What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

vetteman said:

Not so, there would have been no spending reduction. The President and his socialist party would spend any money they receive and not use a red cent to pay down the debt. S&P would have had the same judgement. I can't believe you're naive enough to believe the President would willingly put aside any money for deficit reduction.

Click to expand...

I love how you just make shit up. The fact is another trillion in deficit reduction from tax increases on the rich would have meant we'd be highly likely to keep AAA. The deficit bill didnt have any increased spending and as you reapeat over and over, the Dems aren't passing a budget right now. Where do you see this spending coming from??? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth again.

Try to say fewer dumbshit things IMO.

mercury14 said:

I love how you just make shit up. The fact is another trillion in deficit reduction from tax increases on the rich would have meant we'd be highly likely to keep AAA.

Click to expand...

Prove it, MORON.

koalabear said:

Prove it, MORON.

Click to expand...

Sure. S&P said we need about 4 trillion in deficit reduction to definitely keep our AAA rating. Congress passed 2.4 trillion. Add in another 1t to 1.5t in Bush tax cut rollbacks and we're either there or close enough that the S&P would say we're on the right track enough that they would defer a downgrade.

mercury14 said:

Sure. S&P said we need about 4 trillion in deficit reduction to definitely keep our AAA rating. Congress passed 2.4 trillion. Add in another 1t to 1.5t in Bush tax cut rollbacks and we're either there or close enough that the S&P would say we're on the right track enough that they would defer a downgrade.

Click to expand...

That's not proof, MORON.

vetteman said:

Not so, there would have been no spending reduction. The President and his socialist party would spend any money they receive and not use a red cent to pay down the debt. S&P would have had the same judgement. I can't believe you're naive enough to believe the President would willingly put aside any money for deficit reduction.

Click to expand...

Just the end of the two wars. Do you think it would even be politically possible for him to just slide that money into the budget without everybody left right and center howling bloody murder?

mercury14 said:

Liar. The CBO has said that keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans for the next decade will cost $690 billion dollars, plus $140 billion in extra interest on that debt. That's $830 billion when the accounting is done based on borrowing at a AAA credit rating we no longer have. So your Bush cuts just became more costly.

They also say the total Bush cuts will cost us $3.7 over the next decade.

Sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/BudgetOutlook2010_Jan.cfm
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=465

Click to expand...

Yeah, $700B in additional revenue over 10 years during which the debt is anticipated to rise by $7Trillion....Where are you going to get the rest of the money? You get 10% through taxing the "Rich" by an additional 20%....but it will be less than that because many of the "Rich" will just sit back, stop investing time and energy and our economy will reduce even further (and more jobs will be lost) and we won't even get that $700B (an economist from Cornell tried to calculate the real anticipated yield...far less than the $700B - it's just a political ploy on the democrats part), probably a lot less....it happens every time. I'm not going to work a lot extra, take time away from my family just to earn a dime that the Government comes and takes anyway...not me ole' buddy.

Bush's cuts raised economic activity and got us to 4.6% unemployment...and that's in contrast to our 9.1% unemployment now? Reagan's policies got us out of Carter-caused economic miasma. It also increased revenue because people were investing, creating and helping our GDP grow. Obama and the Democrats have put in policies that are helping us hum along at 0.4% growth...flatlining I think they call it.

If you want to calculate the long term impact of policies, try projecting what Obamanomics is doing to our economy over the next 20 years and the large number of jobs that will never be and the economic growth that will never be. Think of all the young people with dreams of the future in their heads...only to be forced to go back and live with Ma and Pa Kettle because the democrats (that they supported) used "hope and change" flimflam and instead destroyed the economy....what is the economic cost of that?

I prefer growth, democrats prefer falling employment, increasing debt, and falling standards of living in the name of "spreading the wealth". It's time for these democrats and their policies to join Jimmy Carter in retirement. The best thing that could happen to the United States is if Obama decides to search for inner peace through spending his next four years with a hammer in his hand at Habitat for Humanity.

The democrats have caused this problem, it's time to vote them out.

RightField said:

Yeah, $700B in additional revenue over 10 years during which the debt is anticipated to rise by $7Trillion....Where are you going to get the rest of the money?

Click to expand...

Nobody said rolling back the Bush tax cuts was going to solve the entire debt crisis. Stop your lying spin for fuck's sake. You're no better than Busybody with this horse pucky straw man crap.

RightField said:

Bush's cuts raised economic activity and got us to 4.6% unemployment...and that's in contrast to our 9.1% unemployment now?

Click to expand...

It's almost like you think the Bush tax cuts ended already. We still have them. Using your very own logic you can say that the Bush tax cuts led us to 9.1% unemployment. After all, Republicans predicted they would keep unemployment low and now it's high - with the cuts in place.

Tell me, did the Bush tax cuts pay for themselves? Because I have a link here from your very own Heritage foundation - chock full of the sunniest most right-wing spin imaginable - that says they did not.

RightField said:

I prefer growth, democrats prefer falling employment, increasing debt, and falling standards of living in the name of "spreading the wealth".

Click to expand...

Yes that's right, Democrats perfer falling employment and they want to destroy America.

vetteman said:

They di it ecvery god damn day, that's how we built the debt.

Click to expand...

You don't really understand how the debt works do you...

What has Obama done to add to the debt in regards to day-to-day operation of the federal government?

richard_daily said:

You don't really understand how the debt works do you...

What has Obama done to add to the debt in regards to day-to-day operation of the federal government?

Click to expand...

He has no clue. None.

The last three set of "real" tax cuts (where rates were reduced and not through Obama-style social engineering motiviation "credits" like Cash for Clunkers) have resulted in economic growth.

You keep refering back to this thoroughly discredited Keynesian model for your "facts" but it's a seriously flawed model. Obama is using the Keynesian model and is driving our economy into the ground. Don't use it, it doesn't work. It's where we get this silly notion that additional taxes don't cause people to modify their behavior and happily pay more in taxes. We know that the higher the taxes, the more motivated people are to spend time figuring out how to avoid the taxes and, as a result, the dems never, ever get the tax yields that they anticipate based on their flawed Keynesian models.

All you have to do is look at the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts and you see how good they are for the country. While I'm not advocating for further tax cuts at this time, I am arguing against having a tax increase through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

mercury14 said:

Yes that's right, Democrats perfer falling employment and they want to destroy America.

Click to expand...

You understand. Congratulations. Democrats can't lead. They are destroying our nation.

RightField said:

The last three set of "real" tax cuts (where rates were reduced and not through Obama-style social engineering motiviation "credits" like Cash for Clunkers) have resulted in economic growth.

Click to expand...

...As did President Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

Correalation, causation, yada yada....

RightField said:

blah blah blah Keynesian blah blah blah. Obama is using the Keynesian model and is driving our economy into the ground. blah blah blah flawed Keynesian models.

blah blah blah

Click to expand...

It's so cute when you learn a new word, and use it improperly... already retiring "socialism" for the fall season, huh?

vetteman said:

Bullshit, the debt ceiling bill gave Obama a couple of trillion to spend. S&P made no claim that tax increases had to be levied.

Click to expand...

Congress controls spending. If Obama spends a couple trillion it's because the heavily Republican House wrote a bill for $2 trillion in spending.

Why are you acting this stupid tonight? You can carry on for days about your strict adherence to the constitution then you spout out a bunch of crap about how the president can just up and spend a couple trillion dollars?

mercury14 said:

Yes that's right, Democrats perfer falling employment and they want to destroy America.

Click to expand...

Their economic policies are eroding our standards of living and causing tremendous hardship through unemployment, particularly all the people on long-term unemployment.

mercury14 said:

Congress controls spending. If Obama spends a couple trillion it's because the heavily Republican House wrote a bill for $2 trillion in spending.

Why are you acting this stupid tonight? You can carry on for days about your strict adherence to the constitution then you spout out a bunch of crap about how the president can just up and spend a couple trillion dollars?

Click to expand...

The first year that Democrats had the White House and both Houses of Congress, they increased spending by a tremendous amount and our deficit was around $1.5T. The second year, they didn't even bother putting a budget together and the annual deficit was about the same amount. The third year, this year, there was no agreement on a budget so we had continuing resolutions and continuous arguing about what level we should be spending at, and I guess the last CR, 6 months into the year because a remainder-of-the-year budget, though the Dems argued against any spending cutbacks the whole way through and our deficit this year is going to exceed $1.5T.

The Republicans, especially the tea party argued throughout the debt discussions that we needed to refrain spending, but the Democrat-controlled Senate wouldn't even vote on their plans and ended up negotiating a level of spending reductions that is far too small ($15B cutbacks next year on a $3.7T baseline with an anticipated overrun/deficit of $1.5T...give me a break).

After the budget deal was done, Both Obama and Reid said that they can't cut back any further....

Either we have to increase taxes by 50% (on everyone) or we're going to have to figure out what spending we can do without.

RightField said:

You keep refering back to this thoroughly discredited Keynesian model for your "facts" but it's a seriously flawed model. Obama is using the Keynesian model and is driving our economy into the ground. Don't use it, it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

The Bush Tax cuts are quinetessential Keysnianism. Targeted tax cuts and increased deficit spending to institute government intervention in the economy? TEXTBOOK Keynsian policy.

Ignorance is a bitch.

vetteman said:

Here's a clue for you dummy. Setting aside 2009 because both Presidents share responsibility, Bush through 2008 contributed 2.5 trillion to the national debt and this figure includes the cost of two wars. The Obama budget from 2010 through 2016 will add another 4.9 trillion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Click to expand...

Yeah that's a really cool trick! Let's count Obama's payroll tax cut and tax cuts through the stimulus "spending"... Meanwhile the Bush tax cuts that dwarf both of those things combined? No way that's spending! Herein lies one of your irrational double-standards: when a Democrat cuts taxes, he's spending money. When a Republican cuts taxes, well that's just "letting people keep their money" and no discussion about deficit impact is required.

Here's another cool trick! Let's call Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the small entitlement programs "Welfare". Then let's ignore the fact that baby boomers retiring are the primary reason that spending is increasing in this area.... Then for the hat trick, let's ignore the fact that had McCain been elected or we had a 3rd Bush term that spending in these areas would be the same.

mercury14 said:

The Bush Tax cuts are quinetessential Keysnianism. Targeted tax cuts and increased deficit spending to institute government intervention in the economy? TEXTBOOK Keynsian policy.

Ignorance is a bitch.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

And much of Obama's "tax cuts" are just more of the same "social engineering" and are actually spending because they're payments going out rather than reductions in marginal rates that make it more attractive for people and businesses to invest.

If one person pays $10 in taxes and another doesn't pay any in year one then the net tax for the year for the government is $10.

In year two, if the first person still pays $10 in taxes, but the government decides to send the second person a check (credit) for $2 so the net taxes for the government is $8...that isn't a "tax reduction" or a "tax cut"...it's just more democrat spending even though Obama and the dems like to proclaim it as such. It isn't the same no matter how much you try to deceive.

I can't believe that you even got a "social work" degree, did they teach memorization but not thinking?

Why are you the only person on the board other than UD who tries to call me ignorant?

RightField said:

Yeah.

And much of Obama's "tax cuts" are just more of the same "social engineering" and are actually spending because they're payments going out rather than reductions in marginal rates that make it more attractive for people and businesses to invest.

If one person pays $10 in taxes and another doesn't pay any in year one then the net tax for the year for the government is $10.

In year two, if the first person still pays $10 in taxes, but the government decides to send the second person a check (credit) for $2 so the net taxes for the government is $8...that isn't a "tax reduction" or a "tax cut"...it's just more democrat spending even though Obama and the dems like to proclaim it as such. It isn't the same no matter how much you try to deceive.

I can't believe that you even got a "social work" degree, did they teach memorization but not thinking?

Why are you the only person on the board other than UD who tries to call me ignorant?

Click to expand...

Ah, the old "simple math" wingnut argument...

Gotta love the stupidity of those.