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.
Again..... most filibustered president in history. The republican party has gone out of its way to not cooperate, that is not disputable.
I've never heard of a tyrant who has been filibustered the most.
No, most clotured president in history - most clotures come when there is no threat or even chance of a filibuster. When you ask for proof of filibusters we see clotures - because the exponential growth in filibusters is a Democratic mirage -- what about Obama isn't a mirage at this point? Hope and Change was BS from the start so we are left with whining about the "opposition party" "opposing" him and lying about filibuster numbers much bigger than they really are.
Democrats are so disingenuous on this issue. Harry Reid talks about the House refusing to vote on a record number of Senate bills passed. Exactly, the GOP doesn't need to filibuster in the Senate, they control the House - and per Harry Reid they are passing record number of bills in the Senate.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 04-07-2014 at 06:13 AM..
There was a grand plan by the Republicans to make sure that Obama was a one-term president
Yes, that is what they said, and they actions prove they worked very hard toward that goal. Bush Sr was the last time our government worked for US, as opposed to working only for themselves. As for the damage done to the economy in 1980s compared to five years ago, there is no comparison, the collapse of 2008 was far worse, and affected every part of the economy.
Congress had to enact special legislation to rescue it so that Social Security beneficiaries would not have their income slashed.
Read and weep....
The “Trust fund ratio†column represents asset reserves at the beginning of a year as a percentage of expenditures during the year. The table shows no ratio for 1937 because no reserves existed at the beginning of the year. For years 1984-90, reserves at the beginning of a year include January advance tax transfers.
As you can see, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Source: Table VI.A1.— Operations of the OASI Trust Fund, Calendar Years 1937-2012 (Cont.), Page 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
The willful ignorance of these right-wingers is outstanding. Not only are they not adjusting for inflation when they make idiotic their "Obama has spent more than all presidents combined" ...
There is no requirement to adjust for Inflation.
To the extent that you believe there is a requirement, which "Inflation" adjustments should be considered?
Wage Inflation?
Demand-pull Inflation?
Real Inflation?
Cost-push Inflation?
Interest Inflation?
So....according you....the government can enact laws and regulations, plus implement policies that cause Cost-push Inflation and drive up the prices of goods and services, and then government should get a free pass on the Inflation government caused?
'Cause that makes no sense at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
I am willing to get to the (actual) truth about Obama's spending, are any conservatives willing to get to the actual truth?
Yes...Obama's policies were destined to fail....that's the Truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
GDP always climbs. Only in years where we're in deep recession does it drop. The point is that tax revenues did not climb with it.
There is no Law of Economics that says tax revenues must increase with GDP, but thanks for the Red Herring just the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Again..... most filibustered president in history. The republican party has gone out of its way to not cooperate, that is not disputable.
That's payback for all the times Democrats filibustered Republican Civil Rights legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
yes, its called an economic cycle and has been taking place for thousands of years..
That's actually disputed. There is a view that there are cycles, but most of the theories are based on Keynesian Economics.
Presidents can't really control unemployment rates, inflation, interest rates, or GDP growth. Can you tell me how Carter messed all those things up? (but you can't.)
Presidents --- governments -- control them indirectly through legislation, taxation, monetary policies and other policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Inflation is something that naturally happens,....
No, it is not.
Interest Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
Cost-push Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
Real Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
Wage Inflation is caused by a shortage of workers in specific Skill-sets. It is possible that bad government policies created the shortage of workers. It is also possible that the lack of any coherent government policies created the shortage. It's also possible the government played no role in the shortage of Skill-sets leading to Wage Inflation.
Demand-pull Inflation is caused by high Demand and low Supply. It is possible that bad government policy created Demand-pull Inflation.
One reason for high gasoline prices now is very bad government policies which created Cost-push Inflation driving up the price of gasoline --- E85 Standard and EPA Tier 3 --- which subsequently created a permanent decrease in corn supply driving up the prices of food stuffs and gasoline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
... that's why in 1915 you could buy a brand new car for $440.
No, that is not why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
What did Obama spend money on?
Nothing relevant.
Government spending may benefit the economy, but if, and only if, it is spent in those sectors of the economy where Capital is underutilized.
Community groups that supported Obama were underutilized? How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
You said there is no such thing as trickle down economics.
But here's a source about Reaganomics. It clearly says in the first paragraph Reagan used trickle down economics.
A source? And who wrote that? Some free-loading Gen Y puke living in mommy's basement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.
The statement is irrelevant.
Tax cuts are not required to pay for anything. The purpose of tax cuts is to stimulate economic growth. Bush the Candidate stated in 2000 that his goal for cutting taxes was to stimulate economic growth in the short-term, while increasing output over the long-term.
As the Clinton Recession worsened, Bush moved up the table for the "payment."
Although he was not aware of it at the time, his tax cuts and spending in Afghanistan and Iraq prevented you from entering a recession sooner, that would have been more severe and lasted longer.
The Heritage Foundation is a Neo-Conservative think-tank. I'm guessing you didn't get the memo.
In spite of your Wishful Thinking fallacy, there is no relationship between Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives, nor is there a relationship between Republicans and Neo-Conservatives.
Neo-Conservatives are former Social Democrats formerly the Young People's Socialist League.
No Neo-Conservative has ever held public office. The closest thing would be Joe Lieberman formerly a Democrat now an Independent.
Note that Bush -- like his father -- is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Forbes recently asked a group of Americas most respected economists if tax cuts increase revenues, and none of the economists said yes.
Yeah, so? Your own government says you have no idea what you're talking about....
The Congressional Research Service says cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The Internal Revenue Services proves cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The General Accounting Office has published reports demonstrating that cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The Congressional Budget Office says cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
"In 1968, real capital gains tax receipts were $34 billion at a 25 percent tax rate. Over the next eight years the tax rate was raised four times, to a high of 35 percent. But with the tax rate almost 10 percentage points higher in 1972 than in 1968, real capital gains tax revenues were only
$27 billion — 21 percent below the 1968 level.
In 1978, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent, $28 billion in capital gains taxes were collected. By 1984, after the tax had been cut to 20 percent, revenues from the lower tax rate were $41 billion — 46 percent above the 1978 level.
In 1986, the tax rate increased by 40 percent, from 20 to 28 percent. Tax revenues did not climb by 40 percent. Rather the opposite occurred. In 1990, the US government took in 13 percent less revenue at the 28 percent rate than it did in 1985 at the 20 percent rate. In 1991 (and again in 1992), the government collected more than 15 percent less revenue than it did in 1985.
In 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28 to 20 percent, net capital gains on assets sold were roughly $335 billion. A year later, capital gains had leapt to $459 billion. In 1996 the Treasury collected roughly $85 billion in capital gains revenues. In 1997 those tax payments jumped to $100 billion.
After the 2003 capital gains cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. Capital gains tax revenues grew from $55 billion in 2002 to $110 billion in 2006. Every indicator demonstrates that the 2003 capital gains tax cut helped increase growth, share values and federal tax revenues."
Source: Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury. See also "Capital Gains Taxes and Federal Revenues," A series of issue summaries from the Congressional Budget Office OCTOBER 9, 2002
In...
"The relationship between realized capital gains and their marginal rate of taxation," 1976-2004, Institute for Research into the Economics of Taxation, October 2009
...Paul Evans demonstrated that the optimum capital gains tax rate is 9%-10%.
Please wait until the Fantasy Rideâ„¢ stops completely, before exiting and rejoining the Real Worldâ„¢...
That's right....Reagan was investing, while Obama was spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
This recession is nothing like 1980. There was no collapse in housing prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
No, you dont know what you are talking about. There was no collapse in housing prices. Some homes were sold on contract but many people bought homes with 12-13% interest rates.
Housing prices did not collapse.
Housing prices were artificially over-inflated above their real value by bad government policies that flooded the market with cash and credit, and artificially depressed interest rates on mortgages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
The Regan Administration was the architect of the modern American economy that relies on finance, insurance and real estate to pay its way in this world.
Um, no, that was the Carter Administration.
The CRA and all of the changes in banking laws.....that was the Carter Administration.
Carter also gave you the Carter Doctrine, which was the preemptive use of military force in the Persian Gulf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
When Ronald Reagan came to power, American industry employed nearly 35 million people, today only 12 million Americans are employed in an industrual job.
Thank you for proving that Liberal policies are total failures.
Had Liberals not destroyed the education system in America, you would have moved into your 5th Level R&D economy in the mid-1990s, and right now, you'd have 12 Million Americans working industry, but 23 Million Americans working in high-paying R&D jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
Well GM spent its capital often obtained form the liquidation of an American operation to constuct the infrastructure and factories, educate the new workers and resume operations in China, Brazil or Mexico. The real genius of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin was to let the Americans come in and invest hundreds of billions of dollars and create more than 70 million new modern industrial jobs in China.
And that was a smart move by GM.
I guess you're all butt-hurt by the fact that you as an American are no longer relevant in today's World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
3. When President Obama took office, he lowered taxes, not raised them Or did you think President Bush put the payroll tax credits in place ?
Um, that was a 2% reduction in FICA payroll tax which inflated the annual deficits and the federal debt.
And it accomplished nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
I once thought that Presidents controlled the economy, then I graduated from grade school.
Presidents do control the economy indirectly through their policies....uh, which shouldn't even happen in the first place, since it is the Speaker of the House who should be controlling Domestic Policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Reagan didn't have to deal with with the scope of private assets lost.
But they weren't lost.
You truly live in a fantasy world.
In you spend $10 on a stock share, and the price of the stock share increases to $100...how much money did you gain?
$0.
You obviously think you actually gained $90. You didn't gain squat. That $90 is theoretical fantasy, not real money.
If you actually sell the share of stock for $100, then its real value truly was $100 and you will have gained $90.
If the stock price inflates to $100, and then decreases to $50, you did not lose a single penny. That $50 you claim you lost never existed in the first place....it was pure fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Can anyone explain to me why the republicans were so agianst Obama plan to build up our infrastructure.
Um, because it was the wrong thing to do for any number of reasons, including the fact that your recession was not caused by the under-utilization of Capital by union fire-fighters, union teachers or union constructions
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Reagan inherited a recession in a world where recessions caused layoffs,....
Uh, wut?
Bob, why don't you down a couple cups of coffee and rejoin us later...
In you spend $10 on a stock share, and the price of the stock share increases to $100...how much money did you gain?
$0.
You obviously think you actually gained $90. You didn't gain squat. That $90 is theoretical fantasy, not real money.
If you actually sell the share of stock for $100, then its real value truly was $100 and you will have gained $90.
Right, and the person that sold the stock for $10, didnt profit by selling it for $100, thus its a revenue neutral transaction.
I tell them that all the time, they never listen
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.
