http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311185658-Thj0nAiL+hVmBmbFkBaV+w (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311185658-Thj0nAiL+hVmBmbFkBaV+w)
WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.
Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.
Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."
The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.
Mr. Bernanke said the tax cuts had undoubtedly contributed to economic growth, which in turn bolstered tax receipts.
"One consequence of strong income growth is that we are enjoying higher-than-expected levels of tax collections," he said.
No sense reinventing the wheel when someone else has already run the numbers: (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15704546335&topic=60488)
Inflation adjusted (2005 dollars) federal tax receipts (in billions) and (% of GDP)
First column is the year, the next column is the amount of tax collected and the third column is the % of GDP represented by those tax receipts.
2001: $2,215 (19.5)
2002: $2,208 (17.6)
2003: $1,901 (16.2)
2004: $1,949 (16.1)
2005: $2,153 (17.3)
2006: $2,324 (18.2)
2007: $2,414 (17.5)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Graubman was quoting somewhere (Heritage foundation?) pointing out the increase in revenue between 2003 and 2007 and attributing that increase to the 2003 tax cuts. I pointed out at the time that the analysis left out the period from 2001 to 2003 where there was a big decrease in revenues, following the Bush tax cuts of 2001.
If you look at the whole period from 2001 to 2008, there was half a trillion dollars less taken in than if revenue had simply stayed at 2001 levels with zero economic growth.
There is one important factor I left out, however. Look at the additional column here:
Inflation adjusted (2005 dollars) federal tax receipts (in billions) and (% of GDP)
2001: $2,215 (19.5) - $2,072
2002: $2,208 (17.6) - $2,201
2003: $1,901 (16.2) - $2.303
2004: $1,949 (16.1) - $2,377
2005: $2,153 (17.3) - $2,472
2006: $2,324 (18.2) - $2,563
2007: $2,414 (17.5) - $2,702
The last column is total federal spending, adjusted to 2005 dollars. Notice it goes up every year (that is it increases faster than inflation.)
If you total the increased spending for 2001 through 2007, it adds up to a little over $2 trillion!
Now, the conservative think tanks want you to believe that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy, created jobs, increased federal tax revenues. But, they are totally ignoring the contribution to the economy of that $2 trillion of increased government spending!
And remember, that half a trillion less was taken in, so that means $2.5 trillion more on the national debt as a result of tax cuts and increased government spending.
So, let's review - Republicans cut taxes from already low levels to even lower levels, they pump $2 Trillion more into the economy running up an enormous deficit and then claim that the tax cuts stimulated the economy and we should cut them even more.
(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/lipsrsealed2.gif)
whoops I almost screwed up and argued....(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/lipsrsealed2.gif)
Had they not cut taxes but still increased spending, yes, the economy would have been just as strong. The problem with expecting the private sector to do the spending is that you have no control over it and after 9/11, the private sector stopped spending.
It's easy for everyone to sit around and say that we should make the government cut spending but everyone expects the government to provide more services at the same time. It's always an issue of cutting the spending somewhere where it doesn't affect me. Representatives are over a barrel because unlike parents, who can say no to their kids without the kids choosing new parents, when representatives say no to their constituents, those constituents simply turn around and vote in someone else who will say yes.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 20, 2011, 03:24:43 PM
(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/lipsrsealed2.gif)
whoops I almost screwed up and argued....(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/lipsrsealed2.gif)
Argue all you'd like. I'm sure that your point in posting this in the first place was to support your ridiculous assertion that lowering taxes increases revenue which, of course, was disproven...again. The problem with you people is that you start with a premise and then only pay attention to the individual pieces of information that support that premise rather than considering that information as part of a larger, more complicated formula. This scenario provides a perfect example of this because the increase in revenues, by itself, would seem to be an indication of the success of the tax cuts in question. When those increases in revenues are considered, however, as a percentage of the GNP with inflation and other factors figured in, they aren't really increases at all but indicative of a net loss in revenue.
I don't remember who said it, or wrote it, or what movie it was in, but the statement of "GREED IS GOOD" has created a new America which is the cheapest product is the best and the most profit for the the poorest item that will sell is good.
The quality of the products that you find at Walmart and other box stores are just plain trash. But with all of the advertising of cheap is good and the lowering of every ones wages and income a lot of people can only buy cheap.
Buying cheap foreign products because a person has too only deepened the loss of American jobs. Buy the big expensive ticket items like cars only deepens our deficit because all of the profit of those foreign cars leaves the country and used to the betterment of that foreign country. Just look at China, it is being totally rebuilt, new sky scrapers, the fastest bullet trains, largest dams, largest bridges, new super highways, super cities and it is being built by American money, off the backs of the American workers, for the benefit of the mega-corporations and the super rich who owns them.
Why in hell don't the American people "We have discovered the enemy Pogo, it's us." wake up and the Stupid Republican Party wake up?
I know why, :sneaky: GREED IS GOOD! :sneaky: The GOP, the Grand Old Party doesn't exist anymore, it now is a cult of crazy people who worship money and the power and great life style it brings. For they the American dream is so much bullshit to anyone but themselves.
:4th3:
Not sure what all of that has to do with this topic but, "greed is good," is a quote from Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in the movie Wall Street.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 08:43:13 AM
Not sure what all of that has to do with this topic but, "greed is good," is a quote from Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in the movie Wall Street.
Maybe in not politically correct for this topic, but you have shown all of Henery's figure lie. Just like the statement "figures lie and liars figure". It's just a statement to state my opinion of what has caused all of our problems. Sorry! :rolleyes: Just saying.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 08:32:10 AM
Argue all you'd like. I'm sure that your point in posting this in the first place was to support your ridiculous assertion that lowering taxes increases revenue which, of course, was disproven...again. The problem with you people is that you start with a premise and then only pay attention to the individual pieces of information that support that premise rather than considering that information as part of a larger, more complicated formula. This scenario provides a perfect example of this because the increase in revenues, by itself, would seem to be an indication of the success of the tax cuts in question. When those increases in revenues are considered, however, as a percentage of the GNP with inflation and other factors figured in, they aren't really increases at all but indicative of a net loss in revenue.
I will probably regret doing this, because it is fruitless, but.....IF tax cuts are bad, then why are most economist, even the POTUS suggest the tax cuts should stay in place while the economy is down....that is why the Bush Tax Cuts were extended.
I have posted several reasons by economist who support tax cuts and proof where they worked.....YOU have done what you claim that I do, (the way I see it) by finding sources to support YOUR theory.
To me, Ex... it is common sense to keep taxes as low as possible. I know there is a "point" where we have to be. I even believe that perhaps it could be raised on those who make millions. But, to raise them on those in the $250,000 area seems like a bad idea.
I also believe, instead of our government spending money on "pet projects", they should give incentives to the private sector to spend their money for growth here in the U.S.
Also, while I am on it. I think we should cut spending on "useless and fruitless" projects and work hard at all of the fraudulent spending....BEFORE we begin to raise taxes. IF, we raise the debt ceiling then it should be matched dollar to dollar on spending cuts. We have got to begin to ge serious about our debt.
I believe if we just raise the debt, along with raising taxes....they will NOT fix anything but make our hole yet larger.
I never said that taxes shouldn't be kept as low as possible as long as the bills are being paid. The pet projects you mention are certainly problematic but both sides of the aisle are equally at fault for initiating them and certainly, they amount to a drop in the bucket compaerd to the enormity of the budget as a whole. Where you and I differ is where the tax cuts should be applied. The rich would have you believe that they should get any tax cuts because they create jobs but in practice, it doesn't work. Bush gave them tax cuts and the economy ultimately tanked. Obama gave tax cuts to the middle class who then went out and spent that money and the economy is now recovering...slowly, but recovering nonetheless.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 10:21:01 AM
I never said that taxes shouldn't be kept as low as possible as long as the bills are being paid. The pet projects you mention are certainly problematic but both sides of the aisle are equally at fault for initiating them and certainly, they amount to a drop in the bucket compaerd to the enormity of the budget as a whole. Where you and I differ is where the tax cuts should be applied. The rich would have you believe that they should get any tax cuts because they create jobs but in practice, it doesn't work. Bush gave them tax cuts and the economy ultimately tanked. Obama gave tax cuts to the middle class who then went out and spent that money and the economy is now recovering...slowly, but recovering nonetheless.
are you referring to the meek tax cut in the ARRA bill?....that was amazingly insignificant, on average $35 a month, and in no way has that or could that boost the economy. It is also just a one year, one time cut. They go back to the way it was next year. Those who was getting used to the extra cash will now have it taken away from them. That is going to hurt the economy, once again.
Real economic growth has got to come from those who innovate, invent and invest....I think it is okay to help those who need help, but real economic growth will come from the rich, who will in turn, HIRE people to make their product, to sell their product, to store thier product....we need people to HIRE right now.
The more BURDEN (Taxes) we place on entreprenuers, the harder it is for them to make a profit, which what they need right now to GROW.
It is pure and simple.
Ex, I am not trying to be as if I am saying your ideas are wrong....I'm am pointing out what seems so very, very obvious.
When entreprenuers hire more people....more individual taxes are paid to Washington, the more the revunue increases....So, I say, lets invest by NOT raising the BURDEN on the rich (Business owners and investors)...give them the confidence to once again invest.
Also, we need to encourage them to keep their money HERE (In the USA) by giving them CUTS for doing so.
It really is a simple fix.
You're simply repeating what they've led you to believe like a good little follower. The most significant "innovation" to come from the wealthy in the past decade was mortgage derivatives; how many jobs did that create and how did it ultimately work out?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 11:45:43 AM
You're simply repeating what they've led you to believe like a good little follower. The most significant "innovation" to come from the wealthy in the past decade was mortgage derivatives; how many jobs did that create and how did it ultimately work out?
Those are not the folks I am talking about....but, if we want to get nit-picky about it the least we can do is directly blame Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (and their ilk) for allowing this to happen, they are the ones who set this up to fall.....it is NOT because the wealthy created the mess....they merely capitalized from liberal idiocy.....people should be going to jail, starting with politicians in Washington.
We need to enforce some laws that are already on the books to handle those creeps....
Ex....what I believe is shared by many economist and history has sided with this belief to be true. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be.
To me, it boardlines "conspiracy theories".....
The bottom line Ex is this....are you saying if we raise taxes on the wealthy, things will improve for our economy?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2011, 12:12:23 PM
The bottom line Ex is this....are you saying if we raise taxes on the wealthy, things will improve for our economy?
Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, it absolutely will not hurt it.
As for laying the blame for the mortgage crisis on "liberal policy" and rich people just taking advantage of it, well, it's too stupid to even warrant a response.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 12:41:07 PM
Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, it absolutely will not hurt it.
we may very well find out first hand....I hope you are right, because I am ready for a booming economy once again.....I need to witness it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2011, 10:50:10 AM
are you referring to the meek tax cut in the ARRA bill?....that was amazingly insignificant, on average $35 a month, and in no way has that or could that boost the economy. It is also just a one year, one time cut. They go back to the way it was next year. Those who was getting used to the extra cash will now have it taken away from them. That is going to hurt the economy, once again.
Henery says: $35 a month is amazingly insignificant. Well, $35 a month among 1.5 million people end up to be a huge amount of money spent into the economy. Not like the rich who put their tax cuts into bonds, hedge funds in make more money to put that money into more bonds and hedge funds to make more money. :doh: :knife:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2011, 12:43:39 PM
As for laying the blame for the mortgage crisis on "liberal policy" and rich people just taking advantage of it, well, it's too stupid to even warrant a response.
I am being somewhat facetious, (not entirely) but somewhat.......I understand that two wrongs does not make a right...but, I do believe that Washington (dem and repub) has contributed to creating ths mess....and Frank and Dobbs has as much blood on thier hands as anyone.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2011, 01:00:47 PM
I am being somewhat facetious, (not entirely) but somewhat.......I understand that two wrongs does not make a right...but, I do believe that Washington (dem and repub) has contributed to creating ths mess....and Frank and Dobbs has as much blood on thier hands as anyone.
Yep, it's all Frank, Dobbs, Pelose, Obama, Reed, Santa Clause :hohoho: Pogo and Mother Teresa. It's always some other peoples fault that cause this depression.
There is no way it could be George W's and the Republican/Tea Party fault. :jc:
Quote from: The Troll on July 21, 2011, 05:35:25 PM
Yep, it's all Frank, Dobbs, Pelose, Obama, Reed, Santa Clause :hohoho: Pogo and Mother Teresa. It's always some other peoples fault that cause this depression.
There is no way it could be George W's and the Republican/Tea Party fault. :jc:
WHO has been in charge now since 2006? ehhhh, NOT the republicans............could it POSSIBLY be a democrat or two that is remotely possible? ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh NO WAY........THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAINTS!!!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2011, 08:27:41 PM
WHO has been in charge now since 2006? ehhhh, NOT the republicans............could it POSSIBLY be a democrat or two that is remotely possible? ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh NO WAY........THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAINTS!!!
Maybe not saints, but their memory is generally better. ;D
Let me elaborate...
Democrats take control of the house in 2006 and suddenly all of the country's problems became theirs. Despite the fact that they had a Republican president who just as suddenly found his right to veto.
Republicans take control of the house. Is all of the country's problems their fault? Based on the logic above they should be considering that the situation is basically a carbon copy of the previous one. The one difference? Obama WILL work with them if they'd be reasonable and put concern for the country over posturing.
November 2010 the rightwing said, "the people have spoken". If you say so, but I don't recall anyone asking for a clusterf^ck.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 21, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
Obama WILL work with them if they'd be reasonable and put concern for the country over posturing.
Let me elaborate...Yeah, when the POTUS first got elected, he had THIS to say about the republican... "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ...Now THERE is a real leader for you....
I am sick and tired of this POTUS and the dems, whinning that this economy is STILL Bush and the repubs fault......THEY (the dems) are the ones who said they could fix EVERYTHING.....well, they only made things worse...and if you cannot see this, then you are not being honest....this crap of NOW saying that "things were worse than we THOUGHT"!!! is just political BS!
I watch MSNBC last night and it was so full of BS propaganda it was pathetic......every thing was 'Cut, Cap and destroy'.....they kept saying how the Republicans was going to destroy SS, medicade and medicare..............ALL scare tactics and bull shit...
Now, before you attack me....I am NOT saying Bush and the repubs were perfect, they DID contribute to the mess by spending WAY too much.....they ALL suck...........but, I would LOVE for just ONE of you to admit that the DEMS in washington suck TOO!!!...and the Obama is NOT the savior that many thought he was going to be.........JUST ONE!!
I can't wait until the illiterate redneck neocons fuck this country up so badly that anarchy breaks out. I have lots and lots of ammo.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 10:15:43 AM
I can't wait until the illiterate redneck neocons fuck this country up so badly that anarchy breaks out. I have lots and lots of ammo.
watch out the sky is falling....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 10:33:14 AM
watch out the sky is falling....
I'm pretty sure that's what your little group of nancy-girls was screaming while promoting the (expensive) politics of fear.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 10:52:53 AM
I'm pretty sure that's what your little group of nancy-girls was screaming while promoting the (expensive) politics of fear.
Like the POTUS scaring the senior citizens with his lie's....saying "he couldn't guarantee Social Security checks would be sent out on Aug. 3 if Congress did not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2"...which is a LIE! and fearmongering at it's finest.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 11:17:55 AM
Like the POTUS scaring the senior citizens with his lie's....saying "he couldn't guarantee Social Security checks would be sent out on Aug. 3 if Congress did not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2"...which is a LIE! and fearmongering at it's finest.
WAS it a lie? The fact is unless the debt ceiling is raised by August 2, 60% of the government's obligations would go unpaid.
Now, seeing how republicans have held the unemployed hostage and military personnel hostage, where do YOU think they'll start when deciding which areas will go unpaid? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 10:15:43 AM
I can't wait until the illiterate redneck neocons fuck this country up so badly that anarchy breaks out. I have lots and lots of ammo.
I'm with you! Let me know if you want to join forces. . . :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 12:19:13 PM
I'm with you! Let me know if you want to join forces. . . :yes:
You bet! The enemy will be easy to spot; they'll be carrying bibles.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 12:55:11 PM
You bet! The enemy will be easy to spot; they'll be carrying bibles.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 12:19:13 PM
WAS it a lie? The fact is unless the debt ceiling is raised by August 2, 60% of the government's obligations would go unpaid.
The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department and the POTUS....There will be a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending" if Congress hits the debt limit....leaving aroung $172 billion in federal revenues to spend....that let's us pay the interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion)...leaving us with about $39 billion to utlize over discreationary spending....
Obama knows damn well that this is exactly the case, but he wants play POLITICS and SCARE old people that THEY may not ge their checks.....YES, he is lying.
"REAGAN: Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world." - Reagan in 1987
So, was he lying too?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
"REAGAN: Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world." - Reagan in 1987
So, was he lying too?
Stay focused on Obama now.........Reagan is dead and gone......Obama LIED (That is the topic) and said SS checks may not go in the mail if we do not settle this ordeal by Aug 2.......typical lib manuver...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 01:07:25 PM
Stay focused on Obama now.........Reagan is dead and gone......Obama LIED (That is the topic) and said SS checks may not go in the mail if we do not settle this ordeal by Aug 2.......typical lib manuver...
He was ALIVE and facing the very SAME issue in 1987 and said virtually the same thing!
Answer the question, WAS he lying in 1987?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 01:14:19 PM
He was ALIVE and facing the very SAME issue in 1987 and said virtually the same thing!
Answer the question, WAS he lying in 1987?
I won't answer NOTHING until you answer me if Obama is LYING and spreading propaganda...................IS HE?
No and who spoon fed you those numbers?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 01:16:20 PM
I won't answer NOTHING until you answer me if Obama is LYING and spreading propaganda...................IS HE?
NO.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 01:24:26 PM
No and who spoon fed you those numbers?
I got the numbers from the Bipartisan Policy Center.....and used an interactive chart to calculate and prioritize spending....
Since palehorse you think the POTUS was not lying....then there is nothing else to talk about regarding this topic as far as I am concerned.......
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
"REAGAN: Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world." - Reagan in 1987
So, was he lying too?
I will answer this too....since you are just Parroting what every liberal pundit, blogger and folks from the Huffington Post are saying and trying thier best to propagandize this serious situation....
first let's get things straight.....Obama has racked up over $14 trillion of debt in a little over two years....failed to have HIS DEMOCRAT senate pass a budget...and yet wants to raise taxes to fund his out-of-control spending!! well that is NOT anything like Ronald Reagan....who CUT Taxes while increaseng federal revenue....to pay for spending...two completely different sets of philosophy..... Reagan WARNED of the dangers of not paying our debt............he did not outright tell senior citizens they may not get paid next month....Obama KNOWS damn well they will be paid, unless HE chooses not to pay them.
Did I just hear that the GOP is taking the weekend off?
Well, I can fully understand that, what with all the hard work they've been doing lately.
And nothing important coming up on the agenda, either.
Enjoy your weekend off, kiddies.
Shew.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 01:40:55 PM
I got the numbers from the Bipartisan Policy Center.....and used an interactive chart to calculate and prioritize spending....
So which of those bills do you suggest go unpaid?
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 22, 2011, 01:57:55 PM
Did I just hear that the GOP is taking the weekend off?
Well, I can fully understand that, what with all the hard work they've been doing lately.
And nothing important coming up on the agenda, either.
Enjoy your weekend off, kiddies.
Shew.
Uh, you heard wrong....it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a DEMOCRAT) who canceled this weekend Senate sessions.....
film at 11....http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-rejects-House-GOP-apf-3051861922.html?x=0&.v=7 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-rejects-House-GOP-apf-3051861922.html?x=0&.v=7)
The GOP has done plenty of hard work....offered a proposal to cut spending, but the dems don't want to cut spending they want to increase it....
Have a great weekend!!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 02:01:49 PM
So which of those bills do you suggest go unpaid?
I'm not paid to make those decisions...but I do know we don't have the money to continue to pay them without borrowing MORE money....I think I suggested what NEEDS to be paid first and foremost.....the rest needs to be reduced or cut out....THAT is what I suggest.
No, we should have enough revenue to pay a little over half of them...in August...the outlook gets worse in successive months. I'll ask again, which of those bills do you think is unimportant enough that it can go unpaid?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 02:41:30 PM
No, we should have enough revenue to pay a little over half of them...in August...the outlook gets worse in successive months. I'll ask again, which of those bills do you think is unimportant enough that it can go unpaid?
you can ask me as many time as you like.........what needs to happen is we need to get consumer confidence UP! Get the private sector into creating jobs once again, to raise federal revenue....the senate just turned down a proposal to put a cap on federal spending that would allow an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion on the condition that the House and Senate approve a balanced budget amendment....the dems rejected it....they just want to raise taxes and raise the debt limit......and do nothing about cutting the spending......THAT is a real shame....and it will NOT spur confidence in the consumer.
So you've got nothin'.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 04:03:54 PM
So you've got nothin'.
that is all YOU got?........
So you've got nothin'. :no:
I'm not the one ranting and raving like a lunatic about something I know absolutely nothing about.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2011, 04:19:17 PM
I'm not the one ranting and raving like a lunatic about something I know absolutely nothing about.
Well at least you admit you know NOTHING about economics finally.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 02:55:15 PM
you can ask me as many time as you like.........what needs to happen is we need to get consumer confidence UP! Get the private sector into creating jobs once again, to raise federal revenue....the senate just turned down a proposal to put a cap on federal spending that would allow an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion on the condition that the House and Senate approve a balanced budget amendment....the dems rejected it....they just want to raise taxes and raise the debt limit......and do nothing about cutting the spending......THAT is a real shame....and it will NOT spur confidence in the consumer.
Henery says, "what need to happen is we need to get consumer confidence UP!. That sure sounds good Henrey. How about the 163,000 small business, large business, and corporations that have out sourced out jobs, closed the doors to their business and manufacturing plants and sent the TOOLS that made their items out of to foreign countries during the George W's administration. Hummmm?
Consumer confidence would increase if the job market increased, if there was some overtime and there were some pay increases for the people who make minimum wages at Walmart and other scab companies. But most of all it would increase consumer confidence would go up if some of their friend and relation, who have been laid off for over a year were able to find a job.
The jobs won't come back fast because the corporations have tore down their plants and most of all they have taken the tools and machines that made American products and sent them out too. Just like burning the bridges behind them and shitting on the rungs of a ladder as they increased their profits and the expense of the American worker.
But one hidden thing that no one thinks of, is that all of the skilled tradesmen are dying off and all of the skilled trades apprenticeship programs don't exits any more. Plus what good is a engineer degree in manufacturing mean, NOTHING!
But the main thing to increase consumer confidence is for the Republicans to stop the Obama :lies: lies and fear campaigned, and start working for the middle class and stop kissing :kiss: :kissit: the rich and the corporation's ass. :@#%&: :trustme:
Unresponsive, as I suspected.
You can spin the FACTS all you like, (ronnie said those things publicly), but the situation is EXACTLY the same. . . As it was when CLINTON said the very same thing In 93!
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 05:57:31 PM
Unresponsive, as I suspected.
You can spin the FACTS all you like, (ronnie said those things publicly), but the situation is EXACTLY the same. . . As it was when CLINTON said the very same thing In 93!
scuse me, but I DID respond....you just don't read what I post, or you read what you want to read....
You still did not answer the question: Was Ronnie lying?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2011, 10:34:10 PM
You still did not answer the question: Was Ronnie lying?
What RR said and what Obama said were TWO completely different implications.......Reagan talked about how irresponsible it is to flirt with our finances in this manner and what could happen....nothing he said was a lie...
Obama said he did not know if Social Security checks would go out on Aug 2 if this was not solved......THAT was a direct lie....he knows for a FACT they would go out then...He knows there is enough money to pay SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the Military in full......
Had he said if this NEVER gets solved a day will come when we may not meet our obligations to those services...but he didn't he LIED....How can you compare the two statements is nothing more than a vicious SPIN and liberal talking points trying to propagandize this situation.
I would come out of retirement and work 12 hours a day free if your damn Republican Party puts America in defalt. Let me run passing out the government checks.
First all Social Security Checks would be stopped. All check that go out to retires that receive checks retirement checks from the government department that handles payment from companies that have defaulted on their pension programs, like GM. Hawk's dad retirement checks. :yes:
Since the government has to feed and cloth the military. Stop all military pay checks. Stop all payment to states. One thing I would not stop checks for is medicare payments. If the damn Republican want to shut down the government to keep the super rich from paying more taxes. I say, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN.
Let all of the damn Republican/Tea Party sheeple find out what the Republican Party thinks of them. Talk about stepping on their dicks. I think the GOP has truly did it this time. I want them to shut it down. But I don't think the Stock Market, the bankers and the super rich want a default. :biggrin: We will see. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on July 23, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
I would come out of retirement and work 12 hours a day free if your damn Republican Party puts America in defalt. Let me run passing out the government checks.
First all Social Security Checks would be stopped. All check that go out to retires that receive checks retirement checks from the government department that handles payment from companies that have defaulted on their pension programs, like GM. Hawk's dad retirement checks. :yes:
Since the government has to feed and cloth the military. Stop all military pay checks. Stop all payment to states. One thing I would not stop checks for is medicare payments. If the damn Republican want to shut down the government to keep the super rich from paying more taxes. I say, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN.
Let all of the damn Republican/Tea Party sheeple find out what the Republican Party thinks of them. Talk about stepping on their dicks. I think the GOP has truly did it this time. I want them to shut it down. But I don't think the Stock Market, the bankers and the super rich want a default. :biggrin: We will see. :yes: :biggrin:
Quit watching The Ed Show and you will be okay....he is so full of shit it is pathetic.......The Republicans will NOT allow a default, and the are NOT going to stop SS.....all they WANT is a Const admin to balance the budget, put a CAP on spending and CUT spending.....nothing there is a bad thing....they are willing to raise the cap if it is matched dollar per dollar on cuts (somewhere, NOT SS)....there is NOT ONE DAMN thing wrong with the rep's plan...........what plan does the dems have other than raise taxes to increase spending? Please tell me and NOT a smart ass remark would be preferred...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 23, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Quit watching The Ed Show and you will be okay....he is so full of shit it is pathetic.......The Republicans will NOT allow a default, and the are NOT going to stop SS.....all they WANT is a Const admin to balance the budget, put a CAP on spending and CUT spending.....nothing there is a bad thing....they are willing to raise the cap if it is matched dollar per dollar on cuts (somewhere, NOT SS)....there is NOT ONE DAMN thing wrong with the rep's plan...........what plan does the dems have other than raise taxes to increase spending? Please tell me and NOT a smart ass remark would be preferred...
The only thing I seen the Democrats want to spend money for is to put people back to work fixing the decaying United States, like China and other country are improving their countries with our money. The Republicans and the Tea Party has been so interested in cutting the taxes and making profit for the CEOs and the super rich the have let this, our Beautiful American decay and you know it. :rant:
I am glad you Republicans are so hard headed and greedy. You won't get you constitutional admendent, cap on spending and you match dollar for dollars cuts and spending. All windmills in your mind.
After thinking about it and considering the damage to the Republican/Tea Party and the wake up to congress the seriousness of the deficit. I hope your Republican/Teaparty shuts down the country. You guys deserve it so much and maybe the American Sheeple will wake up and see how the Republican/Tea Party is for Corporations, Banks, Stock Market, Hedge Funds and the dead beat super rich they will have to think long and hard to vote for the Son Of Bitches again.
Love you Henery :smitten:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 23, 2011, 06:29:51 AM
What RR said and what Obama said were TWO completely different implications.......Reagan talked about how irresponsible it is to flirt with our finances in this manner and what could happen....nothing he said was a lie...
Obama said he did not know if Social Security checks would go out on Aug 2 if this was not solved......THAT was a direct lie....he knows for a FACT they would go out then...He knows there is enough money to pay SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the Military in full......
Had he said if this NEVER gets solved a day will come when we may not meet our obligations to those services...but he didn't he LIED....How can you compare the two statements is nothing more than a vicious SPIN and liberal talking points trying to propagandize this situation.
You are caught up in the "reasons" we reached the debt ceiling. I am asking about what all THREE presidents said would be a direct result of not raising it, which you said in Obama's case was a lie.
All three presidents stated that it was uncertain whether social security and other governmental checks would go out when the deadline was reached without the debt ceiling being raised. All THREE!
The reasons may differ, but that is another question. The result of hitting the debt ceiling is the same.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 23, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Quit watching The Ed Show and you will be okay....he is so full of shit it is pathetic.......The Republicans will NOT allow a default, and the are NOT going to stop SS.....all they WANT is a Const admin to balance the budget, put a CAP on spending and CUT spending.....nothing there is a bad thing....they are willing to raise the cap if it is matched dollar per dollar on cuts (somewhere, NOT SS)....there is NOT ONE DAMN thing wrong with the rep's plan...........what plan does the dems have other than raise taxes to increase spending? Please tell me and NOT a smart ass remark would be preferred...
Stop watching the Ed show? Well, I don't think you would watch a whole show. Because he tells the truth and you are not about the truth. Tell me one thing he lies about. Not what you think he lies about but what he actually lie about. You can't find one damn thing. But your Republican/Tea bagger bloggs sure lie and extorts the truth and takes things out of context.
Oh, I watch them all, Olbermann, O'Donnell, Maddox and Shultz. It's tickles me that just a couple of days ago you accused me of watching too much Faux Fox News. It's has finally came out, what a bunch of lairs, thieves guilty of bribery, and computer hacking of people personal lives and misery. Just to get a news story and extort and blackmail their supposed enemies. There is not one faux Fox new reporter on Faux Fox News I would trust to tell the truth because Old Rupert Murdoch :pirate: owns them lock stock and barrel and he does blackmail and blackball his employees. :rolleyes: :razz: :trustme:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 23, 2011, 12:35:49 PM
You are caught up in the "reasons" we reached the debt ceiling. I am asking about what all THREE presidents said would be a direct result of not raising it, which you said in Obama's case was a lie.
All three presidents stated that it was uncertain whether social security and other governmental checks would go out when the deadline was reached without the debt ceiling being raised. All THREE!
The reasons may differ, but that is another question. The result of hitting the debt ceiling is the same.
PH, THAT is a spin, right there......RR gave a speech WARNING what could happen.....Obama LIED and told something he KNEW that was NOT going to happen....HE was Lying, no two ways about it. Maybe you can make a case where Reagan was lying too, but that does NOT change what Obama did...and that was an outright lie for political gain....period.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 04:37:11 PM
Well at least you admit you know NOTHING about economics finally.....
And with a third grade education, you think you do?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 23, 2011, 12:35:49 PM
All three presidents stated that it was uncertain whether social security and other governmental checks would go out when the deadline was reached without the debt ceiling being raised. All THREE!
You're wasting your time, PH. Henry and his tea-bagging friends' abject hatred of the person they see as an uppity negro in the White House transcends their ability to think rationally or have any reasonable discourse on the subject. Not that they'd be equipped to do so anyway...any two of them together still don't add up to a halfwit.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 24, 2011, 09:42:14 AM
PH, THAT is a spin, right there......RR gave a speech WARNING what could happen.....Obama LIED and told something he KNEW that was NOT going to happen....HE was Lying, no two ways about it. Maybe you can make a case where Reagan was lying too, but that does NOT change what Obama did...and that was an outright lie for political gain....period.
Holy hell! You just don't get it do you?
Unemployment insurance, tuition grants, food stamps, child care subsidies and housing assistance. That's not to mention the nation's massive health insurance programs: Medicare and Medicaid. All of these, PLUS social security are at risk! Who do you think they'll stop payment on first? Aid to Iraq or all of these? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Obama says he cannot guarantee that SS checks will go out, (warning), and he lied? WTF is wrong with you?!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 24, 2011, 11:02:46 AM
You're wasting your time, PH. Henry and his tea-bagging friends' abject hatred of the person they see as an uppity negro in the White House transcends their ability to think rationally or have any reasonable discourse on the subject. Not that they'd be equipped to do so anyway...any two of them together still don't add up to a halfwit.
I have to say that as time continues to go by, the more they refuse to act as if they have a modicum of sanity, the more this position is validated!
They can dress it up anyway they like, but the reality is they are being lead around by the nose by a bunch of white sheeted propagandists!
Quote from: Palehorse on July 24, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
I have to say that as time continues to go by, the more they refuse to act as if they have a modicum of sanity, the more this position is validated!
They can dress it up anyway they like, but the reality is they are being lead around by the nose by a bunch of white sheeted propagandists!
please for the love of God....take ONE look in the mirror before you go casting stones....the propaganda is CLEARLY driven by the liberal left and the sheep are following them over the cliff, along with this country.....and that aint no shit either....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 24, 2011, 05:49:38 PM
please for the love of God....take ONE look in the mirror before you go casting stones....the propaganda is CLEARLY driven by the liberal left and the sheep are following them over the cliff, along with this country.....and that aint no shit either....
It isn't the liberal left leading the sheeple over the cliff. It's the greedy Republican/Teabagger leaders, corporations and super rich's lobbyist who are leading the half bright, stupid far right wingnuts Christians over the cliff.
Using their propaganda to make the dumb ass Christians think that the Republican Party is going to lead them to the promise land. With honey, wine and manna. If it wasn't pathetic it would be funny. :bliss: What dumb half bright fools. :jester:
For the love of God ;why don't you dumb asses wise, it looks like after voting for George W. Bush twice you would get a little smarter. :biggrin: Just saying. :rolleyes: :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 24, 2011, 11:02:46 AM
You're wasting your time, PH. Henry and his tea-bagging friends' abject hatred of the person they see as an uppity negro in the White House transcends their ability to think rationally or have any reasonable discourse on the subject. Not that they'd be equipped to do so anyway...any two of them together still don't add up to a halfwit.
Guess I will never learn will I? :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2011, 01:08:47 AM
Guess I will never learn will I? :mad:
sadly, it does NOT seem as if you are learning anything........you are very intelligent, but are so full of hatred and biased towards people who have differing ideas than you do.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2011, 01:08:47 AM
Guess I will never learn will I? :mad:
If Jesus Christ was up there with his buddies, the Republican/Tea Party would be building eleven crosses to crucify the the ass holes.
Come to think about it, Jesus would the the last person they would want to be there. Wasn't it Jesus who threw the money changers out of the temple. Money changers would be the bankers, stockmarketeers, super rich, corporations and lawyers.
Damn it really easy to see what's wrong when you look at in a biblical way. :doh: :biggrin: :pope: :bliss:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 25, 2011, 08:24:24 AM
sadly, it does NOT seem as if you are learning anything........you are very intelligent, but are so full of hatred and biased towards people who have differing ideas than you do.
Henery of of the first tenets of education is you have to respect the teacher and not be smarter than the teacher in the subject the teacher is trying to teach. Henery you don't fill the bill on any of the subjects. What a MooooooRoooooon. Hee, hee, hee :chick:
I'm done trying to explain anything to the likes of you!
Ruin the country
-I am armed to the teeth so am not worried about wtf you jackasses are going to do when the economy collapses and anarchy rules the day.
Unlike you, I will survive.
Ex is right; you just can't fix stupid!
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
I'm done trying to explain anything to the likes of you!
Ruin the country
-I am armed to the teeth so am not worried about wtf you jackasses are going to do when the economy collapses and anarchy rules the day.
Unlike you, I will survive.
Ex is right; you just can't fix stupid!
the LIKES of me?..... :spooked: .......seriously?................what a fucking DICK!!!! :rant:
fuck you !!!
Hey pecker, I will survive just fine too.............just because I don't brag about my arsenal or how talented I am....does not mean I am not 100% capable of protecting my family.
The likes of me....................seriously..... :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2011, 08:09:35 AM
Hey pecker, I will survive just fine too.............just because I don't brag about my arsenal or how talented I am....does not mean I am not 100% capable of protecting my family.
We'll see how that military training of yours pays off...oh, wait, that's right...you don't have any!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 26, 2011, 08:21:58 AM
We'll see how that military training of yours pays off...oh, wait, that's right...you don't have any!
Have you every watched aircraft carrier life. It like like in a bee hive. The queen and the drones (Captain,pilots and officers) watch the worker bee work themselves to death. In the summer a field bee the bees who go out and get the nectar and pollen live 4 to 6 days, the queen can and some times live 4 to 5 years. The queen and the drones make up around 4% of the population of the hive. It's on par with the super rich in this country.
But old Henry Bee :bee: is one of those worker bees :bee: who live about a year. It stay in the hive, in the dark and it's hot who cleans up the waste of the queen, drone and worker bees. BUZZ, BUZZ, BUZZ :bee: Good Old Henery worker :bee:
Where did you get the idea Henry was on an aircraft carrier?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2011, 08:09:35 AM
the LIKES of me?..... :spooked: .......seriously?................what a fucking DICK!!!! :rant:
fuck you !!!
Hey pecker, I will survive just fine too.............just because I don't brag about my arsenal or how talented I am....does not mean I am not 100% capable of protecting my family.
The likes of me....................seriously..... :no:
Saying I am "closed minded" isn't being a DICK HEAD? Please! :roll eyes:
You know better, but again. . .
Quote from: Exterminator on July 26, 2011, 09:09:07 AM
Where did you get the idea Henry was on an aircraft carrier?
He's confusing "squawks" . . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 26, 2011, 12:16:53 PM
He's confusing "squawks" . . . :rolleyes:
Palehorse. you know him better than I do, If that's saying any thing that amount to a hill of beans. :puke:
I'm just going to sit back and see what the rich loving Republican/Tea Party does and see what happens, it's all in their court and the clock is ticking down. :pop: :food12:
I just wish Obama would grow a set of ball and tell the bastards to go to hell. :devil29:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2011, 12:57:01 PM
Obama knows damn well that this is exactly the case, but he wants play POLITICS and SCARE old people that THEY may not ge their checks.....YES, he is lying.
Guess you must know a lot more about it than, say, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/31/afghanistan.mullen.debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Quote from: Exterminator on July 31, 2011, 05:10:34 PM
Guess you must know a lot more about it than, say, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/31/afghanistan.mullen.debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
They believe the propaganda (conservatives) that is being shovel fed to them, and automatically discard everything else Ex! It's as if they WANT this country to fail and become a third world country!
The sad part is, they'll just blame it on the POTUS; even though he has had no say in the matter! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Well, these idiots who voted these no compromise, no surrender tea-bagging douche bags into office are getting exactly what they voted for.
The worst part of this whole fiasco is that the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with future spending! This is about paying for the spending that Congress themselves already authorized!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 31, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Well, these idiots who voted these no compromise, no surrender tea-bagging douche bags into office are getting exactly what they voted for.
The worst part of this whole fiasco is that the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with future spending! This is about paying for the spending that Congress themselves already authorized!
Exactly! They are paying more attention to some petition they signed that was circulated by an insidious moron, instead of their respective duty that they swore an oath to the people to fulfill!
And then there's Harry Reid who won't bring things up for a vote 'cause he's pouting.
Quote from: me on August 01, 2011, 03:25:56 AM
And then there's Harry Reid who won't bring things up for a vote 'cause he's pouting.
That's good, anything to be a pain in the ass for you. :cry: :cry: :cry: