On the budget, Obama has Republicans cornered

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Wrong. The buble burst and revenue fell below spending before Bush's first budget even went into effect.

Oh, please. Recessions are one thing, trend lines over longer time periods are another-

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...-2010-federal-government-revenues-vs-spending

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/chart-graph/us-national-debt

Which doesn't explain Repub motivations, but this does-

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph#

Nobody profits from tax cut induced deficits like the wealthy, nobody.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Even if the brainwashed masses ever get a clue, it's too late to save this country from Republicans turning it into a banana republic. But we had a good run, and we'll always have those memories.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,428
136
I've finally figured out why the repubs are so hot to balance the budget while a Dem is living in the White House: Seeing as if they are chronically and historically destined to run up ridiculous deficits to make the very rich ever richer still, they need Dem presidents to balance the budgets they ruin for profit so they can drive us right down into the gutters again to keep the cycle going.:D

edit - The fact that they went way overboard when Bush and Cheney had their turn to loot the treasury and found that the Dems needed help this time around is testament to the repubs reverence to tradition and overt blatant greed.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Oh, please. Recessions are one thing, trend lines over longer time periods are another-

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...-2010-federal-government-revenues-vs-spending

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/chart-graph/us-national-debt

Which doesn't explain Repub motivations, but this does-

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph#

Nobody profits from tax cut induced deficits like the wealthy, nobody.

Boy your graph sure puts Obama's spending in perspective now doesn't it.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Bush didn't spend $4 Trillion in 2 years.

When you bring that up, the relevant question becomes: "would Bush have spent nearly the same, more, or less?" We'll never know, which makes mentioning Bush at all entirely irrelevant.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Unfortunately it's the Regressives like you and those in the Tea Party that are holding the Republican Party hostage.You're now better than the Progressives. Wingnuts on both sides are fucking us up.
We've always been better than the Progressives. But glad to see you've now recognized it. :D

What? That's what you said.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Oh, please. Recessions are one thing, trend lines over longer time periods are another-

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...-2010-federal-government-revenues-vs-spending

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/chart-graph/us-national-debt

Which doesn't explain Repub motivations, but this does-

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph#

Nobody profits from tax cut induced deficits like the wealthy, nobody.

What I love is how they keep saying it isn't a revenue problem and keep attaching the WHOLE deficit to Obama and comparing it to Bushes deficite. What would Bush have spent with 500 billion less in revenue?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Boy your graph sure puts Obama's spending in perspective now doesn't it.

Yeh- Obama's spending follows the same trend line as his predecessor's, although much of it is in response to the greatest republican sponsored financial boom/bust cycle since 1929.

The up side of the cycle is just the set-up for the gains to be made by the financial elite on the downside, the beatdown of the middle class and the consolidation of wealth and power. They'll make cash King if they can, and they're the only people who'll have any.

That's the real thrust of Repub budget cutting.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
We've always been better than the Progressives. But glad to see you've now recognized it. :D

What? That's what you said.

Obviously a typo but even if it were true it's not by a discernable amount.

The Progressives are/were trying to make the promise of an American Future thought of back in the 50's and 60's come true. Obviously it was a pipe dream, our society didn't have it in us to make it happen.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Obviously a typo but even if it were true it's not by a discernable amount.

The Progressives are/were trying to make the promise of an American Future thought of back in the 50's and 60's come true. Obviously it was a pipe dream, our society didn't have it in us to make it happen.

Greed at the top saw to that, expressed most eloquently in the Reaganomics/ trickledown economic fairy tale.

The electorate fell for that the way a young ingenue falls for free beer at the Hell's Angels' picnic.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obviously a typo but even if it were true it's not by a discernable amount.

The Progressives are/were trying to make the promise of an American Future thought of back in the 50's and 60's come true. Obviously it was a pipe dream, our society didn't have it in us to make it happen.
I would say conservatives are trying to realize the American future circa 1950s/1960s whereas progressives are trying to realize the Soviet future circa 1950s/1960s. Progressives - trying to progressively implement the hope and change revolution delivers all at once.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I would say conservatives are trying to realize the American future circa 1950s/1960s whereas progressives are trying to realize the Soviet future circa 1950s/1960s. Progressives - trying to progressively implement the hope and change revolution delivers all at once.

You would say that but you'd be wrong Gomez. The only difference between you and Spidey007 is that you don't drool when you are posting. Nobody wants a Soviet Union style society just as nobody wants a Facist Dictatorship. Those are just accusations opposing sides throw out to demonize each other.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
I would say conservatives are trying to realize the American future circa 1950s/1960s whereas progressives are trying to realize the Soviet future circa 1950s/1960s. Progressives - trying to progressively implement the hope and change revolution delivers all at once.

You can't honestly believe that, so why did you write it? American progressives are trying to implement European style social safety nets. Argue against that if you want, but if you find yourself needing to distort your opponent's argument to win, that's a sign you need to rethink yours.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Greed at the top saw to that, expressed most eloquently in the Reaganomics/ trickledown economic fairy tale.

The electorate fell for that the way a young ingenue falls for free beer at the Hell's Angels' picnic.

Yep, dropping the upper tax bracket from 70% to 50% sure opresses the middle class. How dare they.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yep, dropping the upper tax bracket from 70% to 50% sure opresses the middle class. How dare they.

How can you argue when you can't even read, when you just pull numbers out of your ass as if they're real?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
That's simply not true. Increasing taxes mostly pulls from investment capital, which in a recession is largely sitting stagnant
-snip-

shens-

the people like myself that should be taxed a little more are investing and saving.

-snip-

-snip-
Top incomes aren't spending or investing, they're hoarding, putting money and capital on the sidelines. They're neither investing it in anything other that treasuries or spending it.

Can you economic geniuses tell me where this 'horded' money is and what is being done with? Explain to me how it's NOT spent.

TIA

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Can you economic geniuses tell me where this 'horded' money is and what is being done with? Explain to me how it's NOT spent.

TIA

Fern

Have you no Google?

"Business hoarding cash"

"Banks hoarding liquidity"

& variations on the theme.

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Can you economic geniuses tell me where this 'horded' money is and what is being done with? Explain to me how it's NOT spent.

TIA

Fern
Do you even know what a recession is? What "economic contraction" literally means?

Explanation:
A recession has many attributes that can occur simultaneously and includes declines in component measures of economic activity (GDP) such as consumption, investment, government spending, and net export activity.
More here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
I suggest you read up.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You are not going to convince Republicans. They would never let facts get in the way of their ideology.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
How can you argue when you can't even read, when you just pull numbers out of your ass as if they're real?

Speaking of google, "Upper Tax Bracket By Year"

It was 70% under Carter till Reagan dropped it to 50%.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Speaking of google, "Upper Tax Bracket By Year"

It was 70% under Carter till Reagan dropped it to 50%.

Carter inherited that, in fact it was considerably higher under Nixon.

Kind of innaccurate info there. At the same time Reagan lowered the upper bracket threshold from $200k to $100k.

Which means it was a tax increase, or not a big decrease, for most upper middle income people, up to $150k or so, and a HUGE tax break for the very wealthy. like a million a year person got more than a $100k tax reduction.

Also, look at low top rates in 1925-1930, which led to the Great Depression.

The real problem witha lot of extreme wealth at the top isn't starving poor people, it's that it DOESNT WORK and will destroy the economy.
 
Last edited:

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
You are not going to convince Republicans. They would never let facts get in the way of their ideology.

Its not even a republican issue. Most old party republicans consider themselves independent or Libertarian.


These guys are just fools at the trough...
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
You are not going to convince Republicans. They would never let facts get in the way of their ideology.


Just like Democrats.


Oh wait see how easy that is. It doesn't matter what party it is, they are all screwed up and aren't even close to representing this countries ideology. It really shouldn't be this hard for anyone to shrink the budget by vast amounts.