The straw that broke the Camels back. 2012 will not even be close

[JoeB131]

You call Palin stupid and ignore the fact she left Alaska with a surplus as well as jobs being created

Again, that's pretty much the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Those things happened because Alaska is awash in oil at a time when demand is at a record high.

and you ignore the president has spent well over 2 trillion dollars we do not have and at the same time we have lost about 6 million jobs

A criticism of Palin is not negated by a Criticism of Obama.

And Palin is the stupid one?

I'm not the one saying it, McCain staffers are. Sorry, I've seen this woman in enough interviews to tell me that if we were competing on Jeopardy, I'd be going home with most of Alex's money.

What did you say Bachmann is? Crazy?

Pretty much. Or let's be generous and say that her approach is radical and she comes off as out of the mainstream.

The GOP had a lot of good guys who could have won- Daniels, Barbour, Pawlenty- but they were all scared out of the race early. Partially because people thought Obama would walk on water after killing Bin Laden, others because they didn't relish drinking the TEA.

And then you have the liberals pushing Romney and Huntsman.

I think Perry is the only guys who has credibility with all the various factions- Security, Economic, Christian, TEA Party conservatives, and still looks presidential.

 

[bripat9643]

Keep in mind, if conservatives had their way, Social Security's money would have been invested in outfits like AIG.

If they had their way, it wouldn't be "Social Security's money." In reality, SS doesn't have any money. It doesn't have a plug nickel.

 

[Rozman]

Stock futures are in the tank
UE is getting worse
And for the first time sense we began to give "ratings" for ones status when it came to investing, Our Govt has been down graded

The tax payer and his 401 K is happy this morning

Come 2012 The president and most of congress will be looking for a new job, including some of the GOP
Its not even going to be close Libs

I really feel a tea party/libertarian type Government is about to take over

why?

Spending along with lack of discipline got us here, not lack of revenue
The tax payer had had enough
"pooky" will stay on the couch in 2012.
the tax payer will not this time

The economy will be his downfall...He blew it off and he still talks about doing things to fix it instead of doing something.Can he do something,what should he do?...I only know he talks about it a lot...Talks,Talks,Talks....Talks...

 

[HenryBHough]

Romney has a chance indeed. But only if he gets Rubio to be his VP and agrees to take a long walk on a short pier right after being inaugurated.

 

[whitehall]

All republicans did was to force democrats to agree that they needed to cut spending and democrats dragged their heels until the very end. On the other hand it was Barney Frank and the democrats who set the biggest October surprise in history when they gained the majority halfway into Bush's 2nd term, the collapse of Fannie Mae and the banking industry. If the liberal media was doing it's job Barney Frank would be having a good time in federal prison. The Tea Party put some backbone into the GOP and radical lefties are afraid of the truth (as usual).

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

SS is fine. Another Pub Propaganda Machine myth.

 

[auditor0007]

Because they don't know what that clusterfuck Obamacare is gonna cost em and they now have even more Regs to deal with.

I'd sit on my money as well.

Wrong; it's because they know the middle class is not spending and will not for quite some time. Without demand, increasing productivity is senseless. Again, much of this gets back to the fact that the baby boomers have cut back on spending for the very simple reason that they are now in save mode for retirement, if they are not already there. They don't need to buy bigger houses and bigger cars anymore. They've been there and done that. The problem is that their spending was the driving force of the economy for the past twenty to thirty years. Now it is dead.

 

[auditor0007]

Stock futures are in the tank
UE is getting worse
And for the first time sense we began to give "ratings" for ones status when it came to investing, Our Govt has been down graded

The tax payer and his 401 K is happy this morning

Come 2012 The president and most of congress will be looking for a new job, including some of the GOP
Its not even going to be close Libs

I really feel a tea party/libertarian type Government is about to take over

why?

Spending along with lack of discipline got us here, not lack of revenue
The tax payer had had enough
"pooky" will stay on the couch in 2012.
the tax payer will not this time

The "no lack of revenue argument" only convinces those who believe we can and "should" run the Federal Government on 13% of GDP. Thankfully, that is a minority of Americans.

Look the lack of revenue comes from what?
I keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and no-one has answered it yet
how can we be within 162 billion of breaking even in 2007 with IRAQ wide open and we over budget that much in one month now?
The work force has shrunk by 6 million, that revenue has been lost. But that has not added over 1 trillion dollars to our deficit each year
And whats wrong with budgeting our country with a % of GDP? You got have some baseline or you end up where we are
I am not sure where you got the 13% number

The reason we got close with Bush and the $162 billion is that the economy was bubbling. It was a false economy, and even with the bubble, there were signs that things were not going well. When the bubble burst, revenue didn't just fall a little, it dropped by nearly one third. Unemployment jumped between four to five percent, yet revenue fell by 30%. That should tell you that there is a problem with our tax code. A ten percent drop would have made much more sense, and it would have not given us these massive deficits.

As for those who believe we can run the Federal Government on 13% of GDP, just ask Tim Pawlenty as that is his Nirvana. There is no doubt that a lot of revenue has been lost to the recession. However, when we compare the loss in revenue from the federal government, as a percentage of GDP, to the individual states, we see that the states lost revenue also, but they only lost approximately 10% of their revenues. That is a far cry from 30% as happened with the federal government, and this is due to the lowering of the tax rates through the Bush tax cuts.

 

[bripat9643]

The reason we got close with Bush and the $162 billion is that the economy was bubbling. It was a false economy, and even with the bubble, there were signs that things were not going well. When the bubble burst, revenue didn't just fall a little, it dropped by nearly one third. Unemployment jumped between four to five percent, yet revenue fell by 30%. That should tell you that there is a problem with our tax code. A ten percent drop would have made much more sense, and it would have not given us these massive deficits.

As for those who believe we can run the Federal Government on 13% of GDP, just ask Tim Pawlenty as that is his Nirvana. There is no doubt that a lot of revenue has been lost to the recession. However, when we compare the loss in revenue from the federal government, as a percentage of GDP, to the individual states, we see that the states lost revenue also, but they only lost approximately 10% of their revenues. That is a far cry from 30% as happened with the federal government, and this is due to the lowering of the tax rates through the Bush tax cuts.

The first problem with your claim: Federal revenue hasn't decreased by 30%.

The second problem: The federal government takes more than 13% of GDP. Even during this recession, it takes in over 15%. The average take is 18%. However, the average level of spending has been 21% of GDP. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is.

 

[JRK]

Because they don't know what that clusterfuck Obamacare is gonna cost em and they now have even more Regs to deal with.

I'd sit on my money as well.

Wrong; it's because they know the middle class is not spending and will not for quite some time. Without demand, increasing productivity is senseless. Again, much of this gets back to the fact that the baby boomers have cut back on spending for the very simple reason that they are now in save mode for retirement, if they are not already there. They don't need to buy bigger houses and bigger cars anymore. They've been there and done that. The problem is that their spending was the driving force of the economy for the past twenty to thirty years. Now it is dead.

First of all just because your opinion dis agrees with his does not make any-one wrong
in-fact

I am the very person you described
baby boomer

I am not spending because I have no idea what this regime is going to do next.
There is no end to this
I am not union
I do not live in the NE
And I am not at this time nor have I ever been part of a well-fare collection group
I have no voice in our govt

I addition if we go back to BCs tax rates it will cost me about 3k a year

there are millions just like me
The system is broke and BHO has no clue on how to fix it

 

[JRK]

The reason we got close with Bush and the $162 billion is that the economy was bubbling. It was a false economy, and even with the bubble, there were signs that things were not going well. When the bubble burst, revenue didn't just fall a little, it dropped by nearly one third. Unemployment jumped between four to five percent, yet revenue fell by 30%. That should tell you that there is a problem with our tax code. A ten percent drop would have made much more sense, and it would have not given us these massive deficits.

As for those who believe we can run the Federal Government on 13% of GDP, just ask Tim Pawlenty as that is his Nirvana. There is no doubt that a lot of revenue has been lost to the recession. However, when we compare the loss in revenue from the federal government, as a percentage of GDP, to the individual states, we see that the states lost revenue also, but they only lost approximately 10% of their revenues. That is a far cry from 30% as happened with the federal government, and this is due to the lowering of the tax rates through the Bush tax cuts.

The first problem with your claim: Federal revenue hasn't decreased by 30%.

The second problem: The federal government takes more than 13% of GDP. Even during this recession, it takes in over 15%. The average take is 18%. However, the average level of spending has been 21% of GDP. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is.

Great chart
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK

 

[JRK]

The Republican best suited to beat President Obama would be the 2000 version of John McCain.

Why didn't it work for McCain, dipshit?

OMG NO
we need a hard line conservative that has the backing to un-do this mess and de regulate some areas that will allow growth