Obamas economy still hitting new lows.

[cutthemdown]

http://news.yahoo.com/stocks-suffer-years-worst-day-jobs-report-201844063--abc-news-personal-finance.html


After a dismal May jobs report, U.S. stocks had their worst day in 2012, erasing the gains for the year and touching lows for a number of benchmarks.

The S&P 500 index fell nearly 2.5 percent to 1,278 as the tech-heavy Nasdaq fell over 2.8 percent to 2,747. The Nasdaq had its worst start to June on a point basis ever. The Dow Jones industrial average fell over 2.2 percent to 12,117.

Paul Larson, chief equities strategist with investment firm Morningstar, said while investor anxiety has sprung from a number of sources of late, today's jobs report tipped the scales toward red.

The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, fewer than the 150,000 many economists had expected, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent.



Obama is a trainwreck, we have to vote him out of office. All dems and repubs need to unite with one goal. Removing Obama from office.

[Blart]

The way to prosperity is to put Bush's administration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rod-paige-other-bush-administration-appointees-named-to-mitt-romneys-education-advisory-group/2012/05/22/gIQAP0hJiU_blog.html) back into office (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TRkIP1nHT8).

[cutthemdown]

Bush spent a ton of money on entitlements so we don't want to go back to him either. I realize though that campaigning against Bush JR is all Obama can do, is all he has ever done for the last 4 yrs.

[Meck77]

QE3 here we come....

[TonyR]

LOL "Obamas economy". First, you're too stupid to use an apostrophe to note the possessive case. And second, you're stupid enough to actually think the recent stock market results have something to do with Obama.

[TonyR]

Obama is a trainwreck, we have to vote him out of office. All dems and repubs need to unite with one goal. Removing Obama from office.

Hilarious! Yes, quick, let's vote Mitt Romney into office! He'll save us!

(Hey dipsh*t, go check out Romney's job record as governor. And check out his economic plan. And check out his foreign policy ideas. And then admit how stupid you are. Or, wait until you realize you've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Either way.)

[Blart]

Bush spent a ton of money on entitlements so we don't want to go back to him either. I realize though that campaigning against Bush JR is all Obama can do, is all he has ever done for the last 4 yrs.

PAYGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO) - a regulation that forced the government to pay for expenditures with increased revenue (i.e. taxes) rather than debt -helped keep government spending in check.

PAYGO expired in 2002, and Bush went wild. Medicare, wars, social security... all while cutting taxes. It made no economic sense, but it was politically popular enough to earn his team a second term.


As a fiscal conservative, what should worry you is that Romney is bringing back the exact same people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m920VBQ2OB0). Economics, foreign policy, education - all from the Bush administration. 8 more years! 8 more years!

[W*GS]

Obama is a trainwreck, we have to vote him out of office. All dems and repubs need to unite with one goal. Removing Obama from office.

If Obama is a "trainwreck [sic]", then Bush was the ****ing global apocalypse.

[Drek]

Obama is a trainwreck, we have to vote him out of office. All dems and repubs need to unite with one goal. Removing Obama from office.

Obama has been the only person in Washington getting anything done.

The problem is that the two faction system has forced good legislation to get chopped and twisted at every turn.

Legitimate health care reform fell before the Republican's 'single payer is the devil! (but was originally a conservative idea)' stigma and the Democrat's unwillingness to incorporate medicare/medicaid entirely into it for full, national reform.

The stimulus was crippled by GOP insistence that it carry a large portion of it's value in the form of tax breaks, and trying to hold all non-tax break related costs as low as possible. Meanwhile dems were busy trying to push as much of it into non-effective social programs as possible, not the big infrastructure bill Obama wanted from day one.

People can't seem to wrap their heads around this, but Barack Obama is hands down the best president this country has had in almost half a century. He's a centrist who is strong on foreign policy without forcing military commitments, is open with his personal "liberal" social views but is not pushing legislation to force them down the nation's throat, he understands that in a time of national economic hardship the last thing you want is federal constriction, and he sees that our infrastructure is crumbling apart compare to the other global economic rivals we're trying to battle.

He actually GETS IT. Unlike almost every other politician. But the two party faction war is ruining it.

Thankfully he's going to walk to re-election because Romney can't landslide the swing states like he needs for a win. Unfortunately we'll keep a do nothing GOP house and a child with a dirty diaper-esque democratic senate.

[TonyR]

As a fiscal conservative, what should worry you is that Romney is bringing back the exact same people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m920VBQ2OB0). Economics, foreign policy, education - all from the Bush administration. 8 more years! 8 more years!

This is what makes me absolutely CRAZY! All these imbeciles want Obama out so bad, but they're willing to do so at the cost of someone who is worse in every way. Complain about Obama all you want, but pull your heads out of your collective backsides before you cast that vote for Mitt ****ing Romeny. ****ing idiots!!!

[TonyR]

^^ Great post, Drek. Too bad most of these dopes will ignore it. You certainly won't get any intelligent, thoughtful argument against it.

[El Jué]

LOL "Obamas economy". First, you're too stupid to use an apostrophe to note the possessive case. And second, you're stupid enough to actually think the recent stock market results have something to do with Obama.

So President Obama has very little influence on stuff like this...

Hilarious! Yes, quick, let's vote Mitt Romney into office! He'll save us!

(Hey dipsh*t, go check out Romney's job record as governor. And check out his economic plan. And check out his foreign policy ideas. And then admit how stupid you are. Or, wait until you realize you've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Either way.)

...but President Romney, on the other hand, would have whole big gobs of influence.

I love reading you guys. Both sides.

[TonyR]

So President Obama has very little influence on stuff like this...

...but President Romney, on the other hand, would have whole big gobs of influence.

I love reading you guys. Both sides.

First, correct, Obama has very little (if any) impact on the stock market. The market's main issue right now is what's going on with the European economy, not anything Obama is or isn't doing.

Second, my point on Romney is that some dopes want to get rid of Obama because they think Obama is ruining things and Romney is going to fix them. Are you one of the people silly enough to believe such a thing? You tell me.

[El Jué]

First, correct, Obama has very little (if any) impact on the stock market. The market's main issue right now is what's going on with the European economy, not anything Obama is or isn't doing.

Second, my point on Romney is that some dopes want to get rid of Obama because they think Obama is ruining things and Romney is going to fix them. Are you one of the people silly enough to believe such a thing? You tell me.

Hell, no. Democrat and Republican politicians don't get wealthy by fixing this piece of **** government.

[Blart]

Oh ho ho, the libertarian is above the fray. He disagrees/agrees with the right AND the left! Please, tell us more libertarian.

[cutthemdown]

Hilarious! Yes, quick, let's vote Mitt Romney into office! He'll save us!

(Hey dipsh*t, go check out Romney's job record as governor. And check out his economic plan. And check out his foreign policy ideas. And then admit how stupid you are. Or, wait until you realize you've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Either way.)

Unemployment was low under Romney. It went from 6 to 5% under him. It's just liberals try and say he only added this many jobs etc etc. Really it's the % going down that is the number you should look at. Meanwhile Obama 4 yrs into a recovery unemployment ticking back up again.

[El Jué]

Oh ho ho, the libertarian is above the fray. He disagrees/agrees with the right AND the left! Please, tell us more libertarian.

**** the libertarians, too.

[cutthemdown]

First, correct, Obama has very little (if any) impact on the stock market. The market's main issue right now is what's going on with the European economy, not anything Obama is or isn't doing.

Second, my point on Romney is that some dopes want to get rid of Obama because they think Obama is ruining things and Romney is going to fix them. Are you one of the people silly enough to believe such a thing? You tell me.

Wrong again dummy! It was the dismal jobs report that sent stocks tumbling. This economy is all Obama's baby. Just deal with it your hope and change was a Jimmy Carter economy.

[TonyR]

Wrong again dummy! It was the dismal jobs report that sent stocks tumbling. This economy is all Obama's baby. Just deal with it your hope and change was a Jimmy Carter economy.

"My" hope and change? I just voted for the better candidate (and the ticket without Sarah Palin on it). And this economy fell apart long before Obama got the job. What should he be doing to "save" it in your opinion?

[W*GS]

cut is a good little GOP stooge.

I bet Rush's arm up his ass doesn't even hurt anymore.

[houghtam]

Meanwhile, private sector jobs have grown for the 26th consecutive month, total non-farm payroll employment expanded for the 19th consecutive month, and unemployment was at its lowest in 39 months.

[Fedaykin]

Unemployment was low under Romney. It went from 6 to 5% under him. It's just liberals try and say he only added this many jobs etc etc. Really it's the % going down that is the number you should look at. Meanwhile Obama 4 yrs into a recovery unemployment ticking back up again.


The unemployment situation is going to continue to be, at best, slowly recovering as long as we keep pretending supply side economics is anything but an abject failure.

Does matter if you start *paying* business owners to be business owners, as long as they have no reason to hire new employees, they won't.

What makes an employer need to hire new employees? More business. What creates more business? More demand. What drives demand? Enabling more people to spend more money.

[El Jué]

The unemployment situation is going to continue to be, at best, slowly recovering as long as we keep pretending supply side economics is anything but an abject failure.

Does matter if you start *paying* business owners to be business owners, as long as they have no reason to hire new employees, they won't.

What makes an employer need to hire new employees? More business. What creates more business? More demand. What drives demand? Enabling more people to spend more money.

By doing what, exactly? What can the federal government do to enable people to spend more money?

[cutthemdown]

LOL!!!!!!!!!

[lonestar]

wow I've been staying out of the political forum just of all of the left stupidity drives me nuts.. see y'all again in NOV . maybe.. doubt y'all will be worth wasting time on then either..

[barryr]

Economy goes well, Obama's golf outings mattered. Economy goes bad and it's the republicans fault or those evil rich capitalists. Well, only those that support republicans since the wealthy capitalists that support democrats are great people.

[Boomhauer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9306987/Barack-Obama-blames-eurocrisis-for-slowing-economy.html
"...Speaking to supporters in Minnesota, Mr Obama pointed to Europe's own economic crisis as one of a number of factors driving the US downturn in job growth for May and the overall sluggish domestic economy. He said: "We've had a crisis in Europe's economy that is having an impact worldwide and it's starting to cast a shadow on our own economy as well." ..."
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02236/jobs-changes_2236657c.jpg

No little-O, you're just a complete failure of a President. Europe is why job growth sucked in May? Is that also why it sucked in April? Is that also why it sucked from May-August last year? Damn those Europeans! But if it's all dependent on the EU, why didn't it suck last Oct-Dec when Greece was also hitting the fan, Spanish and Italian debts were similarly spiking, everything now being a repeat of then?

No little-O, you can't point a finger at the EU, at the Repubs, at the dramatic slowdowns of China and India, at the budget process which won't be an issue until Dec, at global warming or wars in the Middle East. It's all you, little-O. You suck azz.

[mosca]

By doing what, exactly? What can the federal government do to enable people to spend more money?
This is a very important question and it summarizes the big divide between the prevailing economic theories out there. Thing is - with the current system in place, it's hard to say that people will spend more money without the gubment continuing its policies of overspending, printing money, and QE - which short term, put more cash into the consumers hands, and long term, continue this trend of totally unwise economic policy that sets us up for an even worse recession in another decade or a possible actual Depression down the line.

And, on a side note, anyone who has been comparing the Great Recession of the last half-decade with the actual Great Depression has no idea how truly bad it was back in the 1920s. We're still afloat right now but we need to radically change some things around.

[TonyR]

No little-O, you're just a complete failure of a President.

So list some things that Obama should do/should have done to "create jobs" and "fix the economy". (this should be good........Hilarious!)

[TonyR]

It was the dismal jobs report that sent stocks tumbling.

You're right, I was thinking of the May 31 market results because I was so busy at work on Friday I hadn't even seen what went down June 1. That being said, the jobs report is at least indirectly tied to what's going on in Europe. It's one of the main drivers of current uncertainty that negatively impacts hiring in the U.S. And even if that weren't the case, what policies of Obama's would you blame for the current employment situation?

[elsid13]

So list some things that Obama should do/should have done to "create jobs" and "fix the economy". (this should be good........Hilarious!)

Here is the predict response:

1. Tax Cuts
2. Get ride of those environmental regulations
3. See #1
4. cut the NEA
5. Spend more money on defense and cut all those social programs
6. Keystone
7. See #1 and #3
8. Ban gay marriage
9. Cut taxes

[TonyR]

Here is the predict response:...


LOL Yes, sounds about right. I'm actually expecting no responses because these guys don't know what they're talking about. They only know the Fox News anti-Obama talking point that Obama is ruining the country. No justification is needed, he just is!

[ant1999e]

So President Obama has very little influence on stuff like this...



...but President Romney, on the other hand, would have whole big gobs of influence.

I love reading you guys. Both sides.

Rep. Notice which side starts the attacks on you? Incapable of having a civil conversation.

[cutthemdown]

I sort of agree that the President doesn't control as much as we all think he does, but.......that didn't stop liberals and Clinton from blaming the downturn on Bush SR and using it to ride him out of office. That was after he really kicked ass in the 91 war not losing many troops and amassing a huge coalition of troops. So really Obama killing Bin Laden, as good as that is, has some precedence for being overlooked and saying economy not good enough you are history.

I think our big biz is holding on to a lot of cash. They don't like Obama, CEO don't like him, all because of what he wants to do with taxes, and what he did with healthcare. Now I admit healthcare law is so hard to understand, so big, none of us really no it well. That is what made the whole Pelosi we have to pass it to see whats in it comment so true. Funny but true. One thing that I have heard though is the 50 employee rule. If you have over 50 you must offer healthcare or face a fine per employee. So small businesses with 40 employees probably won't be expanding into the 100's until they see economy get better. They would, even with the increase fines or costs, whichever way they go if economy was bright.

That is the double edged sword in our speculation economy. How does the president make people feel all is well if things are slow? to get them to not worry and invest, create jobs. Really its the small business that will create the jobs as much as the big CEO's of Walmart you all hate. I don't think Obama helps the outlook when he wastes a stimulus, runs up the debt, talks about class warfare and how the rich are not paying their share, jumps on every race issue, seems unwilling to lead on big issues like Syria, but fine launching missiles once the US agrees. I think our big oil looks at that and says man he is leaving the mideast oil supply up to how the UN decides to act. Very bad way to go about it when China and Russia could care less about American interests.

We need a big change of direction.

[cutthemdown]

The only tax thing they have to do is not change it, and say this is what we will stick with. Investors like to know what is going to be the tax law into the future. Will it be a plan to try and tax more, keep things the same, or lower them. With Obama they feel it will be try and tax more. What about that don't you all understand?

[El Jué]

I sort of agree that the President doesn't control as much as we all think he does, but.......that didn't stop liberals and Clinton from blaming the downturn on Bush SR and using it to ride him out of office. That was after he really kicked ass in the 91 war not losing many troops and amassing a huge coalition of troops. So really Obama killing Bin Laden, as good as that is, has some precedence for being overlooked and saying economy not good enough you are history.

I think our big biz is holding on to a lot of cash. They don't like Obama, CEO don't like him, all because of what he wants to do with taxes, and what he did with healthcare. Now I admit healthcare law is so hard to understand, so big, none of us really no it well. That is what made the whole Pelosi we have to pass it to see whats in it comment so true. Funny but true. One thing that I have heard though is the 50 employee rule. If you have over 50 you must offer healthcare or face a fine per employee. So small businesses with 40 employees probably won't be expanding into the 100's until they see economy get better. They would, even with the increase fines or costs, whichever way they go if economy was bright.

That is the double edged sword in our speculation economy. How does the president make people feel all is well if things are slow? to get them to not worry and invest, create jobs. Really its the small business that will create the jobs as much as the big CEO's of Walmart you all hate. I don't think Obama helps the outlook when he wastes a stimulus, runs up the debt, talks about class warfare and how the rich are not paying their share, jumps on every race issue, seems unwilling to lead on big issues like Syria, but fine launching missiles once the US agrees. I think our big oil looks at that and says man he is leaving the mideast oil supply up to how the UN decides to act. Very bad way to go about it when China and Russia could care less about American interests.

We need a big change of direction.

Clinton and the Democrats didn't really ride Bush out of office. Shoot, Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote in 1992. In my opinion, George Bush's wounds were largely self-inflicted. The GOP coalition voted for a third Reagan term in 1988 and Bush didn't deliver.

[Fedaykin]

The only tax thing they have to do is not change it, and say this is what we will stick with. Investors like to know what is going to be the tax law into the future. Will it be a plan to try and tax more, keep things the same, or lower them. With Obama they feel it will be try and tax more. What about that don't you all understand?

This is a crock of ****. Economic conditions are always in flux. Why didn't it stop investors during Reagan's Tenure? The 80s had massive changes: increases, decreases, etc.

Reagan changed taxes (both decreases AND increases) at least 20 times in 8 years.

Are you saying that modern investors are fundamentally different from the investors of the last 30 years?

[cutthemdown]

No fed they aren't pussies. Investors are among the bravest economically of all of us. Thats why capital gains must be kept low. To earn money through investments you have to risk losing it. That is why when they do pay off you shouldn't have to pay the same % as regular earners who get a paycheck every 2 weeks.

It's things like that Obama ****s up on. Just the fact Obama handed out so many waivers to his healthcare provisions shows he knows its a cluster****. The longer it takes to take effect the better because he knows its an economy killer. So do they small bizz owners.

People hear some CEO made 5 million taking his pay in stock futures. They don't focus on the guy who took stock futures that ended up worthless and he worked for nothing for 5 yrs etc etc.

[W*GS]

We need a big change of direction.

The only direction your GOP will take us is into the ****ter.

[Fedaykin]

No fed they aren't pussies. Investors are among the bravest economically of all of us. Thats why capital gains must be kept low. To earn money through investments you have to risk losing it. That is why when they do pay off you shouldn't have to pay the same % as regular earners who get a paycheck every 2 weeks.

It's things like that Obama ****s up on. Just the fact Obama handed out so many waivers to his healthcare provisions shows he knows its a cluster****. The longer it takes to take effect the better because he knows its an economy killer. So do they small bizz owners.

People hear some CEO made 5 million taking his pay in stock futures. They don't focus on the guy who took stock futures that ended up worthless and he worked for nothing for 5 yrs etc etc.

Nice list of Red Herrings. Care to answer my actual question (revised for you even)?

[W*GS]

cut wants a ****ing dictator.

Just like so many right-wingers. They detest democracy and demand to be led.

[cutthemdown]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-employers-waiting-watching-hiring-165106062--finance.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Business has picked up. Yet American companies are too nervous to step up hiring.
The economy seems so gripped by uncertainties that many employers have decided to manage with the staff they have. They aren't convinced their customer demand will keep growing. Or they worry that Europe's festering debt crisis could infect the global economy. Or they aren't sure what Congress will do, if anything, about taxes and spending in coming months.
All that helps explain why U.S. employers added just 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year and the third straight month of weak job growth.
"If you're anxious, you sit on your hands," said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.
The U.S. government is also nearing its debt ceiling. It was just last summer that a bickering Congress rattled markets by nearly allowing the government to default on its debt.
State and local spending levels are uncertain or shrinking as governments try to shrink their own debts. The result is smaller budgets for schools, transportation projects and services.
Companies also complain that changes in environmental regulations and business subsidies are too hard to predict and plan for.
Here's a look at why some individual employers remain hesitant to hire:
___
For many companies that build highways, hiring plans are on hold while Congress debates long-term plans to pay for construction projects.
"I've got paving crews that are ready, willing to go to work next week, but I don't have contracts that I can have them go to work on," said Ed Dalrymple, vice president of Chemung Contracting Corp., based in Elmira, NY.
The company, which operates gravel quarries and asphalt plants and does highway and airport runway paving, relies heavily on government work in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
"There's work that needs to be done, but none of the states have authorized it," Dalrymple said. "If you look at the transportation bill in Congress, it just sits there."
___
Jason Speer is nervously watching Congress and possible tax changes as Bush-era income tax cuts near expiration at year's end. He's a vice president of Quality Float Works of Schaumberg, Ill., which makes devices to monitor fluid levels in tanks.
Speer says he'd feel a lot better about hiring later this year if it weren't for the uncertainty about federal taxes. Unable to anticipate his company's costs, Speer says he can't make decisions about growth and hiring.
"We don't know if there's something around the corner that's going to hurt our business," Speer says.
Sales in the United States, the Middle East and South Asia have been strong, he says. And the company expects to grow 15 percent this year. But Europe has been a drag: Sales to the region are down 50 to 60 percent this year.
The company added two jobs this year but would have added a third if European sales hadn't suffered.
"If that business was still what it was, we would have already hired someone to keep up with it," Speer says.
___
John Hensley employs nine people at Lark Cake Shop, a specialty bakery in Los Angeles' Silver Lake neighborhood. Sales are up over last year. Yet Hensley doesn't feel comfortable hiring.
He's worried the economy may be staring at another slowdown. And he's uneasy over whether Congress will renew Social Security tax cuts.
"It definitely doesn't put you in the frame of mind to want to hire," Hensley says.
The prospect of a worsening European debt crisis that could hurt U.S. banks, the stock market and consumer confidence is a concern for him, too.
"If people feel like everything is going badly, then they're not going to be in the mood to spend money," he says. "There just seems to be so much uncertainty out there."

[baja]

Is it Obama's fault? Listen very carefully.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/outwxGA9_3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Fedaykin]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-employers-waiting-watching-hiring-165106062--finance.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Business has picked up. Yet American companies are too nervous to step up hiring.
The economy seems so gripped by uncertainties that many employers have decided to manage with the staff they have. They aren't convinced their customer demand will keep growing. Or they worry that Europe's festering debt crisis could infect the global economy. Or they aren't sure what Congress will do, if anything, about taxes and spending in coming months.
All that helps explain why U.S. employers added just 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year and the third straight month of weak job growth.
"If you're anxious, you sit on your hands," said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.
The U.S. government is also nearing its debt ceiling. It was just last summer that a bickering Congress rattled markets by nearly allowing the government to default on its debt.
State and local spending levels are uncertain or shrinking as governments try to shrink their own debts. The result is smaller budgets for schools, transportation projects and services.
Companies also complain that changes in environmental regulations and business subsidies are too hard to predict and plan for.
Here's a look at why some individual employers remain hesitant to hire:
___
For many companies that build highways, hiring plans are on hold while Congress debates long-term plans to pay for construction projects.
"I've got paving crews that are ready, willing to go to work next week, but I don't have contracts that I can have them go to work on," said Ed Dalrymple, vice president of Chemung Contracting Corp., based in Elmira, NY.
The company, which operates gravel quarries and asphalt plants and does highway and airport runway paving, relies heavily on government work in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
"There's work that needs to be done, but none of the states have authorized it," Dalrymple said. "If you look at the transportation bill in Congress, it just sits there."
___
Jason Speer is nervously watching Congress and possible tax changes as Bush-era income tax cuts near expiration at year's end. He's a vice president of Quality Float Works of Schaumberg, Ill., which makes devices to monitor fluid levels in tanks.
Speer says he'd feel a lot better about hiring later this year if it weren't for the uncertainty about federal taxes. Unable to anticipate his company's costs, Speer says he can't make decisions about growth and hiring.
"We don't know if there's something around the corner that's going to hurt our business," Speer says.
Sales in the United States, the Middle East and South Asia have been strong, he says. And the company expects to grow 15 percent this year. But Europe has been a drag: Sales to the region are down 50 to 60 percent this year.
The company added two jobs this year but would have added a third if European sales hadn't suffered.
"If that business was still what it was, we would have already hired someone to keep up with it," Speer says.
___
John Hensley employs nine people at Lark Cake Shop, a specialty bakery in Los Angeles' Silver Lake neighborhood. Sales are up over last year. Yet Hensley doesn't feel comfortable hiring.
He's worried the economy may be staring at another slowdown. And he's uneasy over whether Congress will renew Social Security tax cuts.
"It definitely doesn't put you in the frame of mind to want to hire," Hensley says.
The prospect of a worsening European debt crisis that could hurt U.S. banks, the stock market and consumer confidence is a concern for him, too.
"If people feel like everything is going badly, then they're not going to be in the mood to spend money," he says. "There just seems to be so much uncertainty out there."

Notice how the bottom line for all those employers is whether or not the demand is there and/or what the long term prospects for the demand are?

Taxes change all the time. Business (and therefore employment) is demand driven. Always has been always will be.

[Boomhauer]

So list some things that Obama should do/should have done to "create jobs" and "fix the economy".

Why? And why would I want the economy to get better? When the Repubs, with full backing of Demos, institutionalized civil, human and unalienable rights violations in the name of "security" they triggered the "Declaration Clause" - a consequence that supercedes all laws, policies and decisions of the US Government and even the government itself;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People ... it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

As far as I'm concerned, the Republican party and Democratic leadership required their extermination as soo as the Patriot Act and all other "security" measures were implamented. Little-O had a window, an opportunity to salvage the rest of the Democratic Party by throwing its leaders under the bus by persecuting them, the entire clandestine community and the previous Administration. (Yes, I mean persecuted. Not prosecuted). His second week in office he announced there would be no such action, but insead the Democratic Party would fully support and continue these atrocities of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Thus, both parties as well as the entire clandestine community have required their extermination.

So again, I ask you why I would want the economy to get better or give recommendations?

[Spider]

........

[cutthemdown]

Notice how the bottom line for all those employers is whether or not the demand is there and/or what the long term prospects for the demand are?

Taxes change all the time. Business (and therefore employment) is demand driven. Always has been always will be.

I agree but it's up to the President to have policies that make business leaders feel things will improve, things will grow. The fact Obama sends mixed signals on that with a realy huge healthcare plan that forces employers over a certain size to provide insurance or get fined, that is wavering on soc sec taxes and capital gains etc, then the biggie really, Obama is always talking like rich people need higher taxes. Those things are big when it comes to employers gauging if they should grow their business or maintain status quo, and see what happens.

[DBruleU]

........

Ha! When you attribute a $410B spending bill (Singed by Barack Obama) to Obama's predecessor, yeah, the numbers look like that. In fact, Obama's spending as a share of GDP (http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/) is the highest in the US since WWII spending.

[Fedaykin]

I agree but it's up to the President to have policies that make business leaders feel things will improve, things will grow. The fact Obama sends mixed signals on that with a realy huge healthcare plan that forces employers over a certain size to provide insurance or get fined, that is wavering on soc sec taxes and capital gains etc, then the biggie really, Obama is always talking like rich people need higher taxes. Those things are big when it comes to employers gauging if they should grow their business or maintain status quo, and see what happens.

So you're telling me that if you were a businessman, and you were seeing a huge increase in demand right now you wouldn't hire people to fulfill that demand because *maybe* the tax situation will change? Are you also saying that if you were a businessman who had no prospect for future demand you would hire folks just for the **** of it if taxes went down a little bit?

Thats puts us right back to my question you avoided answering. The economic situation is always in flux. Why is it, in your opinion, only now that people won't hire? Reagan raised taxes every ~6 months, created massive changes in employee compensation (401ks, etc.), made a huge increase in SS taxes. The potential changes in our foreseeable future are peanuts compared to that. So why wasn't there job stagnation under Reagan?

[Fedaykin]

Ha! When you attribute a $410B spending bill (Singed by Barack Obama) to Obama's predecessor, yeah, the numbers look like that. In fact, Obama's spending as a share of GDP (http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/) is the highest in the US since WWII spending.

Spending as a % of GDP is a stupid way to measure spending changes. Of course that's the way you wingnuts want to frame it because that's the only way you can continue pushing the narrative that Obama & Democrats in generate are massive spenders and that we don't have a problem with revenue.

It's like saying a family with two working parents started spending a bunch more when one of the parents loses their job/income. Completely idiotic.

Also, the story isn't there but the chart seems to indicate that all stimulus spending was put under Obama instead of some under Bush and some under Obama. You appear to have read it backwards and upside down. The note very clearly states that the 2009 stimulus was reassigned TO Obama.

[Spider]

Ha! When you attribute a $410B spending bill (Singed by Barack Obama) to Obama's predecessor, yeah, the numbers look like that. In fact, Obama's spending as a share of GDP (http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/) is the highest in the US since WWII spending.

Take it up with the cbo ..... no offence but when it comes to this you are full of shiat

[cutthemdown]

Take it up with the cbo ..... no offence but when it comes to this you are full of shiat

LOL CBO didn't make that graph. It was made by someone else who quoted numbers from the CBO.

[Spider]

LOL CBO didn't make that graph. It was made by someone else who quoted numbers from the CBO.

They still used the cbo#'s not sure what your point is .......

[cutthemdown]

They still used the cbo#'s not sure what your point is .......

My point is Nutmegs graph picks and chooses big chunks of money it decides should really count as Bush spending. The fact it quotes using the CBO to get some numbers means nothing. So my point is your looking foolish right now.

[cutthemdown]

I'll give you the Obama did well getting Obama part Spider, but trying to use that graph to show how Obama really kicked ass on spending and the economy is the biggest farce since Tommy Maddox and Shawn Moore split our qb duties.

[Spider]

I'll give you the Obama did well getting Obama part Spider, but trying to use that graph to show how Obama really kicked ass on spending and the economy is the biggest farce since Tommy Maddox and Shawn Moore split our qb duties.

Lmao nice to see you are still an idiot ......some things never change ....i dont give a rats ass about the chart i just wanna see your bedwetting ass prove the cbo wrong

[Spider]

Show me what #'s they picked and choosed in my graph ......go ahead

[cutthemdown]

Show me what #'s they picked and choosed in my graph ......go ahead

Just look at the graph. On Bush the put through 2009. They count all of Obamas 2009 spending and put it on Bush. He took office in 2008 remember lol!

[Spider]

Just look at the graph. On Bush the put through 2009. They count all of Obamas 2009 spending and put it on Bush. He took office in 2008 remember lol!

Lol reread my graph again

[DBruleU]

Take it up with the cbo ..... no offence but when it comes to this you are full of shiat

Spider, no offense buddy, but Cut is right. That graph isn't a CBO graph. The number's, while they may be in that graph, are just not accurately portrayed.

Nutting (The guy whos graph that belongs to) just associated money Obama signed, to Bush.

What's worse, is that dork Jay Carney even cited this in a press conference he had. This administration is shooting blanks if they are using this graph as any evidence of Obama's austerity.

[ant1999e]

Just when I was starting to miss Spider...

[cutthemdown]

Spider, no offense buddy, but Cut is right. That graph isn't a CBO graph. The number's, while they may be in that graph, are just not accurately portrayed.

Nutting (The guy whos graph that belongs to) just associated money Obama signed, to Bush.

What's worse, is that dork Jay Carney even cited this in a press conference he had. This administration is shooting blanks if they are using this graph as any evidence of Obama's austerity.

Thanks! It takes a village to school a spider.

[Spider]

Spider, no offense buddy, but Cut is right. That graph isn't a CBO graph. The number's, while they may be in that graph, are just not accurately portrayed.

Nutting (The guy whos graph that belongs to) just associated money Obama signed, to Bush.

What's worse, is that dork Jay Carney even cited this in a press conference he had. This administration is shooting blanks if they are using this graph as any evidence of Obama's austerity.

Show me proof.....from a non partisan group like the cbo

[Spider]

Thanks! It takes a village to school a spider.

What nothing bout meth?

[cutthemdown]

Show me proof.....from a non partisan group like the cbo

You can't look right in the graph and notice the yrs for the Presidents are off? If you read the article that went with this graph you would hear nut boys theory. He says since a Presidents first yr most of the spending is because of what the previous President did we will shift the yr 1 of a Presidents spending, to the last yr of the previous term. So its a graph made to make Obama look good but removing his first yr of spending, then obviously he hasn't made it through his 4th yr yet etc. Its a good plan to sway people like you that don't look close enough.

Look close, look at the yrs of the Presidents, they or off by a yr. Why you need anyone to explain it to you beyond that is a joke.

[Spider]

You can't look right in the graph and notice the yrs for the Presidents are off? If you read the article that went with this graph you would hear nut boys theory. He says since a Presidents first yr most of the spending is because of what the previous President did we will shift the yr 1 of a Presidents spending, to the last yr of the previous term. So its a graph made to make Obama look good but removing his first yr of spending, then obviously he hasn't made it through his 4th yr yet etc. Its a good plan to sway people like you that don't look close enough.

Look close, look at the yrs of the Presidents, they or off by a yr. Why you need anyone to explain it to you beyond that is a joke.

Lmao you keep flapping your gums but no proof of your claim ....i wonder why ? Why cant you produce #'s .... It isnt like I am asking you to get pregnant ....

[cutthemdown]

This is as funny as the Iranians saying they want proof of the holocaust. Spider do you even know who made this graph?

[Spider]

This is as funny as the Iranians saying they want proof of the holocaust. Spider do you even know who made this graph?

Give me the #'s ...it isnt like Iam asking about how many gay lovers you had have....

[cutthemdown]

Nutting didn't use inflation adjusted number. That right there in the field of accounting and math make you a joke spider. What nutting did was come up with a new theory. That a Presidents spending doesn't start until he makes his first budget. So because Obama just decided to go with Bush's budget first yr he is saying Bush is responsible for that. You don't see how doing that makes Obama look really good compared to past presidents?

The funniest part is TARP. Bush gets the spending for that in his column. But Nutting failed to mention most of that was paid back, but Obama spent it anyways.

It's all stupid anyways the real reason the deficit got so bad is tax revenue way down. Fact is all Presidents and Congresses spend a ton of money. But no way i will sit here and let you spout a chart made for MarketWatch by Nutting get passed off as from the CBO, just because they guy wrote on the bottom of his chart that he used CBO numbers lol. Then you have the nerve to say show me a non partisan site that rebukes it. What a joke.

[Spider]

Nutting didn't use inflation adjusted number. That right there in the field of accounting and math make you a joke spider. What nutting did was come up with a new theory. That a Presidents spending doesn't start until he makes his first budget. So because Obama just decided to go with Bush's budget first yr he is saying Bush is responsible for that. You don't see how doing that makes Obama look really good compared to past presidents?

The funniest part is TARP. Bush gets the spending for that in his column. But Nutting failed to mention most of that was paid back, but Obama spent it anyways.

It's all stupid anyways the real reason the deficit got so bad is tax revenue way down. Fact is all Presidents and Congresses spend a ton of money. But no way i will sit here and let you spout a chart made for MarketWatch by Nutting get passed off as from the CBO, just because they guy wrote on the bottom of his chart that he used CBO numbers lol. Then you have the nervem to say show me a non partisan site that rebukes it. What a joke.yep show me a non partisan deal that disputes the cbo #'s dont give a rats ass bout the graph ....cbo says obama is kicking ass

[cutthemdown]

yep show me a non partisan deal that disputes the cbo #'s dont give a rats ass bout the graph ....cbo says obama is kicking ass

What don't you understand about the fact this graph was not made by the CBO. The person who made the graph is a liberal hack who just wrote on the bottom that he claims to have used CBO numbers. You're being silly right now. I could write an article, put on the bottom that i used the CBO, would that make you believe it?

[cutthemdown]

yep show me a non partisan deal that disputes the cbo #'s dont give a rats ass bout the graph ....cbo says obama is kicking ass

Like i said these numbers don't include inflation so its all BS! Come back with sound information to debate.

[cutthemdown]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/216397-obama-budget-adds-35-trillion-in-deficits-cbo-finds

President Obama’s 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the nonpartisan office.
The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.


[cutthemdown]

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-03-15/congressional-budget-office-reveals-fraudulent-cost-estimates#.T80HglJFZBk

The Congressional Budget Office reported (http://cbo.gov/publication/43076) on Tuesday that their projected cost for ObamaCare over the ten years from 2013 to 2022 would be $1.762 trillion (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf%20). This is essentially double the original cost estimate claimed by Barack Obama.

[Spider]

Lmao the hill ......right wing bullshiat .....still lmao @ you strutin round like you understand ....

[barryr]

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-03-15/congressional-budget-office-reveals-fraudulent-cost-estimates#.T80HglJFZBk

The Congressional Budget Office reported (http://cbo.gov/publication/43076) on Tuesday that their projected cost for ObamaCare over the ten years from 2013 to 2022 would be $1.762 trillion (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf%20). This is essentially double the original cost estimate claimed by Barack Obama.

But those are facts and Obama supporters don't care about those. But spending is never less than what is projected, but the Obama supporters believe anything he says.

[Spider]

But those are facts and Obama supporters don't care about those. But spending is never less than what is projected, but the Obama supporters believe anything he says. lmao go through the comments on that page that guy gets his ass kicked ....face it extreme right wingers like you and cut are reaching and grasping .. meanwhile sane people see whats going on ...:rofl:good luck blowing limbaugh during these rough times for you pedophilia bedwetting nut jobs

[El Minion]

Show me what #'s they picked and choosed in my graph ......go ahead

Obama's spending change:

1937 (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/1937-2/)

Update below

Remember all the talk a few years back about how we wouldn’t repeat the mistakes of 1937, when FDR pulled back too soon on support for the economy? Here, from FRED, is the rate of change of real government spending per capita (federal, state, and local):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/03/opinion/060312krugman1/060312krugman1-blog480.jpg

Gosh, I wonder why the economy is underperforming?

Update: Actually, a bit of a longer perspective may be useful. Here’s the same number calculated directly from FRED, using rates of growth: Government current expenditures – GDP deflator (the right measure of inflation) – Growth in civilian noninstitutional population; I’ve left out the immediate post -WWII years because they would spread the scale so much that recent stuff becomes invisible:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/03/opinion/060312krugman2/060312krugman2-blog480.jpg

So we haven’t seen spending cuts like this since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

[DBruleU]

Spider, you wanted real CBO numbers and predictions? Well, here you go...without some online columnist guy fudging the numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448483262804106.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Remember a week or two ago, when President Obama was claiming to be a fiscal skinflint because some online columnist said so? That was fun. On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office released a view more tethered to reality, and let's just say this will not be showing up in one of the President's campaign ads.

The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year. That's the highest share of GDP in U.S. history except World War II, as the nearby chart indicates, higher than during the Civil War or World War I. It's also way up from 40% in 2008 and from the 40-year average of 38%.

And it's rising fast. CBO says that on present trend the national debt will hit 90% of GDP by 2022. It then balloons to 109% by 2026—that would be the all-time WWII peak—and approaches almost 200% of GDP by 2037.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP337_1longt_G_20120605175703.jpg

[barryr]

Spider, you wanted real CBO numbers and predictions? Well, here you go...without some online columnist guy fudging the numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448483262804106.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Remember a week or two ago, when President Obama was claiming to be a fiscal skinflint because some online columnist said so? That was fun. On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office released a view more tethered to reality, and let's just say this will not be showing up in one of the President's campaign ads.

The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year. That's the highest share of GDP in U.S. history except World War II, as the nearby chart indicates, higher than during the Civil War or World War I. It's also way up from 40% in 2008 and from the 40-year average of 38%.

And it's rising fast. CBO says that on present trend the national debt will hit 90% of GDP by 2022. It then balloons to 109% by 2026—that would be the all-time WWII peak—and approaches almost 200% of GDP by 2037.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP337_1longt_G_20120605175703.jpg

But they don't need facts or a good economy when they have that tingling going up their legs to soothe away their ills.

[Spider]

Spider, you wanted real CBO numbers and predictions? Well, here you go...without some online columnist guy fudging the numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448483262804106.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Remember a week or two ago, when President Obama was claiming to be a fiscal skinflint because some online columnist said so? That was fun. On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office released a view more tethered to reality, and let's just say this will not be showing up in one of the President's campaign ads.

The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year. That's the highest share of GDP in U.S. history except World War II, as the nearby chart indicates, higher than during the Civil War or World War I. It's also way up from 40% in 2008 and from the 40-year average of 38%.

And it's rising fast. CBO says that on present trend the national debt will hit 90% of GDP by 2022. It then balloons to 109% by 2026—that would be the all-time WWII peak—and approaches almost 200% of GDP by 2037.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP337_1longt_G_20120605175703.jpg
Nice try but most of. that. debt isnt obamas ...follow along this is about obama cutting wpending....El minion just goes to show that cutting isnt enough got to raise taxes on the rich

[TonyR]

I think this is a core goal of the total obstructionists in the GOP: to prevent Obama from doing anything past his first two years to alleviate the sluggish recovery, so they can then blame the subsequent sluggishness on him, and then cover the whole cake in surreal, deceptive, cynical Rovian icing. It may work. Which is why we need to do what we can to expose the lies as insistently as we can.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-iii-obama-has-no-jobs-plan.html

[houghtam]

I think this is a core goal of the total obstructionists in the GOP: to prevent Obama from doing anything past his first two years to alleviate the sluggish recovery, so they can then blame the subsequent sluggishness on him, and then cover the whole cake in surreal, deceptive, cynical Rovian icing. It may work. Which is why we need to do what we can to expose the lies as insistently as we can.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-iii-obama-has-no-jobs-plan.html

LOL everyone knew this was the Republican plan since day 1. Hell, they've said as much. The American people are smarter than that. It's smoke and mirrors, classic misdirection by the Party of No. Maybe if we sit on our hands and do nothing, the people won't realize we're sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

Nope.

[TonyR]

LOL everyone knew this was the Republican plan since day 1. Hell, they've said as much. The American people are smarter than that. It's smoke and mirrors, classic misdirection by the Party of No. Maybe if we sit on our hands and do nothing, the people won't realize we're sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

Nope.

The bolded part I'm not so sure about, unfortunately.

[Spider]

The bolded part I'm not so sure about, unfortunately.

Lets just hope the only real stupid voters out there are the few we are blessed with posting here.....

[pricejj]

Obama has been the only person in Washington getting anything done.

Like what? Going an additional $5.5T in debt? Passing Obamacare? Yay. The only thing that has produced is skyrocketing healthcare costs, and 750,000 fewer jobs since GWB left office. Not to mention 20% of 2011 federal tax revenues spent on servicing the debt.

The problem is that the two faction system has forced good legislation to get chopped and twisted at every turn.

Legitimate health care reform fell before the Republican's 'single payer is the devil! (but was originally a conservative idea)' stigma and the Democrat's unwillingness to incorporate medicare/medicaid entirely into it for full, national reform.

Single-payer healthcare costs rise faster than the rate of inflation...that's really all you need to know. It's absurd to keep barking up that tree as Europe goes up in flames.

The stimulus was crippled by GOP insistence that it carry a large portion of it's value in the form of tax breaks, and trying to hold all non-tax break related costs as low as possible. Meanwhile dems were busy trying to push as much of it into non-effective social programs as possible, not the big infrastructure bill Obama wanted from day one.

Lulz at shovel-ready jobs. I suppose you think that Cali's proposed high-speed rail line is a GREAT idea. Government jobs and deficit spending do not create economic growth. The collapse of the Socialist welfare State is evidence of this.

People can't seem to wrap their heads around this, but Barack Obama is hands down the best president this country has had in almost half a century. He's a centrist who is strong on foreign policy without forcing military commitments, is open with his personal "liberal" social views but is not pushing legislation to force them down the nation's throat, he understands that in a time of national economic hardship the last thing you want is federal constriction, and he sees that our infrastructure is crumbling apart compare to the other global economic rivals we're trying to battle.



Obama is the Worst president in the history of the United States of America. You claim he is not "pushing legislation to force them down the nation's throat"? Wrong. The Democrat super-majority voted through the unconstitutional Obamacare on Christmas Eve. Just one, in a long line of unconstitutional over-reaches for this administration. Today, Obama has added more debt, and lost more jobs than any president in the history of the U.S. Yes, even more than Bush, who is the 2nd worst president in the history of the U.S.

[baja]

Like what? Going an additional $5.5T in debt? Passing Obamacare? Yay. The only thing that has produced is skyrocketing healthcare costs, and 750,000 fewer jobs since GWB left office. Not to mention 20% of 2011 federal tax revenues spent on servicing the debt.



Single-payer healthcare costs rise faster than the rate of inflation...that's really all you need to know. It's absurd to keep barking up that tree as Europe goes up in flames.



Lulz at shovel-ready jobs. I suppose you think that Cali's proposed high-speed rail line is a GREAT idea. Government jobs and deficit spending do not create economic growth. The collapse of the Socialist welfare State is evidence of this.



Obama is the Worst president in the history of the United States of America. You claim he is not "pushing legislation to force them down the nation's throat"? Wrong. The Democrat super-majority voted through the unconstitutional Obamacare on Christmas Eve. Just one, in a long line of unconstitutional over-reaches for this administration. Today, Obama has added more debt, and lost more jobs than any president in the history of the U.S. Yes, even more than Bush, who is the 2nd worst president in the history of the U.S.

Give Obama 4 more years and he well may gain the title as "The last & final president of America".

[Spider]

You two (baja and pricejj) are more confused then 2 blind lesbians in a fish market

[cutthemdown]

Also Obamas plan is to raise taxes on households making 250 grand a yr or more. Since when is making 125 grand, and your wife making 125 grand rich? Sure you are well off but that is far from being millionaires like Obama says. Fact is not that many people making millions every yr.

[houghtam]

Also Obamas plan is to raise taxes on households making 250 grand a yr or more. Since when is making 125 grand, and your wife making 125 grand rich? Sure you are well off but that is far from being millionaires like Obama says. Fact is not that many people making millions every yr.

My wife and I were making very good money when we were both working. We'll say around half that. And we were doing very well. My parents raised 7 kids on less than half that. $250k a year for a family is rich.

[cutthemdown]

The 10 billion to Calif high speed rail is a joke. I sort of like the idea of high speed trains but the project a joke. Total waste of taxpayer money. They are actually talking about having to give the money back because they simply can't get the thing built.

The stimulus for the most part was a complete waste. The only thing it did was keep public unions going.

Amazing liberals try and spin Obama's first 3 1/2 yrs as filled with accomplishments. Soon the Supreme Court will gut his healthcare plan and he will have nothing to show for his term in office except killing bin laden, which was really the military's accomplishment, not his.

[pricejj]

Simply raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 would only bring the federal deficit to about $1T from $1.3T. Can you say BANKRUPTCY?

The only way to finance Obama's planned Socialist welfare state, is to dramatically increase taxes across the board. Even then, it won't be enough...just as it is not enough in Europe.

Socialists, your experiment has failed (again).

[Spider]

The 10 billion to Calif high speed rail is a joke. I sort of like the idea of high speed trains but the project a joke. Total waste of taxpayer money. They are actually talking about having to give the money back because they simply can't get the thing built.

The stimulus for the most part was a complete waste. The only thing it did was keep public unions going.

Amazing liberals try and spin Obama's first 3 1/2 yrs as filled with accomplishments. Soon the Supreme Court will gut his healthcare plan and he will have nothing to show for his term in office except killing bin laden, which was really the military's accomplishment, not his.Hilarious! sour grapes

[TonyR]

Since when is making 125 grand, and your wife making 125 grand rich?

I guess it depends on how you define "rich". That income puts you above the 96th percentile. So in relative terms, that's pretty well off.

[cutthemdown]

My wife and I were making very good money when we were both working. We'll say around half that. And we were doing very well. My parents raised 7 kids on less than half that. $250k a year for a family is rich.

I'm not saying they don't live well, or that you need that to live. Your way of thinking is so communistic its a joke. You are saying someone having way more then they need is bad, let's take it from them. Even though that family making 250 grand probably pays 30% in taxes by the time its all said and done. You are saying it's ok to take more from people who are not millionaires because even they don't need that much money. You don't care Obama lies and says millionaires because it sounds better then 250 grand a yr.

Meanwhile even Bill Clinton said recently raising any taxes right now would be a bad idea. You have to wait until economy is growing before you try and wring out more revenue from the populace. It's such a simple concept that communists and socialists like yourself can not appreciate.

[TonyR]

Socialists, your experiment has failed (again).

For the sake of argument, how did whatever the Bush admin did work out? How about what Romney has planned? Like more war, an increased defense budget, and lower taxes? You're doing what I see so many blindly do: arguing against someone/something with intent to support someone/something that will probably be worse. You're so blinded by ideology and propaganda that you can't see 3 feet in front of you. Step out of the echo chamber. The only way out of this is compromise, and your mentality (which mirrors that of the congressional GOP) dooms any hopes for such compromise. And it's not only the GOP who's to blame, but you should be striving for higher ground.

[TonyR]

Meanwhile even Bill Clinton said recently raising any taxes right now would be a bad idea. You have to wait until economy is growing before you try and wring out more revenue from the populace. It's such a simple concept that communists and socialists like yourself can not appreciate.

LOL It's all politics you fool. Obama isn't really going to raise taxes. Has he raised them yet since he's been in office?

[cutthemdown]

I guess it depends on how you define "rich". That income puts you above the 96th percentile. So in relative terms, that's pretty well off.

I agree 100% if you are in that group, which i am not even close to, you have done very well for yourself. You should be held up as an example not attacked by the President. Besides you and me both know that these people, these 250 granders are not CEO's. They are lawyers, doctors, people who run their own businesses etc etc. Most of them worked and studied for long hours to make it this far. They already pay a ton of that 250 grand in tax. By the time its take home money I bet at least 30% is gone. Add in sales tax, property tax, state income tax etc etc then the feds come for all their taxes. I dispute the notion these hard working people need to give our fed govt more money. They will just waste it and the debt won't go down one bit. Hell they will probably vote another pay raise with it or order another 4 billion dollar destroyer. 4 billion! No wonder Cheney and Rumsy killed that project. But.....because of pressure Obama quietly said let's build 2 of them at least lol. 2 of them! What good will 2 of anything get you in a big war with China or Russia, which this ship is designed for? That is how our govt spends money, like a drunken sailor with a credit card.

[cutthemdown]

LOL It's all politics you fool. Obama isn't really going to raise taxes. Has he raised them yet since he's been in office?

Actually I sort of maybe agree with you. Who knows what Obama really wants to do, he is a huge liar. He may only being talking tax raise to get in on the bash the rich occupy vote. Then he figures when i win I can say well the repubs in Congress fillibustered it etc etc, or thwarted it. Because everyone knows raising taxes right now would be a big mistake.

So really you agree Obama is a liar. Great. Whose the fool the one against him or the one for him?

[baja]

You two (baja and pricejj) are more confused then 2 blind lesbians in a fish market


LOL That's a good one Spider.


Hate to say it but Obama has been almost as bad a Bush the Junior, much to my disappointment.

[baja]

Hilarious! sour grapes

I don't want to play party politics anymore because I don't think it matters anymore but tell me Spider what has Obama done that is so great in your opinion?

[Spider]

I don't want to play party politics anymore because I don't think it matters anymore but tell me Spider what has Obama done that is so great in your opinion?

Just go look at the economy when Bush left . ask Detroit.....

[houghtam]

I'm not saying they don't live well, or that you need that to live. Your way of thinking is so communistic its a joke. You are saying someone having way more then they need is bad, let's take it from them. Even though that family making 250 grand probably pays 30% in taxes by the time its all said and done. You are saying it's ok to take more from people who are not millionaires because even they don't need that much money. You don't care Obama lies and says millionaires because it sounds better then 250 grand a yr.

Meanwhile even Bill Clinton said recently raising any taxes right now would be a bad idea. You have to wait until economy is growing before you try and wring out more revenue from the populace. It's such a simple concept that communists and socialists like yourself can not appreciate.

That is not actually what he said. You and the other Republicans heard what you wanted to hear, but that is NOT what he said.

[pricejj]

For the sake of argument, how did whatever the Bush admin did work out? How about what Romney has planned? Like more war, an increased defense budget, and lower taxes? You're doing what I see so many blindly do: arguing against someone/something with intent to support someone/something that will probably be worse. You're so blinded by ideology and propaganda that you can't see 3 feet in front of you. Step out of the echo chamber. The only way out of this is compromise, and your mentality (which mirrors that of the congressional GOP) dooms any hopes for such compromise. And it's not only the GOP who's to blame, but you should be striving for higher ground.

1. I didn't vote for Bush.
2. Obama has increased Defense spending, and war.
3. I don't listen to any propaganda, from anybody.
4. It is no secret that the tax code needs to be reformed, by closing loopholes, to prevent asset bubbles, and tax evasion.
5. The corporate tax rate needs to be lowered (just like everyone else in the world).
6. Comprimising by cutting "baseline" spending. Or in other words, cutting increases in future spending, is no compromise at all.
7. Government spending is creating many of the inflationary bubbles (healthcare, housing, college tuition) that we see today.
8. Paul Ryan promotes federal spending cuts across the board (including Defense).
9. Capping Defense spending at 20% of federal tax revenues (which would be about ~$500B) is something that the U.S. House passed, and Reid tabled.

No more platitudes. We are all familiar with what is in the legislation brought before the U.S. House, Senate, and the President. "Compromise" is a word that the Socialists have repeatedly echoed in an effort to maintain (or increase) current federal spending levels. I am not stupid. I can read and do math.

I presume you are in the "Raise taxes, and cut spending" crowd? What is your plan to balance the federal budget (if you think that's necessary). Nothing the Democrats have put forth, come anywhere close.

[TonyR]

So really you agree Obama is a liar.

Well, he's a politician so it's almost implied. But it's a political winner for him. The large majority of people aren't impacted by a tax cut on the "wealthy" so supporting it is popular. And Obama knows the GOP will be against it. So it's really a case of Obama being on the correct side of an issue and the GOP playing into his hand. That's politics. Now if push came to shove I suppose Obama would support an actual tax increase, but I think he knows it will probably never come to that.

[pricejj]

Well, he's a politician so it's almost implied. But it's a political winner for him. The large majority of people aren't impacted by a tax cut on the "wealthy" so supporting it is popular. And Obama knows the GOP will be against it. So it's really a case of Obama being on the correct side of an issue and the GOP playing into his hand. That's politics. Now if push came to shove I suppose Obama would support an actual tax increase, but I think he knows it will probably never come to that.

Even Clinton is promoting leaving current tax rates in place (which should be obvious considering the economic climate). Obama's "millionaire" tax would create an additional $50B in tax revenue. Where is the other $1.25T going to come from?

[baja]

Just go look at the economy when Bush left . ask Detroit.....

That's not really an answer Spider.

[pricejj]

I don't want to play party politics anymore

Exactly. Party politics are what's ruining this country.

U.N.I.T.E or D.I.E.

[Spider]

That's not really an answer Spider.

I will admit it is a discussion ender ......but it is rock solid .....

[Spider]

Exactly. Party politics are what's ruining this country.

U.N.I.T.E or D.I.E.

No it is idiots like yourself ......

[pricejj]

No it is idiots like yourself ......

I stand for the U.S. Constitution, a balanced budget, and not killing innocent civilians. What do you stand for?

[Spider]

I stand for the U.S. Constitution, a balanced budget, and not killing innocent civilians. What do you stand for?

Removing warning labels and letting nature take its course

[pricejj]

Removing warning labels and letting nature take its course

Sure, if by "letting nature take its course", you mean revolution...then we're well on our way.

I think the U.S. Constitution is the best governing document ever invented. The union can be saved, but it will take a change in direction.

[Spider]

Sure, if by "letting nature take its course", you mean revolution...then we're well on our way.

I think the U.S. Constitution is the best governing document ever invented. The union can be saved, but it will take a change in direction.

Of course the constitution is the greatest ....the union is fine ......

[pricejj]

Of course the constitution is the greatest ....the union is fine ......

You think it's cool to be running $1.3T deficits while paying 20% of tax revenues on the debt? $454B (and compounding) is a lot of money to be wasting on interest payments.

[El Minion]

For the sake of argument, how did whatever the Bush admin did work out? How about what Romney has planned? Like more war, an increased defense budget, and lower taxes? You're doing what I see so many blindly do: arguing against someone/something with intent to support someone/something that will probably be worse. You're so blinded by ideology and propaganda that you can't see 3 feet in front of you. Step out of the echo chamber. The only way out of this is compromise, and your mentality (which mirrors that of the congressional GOP) dooms any hopes for such compromise. And it's not only the GOP who's to blame, but you should be striving for higher ground.

This is what I hope the American people will finally wake up to: Romney was just a ONE term governor who refused to run for re-election. That's it for his political experience. And whose state employment lagged the rest of the country during the first 2000 recession recovery. And who is surrounding himself with for advisers? Bush advisers!

Though he did plan Romney Care which is now called Obama Care, which he is now running against!

[Spider]

You think it's cool to be running $1.3T deficits while paying 20% of tax revenues on the debt? $454B (and compounding) is a lot of money to be wasting on interest payments.

Gotta thank republicans for that namely. Red ink Ronnie Raygun ........go back to the great. depression. see what party was in charge ..it took FDR to pull us out ....now it is taking Obama ....history repeating itself and as long as we have idiots that wont listen we will be in this same mess again .....

[houghtam]

This is what I hope the American people will finally wake up to: Romney was just a ONE term governor who refused to run for re-election. That's it for his political experience. And whose state employment lagged the rest of the country during the first 2000 recession recovery. And who is surrounding himself with for advisers? Bush advisers!

Though he did plan Romney Care which is now called Obama Care, which he is now running against!

God, he's a train wreck.

He also marched in favor of the draft and the war in Vietnam. Then later he said he wished he could have gone. That he "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." He then stated in 1994 that "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft."

He neglected to mention the four (4) deferrals he received during the draft.

[Kaylore]

I love socialists. In the wake of huge deficits with no funding, a euro crisis and all common sense aside, the French go and vote to lower the retirement age. After that crapstorm gives the economy another beating, and Obama's health care is overturned by the SC, Romney will be set up pretty well to beat Obama in November.

[Spider]

I love socialists. In the wake of huge deficits with no funding, a euro crisis and all common sense aside, the French go and vote to lower the retirement age. After that crapstorm gives the economy another beating, and Obama's health care is overturned by the SC, Romney will be set up pretty well to beat Obama in November.LOL

[DenverBrit]

I love socialists. In the wake of huge deficits with no funding, a euro crisis and all common sense aside, the French go and vote to lower the retirement age. After that crapstorm gives the economy another beating, and Obama's health care is overturned by the SC, Romney will be set up pretty well to beat Obama in November.

I've a question.

What negatives could the Dems use to spotlight Mormonism that would turn off the evangelicals and erode Romney's GOP support ?

[El Minion]

God, he's a train wreck.

He also marched in favor of the draft and the war in Vietnam. Then later he said he wished he could have gone. That he "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." He then stated in 1994 that "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft."

He neglected to mention the four (4) deferrals he received during the draft.

Making him a hypocrite and chicken hawk (Sound familiar, W. Bush 2.0?), a very patriarchal attitude that again will be overlooked by working class and middle America voters:

Did Mitt Romney ‘Long’ To Serve In Vietnam? (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/05/495310/romney-military-vietnam/?mobile=nc)

By Ben Armbruster on Jun 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Mitt Romney regularly prides himself (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/20/487290/romney-obama-military-sequester/) as a champion of the military and the nation’s veterans (despite the fact that has offered little (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/obama-campaign-seems-romney-doesnt-care-about-veterans-123768.html) to no details (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/27/472901/romney-veterans-no-plan/) about how he would address veterans issues). Romney recently praised (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Romney-promises-world-s-strongest-military-3590677.php) the sacrifice “of the great men and women of every generation who serve in our armed services.” But in a new story examining Romney’s own military record (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/06/05/romneys-military-record-faces-new-scrutiny.html), the AP notes that “it is a sacrifice the Republican presidential candidate did not make.”

During the height of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service by seeking and receiving four military draft deferments, some for university study and others for serving as a “minister of religion” in France.

But during his political career, Romney has flip-flopped on whether he actually wanted to serve in Vietnam. In 2007, Romney — a supporter of the war in Vietnam during the late-1960s — said (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/06/05/romneys-military-record-faces-new-scrutiny.html) he had wished he had served:

“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”

But the AP notes (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/06/05/romneys-military-record-faces-new-scrutiny.html) that this isn’t what Romney said back in 1994 during his campaign to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate:

But the frustration he recalled in 2007 does not match a sentiment he shared as a Massachusetts Senate candidate in 1994, when he told The Boston Herald, “I was not planning on signing up for the military.”

“It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft,” Romney told the newspaper.

But in seeking 4 deferments, Romney did in fact take actions to remove himself from the draft. In 1970, Romney eventually became eligible but by that point, the United States had begun reducing the number of troops in Vietnam and as the AP reports, “Romney’s relatively high lottery number — 300 out of 365 — was not called.”

While Romney’s lack of military service record raises questions (President Obama also did not serve in the military but was not of draft-age at the time of the Vietnam War), a recent Gallup poll found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/Veterans-Give-Romney-Big-Lead-Obama.aspx) that veterans favor Romney over Obama 58 percent to 34 percent.

“Greatness in a people, I believe, is measured by the extent to which they will give themselves (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/06/05/romneys-military-record-faces-new-scrutiny.html) to something bigger than themselves,” Romney said in a Memorial Day speech last week in San Diego.

[Requiem]

I've a question.

What negatives could the Dems use to spotlight Mormonism that would turn off the evangelicals and erode Romney's GOP support ?

Lol. . .

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Trolling_b9a133_2376257.jpg

[houghtam]

I've a question.

What negatives could the Dems use to spotlight Mormonism that would turn off the evangelicals and erode Romney's GOP support ?

They don't need to do that. There's Romneycare, "let Detroit die", and "I wish I could have gone to Vietnam, but I never took any steps to prevent it, but oh wait I did."

I wouldn't even touch his Mormonism. It's a non-issue and an issue that doesn't really need to be investigated. These, however, do.

[El Minion]

I've a question.

What negatives could the Dems use to spotlight Mormonism that would turn off the evangelicals and erode Romney's GOP support ?

Dems don't go that route, however for a Republican party that espouses values, they sure don't have any problem with it. E.g. any Obama caricature by Republican officials, judges and supporters. You may see examples of pointing out Mormonism lunacy but never on MSM, unless it as about Obama Birthers and the like.

Evangelical black hatred > Mormon Cultism

http://www.salamandersociety.com/romney/070219mitt_ann_romney_underwear.gif?w=300&h=300

[DenverBrit]

They don't need to do that. There's Romneycare, "let Detroit die", and "I wish I could have gone to Vietnam, but I never took any steps to prevent it, but oh wait I did."

I wouldn't even touch his Mormonism. It's a non-issue and an issue that doesn't really need to be investigated. These, however, do.

I would agree, but I'm interested in knowing what Mormon teachings and traditions would turn off the GOP evangelicals.

I have acquaintances who are 'born again' who swear Mormonism is a cult and 'not Christian.'

I don't know enough, so I thought I'd ask a Mormon.

[DenverBrit]

Dems don't go that route, however for a Republican party that espouses values, they sure don't have any problem with it. E.g. any Obama caricature by Republican officials, judges and supporters. You may see examples of pointing out Mormonism lunacy but never on MSM, unless it as about Obama Birthers and the like.

Evangelical black hatred > Mormon Cultism



Rather than asking what issues the Dems might highlight, I should have asked what the PACs will do.

[houghtam]

I would agree, but I'm interested in knowing what Mormon teachings and traditions would turn off the GOP evangelicals.

I have acquaintances who are 'born again' who swear Mormonism is a cult and 'not Christian.'

I don't know enough, so I thought I'd ask a Mormon.

It's a good question, and a fair one. When I used to consider myself Catholic, I was told by my ex-gf's mom (they were members of Church of God or Church of Christ, I can't remember which), that I wasn't even a Christian because I was Catholic.

I was all like "bitch, we created Christianity...you can lick em!"

[baja]

Dems don't go that route, however for a Republican party that espouses values, they sure don't have any problem with it. E.g. any Obama caricature by Republican officials, judges and supporters. You may see examples of pointing out Mormonism lunacy but never on MSM, unless it as about Obama Birthers and the like.

Evangelical black hatred > Mormon Cultism

http://www.salamandersociety.com/romney/070219mitt_ann_romney_underwear.gif?w=300&h=300


LOL

[houghtam]

Romney Calls Obama's Handling of the Economy a Tragic Moral Failure

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-obama-handling-economy-moral-failure-tragic-185108291.html

Yeah, and taking apart businesses and selling off the excess to make a profit is "moral".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://s-static.ak.facebook.com/rsrc.php/v2/y4/r/-PAXP-deijE.gif (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/george-bush-most-unpopular-president_n_1577651.html)
Just as true today as it was two years ago...

https://fbcdn_sphotos_e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/33442_1661252374600_1904480_n.jpg

Poll Reveals Bush Still Unpopular

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/george-bush-most-unpopular-president_n_1577651.html)

More than half of Americans view former President George W. Bush unfavorably, making him the most unpopular living U.S. president, according to a CNN poll released Thursday.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/george-bush-most-unpopular-president_n_1577651.html)

[cutthemdown]

Meh McCain was a war hero and none of you cared.

[Fedaykin]

Also Obamas plan is to raise taxes on households making 250 grand a yr or more. Since when is making 125 grand, and your wife making 125 grand rich? Sure you are well off but that is far from being millionaires like Obama says. Fact is not that many people making millions every yr.

$250k a year income meets my definition of "rich". Not "filthy rich" but certainly rich.

In 2-4 years such a household could easily have more than $1,000,000 in assets.

And while it's true that relatively few make that kind of income, even a rather slow individual like you should be able to figure out why raising taxes on that demographic will raise a significant amount.

[houghtam]

Meh McCain was a war hero and none of you cared.

War hero...

Pro-war protestor, who claims he wished he could have been there, but did nothing to prevent himself from being there, but actually took steps to prevent himself from being there four times...

A little bit of a difference there...let's see if you can figure it out.

[cutthemdown]

War hero...

Pro-war protestor, who claims he wished he could have been there, but did nothing to prevent himself from being there, but actually took steps to prevent himself from being there four times...

A little bit of a difference there...let's see if you can figure it out.

Rich white boys were in college just how it was. By the time he hit the draft it was 1970 and his lottery number didn't get called. Not much of a draft dodger, but yeah no audi murphy either. Point stands though we put a war hero against your man from Kenya last time and you didn't think much of it. So to rip Obama because he didn't get drafted is pretty funny. It's all good though Obama can not campaign on the issues. He may still win, he's positioned well, but his campaign not inspiring people anymore, its going to be a lot closer.

[cutthemdown]

$250k a year income meets my definition of "rich". Not "filthy rich" but certainly rich.

In 2-4 years such a household could easily have more than $1,000,000 in assets.

And while it's true that relatively few make that kind of income, even a rather slow individual like you should be able to figure out why raising taxes on that demographic will raise a significant amount.

Yeah but those people are in a high tax bracket. Obama will say buffet rule, mega millionaires this and that, they only pay 15% in capital gains, then sneak in the part about how he wants to raise them on households making 250 grand.

So your argument those people are rich, they can pay more, is BS. They are already paying 30%. Show me why you feel they need to pay more. I would love to hear your socialistic spin on it. First go check the tax bracket they are in and hear how there 250 grand gets whittled done over 30% as it is already.

[houghtam]

Rich white boys were in college just how it was. By the time he hit the draft it was 1970 and his lottery number didn't get called. Not much of a draft dodger, but yeah no audi murphy either. Point stands though we put a war hero against your man from Kenya last time and you didn't think much of it. So to rip Obama because he didn't get drafted is pretty funny. It's all good though Obama can not campaign on the issues. He may still win, he's positioned well, but his campaign not inspiring people anymore, its going to be a lot closer.

Romney didn't "just didn't get drafted". He deferred. Four times. 3 times for college, and one time for 31 months while he spent that time in Paris as a missionary. Then he said he really wanted to go. Then he said he wished he could have gone. Then he said he never did anything to keep himself from being drafted.

Spin, spin, spin.

[baja]

Romney didn't "just didn't get drafted". He deferred. Four times. 3 times for college, and one time for 31 months while he spent that time in Paris as a missionary. Then he said he really wanted to go. Then he said he wished he could have gone. Then he said he never did anything to keep himself from being drafted.

Spin, spin, spin.

Missionary in Paris - rough duty!

[houghtam]

Missionary in Paris - rough duty!

Well, it's no Saigon, but I hear that Arc d'Triumph can get pretty crazy after dark...

[Fedaykin]

Yeah but those people are in a high tax bracket. Obama will say buffet rule, mega millionaires this and that, they only pay 15% in capital gains, then sneak in the part about how he wants to raise them on households making 250 grand.

So your argument those people are rich, they can pay more, is BS. They are already paying 30%. Show me why you feel they need to pay more. I would love to hear your socialistic spin on it. First go check the tax bracket they are in and hear how there 250 grand gets whittled done over 30% as it is already.

It's simple. WE need more tax revenue. Who you gonna take it from? The single mother barely making ends meet with two jobs? Or the very well off couple? It's not a matter of fair, it's a matter of pragmatism.

And for the record, I pay almost exactly the same tax rate as this theoretical couple (assuming it's all "regular" income), since I'm single, have a high income (though still way, way less than 250k), and I have a much higher effective FICA tax.

If it's largely LTCG, they probably pay way, way less than me.


So **** you and you ignorant ranting.

[houghtam]

Yeah but those people are in a high tax bracket. Obama will say buffet rule, mega millionaires this and that, they only pay 15% in capital gains, then sneak in the part about how he wants to raise them on households making 250 grand.

So your argument those people are rich, they can pay more, is BS. They are already paying 30%. Show me why you feel they need to pay more. I would love to hear your socialistic spin on it. First go check the tax bracket they are in and hear how there 250 grand gets whittled done over 30% as it is already.

So let's see...it's okay to break those god-forsaken unions because there's a financial crisis.

But it's not okay to raise taxes.

Got it.

[pricejj]

...

Like I said, Obama's "Millionaire tax" would only raise $50B. You physically cannot raise taxes enough to make $3.6T.

Do you own a house? I propose to close the mortgage interest deduction loophole. That would generate a significant amount of revenue, and bring real estate values into an affordable range.

[Spider]

It's simple. WE need more tax revenue. Who you gonna take it from? The single mother barely making ends meet with two jobs? Or the very well off couple? It's not a matter of fair, it's a matter of pragmatism.

And for the record, I pay almost exactly the same tax rate as this theoretical couple (assuming it's all "regular" income), since I'm single, have a high income (though still way, way less than 250k), and I have a much higher effective FICA tax.

If it's largely LTCG, they probably pay way, way less than me.


So **** you and you ignorant ranting.

I wish the silly bastard had to pay my taxes 135k a year is what i make ....he would shut his pie hole about taxing the rich

[cutthemdown]

It's simple. WE need more tax revenue. Who you gonna take it from? The single mother barely making ends meet with two jobs? Or the very well off couple? It's not a matter of fair, it's a matter of pragmatism.

And for the record, I pay almost exactly the same tax rate as this theoretical couple (assuming it's all "regular" income), since I'm single, have a high income (though still way, way less than 250k), and I have a much higher effective FICA tax.

If it's largely LTCG, they probably pay way, way less than me.


So **** you and you ignorant ranting.

Why should they pay more then you? Just because they rose further and make 50-60 grand more then you? or whatever? Screw that its not fair. The govt needs to wait for the economy grow, then the revenue will go up. In the meantime though Obama decided to push through an unworkable healthcare plan and a stimulus that was a giveaway to keep public sector unions glutting at the trough. Had he just came in and did nothing we would be way better off right now. Instead he took a readjustment bubble burst and made it into 4 yrs of incredibly slow growth.

[cutthemdown]

I wish the silly bastard had to pay my taxes 135k a year is what i make ....he would shut his pie hole about taxing the rich

That is my point. Households making 250 grand could just have 2 spiders and have to pay more tax? I just think hard working couples, making 250 grand, already paying a ton of tax. People skirting regular % by getting all capital gains is a different issue. IMO they talk Buffet Rule, but that has nothing to do with this. Obama slips this one in on the coattails of saying rich are not paying their share. Look at Buffet paying less % then his whore he uses for blowjobs.

2 people, working asses off, each making 125 grand, are paying plenty of tax. People wanting more from them is shocking. Wanting more from a CEO making 10 million, **** yeah I will get on board with that in a big way. I am all for a tax increase on anyone actually making more then 1 million a yr in salary.

[Spider]

That is my point. Households making 250 grand could just have 2 spiders and have to pay more tax? I just think hard working couples, making 250 grand, already paying a ton of tax. People skirting regular % by getting all capital gains is a different issue. IMO they talk Buffet Rule, but that has nothing to do with this. Obama slips this one in on the coattails of saying rich are not paying their share. Look at Buffet paying less % then his whore he uses for blowjobs.

2 people, working asses off, each making 125 grand, are paying plenty of tax. People wanting more from them is shocking. Wanting more from a CEO making 10 million, **** yeah I will get on board with that in a big way. I am all for a tax increase on anyone actually making more then 1 million a yr in salary.

^5

[cutthemdown]

There has got to be a way to tax people like Buffet a little more, while leaving couples making 250 grand alone, and not making capital gains so high no one wants to risk investing. Remember when you invest you can lose everything and you don't get to write those losses off. So the % has to be less. But we have some CEO, only a handful get these sweetheart deals, that get salary in stock options that have very little risk. Has to be a way we can identify when it was to skirt paying income tax, and not a true risk type investment we want the tax% lower for.

Doesn't seem like this stuff would be that hard for people who do this **** for a living.

[Fedaykin]

Like I said, Obama's "Millionaire tax" would only raise $50B. You physically cannot raise taxes enough to make $3.6T.

Do you own a house? I propose to close the mortgage interest deduction loophole. That would generate a significant amount of revenue, and bring real estate values into an affordable range.

When faced with a complex problem, do you always act like an idiot and look for a simple, single action/one dimensional "solution"?

Or do you just like to pretend others do?

[Fedaykin]

Why should they pay more then you? Just because they rose further and make 50-60 grand more then you? or whatever? Screw that its not fair. The govt needs to wait for the economy grow, then the revenue will go up. In the meantime though Obama decided to push through an unworkable healthcare plan and a stimulus that was a giveaway to keep public sector unions glutting at the trough. Had he just came in and did nothing we would be way better off right now. Instead he took a readjustment bubble burst and made it into 4 yrs of incredibly slow growth.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

What's less fair? Taking money from someone who will not miss it or someone who will suffer (up to and including death) because of it?

[Fedaykin]

There has got to be a way to tax people like Buffet a little more, while leaving couples making 250 grand alone, and not making capital gains so high no one wants to risk investing. Remember when you invest you can lose everything and you don't get to write those losses off. So the % has to be less. But we have some CEO, only a handful get these sweetheart deals, that get salary in stock options that have very little risk. Has to be a way we can identify when it was to skirt paying income tax, and not a true risk type investment we want the tax% lower for.

Doesn't seem like this stuff would be that hard for people who do this **** for a living.

You do realize that increasing the marginal rates @250k and above will barely affect anyone making $250k, right? You're not so ignorant of our progressive tax system that you don't comprehend that simple fact, are you?

[Fedaykin]

That is my point. Households making 250 grand could just have 2 spiders and have to pay more tax? I just think hard working couples, making 250 grand, already paying a ton of tax. People skirting regular % by getting all capital gains is a different issue. IMO they talk Buffet Rule, but that has nothing to do with this. Obama slips this one in on the coattails of saying rich are not paying their share. Look at Buffet paying less % then his whore he uses for blowjobs.

2 people, working asses off, each making 125 grand, are paying plenty of tax. People wanting more from them is shocking. Wanting more from a CEO making 10 million, **** yeah I will get on board with that in a big way. I am all for a tax increase on anyone actually making more then 1 million a yr in salary.

Hey cut, do you realize that

a.) income tax is not the only federal tax (see: FICA)
b.) FICA taxes are regressive, meaning a couple making 250k+ pays (at a MAX) pretty much the same tax as a couple making up to (but not more than) 106k, regardless of the seemingly large difference in taxes you see in the tax brackets
c.) that's why the 250k number gets tossed around

??

[Fedaykin]

Speaking of not understanding our progressive taxation system:

A couple making $250,000 a year has a MAXIMUM effective income tax rate of 23%, assuming that they take nothing but the standard deduction.

Assuming both work (as is the scenario) they can both put $16,000/yr in a 401k, tax free, reducing their collective ETR to 19.6%

If they own a home and take the max $10,000 year deduction for interest, they can reduce their ETR to 18.4%.

With a vacation home, they can deduct another $10,000 (you can deduct up to two residences), reducing their ETR to 17.2%

When you add in their FICA taxes, which at $250,000 amount to 3% (you and I pay 8%) you're still talking a tax burden easily under 20% -- with plenty left over to invest and start making some big time money in long term capital gains which will push that tax % even lower.

[cutthemdown]

Speaking of not understanding our progressive taxation system:

A couple making $250,000 a year has a MAXIMUM effective income tax rate of 23%, assuming that they take nothing but the standard deduction.

Assuming both work (as is the scenario) they can both put $16,000/yr in a 401k, tax free, reducing their collective ETR to 19.6%

If they own a home and take the max $10,000 year deduction for interest, they can reduce their ETR to 18.4%.

With a vacation home, they can deduct another $10,000 (you can deduct up to two residences), reducing their ETR to 17.2%

When you add in their FICA taxes, which at $250,000 amount to 3% (you and I pay 8%) you're still talking a tax burden easily under 20% -- with plenty left over to invest and start making some big time money in long term capital gains which will push that tax % even lower.

Did you add in the 1.75% or is 1.45% medicare we all pay? Ok I realize if you are just barley making 250 grand you won't pay much more. I would much rather see the 2nd home deduction killed though. The main thing is this attack at the 250 grand level is aimed more at the upper middle class/lower upper class, then it is at the ultra rich like Buffet. IMO those are the people Americans picture when Obama says the rich are not paying there share.

Not to mention the state takes a ton of money from people also depending on where you live. Since most of the big time rich people live in CA, NY I imagine they get hit pretty hard.

I will concede though I'm not a tax expert. When I say 30% that is more a number thrown around to describe a % a lot of Americans pay when you figure in all the taxes. Not just federal income tax. You get taxed all over the friggin place. Sales tax, state income tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, fica tax, income tax, it goes on and on.

[Fedaykin]

Did you add in the 1.75% or is 1.45% medicare we all pay? Ok I realize if you are just barley making 250 grand you won't pay much more. I would much rather see the 2nd home deduction killed though. The main thing is this attack at the 250 grand level is aimed more at the upper middle class/lower upper class, then it is at the ultra rich like Buffet. IMO those are the people Americans picture when Obama says the rich are not paying there share.

Not to mention the state takes a ton of money from people also depending on where you live. Since most of the big time rich people live in CA, NY I imagine they get hit pretty hard.

I will concede though I'm not a tax expert. When I say 30% that is more a number thrown around to describe a % a lot of Americans pay when you figure in all the taxes. Not just federal income tax. You get taxed all over the friggin place. Sales tax, state income tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, fica tax, income tax, it goes on and on.

Changing the rate @250K is aiming at people that make significantly more than 250k. If you don't set the rates well below who you're "aiming" at, you're missing badly. It's just a simple fact with a progressive tax system.

I wrote about this a couple years ago. There was a family being profiled for "getting screwed" if the 250k thing went in to effect. I think their gross income (not AGI) was $275k. Their taxes would go up by, IIRC, 0.1% if we rolled back to Clinton's tax brackets (upping their bracket from 33 to 36%). They would pay a whole extra $275/yr.

[alkemical]

Did you add in the 1.75% or is 1.45% medicare we all pay? Ok I realize if you are just barley making 250 grand you won't pay much more. I would much rather see the 2nd home deduction killed though. The main thing is this attack at the 250 grand level is aimed more at the upper middle class/lower upper class, then it is at the ultra rich like Buffet. IMO those are the people Americans picture when Obama says the rich are not paying there share.

Not to mention the state takes a ton of money from people also depending on where you live. Since most of the big time rich people live in CA, NY I imagine they get hit pretty hard.

I will concede though I'm not a tax expert. When I say 30% that is more a number thrown around to describe a % a lot of Americans pay when you figure in all the taxes. Not just federal income tax. You get taxed all over the friggin place. Sales tax, state income tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, fica tax, income tax, it goes on and on.


May I ask you a/few question(s) on Medicare?

Who does medicare help?

Do you have a problem with medicare, or more the way it's administrated?

[pricejj]

When faced with a complex problem, do you always act like an idiot and look for a simple, single action/one dimensional "solution"?

Or do you just like to pretend others do?

Your insults, though not amusing, are fitting of a person with your character.

Answer the question. Are you ready for your mortgage interest tax deduction to go away? It is physically impossible to balance the budget, with current levels of federal spending, by ONLY raising taxes on those who make +$250,000 per year. The math doesn't add up. Obama's "millionaire" tax would generate $50B. If you want to keep (or increase) current levels of goverment spending (24% of GDP, $3.6T), then you are promoting a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class, and a 15% cut in government spending across the board.

In other words, you are promoting closing all the individual tax loopholes (mortgage interest deduction, capital gains, charitable contributions, etc.), while letting the current tax rates expire (go up)...for EVERYONE (including the middle class).

I will ask again, are you ready for your mortgage interest tax deduction to go away? Are you ready to start paying in the magnitude of ~$10,000 more in new taxes per year? MASSIVELY increasing the taxes on the middle class, is the only way to pay for current levels of federal spending (24% of GDP).

[Fedaykin]

It is physically impossible to balance the budget, with current levels of federal spending, by ONLY raising taxes on those who make +$250,000 per year.

No one has ever claimed otherwise you twit.

And the rest of your post is just more strawman argumentation like the above.

[pricejj]

No one has ever claimed otherwise you twit.

And the rest of your post is just more strawman argumentation like the above.

Why make such a big deal over $50B then twit?

You are talking about less than 4% of a $1.3T deficit. Get a freaking clue.

[houghtam]

Why make such a big deal over $50B then twit?

You are talking about less than 4% of a $1.3T deficit. Get a freaking clue.

"Hey Terrell, don't fight for that extra inch. There's 100 yards on the field, it won't make a difference."

[cutthemdown]

May I ask you a/few question(s) on Medicare?

Who does medicare help?

Do you have a problem with medicare, or more the way it's administrated?

No I think we need some sort of safety net for old and disabled people. I'm not totally against the govt handling some things, just think in many areas they go too far. So I would say I have a problem with how much it costs, but not the theory behind it, and I wouldn't support eliminating it. But how it's administered, i have to admit I don't think I know enough about it to say. I would guess there is some room for improvement.

[cutthemdown]

People only need one house. I don't see why we need to give another tax write off for a 2nd home, or a vacation home. I would go along with ending that. It mostly targets people who can afford it.

[alkemical]

No I think we need some sort of safety net for old and disabled people. I'm not totally against the govt handling some things, just think in many areas they go too far. So I would say I have a problem with how much it costs, but not the theory behind it, and I wouldn't support eliminating it. But how it's administered, i have to admit I don't think I know enough about it to say. I would guess there is some room for improvement.

I only ask due to me, myself - seeing medicare helping more of the middle class than the 'perception' that is advertised.

[TonyR]

Something else that apparently needs to be cleared up. I keep hearing, including frequently in this very forum, how Obama and Dems had a super majority in both houses his first two years. According to this that isn't the case.

First this:

I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

Then this:

Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year.

And then this:

By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html

[TonyR]

"A deal that actually gets our debt under control is not likely to make anybody happy. All it will do is save the country." - Kevin Williamson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302096/jeb-bush-adult-kevin-d-williamson

[TonyR]

Follow up to post #163...

Good catch by your readers about Obama's seven-week supermajority. But there's another thing that irked me about this - what did Obama do during those seven weeks? He tried to get bipartisan consensus. This was the time of the "Gang of 6" and the courting of Chuck Grassley. He possibly could have tried to "ram things through", but to the obvious frustration of lefties chose to continue to seek bipartisan agreement. For Romney and the Republicans to fault Obama for not being more partisan... I feel like this is a "Annals of Chutzpah" moment.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years-ctd.html

[TonyR]

The Democrat super-majority voted through the unconstitutional Obamacare on Christmas Eve.

See posts 163 and 165.

[Fedaykin]

Why make such a big deal over $50B then twit?

You are talking about less than 4% of a $1.3T deficit. Get a freaking clue.

So like I said: you seem to think we need ONE action to solve a complex problem, rather than doing many.

[pricejj]

"Hey Terrell, don't fight for that extra inch. There's 100 yards on the field, it won't make a difference."

"Ummm....Terrell...you're running the wrong way."

[Fedaykin]

I only ask due to me, myself - seeing medicare helping more of the middle class than the 'perception' that is advertised.

Without medicare either

a.) my dad would be dead

or

b.) my family would all be broke and homeless.

The illustrious small businessman that my dad worked for when he got cancer promptly fired my dad when he actually attempted to use his medical insurance. Just yet another reason health insurance should never, ever be tied to employment.

[Fedaykin]

"Ummm....Terrell...you're running the wrong way."

Making the deficit smaller is "running the wrong way"?

[alkemical]

Without medicare either

a.) my dad would be dead

or

b.) my family would all be broke and homeless.

The illustrious small businessman that my dad worked for when he got cancer promptly fired my dad when he actually attempted to use his medical insurance. Just yet another reason health insurance should never, ever be tied to employment.

I have a family member who is unable to work due to stage 4 small cell lung cancer with colon cancer coming back. She gets $24k from SSI-D & Medicare to support her needs.

I have no problem with helping out the middle class.

My frustration comes with middleclasser's whom bitch about "socialism" - not realizing that some of these programs would help them out if they need it.

Is there an abuse by some people: Yes.

I'd rather find out how to ferret out the "fakes", and keep the ones needing it on the docket.

[houghtam]

"Ummm....Terrell...you're running the wrong way."

:oyvey:

[pricejj]

So like I said: you seem to think we need ONE action to solve a complex problem, rather than doing many.

Okay, so when do you plan on unleashing the MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class? Just wondering, because all that money that they're borrowing just happens to have compounding interest attached (to the tune of ~454B per year). Not only that, but all the borrowing and spending has created massive asset-bubbles, and inflation in nearly ever sector of the economy (real estate, health care, education, etc.).

[TonyR]

My frustration comes with middleclasser's whom b**** about "socialism"...

The "socialism" stuff is particularly ridiculous considering the fact that private sector profits are at historic highs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-america-you-should-be-mad-as-hell-about-this-charts-2012-6#corporate-profits-just-hit-another-all-time-high-9

[TonyR]

Wake the f*** up, righties!!!

"Here are two of the smartest men on the economic right, one [Phil Gramm] a former chairman of the Senate banking committee, the other [Glenn Hubbard] a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Yet they insist on treating today's economic crisis as a repeat of 1979-81—and Europe's agony as a debt crisis (which it isn't), not a currency crisis (which it is). Why? Well you will consider only one policy solution—cut taxes and regulations—then you must insist that there can be only one policy problem.

Yet in almost every way, today's economic problems are exactly the opposite of those of 30 years ago. Then we had inflation, today we are struggling against deflation. Then we had weak corporate profits, today corporations are more profitable than ever. Then we had slow productivity growth, today it is high. Then the to-individual income-tax rate was 70%. Today it is 36%. Then energy regulations produced energy shortages. Today the removal of banking regulations has produced an abundance of debt," - David Frum.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/07/rip-van-winkle-economics.html

[Fedaykin]

Okay, so when do you plan on unleashing the MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class?

More strawmen. Do you have any integrity at all?

[pricejj]

Making the deficit smaller is "running the wrong way"?

1. 3.8% of $1.3T is $50B...your alleged "savings". You would still have a $1.25T debt.

2. In 2011, the U.S. Taxpayers payed an effective rate of ~3% compounding interest on the federal debt ($454B) (20% of tax revenues.

3. If we assume that the U.S. Taxpayers would pay ~3% interest on the (new) $1.25T, that equals $37.5B in the 1st year, and about $38.6B the year after (on the previous year's debt), increasing every year thereafter. It's called compounding interest.

4. Therefore, the $50B "savings" that you claim to have...actually evaporates in the form of NEW interest payments in less than 2 years.

5. The question is, how much will your $50B in "savings" actually cost in the long term. In other words, how much will borrowing $1.25T in 2013 cost in the long term? That all depends on how soon we begin to repay the principle. The short answer is 10's of Trillions of dollars.

[pricejj]

More strawmen. Do you have any integrity at all?

Do you understand the concept of compounding interest?

I am still waiting for you to explain how you plan on balancing the federal budget. Don't give me any more bull****, about how you're only going to put $1.25T on the credit card next year, instead of $1.3T. That won't fly.

The bills are due now, and they are eating up an ever-increasing percentage of take-home pay.

Until you begin to grasp the extreme horror of the situation, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

Simply put, you just don't get it.

[Fedaykin]

1. 3.8% of $1.3T is $50B...your alleged "savings". You would still have a $1.25T debt.

2. In 2011, the U.S. Taxpayers payed an effective rate of ~3% compounding interest on the federal debt ($454B) (20% of tax revenues.

3. If we assume that the U.S. Taxpayers would pay ~3% interest on the (new) $1.25T, that equals $37.5B in the 1st year, and about $38.6B the year after (on the previous year's debt), increasing every year thereafter. It's called compounding interest.

4. Therefore, the $50B "savings" that you claim to have...actually evaporates in the form of NEW interest payments in less than 2 years.

5. The question is, how much will your $50B in "savings" actually cost in the long term. In other words, how much will borrowing $1.25T in 2013 cost in the long term? That all depends on how soon we begin to repay the principle. The short answer is 10's of Trillions of dollars.

Wow you are stupid. $50bn saved is $50bn + its interest saved. No amount of flawed logic will alter that fact.

It does NOT cost us more in the long term if we cut the deficit by $50bn. To argue otherwise is, frankly, insane. It doesn't save much either, but it's a start.

[Fedaykin]

Do you understand the concept of compounding interest?

I am still waiting for you to explain how you plan on balancing the federal budget. Don't give me any more bull****, about how you're only going to put $1.25T on the credit card next year, instead of $1.3T. That won't fly.

The bills are due now, and they are eating up an ever-increasing percentage of take-home pay.

Until you begin to grasp the extreme horror of the situation, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

Simply put, you just don't get it.

There's no point in continuing the conversation until you can actually engage in it honestly, which means, at the very least, ceasing the idiocy of spamming straw man arguments. If you can actually put together an honest question absent any dishonesty, I'll answer.

[pricejj]

Wow you are stupid. $50bn saved is $50bn + its interest saved. No amount of flawed logic will alter that fact.

It does NOT cost us more in the long term if we cut the deficit by $50bn. To argue otherwise is, frankly, insane. It doesn't save much either, but it's a start.

$50B off of $1.3T is NOWHERE close to enough. If that's the best you can do, it's freaking pitiful.

What's Romney's projected 2013 deficit?

Who is going to step up, and bring the deficit down to ZERO? How many more credit rating drops until somebody, ANYBODY balances the federal budget? How long until we end up like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc?

Printing money is not the answer.

[Fedaykin]

$50B off of $1.3T is NOWHERE close to enough. If that's the best you can do, it's freaking pitiful.

What's Romney's projected 2013 deficit?

Who is going to step up, and bring the deficit down to ZERO? How many more credit rating drops until somebody, ANYBODY balances the federal budget?

Once again, no one has said $50bn is enough. Are you really this dense?

[Fedaykin]

$50B off of $1.3T is NOWHERE close to enough. If that's the best you can do, it's freaking pitiful.

What's Romney's projected 2013 deficit?

Who is going to step up, and bring the deficit down to ZERO? How many more credit rating drops until somebody, ANYBODY balances the federal budget? How long until we end up like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc?

Printing money is not the answer.

Our credit rating wasn't dropped because of the deficit or the debt, it was dropped because we (and by we, I mean house republicans) were threatening to DEFAULT.

Go tell your mortgage or other lender you're going to default on your loan, ans watch how fast your credit rating drops.

[Fedaykin]

So pricejj, what's your plan to reduce the deficit to zero? Be specific.

[pricejj]

Once again, no one has said $50bn is enough. Are you really this dense?

Your primary argument on this thread, has comprised of defending a tax increase of households making over $250,000...with NO OTHER ACTION. That is Obama's re-election campaign. His motto might as well be "Hey everybody, I plan on running a $1.25T deficit in 2013. Vote for me."

By promoting Obama's campaign slogan, you are, indeed, saying that $50B is enough.

[Fedaykin]

Your primary argument on this thread, has comprised of defending a tax increase of households making over $250,000...with NO OTHER ACTION. That is Obama's re-election campaign. His motto might as well be "Hey everybody, I plan on running a $1.25T deficit in 2013. Vote for me."

By promoting Obama's campaign slogan, you are, indeed, saying that $50B is enough.

More dishonesty. I've never claimed that no other action was necessary. It's pretty clear you have no desire to engage honestly. I even gave you an opportunity for a fresh start (and a sample!) and you didn't rise to the occasion.

Pretty sad.

[Fedaykin]

More dishonesty. I've never claimed that no other action was necessary. It's pretty clear you have no desire to engage honestly. I even gave you an opportunity for a fresh start (and a sample!) and you didn't rise to the occasion.

Pretty sad.

In fact, if you had been paying any attention whatsoever, from the very first time I responded to you I have been stating exactly the opposite of your strawman that there is anyone supporting the idea that the 250k tax change is sufficient.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/181465_478203182205198_1179316984_n.jpg

[pricejj]

So pricejj, what's your plan to reduce the deficit to zero? Be specific.

1. Cut federal spending by %15:

This can be done by:
a. Capping Defense spending at 20% of tax revenues: (~$500B for 2013). This entails ending the War on Terror, and sending the ~150,000 troops home, giving them their walking papers. This is effectively an immediate 10% cut in military personnel. (~$200B)
b. Reform Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare: Give the healthcare dollars to the patients, instead of the insurance companies, allowing for family HSA's. Cap grants once patients reach insurance deductible levels. Separate federal health care dollars from the workforce, placing all federal dollars into individual (and family HSA's). Reduce fraud.
c. Reform SS: Place money paid in, into individual accounts that cannot withdrawn until retirement, include unspent healthcare dollars. Investment vehicles are to be severely limited. Curbing inflation (by cutting federal spending), will preserve the value of these accounts. You don't get back, what you don't pay in (plus interest).
d. Cut all other federal expenditures by 10%(~$350B)
e. Institute 3 year federal spending freeze: Limiting federal spending to $3.05T until 2015.
Total Federal spending cuts = (+550B)

2. Cut the Corporate tax rate (from 35% to 25%), and close the loopholes: More cuts will be required in the future. This will increase the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses, eliminate tax flight, and increase corporate tax revenue.
Total increase in corporate tax revenue= (+$200B)

3. Individual tax code reform: Broaden the tax base and , marginally lower rates on the middle class, and close the loopholes (mortgage interest rate deduction, charitable contributions, etc.). The real-estate bubble would completely deflate, making food, and housing affordable. People would have more money to spend as they choose instead of throwing it away on over-inflated mortgages to be paid to big banks. Elimate tax havens for the wealthy.
Total increase in individual tax revenue= (+$200B)

4. Reform State and Local Goverment spending: Regulate secondary education to eradicate excessive tuition increases. Eliminate collective bargaining among public sector employees, etc.

All of these changes would reduce the federal deficit to $350B in 2013. The reduced corporate tax rate, and marginally reduced middle class tax rate would bolster economic growth, creating jobs, closing the federal deficit by 2015, where we can begin to repay our federal debt the year before re-election. With EVERYONE'S skin in the game, there will be a heightened sense of national pride. The country will once again be unified. The dollar will gain strength. The U.S. will, once again, be a paradigm of liberty, and prosperity. At normal economic growth rates (~3% GDP annually), in 2015, federal tax revenues will equal $3.1T in 2015. Total federal tax revenues will equal 18.5% of GDP (~historical average), and federal spending will be 18.8% of GDP (~historical average). The budget will be balanced, with a $50B surplus. Make a nominal "good faith" payment of $50B towards the federal debt principle at the beginning of FY2016. Institute policy to enact immediate (marginal) federal spending cuts in 2015, in order to create a $50B surplus (if necessary).

Then run for re-election.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just as accurate today as it was in 2010...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/33442_1661252374600_1904480_n.jpg

[cutthemdown]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/181465_478203182205198_1179316984_n.jpg

Whats funny about that is Obama back then said it was un american to raise the debt limit, voted against it. So let's not pretend that both sides don't play political games. The debt ceiling is just a chance to fight over something else. To raise it there will be a toll. The Republicans will want to win something. Or maybe Obama was right the first time and it is un american, which is it, i will let you choose. Is it ok to play political games with it, raise it for a price, or is raising it un american. Either way repubs win this fight because Obama has to raise it. Either they say no, and then point to the fact Obama said no when he was President. Or they say yes but exact some sort of payment.

[cutthemdown]

The good news is win or lose, in 4 more years it won't be Bush Jr's fault anymore and both sides can hold the President, whichever party it is, to accountability. We can agree in 4 more years blaming Bush will be lame right? I mean cmon much of the housing crisis and the roots of the banking collapse were set in motion before bush jr.

[cutthemdown]

I can go along with reducing the troops PriceJJ but only gradually with some sort of job placement program. We can't just throw them out into this job market IMO. Doesn't seem right to me. I am realistic though that the troop levels we need to fight these wars won't be needed if we wind them down and fight them with drones.

I don't really understand why Obama brought back the stealth destoryer. It was killed under Bush by Cheney and Rumsy I think. 4 billion a piece! So we originally were building 24, something like that, but i mean cmon how do you spend that much on a destroyer fleet when our regular class ones already kick ass on anything in the ocean? So they killed it. Now Obama is buying 2 because they think it will scare China. I agree it is a bitchen ship but 4 billion? How could we ever fight a war and risk losing 4 billion dollar destoryers? That's 8 billion they could have saved. There is just so many places they could save money but cutting defense spending is the cash cow of both parties. Don't think all that hardware built in repub districts. Guess what Maine builds that ship, you can bet some lobbying went on there.

[houghtam]

I can go along with reducing the troops PriceJJ but only gradually with some sort of job placement program. We can't just throw them out into this job market IMO. Doesn't seem right to me. I am realistic though that the troop levels we need to fight these wars won't be needed if we wind them down and fight them with drones.

I don't really understand why Obama brought back the stealth destoryer. It was killed under Bush by Cheney and Rumsy I think. 4 billion a piece! So we originally were building 24, something like that, but i mean cmon how do you spend that much on a destroyer fleet when our regular class ones already kick ass on anything in the ocean? So they killed it. Now Obama is buying 2 because they think it will scare China. I agree it is a b****en ship but 4 billion? How could we ever fight a war and risk losing 4 billion dollar destoryers? That's 8 billion they could have saved. There is just so many places they could save money but cutting defense spending is the cash cow of both parties. Don't think all that hardware built in repub districts. Guess what Maine builds that ship, you can bet some lobbying went on there.

See, apparently this is where you and pricejj's political opinions diverge. $50 billion isn't anything compared to the total size of the budget, so $8 billion is a little bit more than 1/6 of nothing. Therefore it is pointless to make that cut.

Seriously though, the US could cut its military budget in half, and it would still be the best in the world by far. It will never happen, because regardless of party, like you said, there are people that depend on those jobs. The US doesn't need to manufacture the stealth destroyer. It doesn't need to manufacture the F-35. And it certainly doesn't need to keep half of the equipment that it currently has. But the US DOES need the jobs that build those things.

Well, if we're going to be serious, we need to get serious. We're talking about taking away collective bargaining for public employees as a result of our financial crisis? Fine. But everyone needs to make sacrifices, right? It's time for the military industrial complex to take one for the team.

Cut the military budget in half. Or more.

[Fedaykin]

1. Cut federal spending by %15:

This can be done by:
a. Capping Defense spending at 20% of tax revenues: (~$500B for 2013). This entails ending the War on Terror, and sending the ~150,000 troops home, giving them their walking papers. This is effectively an immediate 10% cut in military personnel. (~$200B)


So, cut $500 billion then, or a 50% cut to defense spending (defense spending is about 1T these days).

Well, there's a problem with that. Where exactly do you think that $500 bn cut ends up? Do you think it costs $500bn in direct costs to employ 150,000 soldiers? Of course not. Soldiers don't make 3.33 million/year.

So, where's the 2.35 million a year they don't make going? It's going, ultimately, to non military workers in the federal government and contractors. Everything from the staffers and janitors in the pentagon (and those employed by contractors) to the engineers and scientists designing and building military craft.

So if we assume an average of $60,000 to support a single person's job (there's a lot more peons than big wigs, and you're a fool if you think the big wigs get canned before the peons), we're talking about 8 million jobs related to defense spending gone in 2013.


d. Cut all other federal expenditures by 10%(~$350B)


Just like cuts to the military, all other spending cuts eventually lead to job losses. Cutting $350bn overnight here will lead to another 6 million lost jobs in 2013


e. Institute 3 year federal spending freeze: Limiting federal spending to $3.05T until 2015.
Total = (+550B)


Great, another $550 billion over a short period. Another 9 million lost jobs.

[/quote]

Of course, we won't only be suffering from the direct job losses, that type of mass unemployment is going to have a ripple effect throughout the economy. All the contract companies that were getting that business are going to be in serious trouble. The big boys like Lockheed-Martin, etc. will suffer but will probably just layoff enough people to make ends meet. Of course, the hundreds or perhaps thousands of small business contract companies that do business with the federal government (directly or indirectly through the big contractors) aren't going to make it, they're just going to have to close up shop and every employee they have will go, not just the one's directly tied to that business (hr, etc.). This'll add another 6 or 7 figure job loss. Let's call it, conservatively, 250,000.

Of course, then when you figure you're gutting a huge part of economy, you'll see the stock market take a huge hit -- destroying a lot of people's 401ks (and other investments) and furthering the ripple effect of job losses. Hundreds or thousands of companies closing up shop overnight will have devastating effects.

But, we're balancing the budget! Nope. You're trading paying people to do productive work to paying them unemployment.

So congratulations! You just royally ****ed the economy. You created ~25 million new unemployed workers (more than tripling the unemployment rate), destroyed thousands of small businesses, collapsed the stock market and only saved, at the vest best, half of what you claim due to social safety net spending. You can't just lop off 1.4T dollars in spending that fast -- this is an insane ****ing plan.

I have to ask. If you came across a burning building, would your first instinct be to call in a nuclear strike on the building to put out the fire?

[cutthemdown]

See, apparently this is where you and pricejj's political opinions diverge. $50 billion isn't anything compared to the total size of the budget, so $8 billion is a little bit more than 1/6 of nothing. Therefore it is pointless to make that cut.

Seriously though, the US could cut its military budget in half, and it would still be the best in the world by far. It will never happen, because regardless of party, like you said, there are people that depend on those jobs. The US doesn't need to manufacture the stealth destroyer. It doesn't need to manufacture the F-35. And it certainly doesn't need to keep half of the equipment that it currently has. But the US DOES need the jobs that build those things.

Well, if we're going to be serious, we need to get serious. We're talking about taking away collective bargaining for public employees as a result of our financial crisis? Fine. But everyone needs to make sacrifices, right? It's time for the military industrial complex to take one for the team.

Cut the military budget in half. Or more.

8 billion is a lot for destroyers though. It's true that by itself 8 billion not a huge chunk but if you cut 8 billion here, a few more billion there, retire some troops we could find some cuts in the military beyond what even dems call for. Remember a lot of these defense contracts are as big of a cash cow for dem districts as repubs. I'm not saying I know which projects we can cut, just saying off the top of my head 8 billion for 2 destroyers seems like a waste. Aircraft carriers project air power, our regular destroyers hunt subs, missile cruisers protect them all, subs protect underneath. I can go along with needing to stay way ahead with submarines and missile cruiser type ships, and our aircraft carriers needed the new class because the power system in the old ones can't run all of todays advanced systems. The new power plant a huge step forward. The old one was designed in the 70's or maybe even later.

What we need to do is market more weapons to the rest of the world. We lose out sometimes to the French and Russians. You can bet Leon Panetta was in India recently to do just that. Buy our F-35 and not the French fighter, or the Mig etc etc. We can offset some costs by letting our defense contractors make some money. Those jobs are always in America and are good engineering jobs. Really good for the economy. So props to Obama I loved the recent defense sec trip to India. They didn't go to Pakistan on same trip to show India is was all about them. Great move politically and the smart move. Then I heard we didn't force any type of alliance in order to sell them some weapons. Indians like to remain independent and we will have to respect that. But we should want them flying our planes, not french ones.

[cutthemdown]

How do Democrats feel about selling our high end stuff to certain countries. You know Japan, Saudis, etc etc. I would think we can all get on board with that because if they can fight we might not always have to right? Plus its good for our defense industry here at home.

[Fedaykin]

How do Democrats feel about selling our high end stuff to certain countries. You know Japan, Saudis, etc etc. I would think we can all get on board with that because if they can fight we might not always have to right? Plus its good for our defense industry here at home.

It's great economically (the U.S. is unarguably the world leader in the military industry. No other country comes close to the quality of our killing machines).

It's not so great for defense. For example, one country you mention: Saudia Arabia. Do you really want some of the most zealous, barbaric Muslims in the
world have unlimited access to our killing machines?

Of course, who's to say Japan won't become our enemies again? It's a dangerous way to make money.

[elsid13]

How do Democrats feel about selling our high end stuff to certain countries. You know Japan, Saudis, etc etc. I would think we can all get on board with that because if they can fight we might not always have to right? Plus its good for our defense industry here at home.

We do sell do FMS right now. We don't sell them the technology but we sell them the end product which includes the long term maintenance.

It not about the stuff we have today but what we are developing for tomorrow.

[baja]

Put secret remotely activated secret kill switches on all our weapons sold to others. ;D

[pricejj]

...

25M jobs? LOL Can you read?

1. Ending the foreign wars, and cutting 150,000 troops saves $200B
2. Cutting 10% of all other federal spending is necessary. It only get's rid of about 50% of the increase in federal spending that Obama instituted in 2009.
3. Basically, federal spending levels would go back to when Obama came into office, with a major decrease in Defense spending, while keeping 50% of Obama's unecessary increases. Obama increased the federal workforce by 123,000 employees, even if you cut ALL of those employees (which I'm not), we are talking about a grand total of 273,000 government workers (defense and civilian) looking for jobs.

273,000 is 6% of the Federal workforce of 4.5M, and is about the same amount of jobs added to the private sector in January.


That coupled with all the other tax reforms that I outlined, would balance the federal budget by 2015. Simple, elegant, not too painful or drastic, and easy to understand. What's your plan?

[houghtam]

It's great economically (the U.S. is unarguably the world leader in the military industry. No other country comes close to the quality of our killing machines).

It's not so great for defense. For example, one country you mention: Saudia Arabia. Do you really want some of the most zealous, barbaric Muslims in the
world have unlimited access to our killing machines?

Of course, who's to say Japan won't become our enemies again? It's a dangerous way to make money.

Very true. You have to pick who you deal with very carefully. If I had my way, we'd tell the Saudis to kiss ass and never step foot in their country again.

As far as countries like Japan, the Euros, Israel and other places we'll likely never be at war with (or at least anytime soon), I've got no problem with it...and if we go through with dismantling half the military, we're going to need to do something with those weapons...might as well sell old technology to friendly nations...even if we do end up going to war with Japan in 20 years, the military tech will be useless at that point compared to what we have.

That's part of the reason North Korea's "military" doesn't scare me. They still roll with technology that was state of the art 40 years ago. Their army still probably uses whistles. Kinda hard to get all worked up about them being one of the world's largest military forces when air and naval superiority would reduce their supply lines and infrastructure to rubble in a matter of hours.

[W*GS]

Can't we do better than "Arms Merchant to the World"?

[Fedaykin]

25M jobs? LOL Can you read?

1. Ending the foreign wars, and cutting 150,000 troops saves $200B
2. Cutting 10% of all other federal spending is necessary. It only get's rid of about 50% of the increase in federal spending that Obama instituted in 2009.
3. Basically, federal spending levels would go back to when Obama came into office, with a major decrease in Defense spending, while keeping 50% of Obama's unecessary increases. Obama increased the federal workforce by 123,000 employees, even if you cut ALL of those employees (which I'm not), we are talking about a grand total of 273,000 government workers (defense and civilian) looking for jobs.

273,000 is 6% of the Federal workforce of 4.5M, and is about the same amount of jobs added to the private sector in January.


That coupled with all the other tax reforms that I outlined, would balance the federal budget by 2015. Simple, elegant, not too painful or drastic, and easy to understand. What's your plan?

Are you really stupid enough to think 1.4T dollars supports only 275,000 jobs?

[houghtam]

8 billion is a lot for destroyers though. It's true that by itself 8 billion not a huge chunk but if you cut 8 billion here, a few more billion there, retire some troops we could find some cuts in the military beyond what even dems call for. Remember a lot of these defense contracts are as big of a cash cow for dem districts as repubs. I'm not saying I know which projects we can cut, just saying off the top of my head 8 billion for 2 destroyers seems like a waste. Aircraft carriers project air power, our regular destroyers hunt subs, missile cruisers protect them all, subs protect underneath. I can go along with needing to stay way ahead with submarines and missile cruiser type ships, and our aircraft carriers needed the new class because the power system in the old ones can't run all of todays advanced systems. The new power plant a huge step forward. The old one was designed in the 70's or maybe even later.

What we need to do is market more weapons to the rest of the world. We lose out sometimes to the French and Russians. You can bet Leon Panetta was in India recently to do just that. Buy our F-35 and not the French fighter, or the Mig etc etc. We can offset some costs by letting our defense contractors make some money. Those jobs are always in America and are good engineering jobs. Really good for the economy. So props to Obama I loved the recent defense sec trip to India. They didn't go to Pakistan on same trip to show India is was all about them. Great move politically and the smart move. Then I heard we didn't force any type of alliance in order to sell them some weapons. Indians like to remain independent and we will have to respect that. But we should want them flying our planes, not french ones.

Hey I agree, 8 billion dollars is a waste. I just used that to point out that one of your colleagues doesn't think $8 billion is worth cutting in defense, because $50 million isn't worth generating in tax revenue. If you cut that $8 billion, someone, somewhere is making a sacrifice...just like some of us are asking from folks who make more than $250k a year.

If we're in a crisis, everyone needs to pitch in. Those crybaby public sector workers in Wisconsin had that decision made for them, and it's likely not a good sign for them in the rest of the country. Now someone else needs to step up. Who better than our war heroes...willing to put their lives on the line for the security of our country...willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Let them instead make a much smaller sacrifice by having their budget cut to a reasonable level, and repurposing their role in society. 1 in 9 bridges in the US is not up to code, and I hear the Army Corps of Engineers does great work.

[cutthemdown]

It's great economically (the U.S. is unarguably the world leader in the military industry. No other country comes close to the quality of our killing machines).

It's not so great for defense. For example, one country you mention: Saudia Arabia. Do you really want some of the most zealous, barbaric Muslims in the
world have unlimited access to our killing machines?

Of course, who's to say Japan won't become our enemies again? It's a dangerous way to make money.

You really think Japan is going to attack us. Man another sneak attack this time with jets we sold them would not go over well. I had no idea you hated the Japanese so much. :) and yes that was a joke. I know its only the Saudis you hate. I jest I jest. Also a country having 50 or 100 of our high end jets doesn't scare me at all. We deploy that with one carrier etc etc. So really only a handful of countries I wouldn't sell them to,but to be safe keep to NATO and strategic allies.

[houghtam]

1. Ending the foreign wars, and cutting 150,000 troops saves $200B

Let me do some quick math here...

$200,000,000,000 / 150,000 = $1,333,333

Are we really spending $1.3 million per person? Even if we were paying each soldier $50,000 (not even close to what we actually pay), that's only $7.5 billion... Do you really think cutting that extra $192.5 billion won't cost any extra jobs?

Man, I knew fuel costs were getting expensive, but...

[cutthemdown]

Very true. You have to pick who you deal with very carefully. If I had my way, we'd tell the Saudis to kiss ass and never step foot in their country again.

As far as countries like Japan, the Euros, Israel and other places we'll likely never be at war with (or at least anytime soon), I've got no problem with it...and if we go through with dismantling half the military, we're going to need to do something with those weapons...might as well sell old technology to friendly nations...even if we do end up going to war with Japan in 20 years, the military tech will be useless at that point compared to what we have.

That's part of the reason North Korea's "military" doesn't scare me. They still roll with technology that was state of the art 40 years ago. Their army still probably uses whistles. Kinda hard to get all worked up about them being one of the world's largest military forces when air and naval superiority would reduce their supply lines and infrastructure to rubble in a matter of hours.

We do sell some old stuff, but most countries want the f-35, some want the f-22 but we are really stingy with that. Now the older ships when we retire them still way better then the nothing countries like Vietnam have. We should be refitting them and letting them challenge CHina for their water rights. You can sort of see why navy wants that destroyer, it can use rocket propelled artilliary from 150 miles out.

[Fedaykin]

Hey pricejj. When we buy an 8 billion dollar warship, where does that money go?


Do you have any clue?

(obviously you don't given your earlier idiotic response)

[pricejj]

Are you really stupid enough to think 1.4T dollars supports only 275,000 jobs?

Ending the foreign wars would save $200B. Obama increased federal spending by $600B annually from 2008 to 2011 (a 20% increase), adding 123,000 federal jobs. I am advocating to reduce his 20% increase, in half. If you won't even agree to that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Reforming the tax code would not only generate an additonal $400B, but would create immediate economic growth, and bring jobs back to the U.S.

Seriously, after the opus that I just spent an hour typing out, you have nothing? Lulz...just like Obama.

[Fedaykin]

Ending the foreign wars would save $200B. Obama increased federal spending by $600B annually from 2008 to 2011 (a 20% increase), adding 123,000 federal jobs. I am advocating to reduce his 20% increase, in half. If you won't even agree to that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Reforming the tax code would not only generate an additonal $400B, but would create immediate economic growth, and bring jobs back to the U.S.

Seriously, after the opus that I just spent an hour typing out, you have nothing? Lulz...just like Obama.

The fact that you are so dimwitted as to not understand what 1.4T dollars in spending you propose to cut does for the economy, doesn't mean I "have nothing". It's laughable you think that cutting that much spending would only affect a couple hundred thousand jobs at most.

It takes some serious brain damage to be that ****ing stupid -- and anyone reading this is laughing at you for suggesting it.

[pricejj]

Let me do some quick math here...

$200,000,000,000 / 150,000 = $1,333,333

Are we really spending $1.3 million per person? Even if we were paying each soldier $50,000 (not even close to what we actually pay), that's only $7.5 billion... Do you really think cutting that extra $192.5 billion won't cost any extra jobs?

Man, I knew fuel costs were getting expensive, but...

Overseas Contingency Operations = ~$200B

End them.

Hey pricejj. When we buy an 8 billion dollar warship, where does that money go?


Do you have any clue?

(obviously you don't given your earlier idiotic response)

Gee I don't know, dufus. Maybe you could find $8B out of the $500B Defense base budget, which remains entirely intact and equals 20% of tax revenues collected (right where it should be). Here's a wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_2011 _budget), since you obviously have no flipping clue how to compute numbers and budgets.

[Fedaykin]

Overseas Contingency Operations = ~$200B

End them.



Gee I don't know, dufus. Maybe you could find $8B out of the $500B Defense base budget, which remains entirely intact and equals 20% of tax revenues collected (right where it should be). Here's a wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_2011 _budget), since you obviously have no flipping clue how to compute numbers and budgets.

Idiot, I'm not asking where it will COME from, I'm asking where it goes when SPENT.

Reading comprehension: you need a lot more practice.

[Fedaykin]

Let me do some quick math here...

$200,000,000,000 / 150,000 = $1,333,333

Are we really spending $1.3 million per person? Even if we were paying each soldier $50,000 (not even close to what we actually pay), that's only $7.5 billion... Do you really think cutting that extra $192.5 billion won't cost any extra jobs?

Man, I knew fuel costs were getting expensive, but...

This mental midget (pricejj, not who I'm replying to) is really not understanding some basic concepts about where federal spending goes. It's really depressing.

[houghtam]

Ending the foreign wars would save $200B. Obama increased federal spending by $600B annually from 2008 to 2011 (a 20% increase), adding 123,000 federal jobs. I am advocating to reduce his 20% increase, in half. If you won't even agree to that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Reforming the tax code would not only generate an additonal $400B, but would create immediate economic growth, and bring jobs back to the U.S.

Seriously, after the opus that I just spent an hour typing out, you have nothing? Lulz...just like Obama.

LOL it's not our fault you spent an hour typing something completely stupid and not grounded in anything anyone with basic math skills would call "reality". Your "facts" are just numbers thrown up on a wall. They don't exist in the real world. We don't spend $200B on 150,000 troops. We spend that money on the products and processes that make that 150,000 an effective fighting force. And all of that is JOBS.

[pricejj]

It's truly amazing that none of you Obama supporters can understand cutting a single penny of federal spending.

[Fedaykin]

It's truly amazing that none of you Obama supporters can understand cutting a single penny of federal spending.

Hilarious!

You're so lost you don't even know what this conversation is about.

[pricejj]

LOL it's not our fault you spent an hour typing something completely stupid and not grounded in anything anyone with basic math skills would call "reality". Your "facts" are just numbers thrown up on a wall. They don't exist in the real world. We don't spend $200B on 150,000 troops. We spend that money on the products and processes that make that 150,000 an effective fighting force. And all of that is JOBS.

The total amount of uniformed personnel is 1,500,000. I propose cutting troop levels by 10%. That would give us 1,350,000 uniformed personnel, with a $500B Defense budget (20% of federal tax revenues). Any future Defense spending increases would follow increases in federal tax revenue to be capped at 20% of said revenue.

Follow that with an overall federal workforce (non-military) reduction of 4% (123,000 workers out of 3M), and terminate 50% of Obama's federal spending increases.

Coupled with tax code reform (as outlined), you get a balanced budget by 2015.

[Fedaykin]

The total amount of uniformed personnel is 1,500,000. I propose cutting troop levels by 10%. That would give us 1,350,000 uniformed personnel, with a $500B Defense budget (20% of federal tax revenues). Any future Defense spending increases would follow increases in federal tax revenue to be capped at 20% of said revenue.

Follow that with an overall federal workforce (non-military) reduction of 4% (123,000 workers out of 3M), and terminate 50% of Obama's federal spending increases.

Coupled with tax code reform (as outlined), you get a balanced budget by 2015.

*facepalm*

I'll ask again. When the government spends 8 billion on a warship, where does that money go?

[houghtam]

Hilarious!

You're so lost you don't even know what this conversation is about.

Hilarious!

As I said in the Official Political Discussion thread, I don't have a problem arguing politics with smart people grounded in some sort of reality. Bronco Beavis is a pretty good example of someone who at least has some clue what he's talking about. Cutthemdown, although I probably only actually agree with him on about 1/2% of the issues, is at least smart enough to know where money comes from and where it goes, and what the immediate and long term effects of spending and cutting are.

Pricejj, on the other hand, is perfectly clueless. He is one of the people Geroge Carlin described as "standing in the checkout lane at Wal-Mart, getting ready to vote." Not only not grounded in reality, but lacking the basic math skills that my two year old will learn in about 5 years.

I'll say it again. Slowly.

Two. Hundred. Billion. Dollars. Does. Not. Support. One. Hundred. And. Fifty. Thousand. Troops.

[pricejj]

...

The plan I have detailed adhere's to Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Path to Prosperity", which the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed...before being tabled by Public Enemy Harry Reid.

What is your plan again?

[houghtam]

*facepalm*

I'll ask again. When the government spends 8 billion on a warship, where does that money go?

Can I answer, so we can just end this discussion and get back to the good stuff?

The money goes from the US to the contractor, who then pays for the labor and raw materials for the project. If the money doesn't come in, the contractor lays people off. Those people go stand in the unemployment line, and we have pricejj's utopia.



Okay, so now that we've finished humiliating pricejj, let's talk some more about how Ron Paul is going to take a giant dump in the RNC's Cheerios at the convention.

[pricejj]

I'll say it again. Slowly.

Two. Hundred. Billion. Dollars. Does. Not. Support. One. Hundred. And. Fifty. Thousand. Troops.

Three quick questions:

1. How much does the U.S. spend on "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
2. How many troops are stationed and supported in "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
3. If the U.S. were to end "Overseas Contingency Operations" approximately how much money would be saved? How many troops would that affect?

Please, attempt to answer the questions.

[Fedaykin]

The plan I have detailed adhere's to Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Path to Prosperity", which the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed...before being tabled by Public Enemy Harry Reid.

What is your plan again?


Now I'm done for -- the dreaded argument from authority!

[Fedaykin]

Three quick questions:

1. How much does the U.S. spend on "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
2. How many troops are stationed and supported in "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
3. If the U.S. were to end "Overseas Contingency Operations" approximately how much money would be saved? How many troops would that affect?

Please, attempt to answer the questions.

Answer this:

How, exactly, is that 200bn spent? Do the soldiers each get 1.3 million a year in salary?

[houghtam]

Three quick questions:

1. How much does the U.S. spend on "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
2. How many troops are stationed and supported in "Overseas Contingency Operations"?
3. If the U.S. were to end "Overseas Contingency Operations" approximately how much money would be saved? How many troops would that affect?

Please, attempt to answer the questions.

I don't need to attempt to answer those questions, because you're still missing your glaring mistake. Troops don't take home $1.3M a year, and gas isn't $400k a gallon.

Answer this question:

What is the person in charge of fueling the planes for these contingency operations going to do when there are no more planes to fuel?

Nevermind, I'll answer it, because it's obvious you don't have a clue.

Stand in the unemployment line.

[Fedaykin]

You know my 8 year old niece could easily grasp this concept. Why can't you pricejj?

[pricejj]

Okay, so now that we've finished humiliating pricejj, let's talk some more about how Ron Paul is going to take a giant dump in the RNC's Cheerios at the convention.

You have only succeeded in humiliating yourself. At lease we know where you stand. You promote a continuous, sustaining foreign war (regardless of human casualty) in order to line Defense contractor's pocketbooks (like Raytheon Missile Systems, Lockheed Martin, Ball Aerospace, etc.).

Not that Defense funds would dry up, with my plan. On the contrary. Defense base budget spending would increase ~$100B over the next three years, as tax revenues increased from a growing economy (keep in mind Defense Spending is capped as 20% of federal tax revenues).

The U.S. (taxpayers) would be doing quite well...so would Raytheon, Lockheed, Ball, etc.

[pricejj]

Answer this question:

What is the person in charge of fueling the planes for these contingency operations going to do when there are no more planes to fuel?

Nevermind, I'll answer it, because it's obvious you don't have a clue.

Stand in the unemployment line.

The plane fueler is 1 of the 150,000 uniformed personnel that would be cut. Sorry, the U.S. Taxpayer's can't afford it. There should be close to 150,000 private sector jobs created in the month of June. The aircraft fueler, is going to have to find a job in the private sector.

[Fedaykin]

You have only succeeded in humiliating yourself. At lease we know where you stand. You promote a continuous, sustaining foreign war (regardless of human casualty) in order to line Defense contractor's pocketbooks (like Raytheon Missile Systems, Lockheed Martin, Ball Aerospace, etc.).


Oh look, a strawman wrapped in an ad hominem. Are you going for the Captain Planet affect and trying to combine the powers of logical fallacies?


Not that Defense funds would dry up, with my plan. On the contrary. Defense base budget spending would increase ~$100B over the next three years, as tax revenues increased from a growing economy (keep in mind Defense Spending is capped as 20% of federal tax revenues).

The U.S. (taxpayers) would be doing quite well...so would Raytheon, Lockheed, Ball, etc.

You're talking about a 50% cut to defense spending in ONE fiscal year. Defense spending (DoD, wars, VA, NASA R&D, DoE nuke stewardship, etc.) is currently about $900-1000bn or about 40-45% of federal tax revenues.

You want to cut that, in one fiscal year, to 20%. In other words, you want to cut between 450-500bn in one fiscal year -- just in defense.

And you still are, hilariously, unable to grasp that cutting even "just" $200bn will cost a LOT more than 150,000 jobs.

[Fedaykin]

The plane fueler is 1 of the 150,000 uniformed personnel that would be cut. Sorry, the U.S. Taxpayer's can't afford it. There should be close to 150,000 private sector jobs created in the month of June. The aircraft fueler, is going to have to find a job in the private sector.

So you're sticking with the claim that each of those 150,000 soldiers get paid 1.3 million a year huh?

(also, the 150,000 figure is COMBAT troops, not support personnel)

[Fedaykin]

I'll phrase my 8 billion warship question another way:

How many people are involved (i.e. have a job that supports and is funded by) the current wars?

also

How many people are involved (i.e. have a job that supports and is funded by) the other $300 billion you want to cut from defense?

[baja]

Here's a scary thought. Without the obscene deficit spending what would this long running 'recession' look like?

[houghtam]

The plane fueler is 1 of the 150,000 uniformed personnel that would be cut. Sorry, the U.S. Taxpayer's can't afford it. There should be close to 150,000 private sector jobs created in the month of June. The aircraft fueler, is going to have to find a job in the private sector.

You're talking about 150,000 uniformed personnel overseas. Fed and I are talking about the hundreds of thousands of personnel, both uniformed and civilian, who would lose jobs as a result of cutting $200B out of the budget because now that we've ended overseas operations, there is nothing for them to do.

Once again. If you think that $200B goes to just 150,000 people, you need to take remedial math at a 2nd grade level.

[houghtam]

At lease we know where you stand. You promote a continuous, sustaining foreign war (regardless of human casualty) in order to line Defense contractor's pocketbooks (like Raytheon Missile Systems, Lockheed Martin, Ball Aerospace, etc.)

Okay...once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding or basic reading skills. Or perhaps you've just missed the multiple times on this board that I've stated this...I'm a freaking pacifist, man. I've posted multiple times in both this thread and other threads on this particular forum that I'm for cutting defense spending twice as deep as you are proposing.

I'm just not stupid enough to think we can cut that deep that soon and not cause millions to end up in the unemployment line.

[pricejj]

Here's a scary thought. Without the obscene deficit spending what would this long running 'recession' look like?

Considering that the current economic collapse was in fact, debt-fueled. I'd venture to say that without deficit spending we would have came out of this depression quite a while ago, and in much better shape. That stands for all the previous deficit-spending regimes, as well.

[pricejj]

I'll phrase my 8 billion warship question another way:

How many people are involved (i.e. have a job that supports and is funded by) the current wars?

also

How many people are involved (i.e. have a job that supports and is funded by) the other $300 billion you want to cut from defense?

I am talking about ending the Foreign Wars, which would cut $200B from Defense spending, and leave the base Defense budget intact. That is not difficult to understand.

The other $300B comes from cutting half of the unecessary non-Defense spending ($600B) that Obama has added in the past 3 years. It makes perfect sense, and the taxpayer's simply cannot afford it.

[baja]

Considering that the current economic collapse was in fact, debt-fueled. I'd venture to say that without deficit spending we would have came out of this depression quite a while ago, and in much better shape. That stands for all the previous deficit-spending regimes, as well.

Deficit spending has been going on for a very long time.

It's the thing that usually brings Empires to a end.

The Empire just can't be supported any longer and decays back on it self.


Eventually out of the ashes comes yet another growing Empire and it starts all over again.

[Fedaykin]

I am talking about ending the Foreign Wars, which would cut $200B from Defense spending, and leave the base Defense budget intact. That is not difficult to understand.

The other $300B comes from cutting half of the unecessary non-Defense spending ($600B) that Obama has added in the past 3 years. It makes perfect sense, and the taxpayer's simply cannot afford it.


You going to man up and answer the questions or just keep doing your impression of a skipping record?

[houghtam]

You going to man up and answer the questions or just keep doing your impression of a skipping record?

Let's say I'm the NFL. I have 32 teams. But I'm hemorrhaging money, so I decide I need to cut out 4 teams. So I do it. No biggie, 212 players will be out of work, as well as maybe 1/2 that in coaches, executives, etc. Cost of doing business. Simple as that, right?

BUT WAIT! Now we have...

- 4 facilities collecting dust
- hundreds of operations side employees out of work
- hundreds of concessions side employees out of work
- dozens of vendors and contractors, many of them small businesses, losing big accounts
- no advertising opportunities for interested businesses
- no more revenue generated for the power companies on the facilities

I can go all day.

Yes. We can cut $200B from the military budget tomorrow, but Fed, your math is correct. Doing so would not just put the 150,000ish troops out of work, it would put a significant portion of their stateside support network out of work almost immediately, as well. If there is no reason for, say, the people in charge of the logistics of shipping food for the troops overseas to ship food for the troops overseas, their job gets cut. If there is no reason for the people in charge of long-term maintenance on equipment from combat zones to maintain that equipment, their jobs get cut, and so on.

I realize I am preaching to the choir here, but I responded to you because I've put that guy on ignore. He's simply not all there in the head.

[cutthemdown]

LOL Obama doing same thing McCain did last election is funny. Remember when McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Obama pounced and even did a commercial on it saying he was out of touch. So the other day Obama says private sector doing fine. So Now Romney pounces and runs a commercial on it.

Whatever side you are on it has to just make you laugh sometimes.

[pricejj]

I realize I am preaching to the choir here, but I responded to you because I've put that guy on ignore. He's simply not all there in the head.

So you are completely against eliminating any federal jobs except military? That doesn't make any sense.

It's funny how both you and fedaykin asked for what my plan was:
1. I laid out several great ideas, all of which will probably be eventually realized, even with the dysfunctional congress.
2. Both you and Fedaykin insult me repeatedly, and discount all of it, without saying one single idea of your own that would reduce the federal deficit.
3. I ignore your insults, and continue to relay, in painstaiking detail, every single step, in order to balance the budget, sparing no voting group.
4. You and Fedaykin throw more insults, and still have come up with nothing. Insulting me because I'm not a slobbering Obama supporter.
5. When will you (and others like you) put party politics aside, focus on the problem, and discuss real solutions?

The only President I have voted for from either the Republican or Democrat parties is Bill Clinton in 1996. If the candidate does not stand by the U.S. Constitution, does not have a solid plan to balance the budget, or if I think he will kill innocent people, then I won't vote for him. I'm not a party hack. I realize how easy it is to actually balance the budget, and I know exactly where deficit spending is taking us. Party politics have divided and bankrupted this nation. When will it end?

[baja]

Let's say I'm the NFL. I have 32 teams. But I'm hemorrhaging money, so I decide I need to cut out 4 teams. So I do it. No biggie, 212 players will be out of work, as well as maybe 1/2 that in coaches, executives, etc. Cost of doing business. Simple as that, right?

BUT WAIT! Now we have...

- 4 facilities collecting dust
- hundreds of operations side employees out of work
- hundreds of concessions side employees out of work
- dozens of vendors and contractors, many of them small businesses, losing big accounts
- no advertising opportunities for interested businesses
- no more revenue generated for the power companies on the facilities

I can go all day.

Yes. We can cut $200B from the military budget tomorrow, but Fed, your math is correct. Doing so would not just put the 150,000ish troops out of work, it would put a significant portion of their stateside support network out of work almost immediately, as well. If there is no reason for, say, the people in charge of the logistics of shipping food for the troops overseas to ship food for the troops overseas, their job gets cut. If there is no reason for the people in charge of long-term maintenance on equipment from combat zones to maintain that equipment, their jobs get cut, and so on.

I realize I am preaching to the choir here, but I responded to you because I've put that guy on ignore. He's simply not all there in the head.

I think the point is how long can you continue to borrow money to maintain these jobs? That is the issue that will have to be addressed sooner or later.

[pricejj]

Who knew that reducing federal spending down to $3.05T from $3.6T, and reforming the tax code in order to balance the budget would generate such backlash from Obama supporters?

It seems they are intent on a European-style destruction.

[pricejj]

Do any of you Obama supporters have any ideas that would cut the deficit to less than $1T per year?

We are all waiting...

[alkemical]

Do any of you Obama supporters have any ideas that would cut the deficit to less than $1T per year?

We are all waiting...

I'm not an obama supporter - but i'd stop the war on drugs, change policy on drug/prison terms & cut a chunk of TSA/DHS out of the budget.

The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars.

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron & Kathrine Waldock: "The Budgetary Impact of Drug Prohibition," 2010.

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock


Think about this - where i live - it costs roughly $30k+/yr to keep someone ncarcerated in a state prison.

[baja]

Do any of you Obama supporters have any ideas that would cut the deficit to less than $1T per year?

We are all waiting...

It's very simple, there is a very painful day of reckoning coming. Just look at history, this is not the first time a country rose to power, lived beyond their means and eventually crashed and burned.

Do you know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[houghtam]

I think the point is how long can you continue to borrow money to maintain these jobs? That is the issue that will have to be addressed sooner or later.

Of course that's the point. And Fed and I realize that. I can't speak for him, but, as I have said no less than three times in this thread (now four), I'm for cutting the defense budget in half. Eliminating thousands of military positions and the millions of jobs in both the public and private sector that common sense and what I know of the military tell me are support positions that would no longer be needed if we had a military budget and military only half it's size.

I do not want that done next year, as pricejj is prooposing, because, for the millionth time, cutting $200B overnight from the defense budget would put millions on the streets, overnight.

Rather, I would make additional cuts each year for 5-10 years, so those that would no longer be providing services for the military could be repurposed. We have a crumbling nationwide infrastructure (literally...if you've ever seen the bridges in Cincinnati, you'd know what I mean). We could use some of the repurposed businesses to continue to make arms and armament for other countries who are our allies.

You then do as Obama suggested (and more or less what you're suggesting in your post two above mine), where you go into each line item in the budget and carve it up.

I, unlike some people, don't pretend to know what all those line items are. But we can all agree that whichever party is in power, spending is out of control, so there's got to be PLENTY in there that would be cut. The problem is, what I would cut makes me a godless liberal socialist nazi, whereas anything the people on the right would cut makes them "fiscally responsible".

Add in the fact that I would raise taxes to a reasonable level for those who can afford it, and I think a balanced budget could happen in 5-10 years, which considering where we're coming from, I think is a fair and aggressive but reasonable goal.

Balancing the budget by 2015 through cutting $200B next year would put this country into a flat spin, heading out to sea...and I'm not going to be Goose and hit my head on the canopy when I eject.

[mosca]

Yes. We can cut $200B from the military budget tomorrow, but Fed, your math is correct. Doing so would not just put the 150,000ish troops out of work, it would put a significant portion of their stateside support network out of work almost immediately, as well. If there is no reason for, say, the people in charge of the logistics of shipping food for the troops overseas to ship food for the troops overseas, their job gets cut. If there is no reason for the people in charge of long-term maintenance on equipment from combat zones to maintain that equipment, their jobs get cut, and so on.
Pre-9/11 our defense budget was appr. $350 billion per year. 12 years and two wars later, the defense budget is appr. $900 billion a year.

And you're trying to say that cutting $200b from the military budget is gonna hit us that bad? We'll STILL be spending almost twice as much as we were, PRE-9/11! We need to stop this addiction to spending and all the clamoring that if we cut spending back to reasonable levels, that the sky will fall.

[El Minion]

Let's say I'm the NFL. I have 32 teams. But I'm hemorrhaging money, so I decide I need to cut out 4 teams. So I do it. No biggie, 212 players will be out of work, as well as maybe 1/2 that in coaches, executives, etc. Cost of doing business. Simple as that, right?

BUT WAIT! Now we have...

- 4 facilities collecting dust
- hundreds of operations side employees out of work
- hundreds of concessions side employees out of work
- dozens of vendors and contractors, many of them small businesses, losing big accounts
- no advertising opportunities for interested businesses
- no more revenue generated for the power companies on the facilities

I can go all day.

Yes. We can cut $200B from the military budget tomorrow, but Fed, your math is correct. Doing so would not just put the 150,000ish troops out of work, it would put a significant portion of their stateside support network out of work almost immediately, as well. If there is no reason for, say, the people in charge of the logistics of shipping food for the troops overseas to ship food for the troops overseas, their job gets cut. If there is no reason for the people in charge of long-term maintenance on equipment from combat zones to maintain that equipment, their jobs get cut, and so on.

I realize I am preaching to the choir here, but I responded to you because I've put that guy on ignore. He's simply not all there in the head.

Good analogy but a better one would have been the real life example of the auto industry bailout. Yes if we let GM and Chrysler go under those directly employed would be unemployed but so would the ancillary vendors and suppliers that do business with them. IIRC, it was 10x the economic and employment effect of the total value and employed by GM and Chrysler that would have evaporated. The difference between Chapter 7, total liquidation, and Chapter 11, reorganization to continue to be a going concern, but on a large economic scale for 2/3 of the American auto industry.

Another example would be the Financial bailouts, imagine if we just let 2/3 of the financial and banking industry fail. The anarchists, Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters (strange political bedfellows?) would sure have loved seeing that happen.

BTW, as distasteful the bailouts where to me, they had to be done but the cure was not to stop there but to reinstate Glass–Steagall Act and force the financial industry to take a "haircut" something both Paulson (Bush) and Geithner (Obama) didn't push for unfortunately.