This would be funny if it were not true,
- Whirlaway
- 02-23-2012, 09:39 AM
This guy is destroying our future................
This would be funny if it were not true,
This would be funny if it were not true,
- Whirlaway
- 02-23-2012, 09:48 AM
By the end of his first term President Obama will have overseen four straight deficits in excess of a trillion dollars and the accumulation of $6.4 trillion in new gross debt. Yet 1.2 million fewer Americans are working today than when he took office. The vision Obama has laid out in his 2013 budget leads to a bigger government, a smaller middle class, and a painful debt crisis.
Obama has clearly made the political calculation that if he can't win the classwarfare against the rich; he will destroy the rest of us by piling debt on the middle class; forcing us into a lower standard of living in which we depend on Federal Government largess for most of our needs.
Ultimately, the rich will retain their wealth, the poor and middle class will be crushed by Obama (if unchecked).
Obama has clearly made the political calculation that if he can't win the classwarfare against the rich; he will destroy the rest of us by piling debt on the middle class; forcing us into a lower standard of living in which we depend on Federal Government largess for most of our needs.
Ultimately, the rich will retain their wealth, the poor and middle class will be crushed by Obama (if unchecked).
- Fast Gunn
- 02-24-2012, 10:26 AM
A closed mind will see only what it wants to see.
Have you forgotten the horrendous economic hole that Bush left this country in and the unfunded and unnecessary wars he began?
President Obama ended those idiotic wars and has begun the recovery. I will grant you that the pace of recovery is slower than what we'd like to see, but at least we are heading up, not digging deeper into the hole which was deeper than we realized.
. . .You are a blind man who refuses to see!
Have you forgotten the horrendous economic hole that Bush left this country in and the unfunded and unnecessary wars he began?
President Obama ended those idiotic wars and has begun the recovery. I will grant you that the pace of recovery is slower than what we'd like to see, but at least we are heading up, not digging deeper into the hole which was deeper than we realized.
. . .You are a blind man who refuses to see!
- I B Hankering
- 02-24-2012, 11:44 AM
A closed mind will see only what it wants to see.Damn! You are drinking some kick-ass Kool Aid! Just how do you rationalize a $15 Trillion dollar hole is shallower than a $10.6 Trillion dollar hole?
Have you forgotten the horrendous economic hole that Bush left this country in and the unfunded and unnecessary wars he began?
President Obama ended those idiotic wars and has begun the recovery. I will grant you that the pace of recovery is slower than what we'd like to see, but at least we are heading up, not digging deeper into the hole which was deeper than we realized.
. . .You are a blind man who refuses to see!
- Fast Gunn
- 02-24-2012, 11:54 AM
Do either of you dummies remember, Hoover?
He thought that balancing the budget was what the nation needed after the Great Crash of 1929.
Those types of idiotic notions were what lead to the Great Depression. Bush got the country into this mess and President Obama is leading us out of the hole.
Do you dummies want another Republican to lead us right back into the quagmire?
. . . God help us all!
He thought that balancing the budget was what the nation needed after the Great Crash of 1929.
Those types of idiotic notions were what lead to the Great Depression. Bush got the country into this mess and President Obama is leading us out of the hole.
Do you dummies want another Republican to lead us right back into the quagmire?
. . . God help us all!
- CJ7
- 02-24-2012, 11:56 AM
Damn! You are drinking some kick-ass Kool Aid! Just how do you rationalize a $15 Trillion dollar hole is shallower than a $10.6 Trillion dollar hole? Originally Posted by I B Hankering
less interest was paid on Obamas debt than the Bush debt...
the debt grows under every president, we pay down interest, not debt
- I B Hankering
- 02-24-2012, 02:39 PM
Do either of you dummies remember, Hoover?
He thought that balancing the budget was what the nation needed after the Great Crash of 1929.
Those types of idiotic notions were what lead to the Great Depression. Bush got the country into this mess and President Obama is leading us out of the hole.
Do you dummies want another Republican to lead us right back into the quagmire?
. . . God help us all!
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
less interest was paid on Obamas debt than the Bush debt...So the 'solution' is to accrue even more debt?
the debt grows under every president, we pay down interest, not debt Originally Posted by CJ7
Noticeably, neither one of you idiots are attempting to defend the stupidity of FastCum’s original statement that a $15 trillion hole is shallower than a $10.6 trillion hole.
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-24-2012, 05:12 PM
A closed mind will see only what it wants to see.Ok, we are the blind who refuse to see, yet after three years you continue to blame Bush. You also claim that Obama has ended the wars Bush started. If memory serves me, we were booted out of Iraq at the demand of the Iraqis on the exact timetable Bush negotiated. Obama wanted to stay. And I think we are still in Afghanistan, and we will likely be in Iran before the end of the year. And Gitmo is still going, and will soon have American citizens among their happy throng.
Have you forgotten the horrendous economic hole that Bush left this country in and the unfunded and unnecessary wars he began?
President Obama ended those idiotic wars and has begun the recovery. I will grant you that the pace of recovery is slower than what we'd like to see, but at least we are heading up, not digging deeper into the hole which was deeper than we realized.
. . .You are a blind man who refuses to see!
And recovery. Really? $3.50 per gallon gasoline? 9% (or higher) unemployment? Debt exceeding GDP? Economic growth at the lowest levels ever? How's that recovery working for you?
I would tell you to look in the mirror, but you are the blind one, my friend. Take off the rose-colored glasses and blinders and see things for what they really are.
- Little Stevie
- 02-24-2012, 07:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...N9UR_blog.html
Gilbert Fidler, an audience member at last last night's CNN debate, was making it easy on the assembled Republican candidates. "What are you going to do to bring down the debt?" he asked.
Rick Santorum went first. "Here's where I differentiate myself from everybody else, including, obviously, the president," he said. "I actually have experience on tackling the toughest problems that we have in this country."
Ron Paul couldn't believe it. "He's a fake," he said, referring to Santorum. "I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they're really fiscally conservative. When they're in office, they do something different."
Paul is only half right. According to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of Paul's opponents are even running fiscally conservative campaigns. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The report takes every tax and spending policy the Republican candidates have offered and tallies them up. It does so against what the CRFB calls "a realistic baseline." That's a baseline where all the Bush tax cuts are extended, and many of the scheduled spending cuts are ignored, and debt is piling up. It's a baseline, in other words, in which Congress has made the deficit much worse. A baseline where debt is 86 percent of GDP in 2021. A baseline in which the debt is on a completely unsustainable path. And so, in theory, a baseline so bad that it should be easy for the candidates to appear responsible by comparison. But, with the exception of Paul, they don't.
Take Santorum. He has not shied away from naming large spending cuts. He would implement Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare reform on an accelerate schedule. He would convert "Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and food stamps” to capped block grants. He would cut Social Security benefits. All in all, CRFB estimates he would reduce spending by over $2 trillion between 2013 and 2021. Unfortunately, his tax cuts would increase debt by more than $6 trillion over the same period. Net impact: $4.5 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of 105 percent.
Newt Gingrich's plan is, remarkably, even worse for our finances. Like Santorum, he would block grant and cap almost everything in sight. In fact, he's promised to block grant and cap more than 100 programs. In total, CRFB estimates his spending cuts would shave $2.7 trillion off of the debt. But Gingrich would also spend $1.6 trillion dollars financing new private accounts for Social Security. And his tax cuts would cost more than $7 trillion. Net impact: $7 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of, wait for it, 114 percent.
Mitt Romney's plan is more difficult to score. He saves $1.2 trillion by block granting Medicaid and cutting the federal workforce. But his new tax plan doesn't have enough detail to say how much it costs. The campaign says it will be revenue neutral, but in part because they assume it will lead to faster economic growth, and thus higher revenues. That's an assumption that would get thrown out if he sent it to Congress. He also hasn't specified which tax breaks he'll eliminate. But if he;s sufficiently aggressive in that area, much of his tax plan could ultimately be offset. For now, however, CRFB estimates that if the plan isn't paid for at all, it will add $2.6 trillion to the deficit, leaving Romney's debt-to-GDP at 96 percent. The more deductions and loopholes he closes, the lower that number will be.
Paul is the only candidate whose plan puts him in the black. His cuts to federal spending are incredibly severe, saving $7.5 trillion. Comparatively, his tax cuts cost $5.2 trillion. And though his plan to end the Federal Reserve would rack up $400 billion in transition cost (and, if we're being real about this, untold trillions in market terror and future financial panics), put it all together and he cuts the deficit by $2.2 trillion, and brings debt-to-GDP down to 76 percent.
And remember that al these tax cut plans are coming on top of making the Bush tax cuts -- with their $4+ trillion price tag -- permanent.
All of this, in some sense, gives the GOP candidates too much credit. Their tax plans, with the possible exception of Romney's, are fantastical. Their proposed spending cuts are far beyond what's plausible. The point is that even unfettered by political reality or operational responsibility, three out of the remaining four candidate have proposed plans that take an unsustainable deficit path and make it significantly worse. And if they can't cut the deficit when they don't have to worry about Congress or the federal bureaucracy or the consequences of actually implementing their proposals, how will they do it when they are burdened by those constraints and concerns?
You might wonder, of course, where Obama's proposals fit into all this. His budget estimates that debt will be 76.5 percent of GDP in 2021. That's lower than any of the Republican candidates save Paul. Though, CRFB is quick to note that 76.5 percent of GDP is "roughly double historical debt levels" and is not sufficient "to reduce the debt relative to the economy."
Gilbert Fidler, an audience member at last last night's CNN debate, was making it easy on the assembled Republican candidates. "What are you going to do to bring down the debt?" he asked.
Rick Santorum went first. "Here's where I differentiate myself from everybody else, including, obviously, the president," he said. "I actually have experience on tackling the toughest problems that we have in this country."
Ron Paul couldn't believe it. "He's a fake," he said, referring to Santorum. "I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they're really fiscally conservative. When they're in office, they do something different."
Paul is only half right. According to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of Paul's opponents are even running fiscally conservative campaigns. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The report takes every tax and spending policy the Republican candidates have offered and tallies them up. It does so against what the CRFB calls "a realistic baseline." That's a baseline where all the Bush tax cuts are extended, and many of the scheduled spending cuts are ignored, and debt is piling up. It's a baseline, in other words, in which Congress has made the deficit much worse. A baseline where debt is 86 percent of GDP in 2021. A baseline in which the debt is on a completely unsustainable path. And so, in theory, a baseline so bad that it should be easy for the candidates to appear responsible by comparison. But, with the exception of Paul, they don't.
Take Santorum. He has not shied away from naming large spending cuts. He would implement Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare reform on an accelerate schedule. He would convert "Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and food stamps” to capped block grants. He would cut Social Security benefits. All in all, CRFB estimates he would reduce spending by over $2 trillion between 2013 and 2021. Unfortunately, his tax cuts would increase debt by more than $6 trillion over the same period. Net impact: $4.5 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of 105 percent.
Newt Gingrich's plan is, remarkably, even worse for our finances. Like Santorum, he would block grant and cap almost everything in sight. In fact, he's promised to block grant and cap more than 100 programs. In total, CRFB estimates his spending cuts would shave $2.7 trillion off of the debt. But Gingrich would also spend $1.6 trillion dollars financing new private accounts for Social Security. And his tax cuts would cost more than $7 trillion. Net impact: $7 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of, wait for it, 114 percent.
Mitt Romney's plan is more difficult to score. He saves $1.2 trillion by block granting Medicaid and cutting the federal workforce. But his new tax plan doesn't have enough detail to say how much it costs. The campaign says it will be revenue neutral, but in part because they assume it will lead to faster economic growth, and thus higher revenues. That's an assumption that would get thrown out if he sent it to Congress. He also hasn't specified which tax breaks he'll eliminate. But if he;s sufficiently aggressive in that area, much of his tax plan could ultimately be offset. For now, however, CRFB estimates that if the plan isn't paid for at all, it will add $2.6 trillion to the deficit, leaving Romney's debt-to-GDP at 96 percent. The more deductions and loopholes he closes, the lower that number will be.
Paul is the only candidate whose plan puts him in the black. His cuts to federal spending are incredibly severe, saving $7.5 trillion. Comparatively, his tax cuts cost $5.2 trillion. And though his plan to end the Federal Reserve would rack up $400 billion in transition cost (and, if we're being real about this, untold trillions in market terror and future financial panics), put it all together and he cuts the deficit by $2.2 trillion, and brings debt-to-GDP down to 76 percent.
And remember that al these tax cut plans are coming on top of making the Bush tax cuts -- with their $4+ trillion price tag -- permanent.
All of this, in some sense, gives the GOP candidates too much credit. Their tax plans, with the possible exception of Romney's, are fantastical. Their proposed spending cuts are far beyond what's plausible. The point is that even unfettered by political reality or operational responsibility, three out of the remaining four candidate have proposed plans that take an unsustainable deficit path and make it significantly worse. And if they can't cut the deficit when they don't have to worry about Congress or the federal bureaucracy or the consequences of actually implementing their proposals, how will they do it when they are burdened by those constraints and concerns?
You might wonder, of course, where Obama's proposals fit into all this. His budget estimates that debt will be 76.5 percent of GDP in 2021. That's lower than any of the Republican candidates save Paul. Though, CRFB is quick to note that 76.5 percent of GDP is "roughly double historical debt levels" and is not sufficient "to reduce the debt relative to the economy."
- Fast Gunn
- 02-24-2012, 08:23 PM
Amazing!
Sometimes, the blind can see better than the ideologues.
To answer the previous chatter, no the US cannot keep going into debt indefinitely.
However, there is a time to balance the budget and there is a time to spur the economy.
Right now, the proper course of action is to keep stirring the economy and to get people back to work and it is happening, albeit it slower than we all hope it would happen.
Once that is done, then the US can start working on balancing the budget and building a surplus like the one Clinton created only to have it squandered by Bush with his tax cuts for the wealthy and moronic invasions of countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Anyone the GOP nominates will only reverse the very real progress that President Obama has made in this nation.
. . . This country made a terrible mistake when it elected Bush and God help us if we make another mistake in November.
Sometimes, the blind can see better than the ideologues.
To answer the previous chatter, no the US cannot keep going into debt indefinitely.
However, there is a time to balance the budget and there is a time to spur the economy.
Right now, the proper course of action is to keep stirring the economy and to get people back to work and it is happening, albeit it slower than we all hope it would happen.
Once that is done, then the US can start working on balancing the budget and building a surplus like the one Clinton created only to have it squandered by Bush with his tax cuts for the wealthy and moronic invasions of countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Anyone the GOP nominates will only reverse the very real progress that President Obama has made in this nation.
. . . This country made a terrible mistake when it elected Bush and God help us if we make another mistake in November.
- I B Hankering
- 02-24-2012, 08:41 PM
the US can start working on balancing the budget and building a surplus like the one Clinton created . Originally Posted by Fast GunnYou didn't watch the PBS documentary on Clinton that aired this week did you? The history has been written. Even the liberal network PBS credited Gingrich and the Republican Congress with making the budget cuts and balancing the budget against Clinton's volition. Perhaps Oliver Stone will make another film about Clinton and once again distort history for you liberals.
- Fast Gunn
- 02-24-2012, 09:40 PM
Distortion?
The only distortion around here is your puny pig eyesight, Mr pig.
Aside from the minor sexual predicaments that Clinton got into and was vilified for, he nevertheless did tremendous and very real good for this country.
The surplus that Clinton left the country was real money.
By contrast, the economic hole that Bush left was real debt.
. . . If America (God forbid) makes the same election mistake, guess what we will get once more?
The only distortion around here is your puny pig eyesight, Mr pig.
Aside from the minor sexual predicaments that Clinton got into and was vilified for, he nevertheless did tremendous and very real good for this country.
The surplus that Clinton left the country was real money.
By contrast, the economic hole that Bush left was real debt.
. . . If America (God forbid) makes the same election mistake, guess what we will get once more?
- I B Hankering
- 02-24-2012, 09:49 PM
Distortion?It was a PBS production - a veritable bastion of liberal ideology. Oh, and they did a great job detailing the Lewinsky affair, the perjury, the impeachment and White Water: 'Slick Willie' in all of his glory, while the Republicans cut and balanced the budget as Clinton fought against them. Ya gotta love it! Way to go Newt!
The only distortion around here is your puny pig eyesight, Mr pig.
Aside from the minor sexual predicaments that Clinton got into and was vilified for, he nevertheless did tremendous and very real good for this country.
The surplus that Clinton left the country was real money.
By contrast, the economic hole that Bush left was real debt.
. . . If America (God forbid) makes the same election mistake, guess what we will get once more?
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
- CJ7
- 02-24-2012, 10:43 PM
way to go Newt
you quit politics when you got busted doing the same wild willie did
you quit politics when you got busted doing the same wild willie did
- jjchmiel78
- 02-24-2012, 10:52 PM
This is what I see with the republican party. They would rather hold, stall, and do anything to tarnish Obama's image no matter the cost to the nation (debacle of debt ceiling of in August). Rather worry about birth control and limiting gay rights than the economy and employment rate. Rather see tax cuts for the rich but not the majority of people in the nation. Subsidies for business is ok but health care for our children and elders is not. Heaven forbid we educate or youth and give them an opportunity from their bad parrents. I see convictions in Ohio for voter interferrance during Bush reelection and the conservative Supreme Court awarding him the presidentency in the first place. Ron Paul is the only true conserative by the definitions I grew up with albiet a little to far right. So my decision is do I want a socialist government for the top 10% or one for the 90%. As far as the current debt, I just read an article the other day about the debt of this nation throughout history. We have always been in debt. The one president to getting us closest to debt free was Andrew Jackson. In terms of percentage of addifional debt in relation to level of entering office over the last century Clintons term and Lyndon Johnsons term were lowest yet Reagans and Bush juniors were the highest. Regardless of who actually came up with the budget that worked, they worked best under democrat presidents. Gas prices the summer of Bushs final term were over $4 per gallon and have not reached that level until now. I think drilling for or own oil is like putting a bandaid on a knife gash. Only way to fix fhe problem is to be innovative persuing alternative fuel sources. Gas companies could invest to develop economically extrat hydrogen and the car model and refuelling model could just be switched over. Quit subsidizing oil companies and let free market run. As prices rise americans will choose a more economical model and end up hurting profits of oil companies. These companies have no reason to change and there is no room for a viable competitor to rise if we keep the status quo. A fairer tax model would be a national sales tax on all purchases world wide on citizens. The rich can practice what they preach and invest and actually create jobs paying no taxes or buy that vacation home in Fiji and pay taxes. Those that are poor will inherantly pay less in taxes because they can not afford it.