StreetScooby 5 #26 September 15, 2011 Quote tax cuts + spending increases = deficit. Too many people are focusing on "taxes" instead of revenues. The Bush tax cuts are not to blame for the mess we're in. That is far too simple of a view to argue. Likewise, the spending increases are by far the dominant factor in the equation at this point in time.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #27 September 15, 2011 >Too many people are focusing on "taxes" instead of revenues. The Bush tax >cuts are not to blame for the mess we're in. Well, in that case, neither is government spending. Quite a relief, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #28 September 15, 2011 Quote Well, in that case, neither is government spending. Quite a relief, eh? bill, you're not making sense tonight. Have you been drinking?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #29 September 15, 2011 >bill, you're not making sense tonight. Tax cuts reduce revenues. Since our deficit is determined by revenues - spending, then if revenues aren't a problem, neither is spending. If you disagree, then you might want to revise your thinking on the subject. (Which would be wise; both parts of the problem need to be solved.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 September 16, 2011 Quote Quote tax cuts + spending increases = deficit. Too many people are focusing on "taxes" instead of revenues. The Bush tax cuts are not to blame for the mess we're in. That is far too simple of a view to argue. Likewise, the spending increases are by far the dominant factor in the equation at this point in time. What the fuck are you smokin. I gues his off the books wars had no efect either.You fuckers never cease to amaze me with your total immersion in the Sea of Denial Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 September 16, 2011 Quote Quote Quote tax cuts + spending increases = deficit. Too many people are focusing on "taxes" instead of revenues. The Bush tax cuts are not to blame for the mess we're in. That is far too simple of a view to argue. Likewise, the spending increases are by far the dominant factor in the equation at this point in time. What the fuck are you smokin. I gues his off the books wars had no efect either.You fuckers never cease to amaze me with your total immersion in the Sea of Denial BOOM! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 September 16, 2011 Quote>There's much more going on here than that. Of course. But you can't get away from the basics; tax cuts + spending increases = deficit. Tax cuts=(more money for businesses to spend to expand and hire=more people employed=more people paying taxes=more revenue flowing into the government)-(lower government spending)= Gretar prosperity and a lower deicit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #33 September 16, 2011 >Tax cuts=(more money for businesses to spend to expand and hire=more people >employed=more people paying taxes=more revenue flowing into the >government)-(lower government spending)= Gretar prosperity and a lower deicit. Government spending, especially military = more money for defense contractors and military personnel = more spending = more economic boost = stronger economy = more tax revenue = greater prosperity and a lower deficit. And both are equally valid traps to fall into. Escaping one to fall into the other leads us . . . to where we are today. Until extremists are willing to abandon both traps we will remain stuck. You cannot default your way out of debt, nor can you spend your way out of debt. You have to take in more and spend less. Period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 September 16, 2011 Quote>Tax cuts=(more money for businesses to spend to expand and hire=more people >employed=more people paying taxes=more revenue flowing into the >government)-(lower government spending)= Gretar prosperity and a lower deicit. Government spending, especially military = more money for defense contractors and military personnel = more spending = more economic boost = stronger economy = more tax revenue = greater prosperity and a lower deficit. And both are equally valid traps to fall into. Escaping one to fall into the other leads us . . . to where we are today. Until extremists are willing to abandon both traps we will remain stuck. You cannot default your way out of debt, nor can you spend your way out of debt. You have to take in more and spend less. Period. Raising taxes puts less money into the economy which means consumers have less to spend. When they have less to spend, business has less revenue and lay people off and/or don't hire anyone. That means more people on government subsidies which means government can't spend less. This is an easy trap to fall into. Remember, we got into this mess largely by government backed housing loans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 851 #35 September 16, 2011 Much like the ocean the current administration is currently in. And the "you fuckers" isn't really necessary is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #36 September 16, 2011 Quote . Raising taxes puts less money into the economy which means consumers have less to spend. When they have less to spend, business has less revenue and lay people off and/or don't hire anyone. That means more people on government subsidies which means government can't spend less. This is an easy trap to fall into. Where are all the jobs that should have been created by the Bush tax cuts? In over ten years since the tax cuts, you would thing if that theory held water, we would have all types of jobs. The only thing that happened was the gap widened between the wealthy and the working class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 September 16, 2011 The Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #38 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #40 September 16, 2011 Quote Quote >There's much more going on here than that. Of course. But you can't get away from the basics; tax cuts + spending increases = deficit. Tax cuts=(more money for businesses to spend to expand and hire=more people employed=more people paying taxes=more revenue flowing into the government)-(lower government spending)= Gretar prosperity and a lower deicit. Ah yes. give them everything and the one percenters wil trickle on the unwashed masses. How come none of them have been doing that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #41 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote***QuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Here's reality, Bush created the fewest jobs of any modern President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Here's some bonus material, from that infamous left wing rag, the Wall street journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Even more. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/more-jobs-might-be-create_n_576310.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote***QuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Here's reality, Bush created the fewest jobs of any modern President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Here's some bonus material, from that infamous left wing rag, the Wall street journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Even more. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/more-jobs-might-be-create_n_576310.html From your Wiki cite: QuoteThis section does not cite any references or sources. My numbers come from BLS, so take your disagreement up with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #43 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote***QuoteQuote***QuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Did you forget when Bush took office? why are you only showing the numbers from half way through June 2001? I never said that he did not create any jobs, just the least of any modern day President. My link from Wiki worked fine to the Department of Labor, they even have ALL of the numbers on Bush. Why would the WSJ lie about Bush? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Here's reality, Bush created the fewest jobs of any modern President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Here's some bonus material, from that infamous left wing rag, the Wall street journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #44 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote***QuoteQuote***QuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Did you forget when Bush took office? why are you only showing the numbers from half way through June 2001? I never said that he did not create any jobs, just the least of any modern day President. My link from Wiki worked fine to the Department of Labor, they even have ALL of the numbers on Bush. Why would the WSJ lie about Bush? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Here's reality, Bush created the fewest jobs of any modern President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Here's some bonus material, from that infamous left wing rag, the Wall street journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Using your numbers, (which are highly suspect)Obama has the worst job creation record of any modern President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #45 September 16, 2011 Dude, your tiring me out. I tell you that despite providing large tax breaks for the wealthy, under the pretense that lots of jobs will be created by all these wealthy people flush with cash, few were created. You show me that Bush did create jobs, I agree. the part you seem to be missing is that number of jobs he created are the lowest of any modern day President. I say that the tax cuts did not create the number of promised jobs. If Bush would have said "approve my tax cut bill and I will create the least amount of jobs in modern history" What do you think the response would be? You can stick your head in the sand all you like, But the WSJ had it right. Google "jobs created by President" and then go stick your head in the sand some more. When I say that Bush created the least amount of jobs of any President, you just showing me the figures of what Bush did are worthless. you need to compare him to the others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #46 September 16, 2011 You are really struggling on this one. Obama has not yet completed his first term. Even if he finishes with crappy numbers, he is using the same tax rate as bush (In reality even lower taxes than Bush) So I ask again, where are all the jobs with this low tax rate. Just for shits and giggles, go see how many Jobs Clinton and Reagan created with a much higher tax rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 16, 2011 I did. I compared him with Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #48 September 16, 2011 What kind of economy did bush come into office with? Now what about Obama? Obama still has another possible six years to turn it around. Compare Bush with any other President besides someone who is still in office. So what your saying in a round about way is, thank god for Obama, now bush is not the worse in history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #49 September 16, 2011 Quote Well, in that case, neither is government spending. Quite a relief, eh? Ah, so this was a joke? Quote Tax cuts reduce revenues. Linear thinking. The economy is nonlinear, as I'm sure you're aware. Quote If you disagree, then you might want to revise your thinking on the subject. The issue is better phrased as revenues vs. spending, not taxes vs. spending. Rational people are in agreement that revenues need to be increased, and spending needs to be decreased. Liberals/Democrats seem to view the economy as a fixed pie. They don't seem to understand that we need to grow the pie. The only way to grow the pie is to stop strangling business, which those clueless amateurs in the White House are doing in spades.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #50 September 16, 2011 Quote Government spending, especially military = more money for defense contractors and military personnel = more spending = more economic boost = stronger economy = more tax revenue = greater prosperity and a lower deficit. And both are equally valid traps to fall into. Escaping one to fall into the other leads us . . . to where we are today. Until extremists are willing to abandon both traps we will remain stuck. You cannot default your way out of debt, nor can you spend your way out of debt. You have to take in more and spend less. Period. Agreed. You take in more by increasing REVENUES, which doesn't necessarily mean increasing taxes. The bigger question is where do resources get allocated best? Via government central planning or free markets? Free markets are better, IMO. The pendulum is swinging too far towards a government planned economy. America's strength is it's people, their willingness to work hard (most of them at least), and their willingness to take risk. There is no way a group of community organizers from Chicago are going to allocate resources better than our markets.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gravitymaster 0 #44 September 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote***QuoteQuote***QuoteThe Bush Administration spent money like drunken sailors. You cannot have tax cuts and out of control spending. Your dodging the question. Where are the jobs that should have been created (your theory) with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were saved by the wealthy over the last ten years? Did you forget when Bush took office? why are you only showing the numbers from half way through June 2001? I never said that he did not create any jobs, just the least of any modern day President. My link from Wiki worked fine to the Department of Labor, they even have ALL of the numbers on Bush. Why would the WSJ lie about Bush? Here are the CPS figures. June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people. Here's bonus information to your question: January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people Here's reality, Bush created the fewest jobs of any modern President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Here's some bonus material, from that infamous left wing rag, the Wall street journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Using your numbers, (which are highly suspect)Obama has the worst job creation record of any modern President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #45 September 16, 2011 Dude, your tiring me out. I tell you that despite providing large tax breaks for the wealthy, under the pretense that lots of jobs will be created by all these wealthy people flush with cash, few were created. You show me that Bush did create jobs, I agree. the part you seem to be missing is that number of jobs he created are the lowest of any modern day President. I say that the tax cuts did not create the number of promised jobs. If Bush would have said "approve my tax cut bill and I will create the least amount of jobs in modern history" What do you think the response would be? You can stick your head in the sand all you like, But the WSJ had it right. Google "jobs created by President" and then go stick your head in the sand some more. When I say that Bush created the least amount of jobs of any President, you just showing me the figures of what Bush did are worthless. you need to compare him to the others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #46 September 16, 2011 You are really struggling on this one. Obama has not yet completed his first term. Even if he finishes with crappy numbers, he is using the same tax rate as bush (In reality even lower taxes than Bush) So I ask again, where are all the jobs with this low tax rate. Just for shits and giggles, go see how many Jobs Clinton and Reagan created with a much higher tax rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 16, 2011 I did. I compared him with Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #48 September 16, 2011 What kind of economy did bush come into office with? Now what about Obama? Obama still has another possible six years to turn it around. Compare Bush with any other President besides someone who is still in office. So what your saying in a round about way is, thank god for Obama, now bush is not the worse in history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #49 September 16, 2011 Quote Well, in that case, neither is government spending. Quite a relief, eh? Ah, so this was a joke? Quote Tax cuts reduce revenues. Linear thinking. The economy is nonlinear, as I'm sure you're aware. Quote If you disagree, then you might want to revise your thinking on the subject. The issue is better phrased as revenues vs. spending, not taxes vs. spending. Rational people are in agreement that revenues need to be increased, and spending needs to be decreased. Liberals/Democrats seem to view the economy as a fixed pie. They don't seem to understand that we need to grow the pie. The only way to grow the pie is to stop strangling business, which those clueless amateurs in the White House are doing in spades.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #50 September 16, 2011 Quote Government spending, especially military = more money for defense contractors and military personnel = more spending = more economic boost = stronger economy = more tax revenue = greater prosperity and a lower deficit. And both are equally valid traps to fall into. Escaping one to fall into the other leads us . . . to where we are today. Until extremists are willing to abandon both traps we will remain stuck. You cannot default your way out of debt, nor can you spend your way out of debt. You have to take in more and spend less. Period. Agreed. You take in more by increasing REVENUES, which doesn't necessarily mean increasing taxes. The bigger question is where do resources get allocated best? Via government central planning or free markets? Free markets are better, IMO. The pendulum is swinging too far towards a government planned economy. America's strength is it's people, their willingness to work hard (most of them at least), and their willingness to take risk. There is no way a group of community organizers from Chicago are going to allocate resources better than our markets.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jclalor 12 #45 September 16, 2011 Dude, your tiring me out. I tell you that despite providing large tax breaks for the wealthy, under the pretense that lots of jobs will be created by all these wealthy people flush with cash, few were created. You show me that Bush did create jobs, I agree. the part you seem to be missing is that number of jobs he created are the lowest of any modern day President. I say that the tax cuts did not create the number of promised jobs. If Bush would have said "approve my tax cut bill and I will create the least amount of jobs in modern history" What do you think the response would be? You can stick your head in the sand all you like, But the WSJ had it right. Google "jobs created by President" and then go stick your head in the sand some more. When I say that Bush created the least amount of jobs of any President, you just showing me the figures of what Bush did are worthless. you need to compare him to the others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #46 September 16, 2011 You are really struggling on this one. Obama has not yet completed his first term. Even if he finishes with crappy numbers, he is using the same tax rate as bush (In reality even lower taxes than Bush) So I ask again, where are all the jobs with this low tax rate. Just for shits and giggles, go see how many Jobs Clinton and Reagan created with a much higher tax rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 16, 2011 I did. I compared him with Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #48 September 16, 2011 What kind of economy did bush come into office with? Now what about Obama? Obama still has another possible six years to turn it around. Compare Bush with any other President besides someone who is still in office. So what your saying in a round about way is, thank god for Obama, now bush is not the worse in history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #49 September 16, 2011 Quote Well, in that case, neither is government spending. Quite a relief, eh? Ah, so this was a joke? Quote Tax cuts reduce revenues. Linear thinking. The economy is nonlinear, as I'm sure you're aware. Quote If you disagree, then you might want to revise your thinking on the subject. The issue is better phrased as revenues vs. spending, not taxes vs. spending. Rational people are in agreement that revenues need to be increased, and spending needs to be decreased. Liberals/Democrats seem to view the economy as a fixed pie. They don't seem to understand that we need to grow the pie. The only way to grow the pie is to stop strangling business, which those clueless amateurs in the White House are doing in spades.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #50 September 16, 2011 Quote Government spending, especially military = more money for defense contractors and military personnel = more spending = more economic boost = stronger economy = more tax revenue = greater prosperity and a lower deficit. And both are equally valid traps to fall into. Escaping one to fall into the other leads us . . . to where we are today. Until extremists are willing to abandon both traps we will remain stuck. You cannot default your way out of debt, nor can you spend your way out of debt. You have to take in more and spend less. Period. Agreed. You take in more by increasing REVENUES, which doesn't necessarily mean increasing taxes. The bigger question is where do resources get allocated best? Via government central planning or free markets? Free markets are better, IMO. The pendulum is swinging too far towards a government planned economy. America's strength is it's people, their willingness to work hard (most of them at least), and their willingness to take risk. There is no way a group of community organizers from Chicago are going to allocate resources better than our markets.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
