- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
the kudos go to the CBO for presenting the data to document clinton moved our nation from annual deficit to annual surplus
it appears you have (conveniently) missed the point
my earlier post referenced the revenue gain from taxing the rich as clinton did
the economy boomed and jobs were bountiful
then the shrub did the opposite, cutting taxes on the wealthy and the economy tanked
yet the republican mantra for any problem is "tax cuts"
we can see from our current economic malaise that "tax cuts" is certainly not the answer
it was not true during the dicknbush regime
it is not true TODAY
sorry, but i will speak the truth, especially in response to stupidity
Obama is a leftwing ideologue who believes in a large central govt. and the nanny state. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and that is destroying the foundation upon which this country was built.
Run, Justbubba, Run!! Taking money from SS and puting it on budget steals from one fund for another doesn't create a surplus. You have been brainwashed and that makes you look foolish when the facts are posted.
hasn't government employment decreased under obama?
when the facts are with you, argue the facts
when the law is with you, argue the law
and when neither the facts nor the law are with you, bang on the table
keep banging
What facts, the fact that public debt went down by taking from Intergovt. holdings? How does that create a surplus? If there was a surplus why did debt service go up as did total debt?
hasn't government employment decreased under obama?
read the CBO data. it has been previously cited
you have not been able to show that it is other than valid
you cannot refute it
it appears you have (conveniently) missed the point
my earlier post referenced the revenue gain from taxing the rich as clinton did
the economy boomed and jobs were bountiful
then the shrub did the opposite, cutting taxes on the wealthy and the economy tanked
do you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.yet the republican mantra for any problem is "tax cuts"
we can see from our current economic malaise that "tax cuts" is certainly not the answer
it was not true during the dicknbush regime
it is not true TODAY
sorry, but i will speak the truth, especially in response to stupidity
Clinton was right place right time, if you dont know that. we really have to end this argument here.
or you can point to a particular Clinton policy that propped up this revenue gain you speak of.
i'm all ears.
do you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.
The government is spending and wasting beyond belief, and your answer is we should give them more of OUR money?
have you lost your mind.
you speak in what CNN has told you to speak.
He's got the media with him, so it will be tough, but I wouldn't underestimate the GOP. Raising taxes on the rich is popular, but it's also very scary. Jobs creation could get stifled, unemployment may go up. He's playing that rich card to death. He's got class warfare down pat. Fact is he can tax the wealthy to death, and he's still going to have to hit the MC, eventually. I personally think he has no clue what he's doing.
If the conversation comes down to granny paying more for medical costs... Or taxing the rich, the GOP is ****ed.
already mentioned his method to increase revenues to cover government expenditures to the point that revenues exceeded expenses. in short, the federal deficit was turned into an annual surplus due to his policy ... notably the opposite of the republican mantra 'tax cuts' as the solution to any government problemClinton was right place right time, if you dont know that. we really have to end this argument here.
or you can point to a particular Clinton policy that propped up this revenue gain you speak of.
i'm all ears.
an approach which is damaging to our nation when it causes our country to face a financial crisis. but i do recognize that your position places your personal desires above the needs of our nation. it's a republican characteristic, unfortunatelydo you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.
you have probably honed in on where we differ. while there is obviously savings to be found on the spending side, what we see from the republican approach is to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. this is nothing other than implementation of the republican 'starve the beast' strategyThe government is spending and wasting beyond belief, and your answer is we should give them more of OUR money?
if being mindless is being concerned that we will be less able to educate our kids, provide health care for those who are in need of it, be unable to provide assistance to those who are unable to provide for themselves, then yes, i will acknowledge that definition of being mindlesshave you lost your mind.
as i told you before, i intend to speak truth when confronted by stupidity. cnn has nothing to do with ityou speak in what CNN has told you to speak
The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.
The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs.
For example, job troubles appear to have slowed a trend of people working later in life, putting more pressure on Social Security.
Another change: the bulk of those not working has shifted from children to adults.
In 2000, the nation had roughly the same number of children and non-working adults. Since then, the population of non-working adults has grown 27 million while the nation added just 3 million children under 18.
already mentioned his method to increase revenues to cover government expenditures to the point that revenues exceeded expenses. in short, the federal deficit was turned into an annual surplus due to his policy ... notably the opposite of the republican mantra 'tax cuts' as the solution to any government problem
an approach which is damaging to our nation when it causes our country to face a financial crisis. but i do recognize that your position places your personal desires above the needs of our nation. it's a republican characteristic, unfortunately
you have probably honed in on where we differ. while there is obviously savings to be found on the spending side, what we see from the republican approach is to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. this is nothing other than implementation of the republican 'starve the beast' strategy
if being mindless is being concerned that we will be less able to educate our kids, provide health care for those who are in need of it, be unable to provide assistance to those who are unable to provide for themselves, then yes, i will acknowledge that definition of being mindless
as i told you before, i intend to speak truth when confronted by stupidity. cnn has nothing to do with it
[emphasis added by bubba]Just read the article, and it seems to me that Obama's plan is rather timid. Unless I'm not understanding it, it seems that Obama isn't proposing any actual cuts in spending. Rather he wants to slow the growth of spending below the projected rate of inflation and then call that "savings". We currently have a 1.5 trillion deficit annually. If that number remained stable over the next twelve years, we'd rack up another 18 trillion in debt. Obama proposes to reduce the growth of government enough to save us 4 trillion, which still leaves us owing an additional 14 trillion, which would still double our existing debt.
His proposal only tinkers with Medicare, targeting the always popular "waste and inefficiencies" in the system, rather than admitting that Medicare (like its cousin Social Security) is not financially feasible for the long term in its current state. Obama talked about Social Security reform, but said, "We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." Sounds to me like he doesn't plan on changing much at all.
The biggest problem I have with Obama (and Paul Ryan's plan as well) is most of the theoretical "savings" come several years down the road, so it assumes that future Congresses and the future President will have the restraint to live within the outline being proposed today. Going on past history, I don't think that's very likely.
Receipts by Source Total non SS = 1,306.3 in millionsplease cite evidence to prove your (bogus) assertion
Receipts by Source Total non SS = 1,306.3 in millions
Historical Tables Total Non-SS outlays 1,448,955 in millions
Now you try and prove you bogus assertions using actual data, not an opinion piece written by someone.
The accounting practices used allowed the government to borrow from the SSI "Trust Fund" without reporting that as deficit spending so it hid much deficit spending from 1987 until the past couple of years when the SSI expenditures were greater than the income.
To be fair to Obama, some of his deficit spending is the actual deficit spending that was hidden in previous years by the embezzlement of funds.
Would one of you Progressives here tell me what "spending reductions in the tax code" means? Do any of you believe that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the Federal Govt?
please identify the post in which that expression was used. mysearch turns up only one post. yours
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?