Again, I don't favor Hillary's plan; I don't favor Bush's tax rebate plan; and I don't favor Obama's plan. Let the economy play out; when the rich end up raking in the dough maybe the middle class and the poor will rise up.

"Let them eat cake"

man for a second there I thought that said "Avert" and i was thinking "spending money to tell people about it probably just makes it worse!" haha

man for a second there I thought that said "Advert" and i was thinking "spending money to tell people about it probably just makes it worse!" haha

Hell, I'd be willing to spend $75 billion just to avert Obama.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions- I'm a Dem, and I don't think all that much of Hillary either.

printing money wins for Dems if you don't have pay the owners of the Federal Reserve back

Psted by Bani

So-how about borrowing a few MORE Trillions from the Communist Chinese to give to the rich with "Taxcuts"?

Obama is the lesser evil regardless of what you think of politics or the other candidates. He's young enough and smart enough to understand the job better than Bush and Clinton. We need a fresh face in office. I'm sick of the same two assholes in office every time i bat an eye. Two families are constantly in the white house. ENOUGH OF THIS!

Have we become this stupid to believe that this country can function with the same two families in power?

its ultimately being borrowed from the fed, not the chinese, they are the middleman.

Nothing will stop this recession. Just suck it up and take it.

taxman,
That was as Ron Paulian as I have ever heard you get!

Again, I don't favor Hillary's plan; I don't favor Bush's tax rebate plan; and I don't favor Obama's plan. Let the economy play out; when the rich end up raking in the dough maybe the middle class and the poor will rise up.

Well we can't blame those who thought the interest rates would never change over five years or more. But we can blame the all those big businesses that gave out those loans, maybe it's their fault. Maybe some where so tense of the Iraq war, maybe that made them do it...Whatever the case maybe, they learned a lesson, buy something within your means...

I think the process these govts work in,especially the Bush Regime,is that the only way to get the Multi $Billions in funding,for whatever cause is to "Declare War" against it - then the US Congress will automatically authorize all the money the White House asks for.
So after that non existant hurdle is breezed over,there should be no real problem,funding wise,as long as war can be declared on some expendible section of the USA (poor people,ill people,trans gender people,wrong religous faith people etc.) The only stipulation has to be that the Pentagon and the Military Defense Contractors (i.e. the Neo Cons) get their cut of all that moola first (as usual!) - and then presto & deus ex machina - Uncle Sam is the "Salvation" of the economy once again.
E Pluribus Anus!

Dems Plan = SPEND!
Repubs Plan = CUT TAXES!


Both are shortsighted and irresponsible.

_B_ promotes ignorance, "Dems Plan = SPEND!
Repubs Plan = CUT TAXES!"

What a gag! This is just so blatant! Lol!

The comparison should be:

Dems Plan = raise taxes
Repubs Plan = cut taxes

The philosophy on the other hand is this:

Dems raise taxes to increase spending.
Repubs cut taxes to decrease spending.

Another illogical effort by Democratics is to avoid reality which has been demonstrated in the vastly increased revenues which the Republican tax cut has earned the local and federal governments!

"Both are shortsighted and irresponsible."

How have the tax cuts hurt our nation, then? Do you dare answer?

TADOWE

"Repubs cut taxes to decrease spending."

You're making another joke, right?

If not, then perhaps you can refresh my memory.

How many pork-laden spending bills did George Bush veto prior to the November mid-terms?

The question, who to elect, Hillary or Obama? The answer is obvious, Obama. He's outbid Hillary by 5 billion. We should elect him unless John Edwards comes out with a bid somewhere in the 80 to 85 billion area.

Do I hear 100?

Were it not through extortion by the federal govt. there would be nothing wrong with the economy, ever.

I said, "Repubs cut taxes to decrease spending."

Twin responds, "You're making another joke, right? If not, then perhaps you can refresh my memory. How many pork-laden spending bills did George Bush veto prior to the November mid-terms?"

Why would he veto them? His efforts have been bipartisanship from the moment he took office (and one of the aspects I dislike about him). Unfortunately, he had to sign pork from BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE!

Indeed! It is Democratics who are using the increased spending by Congress to belittle and revile Bush; even though they were the chief beneficiaries of that policy! And, for certain, that aspect puts a whole new face on the meaning of "Pork"! Democratics take it and use it -- while the gang chortles with the paradox they can sell as logic: "We can spend and spend and blame it on Republicans!"

Now, the Democratics are forcing our defense to be short changed, so that they can harm this administration, at the same time they weaken our defense ...

Scum traitors ...!

TADOWE:

What DOC just said.

I'm also ROTFLMAO over your spin.

Good grief, man. Where is your head?

I suppose you think that $243 Billion surplus that the Republicans inherited is still sitting in a ledger book someplace waiting for a rainy day.

Anytime I hear someone calling a govt. surplus a good thing I want to puke. What sort of person could conclude such a thing? Only an imbecile.

Pssst. there was never a surplus.

CRISPY;

For something that was never there, they sure spent it fast enough.

Pfft to you.

Anytime I hear someone calling a govt. surplus a good thing I want to puke

How else are we supposed to ever pay down the national debt? Any "surplus" must be used to actually pay down some principle one of these days. Which makes me wonder why anyone buys bonds... I guess, in the end, it doesn't really matter if they ever mature (yeah, I know they do in 17 years... but are they really mature?).

Were it not through extortion by the federal govt. there would be nothing wrong with the economy, ever.

Riiiiight... and the Laissez Faire "Capitalists" (read: Mercantilism) of the early industrial revolution who essentially enslaved their workers while exposing them to great dangers and health hazards certainly speak to the viability of your "unimpeded" market. I think if you saw a truly "free" market, your envisioned utopia would more greatly resemble your worst nightmare.

Our ecomomy is too intertwined with the rest of the world at this point to think that anything we do now will stop the juggernaut from rolling through. Unfortunately our economy is in the hands of foreign govts who control energy, cheap products, labor etc.

Tad--

Wow, go over the deep end lately? Your republicans have not cut spending. Your memory of GWB vetoing is selective--he didn't veto ONE bill until the dems took control. And the dems have not raised taxes. Meanwhile you've taken a non-partisan shot at BOTH parties and turned it into partisan nonsense. Great, thanks for stopping by!


And tax cuts are irresponsible when Spending >>> Income, we're in the middle of an expensive war and our monetary policy is upside down. And for the record, i think BOTH parties are irresponsible!

A government can't tax and spend its way out of a recession. The home loan dealis one of the reasons we some people are in trouble in the first place. Loans are way to easy to get.

Dems raise taxes to increase spending.
Repubs cut taxes to decrease spending.

Another illogical effort by Democratics is to avoid reality which has been demonstrated in the vastly increased revenues which the Republican tax cut has earned the local and federal governments!

His efforts have been bipartisanship from the moment he took office

*** Obama: Spend $75 Billion to Avert Recession ***

.......too late to avert the recession........

.......and the recession has too many causes to be fixed by an infusion of public spending........

.......our national public finances have been in a downward spiral for some time, they were made worse, perhaps irretrievably worse, by GWB's "Cut like a church lady--spend like a whore" policies.........

........our standard of living will drop from a second tier Western country to a second world level (think Mexico, Rumania ) within the decade........

Dfiant chokes, "I seriously almost choked on the bagel I was eating when I read that. ... I can only imagine how absurd your vision of reality truly is."

The philosophy? Which part of the syllogism did you think was incorrect?

As far as the revenue increases: they can't be faked! Tax revenue (AFTER THE CUTS) increased over previous years, and have continued to increase. Those increases are more than just a representation of population growth/immigration (illegal or not).

However, what is your explanation for the yearly increase(s) in tax revenues?

"It's like you just ignore the truth because it's too painful and then fabricate the "truth" as you want it to be. Amazing...simply amazing."

You are projecting, obviously! When Kennedy lowered the tax rate, revenues to the federal government increased in tax collections, too! Now, the desperate effort is to deny that tax cuts increase revenues ... because lowering taxes removed control of the public!

The goosesteppers want tax increases ... we know why, too ... to march on the evil Republicans and treat them to some Krystalnacht action ...

"You will get along, if you just pay your taxes!"

CRISPY;

For something that was never there, they sure spent it fast enough.

Pfft to you.

Posted by Twinpac at 2008-01-14 09:25 AM |


A surplus would indicate no debt, nadda, zilch, zip.

"As far as the revenue increases: they can't be faked! Tax revenue (AFTER THE CUTS) increased over previous years, and have continued to increase."

But not once you factor in inflation, something a first year Econ student must do before being dismissed for fall break. Once you include that simple concept, the truth comes out: the highest revenue ever, adjusted for inflation, was the last year of the Clinton tax codes.

Those blithely claiming "tax cuts increase revenue" would flunk the mid-term.

"How have the tax cuts hurt our nation, then? Do you dare answer?"

When George W. Bush took office, 11% of our annual federal outlay went to service the debt. In one administration, that burden increased 50%, to where we now must spend 16.7% of every federal dollar on servicing the debt. And all during times of rising spending. These debts choke off other options---say, for roads and bridges---and leave us more vulnerable as a nation. That's a big hurt.

*** A surplus would indicate no debt, nadda, zilch, zip.
Posted by Kris_P_Bacon ***

......most economists differentiate between a yearly budgetary surplus/deficit and national debt/surplus ......

.......under Clinton there was an annual budgetary surplus, some of which was used to pay down the debt......

......and we all know what happened under GWB.....

Dan explains how to lie, "But not once you factor in inflation, something a first year Econ student must do before being dismissed for fall break."

Whoa! Then, it should be no problem for you to show the inflationary factor that negates the increased revenues, year-by-year!?!

"Once you include that simple concept, the truth comes out: the highest revenue ever, adjusted for inflation, was the last year of the Clinton tax codes."

Funny, you call deflation in a declining economy as "adjusting for inflation"!

You are attempting to eat your cake and have it, too!

"Those blithely claiming 'tax cuts increase revenue" would flunk the mid-term."

Certainly, if simplistically stated as you do ... the fact remains: unadjusted tax revenues are greater under Bush's tax cuts, than they were in Clinton's administration.

"......under Clinton there was an annual budgetary surplus, some of which was used to pay down the debt......"

Not true. The national debt went up every year of Clinton's administration. Near the end, the budget was almost balanced, and the overcollection from Social Security was used to mask the small deficit and create what was called a "surplus". But a quick study of the national debt every Jan 1 shows no pay downs at all.

Of course, Bush has had access to the same accounting tricks, and all he could produce were the largest deficits known to man. But give credit where credit is due (literally!): When it comes to records of deficit spending, Bush and the Republicans hold the gold, the silver, and the bronze.

"Whoa! Then, it should be no problem for you to show the inflationary factor that negates the increased revenues, year-by-year!?!"

No problem at all.

Take the 2000 revenues.

Take any other year after that.

Adjust the "other year" for inflation, so you're comparing apples and apples.

Compare the numbers. Which one is bigger?

Answer in all cases: the numbers for the year 2000.


Now go back to the beginning of the Econ 101 book, reread it, and this time, pay attention.

"the fact remains: unadjusted tax revenues are greater under Bush's tax cuts, than they were in Clinton's administration."

Unadjusted?

Call your local high schools, and ask to speak to the Economics teacher. Tell him you want to compare revenues from two different years, but you don't want to have to factor in inflation, that you want them to be "unadjusted".

Then hold your ears to protect from the loud, prolonged laughing.

"the fact remains: unadjusted tax revenues are greater under Bush's tax cuts, than they were in Clinton's administration."

Unadjusted?

Call your local high schools, and ask to speak to the Economics teacher. Tell him you want to compare revenues from two different years, but you don't want to have to factor in inflation, that you want them to be "unadjusted".

Then hold your ears to protect from the loud, prolonged laughing.




lol

And to think they make statements like that to try to prove the opposite of what they are actually (and cluelessly) saying. Gotta love these right wingers, though. Laughter, indeed.

How will Obama avert a recession?


Print up 75 Billion dollars...which if we continue at this pace it will result in the dollar being nothing more than...


Change.

A government can't tax and spend its way out of a recession. The home loan dealis one of the reasons we some people are in trouble in the first place. Loans are way to easy to get.

Posted by Sniper
But it can borrow and spend its way into a recession.
Found that out with Iraq, too. GOPpers are big on wars they don't have to serve in or pay for. Bush1 and 2, Reagan, all borrow and spenders.

But doesn't Obama know we're rebuilding infrastructure and funding socialised medicine over there so we don't have to rebuild infrastructure and fund socialised medicine over here?

If Americans get jobs, then the terrorists win. Just go out and charge something.

Dan says, "No problem at all. Take the 2000 revenues. Take any other year after that. Adjust the "other year" for inflation, so you're comparing apples and apples."

Unbelievable! You talk about simplistic and then practice it! You want to adjust using a factor that IS MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES!

The only way to look at tax increases as opposed to tax decreases is to total those revenues and compare them BEFORE EITHER ADDING INFLATION OR DEFLATIONARY FACTORS, or any other factor statisticians use to obfuscate reality.

"Now go back to the beginning of the Econ 101 book, reread it, and this time, pay attention."

There are a myriad of calculations done with taxes, revenues, rates, direct taxes, indirect, gross national product, et al. What it all boils down to is the standard of living ... which has improved under tax cuts, but was declining prior to instituting them. Quibble all you care to about various factors and calculations ...


... but the tax cuts HAVE increased governmental revenues, and the precedent has been confirmed since the Kennedy cuts ... live with it!

"Call your local high schools, and ask to speak to the Economics teacher."

Why? To waste my time hearing how Clinton's tax increases gained more revenue than Bush's tax cuts due to the comparison between a deflationary regime and an inflationary one from an NEA socialist/democratic...? Just like pedantic, obfuscating you?

"Tell him you want to compare revenues from two different years, but you don't want to have to factor in inflation, that you want them to be 'unadjusted'."

You simply (most pejorative sense) repeat yourself. The "factor" is used to deny that tax cuts have increased revenues and improved standard of living (where the inflation factor is pertinent), so your effort, in the above paragraph is intended to fool the public ... like the statistical propagandists inevitably practice.

"Then hold your ears to protect from the loud, prolonged laughing."

Right, because there are a lot of fruit salad chefs willing to mock facts with factors ...