So let's say the Government stops spending money. Now tell us what happens with the money they save. Please.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't that how he balanced the books and Bush went the opposite way and got the debt back?

ALL politicians do the opposite. Just watched a thing on CNN showing "candidate" Obama's promises that he made when he was trying to get elected. Over 500 of them. He didn't do shit that he said either.

Republican or Democrat...they are all just wanting power and money.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm fully aware that Bush was a fucking drooling moron with no idea what he was doing.
I feel the same way about Obama.
Fuck I feel the same way about damn near every politician that we've ever elected.
The resistance the GOP has given him is par for the course.
There is no Team in washington only partisan selfish fools that are against the other party no matter what.

You know if you shortened Obamas time shown there down to 1 year it might only be 8% increase! That's it He's GOD I'm voting for Obama you have convinced me that going from 10 trillion to 16 trillion is only a 16% INCREASE.
I don't know how that math works out but you must be right!

For the first couple of years he was president...the Democrats controlled the entire govt. (senate and the house)
They never even passed one single budget. They were all in a frenzy trying to get pork barrel spending for their political friends in their respective home states.

Meanwhile the country went further down the toilet.

In my opinion, the country does best with the house and Senate controlled by one party and the presidency controlled by the other. Like when Reagan and Clinton were president.

I think Obama could turn his presidency around if he wins this November and the Republicans take over the Senate as well as the house

Finally getting the Senator of my state Nevada, Harry Reid, OUT as Senate majority leader would go a long way towards getting things done.
He has stalled and delayed EVERY vote on every issue in the Senate for years now.

How old are you? As much as they hated Clinton there wasnt a tenth of the resistance there is now. Where was the resistance against either of the Bush's?

The country was doing great during Clinton. Plus he likes getting blowjobs from interns and who can argue with that?
I don't know if Bush had resistance from the democrats because I don't generally pay attention to politics.
I've just recently taken an interest in it.

You're trying to skew my point.
They're all fucking crooks.

What is even your question? There was certainly big resistance from the left when Bush was in office, just as there's big resistance from the right with Obama in office. It's a fucking puppet show, orchestrated by mass media. Getting yourself involved in left vs. right is just proof of being a sheep.

http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten.../07/9Mpgv.jpeg

Finally someone with some sense. Nice post.

That ain't true. They freakin' IMPEACHED Clinton!

And they "investigated" his WhiteWater dealings and threw his friends in jail (remember Ken Star the prosectutor)

The Republicans were merciless on Clinton. In my opinion it was a disgrace what they did to him.

Hauling the President in front of Congress and asking him if he fucked Monica Lewinsky. Knowing full well that every man on the planet is going to lie instead of get in trouble with their wife.

Then they impeached him for lying.

I remember very well what happened to Clinton. He was a great President...but by the time they got done with him, Al Gore wouldn't even let him help with his campaign in 2000 and he was asked to NOT speak at The Democratic National Convention that year. He was like poison at that time.

Obama is certainly no Clinton. I thought he was in 2008. But in my opinion he has been as ineffective as Jimmy Carter for this country.

I believe Bush inherited a balanced set of books and took it from there to a 10 trillion debt.

OK I'm not American, yet the point of Government spending effects most Western Countries.

Government spending is often borrowed money, Money businesses find hard to borrow. The money is injected into the economies of these countries. Providing jobs and business in so many sectors and parts of the country. It's now become a form of life support for a country.

So cut off the life support and then what. Where, how and effects will be the consequences?

Cutting taxes does not stimulate comparable growth. People work harder when they have to. Don't bring up the unemployed unless you can find jobs for all of them. Still there has to be some element of them contributing to society in return for society contributing to them.

Cutting taxes put more money in more pockets that have jobs, to spend in local shops on imported goods. not basic items they currently buy.

To cut taxes without raising debts, needs cuts in spending. Which means cuts in jobs, maybe your job or part of your income. As it comes ultimately from Government spending. Yes the guy who works in the local Government office, buys online porn from or via you and now can't, because he lost his job. Where ever that guy spends his money, they lose business. Which shrinks growth.

No "Cut taxes" propaganda slogans please and no stats from when the West exported more than it does today.

Or, they could allow the keystone pipeline to be built and create massive job growth.

Also one of the oil companies just found the biggest discovery of oil ever up North. If the govt. will get the hell out of the way and let them get it, we could become energy independent and create even more high paying jobs as well as lower energy costs which would bring down the price of everything and stimulate the economy. Which in turn brings in more revenues for the govt.

EVERYTHING depends on job growth. Without jobs, there is no tax base.

I stopped reading at "OK I'm not American"

That is certainly true, and even with all that Clinton was able to get welfare reform passed, the minimum wage raised twice, get the tax rate raised, get the Brady Bill passed, get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed, along with a dozen of environmental laws passed and a host of others. There was not this 'resist everything so he fails' attitude going on.

It's tax payer money, which is stolen, not borrowed.

Who will pick the cotton if we end slavery? Who will keep our women in line if we stop beating them? Consequentialism. Go back to first principles and let's agree on a common axiom that violence or the threat of violence (coercion) against peaceful individuals is immoral. Once you understand that, consequences of ending immoral behavior are irrelevant.

Business owners employ people. That's the contribution to society that business owners make.

How about we remove taxation (hierarchical theft) all together? That would put more money in everyone's pocket, 20-40%+ more.

When you argue for taxation at any level, whether it be the man who owns multi billion dollar businesses or a family of 5 just barely making it, taxation is immoral.

I could go on with some consequentialist utilitarian arguments that show just how a society could work and function (and function much better mind you) without the forced extraction of money from its citizens, just as philosophers could point out exactly who would pick the cotton if slavery were ended, but it's pretty pointless.

Look, maybe you should get a little informed if you want to debate this. Bush's 2 wars, his medicaid drug program, and the 2009 stimulus package were all off the books and not paid or accounted for by his administration, they were passed off to Obama. You sound like a FOX News lunatic.

That's because Clinton was a great president. He reached out and worked WITH the Republicans even though they were seriously trying to fuck him over.

Probably because he had executive experience as a governor.

Obama? To me he looks like what he is... a guy with no executive experience who was in the middle of his first term in the Senate.

He didn't know what to do and he seemed to let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi shape policy while he was busy playing golf.

And of course Pelosi and Reid shut the Republicans out of everything. They literally did everything behind closed doors and shoved it down the Republicans throat. That caused a divide that is never going to be fixed while Reid is still Senate leader.

Clinton was very hands on. For instance...he sat down and met with Newt Gingrich constantly and more importantly...actually listened to Gingrich and hammered out REAL compromise that was effective and good for the country.

Obama just doesn't have those kind of leadership qualities.

Hell, even Bush was able to get the majority of Democrats in Congress to vote WITH him on most everything he wanted to do.

Obama had a window of opportunity in his first 2 years to really do great things. He fucked it all up.

Minor correction here, they were passed onto us and our future children; just as many of what Obama has done will be passed onto future generations. Government has no money, they're a third party that takes from one group of individuals and gives to another group of individuals (some of those individuals being themselves.)

You forgot to include one of the biggest, the Bush tax cuts. Bushs fuzzy math in action, or should I say inaction.

So did we or did we not go from 10 billion to 16 billion in under 4 years?

I just saw stats that said if the govt. just outright TOOK 100% of the top 1% of people in the U.S. it would add up to around 1.293 TRILLION dollars. Still short of even paying for THIS years deficit spending...much less the huge debt

40% of us pay 85% of all taxes already.

I don't think Bush allowing us to keep a little more of our own money is the problem. Yeah, politicians eager to spend your money would like you to think that.

The problem is how much the federal govt. keeps SPENDING.

People like to say: "Bush gave tax cuts and increased spending" That's true. He should NEVER have increased spending and we should never have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (why are we still there?)

But this President is even worse. He knows we are 16 trillion in debt. And yet the federal govt. is spending billions of dollars every day (4 billion of it is DEFICIT spending every day)

I'd like to keep my money. Maybe use it to put my kids through college or take a nice vacation. Or even just bury it in the backyard. It's MY money.

But the feds don't see it that way. They see it as THEIR money to waste and spend invading other countries and/or fighting a "drug war". Or how about investigating Roger Clemens for doing steroids?

It's goddamn ridiculous.

[QUOTE=galleryseek;19115701]It's tax payer money, which is stolen, not borrowed.

So where is the borrowed money going?

WTF?

They also ship jobs overseas, automate and cut jobs.

No it wouldn't, go think it through.

So let's go back to the days of no taxes. Any idea when that was?

You could, next time try to make sense instead of nonsense.

Borrowing is to cut the gap between taxes and spending. Businessmen employ people as a last resort, because people are often the most expensive part of running a business. They automate, streamline or ship jobs overseas to cheaper countries.

Cutting taxes, takes money from one pocket and puts it into another pocket. It means people lose jobs and spend less.

Taxes in way form or another have been with us for millennium. Wasn't that the reason for the War of Independence, didn't Prince John raise English taxes to pay for Richard's Crusades? It goes way way back. Because it works.

I said think it through = No slogans.

Robbie's right they should allow the pipeline and get Government inspectors in to make doubly sure the pipeline doesn't end up creating what the lack of inspectors created in the Gulf of Mexico. GS, should we cut that spending to save you a few bucks? Add to it all the other benefits from taxes.

Or god forbid you actually reinvest in employees, equipment, technology, and truly stimulate the economy in a natural and effective way! That wouldnt make sense!

You guys argue like our politicians actually have a say in it. Charming. When Exxon and the Fortune 100 fart, the walls in DC are covered in brown.

On 12/21/08 a few weeks before Bush left the white house the national debt was at 10.7 trillion.

on 12/31/11 the national debt was 15.1 trillion

Estimates show the debt at about 15.9 trillion today.

In sheer numbers it is the largest increase ever, but it is not nearly the largest increase percentage wise.

To me the more telling number is the national debt and what percent of the GDP it makes up.

Right now it makes up 99% of the GDP. That is second worse all time behind Roosevelt's 121% during the depression.

The good news is that the trending numbers show the rate of growth for the national debt to be slowing and, in theory, if the economy continues to improve then the GDP will improve and the percentage of the GDP the debt makes up will fall back to a more normal number.

I agree...from everything I have seen and heard economists discuss, the economy coming back to life and job growth are the keys to getting everything going again.

As for taxation...I don't believe that cutting them any further will "help" the economy.

BUT, I also don't see that raising them on wealthy people is going to help the economy either.

All it does if give the feds more money to waste.

Hell...the federal govt hasn't slowed down one bit in spending. Matter of fact, they argue over spending "cuts" that are really just talking about slowing down the rate of spending GROWTH. It's unreal.

I agree 100%. Taxing the rich won't fix the problem. Cutting taxes more isn't going to fix the problem either. The problem is the out of control spending.

The economy is slowly rebounding. Could it be doing better? I'm sure it could be. Could it be worse? Hell yeah. It took almost a decade and a major world war to get out of the depression so it is no shock to me that it is taking some time to get out of this recession especially when you consider that we had about five years worth of artificial housing bubble that finally burst in 2008. That means we will see five years worth of housing market decline, foreclosure and short sales so we likely still have another year of that type of bad news to deal with.

There are plenty of ways for the government to cut spending, but none of them really want to cut anything that could have an adverse affect on their district or state. Everyone wants to get in the ring and fight, but nobody is willing to get punched.

Many of the things that President Clinton signed into law (which includes welfare reform) was pushed by the Republicans. In fact many Democrats called President Clinton the best Republican president the Republicans ever had.

The discussion of raising or lowering taxes is silly. A large number of poor people pay no taxes, and most wealthy people pay nowhere near the listed tax rate for their bracket. You can raise the top tax rate to 99% and Mitt Romney would still have paid under 15%, so would Warrent Buffet - because when they earn money it isn't 'income' most of the time. FICA ends at 110K, so anyone who earns 110K pays the same FICA contribution as anyone who earns 40M. Income tax is far from being the only taxes that people pay, and most of the other forms of taxation disproportionately hit the middle class, not people who are wealthy or poor.

Step 1 to fixing the economy is obliterating the phonebook sized tax regulations and simplifying it down to a small pamphlet the average citizen can fully comprehend, with bright line rules that can not be circumvented or loop-holed. Once you have everyone counting ALL of their income and paying taxes based on the listed rates... THEN you can talk about what the actual rates should be and if we should raise or lower them.

Incidentally if you did that, people like Romney would suddenly be paying 2x or 3x their taxes from 2011. People in the middle class would be paying the same exact amount they already are... and nobody's tax rate would rise or be lowered a single point. Go figure.

Life really is stranger than fiction.

A few years back the Republicans were blathering on and on about Obama's supposed "Death Panels".

And now...

With Ryan's plan, they want to do him one better with what amounts to the economically induced euthanization of a significant number of American's elderly.

Think about it.

Ryan wants to end Medicare for future retirees (anyone currently 55 or younger) and thereby force them to remain on private insurance plans.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Republicans want to repeal Obama Care.

Your classic one-two punch.

Let's say that they succeed on both counts.

Ten years hence, any senior who ever had an untimely lapse in his or her insurance coverage and is subsequently faced with life threatening consequences from a pre-existing condition will be denied coverage and thereby culled from the herd in short order.

What we'll have here are virtual death panels running on autopilot that will save Uncle Sam billions.

It's a teabagger's wet dream.

http://www.freedomworks.org/files/im...on_chart_0.png

Reagan cut taxes, and borrowed to bridge the gap.

GHW Bush promised to cut taxes, recession hit and he raised taxes. So borrowing slowed.

Clinton Raised taxes and balanced the books.

GW Bush cut taxes and went on a huge spending spree, paid for by borrowing.

Obama is in the toilet, put there by the lack of Government control on Gambling. Call it what you like, we know what it was.

Governments should spend/invest on infrastructure to go forward. Moon project shows what can be achieved. Mars will do the same. So to go further what's needed?

Scientists, engineers, research, in fields of tomorrow. So spending on education is an absolute must. No bright kid able to perform in disciplines required for tomorrow should be paying to go to college. Fuck giving athletes a free education, we don't need more line backers.

Also deprived areas. If we are to break the cycle of unemployment and all else that goes on in areas of of need. We need to educate the cycle out of them.

Work, no person should be under utilised. Even the unemployed can give to society.

Health. A healthy nation is a strong nation.

Infrastructure of the world around you. The Gulf spill happened because of a lack of inspectors. The New Orleans disaster was down to poor levies. Or. The Hoover Dam provide power for public and private utilities in Nevada, Arizona, and California. Plus acts as a reservoir.

Government spending. So many different takes on it I went here. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

See what's wrong? The US is spending more than it's earning and borrowing to make up the gap. It like so many places are running on debt. Anyone who thinks cutting taxes and not cutting spending, needs to butt out. Anyone who thinks cutting taxes stimulates growth like it did before we imported more than we exported, needs to butt out as well. Because they have no proof that works today.

Here's a tax cut that will reduce spending. Farm Subsidies.

So import cheaper food from abroad or pass on the extra cost to consumers?

Stop letting greed rule your thinking.

Never mind an untimely lapse, it will happen to just about any retired person. When most people retire the company that they retire from doesn't offer them health insurance for the rest of their lives. There are some that do, but most don't. So those people will have to go out on the open market and buy their own. Ryan's plan is to give people vouchers that they can use to buy this insurance with. He gives no details of how much these vouchers would be worth. If Obamacare is repealed along with these changed to Medicare then any retiree with a pre-existing condition will have a hell of time getting any kind of insurance. Most will be flat out denied, or they will be charged so much they can't afford it, or they will only be able to get insurance that doesn't cover their pre-existing conditions.

yeah these threads always descend to the same old political arguments. reagan, clinton, who spent the most bla bla bla.

if this were 2000, & the last 12 years didnt happen, i would think this romney/ryan ticket is a wet dream.

But thanks to bush, cheney, & fox news, i know better then to believe a word they say.

I really wish obama made at least symbolic efforts to bring the budget into balance. brushing off the recommendations of his own deficit reduction committee made me conclude obama is in wall streets back pocket. all these deficits just benefit banks & health companies, public employee unions & the military industrial complex. everyone who lines our pols pockets with cash.

there is really nobody to vote for. just a choice between bland & boring.

:2 cents:

Good points one and all.

Of course the vouchers will cover only a portion of the actual premiums and you can bet the house that they won't even come close to keeping pace with increasing premiums.

And yeah, health insurance that doesn't cover pre-existing conditions is utterly pointless.

It's like I said, Ryan's plan accomplishes for real that which Palin's fictitious death panels supposedly would.

Running
 

No

Actually you can run for President & congress. You win both you take take the higher office.Then the state has rules of another election or their is an appointment. Each state has different rules.

It had nothing to do with Harry or nancy. The rights mission was to make Obama a one term term president. They are for something he agrees then they are against it. Holding up the most non partisan appointments. Locking up the senate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f0RU_blog.html

And Robbie, Obama has given u multiple tax breaks since he came it office. The stimulus was one third tax breaks. That's what the right wanted and they voted against it anyway.

This.

Digging out of a calamity like the Great Recession takes a very, very, long time.

Meanwhile, in fantasy land, Faux News and the radio screamers were blaming the shit economy on Obama from practically the day he took office.