New pricetag on Obama's Bail Out America plan

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Repaying a loan is so 2000. These days you just bitch a lot, stop paying, and get someone else to pick up the tab.

Unfortunately, that "someone else" is middle class American taxpayers. :|

Wait, Obama is giving all us middle class people a tax cut.. wtf are you complaining about!?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Repaying a loan is so 2000. These days you just bitch a lot, stop paying, and get someone else to pick up the tab.

Unfortunately, that "someone else" is middle class American taxpayers. :|

Provide proof he is targeting middle class for tax increases. Go ahead.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good, I wanted to make sure you werent suggesting such an idiotic idea.

Of course not. I'm not even sure off the top of my head how far back one has to go to find a true budget surplus. Even Clinton's budgets would have been deficits by standard GAAP accounting rules.

My point is simply that Americans were deceived when they were sold the BushCo tax "cuts". Without matching spending cuts, they are, in fact merely deferred tax increases. In short, Uncle Sam loaned our money back to us, to be repaid with interest by our children. True cuts have to start with spending.

I agree. The most ideal way to do this is to cut taxes and spending. But a politician who truely cuts spending is one who is devoid of the qualities that makes him\her a politician in the first place.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

<crayon> The point, dear boy, is that the same folks who are whining about Obama investing $1T in America are the apologists who have no issue at all with Bush sinking $1T in Iraq. See how that works? I know logic is hard, but get somebody to help, I'm sure they can walk you through it. </crayon>

Why don't you understand? It's because Bush wears an ELEPHANT on his lapel instead of a DONKEY!

Let me recap, ELEPHANT = GOOD. DONKEY = BAD.

are we clear now?

Or rather, according to Bow and you other apologists - Elephant spending = bad but donkey spending = good.

Why can't you people get it through your skull that this has nothing to do with Bush - it's about the messiah's spending spree.

I live in a world when spending alone is not a good barometer. I prefer to consider return on investment.

What was the return on investment of Invading Iraq?

Will Obamas plan get a good ROI? No one knows 100%, but putting people to work and earning tax revenue and letting them earn disposable income to spend is usually a good idea. Not to mention the infrastructure improvements we can realize.

success! Goal posts moved as usual.

(lets see if they move some more)
So can we look at the ROI of all the Fed spending? Or just the war because you people hate Bush?

Ok smart guy, defend the government under the Bush administration on the terms of ROI on spending. You have 8 years of history to draw from.

I would do the same for Obama, but unlike you, I am not a partisan hack. I can say, "I don't know" because Obama has NOT EVEN BEEN INAUGURATED YET!

So nothing is off limits?

Are we instantly calling anything outside the Constitutional scope of the Feds as a 0% ROI?

Just trying to see where the goalposts are so they don't get moved again...

You can spin it anyway that works out best for your point of view. I prefer to think of it as money went out is money went out and money that came in is money that came in. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good, I wanted to make sure you werent suggesting such an idiotic idea.

Of course not. I'm not even sure off the top of my head how far back one has to go to find a true budget surplus. Even Clinton's budgets would have been deficits by standard GAAP accounting rules.

My point is simply that Americans were deceived when they were sold the BushCo tax "cuts". Without matching spending cuts, they are, in fact merely deferred tax increases. In short, Uncle Sam loaned our money back to us, to be repaid with interest by our children. True cuts have to start with spending.

I agree. The most ideal way to do this is to cut taxes and spending. But a politician who truely cuts spending is one who is devoid of the qualities that makes him\her a politician in the first place.

Im afraid youre right

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good, I wanted to make sure you werent suggesting such an idiotic idea.

Of course not. I'm not even sure off the top of my head how far back one has to go to find a true budget surplus. Even Clinton's budgets would have been deficits by standard GAAP accounting rules.

My point is simply that Americans were deceived when they were sold the BushCo tax "cuts". Without matching spending cuts, they are, in fact merely deferred tax increases. In short, Uncle Sam loaned our money back to us, to be repaid with interest by our children. True cuts have to start with spending.

I agree. The most ideal way to do this is to cut taxes and spending. But a politician who truely cuts spending is one who is devoid of the qualities that makes him\her a politician in the first place.

Im afraid youre right

Hey wait a minute. Isnt this a proposal?

And doesnt congress pass budgets?

Thats what I thought.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good, I wanted to make sure you werent suggesting such an idiotic idea.

Of course not. I'm not even sure off the top of my head how far back one has to go to find a true budget surplus. Even Clinton's budgets would have been deficits by standard GAAP accounting rules.

My point is simply that Americans were deceived when they were sold the BushCo tax "cuts". Without matching spending cuts, they are, in fact merely deferred tax increases. In short, Uncle Sam loaned our money back to us, to be repaid with interest by our children. True cuts have to start with spending.

I agree. The most ideal way to do this is to cut taxes and spending. But a politician who truely cuts spending is one who is devoid of the qualities that makes him\her a politician in the first place.

Im afraid youre right

Hey wait a minute. Isnt this a proposal?

And doesnt congress pass budgets?

Thats what I thought.

Yep youre right But as the GOP gave GWB what he wanted, so shall the current senate.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

On it's own, it is not. It is bad if there's no good reason for it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

I don't think that is the only point you were making:


Quote:
if you think the deficit is bad now...just wait 4 years.

he <Obama> will grow the deficit larger than Bush.

AFA the economy goes, our debt is a HUGE issue that, yes, Bush contributed to; however, our new savior Obama isnt going to fix it. In fact, he plans on continuing into the quagmire of debt...which seems to be OK for alot of people. Well, as long as you feeeel good about getting ass fucked, good for you Must be a good lube job as far as Im concerned.

Based on your comments not only are you claiming you are going to judge Obama just as harshly as you judge Bush wrt spending, I think you already have judged Obama on his spending and the fact that Obama "isn't going to fix" deficit spending. And I think the point you are trying to make is that you have already concluded that Obama's spending is going to be worse. And I cannot see how you can come up with that conclusion given that he hasn't even been in office, hasn't spent a DIME, plus his spending is geared towards stimulating the economy, which seems to me a much better way to spend money, but Im no economist.

Plus, I don't remember him saying he was going fix the budget. I do remember McCain making that promise though...but I could be wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: winnar111
All the people who cried about Bush's deficit in 2001-2002 to pull us out of the Clinton recession are now changing their mind. Hmmm.....

Yeah but the difference is if Obama does it, it's ok

Well that works the other way around too, I suspect most critics of Obama's spending are the same folks who jumped to Bush's defense for doing the same thing. And needless to say, Obama hasn't done ANYTHING yet...we don't know about how deficit inducing his programs really will be.

I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

I don't think that is the only point you were making:


Quote:
if you think the deficit is bad now...just wait 4 years.

he <Obama> will grow the deficit larger than Bush.

AFA the economy goes, our debt is a HUGE issue that, yes, Bush contributed to; however, our new savior Obama isnt going to fix it. In fact, he plans on continuing into the quagmire of debt...which seems to be OK for alot of people. Well, as long as you feeeel good about getting ass fucked, good for you Must be a good lube job as far as Im concerned.

Based on your comments not only are you claiming you are going to judge Obama just as harshly as you judge Bush wrt spending, I think you already have judged Obama on his spending and the fact that Obama "isn't going to fix" deficit spending. And I think the point you are trying to make is that you have already concluded that Obama's spending is going to be worse. And I cannot see how you can come up with that conclusion given that he hasn't even been in office, hasn't spent a DIME, plus his spending is geared towards stimulating the economy, which seems to me a much better way to spend money, but Im no economist.

Plus, I don't remember him saying he was going fix the budget. I do remember McCain making that promise though...but I could be wrong.

Guilty as charged If we go after others whether they be POTUS or senators for <proposals> why not POTUS elect?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Based on your comments not only are you claiming you are going to judge Obama just as harshly as you judge Bush wrt spending, I think you already have judged Obama on his spending

You're speaking to a a guy who switched TO the republican party during its most unpopular time in history, so don't expect too much in the way of objectivity

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Repaying a loan is so 2000. These days you just bitch a lot, stop paying, and get someone else to pick up the tab.

Unfortunately, that "someone else" is middle class American taxpayers. :|

Provide proof he is targeting middle class for tax increases. Go ahead.

:roll:

L2read. Seriously, look into that Sylvan link I gave you earlier.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

On it's own, it is not. It is bad if there's no good reason for it.

Arguably, there's a good reason for it now (prevent further economic collapse), but we as a nation have become addicted to it (like a person becomes addicted to painkillers legitimately prescribed after a major injury), and deficit spending will not end after the recession ends.

 

[Xavier434]

Here's an idea. Let's stop wasting time when it comes to "blame". Let's stop wasting time pointing fingers and assuming failure when the fact is that none of us have a real crystal ball that tells the future. Instead, let's focus on the fact that while this man does plan on spending money to fix problems the most important part is that he really does want to fix our problems and he does have a plan. The main focus here should not be so much about how much the plan costs although I do understand that cannot be ignored. A better focus would be to recognize that in order to fix a lot of these problems in such a way that is not half assed it will require money and a decent amount of it. From there, it is simply a matter of whether or not it works and if it does work then all of that money are my taxes being well spent imo.

I am willing to give him a chance and quite frankly none of us have a choice so instead of bitching night and day because you don't like Obama and you hate paying taxes maybe you should spend more time focusing on doing what you can on your end. That is, help yourself with your own fiscal problems in life and start taking advantage of the market as much as you can. Start spending! Start investing! These are the times where millionaires are made so what are you guys going to do? Sit there and whine or sit there and start spending/investing wisely so that when the market does recover you end up on top? The choice seems really easy to me. Too many people are looking at this whole situation as a catastrophe of some magical form of unending failure. While I agree that times are bad and we need to fix a lot of things, I also look at this time and see a LOT of opportunity. Take advantage of it or be the loser that sits around ignoring that fact as you waste your time bitching and whining everyday on the internet and pretending to be really smart as you copy and paste links to slandering news stories. It is that simple.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Repaying a loan is so 2000. These days you just bitch a lot, stop paying, and get someone else to pick up the tab.

Unfortunately, that "someone else" is middle class American taxpayers. :|

Wait, Obama is giving all us middle class people a tax cut.. wtf are you complaining about!?

No one is getting a Tax Cut....credit, refunds wahtever, but not a single tax cut (that I have seen) has been proposed.

Whoever is the President they are goign to do like usual, spend, spend and spend, to try and fix the problem.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mursilis
I've frequently criticized Bush for rampant deficit spending, and if Obama continues the trend, he should be judged just as harshly by all. He should not get a pass just because there's a (D) after his name.

Thank you. Thats the only point I was making. Deficit spending, *to the extent we are doing it* is bad.

"Deficit spending" in itself is not bad though. The results of said spending over time is what really counts. Do you make the money back and more or do you not? Do you act too conservative to avoid deficit spending and the result is a half assed failure of a solution or do you spend what needs to be spent to fix the problem and yield greater returns in the future? Too many people look at big numbers and forget that simple truth. Bush spent a lot of money and the return is awful. Let us hope that the manner Obama plans to spend the tax dollars returns a lot more over time.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Here's an idea. Let's stop wasting time when it comes to "blame". Let's stop wasting time pointing fingers and assuming failure when the fact is that none of us have a real crystal ball that tells the future. Instead, let's focus on the fact that while this man does plan on spending money to fix problems the most important part is that he really does want to fix our problems and he does have a plan. The main focus here should not be so much about how much the plan costs although I do understand that cannot be ignored. A better focus would be to recognize that in order to fix a lot of these problems in such a way that is not half assed it will require money and a decent amount of it. From there, it is simply a matter of whether or not it works and if it does work then all of that money are my taxes being well spent imo.

I am willing to give him a chance and quite frankly none of us have a choice so instead of bitching night and day because you don't like Obama and you hate paying taxes maybe you should spend more time focusing on doing what you can on your end. That is, help yourself with your own fiscal problems in life and start taking advantage of the market as much as you can. Start spending! Start investing! These are the times where millionaires are made so what are you guys going to do? Sit there and whine or sit there and start spending/investing wisely so that when the market does recover you end up on top? The choice seems really easy to me. Too many people are looking at this whole situation as a catastrophe of some magical form of unending failure. While I agree that times are bad and we need to fix a lot of things, I also look at this time and see a LOT of opportunity. Take advantage of it or be the loser that sits around ignoring that fact as you waste your time bitching and whining everyday on the internet and pretending to be really smart as you copy and paste links to slandering news stories. It is that simple.

I personally couldnt agree more. With everything you said.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good, I wanted to make sure you werent suggesting such an idiotic idea.

Of course not. I'm not even sure off the top of my head how far back one has to go to find a true budget surplus. Even Clinton's budgets would have been deficits by standard GAAP accounting rules.

My point is simply that Americans were deceived when they were sold the BushCo tax "cuts". Without matching spending cuts, they are, in fact merely deferred tax increases. In short, Uncle Sam loaned our money back to us, to be repaid with interest by our children. True cuts have to start with spending.

I agree. The most ideal way to do this is to cut taxes and spending. But a politician who truely cuts spending is one who is devoid of the qualities that makes him\her a politician in the first place.

It would even work if you freeze spending for 25 years and cut taxes. Economy will grow so while you may run into deficit the first few years, you grow yourself out of it if you FREEZE spending growth. That way you don't displace government workers and entities dependent on govt (not that it would be bad to cut them off).

Then you have these jackasses calling decreases in GROWTH of spending as CUTS.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush's Deficit was largely caused by his own actions that didn't help the Economy much at all.

Funny, because tax revenue was reduced before the Bush tax cuts went into effect...

Care to back that up Sparky? While your unwavering devotion to right-wing dogma is touching, somewhere along the line you need to wake up to reality.

Here's the top marginal tax rate; it only fell to 35 in 2003:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

And yet, individual tax revenues as a % of GDP fell from 2000 to 2001, and 2001 to 2002:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layafact.cfm?Docid=205

In terms of raw dollars, the same happened.

http://www.economagic.com/em-c...ta.exe/fedstl/fpitax+1


Kindly explain how the Bush tax cuts that went into effect in 2003 caused a 16% drop in tax revenues in 2002. Couldn't be the Clinton recession, could it?

Hey. umm, Sparky? While I appreciate the boldness of your attempted duhversion, the fact is Bush's first set of tax loans were in 2001. Bush's tax loans were followed by an unprecedented three-year period of lowered tax revenues before finally catching up to the previous high.

Any more disinformation you'd care to invent?

'Tax loans' which didn't go into effect until the next year. So why did revenues drop?

I've got to give you credit. You keep flailing, even when you've been cornered. "It's just a flesh wound."

The BushCo tax loans took effect immediately. In fact, as I remember it, they were actually applied retroactively, with checks sent based on 2001 taxes. Now, you can continue to flail, or you can man up and acknowledge your initial claims were wrong. Contrary to the usual right-wing dogma, that tax cuts increase tax revenues, the BushCo tax loans were followed by reduced revenue.

Except....that didn't happen. The checks then were similar enough to the checks we got this year; it was a big handout to the poor while the rich didn't get anything.

http://www.alloysilverstein.com/tips/tax/2001/0611.htm

The rebate is equal to 5 percent of a person's taxable income for the year 2000 ... with ceilings set at the figures above ($300 for singles, $500 for single parents, $600 for couples).



Tables show tax rates did not fall to 35% until 2003, despite what you pretend to be not true.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Repaying a loan is so 2000. These days you just bitch a lot, stop paying, and get someone else to pick up the tab.

Unfortunately, that "someone else" is middle class American taxpayers. :|

Wait, Obama is giving all us middle class people a tax cut.. wtf are you complaining about!?

It's a tax 'loan' apparently, not a tax cut. Shrug.