Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-debt-supercommittee-idUSTRE78C40O20110913
Though I am sure Dung will be along to tell us soon that 0.8% of GDP isn't that big of a deal.... it just isn't.... right Dung?
Way to go Obama!
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-debt-supercommittee-idUSTRE78C40O20110913
Though I am sure Dung will be along to tell us soon that 0.8% of GDP isn't that big of a deal.... it just isn't.... right Dung?
You don't know the difference between percentage growth of GDP and taxation as a percentage of GDP.
And what are the reasons for the lowered estimates? This is the economy that the House GOP wanted. Ain't it grand?
The CBO has been so correct in the past.
Good Luck
New member
Which is why you quote them religiously when their conclusions support your big government programs, right?
What leads you to believe their revisions are incorrect? This is what happens when governments enact austerity policies in the midst of a sluggish economy. Austerity slows economic growth.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes... taxation is much higher in terms of real dollars.
The reason for the lowered estimates.... Obama is a horrible President with absolutely NO idea what to do. He proved that by introducing more of the same type of 'stimulus' that he had in his last 'this is an awesome stimulus package that will restore growth and employment' plan.
Only the die hard parrots are sticking with Obama as a 'good' leader. The rest have seen through all his rhetoric and hype.
It is truly amazing though how now matter how much/little power the Reps have, you Dems always find a way to blame them for 'stopping' you.... and then you go on to tell us how intellectual Dems are compared to those neanderthal Reps. How is it that the neanderthals keep beating you Dung?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They constantly have to revise based on new data. When you have a government that wants to keep on doing the same exact thing that led us into the mess we are in.... growth estimates are going to be revised. I do agree with you though, I think they are off on these new estimates and will be revising them down further in coming months.
This is why you don't keep spending and promising 'we will pay for it later'. Everyone with any intelligence knows that the massive amounts of debt mean higher taxes at some point. Spending more now simply makes people and companies tighten their belts further to prepare for the government ass raping that is to come.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Ruining the economy is the GOP strategy.
They will obfuscate, oppose, and sabotage any measures that might alleviate the economic "crisis" they created while declaring that they have the solution - lower taxes for the rich.
Senator Mitch McConnell said the goal of the GOP is to to get the Black man out of the White House.
They will obfuscate, oppose, and sabotage any measures that might alleviate the economic "crisis" they created while declaring that they have the solution - lower taxes for the rich.
Senator Mitch McConnell said the goal of the GOP is to to get the Black man out of the White House.
You have is exactly ass-backward. Here is Elmendorf from yesterday:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ed:+tpmelectioncentral+(TPM+Election+Central)
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes... that is what politicians have been saying for decades.... 'we will pay for it later'.... the problem dear dung is that the public is not buying it any more. People know we cannot continue down this path. This whole 'lets try to avoid the pain today' only makes the problem fester and grow. You are not solving anything with these insane levels of spending (at least in the manner it is being spent)... you are simply pushing the problem into the future. Then, in another six months, you will say 'we need to spend more now and pay for it later in order for this to work'.... then six months later.... well you get the point.
In the early 80's, Volcker tried under Carter to raise interest rates to crush inflation. Carter went along with it for about two months. But because it caused short term pain to the country, Carter reversed his support and Volcker dropped rates. Then under Reagan Volcker tried again. While it again created the short term pain, it solved the LONG TERM PROBLEM.
These idiots in DC want to push the problem as far into the future as they can..... SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO DEAL WITH IT.
Actually, we were on a path to debt reduction and balanced budgets at the end of the 1990s (to clean up the mess that Reagan left). Then the people you vote for got control of the government and blew the whole damn thing up.
And I find it hilarious that at the same time you are complaining about government debt, you praise Reagan. Hilarious.
LOL. I predicted that the Obama would try to blame the result of his terrible economic policy on newly elected House republicans. Man, that was a "tough" prediction. That you would carry his bath water is just bonus.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Taxes are low, historically speaking.
The Tea-orists have all signed a pledge not to raise any taxes (which included letting the Bush tax cuts expire).
Yet the public - according to polling data - supports a balanced approach to government finances, including tax increases when needed.
Tax cuts haven't worked, yet the GOP wants us to think they will if we keep at it.
Tax and spend worked just fine until Bush came along, seems to me.
The Tea-orists have all signed a pledge not to raise any taxes (which included letting the Bush tax cuts expire).
Yet the public - according to polling data - supports a balanced approach to government finances, including tax increases when needed.
Tax cuts haven't worked, yet the GOP wants us to think they will if we keep at it.
Tax and spend worked just fine until Bush came along, seems to me.
Hilarious. It isn't tough to predict that austerity measures will negatively impact GDP and employment. Pretty much every left-wing commentator pointed this out time and time again when deficit hysteria was all the rage. It's pretty much standard macroeconomics. And if you don't buy standard macroeconomic theory, just take a look at the UK.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The Dancin' Dalai loves to say "I told you so".
I'd love to see some evidence of his self-proclaimed nearly-spotless record as a prognosticator.
I'd love to see some evidence of his self-proclaimed nearly-spotless record as a prognosticator.
Inane, they are still spending the "stimulus", the "austerity" measures you say exist, don't. They even gave him 2.4 Trillion more to spend and he's trying to do it with relish. The reality is the "stimulus" just didn't get the job done, and the Administration is trying to blame its failure on the House. That you are drinking the dirty bath water isn't surprising, it's just funny.
The policies were failing before the republicans were elected, they continue to fail, and they're just trying to take advantage of the fact that they now have split government after losing super majorities in both houses to try to blame all that Phail on "those guys"... It really isn't going to work. It just isn't that hard to pull up the sound bytes...
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
How did those Bush tax cuts work out?
You crack me up. The trouble with what you are saying is that it bears absolutely no relation to reality. Sound bytes aren't reality. They're sound bytes. You can spin an argument that it's all Obama's fault and you are doing a good job of it, but that doesn't make it so. If you actually read what independent analysts have to say about the stimulus, the deficit reduction measure the Republicans insisted upon and the most recent jobs bill it's quite clear what is going on. But people don't read that stuff, you included apparently.
So it'll probably work. Most people will just blame the President. That's why the Republicans in the House will do everything in their power to prevent the economy from improving and will work their hardest to ensure that the economy still sucks a year from now. It's unfortunate, because a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily, but that's where we are.
Edit: And one more thing, the CBO revisions were based on the assumption that the Budget Control Act is implemented. There's your austerity. And the downward revisions are the result.
Stupidly. Rate cuts without equivalent coinciding spending cuts are worthless.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Bill Frenzel, a retired congressman and guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, believes the budget committee can cut enough around the edges to fulfill its mandate without tackling the big budget questions—and calling for tax hikes that Republican members would likely reject. “The supercommittee will achieve its $1.5-trillion goal the old way, with some domestic discretionary and tinkering with some entitlements that are least harmful,” he says.
That pushes the real budget showdown into 2012, an election year not only for the executive branch but for a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives.
Given that this is the issue on which the parties essentially differentiate themselves from each other, it’s likely to be a hot one, regardless of the compromises from both sides Warren Buffett and a majority of Americans are seeking, and for the stock and bond markets, it means another year of uncertainty.
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/43452--paying-their-share--page2
That pushes the real budget showdown into 2012, an election year not only for the executive branch but for a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives.
Given that this is the issue on which the parties essentially differentiate themselves from each other, it’s likely to be a hot one, regardless of the compromises from both sides Warren Buffett and a majority of Americans are seeking, and for the stock and bond markets, it means another year of uncertainty.
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/43452--paying-their-share--page2