 580% !! higher per year

Obama has not spent 1/8 (12.5 %) as much as the Bush administration. His administration has spent 56% of the Bush total in just 3 years.

Instead of just listening to left wing propaganda try actually looking up the statistics, it will make you look far less foolish.

This is a two way street. While the obama administration has spent an insane amount of money, and gotten us farther into this mess, the tea party is of no help. They can be a great group, but their thought process is completely backwards. They're tired of putting out so much in taxes, but yet they stand by and fight for extensions on the tax breaks. Hello?! These tax breaks are not for you, they're for the upper crust, the top 2% of major business. If you give them tax breaks, guess what? The money has to come from somewhere, and i'll tell you exactly where, the paychecks of the members of the tea party. Sadly they're cutting their own throats.

Tax the upper 2% and cut spending, it's really not that hard.

Reply to post by beezzer

Jesus, you're so blind that it does no good to argue.

When even the S&P admits that its the previous administration, it's time to move on.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Why the hell are you people arguing over who spent more? Does it really matter? They both spent more money than we had coming in.

There are so many things that can be safely cut out of the budget to bring spending back in line, but Congress is too corrupt and inept to do it.

reply to post by proximo


for comparative purposes we should stip out the interest payments on the debt inherited by both glorious leaders to see the real picture of their out of control spending.....

lets face facts the whole lot of them borrowed hideous amounts of money to prop up the Arms Trade Industry, you know we give Military Aid to countries such as Pakistan etc .. with the priviso that they buy American arms .... I'd rather just give the money to the folks that would be out of a job here than send weapons to these lovely countries....or perhaps they could fix our bridges / dams and flood defenses instead .. that might have helped us some this year .....