Deficit shrinking faster than any time since WWII

[Toronado3800]

That be true. And he might not want ppl to come over to the point of view he is "supporting" either.

Man. I would pay Al Gore to take the other side of any issue I supported lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They didn't help the economy at all, quite the opposite. They created a housing bubble.

Idiots buying shit they couldn't afford caused the housing bubble.

yes but lets not forget that when the liberal Feds are printing easy money as they always do its very hard to know what you can afford.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

how perfectly insane can one person be? The perfect fool liberal always wants an impartial source. If such a thing existed he could provide just one impartial source saying that liberalism makes sense. Well, where is that impartial liberal source????

Will he ever provide it or does he merely have the IQ of a liberal???

Less name calling will win you more friends.

Try convincing people your ideas are part of their ideology.

What makes you think he wants friends?

the liberal feels if he can't lay a glove on conservatism intellectually, he can at least salvage something by attacking me personally for being, of all things, unfriendly. Of course I'm devastated.

 

[Sallow]

Great! That means the Bush Tax cuts are working and that we don't need to increase taxes on anyone!

Thanks dean!

Actually, it's the Bush tax cuts that caused the mess. Remember, they are years old. It's what Obama has done since Republicans tried to destroy the economy and turn over government to big business.

So what you're saying is that this economy belongs to obama?

Part of the economy belongs to the government..no matter who is at the helm of it.

There are some really serious flaws in conservative thinking if they don't understand a bedrock fact like that.

 

[Toronado3800]

Less name calling will win you more friends.

Try convincing people your ideas are part of their ideology.

What makes you think he wants friends?

the liberal feels if he can't lay a glove on conservatism intellectually, he can at least salvage something by attacking me personally for being, of all things, unfriendly. Of course I'm devastated.

Edward, are you over 18? Be honest. I just don't wanna be a cyber bully on a teen or somethin similar.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What makes you think he wants friends?

the liberal feels if he can't lay a glove on conservatism intellectually, he can at least salvage something by attacking me personally for being, of all things, unfriendly. Of course I'm devastated.

Edward, are you over 18? Be honest. I just don't wanna be a cyber bully on a teen or somethin similar.

please cut the BS and say something substantive in support of liberalism or admit you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Toronado3800]

the liberal feels if he can't lay a glove on conservatism intellectually, he can at least salvage something by attacking me personally for being, of all things, unfriendly. Of course I'm devastated.

Edward, are you over 18? Be honest. I just don't wanna be a cyber bully on a teen or somethin similar.

please cut the BS and say something substantive in support of liberalism or admit you lack the IQ to do so.

Edward, I don't even know what you want the answer to. All you do is call ppl libturds or insult their IQ so I thought I should check your age.

 

[akelch]

Actually, it's the Bush tax cuts that caused the mess. Remember, they are years old. It's what Obama has done since Republicans tried to destroy the economy and turn over government to big business.

So what you're saying is that this economy belongs to obama?

Part of the economy belongs to the government..no matter who is at the helm of it.

There are some really serious flaws in conservative thinking if they don't understand a bedrock fact like that.

Your right .....whether we like it or not. But I would prefer they stick to their true responsibilities ....like national defense, court systems and up holding our individual right. And stay out of the insurance business.

 

[pinkwaxfish]

This chart from the original post belongs on a late night informercial. The bars coming up from the zero line might fool you into thinking that the government is bringing in more than it is spending in those years shown. It's not.

Note the verbiage on the chart that says "Positive numbers equal smaller deficit." And it's measured as a per cent of GDP. This chart is made to fool Obama lovers into thinking it's all rainbows and pancakes out there. So, to original poster. Sorry, but you've been punked.

Here's what's really happening. As a percentage of GDP, last year's deficit was less than the year before. That was the first time in years it was like that, so the rules of this ridiculous chart mean it gets to show a positive bar. Huzzah.

Here's an analogy for you. Two years ago I took out $10,000 of credit card debt. Last year I took out $9500 on top of the $10,000 already outstanding.

By the rules of this chart, that additional $9500 of debt would show a positive bar for a "deficit reduction."

Yes, the Bush years were a catastrophe. So were the Obama years. Don't be so gullible as to see a chart from Investor's Business Daily and assume that your golden boy is doing everything right, just like you thought he was. Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy as fast as they ever were, but some blogger makes a silly chart and you think it's all just dandy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy

why Republicans??? They have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Democrats killed every one of them. They sign the pledge, Democrats don't!! Republicans voted 100% against the stimulus and Obamacare.

Sorry!!

 

[pinkwaxfish]

Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy

why Republicans??? They have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Democrats killed every one of them. They sign the pledge, Democrats don't!! Republicans voted 100% against the stimulus and Obamacare.

Sorry!!

Fair enough. But here's the deal. Republicans get to look responsible when they know they're going to lose. But what about when they're in power?

TARP, Medicare Drug Program, two unnecessary wars, and as much pork as the other guys. That's what we got during the Bush years when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

They are all guilty.

And personally, I think that the next Republican nominee for President should publicly disown the Bush years and say that they don't stand for that and the Republican party behaved poorly during that time. If the Republicans want to win, they should bring forth new blood who says that Bush/Obama were sixteen years of the same, failed policies. They were like one long national nightmare, with two presidents who looked and spoke very differently, but policy-wise, were exactly the same.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's what we got during the Bush years when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

but so what?? They were not Jeffersonian Republicans, Tea party Republicans, MIlton Friedman Republicans, Newt Republicans, Reagan Republicans, or Ron Paul Republicans.

Republicans are not pure and they must not be when we have a nation addicted to welfare whose elections are decided by independents.

IF they were pure they would merely be perfectly impotent as the Libertarian Party is.

 

[akelch]

Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy

why Republicans??? They have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Democrats killed every one of them. They sign the pledge, Democrats don't!! Republicans voted 100% against the stimulus and Obamacare.

Sorry!!

Fair enough. But here's the deal. Republicans get to look responsible when they know they're going to lose. But what about when they're in power?

TARP, Medicare Drug Program, two unnecessary wars, and as much pork as the other guys. That's what we got during the Bush years when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

They are all guilty.

And personally, I think that the next Republican nominee for President should publicly disown the Bush years and say that they don't stand for that and the Republican party behaved poorly during that time. If the Republicans want to win, they should bring forth new blood who says that Bush/Obama were sixteen years of the same, failed policies. They were like one long national nightmare, with two presidents who looked and spoke very differently, but policy-wise, were exactly the same.

Thank you!!!!
I personal liked Bush....but hated his addiction to spending and social programs. Obama has the same policies and has added more.
Tax policy too. I heard for years how the Bush tax cuts were for the wealth and they didn't help the middle class...but now, for some reason, it would a travesty to let them expire.

 

[Rshermr]

This chart from the original post belongs on a late night informercial. The bars coming up from the zero line might fool you into thinking that the government is bringing in more than it is spending in those years shown. It's not.

Note the verbiage on the chart that says "Positive numbers equal smaller deficit." And it's measured as a per cent of GDP. This chart is made to fool Obama lovers into thinking it's all rainbows and pancakes out there. So, to original poster. Sorry, but you've been punked.

Here's what's really happening. As a percentage of GDP, last year's deficit was less than the year before. That was the first time in years it was like that, so the rules of this ridiculous chart mean it gets to show a positive bar. Huzzah.

Here's an analogy for you. Two years ago I took out $10,000 of credit card debt. Last year I took out $9500 on top of the $10,000 already outstanding.

By the rules of this chart, that additional $9500 of debt would show a positive bar for a "deficit reduction."

Yes, the Bush years were a catastrophe. So were the Obama years. Don't be so gullible as to see a chart from Investor's Business Daily and assume that your golden boy is doing everything right, just like you thought he was. Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy as fast as they ever were, but some blogger makes a silly chart and you think it's all just dandy.

And just think, if only you had a solution to propose. But, you have none. No perspective as to how previous administrations pulled us out of high unemployment times. Anyone got a clue. Or is it just more blame game. Trying to make the us economy look like their checking account.

 

[akelch]

This chart from the original post belongs on a late night informercial. The bars coming up from the zero line might fool you into thinking that the government is bringing in more than it is spending in those years shown. It's not.

Note the verbiage on the chart that says "Positive numbers equal smaller deficit." And it's measured as a per cent of GDP. This chart is made to fool Obama lovers into thinking it's all rainbows and pancakes out there. So, to original poster. Sorry, but you've been punked.

Here's what's really happening. As a percentage of GDP, last year's deficit was less than the year before. That was the first time in years it was like that, so the rules of this ridiculous chart mean it gets to show a positive bar. Huzzah.

Here's an analogy for you. Two years ago I took out $10,000 of credit card debt. Last year I took out $9500 on top of the $10,000 already outstanding.

By the rules of this chart, that additional $9500 of debt would show a positive bar for a "deficit reduction."

Yes, the Bush years were a catastrophe. So were the Obama years. Don't be so gullible as to see a chart from Investor's Business Daily and assume that your golden boy is doing everything right, just like you thought he was. Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy as fast as they ever were, but some blogger makes a silly chart and you think it's all just dandy.

And just think, if only you had a solution to propose. But, you have none. No perspective as to how previous administrations pulled us out of high unemployment times. Anyone got a clue. Or is it just more blame game. Trying to make the us economy look like their checking account.

One solution:
HR 25 (The Fair Tax)
Ready and waiting to be voted on.

 

[Rshermr]

This chart from the original post belongs on a late night informercial. The bars coming up from the zero line might fool you into thinking that the government is bringing in more than it is spending in those years shown. It's not.

Note the verbiage on the chart that says "Positive numbers equal smaller deficit." And it's measured as a per cent of GDP. This chart is made to fool Obama lovers into thinking it's all rainbows and pancakes out there. So, to original poster. Sorry, but you've been punked.

Here's what's really happening. As a percentage of GDP, last year's deficit was less than the year before. That was the first time in years it was like that, so the rules of this ridiculous chart mean it gets to show a positive bar. Huzzah.

Here's an analogy for you. Two years ago I took out $10,000 of credit card debt. Last year I took out $9500 on top of the $10,000 already outstanding.

By the rules of this chart, that additional $9500 of debt would show a positive bar for a "deficit reduction."

Yes, the Bush years were a catastrophe. So were the Obama years. Don't be so gullible as to see a chart from Investor's Business Daily and assume that your golden boy is doing everything right, just like you thought he was. Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy as fast as they ever were, but some blogger makes a silly chart and you think it's all just dandy.

And just think, if only you had a solution to propose. But, you have none. No perspective as to how previous administrations pulled us out of high unemployment times. Anyone got a clue. Or is it just more blame game. Trying to make the us economy look like their checking account.

One solution:
HR 25 (The Fair Tax)
Ready and waiting to be voted on.

So, here is an analysis by
"Factcheck.org of the Fair Tax. This analysis was done in 2007.
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax
there is a full analysis of the Fair Tax in this Article.
So, what is the likelihood of passage. Probably really poor. Even the AFT, who is the group pushing this tax, admit that those making from $40K to $150K will pay more. Only those making over $200K, or under something like $24K, would see any benefit. Primarily, however, the benefit is to the wealthy.

 

[Article 15]

I remember in 2007 when Democrats said it was irresponsible to spend so more money and unpatriotic to raise the debt limit and Republicans said it is best for the country.

I also remember that Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts when they had a super majority in all 3 branches.

I wonder what everyone will say next year.

^massive head trauma victim

 

[pinkwaxfish]

This chart from the original post belongs on a late night informercial. The bars coming up from the zero line might fool you into thinking that the government is bringing in more than it is spending in those years shown. It's not.

Note the verbiage on the chart that says "Positive numbers equal smaller deficit." And it's measured as a per cent of GDP. This chart is made to fool Obama lovers into thinking it's all rainbows and pancakes out there. So, to original poster. Sorry, but you've been punked.

Here's what's really happening. As a percentage of GDP, last year's deficit was less than the year before. That was the first time in years it was like that, so the rules of this ridiculous chart mean it gets to show a positive bar. Huzzah.

Here's an analogy for you. Two years ago I took out $10,000 of credit card debt. Last year I took out $9500 on top of the $10,000 already outstanding.

By the rules of this chart, that additional $9500 of debt would show a positive bar for a "deficit reduction."

Yes, the Bush years were a catastrophe. So were the Obama years. Don't be so gullible as to see a chart from Investor's Business Daily and assume that your golden boy is doing everything right, just like you thought he was. Obama and the Republican Congress are sinking the economy as fast as they ever were, but some blogger makes a silly chart and you think it's all just dandy.

And just think, if only you had a solution to propose. But, you have none. No perspective as to how previous administrations pulled us out of high unemployment times. Anyone got a clue. Or is it just more blame game. Trying to make the us economy look like their checking account.

I have plenty of ideas.
1. Gut the federal registry. Most regulations aren't made to protect the public, but to protect existing industry from new competition. This alone will make a huge difference in unemployment. Most important thing we can do to get people back to work.
2. Eliminate all income taxes except the highest rate. Leave the highest rate in place on the wealthiest, eliminate income taxes for everyone else.
3. Totally free trade with the entire world. Not a single tariff, excise tax, or trade restriction.
4. Remove the restriction that only the US dollar can be legal tender. Let people and businesses use whatever medium of exchange they see fit so long as both parties agree. This will result in a gradual change away from our destructive monetary system which is the single most important factor in these giant recessions we get every few years. THis will move us towards an economy that is stable and self regulating.
5. Severe cuts in the military budget now. This is how we reduce the national debt. Entitlements are too entrenched into society to tear them up, but the military and homeland defense is an enormous expense that adds very little. Bring home 100% of troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and leave nothing more than tiny outposts in the rest of the world. Gut the homeland intelligence community. Did you know that more than 100,000 people work in intelligance gathering in this country?
6. Eliminate all federal spending on education and welfare. Anything the states want on those fronts, they can pay for.
7. Open the borders. Federal immigration policy should be: whatever the states want, we're not getting involved. States have to balance their own budgets. They'll learn quickly the key here is no government-provided social services to non-citizens, but people who want to come here and work are welcome.
8. END THE WAR ON DRUGS. Not only will that save billions on federal law enforcement, but it will drastically reduce most violent crime and cut way back on prison expense in every state.
9. Eliminate the payroll tax. If you get rid of all the programs mentioned above, gov't expenses can be paid for without it.
10. Get rid of all farm subsidies, industry subsidies, research subsidies, and anything else where the feds hand out money to people who aren't doing government work.

I could go on and on. A roadmap for fixing the economy is pretty simple. The hard part is getting Washington to do it.

 

[akelch]

And just think, if only you had a solution to propose. But, you have none. No perspective as to how previous administrations pulled us out of high unemployment times. Anyone got a clue. Or is it just more blame game. Trying to make the us economy look like their checking account.

One solution:
HR 25 (The Fair Tax)
Ready and waiting to be voted on.

So, here is an analysis by
"Factcheck.org of the Fair Tax. This analysis was done in 2007.
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax
there is a full analysis of the Fair Tax in this Article.
So, what is the likelihood of passage. Probably really poor. Even the AFT, who is the group pushing this tax, admit that those making from $40K to $150K will pay more. Only those making over $200K, or under something like $24K, would see any benefit. Primarily, however, the benefit is to the wealthy.

I have read it too and they are wrong.. They calculated the Fair Tax as a exclusive tax instead of a inclusive tax as it is written.
If they want to be fair, they should calculate the income tax the same way.

The AFT has set them straight on this.... but they left that out of their analysis. Plus it is funny how they quote them to help support their point of view but leave out the things they don't agree with.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One solution:
HR 25 (The Fair Tax)
Ready and waiting to be voted on.

So, here is an analysis by
"Factcheck.org of the Fair Tax. This analysis was done in 2007.
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax
there is a full analysis of the Fair Tax in this Article.
So, what is the likelihood of passage. Probably really poor. Even the AFT, who is the group pushing this tax, admit that those making from $40K to $150K will pay more. Only those making over $200K, or under something like $24K, would see any benefit. Primarily, however, the benefit is to the wealthy.

I have read it too and they are wrong.. They calculated the Fair Tax as a exclusive tax instead of a inclusive tax as it is written.

The AFT has set them straight on this.... but they left that out of their analysis. Plus it is funny how they quote them to help support their point of view but leave out the things they don't agree with.

liberals oppose a simple fair tax and prefer the current system that has created 1000's of crony capitalist loopholes and millions of make-work tax professionals who waste our nation's money and time!!