37 straight months of UE above 8%

[eflatminor]

Tax cuts aren't the problem - spending is...

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

Bullshit. First, you cannot prove #3 and there is volumes of historical evidence to suggest tax cuts may have increased revenues to the government. Either way, it's IMPOSSIBLE to state with specificity how tax cuts effect revenue. So, on point 3, you are full of shit.

Second, the 2011 budget spent as follows:
$895 billion Defense
$788 billion Medicare and Medicade
$740 billion Social Security
$612 billion mandatory "other"
$520 billion discretionary "other"
$251 billion interest on debt

Facts elude you.

 

[Syphon]

Tax cuts aren't the problem - spending is...

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

How did you determine those to be the three "biggest drivers?"

(btw, i agree with you and oppose the wars, medicare part d, and the bush tax policy)

WSJ on Debt Crisis: Reject Reality | FrumForum

U.S. Deficits and the National Debt - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[eflatminor]

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

How did you determine those to be the three "biggest drivers?"

(btw, i agree with you and oppose the wars, medicare part d, and the bush tax policy)

WSJ on Debt Crisis: Reject Reality | FrumForum

U.S. Deficits and the National Debt - Council on Foreign Relations

Yes, anyone can point to a blog supporting their opinion. Now use your grown up words and tell us how those are the biggest drivers of deficit spending, using logic, reason and if possible, facts.

 

[Syphon]

Tax cuts aren't the problem - spending is...

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

Bullshit. First, you cannot prove #3 and there is volumes of historical evidence to suggest tax cuts may have increased revenues to the government. Either way, it's IMPOSSIBLE to state with specificity how tax cuts effect revenue. So, on point 3, you are full of shit.

Second, the 2011 budget spent as follows:
$895 billion Defense
$788 billion Medicare and Medicade
$740 billion Social Security
$612 billion mandatory "other"
$520 billion discretionary "other"
$251 billion interest on debt

Facts elude you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/taxes-the-deficit-and-the-economy.html?_r=2

The full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009. The White House estimates that Mr. Obama’s plan would raise $866 billion over the next decade, or nearly half of that.

Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt [CHART]

If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
These tax breaks, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows.

suck on that

 

[Dr.Drock]

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

How did you determine those to be the three "biggest drivers?"

(btw, i agree with you and oppose the wars, medicare part d, and the bush tax policy)

WSJ on Debt Crisis: Reject Reality | FrumForum

U.S. Deficits and the National Debt - Council on Foreign Relations

I guess I would more lean towards the things that cost more.

 

[eflatminor]

The full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.

Bullshit. You have no evidence to support that. I can provide a link to those that would argue the tax cuts increased revenue. Neither can be proven. Total revenue from taxes varies based on many factors, tax rates being but one of those factors. Sorry to hit you over the head with logic and reason but your attempt to claim superior knowledge about that which cannot be proven is nauseating.

 

[Syphon]

The full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.

Bullshit. You have no evidence to support that. I can provide a link to those that would argue the tax cuts increased revenue. Neither can be proven. Total revenue from taxes varies based on many factors, tax rates being but one of those factors. Sorry to hit you over the head with logic and reason but your attempt to claim superior knowledge about that which cannot be proven is nauseating.

guess reading from links isnt your strong suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/taxes-the-deficit-and-the-economy.html?_r=2

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The New York Times

LOL

 

[eflatminor]

The full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.

Bullshit. You have no evidence to support that. I can provide a link to those that would argue the tax cuts increased revenue. Neither can be proven. Total revenue from taxes varies based on many factors, tax rates being but one of those factors. Sorry to hit you over the head with logic and reason but your attempt to claim superior knowledge about that which cannot be proven is nauseating.

guess reading from links isnt your strong suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/taxes-the-deficit-and-the-economy.html?_r=2

Guess considering logic and reason isn't your strong suit. That link provides ZERO evidence to support your claim. Nobody, again NOBODY, can state with certitude what will happen to revenue with changes in tax code.

 

[rightwinger]

The New York Times

LOL

Most honored and respected newspaper in America

 

[Full-Auto]

Tax cuts aren't the problem - spending is...

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

Bullshit. First, you cannot prove #3 and there is volumes of historical evidence to suggest tax cuts may have increased revenues to the government. Either way, it's IMPOSSIBLE to state with specificity how tax cuts effect revenue. So, on point 3, you are full of shit.

Second, the 2011 budget spent as follows:
$895 billion Defense
$788 billion Medicare and Medicade
$740 billion Social Security
$612 billion mandatory "other"
$520 billion discretionary "other"
$251 billion interest on debt

Facts elude you.

Debt service 2011

2011 $454,393,280,417.03

 

[eflatminor]

the three biggest drivers of the current debt and deficits are:

1 - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Medicare Part D
3 - 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts

now which one of those were proposed by a democrat?

Bullshit. First, you cannot prove #3 and there is volumes of historical evidence to suggest tax cuts may have increased revenues to the government. Either way, it's IMPOSSIBLE to state with specificity how tax cuts effect revenue. So, on point 3, you are full of shit.

Second, the 2011 budget spent as follows:
$895 billion Defense
$788 billion Medicare and Medicade
$740 billion Social Security
$612 billion mandatory "other"
$520 billion discretionary "other"
$251 billion interest on debt

Facts elude you.

Debt service 2011

2011 $454,393,280,417.03

You're correct about that figure. I took figures from the President's budget, which was never passed. My fault. Your figure is what was actually paid in 2011.

 

[candycorn]

Republicans stonewalled, blocked and delayed every initiative

Really? The Rs did that when the House, Senate and White House were all controlled by the Democrats. Pretty amazing feat that. Can you tell us specifically which initiatives were blocked by the Rs? I'd like to thank them but need your help identifying just few block initiatives, which should be easy since "every" initiative was blocked. Please, enlighten us.

The repeal of the Bush tax cuts for starters.

 

[eflatminor]

Republicans stonewalled, blocked and delayed every initiative

Really? The Rs did that when the House, Senate and White House were all controlled by the Democrats. Pretty amazing feat that. Can you tell us specifically which initiatives were blocked by the Rs? I'd like to thank them but need your help identifying just few block initiatives, which should be easy since "every" initiative was blocked. Please, enlighten us.

The repeal of the Bush tax cuts for starters.

FAIL!

255 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate. That's filibuster proof majority and yet, the tax rates remained unchanged. If changing the tax rates was a Democrat initiative, it was blocked by other Democrats. The Republicans had no power to do so.

MASSIVE FAIL! Want to try again?

 

[EriktheRed]

With cheap, plentiful overseas labor doing the jobs that Americans used to do and make a decent buck at, it's doubtful we'll ever see 4% unemployment ever again.

Welcome to the realities of the 21st century.

That's a defeatist attitude. Obummer really has you down huh?

For the record we are completely capable of competing globally if we don't have to compete with law makers at the same time.

Sure we can. We can scrap ALL the pesky regs so those almighty "job creators" have no accountablility whatsoever for how they make their profits. And we can accept even less pay and maybe even start living like the people in China who work for Foxconn. I'm sure that's what Republicans would suggest if they thought could get away with it.

 

[Syphon]

Really? The Rs did that when the House, Senate and White House were all controlled by the Democrats. Pretty amazing feat that. Can you tell us specifically which initiatives were blocked by the Rs? I'd like to thank them but need your help identifying just few block initiatives, which should be easy since "every" initiative was blocked. Please, enlighten us.

The repeal of the Bush tax cuts for starters.

FAIL!

255 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate. That's filibuster proof majority and yet, the tax rates remained unchanged. If changing the tax rates was a Democrat initiative, it was blocked by other Democrats. The Republicans had no power to do so.

MASSIVE FAIL! Want to try again?

that super majority lasted for 134 days..... not exactly that long considering how slow government moves.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died.

 

[eflatminor]

The repeal of the Bush tax cuts for starters.

FAIL!

255 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate. That's filibuster proof majority and yet, the tax rates remained unchanged. If changing the tax rates was a Democrat initiative, it was blocked by other Democrats. The Republicans had no power to do so.

MASSIVE FAIL! Want to try again?

that super majority lasted for 134 days..... not exactly that long considering how slow government moves.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died.

Thank you for proving my point. The Dems had 134 days of total power but no changes to the tax rates. Clearly, Candycorn's assertion is way off base.

Again, I'm looking for what was claimed, that every imitative was blocked. So far, I see some grasping at straws but that's about it. Geez, you'd think it would be easy to point to some of those initiatives if every one was blocked. Hmm...

 

[Syphon]

FAIL!

255 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate. That's filibuster proof majority and yet, the tax rates remained unchanged. If changing the tax rates was a Democrat initiative, it was blocked by other Democrats. The Republicans had no power to do so.

MASSIVE FAIL! Want to try again?

that super majority lasted for 134 days..... not exactly that long considering how slow government moves.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died.

Thank you for proving my point. The Dems had 134 days of total power but no changes to the tax rates. Clearly, Candycorn's assertion is way off base.

Again, I'm looking for what was claimed, that every imitative was blocked. So far, I see some grasping at straws but that's about it. Geez, you'd think it would be easy to point to some of those initiatives if every one was blocked. Hmm...

they got the health care law through during that time. which the GOP still tried to block by using procedural maneuvers.

and although on paper the super majority was 134 days, that was due to Al Franken who was won the election but was installed due to a recount until 7/7 nearly 7 months after the election. thus in reality the time between when Franken actually got to the senate and when ted kennedy died was 49 days of actual legislation power. hmmmm a month and a half, how fast do you expect congress to work? did you not see the debt ceiling fiasco? or the the START treaty debacle?

 

[Rozman]

Gotta hand it to them....when Republicans fuck things up, they fuck them up good

And then they sit back and giggle because they created a mess that the Democrats can't fix

Let's run with that for a bit.....

So essentially what you're saying is the current crop of democrats are too stupid to undo what the last bunch of idiots did?

These guys act like The Democrat party was created with Obama being elected.
They don't want to take any responsibility for anything that happened the last 25 years.
The Democrat party holds no accountability for anything.
What BS...

 

[eflatminor]

that super majority lasted for 134 days..... not exactly that long considering how slow government moves.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died.

Thank you for proving my point. The Dems had 134 days of total power but no changes to the tax rates. Clearly, Candycorn's assertion is way off base.

Again, I'm looking for what was claimed, that every imitative was blocked. So far, I see some grasping at straws but that's about it. Geez, you'd think it would be easy to point to some of those initiatives if every one was blocked. Hmm...

they got the health care law through during that time. which the GOP still tried to block by using procedural maneuvers.

and although on paper the super majority was 134 days, that was due to Al Franken who was won the election but was installed due to a recount until 7/7 nearly 7 months after the election. thus in reality the time between when Franken actually got to the senate and when ted kennedy died was 49 days of actual legislation power. hmmmm a month and a half, how fast do you expect congress to work? did you not see the debt ceiling fiasco? or the the START treaty debacle?

So, not a single example of legislation being blocked. Damn, how hard could this be if every initiative was blocked? But thanks for letting us know the pace at which you believe Congress is able to act. Very interesting but ultimately beside the point.