[tutkarussia]

Bullshit, Obama could have allowed them to expire but did not out of a conituation of an ongoing class warfare game both sides are playing. He could not get them to expire for just the wealthy, thus Obama caved and allowed them all to continue making the Bush tax cuts now the Obama tax cuts. Here we are still trying to make your Obama absent of responsibility, which even himself would not agree with you. Typically partisan.

Yep--the Bush tax cuts also went to the middle class--aka "anyone" who pays federal income tax got a cut.

So many forgot that. And you're right--that's why Obama did not let the Bush tax cuts expire.

[tutkarussia]

Really, proved it?

No you haven't, none of you surplus deniers have proved anything except that you don't understand the topic.

Well that was about as clear as MUD--

[Inonanialry]

At least you guys are being somewhat honest. Tea partiers and the like to not lend themselves to such honesty.

The Bush tax cuts were a Republican demand which they forced Obama to accept to prevent them from shutting the government. I can't in good conscience call this an Obama addition to the deficit.

It's even a stretch to call recovery measures Obama additions since they were shock reactions to a (largely) Republican crash of the economy but in the interest of being non partisan I will put them (as the graph does) in the Obama column.

Poor Obama. All the spending isn't his fault, the republicans forced it on him! It's like he was never elected President and it's some other politician forcing Obama, the humble middle class 9-5 worker, to accept his policies.

[Payodcapy542fro]

Who's spending spree?

Obamacare and entitlement changes are only $152 Billion?

[textarchive]

It's Bush's fault, it's the Republican's fault, it's the Tea Party's fault.

Call the meanies and tell them to do it my way.

I think that's the gist of it.

[dayclaccikere]

We've been through this before....many times before.

Since 1950 tax revenues have increased every year except 1992, 2002-2003 and 2009-2010. 1992 was a Clinton year, 2002-2003 was due to the crash after 9/11 and 2008-2010 was due to the crash of 2007. The most dramatic increase in tax revenues began in 2003....just after the implementation of the Bush tax cuts.

Here's the chart

1992 was a "Clinton Year"?
It was a good year for Clinton, he got elected president, but he didn't take office until 1993.

Tax revenues do go up most years, the economy grows most years, and government spending goes up most years.
But when huge deficits regularly follow tax cuts, then you need to consider that tax cuts produce deficits.
I know you are going to say the problem is spending, but the same people that passed the tax cuts, passed the spending.

They said that we were spending too much, that we needed to reduce the "cost of government", and their "heroic" stance was to spend more, and reduce the "cost of government" by borrowing record amounts so they could cut taxes and pretend they had done something.

So why not deal with reality?

The economy needs fixing, tax cuts didn't work, they didn't "grow the economy", the economy needs a big customer to spend it into prosperity, that's what happened in 1943-45 when over half the GDP was federal spending, when the national debt went to 125% of gdp.
But the economy got moving, money got flowing, and the economy could continue at a higher level even as federal spending was reduced.
Before that, timid levels of stimulus had produced small improvements, but the economy was stuck at a place where the economy was stable, but awful.
It needed to be kicked up to a higher level of GDP, and to stabilize at that higher level. That requires increased government spending, the alternative is to allow the country to grow out of the current situation with lower taxes and reduced government, and that process will work, it will probably take a couple of decades, but it will work.
I favor an aggressive approach that could get the economy back up to target levels in a few years. But that's me, the main problem I see with the conservative approach, is that it reduces the US to a second rate power probably forever, and cedes world dominance to China.

[Q0KmoR8K]

Threads merged.

[textarchive]

Really, proved it?

No you haven't, none of you surplus deniers have proved anything except that you don't understand the topic.

I guess I have to post the numbers yet again.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

I know math is not your friend, but even you should be able to work a calculator. When the number goes up from year to year, you didn't run a surplus, you spent more than you took in.

We understand the topic very well, and it's simple, so simple you'd think even a liberal could do it. Apparently we were too optimistic in thinking you could add 2+2 and get 4.

[TCjwwhcY]

Updates: Obama appeals to reason, compromise. Boehner leaves out the word compromise, says debt ceiling will not be raised unless Obama agrees to GOP demands. On twitter, Ezra Klein wonders if Obama loaded Boehner's teleprompter because he proved his point that the GOP can't compromise. Boehner overheard leaving the capitol "I didn't sign up to go toe to toe with the President of the United States". Congressional servers overloaded with traffic after Obama's appeal to call your congressman.

[TCjwwhcY]

Boehner doesn't want to give Obama a "blank cheque". Leaves out the part where that cheque is to pay for the Republican spending on the last ten years when they rubber stamped Bush.

[mikeyyuiok]

1992 was a "Clinton Year"?
It was a good year for Clinton, he got elected president, but he didn't take office until 1993.

Tax revenues do go up most years, the economy grows most years, and government spending goes up most years.
But when huge deficits regularly follow tax cuts, then you need to consider that tax cuts produce deficits.
I know you are going to say the problem is spending, but the same people that passed the tax cuts, passed the spending.

They said that we were spending too much, that we needed to reduce the "cost of government", and their "heroic" stance was to spend more, and reduce the "cost of government" by borrowing record amounts so they could cut taxes and pretend they had done something.

So why not deal with reality?

The economy needs fixing, tax cuts didn't work, they didn't "grow the economy", the economy needs a big customer to spend it into prosperity, that's what happened in 1943-45 when over half the GDP was federal spending, when the national debt went to 125% of gdp.
But the economy got moving, money got flowing, and the economy could continue at a higher level even as federal spending was reduced.
Before that, timid levels of stimulus had produced small improvements, but the economy was stuck at a place where the economy was stable, but awful.
It needed to be kicked up to a higher level of GDP, and to stabilize at that higher level. That requires increased government spending, the alternative is to allow the country to grow out of the current situation with lower taxes and reduced government, and that process will work, it will probably take a couple of decades, but it will work.
I favor an aggressive approach that could get the economy back up to target levels in a few years. But that's me, the main problem I see with the conservative approach, is that it reduces the US to a second rate power probably forever, and cedes world dominance to China.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that government spending can only come from 2 places....taxes or borrowing. When it gets money from taxes all that's happening is that the taxpayers money is getting shifted around. When they borrow all that they are doing is racking up a debt that the taxpayers will have to service.

Over the past 60 years or so the government has managed to put the US taxpayer on the hook for debt which is now pretty much equal to one full years productivity while chopping the taxpayer base down to 50% of the population. On top of that the debt horizon keeps increasing. That 50% of taxpayers is looking at future debt of more than 5 years productivity and the plan government seems to be pushing is to decrease the tax base even more.

It's pure insanity. You can't simply keep dumping more and more financial responsibility on less and less people and expect to stay solvent. Eventually your revenue base goes broke or simply goes away.

[textarchive]

Boehner doesn't want to give Obama a "blank cheque". Leaves out the part where that cheque is to pay for the Republican spending on the last ten years when they rubber stamped Bush.

Actually most of that spending happened in the last two years...when there was a Democratic congress. Of course that doesn't absolve when the Republicans did have control of congress under Bush.

Or the non-stop spending that happened under Clinton.

Or the non-stop spending that happened under GW Bush.

Or the non-stop spending that happened under Reagan.

Or the non-stop spending that happened under Carter.

Are you seeing the trend here?

[mikeyyuiok]

Misleading or a bald faced lie?

This is from the transcript of Obama's speech on the deficit talks tonight:

The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families. I call 100% unadulterated bullshit on this line.

Right now the top 50% of all taxpayers foot the bill for 97% of all taxes collected and nothing in either of the plans presented will change that.

The truth is mighty damned far from "nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales". This comment is nothing more than Obama's continued catering to those "progressives" who thrive on the Marxist ideology of class warfare.

Now let's look at this

In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. Granted, it's been a few years since I watched Sesame Street but I don't remember "sharing" to have ever been defined "you provide less while he provides more".

There's no "sharing" in this method. It's "taking" and "redistributing".

[lipitrRrxX]

I swear... Obama has but one speech:

Blame Bush
I'm in the middle
Everyone else is extreme

7 times he told members of Congress to "compromise." Yet once again, Obama offered no "compromise" plan.

I've said often in the last few weeks that my 18 y o son knows more about leadership and negotiation than Obama does. I'm beginning to think that his little sister knows more.

Tonight Obama told that nation: "I got nothing." while positioning himself to the left of his own party in Congress. A party and a leadership that knows that they must make a deal... now.

Next year the Democrats must defend 22 seats. 17 of them have setting Senators running. They are running, many in red states without the benefits of a billion dollars of illegal George Soros off-shore money. They must make a deal.

Obama might have not lost the 2012 election tonight.

But he did nothing to help himself... or any other Democrat win.

[SpecialOFFER]

Summary of Obama's 'debt ceiling' speech:

• The debt is all Bush’s fault
• I am for a balanced solution, as long as it includes tax increases and extends beyond my next election
• The rich currently do not pay anything, or contribute at all toward our revenue
• The idiots in the TEA Party insist that it stay that way, which is the only reason we do not have a deal.

This is the guy we elected as a 'uniter',

[tutkarussia]

I swear... Obama has but one speech:

Blame Bush
I'm in the middle
Everyone else is extreme

7 times he told members of Congress to "compromise." Yet once again, Obama offered no "compromise" plan.

I've said often in the last few weeks that my 18 y o son knows more about leadership and negotiation than Obama does. I'm beginning to think that his little sister knows more.

Tonight Obama told that nation: "I got nothing." while positioning himself to the left of his own party in Congress. A party and a leadership that knows that they must make a deal... now.

Next year the Democrats must defend 22 seats. 17 of them have setting Senators running. They are running, many in red states without the benefits of a billion dollars of illegal George Soros off-shore money. They must make a deal.

Obama might have not lost the 2012 election tonight.

But he did nothing to help himself... or any other Democrat win.

Obama had a plan--of spend--spend--spend--and he couldn't get support on it from ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT--

I am getting real tired of Obama accusing Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare when he cut Medicare by 500 BILLION dollars for his Obamacare?

Obama talks like he is a leader of a 3rd world country--rich against poor. It's getting real old.

Attachment 11506

[Hitfaromarf]

Can't wait to hear what he has to say. Will be about debt talks most likely. I think the public needs to be better informed about the hostage taking going on here by the GOP. If there is no raising of the debt ceiling, the entire economy will have been crashed on purpose.

Obama was the one on TV not long ago threatening to withhold social security checks from the elderly and disabled next month unless he gets what he wants. What a fucking cowardly asshole!

I also saw this surveillence tape video of Obama

Mr. Obama, the NYPD has some questions for you.

[UKkoXJvF]

Thank God, I did not watch it.
I already knew it was going to be another broken record as you stated.

[lipitrRrxX]

It's getting real old.

I think that you might have hit on it: Obama is getting old... as in 'stale'

You need only look as far as this thread... almost zero interest from the left.

Now in news that might deserve it's own thread...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said it would be a "good idea" for Obama to face a primary challenger, if for nothing else than as a counterweight to Republican voices in the presidential debate. Sanders: Would be 'good' for Obama to face primary challenge - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Amazing...

[Qxsumehj]

Well, one thing we learned last night is that the phrase "balanced approach" test well with the focus groups.

He managed to work the phrase in seven times during his speech. This might be the start of a new POTUS Speech drinking game.