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.
The democrats control the Senate and WH...but that will likely change in 2012.
See, obama and the dems want to double down on policies that have brought us 9.2% UE, $4.50+ Gas, $1.6 Trillion deficit, $14+ trillion debt, the most anti-business climate EVER in this countries history.
First, according to your theory, the Dem Senate and WH are holding up House Republicans efforts to help the unemployed. OK, what bills have the Republicans introduced in the House to make that happen? We already know that the House Reps held up unemployment benefit extensions until Obama gave in one their blackmailed on upper-income tax-cuts. That should indicate how much Republicans are concerned with the unemployed.
Second, how are the Democrats "doubling-down?" Have they asked for a new stimulus plan?
Third, what about $4.50+ Gas? The nation produces more gasoline now than when Bush was prez.
Fourth, what about the $1.6 trillion deficit? That's caused mainly by less tax receipts -- in other words, Obama hasn't increased the size of the government. Sure, the federal government is paying more on unemployment benefits but that's just the government we have doing what it was designed to do.
Fourth, what about the $1.6 trillion deficit? That's caused mainly by less tax receipts -- in other words, Obama hasn't increased the size of the government. Sure, the federal government is paying more on unemployment benefits but that's just the government we have doing what it was designed to do.
You must not have noticed that spending is over $1T higher than in 2007?
Blaming "tax cuts for the wealthy" is slightly disingenuous. Without the cuts the deficit would "only" be $1.57T instead of $1.64T. Obama would have that spent before got to the back nine...
You must not have noticed that spending is over $1T higher than in 2007?
Blaming "tax cuts for the wealthy" is slightly disingenuous. Without the cuts the deficit would "only" be $1.57T instead of $1.64T. Obama would have that spent before got to the back nine...
Tax cuts put this country in a financial hole, since 2001. The effect isn't by year, it is cumulative.
Remind me again, why tax revenue in 2010 was 14.9% of the GDP when it should be expected around 18% if not more? There's a half trillion in deficit right there.
Tax cuts put this country in a financial hole, since 2001. The effect isn't by year, it is cumulative.
.
Yeah, that's all the Bush cuts - including the ones Obama promised to keep in place. Then he threw in an additional payroll tax cut. And he's spending $1T more. But it's all Bush's fault...
Google wasn't created by government nor were any of the companies that hatched during the dot.com boom, like Amazon.
And to have this Clinton derangement syndrome, where anything good between 1992 and 2000 is assigned to the dot com bubble is ludicrous.
as is your preceding statement. the free spending of the dotcom bubble includes the stock market bubble when NASDAQ hit 5k. Big difference than what we saw this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Even if a portion of the economies gains were dot com, dot coms were not the majority of the economy. Lots of cars were sold,TVs and houses too. In short, there was plenty of other economic activity going on, with an average employment gain of 250,000/mo. -- those weren't all dot.coms.
incorrect the major growth is attributed to the dot.com bubble. A great deal of money was invested in information and technology which drove other businesses. A great deal of the economic success is directly attributed to the computer age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you think taxes is stealing then you are necessarily against taxation.
against income tax nothing wrong with user fees and at least with sales tax, (except on items like food and medicine), one can avoid those
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Without taxes, we don't have a government. Without a government we don't have police to protect us; Without a government we don't have courts to settle legal disputes; Without a government we can't build roads; Without a government we don't have public education; Without a government we don't have an army to protect us from foreign invasion, etc., etc.
FAIL you leaped before you looked and made a silly assumption
sigh.... the police do not protect us. Dunno where you got that. I dont have cop outside my door. They arrive after the fact most of the time.
Plenty of private roads, which are normally built with less cost and are of higher quality than govt built.
We had plenty of people who were educated at home schooling and in private schools before government took over education. The Federal government needs to stay out of the Education business and leave it to the states. Our standing in education compared to the rest of the world has fallen since the Dept of Education took over. Shocker a government agency ineffective and costly.
one of the roles of government is to protect our borders, you finally got one lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The above is the way it is in weak government nations, like the outskirts of Afghanistan and Somalia. I'd rather not have to worry that when I travel the roads that I'll be attacked by bandits, thank you -- or not have to worry that farmers are using dangerous chemicals in the food that I buy.
Prove to me you'd be attacked AND the us would fall into a 3rd world country with out income tax.
Don't buy food from farmers that use dangerous chemicals, easy enough in the information age don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbs wrote about the time before organized society called the state of nature. There were no laws. Societies formed by the individual giving up certain rights, like the right to attack another person, for the security that the state will protect you against attack. Essentially, you want to return us to a state of nature as you don't think we should fund a government.
You need to learn about our founding as a nation. We were built on property rights. People do not willingly give up rights. How can you not know those two things? You sure have a lot of things incorrect in your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you believe in the United States you must believe in the Constitution
I do you should read it
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes because if one is going to have a viable nation, we need taxation.
go back and research to find out the reasoning behind taxes and what the designated use was for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you don't believe in that, you are an anarchist not a conservative.
you are incorrect with that bad assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The Founders of this nation didn't think taxation was stealing.
Of course they did. We fought a revolution over it. You haven't researched much of this have you?
Did you even try?
Madison
"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents."
The Act went on to imposed taxes, not on Congress' constituents, but on specific "goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States", and not one dime was raised under the Act by internal taxation! Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founders, especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreigners to pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil!
Thomas Jefferson - To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Quite frankly, the notion that taxation is the equivalent of theft is idiotic.
quit frankly so is your post
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 06-09-2011 at 07:53 AM..
Yeah, that's all the Bush cuts - including the ones Obama promised to keep in place. Then he threw in an additional payroll tax cut. And he's spending $1T more. But it's all Bush's fault...
But I think Obama was wrong in extending the cuts. However, considering this rebuttal from you, it seems, as long as one blames Obama for tax cuts and its problems (as you mention he even cut payroll taxes), you're fine. Just don't say that things were wrong with Bush policies. How typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
incorrect the major growth is attributed to the dot.com bubble. A great deal of money was invested in information and technology which drove other businesses. A great deal of the economic success is directly sttributed to the computer age.
Just like the credit bubble of the 1980s and 2005-2007. However, dot com bubble wasn't really in the classic sense of increased demand. It was a problem, again, with speculative practices in Wall Street. People, in general, were doing well financially, able to spend in a variety of sectors, something you can't claim with the housing bubble. The savings literally disappeared.
But I think Obama was wrong in extending the cuts. However, considering this rebuttal from you, it seems, as long as one blames Obama for tax cuts and its problems (as you mention he even cut payroll taxes), you're fine. Just don't say that things were wrong with Bush policies. How typical.
Hello... I'm not the one who brought Bush into the discussion!
If your point is that Clinton tax policy should be reinstated, Obama is the one who needs to be convinced - he has never entertained that notion AFAIK.
Just like the credit bubble of the 1980s and 2005-2007. However, dot com bubble wasn't really in the classic sense of increased demand. It was a problem, again, with speculative practices in Wall Street. People, in general, were doing well financially, able to spend in a variety of sectors, something you can't claim with the housing bubble. The savings literally disappeared.
dunno what you mean by increased demand. Are you saying housing had an increased demand?
If so it was an artificial demand created by manipulating the market.
People had their money in a house so it was more of a savings plan, as opposed to dot com where they spent it? Is that what you are saying?
Hello... I'm not the one who brought Bush into the discussion!
If your point is that Clinton tax policy should be reinstated, Obama is the one who needs to be convinced - he has never entertained that notion AFAIK.
What would be new? Like I said earlier, the only argument you want to have is how this is all Obama's fault, or democrats in general. Leave it to us to discuss with a broader perspective than you're willing to take.
You're wrong on Clinton tax policy as well. While Obama is not considering reinstating tax rates on those making under 200-250K (depending on individual or household incomes), he has been for going back to Clinton tax rates on the rest. He worked a compromise with republican in December which got the tax cuts extended for now. Don't count on it the next time around.
But, regardless of whether he does or not, do you now believe that tax cuts are an issue? Or, do you believe that they are an issue only as long as Obama is responsible for extending them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
dunno what you mean by increased demand. Are you saying housing had an increased demand?
If so it was an artificial demand created by manipulating the market.
People had their money in a house so it was more of a savings plan, as opposed to dot com where they spent it? Is that what you are saying?
Housing primarily increased demand around housing. People were taking "attractive" loans left and right to get the biggest they could find with hope of multiplying their "investment" because virtually nothing was expected off savings account. So yes, therein lies the difference. "Credit" was the new savings plan for much of last decade, leading to the credit bubble (a glimpse of such credit bubble showed up in late 1980s as well).
You must not have noticed that spending is over $1T higher than in 2007?
Either you really don't know or you are being dishonest.
You should know that there was a temporary stimulus of $787 billion. (Notice the word 'temporary.') You must also know that when the economy is bad, there are additional social spending, like unemployment benefits. I am sure you included TARP, which has been essentially paid back.
So, what would we have expected total government spending — federal, state, and local — to do over the past three years if there had not been a crisis and a change in government control? A first approximation would have been spending growing along with the trend growth in the economy — that is, real GDP growing with the economy’s potential, and government spending growing at real GDP plus inflation.
Let's have some detail:
Now, over the period 2000-2007 — from business cycle peak to business cycle peak — real GDP grew 2.4 percent a year. So a reasonable estimate for trend growth is 2.4 percent, or 7.3 percent since 2007.
We can use actual inflation: the GDP deflator rose 4.1 percent from 2007II to 2010II.
Put these together, and “normal” growth in government spending would have been 11.7 percent over the past three years.
Actual growth has been higher: 19.5 percent. So government spending is about 7 percent, or about $350 billion, higher than a simple trend projection would have suggested.
What accounts for the higher spending? Well, none of it is government consumption; it's all in transfer payments. BEA data aren’t quite as helpful here as I'd like, but it’s clear that a large chunk, roughly $100 billion, is unemployment benefits, which have surged along with unemployment, and another large chunk is Medicaid spending, which has surged because the slump has impoverished more people. Some more for other safety net programs, like food stamps. Also, Social Security and Medicare outlays have gone up about $85 billion more than my 11.7 percent norm -- medical cost growth, aging baby boomers, and maybe some people taking early retirement because they can’t find jobs.
So, there we have what explained the growth in government spending. No giant expansion of the welfare state -- just business as usual in the face of a horrific slump.
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.
