90,609,000 not included in work force

[Dragonlady]

The spending is quantified, published and tracked, not hidden like Bush's war costs.

 

[Rebelitarian]

All the un-Constitutional wars will do their part in collapsing the US Dollar.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who appointed Paul Volker?

Oops. Another tiny-brained theory blown apart.

Volker isn't a Friedman economist. He favours increasing taxes if necessary, breaking up the biggest US banks, increased banking regulations, and says Wall Street bankers are "overpaid".

Reagan retained Volker from the Carter Administration but fired him because Volker wasn't sufficiently deregulating the banking industry. Volker has been highly critical of economic management and deregulation of the US economy, both under Reagan and subsequent Presidents.

And Greenspan?
Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

And Bernanke?
Bernanke: We Must Raise Taxes and Cut Services ? Sane People: No, We Need to Stop Endless Bail Outs, Imperial Adventures and Fraudulent Schemes | Washington's Blog

Gee, your theories get crazier by the minute. What's next? Dick Cheney was secretly head of the Fed Reserve?

 

[Mustang]

I am going to say this one more time
GWB last GOP budget we had a defict of 162 billion
by 2009 that same defict was 1.4 trillion
The president signs and requests
congress approves

BHO added all of this spending with the failed stimulus as well as as post 2009 having no budget passed sense
Not GWB
Not the GOP
but with a continuing resolution based on the inflated 2009 budget that had additional spending by the dems and BHO
GWB signed nothing in 2009 but the spring tax rebate and Tarp
his 50% of tarp was paid back
He got the last 50% for Obama in 1/2009

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

Problem here is.. there isn't a budget. Once again.. you lie. The Obama regime is financed through CR's.

What do you think a continuing resolution (or continuing appropriations as of 2013) is? It's a resolution to continue funding the gov't at some level of spending agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. The fact that defense spending is now included instead of being a supplemental bill is the point I was making. The fact that it's not a separate budget as in years past is completely beside the point because it bridges funding for existing federal programs at current, reduced, or expanded levels.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution#cite_note-1

Or were you too unaware of how the process works to understand that?

 

[The Rabbi]

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

Problem here is.. there isn't a budget. Once again.. you lie. The Obama regime is financed through CR's.

What do you think a continuing resolution (or continuing appropriations as of 2013) is? It's a resolution to continue funding the gov't at some level of spending agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. The fact that defense spending is now included instead of being a supplemental bill is the point I was making. The fact that it's not a separate budget as in years past is completely beside the point because it bridges funding for existing federal programs at current, reduced, or expanded levels.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution#cite_note-1

Or were you too unaware of how the process works to understand that?

So in other words, Obama funded the gov't exactly the same way Bush did. Except Obama never signed a budget into law.
Got it.

 

[Dragonlady]

And Greenspan?
Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

And Bernanke?
Bernanke: We Must Raise Taxes and Cut Services ? Sane People: No, We Need to Stop Endless Bail Outs, Imperial Adventures and Fraudulent Schemes | Washington's Blog

Gee, your theories get crazier by the minute. What's next? Dick Cheney was secretly head of the Fed Reserve?

Greenspan was in favour of Bush's tax cuts when he was Chairman of Federal Reserve, but by 2010 you had to be willfully blind and stupid to think that continuing the tax cuts would be a good thing. Even Reagan raised taxes at the end of his second term because of the damage they were doing to the economy. Bush wasn't smart enough to do it. He kept spending in the hopes of digging himself out of the mess he created.

Bernanke was in favour of cutting social programs AND raising taxes. Cutting social programs is the go-to strategy for Friedman economists. The whole article you cited is textbook Friedman. It claims that by 2010 the US was a "Third World economy" and in many ways, it's correct. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the wealthy are OK with that and damn the rest of the country.

Milton Friedman is falling out of favour as his economic policies as adopted in many Third World countries lead to higher prices, lower wages, and extreme economic hardship for the working class. The whole "greed is good" thing is classic Friedman and it's been discredited. South America countries which adopted Chicago School of Economics policies under the auspices of the IMF in the 1970's, have rejected the IMF and their privatization requirements and "shock medicine" and turning to liberal policies of empowering and assisting people to in co-ops and collectives to create their own employment.

Conservatives hate it when they can't control and exploit the poor.

 

[JRK]

First of all, the Mises article I linked to, which you obviously didn't read, was written by Ryan McMaken not Nutting. And even backing out $140 billion still leaves Bush spending $3.38 trillion.

From the ultra CON$ervative Mises article I linked to earlier:

I am going to say this one more time
GWB last GOP budget we had a defict of 162 billion
by 2009 that same defict was 1.4 trillion
The president signs and requests
congress approves

BHO added all of this spending with the failed stimulus as well as as post 2009 having no budget passed sense
Not GWB
Not the GOP
but with a continuing resolution based on the inflated 2009 budget that had additional spending by the dems and BHO
GWB signed nothing in 2009 but the spring tax rebate and Tarp
his 50% of tarp was paid back
He got the last 50% for Obama in 1/2009

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

your kidding right?
you think that the funding for the wars was not counted?
My god man

Horse manure.

It would be one thing if Woodward wished to criticize Bush 43 for not separately breaking out the wars' costs from the rest of the Defense Department's budget. But as written, he makes it appear as if those costs weren't in any budget anywhere. Though the contention conveniently feeds a long-held far-left myth, it simply isn't so.

From a practical standpoint, breaking of the wars' costs would have been difficult, time-consuming, and contentious, with all kinds of cost allocation, compliance, and reporting issues that really didn't worth the bother. Total Defense Department spending hasn't increased by nearly as much as many critics believe it has. Full-year figures for fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 (the last full pre-war year) through 2011 are as follows (in billions; obtained from related September Monthly Treasury Statements; percentages are annual increases over the prior year):

2001 -- $290.9
2002 -- $332.1 (14.2%)
2003 -- $388.9 (17.1%)
2004 -- $437.1 (12.4%)
2005 -- $474.4 (8.5%)
2006 -- $499.4 (5.3%)
2007 -- $529.9 (6.1%)
2008 -- $594.7 (12.2%)
2009 -- $636.8 (7.1%)
2010 -- $666.7 (4.7%)
2011 -- $678.1 (1.7%)

How much of these increases were due to the wars? How much represents "normal" budgetary growth (though probably a bit excessive, as has been the case in almost every area of government for decades)? Finally, and we should never forget this, how much represents the need to rebuild the military after years of neglect during Bill Clinton's two terms? Really, Calvin, for the purposes of your analysis, who cares? Costs kept right on rising at a fairly high rate even after we were fully engaged, and haven't really come down much until the current year even though we have been drawing down troops levels since 2009.

Through the first four months of the current year, spending of $219.7 billion is actually 6.2% below last year's comparable figure of $234.1 billion.


Read more: Fact-Checking AP 'Fact Checker' Woodward: Bush Did Not 'Keep the Cost of Wars Out of Budgets' | NewsBusters

 

[The Rabbi]

And Greenspan?
Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

And Bernanke?
Bernanke: We Must Raise Taxes and Cut Services ? Sane People: No, We Need to Stop Endless Bail Outs, Imperial Adventures and Fraudulent Schemes | Washington's Blog

Gee, your theories get crazier by the minute. What's next? Dick Cheney was secretly head of the Fed Reserve?

Greenspan was in favour of Bush's tax cuts when he was Chairman of Federal Reserve, but by 2010 you had to be willfully blind and stupid to think that continuing the tax cuts would be a good thing. Even Reagan raised taxes at the end of his second term because of the damage they were doing to the economy. Bush wasn't smart enough to do it. He kept spending in the hopes of digging himself out of the mess he created.

Bernanke was in favour of cutting social programs AND raising taxes. Cutting social programs is the go-to strategy for Friedman economists. The whole article you cited is textbook Friedman. It claims that by 2010 the US was a "Third World economy" and in many ways, it's correct. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the wealthy are OK with that and damn the rest of the country.

Milton Friedman is falling out of favour as his economic policies as adopted in many Third World countries lead to higher prices, lower wages, and extreme economic hardship for the working class. The whole "greed is good" thing is classic Friedman and it's been discredited. South America countries which adopted Chicago School of Economics policies under the auspices of the IMF in the 1970's, have rejected the IMF and their privatization requirements and "shock medicine" and turning to liberal policies of empowering and assisting people to in co-ops and collectives to create their own employment.

Conservatives hate it when they can't control and exploit the poor.

The poor are not getting poorer, except under Papa Obama's regime.
Strangely, the poor got richer under Bush, as they did under Reagan. Only under Keynesian scumbags like Obama did that not happen.
The Libs claim to love the poor. They might be right since they want to create so many more of them.
Friedman's theory have worked every place they have been tried. That includes Britain c.18thC, Chile, Estonia, etc.
Libs hate facts. Economics has a conservative bias.

 

[JRK]

And Greenspan?
Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

And Bernanke?
Bernanke: We Must Raise Taxes and Cut Services ? Sane People: No, We Need to Stop Endless Bail Outs, Imperial Adventures and Fraudulent Schemes | Washington's Blog

Gee, your theories get crazier by the minute. What's next? Dick Cheney was secretly head of the Fed Reserve?

Greenspan was in favour of Bush's tax cuts when he was Chairman of Federal Reserve, but by 2010 you had to be willfully blind and stupid to think that continuing the tax cuts would be a good thing. Even Reagan raised taxes at the end of his second term because of the damage they were doing to the economy. Bush wasn't smart enough to do it. He kept spending in the hopes of digging himself out of the mess he created.

Bernanke was in favour of cutting social programs AND raising taxes. Cutting social programs is the go-to strategy for Friedman economists. The whole article you cited is textbook Friedman. It claims that by 2010 the US was a "Third World economy" and in many ways, it's correct. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the wealthy are OK with that and damn the rest of the country.

Milton Friedman is falling out of favour as his economic policies as adopted in many Third World countries lead to higher prices, lower wages, and extreme economic hardship for the working class. The whole "greed is good" thing is classic Friedman and it's been discredited. South America countries which adopted Chicago School of Economics policies under the auspices of the IMF in the 1970's, have rejected the IMF and their privatization requirements and "shock medicine" and turning to liberal policies of empowering and assisting people to in co-ops and collectives to create their own employment.

Conservatives hate it when they can't control and exploit the poor.

The poor are not getting poorer, except under Papa Obama's regime.
Strangely, the poor got richer under Bush, as they did under Reagan. Only under Keynesian scumbags like Obama did that not happen.
The Libs claim to love the poor. They might be right since they want to create so many more of them.
Friedman's theory have worked every place they have been tried. That includes Britain c.18thC, Chile, Estonia, etc.
Libs hate facts. Economics has a conservative bias.

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

Facts have a conservative bias.

 

[JRK]

Facts have a conservative bias.

Oh so very true
another item was there was a claim earlier that part f the reason the huge debt was GWB stimiuls
1) the caongress approves that
2) It was for 1 year

one of the reasons the dems have never had a budget is a continuing resolution added a standard % to most programs
BHO was smart
they run the base-line up in 08 to 3.5 trillion so they had a base-line to blame on W and keep a continuing resolution going
with the Omnibus, Tarp, and the failed stimulus as well as the stimulus W signed in the spring (with a dem. congress) there you have it
The truth will set you free

 

[daveman]

stupid people loaned stupid people wealth that was inflated
as Apple was 700 a share last year it was also 380 a share this year
so ones wealth goes from A to B and GWB had nothing to with that
it is that simple

To the libs, someone must bear the blame for bad decisions. Usually that someone is George W Bush.

It amazes me that me keeping more of my wealth is a bad thing and is the cause for these trillion dollar deficts

 

[Dragonlady]

There are any number of countries in the world where there is no government regulation and no taxes. There is also no infrastructure and no public education. They are among the poorest countries in the world and the least stable.

Where there is great economic disparity and no social safety net, those who are wealthy must hire body guards and live in gated protected communities, always in danger of being attacked, not out of jealously or envy, but out of desperation.

The happiest most stable countries are those with a strong social safety net, well-funded public education, quality health care for all, and true equality of the sexes. Taxes are high, but the public knows that they are getting good value for their money, and the whole country benefits from the freedom the social safety net provides. Capitalism thrives and those who are high earners get to keep a good portion of what they earn.

How much does one person or one family really need? What good does it do the economy for the Walton family to accrue ever more wealth while their employees live on food stamps and Medicaid? The Walton's didn't earn that money. Their employees earned that money for them and they keep looking for ways to reduce costs and make every more money. And right-wingers celebrate this parasitic company as "successful" and deserving.

 

[JRK]

There are any number of countries in the world where there is no government regulation and no taxes. There is also no infrastructure and no public education. They are among the poorest countries in the world and the least stable.

Where there is great economic disparity and no social safety net, those who are wealthy must hire body guards and live in gated protected communities, always in danger of being attacked, not out of jealously or envy, but out of desperation.

The happiest most stable countries are those with a strong social safety net, well-funded public education, quality health care for all, and true equality of the sexes. Taxes are high, but the public knows that they are getting good value for their money, and the whole country benefits from the freedom the social safety net provides. Capitalism thrives and those who are high earners get to keep a good portion of what they earn.

How much does one person or one family really need? What good does it do the economy for the Walton family to accrue ever more wealth while their employees live on food stamps and Medicaid? The Walton's didn't earn that money. Their employees earned that money for them and they keep looking for ways to reduce costs and make every more money. And right-wingers celebrate this parasitic company as "successful" and deserving.

WHo said anything about not paying income tax?
and as far as wall mart and what they pay are you saying that all wall mart employees live on food stamps and medicaid?

you have proof of that?

That is is a slanderous statement I would think

I will be the first to agree that our minimum wage is way to low, but just as bad is how hi our corporate tax rate is

 

[The Rabbi]

There are any number of countries in the world where there is no government regulation and no taxes. There is also no infrastructure and no public education. They are among the poorest countries in the world and the least stable.

Where there is great economic disparity and no social safety net, those who are wealthy must hire body guards and live in gated protected communities, always in danger of being attacked, not out of jealously or envy, but out of desperation.

The happiest most stable countries are those with a strong social safety net, well-funded public education, quality health care for all, and true equality of the sexes. Taxes are high, but the public knows that they are getting good value for their money, and the whole country benefits from the freedom the social safety net provides. Capitalism thrives and those who are high earners get to keep a good portion of what they earn.

How much does one person or one family really need? What good does it do the economy for the Walton family to accrue ever more wealth while their employees live on food stamps and Medicaid? The Walton's didn't earn that money. Their employees earned that money for them and they keep looking for ways to reduce costs and make every more money. And right-wingers celebrate this parasitic company as "successful" and deserving.

Can you name one country that has no government, no taxes, no regulation and no infrastructure?
No, of course not.
I could name dozens of places that have taxes that are astronomical, lack of services and deep corruption. Detroit and Washington DC come to mind.

 

[JRK]

There are any number of countries in the world where there is no government regulation and no taxes. There is also no infrastructure and no public education. They are among the poorest countries in the world and the least stable.

Where there is great economic disparity and no social safety net, those who are wealthy must hire body guards and live in gated protected communities, always in danger of being attacked, not out of jealously or envy, but out of desperation.

The happiest most stable countries are those with a strong social safety net, well-funded public education, quality health care for all, and true equality of the sexes. Taxes are high, but the public knows that they are getting good value for their money, and the whole country benefits from the freedom the social safety net provides. Capitalism thrives and those who are high earners get to keep a good portion of what they earn.

How much does one person or one family really need? What good does it do the economy for the Walton family to accrue ever more wealth while their employees live on food stamps and Medicaid? The Walton's didn't earn that money. Their employees earned that money for them and they keep looking for ways to reduce costs and make every more money. And right-wingers celebrate this parasitic company as "successful" and deserving.

Can you name one country that has no government, no taxes, no regulation and no infrastructure?
No, of course not.
I could name dozens of places that have taxes that are astronomical, lack of services and deep corruption. Detroit and Washington DC come to mind.

The thing that is amazing to me is we are bringing in at one time close to 2.8 trillion dollars in revenue
sense then taxes have went up
yet the libs act as though that is nothing
that we are paying nothing
They want more from corporations
corporations are a peice of paper
people pay taxes

 

[Dragonlady]

Corporations are far more than pieces of paper. They are entities which have almost all of the rights of a natural person. Most corporations exist for the purpose of making money and limiting liability.

Any for profit corporation which makes money should pay taxes, but large multi-nationals have the ways and means to write off or shelter profits and reduce taxes paid in much the same way that high income individuals have loopholes to reduce their effective tax rates.

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations are far more than pieces of paper. They are entities which have almost all of the rights of a natural person. Most corporations exist for the purpose of making money and limiting liability.

Any for profit corporation which makes money should pay taxes, but large multi-nationals have the ways and means to write off or shelter profits and reduce taxes paid in much the same way that high income individuals have loopholes to reduce their effective tax rates.

Dragonlady, Reality. Reality, Dragonlady. I believe the two of you have much to discuss.

 

[JRK]

Corporations are far more than pieces of paper. They are entities which have almost all of the rights of a natural person. Most corporations exist for the purpose of making money and limiting liability.

Any for profit corporation which makes money should pay taxes, but large multi-nationals have the ways and means to write off or shelter profits and reduce taxes paid in much the same way that high income individuals have loopholes to reduce their effective tax rates.

dragon lady a corporation is a piece of paper
whats wrong with profit?
whats wrong with limiting liability?
at the end of the day every tax dollar Exxon pays comes from you and I
get it?