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.
If you're talking about those adds that say "oil production is up under the Obama administration", that's total BS. Yes, oil production is up, but it's on PRIVATE land. Oil production is DOWN in government controlled land.
See the difference?
well I wasn't talking about that at all... but you know that doesn't make a difference, right? it's called a GLOBAL supply, no matter where it's drilled it goes into a global pot, that's why there's ONE set price on a barrel of oil, or else countries would be undercutting each other to sell their oil off and we'd have extremely low prices.
because of public sector layoffs and because his first month we lost 2 millions jobs (or something like that) you're not actually holding him responsible for the economy in February of '09, are you?
public sector has been growing for two years, after stimulus money ran out the states had to start firing their firefighters, cops and teachers, THAT'S dragging down the economy.
the gov't has shrunk under Obama, and gov't spending is half of what it's been under any president in decades.
ooh please give it a break. Obamas own proposed bill was voted down by every single Democrat in office.
so? what does that have to do with Ryan's budgets? "Obama's was bad, so it's ok that Ryan's was bad!" is that it? Obama's budget and it's votes has no bearing on what I said about Ryan's, what is there for me to "give it a break" on? Did I lie about his budget at all? Did I say anything that any credible analysis or economic dissection doesn't say?
Yes, lets frame all our political debates in your doomsday straw men, do you want to advocate the gold standard while you're at it?
I guess when you put it that way I should say: "government is no good!" right?
did i mention the gold standard?
straw man, indeed.
i will tell you something that everyone else knows about what IS coming:
Q: What about the U.S.
A: We have positive economic growth, but it's below trend — barely 2%. Job creation is still anemic. The recovery is still anemic because the painful process of de-leveraging has not even started in the public sector. And next year there will be some fiscal drag because of the fiscal cliff that's coming up.
Q: Explain what you mean by fiscal cliff.
A: Many things are expiring at year end. All the tax cuts on income, on dividends, on capital gains, on estates. There's an expiration of the payroll tax (cut). There is a reduction or expiration of transfer payments to state and local governments, to unemployment benefits. There is the expiration of infrastructure spending, and then there are the automatic cuts on discretionary spending, which came about because we failed to reach an agreement for reducing the budget deficit.
The point is, all this is expiring at year end, and the hole will be $600 billion, or about 4% of GDP, and then we plunge into a nasty recession. (roubini)
it's pretty hard to argue with the events that are set to happen, because spending more than you take in catches up to you eventually.
Both of which would cripple social safety nets [cuz ya know, that's great to do in a weak economy, taking food out of poor children's mouths really helps the economy when we have high unemployment] and actually RAISES the deficit because of the increased military spending coupled with tax cuts.
Do you not understand that the Senate is to consider those bills and work out compromises to settle things? I bet you don't even know that Harry Reid said we are getting along fine without budgets although the law says they must operate with budgets. In other words he has failed us nearly 4 full times by not allowing any debate about budgeting. BTW, Dirty Harry is not a member of the Tea Party.
Why do all you Dems squeal about the Ryan plans when he is doing his job and dirty Harry is failing to do his? I guess it is because all of you are simple enough to be hauled to the cleaners by the Dem leaders. Huh?
the tea party pushes for fiscal responsibility so that governments don't collapse and leave the needy stranded.
it isn't the government supplying the money to the people, it is the people supplying money to the government.
the government is given trillions of dollars and how much actually makes it to the "lower classes", my friend?
They claim to be for fiscal responsibility and small government. They aren't. They are for large sweeping social issues, and for deregulation. This mix is disastrous. We've seen that they were against suggestions by the CBO to fix the economy. In what world is allowing for tax cuts on the portion of Americans benefiting from this downturn and doing away with things like unemployment insurance and Pell Grants? Teabaggers don't understand that their actions are hurting the middle class. They don't get the fact that simply stating they are for fiscal responsibility doesn't mean they actually are for fiscal responsibility.
54% of our federal budget goes towards welfare, social security, and medicare/medicaid. According to the CBO it is estimated that because of safety net programs, our poverty rate is at 15% and not 28%. If we did not increase funding for such programs consumer spending would be less and our recovery would be even more stunted at best.
you borrow it. and you go into debt, and then when you recover, you pay it back. that's how the world has worked.
When the hell have we ever paid back our debt? And dont dare say under Clinton because you'll find me laughing at you again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
I know it's fun to use your emoticons and say fancy little talking points but the world has actually been going on, it's not just some textbook ideas you can put your theories up against. stuff happened. the depression was real, we spent our way out, then we slowed spending, and the growth slowed. spending in the 40s was more than our entire economy, and we made it out just fine in the 50s.
We did not spend our way out of the depression because spending our way out requires you first removing it from the economy which means the private sector isnt spending it. YOU CONTRIBUTE to the negative economy by doing so.
Again, where the hell do you think the money comes from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
in what universe did Clinton cut taxes? please give me a link or something, my internet only reaches earth.
Thank you for proving exactly what I said.. Just another uneducated left wing liberal who doesnt know what the hell he's talking about. Clinton slashed the capital gains rates from 28% to 20% and then lowered business taxes on 90% of small businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
Bush cut taxes and costs us a surplus. Reagan raised taxes in 81, grew the economy and then in the late 80s, once unemployment was low again, he cut the highest tax margins (he didn't help the middle class very much, mind you) and when he left he left behind a deficit twice as large as when he got there.
Clinton never left a dam surplus. For gods sakes where the hell did you go to school? Furthermore when Bush cut taxes, it caused revenues to the federal government to grow because it spurred economic activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
This isn't liberal bull****, it's history. it's the real world.
You got so much wrong so far, that I wonder if you actually live in the real world, or spend so much time reading left wing bs talking points that you didnt bother educating yourself on the facts. Its quite embarassing to need to tell you everything you key is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
For a party that wants credibility on financial matters, how do you explain that when someone collects more money (taxes) that revenues (money) are smaller?
Because its a lie. When you want more revenues you spur economic activity and you do that by allowing people to keep more money. You cant spur economic activity by taking the money out of the economy. NO ONE can spend the same money twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by siameesecities
More money (taxes) = less money (revenue)? please explain that, because history disagrees with you.
Not one part of history disagrees with me, and I listed above why you arent even close to correct.
so? what does that have to do with Ryan's budgets? "Obama's was bad, so it's ok that Ryan's was bad!" is that it? Obama's budget and it's votes has no bearing on what I said about Ryan's, what is there for me to "give it a break" on? Did I lie about his budget at all? Did I say anything that any credible analysis or economic dissection doesn't say?
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.
