|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 15, 2010 21:23:10 GMT -5
The defective biscuit canister was analyzed and it was determined to be Bush's fault. I disagree, you can't blame Bush for anything, except maybe Iraq war, 2500 American lives, Tax refunds that our kids - kids will be paying for, huge increase in deficit, etc BUT he made a lot of money for his buddies in the oil business, and Cheney made a killin with Halbutron in Iraq.....I mean those guys made some money!! They ran the country into the ground but they made money......Oh and Jena Bush got on today show |
|
|
|
Post by keithf on Oct 15, 2010 23:44:03 GMT -5
explain how my daughter is going to be paying for bush giving ME some of MY money back.
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 16, 2010 7:40:05 GMT -5
explain how my daughter is going to be paying for bush giving ME some of MY money back. The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11] Read more: scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=election&action=display&thread=8647&page=1#ixzz12WbDfxDkThat negative Karma thing is starting to grow.... |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 16, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
When you post what economists say, is really a waste of time. When it comes to economic theory people’s opinion (including economists) is informed more by their political commitment than by data.
From a common sense pov (my common sense anyway)if people get to keep their money (rich or poor)they have more to spend and invest. Any taxes above the amount necessary for infrastructure, defense and law and order is bad. Anyone who thinks differently should have the opportunity to make a donation to the government.....Mr. nvsked1, please tell you Democrat buddies that the IRS excepts checks if they want to give more....please stay out of my pocket....
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 16, 2010 12:11:43 GMT -5
NOW.....having said that I say this.....
I blame Bush for having a sunset on these tax breaks to begin with. Republicans had control of the senate and executive branch at the time of the cuts and they put a sunset clause as a political trigger to have something to debate about come the next election – “don’t let the Dems raise your taxes! Vote for us again!” It’s all games these days – all games on both ends. They are both pandering to their respective special interest groups. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely naive.
Long story short is that investors will invest their money in the areas that have the best potential for returns and best risk characteristics – whether it be China, Brazil, US, India, etc. Where you get into trouble is when unnatural events, sometimes caused by the government intervening in private business, cause bubbles (ie. crazy low interest rates for people who can not afford loans….)
Until we get out of this short-term thinking of “tax credits,” bailouts, and government stimulus we can not get this on a long-term upward trend. The efforts of the last two administrations have been equivalent to fixing a car engine with duck tape and glue. We need to put a long-term policy into place – not a 2 year extension. Get the tax rates set and move one with it. Don’t use them as a way to get elected. Investors need to know that the game is not going to change every 4 years. Uncertainty will keep money on the sidelines, keep unemployment high, and keep the overall economy down.
We have no one else to blame except ourselves as we are all too short sighted and so willing to vote for whatever candidate will vote us the bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 16, 2010 13:15:23 GMT -5
From a common sense pov (my common sense anyway) Any taxes above the amount necessary for infrastructure, defense and law and order is bad. I agree with part of your post...Historically the cost to run the Government (all portions) dating back to Carter has been 19.5% of GDP. I'm all for cutting taxes and putting more money in my pocket, but not at the expense or racking up a huge deficit. You want to cut taxes cool, then cut spending first, so the government can run on 17.5% GDP...But don't cut taxes, run up a huge deficit and say you've done something....cause all you've done is put sh%t on future generations....Going with that long range theme you speak of |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 16, 2010 17:13:01 GMT -5
Whoa...slow down nvksed1.....lets start from the beginning....
Because spending went up even more than revenues. You need to understand that a deficit is the difference between what you take in as revenue and what you spend.
In 2000 and 2001 we actually had a surplus. But then the 9/11 attack at the end of 2001 caused an burst of emergency spending on Homeland Security. That caused us to go into deficit. Then the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ran the deficits up to a peak in 2004. As the war in Iraq began to wind down, the deficits decreased and were well on the way back to balance. That was when the Financial Market collapsed, resulting in the need(up for debate if we needed it)... for the TARP bail out causing the spike in 2008. But that was a one shot deal. Once the TARP money was borrowed and distributed, it no longer appears as a deficit in 2009.
That deficit in 2009 and continuing in 2010 are due to actions taken by the Democrats. That includes the Stimulus Bill, the Omnibus Spending Bill and the new Health Care Bill. Most noteworthy is the fact that the deficits have become permanent. Remember, these are Obama's own numbers as well as those of the CBO. Clearly, they show no serious intention of ever getting back into balance again. In fact, deficits actually increase after 2014 when the Health Care Bill is fully enacted.
This is not spin. This is the reality we are facing if we stay on the course we are currently on. If you think bigger and bigger Government with bigger and bigger deficits is a swell idea, then by all means vote Democrat. If you think this is no way to run a country, vote Republican. If you know Obama's policy is wrong but cannot bring yourself to vote for Republicans, get out of the way.
|
|
ptaer
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by ptaer on Oct 16, 2010 19:10:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 16, 2010 21:47:30 GMT -5
Because spending went up even more than revenues. You need to understand that a deficit is the difference between what you take in as revenue and what you spend. GEE THANKS FOR BREAKING IT DOWN FOR ME....TOO FUNNYIn 2000 and 2001 we actually had a surplus. VERY GOOD But then the 9/11 attack at the end of 2001 caused an burst of emergency spending on Homeland Security. TRUE That caused us to go into deficit. WRONG THE SPENDING ALONG WITH TAX BREAK CAUSE HUGE INCREASE IN DEFICIT Then the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ran the deficits up to a peak in 2004. As the war in Iraq began to wind down, the deficits decreased and were well on the way back to balance. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING, U NEED TO SHARE SOME OF THATThat was when the Financial Market collapsed, resulting in the need(up for debate if we needed it)... for the TARP THE HOUSING BUBBLE WAS KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE, WHICH IS WHAT ALLOWED GOLDMAN / SAC'S ETC TO POSITION ITSELF TO MAKE MONEY!!FACT fact that the deficits have become permanent. Remember, these are Obama's own numbers as well as those of the CBO. Clearly, they show no serious intention of ever getting back into balance again. In fact, deficits actually increase after 2014 when the Health Care Bill is fully enacted. Only one war....Afgan land, was a war to pursue Osama, Iraq was an excuse for Bush to look for oil, make his buddies some money, on Americans dime....health cost will eat up Social Security FACT....SO WHAT'S THE REPUBLICANT'S PLAN ....TO DATE ALL I'VE SEEN IS NANCY REGAN....JUST SAY NO TO EVERYTHING enjoy your vote I'll enjoy mine....have a good one |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 16, 2010 23:18:06 GMT -5
Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.
Certainly denial can be used by anyone; and both sides of the political spectrum engage in it-- Democrats or Republicans; Left or Right. But the most recent example, and the one with the most serious implications is the continued denial of reality on the part of Democrats and the Left regarding Iraq.
The examples of their unwillingness to face reality are everywhere. They pretend they didn't vote for military action. They distort what was actually said and even when confronted with audiotapes and transcripts of what was said; they continue to deny that they meant any such thing. When confronted with what Bush or Cheney actually said about the reasons for going to war; they will insistently adhere to an interpretation that fits their template
......the Joint Resolution agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans to use force Iraq, which lists 22 reasons why (and WMD is not the first or the second reason)
But its Ok, keep on living in your fantasy land....we need people like you(conspiracy theorists) for entertainment purposes.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 17, 2010 8:55:50 GMT -5
[quote author=jobs1stb4polarbear board=election thread=8684
......the Joint Resolution agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans to use force Iraq, which lists 22 reasons why (and WMD is not the first or the second reason)
But its Ok, keep on living in your fantasy land....we need people like you(conspiracy theorists) for entertainment purposes.....[/quote]
This was a great post until the end, regardless who voted, or the presumed circumstances...The invasion which cost many many lives, was an attempt by Bush to cultivate the oil. Look at the companies reaping the benefit of American lives...Iraq was about the OIL.....Lead by a Texas oil man. And, the money spent on the war, would have been better served focusing on a domestic agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 17, 2010 10:40:43 GMT -5
...,and unicorns fly
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 17, 2010 13:03:16 GMT -5
In 2009 the U.S. spent 565 Billion on Military spending, #1 in the world, 6 times as much as China, the #2 country. The majority of which went to finance wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
This money could have been used for better things in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 17, 2010 13:46:16 GMT -5
Because labor, materials, less politics...etc..,..it takes le$$ money to have a military in other nations....that is why nations use "% of gdp to more accurately measure the cost......and the US don't even come close to being number one.......bring the chinese workers to build our aircraft carriers and the we'll talk.......about dollar$ instead of percentage% .....
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 18, 2010 6:45:44 GMT -5
Because labor, materials, less politics...etc..,..it takes le$$ money to have a military in other nations....that is why nations use "% of gdp to more accurately measure the cost......and the US don't even come close to being number one.......bring the chinese workers to build our aircraft carriers and the we'll talk.......about dollar$ instead of percentage% ..... This money could have been spent for better things in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 25, 2010 12:11:49 GMT -5
The problem with this war was that we the people were insulated from its costs. If we ahd to ration and pay it with war bonds and such, the American people would have been more vigalant as to what wew were doing and the costs of the war. Had we seen action fromt eh front as we did during Vietnam, we would have paid the war more attention. We were kept too far from it.
But those denying they voted for the war are wrong. Just like those that denied the stimulus would work, voted against it then went after the money were wrong (mitch @ company)
|
|
