Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dont worry the congress is going to let the Bush Taxes go by the boards and the spending cuts occur because they cant do anything. The Repub. will blame the Dems. and the Dems will blame the Repub.
It will be a great experiment !!!!!!!
I dont know if tax's go up on people who make less than 50K thaat will defintly hurt consumption.
but it will help the dficit by about 1.75 trillion.
03-19-2012, 05:01 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Umm...he plans to cut spending significantly.
His plan also calls for getting rid of some tax deductions and not just for lowering rates.
And he doesn't cut enough to keep from blowing multi-trillion dollars holes in the budget. If I slash my spending by 10%, but cut my income by 20%, I'm still deeper in the hole. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for Republicans to understand.
Quote:
Obama has NOT kept discretionary spending "fairly flat."
I even put in into a convenient graph for you. Notice how during Reagan/Bush, discretionary spending went up and up and up, then it leveled off under Clinton, then it went up and up and up at a truly alarming rate under Bush II, then it leveled off under Obama.
We were paying down our debt until that giveway to the rich know as the Bush tax cuts.
Everyone knows revenue was higher after the tax cuts were put in place, and they're Obama's tax cuts now anyway. If they're a bad idea, take it up with Obama and the Democratically controlled lame duck Congress which extended them.
And he doesn't cut enough to keep from blowing multi-trillion dollars holes in the budget. If I slash my spending by 10%, but cut my income by 20%, I'm still deeper in the hole. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for Republicans to understand.
His plan isn't finalized yet (or, if it is, it hasn't been released). His plan with all the cuts and with the deductions removed has not yet been scored by anyone. That being said, he wants a Balanced Budget Amendment and a cap on federal spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Notice how during Reagan/Bush, discretionary spending went up and up and up, then it leveled off under Clinton, then it went up and up and up at a truly alarming rate under Bush II, then it leveled off under Obama.
There was massive growth in discretionary spending in 2009/2010. Yes, Bush II was responsible for part of the spending in 2009 but not all and you can't ignore the collosal spending in 2010.
It only leveled off in 2011. And, since we're talking about plans, Obama's plan is to increase spending.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-19-2012 at 05:32 PM..
Fairness is all I ask. Yes. the rich need to pay more. It's simple math. A side benefit is that if wealthy Republicans had to pay for their wars, maybe they would not be so quick to argue for them.
This crap again!
Before they realized they needed to brand Bush a war criminal before the 2004 election, Democrats supported forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power.
He can't have a plan, no candidate can because they would more or less be conceding the election. Obama and the Dems would demagogue him to death about it. Just look at Paul Ryan, he comes out with a plan to cut the deficit and he is savaged by the left for it. They have no plan to counter with and nobody in their own party holds them accountable for having no plan or guts to deal with it.
Deficit reduction has to start with entitlement reform, but good luck cutting anyones sacred cow.
We were paying down our debt until that giveway to the rich know as the Bush tax cuts.
That is not true, unless you agree that every year we pay down debt, as we add a greater amount of debt elsewhere.
You are falling for the Gingrich/Clinton gimmick of smoke and mirrors. They use the term "public debt" decreased, so you don't realize the national debt is increasing as Newt/Clinton adds "intragovernmental debt".
Fact: every fiscal year since 1957 the national debt increased. Congress was spending money from over half a dozen programs that will need the $ in the future - like social security, civil service trust fund, military pensions, and etc.
Also the "projected surplus" that Clinton left was a "projection" based on rosy forecasts that didn't materialize and wouldn't have no matter what Bush and his congress did. Gingrich/Clinton never had a true surplus (national debt decreases).
Everyone knows revenue was higher after the tax cuts were put in place, and they're Obama's tax cuts now anyway. If they're a bad idea, take it up with Obama and the Democratically controlled lame duck Congress which extended them.
People keep trotting out this lie.
Revenues went up because from 2003-2006 we were on the biggest orgy or debt-fueled spending in our history.That sure turned out great. But, yea, Bush gets credit for that,and Obama gets to pick up the check, right?
What is Romney going to do for the yound, nonrich guy?
Seriously, name one single thing he will do for the average joe. How are tax cuts for billionaires, unplugging ObamaCare, and axing a few hundred thousand federal jobs gonna help the guy?
That is not true, unless you agree that every year we pay down debt, as we add a greater amount of debt elsewhere.
You are falling for the Gingrich/Clinton gimmick of smoke and mirrors. They use the term "public debt" decreased, so you don't realize the national debt is increasing as Newt/Clinton adds "intragovernmental debt".
Fact: every fiscal year since 1957 the national debt increased. Congress was spending money from over half a dozen programs that will need the $ in the future - like social security, civil service trust fund, military pensions, and etc.
Also the "projected surplus" that Clinton left was a "projection" based on rosy forecasts that didn't materialize and wouldn't have no matter what Bush and his congress did. Gingrich/Clinton never had a true surplus (national debt decreases).
The programs they were taking the money from were bringing in surplus's
so it made sense,that they would use the money to plug in every areas.
There was 250 billion dollar surplus when Bush got there,infact the reason why the tax cuts were passed because republicans said we were taking in to much money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
