Budget-mmmm-mmmmm-mmmmm

[skate]

$3.8 Trillion for fiscal 2011

Pushing the debt, as a % of GDP, to 77% up from 53%.

Also adding $8.5 Trillion to fed debt therough 2020.

:jump:

[lsbets]

Its all Bush's fault. Obama inherited everything and bears no responsibility at all.

[Tom]

We would be better off with Rip Torn as president!

[boxcar]

We would be better off with Rip Torn as president!

Or The Joker. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

He could always do what the new governor of New Jersey is going to do. Close a race track or two.;)

[LottaKash]

Or The Joker. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Or "Robin Hood"....I think Obama fancies himself as RH, but he got the "where the money goes" part, wrong....But then, what could anyone expect from a "puppet on a string"..?

best,

[ArlJim78]

the budget arrives via two heavily loaded hand trucks.
with the ceremony and all the press cameras you'd think they were delivering The Dead Sea Scrolls.

t6RO4OqWkb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6RO4OqWkb8&feature=player_embedded

[Tom]

And, he;'s got Crap and Trade revenue in it!

[ArlJim78]

“We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences. As if waste doesn’t matter. As if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money. As if we can ignore this challenge for another generation. We can’t.”
President Barack Obama
February 1, 2010

__________________________________________________ _________
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, said that trying to find greater savings in the budget, which was released by President Barack Obama this morning, wouldn’t help alleviate the recession.
We’ve got to make some decisions here as to what’s in the best interests of our country going forward,” Clyburn said during an appearance on Fox News. “And I think the best interest is to invest in education, control these deficits, while at the same time trying to get people back to work.”

“We’re not going to save our way out of this recession,” the majority whip added. “We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.”
__________________________________________________ _______
-
-
-
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/S2eo19Ge7tI/AAAAAAAAG2A/p67Ge30L_II/s400/cannon3

[mostpost]

Its all Bush's fault. Obama inherited everything and bears no responsibility at all.
Allelujah!!! You finally get it!!!!!! :jump: :jump: :jump:
Let's review so it stays fresh in your mind. When Obama took office we were in the worst recession ever, save for the Great Depression. Desperate measures were required just to keep it from getting worse. Problems caused by Republican mismagement had soared past the breaking point. Ideological tax cuts accompanied by a refusal to address spending had put the budget out of balance after several years of surpluses. Spending on a misguided war added to the problem.
A frenzy of deregulation which began under Reagan, continued to a lesser degree under Clinton and reached its apex under GW Bush allowed business to run roughshod over common sense in the search for almighty profit. The 2000's saw speculation run rampant and increasingly unstable schemes unleashed.
The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands combined with the inevitable bursting of the bubble created a panic which could have destroyed the nation.
So Obama was faced with the absolute need to prop up banks which had sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Letting them fail was not an option, although it was certainly what they deserved, because to do so would have been to start a chain reaction that would have destroyed our financial system.
Then there was the necessity of restarting the economy. Of putting people back to work. If this has not yet been succesful, I shudder to think what the unemployment rate would be right now had we not enacted the stimulus.
Why do we blame Bush for everything. Because everything was his fault. A trillion dollar plus war with no extra taxation to pay for it. A let business do whatever it wants philosophy that worked as well as let the kids eat all the candy they want. Except kids will stop eating when they get sick. A refusal to provide the things which a government is obligated to provide for its citizens and a refusal to maintain those things it is obligated to maintain.
So now the burden of providing that desperately needed maintainance falls on the Obama administration. Thousands of unsafe bridges need to be repaired. Ask the people of Minnesota how urgent they think that is. Schools need to be brought up to standard. THere are a thousand things that need to done that have been neglected.
The country is broken and Republicans broke it. I know you are not going to help fix it, so just stay out of our way.

[boxcar]

. A let business do whatever it wants philosophy that worked as well as let the kids eat all the candy they want. Except kids will stop eating when they get sick.

Yeah, and the even smarter kids know that you can take the blame game only so far -- something you've never learned...sonny.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Allelujah!!! You finally get it!!!!!! :jump: :jump: :jump:
Let's review so it stays fresh in your mind. When Obama took office we were in the worst recession ever, save for the Great Depression. Desperate measures were required just to keep it from getting worse. Problems caused by Republican mismagement had soared past the breaking point. Ideological tax cuts accompanied by a refusal to address spending had put the budget out of balance after several years of surpluses. Spending on a misguided war added to the problem.
A frenzy of deregulation which began under Reagan, continued to a lesser degree under Clinton and reached its apex under GW Bush allowed business to run roughshod over common sense in the search for almighty profit. The 2000's saw speculation run rampant and increasingly unstable schemes unleashed.
The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands combined with the inevitable bursting of the bubble created a panic which could have destroyed the nation.
So Obama was faced with the absolute need to prop up banks which had sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Letting them fail was not an option, although it was certainly what they deserved, because to do so would have been to start a chain reaction that would have destroyed our financial system.
Then there was the necessity of restarting the economy. Of putting people back to work. If this has not yet been succesful, I shudder to think what the unemployment rate would be right now had we not enacted the stimulus.
Why do we blame Bush for everything. Because everything was his fault. A trillion dollar plus war with no extra taxation to pay for it. A let business do whatever it wants philosophy that worked as well as let the kids eat all the candy they want. Except kids will stop eating when they get sick. A refusal to provide the things which a government is obligated to provide for its citizens and a refusal to maintain those things it is obligated to maintain.
So now the burden of providing that desperately needed maintainance falls on the Obama administration. Thousands of unsafe bridges need to be repaired. Ask the people of Minnesota how urgent they think that is. Schools need to be brought up to standard. THere are a thousand things that need to done that have been neglected.
The country is broken and Republicans broke it. I know you are not going to help fix it, so just stay out of our way.

"Desperate measures were required just to keep it from getting worse."

Just so we are clear...these desperate measures were lie all you can through the camp[aign and rail against many things...and then turn around and do them once elected???

"Problems caused by Republican mismagement had soared past the breaking point."

I could of swore that congress wasn't fillabuster proof!!! So the repugs held a super majority for Bush's presidency???

"Ideological tax cuts accompanied by a refusal to address spending had put the budget out of balance after several years of surpluses."

A refusal to address spending??? Lmao...your kidding with that statement right??? Or is it only that the repugs needs to watch the spending and Dems have free run of the mill? :lol:

"A frenzy of deregulation which began under Reagan, continued to a lesser degree under Clinton and reached its apex under GW Bush allowed business to run roughshod over common sense in the search for almighty profit."

Did you see the latest earnings reports from companies like say Goldman?? So please tell us what kind of regulations Obama has put into place to control these eveil corporations? P.S, before you answer...remember Geitner :)

"The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands combined with the inevitable bursting of the bubble created a panic which could have destroyed the nation."

Why is it that dems and libs keep using this little creative note to make themselves feel better? "The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands"...we already know you are all about REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH.

"Then there was the necessity of restarting the economy. Of putting people back to work. If this has not yet been succesful, I shudder to think what the unemployment rate would be right now had we not enacted the stimulus."

Can ya please back this up with some sort of facts?? Show us please of all the job creating which has taken place.

Ohhh this one ought to be fun......
"A refusal to provide the things which a government is obligated to provide for its citizens and a refusal to maintain those things it is obligated to maintain."

????

"Schools need to be brought up to standard. THere are a thousand things that need to done that have been neglected."

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...c-school-1.html I surely hope this isnt the fixing schools you were referring to????

"The country is broken and Republicans broke it. I know you are not going to help fix it, so just stay out of our way"

I could of sworn BO himself made that statement...talk about drinking the koolaid :bang:

[lsbets]

You're a funny guy most. There is no way someone could honestly believe what you typed. That was great comedy.

[boxcar]

You're a funny guy most. There is no way someone could honestly believe what you typed. That was great comedy.

What would we expect from a guy who believes in myths? His whole life revolves around them. (He still believes corporations actually pay taxes and don't factor their tax liabilities into their business costs. which in turn are all computed into their selling prices. He might as well have said, businesses don't factor payroll costs in either. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )

Boxcar

Boxcar

[Warren Henry]

You're a funny guy most. There is no way someone could honestly believe what you typed. That was great comedy.
Nope, not funny. Why? Because he actually believes what he typed. Blindly following the Pied Piper.

Note to self: Don't bother debating with MP, he is delusional.

[jballscalls]

Its all Bush's fault. Obama inherited everything and bears no responsibility at all.

a buddy of mine said the other day referencing your obviously sarcastic point above, blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the tow-truck driver for the car crash.

[boxcar]

a buddy of mine said the other day referencing your obviously sarcastic point above, blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the tow-truck driver for the car crash.

Tell your buddy it's a lousy analogy. (He must be a liberal :rolleyes: ): At least the tow tuck driver improves things by removing the mess. BO, however, is making a far bigger mess of things!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

"Desperate measures were required just to keep it from getting worse."

Just so we are clear...these desperate measures were lie all you can through the camp[aign and rail against many things...and then turn around and do them once elected???
I can't really answer this because I don't know specifically what campaign promises you refer to. I do know that I saw an article which addressed the issue. It stated that Obama has fulfilled a number of his campaign promises; there are some that are in the works; there are some that have been stalled (usually due to Republican foot dragging); and some have been abandoned.
Can you show me that the same can not be said of any new Pesidency?
"Problems caused by Republican mismagement had soared past the breaking point."

I could of swore that congress wasn't fillabuster proof!!! So the repugs held a super majority for Bush's presidency???
We are talking about the budget here. The budget is covered under reconciliation. This is how Bush passed his tax cuts. Democrats had no opportunity to filibuster.
If memory serves Republicans controlled Congress in six of the eight Bush years. Since the filibuster did not apply, Democrats would have little meaningful input. In the last two years, if Bush objected to the budget passed by Democrats, why didn't he veto it? Democrats did not have a veto proof majority.
"Ideological tax cuts accompanied by a refusal to address spending had put the budget out of balance after several years of surpluses."

A refusal to address spending??? Lmao...your kidding with that statement right??? Or is it only that the repugs needs to watch the spending and Dems have free run of the mill?
Need I remind you that it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who instituted the policy of not spending what you did not have. As a result we had three years of budget surpluses with the anticipation of many more to come. And may I remind you that it was a Republican President, George W. Bush, who instituted tax cuts without accompaning spending cuts, and initiated a war without raising taxes to fund that war. As a result we have ballooning deficits
"A frenzy of deregulation which began under Reagan, continued to a lesser degree under Clinton and reached its apex under GW Bush allowed business to run roughshod over common sense in the search for almighty profit."

Did you see the latest earnings reports from companies like say Goldman?? So please tell us what kind of regulations Obama has put into place to control these eveil corporations? P.S, before you answer...remember Geitner
Obama can't just say, "Let's regulate these guys or those guys". It took a law (Glass Steagal) to the end the regulations. It will take a law to restore them. A judgement was made that other things must take priority.
Geithner? Not a fan.
"The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands combined with the inevitable bursting of the bubble created a panic which could have destroyed the nation."

Why is it that dems and libs keep using this little creative note to make themselves feel better? "The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands"...we already know you are all about REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH
It's not REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. It's PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. If a business man achieves a certain amount of wealth because he has not paid his employees equitably (including benefits) then he has stolen the money. Who determines what is equitable. The owner and the employee through negotiation. But it is important to be sure both sides of the negotiation have equal power. Thus, Unions. :eek: :eek: Unions are not always appropriate in a smaller business or in every job type, but they are essential in larger businesses.
"Then there was the necessity of restarting the economy. Of putting people back to work. If this has not yet been succesful, I shudder to think what the unemployment rate would be right now had we not enacted the stimulus."

Can ya please back this up with some sort of facts?? Show us please of all the job creating which has taken place.
That was an opinion, but I can point to the fact that we were losing 500,000 jobs a month back in 2008 and we are now losing almost none. I could point to the fact that the most recent manufacturing report was very positive. And I could point to the fact that the GDP grew 5.7% last quarter.
Ohhh this one ought to be fun......
"A refusal to provide the things which a government is obligated to provide for its citizens and a refusal to maintain those things it is obligated to maintain."

????

"Schools need to be brought up to standard. THere are a thousand things that need to done that have been neglected."
I was referring to infrastructure, physical things, repair, remodeling, building new schools.
As far as the Atlas Shrugs article. I have no problem, whatsoever, with the teacher handing out those materials. And I would have no problem with a teacher handing out material for Young Republicans. The purpose of the handout was to encourage people to work in the community. It was not a requirement the student was free to use it or throw it away. The student was free to consult with his/her parents. As one of them did. The danger to democracy is not in handing these things out, it is in censoring them.

"The country is broken and Republicans broke it. I know you are not going to help fix it, so just stay out of our way"

I could of sworn BO himself made that statement...talk about drinking the koolaid
How do you know BO didn't get that statement from ME. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

a buddy of mine said the other day referencing your obviously sarcastic point above, blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the tow-truck driver for the car crash.
Pay no attention to Boxcar. It's an excellent analogy. Sometimes a towtruck driver has to make more of a mess in order to clean up an accident scene.

[mostpost]

Nope, not funny. Why? Because he actually believes what he typed. Blindly following the Pied Piper.

Note to self: Don't bother debating with MP, I CAN'T WIN.
Hope you don't mind that I changed your reply to better reflect reality. ;)

[Tom]

a buddy of mine said the other day referencing your obviously sarcastic point above, blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the tow-truck driver for the car crash.

Not when the tow trucker driver crashes into the wreck, then backs up over the driver, then drives off a cliff with the car in tow. :D

But tell that to the Three Blind Mice here.

[PaceAdvantage]

This mess was started long before Bush ever came into town.

The following is a fairly good read:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

[RaceBookJoe]

Another interesting read :

http://article.nationalreview.com/423603/an-obama-sized-government/the-editors

[newtothegame]

seems your unemployement numbers and "almost none"...does hold alot of water. Just like the rest of alot of your "drink the kool aid" taste test....

Unemployment Rises in Most Metro Areas


Tuesday, 02 Feb 2010 02:44 PM






Unemployment rose in most cities and counties in December, signaling that companies remain reluctant to hire even as the economy recovers.

The unemployment rate rose in 306 of 372 metro areas, the Labor Department said Tuesday. The rate fell in 41 and was unchanged in 25. That's worse than November, when the rate fell in 170 areas, rose in only 154 and was unchanged in 48.

The metro employment numbers aren't seasonally adjusted and can be volatile. Many of the increases were due to seasonal factors.

For example, Ocean City, N.J., which bills itself as "America's Greatest Family Resort," saw its unemployment rate jump to 16.4 percent in December from 14.8 percent the previous month.

That's double the 8 percent it reported in July, even though the nation's economy was in worse shape then.

Ocean City is one of the 19 metro areas that reported unemployment rates of at least 15 percent. Twelve of those are in California and three are in Michigan, the department said.

Joblessness topped 10 percent in 138 metro areas, up from 125 in November but below last year's peak of 144 areas in June.

Improvement in the auto industry, meanwhile, saw unemployment rates drop in the metro areas around Detroit and Warren, Mich. Automakers and auto parts companies have recalled workers in recent months as they seek to replenish inventories depleted by the "Cash for Clunkers" program, which caused a jump in car sales in August.

The Detroit area saw unemployment fall to 15.7 percent from 16.4 percent, while the Warren area reported a drop to 14.3 percent from 14.8 percent. While still high, the rates are down about 2 percentage points from last fall.

Steve Cochrane, a regional economist at Moody's Economy.com, said it isn't clear if the gains are sustainable once the auto companies have rebuilt their inventories.


http://newsmax.com/US/US-Metro-Unemployment/2010/02/02/id/348755

I bolded that single word above as I was almost sure you would point and say "look, see I told you it was working"....
There is a huge difference between RECALLED workers and JOB CREATION.

I am sure those in all of those metro areas where jobs are on the decline and unemployment is creeping higher, they will believe ya :)

[mostpost]

Hey mosty.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seems your unemployement numbers and "almost none"...does hold alot of water. Just like the rest of alot of your "drink the kool aid" taste test....
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
It's all right here.
During 2009, monthly job
losses moderated substantially. Employment losses in the first quarter of 2009
averaged 691,000 per month, compared with an average loss of 69,000 per month
in the fourth quarter. (See table B-1.)
Which is what I said. In the first quarter when we were still stronly under the influence of the Bush policies, we lost 691,000 jobs each month. In the last quarter, after the Obama policies kicked in, the job loss was down to 69,000 per month. Since we are still losing jobs, but at a much slower rate, you can't expect unemployment numbers to improve. And I did not say they did. Before you apply the bandage you have to stop the bleeding.

[newtothegame]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
It's all right here.

Which is what I said. In the first quarter when we were still stronly under the influence of the Bush policies, we lost 691,000 jobs each month. In the last quarter, after the Obama policies kicked in, the job loss was down to 69,000 per month. Since we are still losing jobs, but at a much slower rate, you can't expect unemployment numbers to improve. And I did not say they did. Before you apply the bandage you have to stop the bleeding.

Seriously, you libs need to get past the "its bush's fault" rhetoric.....
if nothing else, Kennedy's seat and HUGE loss should prove that point. The american public does not want to hear about a year ago. But, since you chose to go there. Wasn't the last two years of GWB's office a democratically controlled congress? Now if you reply that well GWB was president and your gonna lay the balme at his feet, then I am just gonna retort that its now been THREE years with a democratic controlled congress and one of those three with a democratic president. Stop making excuses for this lame @$$ president and his policies.
You can sit here and say and you said something else...but YOUR post clearly says "almost none". If you consider 69,000 per month almost none, as I said, tell that to the people in the majority of the country's major cities who are still losing jobs!
And its nice to see at least you left the "job creation" alone....cause outside of a few GOVERNMENT jobs which do very little for the economy, there has been none that I can locate. And wait till this year which I think will continue to slide towards 11 and 12 percent unemployment respectively for this administration. (more like 20%).

[newtothegame]

And further more, in the grand scheme of things, I do think that 69,000 in the grand scheme of things is relatively low. But I will also tell you I do not think it had anything to do with BO policies or stimulus. I think it had to do with the fact that you just can't keep laying off nearly 700,000 monthly. It had to slow at some point no matter who was in office. The reason I think BO has huge problems here and I am gonna make it a point to tell anyone who will listen is his administration has made it a point o referrence the 8% number. His administration hasnt been right about much of anything. And personally, his smug arrogant behind needs to be TOSSED from the WH in the first month of January 2012. All politicians lie,,,,all politicians that are currently in DC now in my opinion need to be removed. Right or left. But this administration takes it to NEW LEVELS. They really do think the american people are stupid (and yes I know that opens me up for criticism :lol: ).
So have fun with the joke on the end...but this administration, after only one year, has even surpassed the Carter administration for WORST I have ever seen!
P.S Democrats, pay your bills you owe for BO camaign to the state off Illinois!!! Or is that gonna be another tax payer "wealth redistribution plan"?

[dartman51]

That was an opinion, but I can point to the fact that we were losing 500,000 jobs a month back in 2008 and we are now losing almost none. I could point to the fact that the most recent manufacturing report was very positive. And I could point to the fact that the GDP grew 5.7% last quarter.

How do you know BO didn't get that statement from ME. :lol: :lol: :lol:

As usual, your math is as FUZZY as Obama's. With your math, we lost 6 million jobs in 2008. Didn't happen. 2.6 million is the actual number. Nov. and Dec. were the ONLY months when the number went over 500,000. The previous high was 159,000. But then I've come to expect as much from you. Anyone that still uses Wikipedia as a source for anything, can't have too much going for them.

[NJ Stinks]

seems your unemployement numbers and "almost none"...does hold alot of water. Just like the rest of alot of your "drink the kool aid" taste test....

Unemployment Rises in Most Metro Areas


Tuesday, 02 Feb 2010 02:44 PM


For example, Ocean City, N.J., which bills itself as "America's Greatest Family Resort," saw its unemployment rate jump to 16.4 percent in December from 14.8 percent the previous month.

That's double the 8 percent it reported in July, even though the nation's economy was in worse shape then.

Ocean City is one of the 19 metro areas that reported unemployment rates of at least 15 percent.

This has got be a joke. Ocean City lost jobs in November and even more in December! Oh my God! :eek:

Ocean City is a beach town. In the summer, it's a booming town full of families on vacation. Guess what happens to beach towns as winter sets in?

Here's Ocean City - guess what month it is? :rolleyes:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1046804652013953234QHzaPY

[mostpost]

As usual, your math is as FUZZY as Obama's. With your math, we lost 6 million jobs in 2008. Didn't happen. 2.6 million is the actual number. Nov. and Dec. were the ONLY months when the number went over 500,000. The previous high was 159,000. But then I've come to expect as much from you. Anyone that still uses Wikipedia as a source for anything, can't have too much going for them.
You are right and I was careless in not specifying the end of 2008. This does not change the fact that, as you point out the figures were 500,000 in November and December and are now in the neighborhood of 69,000.

[mostpost]

This has got be a joke. Ocean City lost jobs in November and even more in December! Oh my God! :eek:

Ocean City is a beach town. In the summer, it's a booming town full of families on vacation. Guess what happens to beach towns as winter sets in?

Here's Ocean City - guess what month it is? :rolleyes:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1046804652013953234QHzaPY
December?

[delayjf]

Need I remind you that it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who instituted the policy of not spending what you did not have. As a result we had three years of budget surpluses with the anticipation of many more to come. And may I remind you that it was a Republican President, George W. Bush, who instituted tax cuts without accompaning spending cuts, and initiated a war without raising taxes to fund that war. As a result we have ballooning deficits

The myth of the Clinton surplus:

The National debt went up every year of Clinton's administration. The illusion of a surplus was created because the US public debt did go down but the governmental debt (what the Gov borrowed from it self) went up - bottom line the National debt went up every year. Also, Clinton’s last budget ran a deficit. Bush's tax cuts lifted the country out of a recession that occurred on Clinton's watch and culminated in record tax revenues. Also, it was Clinton who signed the Graham, Leach Bilekey Act not Bush. It was the Bush administration that attempted to reign in Freddie / Fannie back in 2003.

[Tom]

Jeepers creepers, Jeff.......what's with all the facts?
You trying to muddy up the liberal waters or what? :lol:

[mostpost]

Bush's tax cuts lifted the country out of a recession that occurred on Clinton's watch and culminated in record tax revenues
Which is, of course, meaningless. Since 1932 only 12 years have shown a decrease in tax revenues from the previous years. Three of those years occurred during Bush's term. As the economy grows it is only natural that revenues will increase. You can check my claims here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html
Table 1.1

The way to truly assess how tax policy impacts revenue is to compare revenue as a % of GDP.
1993 6,578.4 17.5
1994 6,964.2 18.1
1995 7,325.1 18.5
1996 7,697.4 18.9
1997 8,186.6 19.3
1998 8,626.3 20.0
1999 9,127.0 20.0
2000 9,708.4 20.9
2001 10,059.8 19.8
2002 10,378.4 17.9
2003 10,803.7 16.5
2004 11,503.7 16.3
2005 12,234.9 17.6
2006 13,009.9 18.5
2007 13,642.3 18.8
2008 14,222.3 17.7
The figures above can be found here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html
Table 1.2
As you can see the percentages were higher during Clinton's term when taxes were higher and lower during Bush's term when taxes were lower. This is what one would expect, unless one were living in Oppositeland.

[mostpost]

Jeepers creepers, Jeff.......what's with all the facts?
You trying to muddy up the liberal waters or what? :lol:
You mean like the fact of the Graham, Leach Bilekey Act. Look that up on Thomas (If you even know what "Thomas" is :rolleyes: ) You won't find it. It's the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Republicans supported this act by 250-16 in the House and 53-1 in the Senate. By the time the final Bill got to Clinton's desk it had the support of 362 Representatives and 90 Senators, far more than required to override a veto.
As for the "fact" of record revenue, I have already addressed that.
The "fact" that Bush ended the "Clinton" recession? He did that because he wanted a recession all his own. And he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

Either way you want to cut it, Bush had nothing to do with Graham Act. Clinton didn't have to sign it. What regulatory legislation did Clinton pass that you claim lead to the economic growth of the 90's? The budget buster was the prescription drug program. But the Democratic plan was twice as expensive as the Republican plan.

The way to truly assess how tax policy impacts revenue is to compare revenue as a % of GDP.

Is it?? Seems to me the best way to evalualte tax policy is to look at Tax rates and the revenue they produce.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=delayjf]Either way you want to cut it, Bush had nothing to do with Graham Act. Clinton didn't have to sign it. What regulatory legislation did Clinton pass that you claim lead to the economic growth of the 90's? The budget buster was the prescription drug program. But the Democratic plan was twice as expensive as the Republican plan.
Clinton did not have to sign it and he shouldn't have. Of course hindsight is 20/20. My point was that Republicans were more in favor of the legislation than Democrats. If Bush had been President at the time he certainly would have signed it.
The economic growth of the 90's had nothing to do with regulatory legislation. It had a lot to do with the tax increase. And a lot to do with the dot com bubble. Clinton explained how the tax increase helped the economy but I don't remember the details. I WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
I will also get back to you on the prescription drug plan.

[skate]

The way to truly assess how tax policy impacts revenue is to compare revenue as a % of GDP.





So, you are saying if GDP goes up 10% and Tax Rev goes up 10%, this is strong for the econmy.

If the GDP goes up 10% and the Tax Rev only goes up 1%, this is weak.

So now, since the economy is not going up, you would like to what? Raise Taxes?

Then you could say, lookey, OUR ECONOMY IS DOWN, but look at our high Tax rates.

And to continue, should we conclude that The Gov is responsible for a strong Economy? So It's higher taxes, strong economy.

If you take a look, the % of tax revenue to pay off the interest on the debt during (before Dem Congree) GwB years was 10% vs the Tax rev. during the previous administration to pay off interest on the debt was 15%.

What you didn't include was the Much higher GDP during the Productive GB years.

[skate]

mostpost


you're just kidding, ok , but you'll mislead other folks.


1993 6,578.4 17.5
1994 6,964.2 18.1
1995 7,325.1 18.5
1996 7,697.4 18.9
1997 8,186.6 19.3
1998 8,626.3 20.0
1999 9,127.0 20.0
2000 9,708.4 20.9
2001 10,059.8 19.8
2002 10,378.4 17.9
2003 10,803.7 16.5
2004 11,503.7 16.3
2005 12,234.9 17.6
2006 13,009.9 18.5
2007 13,642.3 18.8
2008 14,222.3 17.7


Your Figures show that the Bush years had an increase of 25% 25%
in it's GDP , over the fishbellybill years.
Note if you will, it was influenced by a lower tax rate.

hello, good by
thanks :)