Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    ??? spending as % of GDP is much higher now than it was then. Even with Clinton era tax rates there still would be a huge deficit.

    You need economic growth to increase revenues. a high percentage of a low number is not nearly as good as a moderate percentage of a large number.

    Tax the "rich" at 100% and you still have a large deficit.
    Fishy, buddy, you're so eager to spout off Drudge talking points you aren't stopping to read what I'm saying.

    Putting taxes at Clinton era rates means no excuses. If the budget could be balanced under those rates, it can be again. Meaning, the revenue those rates bring in. That's what the gubmint has to spend. Now, you are correct (did I say that?) in that there will need to be spending reductions. In fact that's been the Dems plan all along (although not quite what I'm suggesting). Cut the military back $200B a year and domestic spending a similar amount and that gets things back in line. After that economic growth plus means testing Medicare gets the country back in the black and that money gets used to pay down the deficit, not on tax breaks for GOP campaign contributors again.
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

      Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
      That's the most laughable thing I've seen anyone post in a long time. Simply hilarious, in a scary sort of way. Obama basically hasn't paid for any of his many new spending programs, unless you count turning up the speed on the treasury's money printing machines as paying for programs.
      At least all his stuff is on the books. Bush was too much of a ***** to put the wars in there.
      **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

      Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
      Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
        At least all his stuff is on the books. Bush was too much of a ***** to put the wars in there.
        That was a quick backtrack. But, I'll give you credit for backtracking. A lot of folks around here just stick to their arguments, no matter how hollow they are shown to be.

        Not sure what you mean by on the books. The huge fiscal commitment of Obamacare is barely if at all recognized for example.
        Originally posted by Priceless
        Good to see you're so reasonable.
        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
        Very well, said.
        Originally posted by Rover
        A fair assessment Bob.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

          Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
          That was a quick backtrack. But, I'll give you credit for backtracking. A lot of folks around here just stick to their arguments, no matter how hollow they are shown to be.

          Not sure what you mean by on the books. The huge fiscal commitment of Obamacare is barely if at all recognized for example.
          Not backtracking at all. Everything Obama has done has been above board and with "paying for it" discussion going on.

          NCLB was never paid for and never discussed.
          Medicare Prescription "D" was never paid for and never discussed.
          Afghanistan was never paid for and never discussed.
          Iraq was never paid for and never discussed.

          By discussed I mean actual costs and how they were going to pay for them done on Capitol Hill in committee and reported on. By on the BOOKS I mean in the budget. Bush left the wars OUT OF his budgets. Obama put the wars back into the budgets.
          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
            Not backtracking at all. Everything Obama has done has been above board and with "paying for it" discussion going on.

            NCLB was never paid for and never discussed.
            Medicare Prescription "D" was never paid for and never discussed.
            Afghanistan was never paid for and never discussed.
            Iraq was never paid for and never discussed.

            By discussed I mean actual costs and how they were going to pay for them done on Capitol Hill in committee and reported on. By on the BOOKS I mean in the budget. Bush left the wars OUT OF his budgets. Obama put the wars back into the budgets.
            There. I try to give you some credit and you blow it. You are delusional if you think Obama has engaged in serious and good faith efforts to pay for all his spending. Not much more to say. Even most Dems don't make that sort of ridiculous claim, as Obama's deficit climbs past $1.2 trillion annually.
            Originally posted by Priceless
            Good to see you're so reasonable.
            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
            Very well, said.
            Originally posted by Rover
            A fair assessment Bob.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
              Obama put the wars back into the budgets.
              Everything else you said is true, but are you sure about this last statement? My understanding is that Bush's wars were off budget in the sense of "not being budgeted for": he simply didn't pay for them, he borrowed. Therefore, they are technically reflected in the budget -- as debt. Has that changed under Obama? I recognize he's using real (well, as real as Washington ever uses) accounting for ObamaCare, but is he actually recording war spending as general expenditure against the real budget, as opposed to Bush's BS, or is he just perpetuating Bush's BS on the wars?
              Last edited by Kepler; 09-25-2012, 10:27 AM.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                There. I try to give you some credit and you blow it. You are delusional if you think Obama has engaged in serious and good faith efforts to pay for all his spending. Not much more to say. Even most Dems don't make that sort of ridiculous claim, as Obama's deficit climbs past $1.2 trillion annually.
                I disagree strongly -- I think Obama is engaged in serious and good faith efforts to account for his spending and to move as much of it as he can from borrowing later to revenue collection now. That's what the GOP has stopped him from doing.

                As far as the $1.2T deficit goes, we have gone over endlessly how this is primarily the result of inheriting Republican wars, Republican tax cuts, the Republican recession, and bipartisan commitments on other programs going back generations. Some of it is Obama, but blaming him for the full deficit is like blaming a manager who takes over in July with his team 35 games behind for finishing the season 40 GB.
                Last edited by Kepler; 09-25-2012, 10:28 AM.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  Everything else you said is true, but are you sure about this last statement? My understanding is that Bush's wars are off budget because he simply didn't pay for the, he borrowed. Therefore, they are technically reflected in the budget -- as debt. Has that changed under Obama? I recognize he's using real (well, as real as Washington ever uses) accounting for ObamaCare, but is he actually recording war spending as general expenditure against the real budget, as opposed to Bush's BS, or is he just perpetuating Bush's BS on the wars?
                  In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.
                  As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.
                  http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/f.../55667611.aspx
                  Last edited by ScoobyDoo; 09-25-2012, 10:34 AM.
                  **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                  Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                  Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    I disagree strongly -- I think Obama is engaged in serious and good faith efforts to account for his spending and to move as much of it as he can from borrowing later to revenue collection now. That's what the GOP has stopped him from doing.

                    As far as the $1.2T deficit goes, we have gone over endlessly how this is primarily the result of inheriting Republican wars, Republican tax cuts, the Republican recession, and bipartisan commitments on other programs going back generations. Some of it is Obama, but blaming him for the full deficit is like blaming a manager who takes over in July with his team 35 games behind for finishing the season 40 GB.
                    Funny, Bush's deficits were never near every year has been under Obama. I wonder when Obama get reelected and he's in his 8th year office, if he (and his supporters) will start taking responsibility for their fiscal irresponsibility. I criticized Bush for his $400-$500 billion deficits. I'll criticize Obama even more for his $1.2 trillion plus deficits. The charade you Obama supporters are putting on is just so hollow. He talks out of both sides of his mouth time and again. He proposes and pushes through more and more spending, then gives a perfunctory remark about reigning in the deficit, never does a thing about it, and you all buy it hook, line, and sinker.

                    Obama is like a manager that takes over in July at 10 GB, ends up 40 GB at the end of the season, and claims things got better. And some people actually buy it, even though the numbers starkly go the opposite direction. But, such is why we're heading for fiscal disaster at an ever faster clip.
                    Originally posted by Priceless
                    Good to see you're so reasonable.
                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                    Very well, said.
                    Originally posted by Rover
                    A fair assessment Bob.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                      Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                      Obama is like a manager that takes over in July at 10 GB, ends up 40 GB at the end of the season, and claims things got better. And some people actually buy it, even though the numbers starkly go the opposite direction. But, such is why we're heading for fiscal disaster at an ever faster clip.
                      Is your hypothesis falsifiable? In all seriousness, if Obama is re-elected and the numbers improve markedly in his second term, will you accept that your characterization is wrong, or will you explain away the numbers some other way? Because it seems to me that you are ignoring certain obvious improvements:

                      *****http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/benenjobsmarch2011.jpg******

                      (Old graph -- the blue right tail now runs 28 consecutive months of job gains)
                      Last edited by Kepler; 09-25-2012, 10:42 AM.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        Everything else you said is true, but are you sure about this last statement? My understanding is that Bush's wars were off budget in the sense of "not being budgeted for": he simply didn't pay for them, he borrowed. Therefore, they are technically reflected in the budget -- as debt. Has that changed under Obama? I recognize he's using real (well, as real as Washington ever uses) accounting for ObamaCare, but is he actually recording war spending as general expenditure against the real budget, as opposed to Bush's BS, or is he just perpetuating Bush's BS on the wars?
                        How did he pay for the bailout? Either one, it doesn't matter which. Also, how do you explain the threats of martial law if it wasn't passed?

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          Is your hypothesis falsifiable? In all seriousness, if Obama is re-elected and the numbers improve markedly in his second term, will you accept that your characterization is wrong, or will you explain away the numbers some other way? Because it seems to me that you are ignoring certain obvious improvements:

                          *****http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/benenjobsmarch2011.jpg******

                          (Old graph -- the blue right tail now runs 28 consecutive months of job gains)
                          If Obama gets reelected and he knocks the annual deficit way down, I'll be on here giving him a whole lot of credit. I'd put the odds of that happening at maybe 2 percent, but if it happens, I'll give him a boatload of credit.

                          Whereas, I expect most of his apologists to keep looking the other way if the numbers stay as bad as they are or even get worse.

                          Your graph is interesting, but we all know the economy is weak and there are a lot of numbers coming out that aren't good, like the latest state unemployment numbers that showed unemployment going up in a lot more states than it was coming down.
                          Originally posted by Priceless
                          Good to see you're so reasonable.
                          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                          Very well, said.
                          Originally posted by Rover
                          A fair assessment Bob.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            Is your hypothesis falsifiable? In all seriousness, if Obama is re-elected and the numbers improve markedly in his second term, will you accept that your characterization is wrong, or will you explain away the numbers some other way? Because it seems to me that you are ignoring certain obvious improvements:

                            *****http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/benenjobsmarch2011.jpg******

                            (Old graph -- the blue right tail now runs 28 consecutive months of job gains)
                            How many of those 2010 jobs were the census?

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                              Yah, $1.2 trillion should buy at least a few jobs, eh?
                              Originally posted by Priceless
                              Good to see you're so reasonable.
                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                              Very well, said.
                              Originally posted by Rover
                              A fair assessment Bob.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

                                Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                                Yah, $1.2 trillion should buy at least a few jobs, eh?
                                Did you REALLY have to remind me of South Park's Canadian argument?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X