112
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:12 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Comes to the same question, doesn't it?

Not if the question is about the optimal size of government, as the Republican talking points about Obama's alleged socialism indicate. You can't have more generous benefits and lower taxes at the same time for long.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:43 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

roger wrote:
Comes to the same question, doesn't it?

Not if the question is about the optimal size of government, as the Republican talking points about Obama's alleged socialism indicate. You can't have more generous benefits and lower taxes at the same time for long.


I'm not sure I am understanding the distinction you are trying to make. The question is if they felt they got more than their fair share of government services. It is obvious to me that not every single government expenditure either benefits each one of us. It is equally obvious that not every expenditure is approved by everyone. I get to pay for a toxic waste cleanup in New Jersey, and you get help out a little with a water project in New Mexico.

Thomas wrote:


You can't have more generous benefits and lower taxes at the same time for long.


Now, that is the most obvious statement I have ever heard. Might as well say it again, though. Clearly, it is not so obvious to everyone.


maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:49 pm
@roger,
Who said what you have in your signiture line?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 02:57 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
I'm not sure I am understanding the distinction you are trying to make.

I am trying to distinguish between two statements: The fist is "the government isn't giving taxpayers their money's worth". The second is that "government is too big, and Obama is a socialist for wanting to make it bigger." If you're complaining about #1, then it's possible to pay too much taxes and not receive enough benefits at the same time. But if you're complaining about #2, it doesn't make sense -- because the government services you want have to be paid for in taxes you don't want.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:05 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas,

Bush's tax cuts in 2003 increased revenues until the increasingly irresponsible loans by Fannie and Freddie, and Bush's TARP bill caused the initiation of the current US recession.

The consequences of Obama's failure to stop irresponsible Fannie and Freddie loans, cancel TARP, and not initiate STIMULUS were far worse than the consequences of Bush's overspending.

There is no increase in tax revenues from increased tax rates to pay for Obama's healthcare, which will be causing a far greater increase in spending than what Bush caused.

Increasing tax rates will result in a reduction, in revenues, not an increase, due to the reduction increased taxes will cause private spending and investment in our already collapsing economy. The only viable solution to our current economic mess is for the government to reduce spending. It can start immediately by canceling Obama's health care.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:10 pm
@Thomas,
I guess I see where you're going. Your topic is about the optimal size of government, and if I think it's too big you are trying to put me in the position saying I shouldn't be paying for it.

You did notice I stated I thought I was paying less than my fair share, of course. If I had subjected each expenditure to my own approval/disapproval, I might have answered differently.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:10 pm
@maporsche,
I don't remember, but I should have given credit when I did know.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:11 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:


Bush's tax cuts in 2003 increased revenues until the increasingly irresponsible loans by Fannie and Freddie, and Bush's TARP bill caused the initiation of the current US recession.


No, they did not. No economist believes this is true.

Quote:

The consequences of Obama's failure to stop irresponsible Fannie and Freddie loans, cancel TARP, and not initiate STIMULUS were far worse than the consequences of Bush's overspending.


Stop irresponsible Fannie and Freddie loans? What the **** are you even talking about? When you make statements like this, you ought to realize that it's a sign to others that you have a deep misunderstanding of the financial crisis and the factors which caused it. Nothing Obama the Prez - or the Senator - could have done would have changed it one iota...

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What the **** are you even talking about? Cycloptichorn

The gutter mouthed Berkeley lib strikes again when anyone has the nerve to disagree with his highness.

What a high plain he must reside upon!!!
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:35 pm
@okie,
Quote:
The consequences of Obama's failure to stop irresponsible Fannie and Freddie loans, cancel TARP, and not initiate STIMULUS were far worse than the consequences of Bush's overspending.

So okie.. which parts of the above statement do you think are factually true or even possible for a sane person to claim?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:49 pm
@ican711nm,
ican 711 nm wrote:
Bush's tax cuts in 2003 increased revenues until the increasingly irresponsible loans by Fannie and Freddie, and Bush's TARP bill caused the initiation of the current US recession.

Says who?

ican711nm wrote:
The consequences of Obama's failure to stop irresponsible Fannie and Freddie loans, cancel TARP, and not initiate STIMULUS were far worse than the consequences of Bush's overspending.

Says who?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:50 pm
@roger,
Oh, of course. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, Roger.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 09:38 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What the **** are you even talking about? Cycloptichorn

The gutter mouthed Berkeley lib strikes again when anyone has the nerve to disagree with his highness.

What a high plain he must reside upon!!!


This pissy little attitude you've been pulling for a week or so is pathetic. Especially as you know as well as I do how badly wrong Ican's statements are.

Still waiting for you to post those quotes of Obama denouncing America in the other thread...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 10:43 am

Make all the $ you can this year because as of January 1st , 2011 taxes are going
to begin there upward climb and the economy will continue it's downward trend.

Obamanomics is going to put a big hurt on the US economy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 02:12 pm
Maximum tax rates decreased below 40% in 1987, and federal receipts (i.e.,revenue), except for the boldfaced years, continued to increase thereafter .
Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.1
Year…….$Receipts
1977….355,559,000...[CARTER 1977-1981]
1978….399,561,000
1979….463,302,000
1980….517,112,000
1981….599,272,000...[REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982….617,766,000
1983….600,562,000
1984….666,486,000
1985….734,068,000
1986….769,215,000
1987….854,353,000
1988….909,303,000
1989….991,190,000...[BUSH41 1989-1993]
1990..1,032,094,000
1991..1,055,093,000
1992..1,091,328,000
1993..1,154,471,000...[CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..1,258,721,000
1995..1,351,932,000
1996..1,453,177,000
1997..1,579,423,000
1998..1,721,955,000
1999..1,827,645,000
2000..2,025,457,000
2001..1,991,426,000...[BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002..1,853,395,000
2003..1,782,532,000
2004..1,880,279,000
2005..2,153,859,000
2006..2,407,254,000
2007..2,568,239,000
2008..2,521,175,000
2009..2,699,547,000...[OBAMA 2009 - ?]

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
...
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2010
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70%...[CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50%...[REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33%...[BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6%...[CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%...[BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%...[OBAMA 2009 - ?]

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:27 pm
Quote:
Where is the US economy headed?


An interesting pointer to the answer to this question can be found in Chapter XVIII of Volume I of Tristram Shandy. I heard versions of the argument more than once during the recent election campaign.

The chapter can be read online with very little effort.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 08:14 am


Hope for change dashed by left.

Dems Don't Address Freddie And Fannie In Financial Reform
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:23 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Exactly right, H2OMAN, and the fact that libs on this site thumbs down your post to zero clearly demonstrates that Democrats are still living in denial, unable to face reality and their own error in all of this. The people primarily responsible for the meltdown still go scott free and not held to account, and still furthering the agenda that caused this mess in the first place. It can be summed up by the fact that anytime the government artificially inserts itself into the market, as it did in the property loan business, there are always without fail the consequences of unintended consequences, and that is what happened.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:48 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Exactly right, H2OMAN, and the fact that libs on this site thumbs down your post to zero clearly demonstrates that Democrats are still living in denial, unable to face reality and their own error in all of this. The people primarily responsible for the meltdown still go scott free and not held to account, and still furthering the agenda that caused this mess in the first place. It can be summed up by the fact that anytime the government artificially inserts itself into the market, as it did in the property loan business, there are always without fail the consequences of unintended consequences, and that is what happened.


You do realize that this had nothing to do with the financial crash - at all, right? I mean, we've been over this so many times, and it seemed like you were coming around the reality the last time it came up.

The people primarily responsible for the meltdown were those at banks and investment houses who made shitty bets with no capital to back them up.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 02:33 pm
@okie,

You are correct and I hope you and others realize that Cyclotroll doesn't have a clue...
all of his comments are nothing more than huge steaming piles of horse squeeze.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 05:57:20