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

[Rover]

Q: You say that the rich should "pay their 'fair' share." How much is that?

-- more!

Q: Okay, how much "more"?

-- MORE more!!

Q: and how much is that, exactly?

-- MORE more more!


Ah, yes, I see. and when you notice that some of the rich give away everything, then you say....

-- That's not enough! we want even more than that!


Q: so 'more' is never 'enough'?

-- Yes, now you understand us!


Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Go back to Clinton era tax rates for all, as in the last time the budget was balanced. Yes that means more increases than for just the rich, but if you could balance it back then you can do it now.

 

[Kepler]

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

That's the ironic thing about the Echo Chamber's "they just want more and more" lie. Nobody has ever said that. The whole effort has been to sunset the Bush tax cuts on $250k+. All the ambiguity has been introduced by the Puppeteers to muddy the waters.

Everybody outside their bubble realizes this; the only people fooled are the folks like FF who consume a steady diet of RNC-approved pablum. (The people who maintain their bubble for their personal profit know it too, of course. Their game since the mid 90's has always been "Deny, Divert, Deflect," since they know they don't have the ideas to win honestly.)

 

[FreshFish]

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

Go back to Clinton era tax rates for all, as in the last time the budget was balanced. Yes that means more increases than for just the rich, but if you could balance it back then you can do it now.

??? 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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

??? 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.

The Echo is deafening. And don't say percentage, it's not allowed.

 

[FreshFish]

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

That's the ironic thing about the Echo Chamber's "they just want more and more" lie. Nobody has ever said that. The whole effort has been to sunset the Bush tax cuts on $250k+.

and what a wasted effort that will be once enacted.

is everyone on the left unable to add and subtract these days?

there is not enough money to balance the budget purely by increasing revenue. Multilple analyses performed many times make it so clear: if you taxed all income above $1 million you'd still have a huge budget deficit. Then what?

All we hear is how no spending can be cut; how we actually need to <strike>spend</strike> "invest" more....where does that money come from? the rich don't have enough to finance all the <strike>spending</strike> "investment" that's called for.

This question brings resounding silence whenever asked (which actually is quite refreshing before the "harrumph let's change the subject" moment arrives, as it always does, as the question continues to remain unanswered).

Funny how glib you are except when it matters, eh?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

and what a wasted effort that will be once enacted.

is everyone on the left unable to add and subtract these days?

there is not enough money to balance the budget purely by increasing revenue. Multilple analyses performed many times make it so clear: if you taxed all income above $1 million you'd still have a huge budget deficit. Then what?

All we hear is how no spending can be cut; how we actually need to <strike>spend</strike> "invest" more....where does that money come from? the rich don't have enough to finance all the <strike>spending</strike> "investment" that's called for.

This question brings resounding silence whenever asked (which actually is quite refreshing before the "harrumph let's change the subject" moment arrives, as it always does, as the question continues to remain unanswered).

Funny how glib you are except when it matters, eh?

As soon as were done paying for the (4) HUGE unfunded things Bush did we'll get around to cutting. Obama hasn't been allowed to pass anything without at least stating some way to pay for it.

EDIT: Actually its 5. I forgot about the Tax Cuts.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

That's the ironic thing about the Echo Chamber's "they just want more and more" lie. Nobody has ever said that. The whole effort has been to sunset the Bush tax cuts on $250k+. All the ambiguity has been introduced by the Puppeteers to muddy the waters.

Everybody outside their bubble realizes this; the only people fooled are the folks like FF who consume a steady diet of RNC-approved pablum. (The people who maintain their bubble for their personal profit know it too, of course. Their game since the mid 90's has always been "Deny, Divert, Deflect," since they know they don't have the ideas to win honestly.)

Those of us who actually listen aren't fooled by a policy that truly is "trickle-down". FF is actually correct when it comes to the idea of wanting more, but you have to look a little more in-depth. The messiah dictator came up with an artificial number of 200k per person, or 125k per person if you're married, to mean you "have too much". It's true trickle-down economics by means of trickle-up poverty.

However, that could explain why I'm a single dude; I don't have $75,000, since that's evidently how much marriage costs.

 

[Kepler]

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

However, that could explain why I'm a single dude; I don't have $75,000, since that's evidently how much marriage costs.

The cost of marriage is not denominated in dollars.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

is everyone on the left unable to add and subtract these days?

Did you not read FlagDUDE08's "Ways to Confuse a Democrat" #101? They get confused when the number's above 100, since you can't make a percentage with it.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Obama hasn't been allowed to pass anything without at least stating some way to pay for it.

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.

 

[Rover]

??? 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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

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.

 

[Kepler]

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

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?

 

[Kepler]

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

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.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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/forums/thread/55667611.aspx

 

[Bob Gray]

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

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.

 

[Kepler]

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

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:

(Old graph -- the blue right tail now runs 28 consecutive months of job gains)