The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
09-06-2012, 09:14 AM
#2841
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Why is it that under Republican administrations government spending increases faster than inflation and not so much under Democratic ones?
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 12:06 PM
#2842
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Mississippi's anti-price gouging statute in effect
Emergency situation? Scarce, vital resource?
I know! Let's use the penalty of law to keep the price at normal levels.
Emergency situation? Scarce, vital resource?
I know! Let's use the penalty of law to keep the price at normal levels.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 01:28 PM
#2846
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
And Bush basically had 6 years of control of House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Bush policies alone are responsible for nearly 3.5X the deficit we are currently operating under compared to Obamas policies projected out to 2017. If congress would pass some of his budgetary measures the deficit would go down but the tea publicans put their foot down on defense spending, Tax breaks for the wealthy bankers, hedge funders, financial types dreaming up new derivatives and ways to eventually crash things, CEO compensation , Subsidies to giant profitable corporations etc.
I think Romney/Ryan in the presidency will be just like Bush only worse in just about every way. They won’t actually cut government spending Just cut the services it performs for the general public such as infrastructure, education, and social safety nets as it rains money down on the ones buying the government that they like to call “job creators”. They intend on shifting tax burden more on the middle class and their budget Ideas make no sense.
I think Romney/Ryan in the presidency will be just like Bush only worse in just about every way. They won’t actually cut government spending Just cut the services it performs for the general public such as infrastructure, education, and social safety nets as it rains money down on the ones buying the government that they like to call “job creators”. They intend on shifting tax burden more on the middle class and their budget Ideas make no sense.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 01:42 PM
#2847
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
yep, it's what he did in Mass, and left his state with a surplus--only because he was unable to cut spending.
I hope they shift the burden on the poor. Let them feel what fair share feels like.
I hope they shift the burden on the poor. Let them feel what fair share feels like.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 01:44 PM
#2848
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Copied from a blog post but I believe it to be true.
Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post
Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post
Congress has acted 78 times to raise, extend or revise the debt limit. The red ink has risen 49 times under Republican presidents, 29 times under Democrats. It's gone up 10 times since 2001. A little number crunching shows that under Bush the Republicans provided, on average, 39 of the 50 votes that were generally needed to raise the debt ceiling. But under Obama, the Republicans have provided only 1 vote on average.
In 1982, under Reagan, we hit the $1 Trillion mark.
1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
From 1995 to 2006 Republicans were in the majority of the House. In that time they almost doubled the national debt. From 2000 to 2009, the last Bush budget, the national debt also doubled. So either by President or by Congress, Republicans have historically doubled the debt.
In 1982, under Reagan, we hit the $1 Trillion mark.
1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
From 1995 to 2006 Republicans were in the majority of the House. In that time they almost doubled the national debt. From 2000 to 2009, the last Bush budget, the national debt also doubled. So either by President or by Congress, Republicans have historically doubled the debt.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 01:47 PM
#2849
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
I dont think anyone is arguing that bush liked to spend. Now what are we going to fix it?
if our taxes cant even cover our entitlement spending (even if you tax millionares 100%), let alone fund gov't, what's the obvious, if-i-asked-a-2nd-grader-will-get-this-correct, answer?
if our taxes cant even cover our entitlement spending (even if you tax millionares 100%), let alone fund gov't, what's the obvious, if-i-asked-a-2nd-grader-will-get-this-correct, answer?
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 02:31 PM
#2850
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Focusing on the debt is misdiagnosing the problem. Deficits should be the focus, but you have to look at the fiscal deficit in relation to the current account (balance of payment, aka trade) deficit and the private sector surplus.
Otherwise, you are going to amputate a leg to cure a heart attack and - in the meantime - cause all of the doctors and nurses to hate each other (for mostly the wrong reasons) instead of working together toward a reasonable solution.
Otherwise, you are going to amputate a leg to cure a heart attack and - in the meantime - cause all of the doctors and nurses to hate each other (for mostly the wrong reasons) instead of working together toward a reasonable solution.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 02:35 PM
#2851
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
I was addressing deficit, not debt.
unrealted: Man dies after doc takes lunch during kidney op - The Local
unrealted: Man dies after doc takes lunch during kidney op - The Local
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 02:51 PM
#2852
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
I dont think anyone is arguing that bush liked to spend. Now what are we going to fix it?
if our taxes cant even cover our entitlement spending (even if you tax millionares 100%), let alone fund gov't, what's the obvious, if-i-asked-a-2nd-grader-will-get-this-correct, answer?
if our taxes cant even cover our entitlement spending (even if you tax millionares 100%), let alone fund gov't, what's the obvious, if-i-asked-a-2nd-grader-will-get-this-correct, answer?
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 09:11 PM
#2855
Government is just too damned big. Either party. I'm not being partisan here. It's just too big. Regulating Edison's light bulb has given us a haz-mat issue. California had over 2,000 new potential laws brought before the legislators IN JUST ONE YEAR? 2,000 NEW potential laws would suggest that we're just about to completely spin out of control any second. Dogs sleeping with cats and whathaveyou.
How did we ever get along without the government's firm hand on our shoulder, and in our pockets?
Connie Mack's "Penny Plan" want the jackass legislators to cut spending to historical levels (18-19%), and then cap spending as a percentage to GDP. That means it goes UP and it goes DOWN. The DOWN part is critical. Partisans can decide how to cut the pie, but if that pie is limited by GDP, then we at least have a chance at fiscal sanity.
Last edited by cordycord; 09-06-2012 at 11:36 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-07-2012, 06:19 AM
#2856
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Connie Mack's "Penny Plan" want the jackass legislators to cut spending to historical levels (18-19%), and then cap spending as a percentage to GDP. That means it goes UP and it goes DOWN. The DOWN part is critical. Partisans can decide how to cut the pie, but if that pie is limited by GDP, then we at least have a chance at fiscal sanity.
Reply
0
0
09-07-2012, 10:45 AM
#2857
That's what we're doing now--bickering about taxes. That will continue ad infinitum, but right now there's only a mythical cap on spending. Spending is the key.
And while that happens, Rome burns:
US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. - Yahoo! Finance
88,921,000 "not in labor force"
+139k jobs/month this year compared to +153k jobs/month last year--anemic for both
368,000 drop out of labor force
We deserve better.
Reply
0
0
09-07-2012, 10:51 AM
#2858
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
that number will only get worse when the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the number next week.
they've been doing this for 100 weeks in a row now? pad the gloomy numbers, so they get reported on and then correct it later so they dont.
honestly, if it wasnt for the stimulus, this admin is doing a great job fixing the problem: nothing. although the hostile climate and class warfare doesn't help businesses feel warm and cozy.
they've been doing this for 100 weeks in a row now? pad the gloomy numbers, so they get reported on and then correct it later so they dont.
honestly, if it wasnt for the stimulus, this admin is doing a great job fixing the problem: nothing. although the hostile climate and class warfare doesn't help businesses feel warm and cozy.
Reply
0
0
