- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,747
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Eighty Deuce
President Ronald reagan tripled the national debt he started with. Has President Obama tripled the debt he started with?
Any facts to back these items up? According to factcheck.org, more people were added to food stamps under Bush than any other president...
I didn't look up the others so I'd appreciate your links to back up your statements...
FactCheck.org : Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim
Newt Gingrich has been pushing the line that Obama is the “food stamp president.” On first glance, the numbers back him up: There are now a record number of Americans receiving food stamps, with about 46 million participants in 22 million households. But that’s mainly because there’s been record poverty levels, not because President Obama has taken major steps to make it easier to receive food stamps from the government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-is-he/2012/01/18/gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html
What do you mean by that?My biggest point though, which none have refuted, is that this economy is smoke and mirrors. A house of cards. Deliberately gamed by Obama. It must fall, for it cannot stand. Does a single lib here understand, much less acknowledge, the inevitable outcome of having the Fed being the largest buyer of our own debt ?
Are you really implying that growth and increased demand aren't directly linked?
Right now we're seeing evidence to the contrary, minimal growth despite relatively friendly tax rates due to the dip in disposable income for the lower and middle classes (hence less demand for products in general.)
...Awhile back, my brother Pete decided to chase his version of the American dream. He did his homework; purchased quality used equipment via the internet, and signed a lease - in hopes of opening a small mom and pop style yogurt shop near Charleston, S.C. He's a smart businessman, who tries to calculate his decisions carefully. Nonetheless, it wasn't long before he found himself tangled in a web of regulatory red tape. He was told he needed to purchase environmentally friendly grease trap equipment, although no frying is involved in serving non-fat yogurt. It didn't stop there. Additional environmental requirements like the installation of specialized wastewater drains, and tens of thousands of dollars for more unessential equipment left him watching his hopes of the American dream go down the drain, along with any hopes of hiring new people should his business succeed.
My brother is not alone; his experience has become all too common in the Obama administration's new regulatory normal. South Carolina's Nikki Haley said it best when she recently told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "I need a partner in the White House." Haley claimed the hardest thing about her job had been the federal government intrusion into South Carolina's business. Though she was a Tea Party favorite, Haley endorsed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. She said Romney promised to keep the federal government out of South Carolina's way, so it can create jobs....
We've seen economies in the past with much higher tax rates on the wealthy flourish because of the success in the lower and middle class (more disposable income to be spent on products that aren't deemed necessities) not because of tax cuts for the business owners themselves. It's almost impossible to separate the two concepts.
...Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.
Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments...
Where are all the jobs the GOP promised after the 2010 election? Odd once they took over they stopped talking about jobs and turned their attention to the debt ceiling...wonder why that was...hmmmm...
What do you mean by that?
You are going to have to ask Reid and Obama that question. They are the one's who are blocking all the job-creation bills the Republican House has sent to them.
Do you know of any that the house has passed that do more than simply cut taxes on the rich and get rid of regulations? If so, would love to see them...
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.not at all. increased demand is the result of growth in production.
but you can't consume something that hasn't been made yet.
well, that's largely because we decided to very stupidly maximize government v market allocation of resources in the middle of recession. In addition, we decided to rapidly jack up the total burden of governance on the most dynamic portion of our economy - our small businesses through a surge in the regulatory burden.
which is why Republicans are more interested in lowering the regulatory burden than in lowering the tax burden. Heck, the Ryan Plan keeps effective tax rates on the high-income earners the same.
what an excellent idea. let's look at what happened in economies in the past:
isn't history fun?
How many of them deal with tax cuts and deregulation?
You cannot do research on your own?
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.
Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.
I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.
Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.
I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.
How many of them deal with tax cuts and deregulation?
How many of them deal with tax cuts and deregulation?
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand.
The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.
Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.
I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.
Heck, Obama's own Bowles-Simpson Commission lowered the top rate. But it closed other loopholes.
I don't think Congress should be sitting around crafting or passing "jobs bills" at all. Government's job is not to conjure up jobs for us.
You're confusing lack of demand with ease of production, there are plenty of businesses that undergo a heavy regulatory burden that still have a vast demand for their products.Business compiles its forecasts on future demand on known tangibles. If you have prior statements, and actions by the administration, and liberal leaders in the Senate stating how if they can't get business strangling policies through into law, then they will bypass the congressional path in favor of regulatory sledge hammering, you as a business owner are left uncertain of what the future holds, and you hold back on expansion, hiring, and production. When that happens it is easy to forecast low demand.
But it has to be done in a real way, not just lip service.
Our tax code is unbelievably complex. It is not understandable to the average person, and it is purposely confusing to the tune of some 88,000 pages. This is stupid. Simplify, broaden, and lower. More revenue will come in if we just did that.
j-mac
Bush inherited a MUCH smaller recession. The unemployment rate was 4.2% when he took office and it stayed within .2% of that number for six months. Of course Bush also inherited a budget surplus and no wars.
ah, but unrealized demand is infinite, remember?
There was no consensus recommendation by the commission, unfortunately.
There was no consensus recommendation by the commission, unfortunately.
We are only the bestest of friends...
Dot Com bubble is no where near what happened during financial collapse of 2008. Total failure of banks and the housing bubble is no where near the dot com bubble. The total failure of the banks and housing bubble was WAY more catastrophic than the dot com bubble.
"Crashing"? "Crashing" are you ****ing kidding me?
What? A surplus?
As state earlier which i was going to say: "..was 4.2% when he took office and it stayed within .2% of that number for six months. Of course Bush also inherited a budget surplus and no wars."
Yea Bush did a "real great job" he really kept that economy around... See late 2007
Bush also has one of the worst job records on record only creating 3 million jobs throughout his whole eight years...
Wait and what are these awesome policies Bush brought to save this "horrible economy he was handed by Clinton"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?