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.
And Obama broke the long standing principle of Social Security... That it funds itself via the payroll tax. For the first time ever, Social Security was taking in money from another source to make up for the loss from the payroll tax...
not important to me in the slightest.
Quote:
He increased fees for new Fannie and Freddie loans. It isn't the rich that get these loans, it is the middle and lower incomes that do.
GSE loans go up to $1,202,925 in some areas, it isn't just for the middle and lower income.
Quote:
Obama's payroll tax reduction was therefore regressive as the rich got the payroll tax reduction, but didn't have to pay for the catch up.
Uh, no. The payroll tax deduction had the most impact on people whose wages were below the $110,000/year cap.
Really? Even compared to the 1930s, when UE was over 10% for over ten years?
....
You never got back to me on that "grow our way out of debt" BS, MTA.
Let's face it- that is just bunk, as a simple integration equation shows that contention is simply not true, even with unheard of increases in GDP.
We have RECORD FEDERAL REVENUES, and yet we have massive debt. This increased federal spending was supposed to have helped the economy, yet we have 8% unemployment and record declines in personal incomes.
The libs just cannot bring themselves to admit that leftists economic policies fail. If ever there was a question, the "experiment" of the last four years has proven this nicely. Why suffer for four more years, simply to support leftist political dogma at the expense of the nation? When one does this, one is no longer "for the nation" and is just "for the party".
PS- have those moveon.org boys perform the calculations for our current debt, interest rates, GDP, revenues, and deficits. When they are done, they can burn the data, as it shows how wrong they are. I am sure that they do not want the general public to be aware of such issues, as it might cause panic.
This increased federal spending was supposed to have helped the economy, yet we have 8% unemployment and record declines in personal incomes.
What federal spending ?
The federal spending we have is defense, medicare, and bailout-related, mostly locked into place before Obama took office.
"Welfare" and "Stimulus" programs created under Obama have been very small.
Our primary response to this post-2008 deflationary crisis has been to loosen Federal Reserve monetary policy, not to have the Federal government spend more. The federal government was already on track to spend more back in 2008.
There is no "New New Deal", there are no railroads being constructed, no airports being constructed, no canals being dug, no dams being built. This is all a fiction in your right-wing lizard brain.
Quote:
The libs just cannot bring themselves to admit that leftists economic policies fail.
we haven't tried leftist policy. we're still attempting to stem the damage done by far-right policy.
The federal spending we have is defense, medicare, and bailout-related, mostly locked into place before Obama took office.
"Welfare" and "Stimulus" programs created under Obama have been very small.
Our primary response to this post-2008 deflationary crisis has been to loosen Federal Reserve monetary policy, not to have the Federal government spend more. The federal government was already on track to spend more back in 2008.
we haven't tried leftist policy. we're still attempting to stem the damage done by far-right policy.
Au contraire-
Under Obama, it has been the increased in discretionary spending which has killed us. Did you ever wonder, sans Bush's last year with a rabid democratic congress), why Bush's deficits were $400 billion and Obama's have been $1.2 trillion? It
Wake up- Obama has caused discretionary spending to skyrocket. All spending, of course, needs to be addressed. However, if we simply returned to average Bush level spending levels NOW, we would have a balanced budget.
Did you ever wonder, sans Bush's last year with a rabid democratic congress), why Bush's deficits were $400 billion and Obama's have been $1.2 trillion?
the annual deficits are higher now because we're in a recession. the increased deficits are mostly due to decreased tax revenue.
Quote:
if we simply returned to average Bush level spending levels NOW, we would have a balanced budget.
well, we can't hop in a time machine and go back to a time before Bush bailed out every crook who needed a dime.
Under Obama, it has been the increased in discretionary spending which has killed us. Did you ever wonder, sans Bush's last year with a rabid democratic congress), why Bush's deficits were $400 billion and Obama's have been $1.2 trillion? It
Wake up- Obama has caused discretionary spending to skyrocket. All spending, of course, needs to be addressed. However, if we simply returned to average Bush level spending levels NOW, we would have a balanced budget.
First, as I've explained here, we have "record revenue" only in nominal, non-adjusted for inflation terms. Adjusted for inflation and the population growth since 2000, revenues in both dollars and percent of GDP were higher in 2000.
Second, the spending increases were not due to discretionary spending increases. It was essentially increased spending on the safety net, like unemployment benefits, which is the government we had responding to an economic crisis.
Third, the government used to radically increase spending each year. The last five years have been flat.
There was no surplus and this will show you why. But based on your grammatical mistakes and lack of proof and specifics regarding these topics, I feel it may be over your head.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
My source was from a non-partisan group.
Your source is something called a "conflict of interest."
Do you know what a "conflict of interest" is ??
Then you are lying to this forum about tax cuts increasing government revenues.
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs in the following source explains your lie. Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
100% of respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues."
The most important thing in your life is trickle down economics and the supply side formula.
And you spend your life posting lies to get trickle down and supply side tax cuts.
My source was from a non-partisan group.
Your source is something called a "conflict of interest."
Do you know what a "conflict of interest" is ??
Then you are lying to this forum about tax cuts increasing government revenues.
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs in the following source explains your lie. Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
100% of respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues."
The most important thing in your life is trickle down economics and the supply side formula.
And you spend your life posting lies to get trickle down and supply side tax cuts.
"Tax cuts increase revenue" is one of the biggest zombie lies out there. No matter how many times that meme is killed, it later gets up to be repeated again.
To underscore what I big lie it is, read what the Heritage Foundation reported the benefits of cutting taxes in 2001, including paying off the debt by 2010. How did that work out?
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.
....
