America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 167 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234
Boehner: "I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
HockeyDad Offline
#151 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 4:10 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
robertknyc wrote:
I still don't understand how Republicans who wanted to cut more than $4T are to blame for the ultimate deal being less than that. But, that's the logic of the strange people on the left.



Because the Republicans ran the debate to close to the finish line. They should have capitulated much earlier and accepted no cuts in spending and new taxation.
jetblasted Offline
#152 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 4:17 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
This has been an enjoyable read. I declare Le Hockey Dad, the winner of this debate.
Ragin' Cajun Offline
#153 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 4:19 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2009
Posts: 835
Receipts Outlays Surplus/(deficit)

2000 .................................................................................. 2,025.2 1,789.0 236.2
2001 .................................................................................. 1,991.1 1,862.8 128.2
2002 .................................................................................. 1,853.1 2,010.9 -157.8
2003 .................................................................................. 1,782.3 2,159.9 -377.6
2004 .................................................................................. 1,880.1 2,292.8 -412.7
2005 .................................................................................. 2,153.6 2,472.0 -318.3
2006 .................................................................................. 2,406.9 2,655.0 -248.2
2007 .................................................................................. 2,568.0 2,728.7 -160.7
2008 .................................................................................. 2,524.0 2,982.5 -458.6
2009 .................................................................................. 2,105.0 3,517.7 -1,412.7
2011 estimate ................................................................... 2,173.7 3,818.8 -1,645.1
2012 estimate ................................................................... 2,627.4 3,728.7 -1,101.2
2013 estimate ................................................................... 3,003.3 3,770.9 -767.5
2014 estimate ................................................................... 3,332.6 3,977.1 -644.6

Straight from www.whitehouse.gov. (numbers in billions) This is simple math that can't be swayed by political party. Yes, the government was impacted by a decrease in revenue starting in 2008, but spending increases far outpaced the decrease in revenue. Take into account the "estimated" revenue numbers assume growth of 20%, 14%, 11% for 2012,2013,2014, respectively, but assume a spending decrease of 2% on 2012 and increases of 1% and 5% for 2013 and 2014. Only my opinion, but unless the economy growth literally explodes, those revenue numbers are nt anywhere near reality. This current fiscal path can not be sustained and drastic spending cuts will be necessary or the U.S. will be Greece 2.0.

I apologize beforehand if the formatting is jacked up once I post. Direct link to the chart is here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
FuzzNJ Offline
#154 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Yeah, that damn Obama and his over-spending did it.

Read and learn where the problem came from in easy graph form:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

The teabaggers and their supporters who believe them are dumber than a box of rusty hammers.
rfenst Offline
#155 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
HockeyDad wrote:
Because the Republicans ran the debate to close to the finish line. They should have capitulated much earlier and accepted no cuts in spending and new taxation.


1. You and Fuzz should get a room. Sarcasm

2.The debate being run right up to the deadline is normal and is to be expected in any time-sensitive negotiations. This is part of American culture and human nature. A type of brinkmanship, if you will...
HockeyDad Offline
#156 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
no, no....brinkmanship is just an evil personality trait of the Republicans. Democrats would never do that.
ZRX1200 Offline
#157 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,614
I like it when LHD messes with him.
Ragin' Cajun Offline
#158 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 6:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2009
Posts: 835
FuzzNJ wrote:
Yeah, that damn Obama and his over-spending did it.

Read and learn where the problem came from in easy graph form:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

The teabaggers and their supporters who believe them are dumber than a box of rusty hammers.



Not sure if that was directed to me Fuzz, but I never mentioned a party or movement as the determining factor, only the simple facts as to he recent and projected spending.

Now based on the chart you linked, Bush era economic policies are to blame for a substantial portion of the projected deficit. So does the Democratic majority in ALL areas of the federal government that Obama enjoyed for 2 years, and the only reason his healthcare legislation was passed, not bear any responsibility for changing those policies? Getting out of Afghanistan (campaign promise), reversing Bush tax legislation on the rich (even though only makes up roughly 1/5 of the total effect), or Fannie/Freddie (this is Bush's fault?) So why were these items not addressed when he had full control of the governement?

Do not take my comments as an endorsement of the republicans and/or teaparty. The recent granstanding from both parties is rife with political opportunism rather than some devotion to principles. As I have said for several years we need statesmen not politicians. Congress or POTUS should be a service to your country, not a career.
HockeyDad Offline
#159 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 8:07 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
Ragin' Cajun wrote:
So does the Democratic majority in ALL areas of the federal government that Obama enjoyed for 2 years, and the only reason his healthcare legislation was passed, not bear any responsibility for changing those policies? Getting out of Afghanistan (campaign promise), reversing Bush tax legislation on the rich (even though only makes up roughly 1/5 of the total effect), or Fannie/Freddie (this is Bush's fault?) So why were these items not addressed when he had full control of the government?



They were busy and just didn't get around to it.
HockeyDad Offline
#160 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 8:11 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
Meanwhile.....


(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country's problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign.

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, where families paid $15,000 to get a picture with him, Obama defended his economic record and noted that problems in Europe were affecting the United States.

"We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited," Obama said. The financial crisis, he said, made the problem worse.
donutboy2000 Offline
#161 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 8:33 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
FuzzNJ wrote:
Yeah, that damn Obama and his over-spending did it.

Read and learn where the problem came from in easy graph form:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

The teabaggers and their supporters who believe them are dumber than a box of rusty hammers.




Extremely lame attempt at mis-direction, even for you. Please reread Rules for Radicals and try again.
rfenst Offline
#162 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
HockeyDad wrote:
no, no....brinkmanship is just an evil personality trait of the Republicans. Democrats would never do that.



Everybody does it.
hank56 Offline
#163 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 10:25 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2008
Posts: 13,167
FuzzNJ wrote:
Yeah, that damn Obama and his over-spending did it.

Read and learn where the problem came from in easy graph form:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

The teabaggers and their supporters who believe them are dumber than a box of rusty hammers.




I suppose this viewpoint is based on fact? Please google the definition of fact before you respond in the positive.

Just because you think its so doesn't necessarily make it so. Of course that would apply to a lot of your OPINIONS!


Or as you enjoy posting,

WTF?
donutboy2000 Offline
#164 Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 11:47 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
Read & Learn Lefty:




On spending, it is important to recall how extraordinary the blowout of the last three years has been. We've seen nothing like it since World War II. Nothing close. The nearby chart tracks federal outlays as a share of GDP since 1960. The early peaks coincide with the rise of the Great Society, the recession of 1974-75, and then a high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 and the Reagan defense buildup.

From there, spending declines, most rapidly during the 1990s as defense outlays fell to 3% of GDP in 2000 from its Reagan peak of 6.2% in 1986. The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008.

Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi's Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. (Even in 1946, with millions still in the military, spending was only 24.8% of GDP. In 1947 it fell to 14.8%.) Though the recession ended in June 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year it is heading back toward 25%.

This is the main reason that federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP has climbed from 40.3% in 2008, to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to keep rising in the future. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think U.S. debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP.


Congress is responsible for the way so much of this spending was wasted, resulting in little job creation and the slowest economic recovery since the 1930s. But in the U.S. political system, Presidents are supposed to be the fiscal adults. When they abdicate, the teenagers invite over their special interest friends and blow the inheritance.

wsj
robertknyc Offline
#165 Posted: Tue, Aug 9 2011, 12:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-24-2003
Posts: 5,475
Cut, Cap and Balance put forth by the Republicans would have prevented a downgrade. But, the Democrats voted it down. So whose fault is the "crisis?"
ZRX1200 Offline
#166 Posted: Tue, Aug 9 2011, 1:09 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,614
Shhhhhhh..........

Penny plan was better. They didn't like that one either.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#167 Posted: Tue, Aug 9 2011, 5:46 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
robertknyc wrote:
Cut, Cap and Balance put forth by the Republicans would have prevented a downgrade. But, the Democrats voted it down. So whose fault is the "crisis?"



I dunno, but according to Rahm...never let one go to waste!

Besides watching Fuzzy squirm like a worm on a hook is premium entertainment.

Watch the capitulation! See the drama! Hear the namecalling!

Same channel...same air time.

Tin roof...rusted.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234
Back to Top