Obama's Final Betrayal

#51
#51
crazyguy said:
usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

I thought this:

National-Debt-GDP.gif


is what you've been moaning about?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
 
#53
#53
Let's talk about wealth, taxes, and jobs. If you raise my taxes anymore...I'm not going to be able to hire a part time employee next year. So yeah...I'm the bad guy...even though I'm already paying more in taxes than most. I'll make a little less with higher taxes, but the hit is bigger on the economy. And I'm just a small business.
 
#55
#55
utgibbs said:
I thought this:

National-Debt-GDP.gif


is what you've been moaning about?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the end of a war had something to do with it during the clinton years....but I didn't hate the guy.
 
#56
#56
crazyguy said:
I like how mine didn't end at 2008.
Click to expand...

I certainly am not here to defend the Obama years. I entitled this thread "Obama's Final Betrayal."

Having said that, I'm desperately hopeful he has paved the way for a maverick man or woman of color to lead the nation. I suppose the first minority President we had was always going to be too careful, too conciliatory.
 
#57
#57
crazyguy said:
I'd argue the end of a war had something to do with it during the clinton years....but I didn't hate the guy.
Click to expand...

End of a war?

Clinton started a war in Europe! And he continued the war against Iraq throughout his tenure!
 
#58
#58
utgibbs said:
I certainly am not here to defend the Obama years. I entitled this thread "Obama's Final Betrayal."

Having said that, I'm desperately hopeful he has paved the way for a maverick man or woman of color to lead the nation. I suppose the first minority President we had was always going to be too careful, too conciliatory.
Click to expand...
who cares what color the person is as long as they decrease the size of government and cut welfare. It's hard to have a huge debt when you decrease the size of the government.
 
#59
#59
utgibbs said:
I certainly am not here to defend the Obama years. I entitled this thread "Obama's Final Betrayal."

Having said that, I'm desperately hopeful he has paved the way for a maverick man or woman of color to lead the nation. I suppose the first minority President we had was always going to be too careful, too conciliatory.
Click to expand...

Too careful with what?

He strong armed stuff thru with his majority. Pissed people off, and he lost his majority. Ain't like he didn't try. Whats got the left (which sounds like it includes you) in an uproar is his sights on a second term. Which given his previous course was not worth running.
 
#60
#60
crazyguy said:
who cares what color the person is as long as they decrease the size of government and cut welfare. It's hard to have a huge debt when you decrease the size of the government.
Click to expand...

Which Welfare?

Corporate welfare the payments over the last two years have been >>> 1,000 years of welfare payments to the poor?

Or do you mean just to poor people who actually scratch out a living on it?

I firmly believe it is only within the sensibilities / experience of our minority populations a meaningful path forward can be forged.

Having said that, Obama has disappointed everyone. He had the biggest mess in history to clean up, in his defense, but he has not lived up to the size of the task.
 
#61
#61
BeecherVol said:
Too careful with what?

He strong armed stuff thru with his majority. Pissed people off, and he lost his majority. Ain't like he didn't try. Whats got the left (which sounds like it includes you) in an uproar is his sights on a second term. Which given his previous course was not worth running.
Click to expand...

If Obama is Left, I guess the Earth's magnetic pole just flipped as it is want to do every half million years or so.
 
#62
#62
utgibbs said:
If Obama is Left, I guess the Earth's magnetic pole just flipped as it is want to do every half million years or so.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want.

He wanted/wants to do more. Politically he is strapped at this point. He had his legs taken out 2 months ago, and is doing what most politicians do when rejected. Which happens to fit your current opinion of him.
 
#63
#63
BeecherVol said:
Call it what you want.

He wanted/wants to do more. Politically he is strapped at this point. He had his legs taken out 2 months ago, and is doing what most politicians do when rejected. Which happens to fit your current opinion of him.
Click to expand...

I think he has failed to fight for what he wants. He had - and still could muster - powerful, powerful political force.

He will undoubtedly win a second term with a divided Republican base, and a Sarah Palin run.
 
#64
#64
utgibbs said:
I think he has failed to fight for what he wants. He had - and still could muster - powerful, powerful political force.

He will undoubtedly win a second term with a divided Republican base, and a Sarah Palin run.
Click to expand...

Nope. He tested them waters and bout drowned.

Funny that you put as "what he wants". That fits him well.
 
#65
#65
utgibbs said:
What are you talking about? The country is rolling BACKWARDS. Bankruptcy is the new "wealth"?????
Click to expand...
And when did that begin gibbs? In 1900, this country had just come out of an economic depression... and was solvent. It did NOT have poor people starving in the streets. It WAS a world power both politically and economically. By 1920, Progressives with their leftist ideals (to include social engineering and related economic ideals like Keynesian, socialism, fascism) were firmly in control of BOTH PARTIES. It remained that way until Goldwater's speech and then Reagan's election in 1980. EVERY President in between was a Progressive (aka liberal).

So from 1920 to now, gov't has taken more control and you lament that "bankruptcy is the new wealth?" It is the policies and ideals that folks like YOU swear by that put us here. You think these things you have been taught are novel and sophisticated. They aren't. They are old and failed.

Pouring a three trillion (QE1) and (QE2) to support the Welfare Dads is a healthy economy?
Click to expand...
It is YOUR SIDE that not only made welfare dads possible... you supplemented the very behavior that landed us here. Your side enabled women to be reckless sexually without the consequence of having to support their child.

This IS about blame because until we discredit the academic elites whose ideals have gotten us to where we are... we cannot build the political will to fix it by returning to a society governed by rights, freedoms, and personal responsibility for choices and actions.
 
#67
#67
utgibbs said:
Epic Fail and Epic Facepalm. Demonstrating a deep need to look outside the front door and soak up the real world. And that ain't MTV.

Eye Yii Yii. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I will compare my experience in the "real world" to yours any day. Go ahead. Validate your "facepalm" with a description of your "real world" experience.
 
#68
#68
utgibbs said:
Absolutely false.

Taxes are the costs of doing business (and the costs of civilization). No one has ever failed to create wealth because of taxes.
Click to expand...
And you tried to lecture ME about not dealing with reality? You have just proven that liberalism and Keynesianism are for people who think 4-3=7.

Transferring wealth from those who produce it and use it to produce more most definitely prevents the creation of more wealth. At some point, it can smother wealth creation altogether.

I want someone other than me to post Adam Smith's rules for taxation. It's time we got to grips with the man we claim knew it all (I actually like Adam Smith, btw).
Click to expand...
You keep citing academics and people who wrote about economic theories. I like Smith too for the most part. But you have not demonstrated a grasp on "real world" economics.

Think of the country as a company. Let's say that company pays retirement benefits, disability benefits, and so on. There comes a point where that company will collapse under the weight of payments made to people who aren't involved in generating revenue.

That is pretty close to where we are as a country... and you guys want ever increasing numbers of dependents on the Federal gov't. We need MORE producers to support the nation's composite consumption. You don't get there by taking more capital away from those who generate wealth. It is a very simple equation... a bigger pie created by the wealth producers feeds everyone better.

That btw is a partial explanation of why tax cuts are generally good for revenue collections.

Get them on the table people. Then we will have something to memorize.
Click to expand...

You memorize words. I run a business that makes a profit in a world market.
 
#69
#69
utgibbs said:
Reagan was nothing if not a master obfuscator - debt and spending went through the roof with both.
Click to expand...
You are aware that ALL spending bills come out of the House, right? You are aware that Reagan made deals with the Dems in Congress to cut taxes and spending, right? You are aware that the Dems broke all of those agreements, right? Reagan's tax cuts/deregulation nearly doubled revenue to the Federal gov't in 8 years... even coming out of worse economic problems than we just came out of. The problem: the Dem congress spent $2 for every $1 in new revenue.
Clinton actually ran a surplus....
Click to expand...

Clinton had the blind fortune of being president during the technology revolution's opening years.

You are aware that all spending bills come out of the House, right? Clinton was tempered by a GOP and fairly conservative Congress for most of his presidency and ALL of his economically successful years. Phil Gramm had MUCH more to do with the balanced budgets achieved in the 90's than Clinton.

You... are NO ONE'S Huckleberry.
 
#70
#70
crazyguy said:
the clinton and obama years are pretty easy to spot....just look at the spending line.
Click to expand...

The slight flattening in the curve is the late 90's when the effects of a conservative Congress and a fiscally moderate President compromised to curtail some spending increases and actually cut some programs.

From 1920 to 1994, Progressives (known as liberals today because of that risque affair they had with things like fascism and eugenics) controlled Congress. utgibbs blathering and attempts to blame various conservatives cannot change that unassailable fact.
 
#71
#71
BigPapaVol said:
Which Clinton policy led to the surplus?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

His strong dollar policy didn't hurt.

The fact that GOP Congress stalemated his inclination toward tax increases helped tremendously.

However your point is a good one, Clinton gets more undeserved credit than any President in history except maybe FDR.
 
#72
#72
utgibbs said:
You don't want to see them. It's common knowledge Reagan slashed revenues
Click to expand...
Yeah... if you call increasing revenues from $517 billion to $909 billion...
and increased spending.
Click to expand...
Reagan proposed budget cuts which were rejected by Congress.
The debt was trivial before the Reagan years; trivial.
Click to expand...
Your own chart shows an exponential curve. The programs that caused the debt to explode were accummulated by your folks from the 1920's through the 1970's. The War on Poverty programs really began to come into full , destructive blossom by the 80's.

Amazing how the less gov't spent... the better the economy did, huh? It was the exponential increase in spending that created the problems... see?

It's time to start looking outside the back door and collecting FACTS. Not ideology.
Click to expand...
I LIVE in real world economics. This isn't just an academic exercise.

It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Click to expand...

Confession time again?
 
#73
#73
utgibbs said:
I thought this:

National-Debt-GDP.gif


is what you've been moaning about?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting graph... who was in charge of congress say from about 94 to 2006? What years were the flat ones?
 
#75
#75
BeecherVol said:
Nope. He tested them waters and bout drowned.

Funny that you put as "what he wants". That fits him well.
Click to expand...

Unlike your assessment, he has waffled and capitulated on health care, bailouts, taxes, the environment, and a host of other policies ad infinitum. He has rejected majority opinion in order to placate the tiniest minorities.

He has done a far better job instituting Republican style programs than the Republicans. I can't help but wonder if Sarah Palin is a design to actually get rid of the Republican party once and for all. The Democrats do it better, as they say.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top