yeah we did pretty good in 93-2000, but we had a balanced budget for most of that thanx to the contract to America
Too bad Barry doesn't do history
As far as what Barry has spent, please tell me how the federal deficit is now

US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2010
GDP in Billion Federal Deficit -fed pct GDP
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
2006 13398.9 1.85
2007 14077.6 1.14
2008 14441.4 3.18
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
Source; http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html

BTW, calling it raiseing the taxes or just not extending them, what's really the difference? They are going to pay more

fiddy lets Blame Obama on everything as usual threads by Vendzilla

In my opinion some of the primary long term cures for our current economic position is to reduce spending in pretty much every government agency that exists (via budget cuts and or personell cuts) combined with a tax increase...be it via allowing the Bush cuts to expire or otherwise...combined with an absolute pay as you go law in place for any new future programs/spending. If this were to be done it just might prevent total economic collapse...which I think will happen in ten years or so without drastic measures...such as I have outlined above.

Our past history indicates that neither party is willing to do this...and in fact both party's do the opposite...as both increase the size of government and spending...so I predict a very bad end for the country.

The jump you see is from the 1.3ish trillion in bailouts Bush put in before he left office and money that was dished out while Obama was president. Then it takes about 800b-1t a year to run the Country. Then he corrected how/where Bush put the war money so it was fairly on the books, couple trillion here as well. Then we have the Obama 800b/400b spent on the stimulus.

Why not just call them a mistake? That's what it really was after all. So rather than saying we're raising taxes, why not just tell the truth and say we're reversing the mistakes of the previous President?

I blame Bush for sending them there, USSR tried to take Afghanistan and it didn't work, why should we try? I was in the gulf in 1980, why would I want to send anyone else
Sorry, At least isn't good enough and we will never know about what McCain would have done, so why does it matter?
http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.ga...,,&Unit=US $/G
Remember when the prices hit $5 a gallon

I was pretty happy for the most part during the Clinton years, after the house and senate came under control of the GOP, they balanced the budget
I just remember that Barry promised more troops to go to Afghanistan during his campaign and I wondered why anyone would vote yes to that?

seriously. i don't even get why we're still talking about it after most of this decade

I blame this on government as a whole, not just Obama, I blame Obama for not doing anything good to fix it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is not going to fix anything.
Now he wants to add poll workers on voting day to help the unemployment numbers

Why don't rename it to a thread by by a fucking idiot from another country trying to make silly comments on something he doesn't understand?

Exactly, we need to reduce costs, just raising the taxes will add more costs, the government will some how just soak that all up. Until they get it thru their thick skulls that we need to cut costs, we will never get thru this

Obama has done plenty of good, expecting everything he does to be the answer is impossible. No president, you'll ever have will do everything perfectly, as history has proven. You may want to lower your expectations a bit. What you don't do though is keep doing what isn't working, ie: tax cuts that don't work. You can't correct things by ignoring problems.

Poll workers having to file taxes at the end of the year probably isn't going to help with Nov's job numbers, but it does make for some good political trash talk.

You gotta love the stupidity of the Doc. He proves it each time he argues with his superiors regarding subjects outside his element. Instead of admitting he's wrong and learning something new, he claims the studies are fake. What a moron rofl. Don't think I've ever talked to someone so much in denial. I've proven my point, keep embarrassing yourself Doc:1orglaugh

Yeah, Clinton added the military to the numbers and I'm sure others have tweaked it as well.
All I ever hear from Obama is blame and it's only been 2 years, when I know the democrats have been in control for 4 years. I want a balance, why, because it worked during the Clinton years, shit got done. Having the democrats in charge or the GOP in charge has proven in recent DECADES doesn't work so well

Umm... You're the one that asked for proof from marketsmart, I provided it - which you quickly denied. Hello, pot calling the kettle black or you're just stupid, I'm going with stupid.

Your reading skills suck, I never claimed what you posted was fake, I actually said "Great article on UK Firms" and it was.

However I did call you a fake, and you are.

Uh, while a new economic model is definitely beneficial, theoretically certain principles would ensure this doesn't happen. And this isn't something completely new, it's a mixture of economic flaws of the past century. The only knucklehead here is the one pretending to understand any of this (you).

Volcker was the last FED Chairman to know what he's doing.

LOL. And you're laughing at everybody else. Definitely humorous.

You're wasting your time. When you're arguing with someone borderline retarded, that person is too stupid to understand when he's wrong so he's going to keep on posting. It's certainly humorous but you shouldn't take him too seriously.

The economy was improving before the GOP took over... employment was dropping before and the gdp was increasing. I'll admit it really took off afterward, but it wasn't like it was going down hill before. They had good shit to work with and they worked with it, everyone did.

lol, we were never in a depression, you better hope we never fall into one.

First off little stain, we aren't arguing... when adults talk, it's called a discussion. Sadly, when you open your mouth, we call it spew.

Now take your fake little surfer ass and get back to the job hunt at the local taco stands, surfering gfy for porn to bait to isn't going to get you off government assistance and out of your moms house any faster.

I'll let you get back to the little fantasy island between your ears now.

Newt had a plan, and I hope the new congress coming in has one as well, we need it.

Funny thing is people think because I hate the Barry, that I'm for the GOP? They fucked things up, I'm just not going to back a party because it's the lesser of two evils, sorry, something better has to be done. Right now, to change things, we need the balance of the GOP and the Democrats, and that means getting control of congress by the GOP. The Tea Party has really stepped up and those that bad mouth them forget that's what started the revolution of this country in the first place, to put them down, is putting down the very base of this country. Maybe those people think we would have been better off under control of the King?

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, but it is the most noticeable indicator to the general populous. Therefore, most people will think that its impossible!! for the recession to be over because what they "see" is lagging indicators. It's all about asymmetrical information and the propensity for myopic beliefs (over-weighting the present relative to the future)

Balance is going to come back... it always does, then it will swing one way heavy and start all over again.

If the tea party members really wanted to rebuild the foundation of the country, get back to the roots, reduce gov, put things how it it's written - then they would all support Ron Paul rather than ignore him. Just the fact that they ignore him is ALL the proof that I need that it's complete bullshit.

The only way this Country will EVER change, is when the people rise up. Until then everything we see is 100% political bullshit with a different hat on it.

Vendzilla, it's all a charade. There is no two party system. There is a one party system. A two headed snake.

A revolution in your country is the least possible of any country worldwide.

The two party system works great though, because it pits half your country against the other half, pretty much ensuring that the public will never unite into any one idea with enough strength to topple the "King".

Would any company in the world give up control and ownership every 4 years because their employees said so?

It just doesn't make sense.

This is why my taxes go to people like the doc. Poor, unemployed, mentally retarded. I'm helping you out here doc. We all laugh anytime you post and we're laughing now. Nobody here cares anything you have to post so please, continue. Btw, LOL@fake economics studies. Gotta love the morons who join this industry because they're too stupid to do anything else.:1orglaugh

Unemployment, average work week, corporate cash balance sheets, etc.

Ron Paul had a few ideas that people just wouldn't get behind, it would be a harder sell than what they are doing right now, what I don't agree with is the Social conservative push they are doing

I've said this many times on this forum, we need to get rid of the two party system, I had high hopes when Ross Perot ran for office, that was a big let down

If Obama, or any president ever, came out and said that they are going to let tax cuts expire or even raise taxes further, but at the same time he will massively cut government spending I would respect that even though I do not think raising taxes is the answer.

Hahaha, oh shit that's funny, pretending you have a job now, haha. Come on lame boy, now you have a job that lets you post all day long, weekends, weeknights, etc? Do you do this job between your law or international economic studies? HAHAHAHA... what a poser.

Again, idiot... I never said anything about fake economic studies, you need to seriously pull your head out of your ass, wipe the shit from eyes and read again.

I would agree with that as well, but I don't see Barry cutting anything unless he's forced too

I wonder if gates and buffett made a party and promised to "not be evil" and put smart non-politicians to work... if they could win the US election.

I think they'd get a lot of votes.. A lot.

http://givingpledge.org/#enter

Awww what's the matter doc? Too stupid to keep up? Like I said, I have fun embarrassing low class morons twice my age and half my IQ.:1orglaugh

He wants to go back to the gold standard, remove the fed reserve, the irs, change to a flat tax or fair, whatever it was.. reduce the gov size, give power back to the states. He has a huge amount ideas - many of which the tea party aligns with. But it's not that they kinda of align with him, they ignore him - that's what bothers me.

I agree, the social view is probably what pushes most people away from them. Conservative towards gov and leave the people out of it.

YOUR <-- can you not read? and studie(S) <-- not studY... As in The Demon's fake economic studies, the bullshit you spew when you pretend to have studied economic theories. I didn't say the article was a fake economic study, I clearly said it was good.

Idiot...

As I said, wipe the shit from your eyes and learn to read.

Look at this incompetent social reject backpeddle. It's HILARIOUS. Come on Doc, try harder for all of us! We love to see you make a fool out of yourself.

All these things are monumental to achieve, going back to the gold standard would mean people couldn't own gold again
flat tax would have to be done a little at a time, poor people would have to give up their big checks from the government each year
Reduce government size I'm all for, just reducing the size of the military to just protecting our borders and a few bases would be great
And power back to the states in a biggy with me, the feds are not suppose to have the power they currently have.

A true Gold Standard with a legitimate Gold Cover Clause ratio would be ideal for our economy.

Back peddle what? You're the dumb ass that can't read. As I said, I never said the article you posted was a fake economic study, moron.

Just the fact that you would try to argue that, is... so you.

I don't really get this gold standard thing... Wouldn't that just lead to massive US gold hoarding?

Plus there's a finite amount of gold...

http://money.howstuffworks.com/question213.htm

You're really embarrassing yourself now Doc. There was only 1 economic study posted in my post, and you called it a fake, then you tried to backpeddle by somehow playing semantics with the word "your" which has no real wiggle room in my post. Keep humiliating yourself, moron.:1orglaugh

Listen idiot.. my god this isn't hard to understand. If I'm telling you that I wasn't talking about the article, but you referring your stupid economic theories, studies YOU said you have done, then that's what it was - idiot, my god - you're an idiot.

Whatever bullshit spewing crap you think up, is just that.. .bullshit, dude, pull your head out of your ass you need to come up for damn air.

Oh my, this is classic. Tell me Doc, where did I claim to have done studies? Go ahead, we're waiting. Please keep embarrassing yourself. You definitely are the epitome of incompetent.:1orglaugh

You've said many times that you studied some Australian economic theory bullshit or something in a university before and now you're pretending to be going to law school as well. I don't care to pull up.... I know you're a fake so I didn't keep track of it.

You know what I change mind about that article.. the article you posted was 100% fake. Fake because it means nothing to our Country, fake because the data means nothing to our Country, fake simply because you posted.

So all in all, both of your are fakes. Now you can say I called the article fake.

I have stated many times that we have many parties and not just two parties...but we do have two dominate parties and they will remain dominate as long as the voters keep them as the two dominate parties. I have zero confidence that a third party will rise up that will be able to even compete with the two dominate parties...let alone become a dominate party.

It is not the current sitting President or the current sitting Congress that is responsible for the problems of the nation...it it is all of the previous Presidents and Congresses that are responsible for the current state of the nation...specifically since and including the Reagan administration. The policies/laws put into place by each have exponentially compounded the problems that the nation is experiencing today.

To blame any sitting President or Congress for current problems...is simply ignorance. Every President and Congress implements laws that takes years to affect the nation in either a good way or a bad way.

A good example is NAFTA which was signed into law by President Clinton (which if I recall correctly was a Republican proposal). It was stated at the time that NAFTA would be a good thing for the long term well being of the nation. I was not a proponent of NAFTA at the time and I think that the majority would now agree that it has turned out to be very harmful for the nation's well being.

The same will apply to the Health Care Bill...it will be years for the affect to be seen as being a good thing or a bad thing for the well being of the nation.

Ahh, so you've admitted to making up bullshit. That's a step in the right direction, moron.:1orglaugh

Poor deluded Doc doesn't understand that the UK economic system more or less applies to the American system. We realize you're stupid, but we didn't think you were this stupid. Read a book:1orglaugh

Your dumbass is a walking contradiction. Owned again.:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

That guy has a gold exploration company and sells fishing trips in Africa.

Effectively, you're getting your economic education from this guy:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSINRyHquk0/0.jpg

No, I just proved you wrong because I posted it, thus it's true... I'm just taking a play from your play book, hope you don't mind.


Poor idiot, forgetting that statistically it didn't happen like it did in the UK so clearly something is different, as the article I posted proves and you ignore.


Contradicted what? I think you're both fakes and I'm 100% correct... prove me wrong.

NAFTA is complete shit for the country, I agree, even Hilary said so during her presidential bid.
Healthcare needs a big rewrite, the GOP is planning to defund it

And the Doc finally concedes defeat by using his patented anti logic "Prove me wrong". Yet another hilarious post full of stupidity and denial. Good show doc, you make it too easy.:1orglaugh

I think you're missing the point of the article, which explains what Gold Cover Clause ratio is.

The Republican's cannot defund it as long as Obama is President...and the Republican's do not have a sixty vote majority in the Senate...which I do not see happening in the November elections...but could happen in the 2012 elections...who knows at this point in time.