|
So the US government starts shutting down tomorrow... (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VAR |
i liked government better back when it was more focused on back-room deals
than being media-whore, public-relations, bull-generators. |
|
|
| jester |
| I think I saw a Re/Max sign up on the White House's lawn. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country. |
NO NEW TAXES! THE JOB CREATORS NEED MORE 00'S IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS TO CREATE JOBS! |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
So, I heard they raised the debt limit
Crisis averted? |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
So, I heard they raised the debt limit
Crisis averted? |
I think it still has to be voted on or something? I might be wrong though. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Still needs to be voted on. I really hope the Democrats grow a ing pair and vote this down. I know they wont though. The Democrats basically rolled over again and let the ing rich walk all over the middle and lower class. This is getting ing pathetic. Luckily for the rich in this country the poor are also incredibly stupid, and actually vote in the ones that are anally raping them all the way to the bank.
I hope you are happy you ing retards. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| Damn, I hoped the US would go bankrupt, as they deserve to. It's what you get when voting a socialist. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Damn, I hoped the US would go bankrupt, as they deserve to. It's what you get when voting a socialist. |
Im sure you’re trolling, but the US could always print more money if it wished to, much to the chagrin of bond holders. And tax cuts, the wars and the economic downturn are the principle factors in re-emerging deficits, and none of those issues are particularly socialist in nature. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| I shudder at the thought of american im migrants crossing the big pond for a chance at a better life in the free world. Only a matter of time now. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| What really annoys me is the stupid "it's all the Republicans' / Democrats' fault". Everyone is blaming on the others and thinks his party is doing things right. I have said for a long time that politics is just like being a sports team's fan. I've also said for a long time that all politicians are idiots at best and criminals at worst. In the US it is really silly imho, cause everything is so black and white. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country. |
Talk about stupidity, and being unable to think for yourself... look at you taking your cues from the obviously coordinated efforts of last week's new Democrat talking point. Like a dutiful little useful idiot, you fall right in line and repeat like the parrot you are.
| quote: | STENY HOYER: The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.
HARRY REID: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.
CHUCK SCHUMER: ...It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ... Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage.
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.
JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.
BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.
EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.
JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.
ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.
JOHN LARSON: ...ideological hostage situation...
LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.
JAMES CLYBURN: ...holding the American economy hostage |
I guess this is part of that "new civility" Democrats were talking about after the Arizona congresswoman was shot?
And PKC, your graph was stupid. First of all, I totally agree that Bush spent and grew government way too ing much. But if you want to use that as your argument for why we are in such a mess, then you should be fair and point out that Obama has already committed to more spending in under 3 years than Bush did in all 8 of his; that Obama DOUBLED our debt and more than tripled our deficit; that the failed "stimulus" cost more than all wars prior to Iraq combined. Descretionary spending is up 84% under Obama and overall, government has grown 25-30% higher than what Bush did.
Obama is in his 3rd year... plenty of time for his economic policies to take effect. You're smarter than that to keep blaming George Bush; at some point, the President and his party has to be accountable for their policies and actions.
Finally, it is such a tired, overly simplistic talking point to say "Bush tax cuts" are a cause of the recession. They "cost" who exactly? Government? Because to say that is Statist thinking; you assume all money belongs to government first, and the people just get to keep what they deem we should keep when it is the opposite. So by cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003 (and Nou, all income brackets were cut, not just "the rich" you disingenuous ), you can project that the government didn't end up collecting X amount of dollars they would have if taxes hadn't been cut, right? Well you Statists never cop to the other side of that coin: following Bush's tax cuts, more money immediately flowed into the treasury than at any point in history between 2003 and 2007... it's just unfortunate how it was spent; but it cannot be denied that the deficit went from about $450 billion down to $162 billion between 2003 and 2007... over 60% reduction. Do you get that? About 4 years of steady decline AFTER tax cuts were in place. Then the housing market crapped out and the rest is history.
Boy, I'd sure hate to go back to the days of 5% unemployment under Bush's horrible tenure. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
And PKC, your graph was stupid. First of all, I totally agree that Bush spent and grew government way too ing much. But if you want to use that as your argument for why we are in such a mess, then you should be fair and point out that Obama has already committed to more spending in under 3 years than Bush did in all 8 of his; that Obama DOUBLED our debt and more than tripled our deficit; that the failed "stimulus" cost more than all wars prior to Iraq combined. Descretionary spending is up 84% under Obama and overall, government has grown 25-30% higher than what Bush did. |
if you refuse to understand the math behind the analysis (even after put in a very nice graph for you) then there's not a lot i can do for you. it has already been explained to you what is driving the deficits.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Obama is in his 3rd year... plenty of time for his economic policies to take effect. You're smarter than that to keep blaming George Bush; at some point, the President and his party has to be accountable for their policies and actions. |
sure, and when anyone can illustrate how exactly obama "tripled the deficit" then i am more than happy to be convinced. as it stands, the global financial crisis (ie tax receipts in the toilet), the wars & tax cuts are the principle contributors according to non partisan economists. you know i love you kev, but you're not nearly as compelling as they are ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Finally, it is such a tired, overly simplistic talking point to say "Bush tax cuts" are a cause of the recession. |
i dont know who is arguing that bush's tax cuts caused the recession. i think the causes are well explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2...inancial_crisis
anyone that suggests it was a single policy or politician that caused this level of has rocks in their head.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Well you Statists never cop to the other side of that coin: following Bush's tax cuts, more money immediately flowed into the treasury than at any point in history between 2003 and 2007... it's just unfortunate how it was spent; but it cannot be denied that the deficit went from about $450 billion down to $162 billion between 2003 and 2007... over 60% reduction. Do you get that? About 4 years of steady decline AFTER tax cuts were in place. Then the housing market crapped out and the rest is history. |
i already corrected this nonsense previously:
http://avb.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&pagenumber=12
| quote: |
Myth 1: Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”
“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006
“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006
Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.
But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)
The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)
Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years.
http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm |
and opus did the same:
http://avb.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=569107&perpage=12&forumid=54&pagenumber=10
| quote: |
Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007.
“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.” — President Bush, July 11, 2006
Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.
When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then. Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues.
Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.) In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1). Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries.
Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to “only” $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts. Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset. While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that “at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.”
Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation’s fiscal problems. (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm) To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-31-08socsec.htm)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692 |
stop talking absolute bollocks.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Boy, I'd sure hate to go back to the days of 5% unemployment under Bush's horrible tenure. |
was certainly a fun bubble. how'd it work out for you? |
|
|
|
|
