CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.

     



    No, you don't. If you take away the Bush years, you have:

     

    An increased debt of 7 trillion.

    12 million long term unemployed.

    Increased spending on entitlements.

    Sorry, you do not have a budget surplus and a thriving economy, even without the Bush years.




    This might be the most ridiculous post of all time.  Obama inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit, and you think if that had been a surplus, it would not have made a difference on the debt?

    Is there even a rational thought behind this?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3




     

    So we agree Bush was handed a declining economy and a weak non responsive govt to terror attacks aka USS Cole!

     



    OHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............Clinton`s Fault!

     

     

     

     




     

    How the fcuk is an economy GROWING at 2.4% anybody's 'fault'?

    For the ENTIRE baby-Bush term, GDP averaged only 2.09%

    If baby-Bush had even maintained that 2.4% GDP growth he inherited he would have done better than his actual performance.

    Geepers you wingnuts are hilarious!!!!



    Obama's average is a negative number.  12.5% drop year one, three 1-2% years followed, so, at this point, I would have to say that Obama's record is in the vicinity of -5%.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcCs1yGO6aA

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

    iN THERE OWN WORDS

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3




     

    So we agree Bush was handed a declining economy and a weak non responsive govt to terror attacks aka USS Cole!

     



    OHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............Clinton`s Fault!

     

     

     

     




     

    How the fcuk is an economy GROWING at 2.4% anybody's 'fault'?

    For the ENTIRE baby-Bush term, GDP averaged only 2.09%

    If baby-Bush had even maintained that 2.4% GDP growth he inherited he would have done better than his actual performance.

    Geepers you wingnuts are hilarious!!!!

     



    Obama's average is a negative number.  12.5% drop year one, three 1-2% years followed, so, at this point, I would have to say that Obama's record is in the vicinity of -5%.

     

     




     

    Nothing like just making up shiite to suit your delsional argument.

     



    Not making it up.  Go look it up.  Star here:

    http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-GDP-Per-Capita.php

     

    next, figure out how mich was borrowed vs. collected.  Ten start to do some simple math.  

    You will notice two things.  Borrowing actually drops the rate of growth, and that we have 

    back to get back to 2007 GDP.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest peacetime expansion of government spending in U.S. history.

    After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn't even accounted for in the figures). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn't the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

    In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    This must be the Friday that the EBT cards get "re-filled".  12angry-airborne-target-turthhurts is about 10 beers into the Colt-45 12-pak already.

    Geeesh

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.

     



    No, you don't. If you take away the Bush years, you have:

     

    An increased debt of 7 trillion.

    12 million long term unemployed.

    Increased spending on entitlements.

    Sorry, you do not have a budget surplus and a thriving economy, even without the Bush years.

     




     

    This might be the most ridiculous post of all time.  Obama inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit, and you think if that had been a surplus, it would not have made a difference on the debt?

    Is there even a rational thought behind this?

     




    What is ridiculous is your answer. the prior poster posited the thought that, without Bush as a predessessor, things would be rosy.  as my post points out,not so. So, take ouit the trillion of Bush deficit.  bama has runit up 6 TRILLION.

     

    Bad policy is bad policy.  Obama owns it, Obama built up the debt, has failed to fix the jobs issue, and so on.

    So, stop complaining when an idiuotic thought process of forgetting abourt the Bush years doesn't accomplish what you thought.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     




    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     




    What does arguing about what happened in the 90's accomplish? Nothing.

    Here we sit, with an economy about to crater, and all the Deocats can do is multi-headed versions of BUSH DID IT.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

     

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.



    It stopped wild, out of control, spending. EXACTLY what needs to be done now.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

     

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.

     



    It stopped wild, out of control, spending. EXACTLY what needs to be done now.

     



    No, they didn't - federal spending increased $60B from 1992 - 95.  It increased $200B from 95 to 2000.

    Would you agree they did not sto wild, out of control, spending?

    So what, exactly, did they do that deserves credit?  As far as I can tell, Dems have been cleaning up Republican messes for 4 decades.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

     

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.

     



    It stopped wild, out of control, spending. EXACTLY what needs to be done now.

     

     



     

    No, they didn't - federal spending increased $60B from 1992 - 95.  It increased $200B from 95 to 2000.

    Would you agree they did not sto wild, out of control, spending?

    So what, exactly, did they do that deserves credit?  As far as I can tell, Dems have been cleaning up Republican messes for 4 decades.

     



    Dems=tax and spend

    Reps=low taxes and spending cuts

    You may want to provide links to your "4 decades" theory.

    I just know that Clinton working with the Reps resulted in a strong economy.  Bush, until the Dems got control of both houses, had 6 years of economic stability (despite 2 wars).  We`re 4 years into Obama`s tenure and everything is worse.  The Left will do ANYTHING to try and defend the complete incompetence of this fool.  It`s time to admit he`s an idiot.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

     

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.

     



    It stopped wild, out of control, spending. EXACTLY what needs to be done now.

     

     



     

    No, they didn't - federal spending increased $60B from 1992 - 95.  It increased $200B from 95 to 2000.

    Would you agree they did not sto wild, out of control, spending?

    So what, exactly, did they do that deserves credit?  As far as I can tell, Dems have been cleaning up Republican messes for 4 decades.

     

     



    Dems=tax and spend

     

    Reps=low taxes and spending cuts

    You may want to provide links to your "4 decades" theory.

    I just know that Clinton working with the Reps resulted in a strong economy.  Bush, until the Dems got control of both houses, had 6 years of economic stability (despite 2 wars).  We`re 4 years into Obama`s tenure and everything is worse.  The Left will do ANYTHING to try and defend the complete incompetence of this fool.  It`s time to admit he`s an idiot.

     

    I provided rationale for "4 decades" - it started in the 80's with irresponsible spending under Reagan.  Clinton cleaned up after Reagan with tax hikes and a budget surplus in the 90s.  Bush II turned that surplus into a ridiculous deficit in the 2000s, and now Obama is trying to clean up after him in the 2010s.

    I know the mantra is Dems = tax & spend & Republicans = tax cuts & spending cuts, but that's not the reality.  The reality is Republicans = drive up debt and Dems = clean up their mess.

    GDP growth was at 4.5% in 1994.  The economy was strong, the deficit was shrinking - everything was going right in the country.  So again - what is it you credit Newt Gingrich and the Republicans for doing? 

    If you blow off everything else I say, please at least think on this - what we had under George Bush was not economic stability.  It was a bubble, and it was in housing, which is the segment that traditionally leads recoveries.  This is the heart of why this recovery is so slow - because its cause is rooted in housing.  The reason the fed is engaged in QE, basically printing money, is because the federal funds rate was already at zero.  It was impossible to do the things we normally do to pull out of a recession.  

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    "Bush II turned that surplus into a ridiculous deficit in the 2000s, and now Obama is trying to clean up after him in the 2010s."

    By adding $7 TRILLION to the debt in 3 1/2 years?  Are you kidding?

    You had/have some nice opinions of the "last 4 decades", I respect that.  Not seeing any facts though.  If Bush had a "housing bubble", did Clinton have an "internet bubble?

    For an honest person. you`re not looking at things honestly.  You`re falling into the "Bush`s fault" thing.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    "Bush II turned that surplus into a ridiculous deficit in the 2000s, and now Obama is trying to clean up after him in the 2010s."

    By adding $7 TRILLION to the debt in 3 1/2 years?  Are you kidding?

    You had/have some nice opinions of the "last 4 decades", I respect that.  Not seeing any facts though.  If Bush had a "housing bubble", did Clinton have an "internet bubble?

    For an honest person. you`re not looking at things honestly.  You`re falling into the "Bush`s fault" thing.

    Obama didn't add $7 trillion to anything - the deficit was at 1.2 trillion the day he walked into office.  US debt was at 11 trillion.  Do the math - what's 1.2 * 4 + 11?  It's just about 16 trillion, which is where we stand today.

    My facts are the deficit numbers - increased deficits under Reagan, decreases (surplus) under Clinton.   Outrageous deficit increases under Bush II.  The deficit has actually decreased under Obama - not much, but a bit.

    Yes, Clinton had an Internet bubble, but it was a much smaller segment of the economy, and it could have led to a more serious recession, if not for the housing bubble beginning immediately on its heels.  Remember - housing drives recoveries.  So instead of having a bit of a lull after the internet bubble popped, what did we do?  We cut the federal funds rate to under 2%, stimulated the housing market, and the rest is history.  

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    "Bush II turned that surplus into a ridiculous deficit in the 2000s, and now Obama is trying to clean up after him in the 2010s."

    By adding $7 TRILLION to the debt in 3 1/2 years?  Are you kidding?

    You had/have some nice opinions of the "last 4 decades", I respect that.  Not seeing any facts though.  If Bush had a "housing bubble", did Clinton have an "internet bubble?

    For an honest person. you`re not looking at things honestly.  You`re falling into the "Bush`s fault" thing.

     

     

    Obama didn't add $7 trillion to anything - the deficit was at 1.2 trillion the day he walked into office.  US debt was at 11 trillion.  Do the math - what's 1.2 * 4 + 11?  It's just about 16 trillion, which is where we stand today.

    My facts are the deficit numbers - increased deficits under Reagan, decreases (surplus) under Clinton.   Outrageous deficit increases under Bush II.  The deficit has actually decreased under Obama - not much, but a bit.

    Yes, Clinton had an Internet bubble, but it was a much smaller segment of the economy, and it could have led to a more serious recession, if not for the housing bubble beginning immediately on its heels.  Remember - housing drives recoveries.  So instead of having a bit of a lull after the internet bubble popped, what did we do?  We cut the federal funds rate to under 2%, stimulated the housing market, and the rest is history.  

     



    You`re confusing debt and deficit.  The debt was at 9.7 trillion.  Today it`s at 16.9 trillion.  You do the math.  

    Bush s ucked, we all know that and we admit it every day.  Obama is the worst in history and makes Bush look like Einstein. 

    Admit it, you`ll feel better.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Kinda like you refuse to see that until the Dems got super majorities (2006) Bush was doing great despite 2 wars...........(oh yeah, I forgot, it was a "bubble").

     


    When the Democrat got supermajorities in 2006, they automatically became fully responsible for the bubbles that already existed?

    Come back when you've found a shred of honor.

     




     

    You didn`t answer "Clinton bubbles" and "Reagan bubbles"?   I think it`s time for your "bubble" bath. 

    Gawd.........do you guys have a "Defend Obama`s incompetence" dictionary or something?

     




     

    GDP:

    Last 3 quarters of Clinton
    +8.0    +0.3    +2.4   

    Last 3 quarters of baby-Bush
    -3.7    -8.9    -5.3

     

     




    How do those quarters work out for Clinton after the GOP took over both houses of congress in 95?

     

    Yea, Clinton balanced the budget, because he of course, held the purse strings (oh wait) and the first all republican congress in 45 years had nothing to do with it, despite all that Balanced Budget silliness.

    Hilarious.

     




     

    More Republican BS - the deficit had already shrunk from $290 billion to $110 billion from 92 - 95.  There's no reason to credit Republicans for balancing the budget.

     

     




     

    Except the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 94

     

     




     

    These are January numbers, but you're right - I should have started in 93.  So over 2 years, with control of all three branches of government, Dems cut the deficit by $100 billion.  What, exactly do you credit Gingrich and the Republicans for?  Continuing the trend?

     

     

     



    Clinton was elected in 92, took over in Jan 93 with Dem House and Senate.  They promptly implemented the largest tax increase in history which led to their sound defeat in the 94 mid-terms.  Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, Contract with America, met Clinton in the middle (something Obama refuses to do) and America saw a thriving economy for the rest of the 90`s.

     

     

     



    This is the pattern - a Republican (Reagan) comes in and reduces taxes.  Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  By the end of his second term, it becomes clear that the tax cuts were a mistake (Bush I increases the tax rate to 32%).  Now, a decade later, deficits are out of control, and a tax rate that is half the rate when Reagan took offfice is billed the largest tax hike in history.

     

    This is important because the pattern repeats itself - Bush II starts off with tax cuts (and massive government spending).  By the end of his term, it's clear that deficits are ridiculously out of control, and it's up to the Dems to clean up the mess.  Allowing a portion of the temporary tax hikes to expire is billed as a tax increase.  

    If you don't like the Clinton tax increases, what, specifically, did Gingrich and the Republicans do to help reduce the deficit? The contract with America had almost nothing to do with taxes.



    You are misreading the pattern.  the issue is that spending never gets curtailed.  this was a big mistake on the part of Reagan, and those who followed.  That's what is behind the attempt to gain more revenue through taxation. that never works, althought it looks like it is working ifthe economy is hot.  in reality, it sets up conditions that make the downward business cycel more extreme, harder to recover.  Kinda like now, eh?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share