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

[mercury14]

Tax policy varies tremendously based on what it's for and who gets it. The temporary program called Cash for Clunkers, for example, did nothing to stimulate the economy. Temporary reductions in social security premium payments do nothing either. Marginal tax rate reductions do help...or reductions on cap gains taxes...very positive too. It makes a big difference.

This isn't true though. The CBO and every other non-partisan analytical agency you've ever seen says that marginal rate reductions are a very mediocre way to stimulate the economy on a per-dollar basis. Payroll tax breaks are pretty average as well.

The best bang for our taxpayer buck is unemployment benefits and bonuses to social security payments. Those things are high-octane stimuli because they're spent very quickly and thoroughly. Marginal tax rate cuts on the other hand trickle in slowly and often end up going into savings (not very helpful) or investment (somewhat helpful).

The reason you don't agree with what I just said is because you believe Republican propaganda rather than non-partisan objective economic analysis.

Our deficits were coming down while Bush was President, even with both wars in full effort. The Obama deficits were about 4 to 5 times as high ($300 vs. 1,500) as Bush's while the wars were ramping down. Strange isn't it? The democrats are spending us into penury.

2003 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.2 Trillion.
- Pensions .5T (including VA benefits)
- Health Care: $.5T (primarily Medicare, also Medicaid, S-CHIP, WIC, public health, hospitals)
- Education: .1T
- Defense: .5T
- Welfare: .2T

2006 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.7 Trillion (Hey look, Republicans added half a trillion in spending in just 3 years!!!)
- Pensions: .6T
- Health Care: .6T
- Education .1T
- Defense: .6T
- Welfare: .3T

2011 Federal Spending under Obama + mixed legislature: $3.6 Trillion
- Pensions .8T
- Health Care: .8T
- Edication: .1T
- Defense: .9T
- Welfare: .5T

What you see here if you're not a partisan fuckup, is that pension costs, health care, and defense have driven spending increases.

- .4T of Defense spending has been the largest reason spending has increased and has strong Republican support.

- .3T increased in pensions. There are fewer federal employees, however when you count the swelling of the military and the exploding cost of VA care, there is a net increase in spending. This would be the same situation of a Republican was in office.

- .3T Health Care increase. Medicare rolls are increasing exponentially with the aging population. This would be the same situation if a Republican was in office.

- .3T in welfare increases (or just .2T from the last Republican budget pre-recession). The number of people eligible for benefits exploded during the recession. This also includes unemployment benefits. Note that welfare costs are already dropping as the recovery happens and that the census bureau puts this figure back at .4T by 2016.

You seem to want to believe that Democrats passed some new spending program... But the facts just don't support you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2006USrn

 

[mercury14]

The military has stayed fairly stable as a percentage of GDP, the increased spending has gone towards entitlement programs and other non-military spending. I'll dig up some charts.

One moment you focus on overall spending as the measure we're looking at... Then as soon as it comes to an item Republican support then wellllll..... Then it's time to change what matters so you focus on % of GDP.

That way you don't have to face the fact that Republicans supported half a trillion dollars in spending increases on one single item.

Neato trick, hypocrite.

 

[mercury14]

The tax cuts stimulated the economy (more money was in the hands of the citizens and was spent in such a way that we had strong economic growth and low unemployment) AND increased tax revenue - so tax cuts were good for the country and the economy.

The fallacy of wishful thinking. Sorry, the Bush tax cuts were not revenue-positive because you want them to be.

The fallacy of false antecedent. Sorry, the fact that revenue increased in subsequent years does not mean that the cuts were the reason.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

This isn't true though. The CBO and every other non-partisan analytical agency you've ever seen says that marginal rate reductions are a very mediocre way to stimulate the economy on a per-dollar basis. Payroll tax breaks are pretty average as well.

The best bang for our taxpayer buck is unemployment benefits and bonuses to social security payments. Those things are high-octane stimuli because they're spent very quickly and thoroughly. Marginal tax rate cuts on the other hand trickle in slowly and often end up going into savings (not very helpful) or investment (somewhat helpful).

The reason you don't agree with what I just said is because you believe Republican propaganda rather than non-partisan objective economic analysis.




2003 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.2 Trillion.
- Pensions .5T (including VA benefits)
- Health Care: $.5T (primarily Medicare, also Medicaid, S-CHIP, WIC, public health, hospitals)
- Education: .1T
- Defense: .5T
- Welfare: .2T

2006 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.7 Trillion (Hey look, Republicans added half a trillion in spending in just 3 years!!!)
- Pensions: .6T
- Health Care: .6T
- Education .1T
- Defense: .6T
- Welfare: .3T

2011 Federal Spending under Obama + mixed legislature: $3.6 Trillion
- Pensions .8T
- Health Care: .8T
- Edication: .1T
- Defense: .9T
- Welfare: .5T

What you see here if you're not a partisan fuckup, is that pension costs, health care, and defense have driven spending increases.

- .4T of Defense spending has been the largest reason spending has increased and has strong Republican support.

- .3T increased in pensions. There are fewer federal employees, however when you count the swelling of the military and the exploding cost of VA care, there is a net increase in spending. This would be the same situation of a Republican was in office.

- .3T Health Care increase. Medicare rolls are increasing exponentially with the aging population. This would be the same situation if a Republican was in office.

- .3T in welfare increases (or just .2T from the last Republican budget pre-recession). The number of people eligible for benefits exploded during the recession. This also includes unemployment benefits. Note that welfare costs are already dropping as the recovery happens and that the census bureau puts this figure back at .4T by 2016.

You seem to want to believe that Democrats passed some new spending program... But the facts just don't support you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2006USrn

look at merc go, the man who has never had a real job in his life. so sad

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The fallacy of wishful thinking. Sorry, the Bush tax cuts were not revenue-positive because you want them to be.

The fallacy of false antecedent. Sorry, the fact that revenue increased in subsequent years does not mean that the cuts were the reason.

I'm Merc, we need more welfare. Welfare is a good career path for democrats

 

[RightField]

This isn't true though. The CBO and every other non-partisan analytical agency you've ever seen says that marginal rate reductions are a very mediocre way to stimulate the economy on a per-dollar basis. Payroll tax breaks are pretty average as well.

The best bang for our taxpayer buck is unemployment benefits and bonuses to social security payments. Those things are high-octane stimuli because they're spent very quickly and thoroughly. Marginal tax rate cuts on the other hand trickle in slowly and often end up going into savings (not very helpful) or investment (somewhat helpful).

The reason you don't agree with what I just said is because you believe Republican propaganda rather than non-partisan objective economic analysis.




2003 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.2 Trillion.
- Pensions .5T (including VA benefits)
- Health Care: $.5T (primarily Medicare, also Medicaid, S-CHIP, WIC, public health, hospitals)
- Education: .1T
- Defense: .5T
- Welfare: .2T

2006 Federal Spending under Bush + Repubs: $2.7 Trillion (Hey look, Republicans added half a trillion in spending in just 3 years!!!)
- Pensions: .6T
- Health Care: .6T
- Education .1T
- Defense: .6T
- Welfare: .3T

2011 Federal Spending under Obama + mixed legislature: $3.6 Trillion
- Pensions .8T
- Health Care: .8T
- Edication: .1T
- Defense: .9T
- Welfare: .5T

What you see here if you're not a partisan fuckup, is that pension costs, health care, and defense have driven spending increases.

- .4T of Defense spending has been the largest reason spending has increased and has strong Republican support.

- .3T increased in pensions. There are fewer federal employees, however when you count the swelling of the military and the exploding cost of VA care, there is a net increase in spending. This would be the same situation of a Republican was in office.

- .3T Health Care increase. Medicare rolls are increasing exponentially with the aging population. This would be the same situation if a Republican was in office.

- .3T in welfare increases (or just .2T from the last Republican budget pre-recession). The number of people eligible for benefits exploded during the recession. This also includes unemployment benefits. Note that welfare costs are already dropping as the recovery happens and that the census bureau puts this figure back at .4T by 2016.

You seem to want to believe that Democrats passed some new spending program... But the facts just don't support you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2006USrn

Yeah, all your favorite liberal leaning or liberal constrained (like CBO rules) say your analysis is good and true....except for the "bottom line" and the results which say that my approach works best. Krugman and his disciples are wrong. "Bottom line" and logic wins.

The big bounce-up in spending happened when Pelosi and Reid were put in leadership positions in the House and Senate and then spiked up again when Obama was elected. $1.3T in annual deficits under the Democrats...weasel word it any way you want, but that's another "bottom line" that is inescapable for the dems dead-end ways.

Your spending figures seem to ignore the stimulus that didn't stimulate. You missed the extra spending for Solyndra and it's like at DOE and the additional spending at the EPA and the IRS. Why did you ignore those?

 

[mercury14]

Yeah, all your favorite liberal leaning or liberal constrained (like CBO rules) say your analysis is good and true....except for the "bottom line" and the results which say that my approach works best. Krugman and his disciples are wrong. "Bottom line" and logic wins.

STFU with the lying straw man bullshit. I'm not citing Krugman. I'm citing the CBO. The CBO is nonpartisan and saying otherwise makes you a liar.

Do you EVER remember me citing Krugman on ANYTHING? No? Then stop lying.

The big bounce-up in spending happened when Pelosi and Reid were put in leadership positions in the House and Senate

Stop fucking lying.

2003 spending under Republicans: $2.2T
2006 spending under Republicans: $2.7T
2007 with Reid/Pelosi: $2.7T Exactly the same as 2006
2008 with Reid/Pelosi: $2.9T

Your spending figures seem to ignore the stimulus that didn't stimulate.

Non-sequitur. You're in danger of taking the fallacy crown from AJ.

I've already eviscerated you on this by citing the analysis of five Wall Street firms plus the Fed and the CBO to boot. Your flaccid rebuttal is Thinker blogs.

You're free to keep believing whatever you want to believe, but you lost this debate.

You missed the extra spending for Solyndra and it's like at DOE and the additional spending at the EPA and the IRS. Why did you ignore those?

Non-sequitur. Okay you get the illogical thinker crown. At least until AJ logs back on.

Solyndra was .006% of the stimulus. Congrats, you've just committed the fallacies of Non-Representative Sample and Hasty Generalization.

The IRS budget $13 billion dollars including their proposed increase of 1 bn for fraud enforcement. Why would I include something that small? I can't tell if you just bought more lying hype about spending or if you're unable to fathom the difference in magnitude between billions and trillions.

Okay let's look at the EPA's additional spending that you claim is going on. But first we must set aside the fact that the EPA's budget is miniscule in the overall spending picture, smaller than even the IRS'.

FY 2010: 10.2 billion
FY 2011: 8.6 billion
FY 2012: 8.4 billion
FY 2013: 8.3 billion (proposed)

-$2 billion cut out of their budget and you're here making an ass out of yourself calling that "extra spending" because that's what you were told to believe.

I've annihilated all your arguments at this point. Let me know if you have anymore.

 

[mercury14]

Do you want to know what the difference is between you and I? I go directly to source data for my information. When I want to know the EPA's budget trend or how much federal spending changed between two years I go fetch that data directly from the source.

You and AJ on the other hand go directly to Thinker blogs and let partisan (often lying) people spoon feed you filtered, spun, and cherry picked information. On a good day you get a half-truth. Your sources do not seek to inform - they seek political gain. And no matter how many times they're shown to be lying to you, you still go back for more. And that's some fucking dumbass shit on your part right there.

Then you log on to Lit and say that I'm the getting information from partisan sources. You're a dumbass for making that claim when I clearly link every blessed piece of source data I reference.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you want to know what the difference is between you and I? I go directly to source data for my information. When I want to know the EPA's budget trend or how much federal spending changed between two years I go fetch that data directly from the source.

You and AJ on the other hand go directly to Thinker blogs and let partisan (often lying) people spoon feed you filtered, spun, and cherry picked information. On a good day you get a half-truth. Your sources do not seek to inform - they seek political gain. And no matter how many times they're shown to be lying to you, you still go back for more. And that's some fucking dumbass shit on your part right there.

Then you log on to Lit and say that I'm the getting information from partisan sources. You're a dumbass for making that claim when I clearly link every blessed piece of source data I reference.

Good article I read today HERE about how Liberals and Centrists are wasting their time attempting to convince fringe-right Conservatives to change their mind by using data and facts.

Fringe-right conservatives...even the educated ones... have an "emotional connection" to their argument and are unable and/or unwilling to even acknowledge facts that are contrary to their deeply held political positions.

 

[RightField]

STFU with the lying straw man bullshit. I'm not citing Krugman. I'm citing the CBO. The CBO is nonpartisan and saying otherwise makes you a liar.

Do you EVER remember me citing Krugman on ANYTHING? No? Then stop lying.

Stop fucking lying.

2003 spending under Republicans: $2.2T
2006 spending under Republicans: $2.7T
2007 with Reid/Pelosi: $2.7T Exactly the same as 2006
2008 with Reid/Pelosi: $2.9T

Non-sequitur. You're in danger of taking the fallacy crown from AJ.

I've already eviscerated you on this by citing the analysis of five Wall Street firms plus the Fed and the CBO to boot. Your flaccid rebuttal is Thinker blogs.

You're free to keep believing whatever you want to believe, but you lost this debate.

Non-sequitur. Okay you get the illogical thinker crown. At least until AJ logs back on.

Solyndra was .006% of the stimulus. Congrats, you've just committed the fallacies of Non-Representative Sample and Hasty Generalization.

The IRS budget $13 billion dollars including their proposed increase of 1 bn for fraud enforcement. Why would I include something that small? I can't tell if you just bought more lying hype about spending or if you're unable to fathom the difference in magnitude between billions and trillions.

Okay let's look at the EPA's additional spending that you claim is going on. But first we must set aside the fact that the EPA's budget is miniscule in the overall spending picture, smaller than even the IRS'.

FY 2010: 10.2 billion
FY 2011: 8.6 billion
FY 2012: 8.4 billion
FY 2013: 8.3 billion (proposed)

-$2 billion cut out of their budget and you're here making an ass out of yourself calling that "extra spending" because that's what you were told to believe.

I've annihilated all your arguments at this point. Let me know if you have anymore.

You didn't even address the arguments and you used your typical misdirection to sound like you know what you're talking about.

First the CBO isn't reliable when given bad assumptions from Congress and the Democrats frequently give them bad assumptions. For example, with Obamacare, at the time the bill was being proposed and evaluated, the bad assumptions created a result where they agreed with Obama and said that Obamacare would "bend the cost curve down". A few months later, after the head of the CBO stepped down, he said in the national media that he was forced by the democrats to use unreliable assumptions during the evaluation process and that in reality, Obamacare would cost the US taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. Those projections have been shown to be unreliable and there are many other examples.

Another is in the budget projections, the CBO is forced to use the assumption that taxpayer behavior won't be modified by tax policy (for example, if you double the tax rate on a segment of society, they won't try to shelter their income so they have less liability). They showed that tax cuts wouldn't benefit the economy or cause tax revenues to increase when Reagan proposed them or Bush and they were wrong in both cases. Reagan's economic approach lead to a huge growth in the economy and a prolonged period of unprecedented job growth. They were wrong in both cases.

Those forced and often wrong assumptions make the CBO projections unreliable, in fact, they're less than reliable because they give an air of legitimacy to some really cockeyed Democrat governance plans.

The Democrats haven't even been producing budgets over the past several years so accuracy in budget projections is less of an issue these days. Maybe one day the dems will actually put a realistic plan out there for consideration by the country, but I doubt it.

Just look at what we got with Obamacare as an example. At first they said it would be revenue neutral and then later they said, "Nevermind" it doesn't really address spending problems and it doesn't "bend the cost curve down" in fact, it will cost billions of extra that will add to debt.

You know that the CBO estimates are often unreliable and yet you still try to deceive the weak-minded to hope they vote for the Democrats, the people who keep your gravy-train running. The truth is important.

Lets talk about the EPA. I say it's one of the areas that had spending increases as Pelosi, Reid and Obama took over and you give statisics for last year, this year and the projected next two years which doesn't address thhe point at all. Spending for the EPA and much of the non-military budget increased dramatically as the Democrats took over. It wasn't just spending that was problematic, but the regulations that they implemented under the authority of Obama have been very costly for the country and the economy also. I'm a fan of clean air and water and don't want to see the EPA go away, but their policy on arsenic, for example, places a huge amount of additional costs on governments and business (slowing economic growth and job creation) for virtually no benefit in health or air or water cleanliness. You also know this, but you still try misdirection. Why? You seem to be getting pretty frustrated that no one is buying your deceptions.

As far as Solyndra, it was one $500M example out of a $22 Billion dollar energy program initiative. There are many other failures similar to Solyndra that have already been reported and there are more coming. Did I mention that 80% of that energy initiative spending went to organizations with close ties to Democrat operatives just like the Solyndra money did. Solyndra and it's many siblings is indicative of the cronyism replete in Democrat governance, they cheat and defraud the American people out of billions. It is very indicative.

I quoted and cited the Wall Street Journal which are in direct contrast to what you posted. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but you're wrong. Be honest.

The Democrats have really set back our economy and its due to their anti-growth plans and policies. We just talked about a few example here, Obamacare, EPA costs and regulations, Budgets, etc, but there are hundreds more. No matter how much you try to hide it or use misdirection to convince people that the Dems can govern, it won't work. I wish you'd stop trying to deceive people who are simply looking for the truth. I can't let the dime-store propaganda that you post confuse people into thinking that the democrats aren't a complete disaster for the nation so I feel compelled to post responses to correct deceptions. The democrats' poor governance, mis-management and fraud are holding back the economy and job creation and the truth is as plain to see as the daily business reports in the newspapers.

You sure have a lot of time on your hands, I guess that means you've been laid off. That's too bad, you're smarter than average, but not as smart as you seem to think you are. It's too bad though because we need guys like you working and producing something tangible for the country and the economy. If we could just vote the dems out, I'm sure it would only take us a few years to recover from their mismanagement and get the jobs engine working again.

Well, I've got to get to sleep so I can wake up early refreshed and happy and ready to go work so I can pay my taxes which the government will turn around and give to you so you can sit here on lit all day and night and complain about how I don't pay enough in taxes to keep you fully satisified.

 

[mercury14]

You didn't even address the arguments and you used your typical misdirection to sound like you know what you're talking about.

First, the CBO, for example, agreed with Obama and said that Obamacare would "bend the cost curve down".

WTF? You attack me for misdirection and then start a new tangent about "Obamacare"? Sorry, not relevant.

And yes I did address every single one of your arguments. If I missed one then please mention it again.

On budget projections, they're forced to use the assumption that taxpayer behavior won't be modified by tax policy.

No they're not.

Lets talk about the EPA. I say it's one of the areas that had spending increases as Pelosi, Reid and Obama took over and you give statisics for last year, this year and the projected next two years. You seem to be getting pretty frustrated that no one is buying your deceptions.

The EPA saw its budget increase 2.5 billion then decrease 1.5 billion, plus additional decreases are on the horizon. Please Mr. Accountant, tell me how how to factor in 1 billion dollars to a 3+ trillion overall budget. Again, you seem to not realize the difference in scope between 1 billion and 3 trillion.

As far as Solyndra

I couldn't care less about Solyndra or your other non-sequiturs.

The Democrats have really set back our economy and its due to their anti-growth plans and policies. No matter how much you try to hide it or use mis-direction to convince people otherwise, it won't work. The answer is as simple to see as picking up the business section of any newspaper across the country. The dems can't govern, it's as simple as that.

The Fallacy of Wishful Thinking strikes again! Just because you want something to be true does not mean it's true.

You sure have a lot of time on your hands, I guess that means you've been laid off.

My contract ended and I can't sign on for a new one because we're leaving the base in June (they want a 2-year commitment). I'm in the USAF reserves now and doing part-time mental health work at the clinic. I went from 45 hours per week to about 20, so yes I have more time. In June I'll be starting a new full-time job.

That's too bad, you're smarter than average, but not as smart as you seem to think you are.

I think the opposite of you. I think you're actually smarter than you act. Your religious thinking and emotional attachment to conservative talking points greatly limits your potential

 

[RobDownSouth]

I quoted and cited the Wall Street Journal which are in direct contrast to what you posted.

And therein lies the rub...

Mercury posts the raw numbers from the CBO and invites you to take a look.
You, on the other hand, quote an unsigned, unreferenced Wall Street Journal editorial to back up your claims.

Most people recognize that the WSJ Editorial Page has never been a bastion of truthiness.

 

[RightField]

And therein lies the rub...

Mercury posts the raw numbers from the CBO and invites you to take a look.
You, on the other hand, quote an unsigned, unreferenced Wall Street Journal editorial to back up your claims.

Most people recognize that the WSJ Editorial Page has never been a bastion of truthiness.

CBO does evaluations of proposed policy. Yeah. I see, rosy projections vs. posted results. lol. Democrats are all about deceitfully rosy projections that don't come true and Republicans are about achieving positive results. That pretty much summarizes the conversation.

What do you want..."Hope and Change" and 8% unemployment (D) or solid policy and governance plans with realistic budgets and solid results of growth (R) like 4.6% unemployment the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress?

 

[RightField]

WTF? You attack me for misdirection and then start a new tangent about "Obamacare"? Sorry, not relevant.

And yes I did address every single one of your arguments. If I missed one then please mention it again.

No they're not.

The EPA saw its budget increase 2.5 billion then decrease 1.5 billion, plus additional decreases are on the horizon. Please Mr. Accountant, tell me how how to factor in 1 billion dollars to a 3+ trillion overall budget. Again, you seem to not realize the difference in scope between 1 billion and 3 trillion.

I couldn't care less about Solyndra or your other non-sequiturs.

The Fallacy of Wishful Thinking strikes again! Just because you want something to be true does not mean it's true.

My contract ended and I can't sign on for a new one because we're leaving the base in June (they want a 2-year commitment). I'm in the USAF reserves now and doing part-time mental health work at the clinic. I went from 45 hours per week to about 20, so yes I have more time. In June I'll be starting a new full-time job.

I think the opposite of you. I think you're actually smarter than you act. Your religious thinking and emotional attachment to conservative talking points greatly limits your potential

You say CBO is reliable and accurate and I countered it with an examples where bad assumptions were pushed by democrat leaders which made the projections unreliable, laughable really. Obamacare was one and there were also som examples of inaccuracy in past budget projections.

You conceded on EPA spending, but didn't address the regulatory burden they're putting on the nation with policies that don't really contribute clean air or water or better health.

Why do you continue to try to deceive people with your half-truths and mis-direction?

 

[mercury14]

You say CBO is reliable and accurate and I countered it with an examples where bad assumptions were pushed by democrat leaders which made the projections unreliable, laughable really. Obamacare was one and there were also som examples of inaccuracy in past budget projections.

You conceded on EPA spending, but didn't address the regulatory burden they're putting on the nation with policies that don't really contribute clean air or water or better health.

Why do you continue to try to deceive people with your half-truths and mis-direction?

I could give a shit about the CBO. Let's pretend it doesn't exist okay? My assertion that the stimulus was effective does not depend on it so why are you disproportionally harping on it?

"Obamacare" hasn't even come into effect (much) yet, but here you are saying its cost estimates were proved wrong. You're sitting here attacking the very idea of CBO budget projections while using other CBO budget projections as ammo.

I'll tell you one thing that the CBO isn't looking at: that once 35 million more Americans have health insurance they'll be free to spend much more of their money in the free market. People with a heap of medical debt don't generally go out and buy a new Ford. It's just like how high gas prices can crowd out other types of consumer spending - medical bills can as well. Except while we can drive less, carpool, turn down the heat, etc, folks often can't go without their heart medicine or gall bladder surgery.

As far as your claim that the EPA is regulating with no positive effect on the environment... *laughs* it's not my responsibility to prove your points. That's a huge and sweeping claim you just made for which you present absolutely no evidence. Good luck with that.

 

[RightField]

This isn't true though. The CBO and every other non-partisan analytical agency you've ever seen says that marginal rate reductions are a very mediocre way to stimulate the economy on a per-dollar basis. Payroll tax breaks are pretty average as well.

The best bang for our taxpayer buck is unemployment benefits and bonuses to social security payments. Those things are high-octane stimuli because they're spent very quickly and thoroughly. Marginal tax rate cuts on the other hand trickle in slowly and often end up going into savings (not very helpful) or investment (somewhat helpful).

This is plainly not true. These are the same people that said that Reagan's marginal tax reduction plan would lead to economic disaster, and instead we had 25 years of growth. They said the same thing when Bush proposed marginal rate reductions, that it would destroy the economy and they were 180 degrees off, it lead to growth even while we were recovering from 9/11 and engaged in war. Your "authorities" on the economy are wrong and history shows it.

We tried the "best bang" Democrat theory and approach for several years now and we have nothing to show for it but $6 trillion in new debt and high unemployment. It doesn't work and it will never work. Again, just look at the economy for your proof.

We had 4.6% unemployment when the Republicans were in the White House and controlled Congress. It's been downhill for the country and the economy since the Dems first got control of Congress and then the White House. The few Republicans that have been elected to the House in 2010 haven't been enough to stem the tide of Democrat economic destruction, we need the White House and the Senate to get the country back on the path of economic growth.

 

[RightField]

I could give a shit about the CBO. Let's pretend it doesn't exist okay? My assertion that the stimulus was effective does not depend on it so why are you disproportionally harping on it?

"Obamacare" hasn't even come into effect (much) yet, but here you are saying its cost estimates were proved wrong. You're sitting here attacking the very idea of CBO budget projections while using other CBO budget projections as ammo.

I'll tell you one thing that the CBO isn't looking at: that once 35 million more Americans have health insurance they'll be free to spend much more of their money in the free market. People with a heap of medical debt don't generally go out and buy a new Ford. It's just like how high gas prices can crowd out other types of consumer spending - medical bills can as well. Except while we can drive less, carpool, turn down the heat, etc, folks often can't go without their heart medicine or gall bladder surgery.

As far as your claim that the EPA is regulating with no positive effect on the environment... *laughs* it's not my responsibility to prove your points. That's a huge and sweeping claim you just made for which you present absolutely no evidence. Good luck with that.

More projections huh? We've already seen how Democrat projections work out.

• Pass the stimulus and unemployment will stay under 8%
• If you like your healthcare plan now, you won't have to change or pay more for it
• Obamacare will bend the cost of healthcare downwards

Why is it that all the dems have is rosy projections that never come true and the actual results that we get are horrible.....high unemployment, disfunctional government and monumental debt with a not insignificant amound of fraud thrown in for good measure. It's time for a change to responsible governance.

Is it still Bush's fault?

 

[mercury14]

More projections huh? We've already seen how Democrat projections work out.

• Pass the stimulus and unemployment will stay under 8%
• If you like your healthcare plan now, you won't have to change or pay more for it
• Obamacare will bend the cost of healthcare downwards

Why is it that all the dems have is rosy projections that never come true and the actual results that we get are horrible.....high unemployment, disfunctional government and monumental debt with a not insignificant amound of fraud thrown in for good measure. It's time for a change to responsible governance.

Is it still Bush's fault?

None of those are CBO projections bro.

 

[RightField]

None of those are CBO projections bro.

I didn't say those were, but they were more examples of Democrat rosy projections. "Hope and Change" embodied.

The projection of economic growth due to 35 Million new Obamacare beneficiaries isn't a CBO projection either.

 

[RightField]

On a positive note, I made a big pot of chili today. The gurgle all those beans cause in my digestive tract makes me think of dems economic policy.

 

[mercury14]

This is plainly not true.

You're just going to leave it at that, huh? No evidence needed? Shocking...

These are the same people that said that Reagan's marginal tax reduction plan would lead to economic disaster, and instead we had 25 years of growth. They said the same thing when Bush proposed marginal rate reductions, that it would destroy the economy and they were 180 degrees off, it lead to growth even while we were recovering from 9/11 and engaged in war. Your "authorities" on the economy are wrong and history shows it.

Show links please. I want to see where the CBO predicted economic disaster for both of these things.

We tried the "best bang" Democrat theory and approach for several years now and we have nothing to show for it but $6 trillion in new debt and high unemployment. It doesn't work and it will never work. Again, just look at the economy for your proof.

Fallacy of False Antecedent. One of your faves.

 

[RightField]

You're just going to leave it at that, huh? No evidence needed? Shocking...

Show links please. I want to see where the CBO predicted economic disaster for both of these things.

Fallacy of False Antecedent. One of your faves.

Going that route again...it's a sign you've given up.

 

[mercury14]

Going that route again...it's a sign you've given up.

Yes I think we both need to have evidence for our points if they are to be taken seriously. Why do you think that's a sign I've given up?

 

[mercury14]

(still waiting for you to back your claim that the EPA is regulating and having no effect on the environment)

 

[phrodeau]

On a positive note, I made a big pot of chili today. The gurgle all those beans cause in my digestive tract makes me think of dems economic policy.

Drill, baby, drill.