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.
You're confusing playing a role in creating wealth and creating wealth.government plays a role in creating wealth? Kthx.
no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth
Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?
That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!
Oh wait...
the fiscal years of 2002 through 2009 are president bush's 8 years, the fiscal years of 1994-2001 are president clintons, the fiscal years for Obama are 2010-2013 if 4 years, 2010-2017 if 8 years.....that's a FACT, jack....this is how history is or will be writen in Obama's case.
When President Bush came in to office in January of 2001, he passed legislation to give us all stimulus tax rebates and we all got a $300 or $600 dollar check if married, that august as part of his tax cuts.....the year end for President Clinton's last year, had another month left before it was over...
And GUESS WHAT? Fiscal year 2001, even with all of president Bush's action that changed the budget for that year, got attributed to President Clinton....the budget surplus for fiscal 2001 would have been much greater than what it was with bush's stimulus tax rebates that President Bush spent....still it is clinton's budget.
this is the same with Barak Obama....his first fiscal Budget, due to congress in march of 2009 by rules, was for 2010, beginning October 1, 2009.
President Bush did present a budget for 2009 which began on October 1, 2008....and ended sept 30th 2009. His Budget was for $3.1 trillion WITHOUT the cost of the Iraq war and Afghan war.....and without TARP and all other bailouts in it.
He had projected to bring in revenues, 2.7 trillion and expected to show a $400 billion deficit, WITHOUT THE WARS....but when revenues came in, they fell well short of his $2.7 trillion estimate....$600 billion LESS in revenues than he projected....$2.1 trillion in total revenues.....he was 1 TRILLION in deficit off of his budget plans WITHOUT putting the Iraq and afghan spending in to it....and without what he spent in bailouts in to it....
Obama's stimulus amount was for a two year stimulus....not even half of it was spent before the end of Fiscal year 2009....it might have added $200 billion with GM to the $1.4/5 trillion dollar deficit for Bush's 2009 fiscal year....
the entire 1.4 trillion dollar deficit is attributed to president Bush, as 2001 was attributed to Clinton.
When President Clinton's last fiscal year ended for his term, and with all of president bush's actions taken included like his stimulus tax rebate checks he sent to us in August/september of 2001, the total National Public Debt had risen to $5.67 trillion....this is president bush's beginning point....and when President Bush's last fiscal year came to an end september 30th of 2009, the total National Public debt had reached $11.9 trillion dollars....
$11.9 trillion in national debt, minus the $5.6 trillion of the national debt left after Clinton's 8fiscal years, leaves $6.3 TRILLION ADDED to the national debt....
And IF you do not want to count the gm bailout, EVEN THOUGH it was President bush's initial action that gave them this bailout...and you don't want to count whatever stimulus was spent before September 30th's year end for 2009, then by all means, take the 200-300 billion out of it...
And this leaves the $6 TRILLION DOLLARS President Bush, under his 8 year term, addition to the National Public Debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Unlike President Bush, President Obama has included the Iraq and Afghan wars in his budgets and did not take steps to hide their effects from the budget as President bush had tried to do.
Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. [/B][/U]Also, sSome Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has
and obviously the heritage foundation WAS NOT SPEAKING about our Total national public debt.....they hoped to confuse you and others with debt we owe to foreign countries vs owe to ourselves verses our TOTAL NATIONAL PUBLIC DEBT, and clearly they did.
Your deficit has interest from deficits GWB inherited in it
The wars are included, see herein
2009 GWB would sign, the best guess is about 500 billion is his
Obama 2009 Budget
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry
That debt has interest in it
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obamas budget deficits in context of President Bushs.
Whats driving Obamas unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obamas budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, sSome Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obamas budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
you are simply wrong.....first, your articles keep using 2008 fiscal budget as bush's last budget but it was NOT.
and as I showed you, even if congress had passed president bush's BUDGET before he left office, following president bush's budget would have given us well over a TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT WITHOUT Obama's stimulus and gm bailout which president bush started....take 200-300 billion of the deficit and attribute that to Obama....if that's how you want to play with the numbers.
President Bush still added $6 TRILLION DOLLARS to our total national public debt....and YES, this is where his Iraq war and Afghan war spending makes its appearance.....this is where it gets recorded....in the national debt numbers.
NO new hire CEO is held accountable for figures for at least 1-2 years after hire....this is how it works in business and it is how it should be looked at with Presidents....Obama was handed poop in a breadbasket and there is not much one can do for at least a year, to change things.....as with the new CEO, there is a grace period given, so what they enact has time to work through.
and the stimulus was not all spent at once so you can NOT count the full amount as spent before the fiscal end of 2009.
History and records of history will show fiscal year 2009 attributed to president Bush, as it should. and history shows fiscal year 2001 attributed to Clinton, as it should.
and I am not saying once Obama was responsible for the Budget, he did a fine and dandy job.....he did not and has not gotten the lower revenues and spending in check with his 2010 budget or 2011 budget.
government plays a role in creating wealth? Kthx.
no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth
Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?
That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!
Oh wait...
Govt allows wealth to be created.
Without government, there is no wealth.
I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.
It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.
NASA bleeds money. That's why the space program is being defunded.
They also create technology.
So the government creates technologies and the private sector profits from them.
Let me ask you: Do you think that supports your claim? If so, please think again.
Without government, those contracts would never have been signed. The government created those contracts and fostered the growth it created.
Now one can say but for the government contract, there would not have been the income from the construction of needed war material. However, it was not as though these companies were sitting with empty factories waiting for government to hand them work to do.
What the fuck are you talking about? Cap utilization was about 50% when the war started! Of course there were empty factories.
We call that "The Great Depression". Perhaps you've heard of it. And when the war started, hundreds of new factories were built, which created wealth.
I'm amazed how far rightwingnuts will go to deny the clear and obvious facts in front of them - to the extent they will claim that there weren't empty factories in 1940
Precious.
Govt doesnt create technology.
Anyway, how did those factories get built? Who paid to build them? Where did the money come from? It had to be taxed from existing income earners or borrowed, crowding out private entities.
That is the part the Left always forgets. The money has to come from somewhere because Gov't cannot create it.
I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.
It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.
Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.
I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.
It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.
Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.
Oh gosh.
What about it mitigated the stimulus?
Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.
First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.
Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.
So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..
What percent of jobs in this country require you to at least have a high school diploma?
What percent of high school diplomas come from the public school system?
You still want to claim that public education, run by the GOVERNMENT, doesn't add any value to our economy?
lol, maybe we should require every employer that hires a high school graduate to pay the taxpayers back for the cost of that person's education.
Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.
Oh gosh.
What about it mitigated the stimulus?
Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.
First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.
Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.
So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..
All of that is a total lie.
The stimulus was far bigger than what was originally proposed. The Dums had complete filibuster-proof majorities in both houses so the GOP had very little influence here. GOP governors rightly refused to accept the many strings the money came with, although Congress forced them to accept it, in e.g. South Carolina.
In NJyou are probably babbling about the tunnel. If you think one project could make or break the stimulus then you are an idiot of even greater proportions.
So, will this thread get to 500 posts before the OP explains to us what higher taxes he's referring to in the thread title?
Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001
Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid back by 2013.
Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year--just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surpluses, over the years.
I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.
It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.
Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?
I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.
Oh gosh.
What about it mitigated the stimulus?
Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.
First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.
Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.
So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..
All of that is a total lie.
The stimulus was far bigger than what was originally proposed. The Dums had complete filibuster-proof majorities in both houses so the GOP had very little influence here. GOP governors rightly refused to accept the many strings the money came with, although Congress forced them to accept it, in e.g. South Carolina.
In NJyou are probably babbling about the tunnel. If you think one project could make or break the stimulus then you are an idiot of even greater proportions.
What you just posted is incorrect..and without any merit whatsoever.
Not really even worth addressing. The history of the stimulus is well known. Your fantasy not withstanding.
no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth
Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?
That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!
Oh wait...
How am I making a fool of myself
