Slowest spending (growth) in decades

[palerider]

The chart says it all.

Source

Clearly that chart doesn't count obama's trillion dollar plus (and growing) "stimulus" as spending. Typically dishonest.

 

[Gipper]

Clearly that chart doesn't count obama's trillion dollar plus (and growing) "stimulus" as spending. Typically dishonest.

Yes and our stoner friend believed it. Hahahaha....

This chart is much more accurate.

[/QUOTE]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[Gipper]

Liberalism is like a slow growing, but always fatal CANCER. Once it has infected it's host, it kills it.

Could it be that once Liberalism kills it's host, it dies too? I sure hope so. Maybe once it is dead, new life can begin.

​

The Keynesian theory is that government spending will boost consumer demand in a way that spurs more business spending to meet it. But instead the $830 billion stimulus seems to have created a short-term GDP blip based on government expenditures, but no growth takeoff. In return for blowing out the federal balance sheet, Americans got more debt but not more growth. And Mr. Obama says he wants $100 billion in more stimulus now?​

The tragedy of the Obama Presidency is that it ignored the supply side: the producers, the risk-takers, the salary earners who put in 50 and 60 hours a week to get ahead. They have been battered by Washington, and no matter how much government tries to conjure growth with more spending and easier monetary policy, businesses won't produce and workers won't work if government threatens to confiscate returns.​

Banks aren't lending as much as they might in no small part because of Dodd-Frank's penalties and regulations. Investors aren't investing or are sending their money abroad because the President is promising to wallop them with huge tax increases on January 1. Businesses aren't purchasing as much new equipment, or hiring as many workers, because they don't know what the real costs will be from new regulation and ObamaCare.​

A new report by the Progressive Policy Institute—run by Democrats—finds that if business investment had tracked the normal trend rate during this recovery, investment would be $1.4 trillion higher. The report fingers regulation on business and American investors finding better returns abroad. Yet Mr. Obama's solution is to raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates.​

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop​

​

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Liberalism is like a slow growing, but always fatal CANCER. Once it has infected it's host, it kills it.

Could it be that once Liberalism kills it's host, it dies too? I sure hope so. Maybe once it is dead, new life can begin.

​

​

NO--it does not die.
It morphs into a Cult of Personality Totalitarian State--like islam or communism or fascism.
It starts out by looking for a charismatic messiah of some twisted sort. Only the rhetoric matters--who he really is--is of no consequence.
Blabbermouths do very well in this scheme, know-it-alls even better--haughty heads in the air--will often complete the ruse and the deception.
History is replete with them.
Don't take my word for it.
It gives up on all individual efforts and seeks all decisions to be absolute from One Person.
It is not Progressive--it is--Regressive.
It is a coward's Surrender.
In the name of "happiness" + security". And will achieve NEITHER.

In simpler times--it was called Monarchy.
Monarchy learned--that since, if they were despotic, the Monarch often lost their heads--that a Totalitarian State was a better form, or at least stood a better chance of eternal survival through horrors and murders beyond human imagining.

Then, rather than a "court" of Fops and Ladies in Waiting--they would cobble together a Ministry or Politburo or Democrat National Committee or some other named collective to reward sycphants with a "position".

Only national and international suicide and world conflict can exorcise the demons of totalitarianism.
History is filled with it--and so are history BOOKS.
Don't take my word for it.

When people ask for Blissful Harmony in government they are asking for a reversal, overnight, of human nature.
Won't ever happen.
The Founding Fathers saw this and recognized why hard-fought, acrimonious debate was the only way to have
ANY CHANCE of a Compromise all sides could live with.
It's NOT EASY. Was not meant to be. But the reward--is the hope of the world.

This was the idea of a Republic. It's a great gift we have. Guard it jealously.

 

[GenSeneca]

maybe, but rabid partisanship and the lack of willingness to compromise aren't serving us very well just now.

How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?

 

[Cruella]

How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?

We don't. The quickest way to get there is to just let the liberals implement their policies and implode the system.

 

[GenSeneca]

We don't. The quickest way to get there is to just let the liberals implement their policies and implode the system.

That only works if there's no Republican party to scapegoat for all their failures... Which is why I've said the Republican party should disband and give Dems 100% control over all levels of government - for a decade or two while they eliminate ALL Prog influence from the R party. Yeah, it would suck hard for about 10-15 years but without their ability to blame someone else for their failures, the Left wouldn't win another regional or national election for a century or more.

I have to agree with JT to a certain extent, if the Progs implode the system while they still have a scapegoat to blame, they will just "fundamentally transform America" into a totalitarian state - through "bi-partisanship" and "compromise" of course.

 

[Gipper]

That only works if there's no Republican party to scapegoat for all their failures... Which is why I've said the Republican party should disband and give Dems 100% control over all levels of government - for a decade or two while they eliminate ALL Prog influence from the R party. Yeah, it would suck hard for about 10-15 years but without their ability to blame someone else for their failures, the Left wouldn't win another regional or national election for a century or more.

I have to agree with JT to a certain extent, if the Progs implode the system while they still have a scapegoat to blame, they will just "fundamentally transform America" into a totalitarian state - through "bi-partisanship" and "compromise" of course.

I agree the R party needs to die. Then the Tea Party could takes it's place and purge all the progressive R politicians.

And the progressives will ALWAYS find a scapegoat for their failures. Even if the Rs were to disappear, they would blame capitalism, religion, the wealthy, bankers, oil companies, etc.....

The problem is conservative Rs lack the guts to attack the progressives and point out their numerous failures for fear the lib MSM will destroy them...though their are exceptions - Allen West being one and look what the media and the progressive Rs are doing to him.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?

By electing ONLY those who will take the Constitution and enforce and restore it.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I agree the R party needs to die. Then the Tea Party could takes it's place and purge all the progressive R politicians.

And the progressives will ALWAYS find a scapegoat for their failures. Even if the Rs were to disappear, they would blame capitalism, religion, the wealthy, bankers, oil companies, etc.....

The problem is conservative Rs lack the guts to attack the progressives and point out their numerous failures for fear the lib MSM will destroy them...though their are exceptions - Allen West being one and look what the media and the progressive Rs are doing to him.

GIPPER is not alone in this sentiment.
There are many, many, many, many, many MILLIONS more.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

We don't. The quickest way to get there is to just let the liberals implement their policies and implode the system.

I thought that for a long times as well--but this time--they intend to take the nation down with them.

 

[PLC1]

Yes and our stoner friend believed it. Hahahaha....

This chart is much more accurate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/quote]

Interesting how you would post a graph of GDP to counter one about spending and then accuse me of being a stoner. Maybe in the morning you will see that the data are not the same. They are related, of course, in that the deficit from the Bush/Obama years is due to a decrease in revenues caused by the recession.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

 

[Gipper]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Interesting how you would post a graph of GDP to counter one about spending and then accuse me of being a stoner. Maybe in the morning you will see that the data are not the same. They are related, of course, in that the deficit from the Bush/Obama years is due to a decrease in revenues caused by the recession.

[/QUOTE]


Hey Stoner, I did not post that graph to counter your dishonest one nor did I state that my graph offered the same information as the propaganda you posted. I merely posted a graph that is factual. You might try it sometime.

Do you assert that the graph I posted is inaccurate?

 

[PLC1]

Hey Stoner, I did not post that graph to counter your dishonest one nor did I state that my graph offered the same information as the propaganda you posted. I merely posted a graph that is factual. You might try it sometime.

Do you assert that the graph I posted is inaccurate?

Sure, it's accurate. so's mine.

The one doesn't counter the other.

And if you really didn't post it to counter what I posted, why did you say, "Yes and our stoner friend believed it. Hahahaha...."?

Was that just your Pavlovian response?

I did take a moment to go back over your other posts, looking to see just what you had said. I found one other interesting parallel between Reagan and Obama: Both of them, or at least their supporters, seem to have a tendency to blame the previous administration for the problems they had, as witness your bringing up Carter. Interesting, isn't it, just how much alike the two really are?

Oh, I didn't vote for Reagan the second go around, for reasons I've already stated, and I don't intend to vote for a second Obama term, either.

and, just as an aside, you don't have to be a stoner to want the billions being spend on pot in this country to quit going to violent cartels and gangs. If you support the authoritarian drug war position, then you must support the gangs and cartels as well, correct?