Those fiscally responsible Democrats...

[Full-Auto]

Congress controls spending, not the Executive. The budget numbers on my chart are ACTUAL, not projected.

You've the actual budget numbers for 2020?

The blue numbers are actual along with 2008 and 2009. The rest of the Orange numbers are projected budgets - they represent the new MINIMUM level of spending that tax and spend democrat Congress is proposing. History has shown that the US Government never spends less than the budget......

Interesting graph In case I missed it would you be kind enough to post the link. I participate on another board, and this would be huge. Thanks

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE. But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.

The next year 2008, under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.

In this new budget, of course, The Democrats and Obama propose to spend $1.6 trillion more than we have! The Democrats are on pace to triple the national debt by 2020. Nice work assholes!!

No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending –will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.

November cannot come soon enough......

Why the hell is the 2007 budget considered Republican and the 2008 budget Democrat? Both houses were run by the Dems both years, and the White House by Bush in both years. Did they just pick that delineating mark because it makes Republicans look better?

 

[Full-Auto]

The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE. But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.

The next year 2008, under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.

In this new budget, of course, The Democrats and Obama propose to spend $1.6 trillion more than we have! The Democrats are on pace to triple the national debt by 2020. Nice work assholes!!

No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending –will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.

November cannot come soon enough......

Why the hell is the 2007 budget considered Republican and the 2008 budget Democrat? Both houses were run by the Dems both years, and the White House by Bush in both years. Did they just pick that delineating mark because it makes Republicans look better?

ask yourself one question. Obama just submitted his budget. Then what are we operating under right now. EXTENSIONS?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what are we operating under right now.

The FY 2010 budget, which was passed last year.

 

[Full-Auto]

what are we operating under right now.

The FY 2010 budget, which was passed last year.

you answered your own question.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what are we operating under right now.

The FY 2010 budget, which was passed last year.

you answered your own question.

I thought it was EXTENSIONS. make up your mind

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm......... WW2. Very high tax rate. Massive deficit spending. Taxes remained high into the early sixties. And we made no progress from '41 through '65, correct?

The present tax structure is just another way for the Conservatives to achieve their goal of the destruction of the American Middle Class.

 

[Zander]

The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE. But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.

The next year 2008, under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.

In this new budget, of course, The Democrats and Obama propose to spend $1.6 trillion more than we have! The Democrats are on pace to triple the national debt by 2020. Nice work assholes!!

No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending –will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.

November cannot come soon enough......

Why the hell is the 2007 budget considered Republican and the 2008 budget Democrat? Both houses were run by the Dems both years, and the White House by Bush in both years. Did they just pick that delineating mark because it makes Republicans look better?

The Budget for 2007 was submitted and approved in 2006 - by the Republican Congress. The tax and spend democrats took over in 2007 and submitted their first budget in 2008.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's not quite that simple and I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, though I doubt you'd learn anything from it anyway.

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Bush had an MBA...next...

 

[The Rabbi]

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Bush had an MBA...next...

Kerry won 2 purple hearts.
Next.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Hmmm......... WW2. Very high tax rate. Massive deficit spending. Taxes remained high into the early sixties. And we made no progress from '41 through '65, correct?

The present tax structure is just another way for the Conservatives to achieve their goal of the destruction of the American Middle Class.

1933-1941 - the longest and worst depression ever seen in recorded history, and modern historians are uncovering how FDR's inept handling just made the situation worse. WWII the USA gears up and fights in both the Pacific and Europe. Post WWII - the only intact industrial bases are in the US and USSR, everything else was shattered by the war, so the US has a huge boom because everyone needs our goods.

Seems Rocky that you are as ignorant about history as you are about science.

 

[Polk]

You don't spend your way out of a recession. It's never worked and it never will. It's that simple. It's a reckless policy.

It's never worked... except for all the times it did.

 

[Polk]

It's not quite that simple and I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, though I doubt you'd learn anything from it anyway.

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Well, I see problem one. You think a business background means you know something about the economy as a whole.

 

[Polk]

Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment. Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.

So much wrong with your post...

1. Carter didn't "believe raising taxes was good". In fact, both of the major revenue bills passed during the Carter administration were tax cuts (Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 increased the standard deduction and Revenue Act of 1978 cut personal and corporate income taxes, reduced the number of tax brackets, increased the standard deduction again, and cut capital gains taxes).
2. Even if he had increased taxes, taxes aren't what controls interest rates.
3. The 21 million new jobs in the 1980s was the smallest job growth in four decades.
4. Revenue didn't increase until near the middle of Reagan's tenure, and that's only because he signed a massive tax hike. The cuts at the beginning of his first term cause revenue to plummet.

 

[Polk]

Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment. Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.

Utter nonsense. To the extent Reagan created prosperity and increased revenue, it was because he borrowed a lot of money and spent it. All that spending was a good way to boose economic activity (aka Keynesianism) and that resulted in higher tax revenue.

I begged you to stop embarrassing yourself but you wouldn't listen.

Why was Reagan such a successful "Borrower and spender" yet FDR was such an epic failure?

FDR wasn't an epic failure. Compare industrial output, agricultural output, and unemployment in 1932 and 1936. All were significantly after his first term. Why did the economy retreat somewhat during his second term? Because he listened to idiots like you and slashed spending in an attempt to balance the budget.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't spend your way out of a recession. It's never worked and it never will. It's that simple. It's a reckless policy.

It's never worked... except for all the times it did.

Which was zero.
Please post one time when this worked.
It is impossible. Gov't cannot spend money because it has none. It can only take from one person and give to another. You see this road getting built but do not see that business closing because of higher taxes. Or lack of access to capital.
It is a shell game.
But then again, you still believe in the "multiplier effect." And Santa Claus.

 

[Polk]

It's worked at least twice in our own nation's history. 1933-1936 and 1940-1945.

 

[Zander]

It's worked at least twice in our own nation's history. 1933-1936 and 1940-1945.

Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side......

Must be some sweet ganja you smoke to continue to believe that fairy tale! Maybe you can hit the trifecta?! Smoke a huge doobie, while riding a rainbow colored Unicorn while riding on the Obama hopey-changey trail. Keep it copacetic............

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. What Zander said. You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.

 

[RodISHI]

I think the American taxpayer needs everyone out of their back pocket.

Canadian company seeks U.S. government loan guarantees for cross-Strait power cable -- Port Angeles Port Townsend Sequim Forks Jefferson County Clallam County Olympic Peninsula Daily NEWS

A Canadian company wants the U.S. Department of Energy to guarantee up to $484 million in loans to help cover the cost of a nearly $1 billion Juan de Fuca underwater cable project from Victoria to its likely Port Angeles terminus: a substation next to Peninsula College.