Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1T over a ten year period with planned yearly deficits of over 1T. Thats the problem with you liberal morons... you don't understand math.Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.
He did demand spending cuts... Where do you get your news from? What he "demanded" was that ALL Sacred Cows be put on the table. For the Dems, it's spending cuts. For the Republicans, it's taxes.
In fact.. there are $1T of Spending cuts ALREADY AGREED TO between both parties. That's the problem with you right wing idiots. You only speak in rhetoric and hate. Facts and reason elude you at every turn. You make up your own facts and declare them the truth. But what can you expect? Look who you get your news from.
Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.
But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.
I didn't say there wasn't a Depression. I am arguing that FDR didn't cause the Depression. Pay attention.
The "FDR caused the Depression" is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in economic history, and I've read a lot of it. You can argue that FDR was over-rated, or that some of his policies hindered the recovery. But to say he "caused" it is one of the most surreal arguments I have ever heard.
no he didn't thats crazy...
BUT that rise in 37 that stung it out to ww2, was based solely on his fiscal policies enacted in the year 36.....its commonly called the depression within the depression.
No, the problem is your side is playing. There will be no tax increases. Stalling what anemic recovery there is and slowing the pace of any minute ammount of job creation that is happenning is the worst possible thing anyone could do. Raising taxes will raise revenue only in the immediate term, it will lower it in the long term and it will create a situation that only demands more spending for all the newly unemployed who lose their jobs because of it.1T over a ten year period with planned yearly deficits of over 1T. Thats the problem with you liberal morons... you don't understand math.He did demand spending cuts... Where do you get your news from? What he "demanded" was that ALL Sacred Cows be put on the table. For the Dems, it's spending cuts. For the Republicans, it's taxes.
In fact.. there are $1T of Spending cuts ALREADY AGREED TO between both parties. That's the problem with you right wing idiots. You only speak in rhetoric and hate. Facts and reason elude you at every turn. You make up your own facts and declare them the truth. But what can you expect? Look who you get your news from.
What you don't understand is stonewalling. There are more cuts to be agreed upon, but YOUR side refuses to play along on the revenue side. You just want your grandma to pay for it all and let the wealthiest of our nation get a free pass.
Your thinking is one of the reasons the GOP is going to get clobbered next year in the presidential and senate elections, and possibly in the House as well.
Yes, another repeat of 2010.
For those new to USMB, Jake pretends to be a Republican.
For that to happen you'll need a good portion of people NOT voting. Given the performances of the GOP governors, the 5 clowns on the SCOTUS, and the mouthings of the Teabagger darlings in Congress, I doubt you'll have your way Frankie boy.
You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.
We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.
Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.
We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.
No, the problem is your side is playing. There will be no tax increases. Stalling what anemic recovery there is and slowing the pace of any minute ammount of job creation that is happenning is the worst possible thing anyone could do. Raising taxes will raise revenue only in the immediate term, it will lower it in the long term and it will create a situation that only demands more spending for all the newly unemployed who lose their jobs because of it.1T over a ten year period with planned yearly deficits of over 1T. Thats the problem with you liberal morons... you don't understand math.
What you don't understand is stonewalling. There are more cuts to be agreed upon, but YOUR side refuses to play along on the revenue side. You just want your grandma to pay for it all and let the wealthiest of our nation get a free pass.
No fucking way.
Yes, another repeat of 2010.
For those new to USMB, Jake pretends to be a Republican.
For that to happen you'll need a good portion of people NOT voting. Given the performances of the GOP governors, the 5 clowns on the SCOTUS, and the mouthings of the Teabagger darlings in Congress, I doubt you'll have your way Frankie boy.
Thoseon USMB know I have been consistently GOP, but not of the part of political perversion that rests on the far right of my party. Those people misrepresent the will of the American people and must be put down. I don't tolerate fools on the far right or the far left.
With all the past history of hyper spending, printing of US currency to cover borrowing against debt, bureaucracy and waste, why is it you believe the federal government should receive even MORE money?You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.
We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.
Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.
We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.
Spare us all this regurgitated "reaganomics on steriods" BS! The wealthy had their tax breaks and cuts FOR A DECADE....and they took their money off shore, the jobs overseas and downsized to make "record profits" for management!
Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.
Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.
Tax increases create jobs. Is that your take?No, the problem is your side is playing. There will be no tax increases. Stalling what anemic recovery there is and slowing the pace of any minute ammount of job creation that is happenning is the worst possible thing anyone could do. Raising taxes will raise revenue only in the immediate term, it will lower it in the long term and it will create a situation that only demands more spending for all the newly unemployed who lose their jobs because of it.What you don't understand is stonewalling. There are more cuts to be agreed upon, but YOUR side refuses to play along on the revenue side. You just want your grandma to pay for it all and let the wealthiest of our nation get a free pass.
No fucking way.
I suppose you have a link to prove your assertions? Even if you do... I can find counters that say just the opposite. You are just talking FOX-Speak.
Alan Simpson is old and addled. Raising taxes lowers tax revenue because people stop doing activities that generate tax revenue. (Except gambling,alcohol, and cigarettes)
1T over a ten year period with planned yearly deficits of over 1T. Thats the problem with you liberal morons... you don't understand math.Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.
He did demand spending cuts... Where do you get your news from? What he "demanded" was that ALL Sacred Cows be put on the table. For the Dems, it's spending cuts. For the Republicans, it's taxes.
In fact.. there are $1T of Spending cuts ALREADY AGREED TO between both parties. That's the problem with you right wing idiots. You only speak in rhetoric and hate. Facts and reason elude you at every turn. You make up your own facts and declare them the truth. But what can you expect? Look who you get your news from.
The federal government is currently spending approximately 25% of GDP. Historically it has only been around 20% of GDP. At the same time, we are collecting revenue of approximately 15% of GDP, when the historical average (last 60 years) has been 18.5%. On the revenue side, revenue must be increased to at least the 18.5% plus any amount to cover the unfunded wars. That puts us at around 20%. That still leaves us short by 5% which must come off through spending cuts. Bottom line is that we need to cut spending by as much as we raise revenue and they must both be enough to get us close to a balanced budget.
Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Due to the number of soon to be retirees, we also must either cut SS and Medicare spending or increase revenue by an additional two to three percent. As with the rest of the budget, I imagine that eventually this too will be handled by a combination of tax increases and cuts in benefits.
It seems just about every economist agrees with Simpson.
If people loved their country, instead of just thinking about themselves, we'd slash spending AND raise taxes. Otherwise, people aren't serious about lowering the debt. It's that plain and simple.
Everyone should sacrifice, not just the middle class and the poor.
I am apparently alone in my opinion that we should not cut spending, at all, right now. Maybe some clean up and making departments more efficient, sure, but gutting programs means one thing ... firing people. Choosing to fire people when the private sector refuses to hire will only make the economy worse. I don't think anyone here would advocate for a higher unemployment rate (except for those who hate Obama) so choosing to raise the unemployment rate makes no sense.
Raise taxes on those who can pay, namely the top 10% and corporations. Leave the cuts in place for the middle class so they can continue to pay down their debt and get us out of this mess.
And if you think raising taxes on the wealthy and corps will cost us jobs, shut up and prove it already.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." - Declaration of Independence.
Funny how so many people forget that part about Fortunes.
