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.
Those tax cuts combined with the refusal to adjust spending was by far the largest reason for the debt run-up, but you will never hear a Bush supporter admit that fact.
First, the dollar hasn't fallen in recent times, so that makes your first argument moot..
All of that debt needs repaid along with the interest, which will result in NEGATIVE GDP growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Second, the debt does not result in 'negative GDP.' Think of it this way, the economy is operating at below potential GDP. As such, there are idle resources and lots of uninvested money. Thus, when the government borrows that uninvested money it is not crowding out private investment.
Oh bull crap. if government spending ads to the GDP and positive to you, then clearly government not spending, returning that money back to the investors through interest rate payments would lower the GDP..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Third, the borrowed money puts people to work and employs people who then spend their earnings. Those earnings buy goods and services that put others to work. All of those workers pay taxes they weren't otherwise paying, that more than pays for the interest on the original borrowing.
Then why do we have trillion dollar deficits and why do you moan over Bush deficits that were 1/5th the size of Obamas
While the higher income tax rate is confined to a small percentage of U.S. taxpayers, the return to a higher Social Security payroll tax rate will hit 77% of American households. Households with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay about $579 more in taxes this year, while households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 will see their taxes rise by $822.
Its tax increases on middle class americans bringing in the money
btw, the funniest part of all of this, you guys are saying Democrats were "extremely successful" at cutting the deficits.. goes to show you how much of a tool you guys are.. They are still 3 1/2 times the size of deficits under Bush, which you guys blamed for crashing the economy.
So Republican deficits bad, Democratic deficits good..
Anyone can cut their deficits if they massivly increase them first.
The idea that one can advocate not running deficits when economic times had a 5% unemployment rate and then advocating running deficits when the UE rate is 7.5% is somehow hypocrisy, is a bankrupt idea on its face and needs no further explanation.
I saw you driving your car the other day. You braked when the light was red and you accelerated when it was green. You hypocrite -- either brake or go!
Who's whining? Pointing out that Democrats projected that the economy was going to crash due to the sequester, that jobs were going to be lossed, etc isnt whining. You dont like me pointing out how your economic theories are not only wrong, but utterly stupid, tough.
The economy will grow when GOVERNMENT stops interjecting itself into the economy. So if you are now saying Republicans are responsible for that stoppage, crediting Democrats is pretty dam dumb.
Jobs are being lost due to the sequester. Stop being dishonest.
This report does not, nor could it, reflect something that hadn't happened yet.
Then why do we have trillion dollar deficits and why do you moan over Bush deficits that were 1/5th the size of Obamas
hypocrite
See post# 45 in this thread. Oh, we don't have trillion dollar deficits but we used to. That's the point of this thread.
Moreover, many including myself credit activist monetary and fiscal policy for keeping the economy of five years ago from being a repeat of the Great Depression. Those same people said that the stimulus should have been much bigger at the time and would have had a greater reversal of the bad economy.
Jobs are being lost due to the sequester. Stop being dishonest.
This report does not, nor could it, reflect something that hadn't happened yet.
As for the rest, whatever.
Then why not borrow $50 TRILLION DOLLARS and put everyone back to work? If jobs are being lost then why are the unemployment numbers dropping? Try again
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The idea that one can advocate not running deficits when economic times had a 5% unemployment rate and then advocating running deficits when the UE rate is 7.5% is somehow hypocrisy, is a bankrupt idea on its face and needs no further explanation.
I saw you driving your car the other day. You braked when the light was red and you accelerated when it was green. You hypocrite -- either brake or go!
Its complete hypocracy when you support policies that have the opposite effect of their intended results.
Once again, find me ONE TOWN that is seeing prosperity due to increased welfare spending. Backup your claim.. There are tens of thousands of towns, it shouldnt be difficult for you.
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.