Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

Originally posted by lildaddy985
reply to post by proximo

 

I think that it is noteworthy that the 2009 expenditures (TARP, etc) were obligations that the Bush Administration enacted, so if you're going to start pinning stuff on the present administration, to be fair, you really should start blaming Obama for 2010 onward. You should also blame Bush for anything between 2002 and 2010. Bill Clinton's policies appear more like a bubble than an economic upswing if you hold him accountable for everything between 1994 and 2002. This also makes Bush Sr. look less like a failure. Long story short, Every president's first year of economic accountability starts about 14 months after they actually get elected.

Look, if Bush had been the president the last three years I have no doubt we still would have run deficits over 1 trillion a year. My responses were just to set the record straight about the actual facts.

Congress and the Fed deserve far more blame than any president does, they are the ones who allowed us to get in this mess and continue to do nothing but dig the hole deeper.

reply to post by HunkaHunka
You obviously have no idea how government works it doesn't matter who's republican and who's democrat it's just either corrupt as hell or not. don't be so naive

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

I've done nothing but read about this issue. Focusing on increases in taxes is myopic at best. No one, apparently, has the stones to admit that this administrations keynesian spending tactcs have caused this.

Yes, because before this administration, we had a budget surplus.everything was going groovy..mhmm.

-shakes fist at Obama for giving me a toothache also while I am at it-

reply to post by macman


It was the tea parties way or the highway. They refused any grounds for negotiations to me there refusal to compromise puts the fault directly at there feet.

Originally posted by lokdog
reply to post by macman

 

It was the tea parties way or the highway. They refused any grounds for negotiations to me there refusal to compromise puts the fault directly at there feet.

The tea party holds what percentage of elected office???

reply to post by Ancient Champion


You have been drinking to much of the kool-aid. They wanted spending cuts Obama offered them 4 trillion in cuts for 1 trillion in revenue. The tea party would rather see America burn to the ground than have a single penny in new revenues.

reply to post by macman


They are running 1/3 of the govt. so when they refuse any compromise nothing can get done without them.

reply to post by pavil


Read the S&P's report they downgraded the U.S.A debt becuase of the tea party and the game that was played with the tea parties refusal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.

Originally posted by lokdog
reply to post by macman

 

They are running 1/3 of the govt. so when they refuse any compromise nothing can get done without them.

Really? The republicans hold 1/2 of 1 branch. Yet you suggest they hold all the power?

You really need to go back and learn civics.

How many member of the House or Senate are Tea Party members??

reply to post by newcovenant


Concerning ignorant white trash Tea party. I'll forgo voter photo ID at the polls if you will agree instead that each voter must solve a 6th grade Algebra word problem before being allowed to vote. Let's see how many Secular Socialist versus Tea Party candiddates are elected.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". P.J. O'Rourke

Originally posted by billyjack
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Concerning ignorant white trash Tea party. I'll forgo voter photo ID at the polls if you will agree instead that each voter must solve a 6th grade Algebra word problem before being allowed to vote. Let's see how many Secular Socialist versus Tea Party candiddates are elected.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". P.J. O'Rourke

What's with the algebra? I'd be happy if they could add and subtract.
If they knew who was running, what they stand on, who funded their campaign and what the long term effects of this appointment will be on down the road. That would be something. You would see some changes then.

reply to post by newcovenant


That's my entire point, just something that indicates the voter has a clue. I think simple math is the easiest way to prove critical thinking skills.

Originally posted by billyjack
reply to post by newcovenant

 

That's my entire point, just something that indicates the voter has a clue. I think simple math is the easiest way to prove critical thinking skills.

I am with you 100% on that.
No argument. You are right.

Now if I can only figure out how much a hundred percent is......

Originally posted by macman
You think the bills being past are conservative???

Fundamentally the entire debt ceiling / spending cuts is a conservative plan.

"Liberal" economists don't want any discussion of spending cuts in a recession but rather MORE government spending to get people back to work...

Originally posted by jarHunter
Yes, because those tax cuts are the reason we are in DEBT.....get a clue!

Is there a point when we pay too much? Are we paying too much? Tax cuts means you are actually paying taxes in the first place. Could it mean that we are JUST spending too much? Our government is bloated on tax dollars and a extra 1.4t per year.

I got a plan, let’s create classes and label the upper 10% as evil and drain them more and more of their hard EARNED monies. Not only can we get a huge number of the lower 90% to vote for us, but we can give them the attitude of screw those who want a better life. If I made poor choices in life and my life seems to not be going anywhere or just sucks in general because I failed to progress why not stick it to those who make a good living, hell I hate them anyways…….etc

Oh BTW “Obama going to buy me a house” end quote of a person asked why they voting for him….. geez

reply to post by Xtrozero


"The rich" actually benefit too.

They still get to be rich but the economy is better.

It is better to be rich in a good economy...

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

"The rich" actually benefit too.

They still get to be rich but the economy is better.

It is better to be rich in a good economy...

Here is the slippery slope...

What is rich? Who should pay more? Obama put a number of 250k per house hold and above, he also talked about a super tax (70%) on those who make more than 3 or 4 mil per years. Don't you think those people already pay the vast majority of income tax already? I paid 36k last year in federal taxes and I see it as extreme, should I pay more?

So let’s say we tax 250k + crowed an extra 20%, they will downsize their businesses reducing less jobs. We all know that would not be enough so we will need to lower the rich ceiling to let’s say 150k per house hold. Maybe one day if you make more than 80k you are the evil rich… scary thought, as is also the thought of the government deciding what is too much as in a 70% tax on an upper limit.

Lastly how much should I pay to be an American? How much should you for the same title?

reply to post by Jezus


It may be better to get rich in a good economy, but only marginally and in a qualitative sense its better to make money, if you can, in a poor economy.

Ultimately the government will be unable to ride on what is basically 0% interest. They are going to have to suck the excess cash out of the system and the only way they can do that is by raising interest rates.

We'll get double digit interest rates in a few years and the economy will be in a deeper recession than we currently are. The rich will take tax advantaged strategies and move into cash and then dump their cash into government bonds.

Historical market returns would have folks making 5% in the equity markets as a figure to plan for if you are thinking about living on investment income. OK, I can take market risk and if I'm smart generate an average return of 5% or I can take my risk off the table and get 10% by buying government bonds. I'll take the bonds.

In the hay days of Jimmy Carter's fantastic reign, interests were in the high teens and actually hit 21% at one point. Not bad. Sit at the country club on on the boat making 20% on your money with essentially no risk. When the basketcase blue states of California, Illinois and New York need to raise money to pay off their deficits or pay for their unfunded obligations (which they will) they will offer tax free bonds at double digit rates, making the deal even sweeter.

Folks with money get rich regardless of the state of the economy. A lot of folks made enormous amounts of money during the Carter years.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Don't you think those people already pay the vast majority of income tax already?

It is simply the logistical response to having such a large percentage of the currency in the economy.

They still get to be the same level of rich and powerful relative to everyone else.

They still get to control assets and natural resources.

Also, it is fair because they benefit most from "The government"

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So let’s say we tax 250k + crowed an extra 20%, they will downsize their businesses reducing less jobs.

We can hope "the rich" will create jobs or we can use "the government" and actively create jobs...

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

"The rich" actually benefit too.

They still get to be rich but the economy is better.

It is better to be rich in a good economy...

You still selling that crap???
People weren't buying it several days ago.
Why would they buy it now? Old and stale..