Republicans against debt...but not really...

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Uh, OK .............. ignoramuses are sort of entertaining.



Your economics knowledge is equal to mine when I was about eight years old. Notice how in the leftwing brain "not plundering" translates to 'giving".

Again

Less income

no decrease in spending

= Debt

not hard

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Again

Less income

no decrease in spending

= Debt

not hard

Do ALL you leftwingers argue with yourselves??

WHO said don't decrease spending? For starters, reallocate the unspent portion of obozo's porkulus payoffs to his political clients to paying down the debt.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Do ALL you leftwingers argue with yourselves??

WHO said don't decrease spending? For starters, reallocate the unspent portion of obozo's porkulus payoffs to his political clients to paying down the debt.

where is the decrease in spending in the bill?

when have Republicans ever decreased the spending?

don't you think maybe you should decrease the spending first...you know....before you starting running up more debt...if you realy wanted to do that?

don't worry we all know you don't really want that...its just a nice soundbite

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

where is the decrease in spending in the bill?

Why does it have to be in the self same bill?

when have Republicans ever decreased the spending?

President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term. And asking someone to defend "republicans" is silly - there are liberal republicans (aka RINOs), "moderate" republicans, conservative republicans, libertarian republicans, neocons. Bush II the RINO greatly hiked spending, but now he comes off as an amateur spender compared to obozo.

don't you think maybe you should decrease the spending first...you know....before you starting running up more debt...if you realy wanted to do that?

I personally have LOTS of ideas to reduce spending - want to hear some?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I personally have LOTS of ideas to reduce spending - want to hear some?

That's great.

When you're elected pres, maybe you can convince Congress to actually put some of your ideas into practice.

Until then, we're left with the reality that neither party has done squat to reduce spending. The Republicans keep repeating the mantra that reducing taxes will solve all of our economic ills, while the Democrats keep telling us how soaking the rich will do the trick. Neither one is facing the reality that reducing spending and increasing taxes is the only way to attack deficit spending.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

That's great.

When you're elected pres, maybe you can convince Congress to actually put some of your ideas into practice.

Until then, we're left with the reality that neither party has done squat to reduce spending. The Republicans keep repeating the mantra that reducing taxes will solve all of our economic ills, while the Democrats keep telling us how soaking the rich will do the trick. Neither one is facing the reality that reducing spending and increasing taxes is the only way to attack deficit spending.

I don't think going back to the tax rate of the 90's is quite soak the rich...as they use to pay well well well more then that...I see it as putting more of the burden back on those who have the most ability to pay for it, and also have benefited the most from what we have done. I would be fine with all tax rates going back to the 90's rates when the econ gets going again...right now I think it would be a bad idea...but contrary to the Republicans...the rich are not going to make many different spending choices with or without the tax rate going up...on there income that is higher then 250,000. ( I could have also lived with a negotiated deal of 500,000 or something as well...but Obama and the Dems did not fight hard enough for it)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Why does it have to be in the self same bill?

becuse saying well later we will do that..means never ..and almost always is true...live in the real world not some fantasy idea that they will later when actions speak louder the words....and history shows they will not.

President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term. And asking someone to defend "republicans" is silly - there are liberal republicans (aka RINOs), "moderate" republicans, conservative republicans, libertarian republicans, neocons. Bush II the RINO greatly hiked spending, but now he comes off as an amateur spender compared to obozo.

cuting budget of some and spending more overall does not equal spending less....if I cut the budget of 10 , 10,000 bucks, and raise 5 a million each...did I reduce spending? no...

And RINO...ok when was the last time there was not a RINO then? if ever....

its a pretty easy question...name a Republican who reduced overall spending. Bush did not, Bush W did not, Reagan did not...so if Republicans keep saying they will...never do...then why should anyone think the next one would do anything different?[/QUOTE]


"I personally have LOTS of ideas to reduce spending - want to hear some?"

yes, go ahead, tell me them...when you have a idea that will pass 60 votes in the senate, pass the house and would be signed into law...unless it will, its a pipe dream, with a value of nothing.


You can not increase real world spending, and offset it with idealistic but not actually spending cuts...and reduce debt...Both have to be real or your just running up debt

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I just can't believe the nerve of some liberals. Do they have no shame???

They complain about the spending of R presidents while ignoring the unprecedented spending by BO. They must be getting orders from the lib media elites. You know...good old talking points to deflect and obfuscate BO's deficit spending.

But, I suspect some of these liberal minions actually believe the BS they are told and regurgitating.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

thats why the tax cut would have stayed for all income under 250,000...to make sure econ stays going positive...even if to slowly,

Of course was not the stated ( no it was no the real one) goal of the tax cut in the fist place to "create jobs" under Bush...of course we lost jobs under Bush...and the Econ tanked under Bush...and debt went up...under Bush....so clearly doing the same thing as Bush did now....will lead to different outcome right?

You keep harping on this issue that we lost jobs under Bush, and therefore the tax cuts did not work... that is a baseless assertion. I know you have seen where I have posted how the economy responded immediately following the 2003 Bush tax cuts, and the numbers clearly show there was a positive reaction.

Let me be clear... the tax cuts did not cause the recession.

The Rich are saving money...this hurts the Economy..not helps...what econ class did you take that saving money and not spending it...helps a econ?

What economics class did you take in which banks paid out interest on money they were not investing? Money is "saved" in a bank yes, but it is quickly loaned out to other banks or people looking for a loan so that the bank can make a return.

Banks do not just lock away their deposits and do nothing with them, they only keep enough to meet the reserve requirements, which I believe has been raised (not sure on that point 100% though)?

Investing the money...giving Millionaires and Billionaires...almost a trillion dollars ( I believe its listed as .7 trillion in cost) ...meaning unless those people invest so much we gain .7 Trillion in Revenue ...we just built more
Debt....and fact is...they are not investing under the same tax rate now...

You are correct, tax cuts create debt for the short term. However, the whole idea that "we should cut taxes to put money in people's pockets" is another Keynesian fallacy.

What we need to be doing is focusing on cutting the marginal tax rate with a focus on "supply side" rather than "demand side." Marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989. (Heritage Foundation)

Simply putting money in peoples' pockets with the idea of stimulating demand is nothing more than failed Keynesian theory at its finest.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I just can't believe the nerve of some liberals. Do they have no shame???

They complain about the spending of R presidents while ignoring the unprecedented spending by BO. They must be getting orders from the lib media elites. You know...good old talking points to deflect and obfuscate BO's deficit spending.

But, I suspect some of these liberal minions actually believe the BS they are told and regurgitating.

So in other words...Cry about libs, and support going more into debt...while you pretend to care about debt...

The war in Afghanistan...Not paid for

The war in Iraq...not paid for

Bush tax cuts first time...not paid for

Bushes medicare reform bill...not paid for

But you of course rail against spending to bail out the auto industry..where we are being paid back, saved tens of thousands of jobs, and provided real help to the economy....

Tax Cuts again for the Rich..do not have to be paid for

Unemployment for the people who lost there jobs in one of the worse econs to find a job in recent memory...Must be paid for? Even though just about evry dollar spend...will find its way back in to the econ...while money to the rich...will sit in a bank account and do nothing....


Why don't you just say your a hypocrit and get it over...Pick one, you can't care about the debt...and support evry policy the Republicans come out with...that increases it.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Speaking of tax breaks as a way to stimulate the economy, it seems the current administration buys into that idea as well:

A study of the recovery plan shows most households will qualify for a tax break. Boost for some could be worth several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Roughly 97% of American households could see tax savings as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to a new analysis by a nonpartisan research group.

A big part of the stimulus plan, you know, the porkulus plan, the stealfromus plan, the big government socialist plan of the Obama administration and its Democrat controlled Congress was , was,


Tax breaks!

Believe it or not. Here's a link. Of course, there are a lot more.

 

[Apathy]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Again

Less income

no decrease in spending

= Debt

not hard

Less income + massive spending cuts = what the GOP gives lipservice to (fiscal conservatism)

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

So in other words...Cry about libs, and support going more into debt...while you pretend to care about debt...

The war in Afghanistan...Not paid for

The war in Iraq...not paid for

Bush tax cuts first time...not paid for

Bushes medicare reform bill...not paid for

But you of course rail against spending to bail out the auto industry..where we are being paid back, saved tens of thousands of jobs, and provided real help to the economy....

Tax Cuts again for the Rich..do not have to be paid for

Unemployment for the people who lost there jobs in one of the worse econs to find a job in recent memory...Must be paid for? Even though just about evry dollar spend...will find its way back in to the econ...while money to the rich...will sit in a bank account and do nothing....


Why don't you just say your a hypocrit and get it over...Pick one, you can't care about the debt...and support evry policy the Republicans come out with...that increases it.

One would think you are a Tea Party member by those comments, but I know better. You hate the Tea Party as do most libs. Yet, the Tea Party stands for reducing spending. But, I guess that is not what you want. You want more spending and more taxing, which of course will lead to disaster, but you are unable to comprehend this.

And, while Bush's spending was ridiculous...once the Dems won Congress - and cons criticized him for it (I don't remember libs complaining), your Messiah's spending dwarfs W's and yet, you fail to mention BO's spending in your list. How come???? rhetorical....

Can we add the following:
- stimulus plan
- Obummercare
- increases in every federal department budget
- TARP (I know...this was W's deal, but BO was for it)
and this in just two years in office...AND were any of these PAID FOR???

 

[Apathy]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

One would think you are a Tea Party member by those comments, but I know better. You hate the Tea Party as do most libs. 1) Yet, the Tea Party stands for reducing spending. 2) But, I guess that is not what you want. You want more spending and more taxing, which of course will lead to disaster, but you are unable to comprehend this.

3)And, while Bush's spending was ridiculous...once the Dems won Congress - and cons criticized him for it (I don't remember libs complaining), your Messiah's spending dwarfs W's and yet, you fail to mention BO's spending in your list. How come???? rhetorical....

4)Can we add the following:
- stimulus plan
- Obummercare
- increases in every federal department budget
- TARP (I know...this was W's deal, but BO was for it)
and this in just two years in office...AND were any of these PAID FOR???

1) Just like Reagan did right. LOL The tea party is just the GOP rebranded fox news must have you by the testicals if you see otherwise.

2) Pockets is pointing out your hipocrisies... duh!

3) Sure if by criticized him you mean voting for most of his bills. I never met a "con" politician who voted against a spending bill for their pet projects.

4) Pointing out liberals spending bills does not make the last decade of GOP fvck-ups go away.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

One would think you are a Tea Party member by those comments, but I know better. You hate the Tea Party as do most libs. Yet, the Tea Party stands for reducing spending. But, I guess that is not what you want. You want more spending and more taxing, which of course will lead to disaster, but you are unable to comprehend this.

And, while Bush's spending was ridiculous...once the Dems won Congress - and cons criticized him for it (I don't remember libs complaining), your Messiah's spending dwarfs W's and yet, you fail to mention BO's spending in your list. How come???? rhetorical....

Can we add the following:
- stimulus plan
- Obummercare
- increases in every federal department budget
- TARP (I know...this was W's deal, but BO was for it)
and this in just two years in office...AND were any of these PAID FOR???

hmm the stimulus plan...the one that was 40% tax breaks? Also there is something you need to understand...there is a difference between a one time or short term spending ...to get the econ going again...and long term tax cuts raise debt yearly forever until ended...Also I did take issue with parts of it, as I felt more should have been put into spending and stimulus less on tax cuts that did not push push the econ but where there to try to appease Republicans ( some tax cuts where there to increase investment..I support those)

Health care...I guess reforming the most costly drain on US tax dollars....is bad right? With the goal of reducing the cost of health care for all..and on the government...In order to do it, yes you sometimes spend more..and then you look at the long term costs...Also the CBO has reported that the Bill will long term reduce debt...and there is this really funny thing about the health care bill...it has things in there...designed to PAY FOR IT....somthing the tax cuts do not have..nor did any of the wars....or the Bush Medicare plan...or *( just start adding most Republican bills for last 30 years that had any spending)

Increases in every government department...First you have not shown anything to suggest its true...
2nd, if Inflation is 4% and the budget goes up 2%...thats actuly a reduction in spending as far as percent of GDP ...so unless you provide numbers you can't see how this relates.
Obama has pushed for spending freezes...when did Republicans or Bush do this?

TARP...Like you said Bush did it.. So no, you can't blame Obama for it, and give Republicans a wash for it...when it was the Republican president who signed this bill, and pushed for it, and was the one who was in charge as to how the funds where to be used...
next...Please tell me the cost of letting all the banks fail in terms of the US econ , and job losses....If you spend a billion to save 10 billion...inaction has a 9 billion dollar cost vs the 1 billion cost of doing something....
If you recall, I was very very torn about the TARP deal....and I agreed in general that we had to act to stop our whole econ from falling over itself into what would have made this recession look weak . You think banks are hard to get a loan from now for a buisness...just think how hard it would be when half the banks have just gone under....the ECON would be dead in its tracks...

But again...While voted on by many Dems...It was a Republican Policy by Bush...who like it or not...is...a Republican....Its funny how your party keeps electing people to office....but then when called on to deal with there policy...you just throw them out so as to not be responsible...

On the Other side...Clinton was a Dem when he got Impeached , Clinton was a Dem when the econ did very well for his terms. Good with the bad...though I am not a Dem...and disliked Clinton...I don't pick and choose who is a real Dem and who is a DINO...( odd you never actuly hear that term)




Why is it so hard for you to own up to anything?

You are in favor of something that will have huge costs
You are in favor of a Bill that is not paid for
You are in favor of a bill that will have a major impact on US Debt increase.

All 3 a true, no matter how you dice it...deal with it.