Wisconsin Giving Tax Surplus to the People!

[Bombur]

So Johnson's spending and Nixon's growth of gov't via alphabet agencies is irrelevant?
You're clearly out of your depth here, presenting a one dimensional view of the economy with the theme: Republicans have screwed us.

Neither are as significant with regards to the problems the US is facing as the things I mentioned. I was not blaming Republicans or Democrats.

Medicare is obviously very important but in the context of understanding large scale economic trends it fits into the topic of US health care more so than US government. How the US treats health care in general is of significance as it relates to how US labor competes in a world of global trade. There are a lot of issues there but obviously I was placing plenty of emphasis on the importance of that market.

The creation of a large entrenched bureaucracy that demands constant feeding and is hard to cut is directly responsible for the growth of the federal budget. If you think that isn't significant then I can't help that.
All transfer payment programs are important. Medicare is one of them. But regulation is also important in employment in the US vs elsewhere.

The US still has a healthcare system that is less universal than other industrialized nations. The fact that it is paid for through government is not nearly as important as the other problems with the overall system. Pointing to the size of Medicare totally misses the economic relevance of US healthcare policy on the underlying economic trends that are happening.

Regulation is important as it relates to the impact it has on trade but I consider this a trade issue as much as a regulatory issue. I would consider the various problems in the financial markets to be examples of regulatory problems but I doubt you brought them up to emphasize the need for more regulations.

Nations struggling with having too much or not enough regulations is just part of modern economics but it is not that significant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And 1998 isn't near as bad as 2000 when the economy was dropping because of the dot com failure. And of course 2001 economy was Clinton's but because of your politics it would be Bush's fault.

Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.

Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.

"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".

Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.

And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

 

[Papageorgio]

Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.

Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.

"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".

Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.

And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

Please explain the lie, The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, that is why Congress had a battle over them when Obama came into office, and the timing of the recession, it made it difficult for the Democrats to repeal.

After a Democratic majority accepted the tax cuts as per Obama's request, they became Obama's tax cuts.

Our debt is doubled up and Democrats are on record as voting for the wars.

No seeing the lie, you claim.

 

[paulitician]

Nice move. Very rare. Big props to Walker on this one.

 

[eflatminor]

Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.

Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.

"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".

Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.

And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

I see no "lies" NY...though maybe one minor correction is in order.

Bush did indeed cut taxes for all taxpayers and they continue under the current administration. Further, it is true that lots of Dems voted to authorize war...couldn't have passed without them.

The correction I would make is that debt has not YET doubled under Obama.

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Today, the debt stands at $17.338 trillion. So, it has not yet doubled but it CERTAINLY WILL by the time he leaves office.

Is that the "lie" you were referring to NY?

 

[Antares]

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

Please explain the lie, The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, that is why Congress had a battle over them when Obama came into office, and the timing of the recession, it made it difficult for the Democrats to repeal.

After a Democratic majority accepted the tax cuts as per Obama's request, they became Obama's tax cuts.

Our debt is doubled up and Democrats are on record as voting for the wars.

No seeing the lie, you claim.

As you have probably guessed Carb is a drive by hatah....he/she/it just makes shit up as t goes.

 

[TooTall]

Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.

Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.

"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".

Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.

And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

No lie there. Are you really that dumb?
On edit, I was corrected on the debt being doubled by Obama. Not yet, but close.

 

[Yurt]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

 

[Yurt]

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

I see no "lies" NY...though maybe one minor correction is in order.

Bush did indeed cut taxes for all taxpayers and they continue under the current administration. Further, it is true that lots of Dems voted to authorize war...couldn't have passed without them.

The correction I would make is that debt has not YET doubled under Obama.

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Today, the debt stands at $17.338 trillion. So, it has not yet doubled but it CERTAINLY WILL by the time he leaves office.

Is that the "lie" you were referring to NY?

nice take down of NYC's lies....

 

[The Rabbi]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

If it's good, Obama did it.
If it's bad, it's Bush's fault.
Got it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

Because you people said that Obama owned this economy.

I don't hear anyone retracting that claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

I see no "lies" NY...though maybe one minor correction is in order.

Bush did indeed cut taxes for all taxpayers and they continue under the current administration. Further, it is true that lots of Dems voted to authorize war...couldn't have passed without them.

The correction I would make is that debt has not YET doubled under Obama.

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Today, the debt stands at $17.338 trillion. So, it has not yet doubled but it CERTAINLY WILL by the time he leaves office.

Is that the "lie" you were referring to NY?

So you admit you lied about the amount of the debt. Why did you lie?

Nor did Democrats vote for the Iraq war. They voted against it.

Nor does Obama control how much debt we have.

That's 3 lies in one short sprint. You really are a reprehensible piece of human garbage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

first, the bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich
second, obama continued them, so they are now the obama tax cuts
third, obama has doubled the balance on the US credit card.
fourth, democrats voted to authorize and fund the stupid mid east wars.

You lie.

Please explain the lie, The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, that is why Congress had a battle over them when Obama came into office, and the timing of the recession, it made it difficult for the Democrats to repeal.

After a Democratic majority accepted the tax cuts as per Obama's request, they became Obama's tax cuts.

Our debt is doubled up and Democrats are on record as voting for the wars.

No seeing the lie, you claim.

No asshole, even the asshole who originally lied about the debt has admitted he lied. That makes you an asshole's asshole.

And no the Democrats did not vote for the Iraq war. They voted against it. 147 - 111.

 

[TooTall]

You lie.

Please explain the lie, The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, that is why Congress had a battle over them when Obama came into office, and the timing of the recession, it made it difficult for the Democrats to repeal.

After a Democratic majority accepted the tax cuts as per Obama's request, they became Obama's tax cuts.

Our debt is doubled up and Democrats are on record as voting for the wars.

No seeing the lie, you claim.

No asshole, even the asshole who originally lied about the debt has admitted he lied. That makes you an asshole's asshole.

And no the Democrats did not vote for the Iraq war. They voted against it. 147 - 111.

Wrong again.

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representativeson Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
• 82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA),Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
• Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
• 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman(D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI),Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

 

[eflatminor]

You lie.

I see no "lies" NY...though maybe one minor correction is in order.

Bush did indeed cut taxes for all taxpayers and they continue under the current administration. Further, it is true that lots of Dems voted to authorize war...couldn't have passed without them.

The correction I would make is that debt has not YET doubled under Obama.

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Today, the debt stands at $17.338 trillion. So, it has not yet doubled but it CERTAINLY WILL by the time he leaves office.

Is that the "lie" you were referring to NY?

So you admit you lied about the amount of the debt. Why did you lie?

Uh...It wasn't my post genius. That said, I would say that Redfish didn't actually lie because it is a 100% guarantee that our debt will have at least doubled by the end of the Obama administration. I simply pointed out that it has not yet doubled.

Nor did Democrats vote for the Iraq war. They voted against it.

Now THAT is a lie! The 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002' was passed with 82 Democrat votes in the House and 29 in the Senate. We could not have authorized that war without those Dem votes.

Nor does Obama control how much debt we have.

Of course, I never said the President is solely responsible for the debt did I? Can't be a lie if I didn't say it.

That's 3 lies in one short sprint. You really are a reprehensible piece of human garbage.

Well, no. That's one misstatement from another person that I corrected, one thing I never said, and one lie from you.

Does that now make you a reprehensible piece of human garbage???

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please explain the lie, The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, that is why Congress had a battle over them when Obama came into office, and the timing of the recession, it made it difficult for the Democrats to repeal.

After a Democratic majority accepted the tax cuts as per Obama's request, they became Obama's tax cuts.

Our debt is doubled up and Democrats are on record as voting for the wars.

No seeing the lie, you claim.

No asshole, even the asshole who originally lied about the debt has admitted he lied. That makes you an asshole's asshole.

And no the Democrats did not vote for the Iraq war. They voted against it. 147 - 111.

Wrong again.

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representativeson Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
• 82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA),Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
• Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
• 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman(D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI),Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

You just confirmed what I said.

Most Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution.

 

[Yurt]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

Because you people said that Obama owned this economy.

I don't hear anyone retracting that claim.

who said he owned individual state economies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

Because you people said that Obama owned this economy.

I don't hear anyone retracting that claim.

No one want to retract that?

Okay. Then Obama owns this economy. That means you don't get to pick and choose parts of it you want someone else to own.

 

[NYcarbineer]

don't forget NYC's infamous posts where he gave obama all the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

it still cracks me up.

Because you people said that Obama owned this economy.

I don't hear anyone retracting that claim.

who said he owned individual state economies?

Since the national economy is composed of 50 state economies, how can he not?

 

[Yurt]

Because you people said that Obama owned this economy.

I don't hear anyone retracting that claim.

who said he owned individual state economies?

Since the national economy is composed of 50 state economies, how can he not?

you're confusing GDP with state budgetary surpluses. obama has little to do with state policies regarding their budgets and taxes. claiming obama owns the GDP economy is completely different than a state's individual economy in terms of their budgetary process and laws.

and i've never said a president owns the GDP or national economy. overall a president doesn't have much control over it. if people are saying obama owns it, it likely is because all you libs claimed bush owned the economy when it was bad. and claimed it was still a bush economy years later. they weren't talking about individual state budget surpluses.