U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:20 PM
 
48,509 posts, read 85,652,056 times
Reputation: 18103

Advertisements

just the 800 billion in extra spending on that so called stimulus was huge and we will be paying on it for decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:33 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,706,973 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
just the 800 billion in extra spending on that so called stimulus was huge and we will be paying on it for decades.
The CBO calculated the total cost somewhere around $3.2 Trillion. The $800 B was just a few years worth of spending, but the total bill expands a decade, and even longer when you calculate the payback period
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:35 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,706,973 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
When interest rates are low, yes. Do you have a mortgage? Car loan? Student loan? Actually, we wouldn't even need to borrow that much if we had a progressive tax structure.
If a consumer borrows money, they receive something of value. One finances a mortgage which is usually offset by someone else selling a property and thus reducing the debt of the seller. You take out a car loan so you can go increase your revenues and reduce your life. Student loans increase your job potentials.

Government doesnt have the same luxury..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:43 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,227 posts, read 2,217,371 times
Reputation: 2691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
When interest rates are low, yes. Do you have a mortgage? Car loan? Student loan? Actually, we wouldn't even need to borrow that much if we had a progressive tax structure.
What a joke. Of course we have a progressive tax structure, and to argue otherwise is well beyond absurd.

As to your questions: Yes I have a mortgage, and it will be paid off in much less time than it's term
I do not have a car loan. Our last 4 cars, all bought new, were not bought with credit. And I don't have a student loan either. i didn't borrow any money to finance my college education.

The problem is, that if you take our national situation and try to compare it to someone's personal finances, it's not as though we are just borrowing money to pay for capital investments, we're also borrowing to pay day to day expenses such as the food bills, utility bills and so on. It cannot continue like this forever. And to think you can tax people more and somehow a bunch of bureaucrats in D.C. will spend that money more wisely is ridiculous. We'll just end up paying for the equivalent of more IRS line dancing videos, or perhaps you think that's a major stimulus for the economy?

At a fundamental level our nation is headed for a fiscal train wreck not so much because government spending is out of control. That's the symptom, not the cause. We're headed for a train wreck because at a personal level so many people have come to believe they can borrow their way to success, that the world owes them a living, that they deserve the fancy house and the fancy cars, that they should be able to live their lives in the style of the stars they see on their favorite TV shows. Their personal beliefs are reflected in the politicians that they vote into office, who then turn around and run the country based on that same set of beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:44 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,044 posts, read 2,962,341 times
Reputation: 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
lets see, bush43 added $5 trillion to the national debt over 8 years, and dear leader chairman maobama has added $7 trillion to the national debt in under 5 years. so who again is the biggest spender? doesnt sound like bush to me, it sounds like obama. as stated we dont spend percentages, we spend dollars.
Heres how things happened in (reality.)


1. Carter had no major deficits or debt.
2. R. Reagan lowered rich people's tax rates and this decreased government revenues, and then our deficits and national debt grew.

3. G(H)W Bush and Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's tax policies, and then in the Clinton years our national debt was lowered.

4. GW Bush inherited a balanced budget and a national debt that was going down. GW Bush then gave Americas rich a $2.5 trillion dollar tax cut (and added $2.5 trillion dollars to our national debt.) Then GW Bush attacked Iraq for nothing and spend $800 billion dollars doing it. These actions caused our deficits and national debt to rise.

5. B. Obama inherited GW Bush's deficits. GW Bushs tax cuts for the rich happened while Obama was in office and created deficits for Obama. Obama also has to pay for GW Bush's for nothing Iraq war.

6. B. Obama has already cut GW Bush's debt growth rate in half.



The following source shows Americas debt history. You don't need to look at the year or names of the president to tell when republicans are in office.

When the "Growth Rate, YoY" rises republicans are in office.
When the "Growth Rate, YoY" fall democrats are in office.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

Note: G(H)W Bush did not live his life to lower rich peoples tax rates like Reagan and GW Bush. He called tax cuts for the rich "voodoo economics", that's why G(H)W Bush did not grow our national debt like Reagan and GW Bush.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcuts2013to2022.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:46 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,044 posts, read 2,962,341 times
Reputation: 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
just the 800 billion in extra spending on that so called stimulus was huge and we will be paying on it for decades.
Heres the real spending/money added to our national debt.

Heres the $2.5 (trillion) dollars GW bush gave to America's rich in tax cuts.
Bush Budget Calls for Giant New Tax Cuts, Huge Reductions in Most Federal Programs | CTJReports

Heres the $6.6 (trillion) dollar tax cut you boys tried to give to the rich in the last election.
Romney's Economic Plan Includes $6.6 Trillion Tax Cut For The Rich And Corporations | ThinkProgress

Last edited by chad3; 07-11-2013 at 04:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:51 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,253,626 times
Reputation: 1513
This is nonsense. It has been debunked. It is flat out nonsense.

This calculation was reached by calculating Obama's levels of spending relative to a baseline which included an $800 billion emergency stimulus. Anyone with a brain in their heads can see why this is blatantly dishonest.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 7,762,276 times
Reputation: 4503
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Ratios are elementary school math. If how they are used confounds you, then you need to get some remedial help.
And calling out manipulations of ratios to pathetically try to prove a false point is obviously far above you since I've exposed the lie in this article. Obama is the biggest spender in our nation's history. Please prove me otherwise. If you can prove that he has spent LESS CASH (US DOLLARS), not percentages, than other presidents, then I will ban myself from this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 7,762,276 times
Reputation: 4503
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
oh, I forgot the most commonly used argument in the libaral arsenal. ""
So true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:56 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,044 posts, read 2,962,341 times
Reputation: 2289
I often ask the following question in this forum, but republicans refuse to answer it, (I will try again.)

GW Bush gave the rich a $2.5 trillion dollar tax cut.
Romney wanted to give the rich a $6.6 trillion dollar tax cut.

What size tax cut do you republicans want to give the rich in 2016?

How many trillions of dollars in tax cuts would you like to give the rich in 2016?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top