The Risk of Runaway Defecits

[mash107]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

Precisely. And continuing Bush's failed policies of running enormous deficits is downright criminal, when the consequences are known. It should be clear that both parties fail the people, and fail to abide by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even see any philosophical (or actual) differences between this last Republican administration and this one.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

Precisely. And continuing Bush's failed policies of running enormous deficits is downright criminal, when the consequences are known. It should be clear that both parties fail the people, and fail to abide by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even see any philosophical (or actual) differences between this last Republican administration and this one.

Check in after 1000 days instead of 100. I think Obama has postponed his tax plans a bit till we turn the corner on the economy.

 

[mash107]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

Precisely. And continuing Bush's failed policies of running enormous deficits is downright criminal, when the consequences are known. It should be clear that both parties fail the people, and fail to abide by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even see any philosophical (or actual) differences between this last Republican administration and this one.

Check in after 1000 days instead of 100. I think Obama has postponed his tax plans a bit till we turn the corner on the economy.

Spending has to be cut. He's not done that. Much like his predecessor, he's continuing the failed policies of running a deficit. Looking at the Depression of 1921, it would serve recovery to cut spending significantly.

Income Taxes have to be abolished, not reduced from 35% to 33%, and marked as triumph over property rights, like these faux conservatives are claiming. Double/triple/quadruple taxation has to cease.

Printing of money has to cease. Expansion in the money supply is what inflation is, and that causes poverty, a lowered standard of living and financial bubbles.

Until I see any of the three items changing, Obama is just following the status quo.

 

[Iriemon]

Precisely. And continuing Bush's failed policies of running enormous deficits is downright criminal, when the consequences are known. It should be clear that both parties fail the people, and fail to abide by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even see any philosophical (or actual) differences between this last Republican administration and this one.

Check in after 1000 days instead of 100. I think Obama has postponed his tax plans a bit till we turn the corner on the economy.

Spending has to be cut. He's not done that. Much like his predecessor, he's continuing the failed policies of running a deficit. Looking at the Depression of 1921, it would serve recovery to cut spending significantly.

Income Taxes have to be abolished, not reduced from 35% to 33%, and marked as triumph over property rights, like these faux conservatives are claiming. Double/triple/quadruple taxation has to cease.

Printing of money has to cease. Expansion in the money supply is what inflation is, and that causes poverty, a lowered standard of living and financial bubbles.

Until I see any of the three items changing, Obama is just following the status quo.

I agree Obama should take steps to address long term deficits; disagree with your assertions of what has to be done to achieve that.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the Bushes created 91% of the National Debt...

ReaganBushDebt.org

Not even close anymore dipshit....Obama would double the deficits of George W. if given 4 more years.

Thanks for admitting I was right.

 

[Chris]

We have been through this before, do you not remember? I showed you clearly that in March '03 the CBO projected lower revenues than were actually collected. Do you really have that short of a memory, should I post the thread?

The facts speak for themselves, and IMO, and the data I cited is both directly relevant to your statement and clearly demostrate it's falseness. Other folks can decide for themselves.

I refuse to debate the same person about the same thing after the same person was owned in another thread, not that long ago.....

Maybe if you spelled the word "deficit" correctly in the thread title....

 

[jreeves]

The facts speak for themselves, and IMO, and the data I cited is both directly relevant to your statement and clearly demostrate it's falseness. Other folks can decide for themselves.

I refuse to debate the same person about the same thing after the same person was owned in another thread, not that long ago.....

Maybe if you spelled the word "deficit" correctly in the thread title....

Maybe if you weren't such a troll....

 

[jreeves]

Reagan and the Bushes created 91% of the National Debt...

ReaganBushDebt.org

Not even close anymore dipshit....Obama would double the deficits of George W. if given 4 more years.

Thanks for admitting I was right.

Yes I admit Obama would double all the Bush deficits.

 

[Chris]

I refuse to debate the same person about the same thing after the same person was owned in another thread, not that long ago.....

Maybe if you spelled the word "deficit" correctly in the thread title....

Maybe if you weren't such a troll....

Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.

 

[elvis]

Maybe if you spelled the word "deficit" correctly in the thread title....

Maybe if you weren't such a troll....

Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.

NONE of your arguments are convincing, personal or not, dickhead.

 

[elvis]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

I was against Bush running up deficits. Many republicans in Congress were against it but they didn't have the balls to cross party lines.

 

[elvis]

Reagan and the Bushes created 91% of the National Debt...

ReaganBushDebt.org

Which Obama is adding significantly to, you stupid ****. We keep waiting for you to quit spamming the same shit and update that fucking chart. But you're too much of a partisan fuck to do that, aren't you, dickmouth?

 

[jreeves]

Maybe if you spelled the word "deficit" correctly in the thread title....

Maybe if you weren't such a troll....

Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.

You regularly mistake the truth as personal attacks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet many of the conservative citizens of this country have always complained about wasteful spending, running deficits, and all that stuff, NO MATTER WHO WAS PRESIDENT....

Did the REP representatives act poorly?? Yep.. and I support getting them out of office, to be replaced with true conservatives, and have for a while now

What true conservatives where? You asses stood and cheered the fiscal policies that led to this mess. You have no credibility. President Obama may fail in his policies. You people have already shown us a degree of failure and incompetance previously unseen. Now you are lecturing us on fiscal policy

 

[Old Rocks]

Maybe if you weren't such a troll....

Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.

You regularly mistake the truth as personal attacks.

All you know is personal attack, Reeves.

 

[Old Rocks]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

I was against Bush running up deficits. Many republicans in Congress were against it but they didn't have the balls to cross party lines.

Sure you were, that the sun set in the East. I find it amusing how many of these neo-cons opposed all the Bush policies, now. But where were they four years ago? Perhaps they cannot recognize the truth. Remember, they make their own reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

A lot dismissed them because they largely sat by quitely while their guy Bush, who inhereted a surplus, ran the debt up to $11 trillion and it was only after a Democrat took office, inhereting a trillion dollar deficit and an economic catastrophe, that they suddenly took this great interest in the debt. Cricitism is less effective when it is smothered in the stench of hypocrisy.

While this may be true, facts are facts. Obama's spending spree is not just due to the bailing out of the banks or the stimulus package. He is looking to increase government spending as a percentage of GDP significantly even after the recession ends. You can't just say because it happened under Bush, we should allow it to continue at even higher rates under Obama.

Well, yes. We are going to have a real Health Care System. And we must fix SS. So, there will be more things done by government for the people that are paying the taxes than in the past. That is a good thing. We may reach the standard of living of some of the Scandanavian nations.

 

[Old Rocks]

Precisely. And continuing Bush's failed policies of running enormous deficits is downright criminal, when the consequences are known. It should be clear that both parties fail the people, and fail to abide by the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even see any philosophical (or actual) differences between this last Republican administration and this one.

Check in after 1000 days instead of 100. I think Obama has postponed his tax plans a bit till we turn the corner on the economy.

Spending has to be cut. He's not done that. Much like his predecessor, he's continuing the failed policies of running a deficit. Looking at the Depression of 1921, it would serve recovery to cut spending significantly.

Income Taxes have to be abolished, not reduced from 35% to 33%, and marked as triumph over property rights, like these faux conservatives are claiming. Double/triple/quadruple taxation has to cease.

Printing of money has to cease. Expansion in the money supply is what inflation is, and that causes poverty, a lowered standard of living and financial bubbles.

Until I see any of the three items changing, Obama is just following the status quo.

Since we have a couple of wars going, as well as a major economic debacle, I cannot see that we will have any room to reduce taxes. In fact, the upper end should go higher, since these are the people that put us where we are.

 

[elvis]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

I was against Bush running up deficits. Many republicans in Congress were against it but they didn't have the balls to cross party lines.

Sure you were, that the sun set in the East. I find it amusing how many of these neo-cons opposed all the Bush policies, now. But where were they four years ago? Perhaps they cannot recognize the truth. Remember, they make their own reality.

I opposed it then, you asshole. I didn't vote for Bush four years ago, so shove it up your ass.

 

[jreeves]

Not even close anymore dipshit....Obama would double the deficits of George W. if given 4 more years.

Thanks for admitting I was right.

Yes I admit Obama would double all the Bush deficits.

Old rocker...
Yes I admit Obama would double all the Bush deficits
what was a personal attack about this post?

That is what the CBO has projected I can't help it that Chrissy attached that as a personal attack. Maybe you could ask your AGW butt lover why he seen that as a personal attack.