What caused the national debt?

[Cuyo]

Won't need to if you cut enough....

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

Our top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. That's lower than now.

Yeah... For one year... Before they saw the devastating deficit resulting and promptly re-raised taxes.

Yes sir, even the gipper would raise taxes today.

 

[Intense]

What caused the national debt? 6 culprits - The Week

1. The Bush tax cuts
The biggest culprit? The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under then-president George W. Bush, says the Associated Press. They have added an estimated $1.6 trillion to the national debt. It's pretty clear, says Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo, that Bush-era policies, "particularly debt-financed tax cuts," make up "the lion's share of the problem." And they're ongoing, so the tab for them builds every year.

2. Health care entitlements
Democrats "constantly harp" about the Bush tax cuts, says Peter Morici at Seeking Alpha, but those rates were in place in 2007, and the deficit that year was one-tenth this year's budget shortfall of $1.6 trillion. So what has changed since then? Added "federal regulation, bureaucracy, and new Medicaid and other entitlements have pushed up federal spending by $1.1 trillion — $900 billion more than required by inflation." And down the road, says Yuval Levin at National Review, our "health-entitlement explosion" will account for "basically 100 percent" of our debt problem.

3. Medicare prescription drug benefit
Another piece of the pie: George W. Bush's addition of Medicare's prescription drug benefit. That has added $300 billion to the debt, according to the AP. Expanding entitlements like Medicare, or last year's health-care reform package, is a particularly tempting way for Congress to run up debt, says Jagadeesh Gokhale at The Daily Caller. Since lawmakers don't typically map out a revenue strategy to fund those benefits, they are "shielded from the political costs of actually paying for the new programs."

4. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
The tab for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to $1.3 trillion, another major chunk of new, unexpected spending over the last decade. "These wars cost us plenty," says Nake M. Kamrany at The Huffington Post, and they "have to be financed with borrowing, which adds up to national debt."

5. Obama's economic stimulus
The 2009 stimulus package enacted by President Obama cost $800 billion. And the 2010 tax-cut compromise between Obama and Republicans, which extended jobless benefits and reduced payroll taxes, added another $400 billion to the debt. Add another $200 billion for the 2008 bailout of the financial industry, and the government's efforts to soften the blow of the Great Recession amount to one of the largest chunks of the debt build-up. The "federal budget was one good year away from balancing" after 2007, says Tom Blumer at News Busters. But in the years since, Obama and Democrats in Congress put that goal out of reach.

6. The Great Recession
Some of the spending gap came from factors outside the control of Congress and the White House. As the government spent heavily to boost the economy, says the AP, it took in hundreds of billions less in tax revenue than expected, because the Great Recession eroded Americans' income and spending.

What caused the national debt? Spending.

 

[Cuyo]

What caused the national debt? 6 culprits - The Week

1. The Bush tax cuts
The biggest culprit? The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under then-president George W. Bush, says the Associated Press. They have added an estimated $1.6 trillion to the national debt. It's pretty clear, says Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo, that Bush-era policies, "particularly debt-financed tax cuts," make up "the lion's share of the problem." And they're ongoing, so the tab for them builds every year.

2. Health care entitlements
Democrats "constantly harp" about the Bush tax cuts, says Peter Morici at Seeking Alpha, but those rates were in place in 2007, and the deficit that year was one-tenth this year's budget shortfall of $1.6 trillion. So what has changed since then? Added "federal regulation, bureaucracy, and new Medicaid and other entitlements have pushed up federal spending by $1.1 trillion — $900 billion more than required by inflation." And down the road, says Yuval Levin at National Review, our "health-entitlement explosion" will account for "basically 100 percent" of our debt problem.

3. Medicare prescription drug benefit
Another piece of the pie: George W. Bush's addition of Medicare's prescription drug benefit. That has added $300 billion to the debt, according to the AP. Expanding entitlements like Medicare, or last year's health-care reform package, is a particularly tempting way for Congress to run up debt, says Jagadeesh Gokhale at The Daily Caller. Since lawmakers don't typically map out a revenue strategy to fund those benefits, they are "shielded from the political costs of actually paying for the new programs."

4. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
The tab for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to $1.3 trillion, another major chunk of new, unexpected spending over the last decade. "These wars cost us plenty," says Nake M. Kamrany at The Huffington Post, and they "have to be financed with borrowing, which adds up to national debt."

5. Obama's economic stimulus
The 2009 stimulus package enacted by President Obama cost $800 billion. And the 2010 tax-cut compromise between Obama and Republicans, which extended jobless benefits and reduced payroll taxes, added another $400 billion to the debt. Add another $200 billion for the 2008 bailout of the financial industry, and the government's efforts to soften the blow of the Great Recession amount to one of the largest chunks of the debt build-up. The "federal budget was one good year away from balancing" after 2007, says Tom Blumer at News Busters. But in the years since, Obama and Democrats in Congress put that goal out of reach.

6. The Great Recession
Some of the spending gap came from factors outside the control of Congress and the White House. As the government spent heavily to boost the economy, says the AP, it took in hundreds of billions less in tax revenue than expected, because the Great Recession eroded Americans' income and spending.

What caused the national debt? Spending.

Spending in excess of revenue.

When X > Y, deficit.
When X < Y, surplus.

Increase Y, Decrease X, or both. And the popular answer ain't always the right one.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The tax rate on the wealthy was 7% in 1913 and 28% in 1988.

I'm pretty sure both those rates are less than the current 35% rate.

Boo frickin hoo, cry me a river. The inequality in this country is vast.

Lots of stupid people out there.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence in the economic history of the last century that tax cuts for the rich increase economic growth. But there is evidence that they actually hurt prospects for economic growth -- both in the short and long run.

And just in case you hear someone say that a dollar spent on tax cuts to the rich is a good way to stimulate the economy, here's a fact from Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.com, who was also an economic adviser to John McCain:

For every dollar spent on making the Bush tax cuts permanent, you get $.29 of increase in the GDP. For every dollar spent to extend unemployment benefits you get $1.64 increase in the GDP. In other words, a dollar spent on unemployment compensation gets 5.6 times more boost to the GDP than a tax cut for the rich.

Robert Creamer: Economic History Shows Clearly That Tax Cuts for Rich Hurt the Economy

LOL! That's hilarious! I guess the government should send everyone unemployment checks, think of all the growth we'll have.

Would it not make sense to just loot and hoard what they can, and get away from the US dollar and possibly exchange it for other currency's, or tangible assets, because they know the end of the dollar is near. After all, it is being devalued. Wouldn't that make sense??

Yes, you are confused.

Really? So in your opinion the dollar is not losing its value, and causing many to get away from it, trading it in at its current value, for say gold, silver or other currencies. You opine that this is not happening??

The Swiss franc and Japanese yen have rallied on poor U.S. economic data, the euro and British pound are taking advantage of U.S. dollar weakness, Latin American currencies also seem to offer more safety than the greenback, with the U.S. dollar hitting new lows against many of them…while strength in commodities will provide support for the Canadian dollar, Canada’s close ties with the United States make the loonie vulnerable as economic weakness may force the Bank of Canada to also postpone rate hikes.

Gold and silver investments have increased because of the declining dollar. Gold is the ultimate safe haven, and its dramatic rise is a reflection of both fear and its role as a store of value. Same with silver.
A systemic crisis would lead to even greater money printing in order to prevent a complete deflationary meltdown and this will lead to a currency crisis where cash and all its forms is shunned and investors opt for assets that cannot default such as gold and silver bullion.

I think you are the one who is confused. No paper currency or cash instrument is a safe haven today.

The Intercept: Central Banks Choose Gold Over Paper

As for you mocking Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.com, on the statistics on GDP regarding unemployment checks vs tax cuts, you seem to not understand, that these people receiving the UE benefits, actually spend their money and put it to good, necessary, and vital uses.

Toddsterpatriot;3902521 LOL! That's hilarious! I guess the government should send everyone unemployment checks, think of all the growth we'll have.

And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??

Explain how the tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed anything to the economy, as far as job creation, or any trickle down effect again, I must have missed that...The facts are they don't, and those benefiting from the tax cuts, and special considerations such as TARP have not done what we were told would be done with their money.
Wall street and the rich are making out like the thieves they are while the rest of the populace is forced to except a lower standard of living, with less services, jobs, and goods to consume.

If the government had given money to households instead of giving all this money to the companies….say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000, requiring the taxpaying adult to spend this check within a five year period of time (easily done, issue debit cards like unemployment insurance in several States… if the money sits there it goes away, require statements on your tax returns for those five years detailing what you spent it on) , in so doing, forcing the companies, banks etc to WORK for their income…. we would not have a recession and yet spent the same amount of money earmarked for these bailouts…. we would not have unemployment at these levels because people would be spending the money and employers would be hiring.
We would be buying new American cars, getting caught up on mortgage payments and starting new small businesses in every community all over America, or expanding established ones.

And most important of all – the CITIZENS of this Nation would have benefited as well as the businesses that would have seen an increase in sales.

And you people that are saying that SS is a major problem, are FOS.
It has been robbed, and they do not want to have to pay it back. The real problem is that they stole the funds, and have been exposed.
The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money.

The government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs.

The bottom line is that the government looted the retirement funds of Americans, and that means one of two things has to happen (and maybe even both). Either Americans will be taxed twice for the same benefits, or the benefits will be cut.
The rich continue to receive their tax breaks, while the poor are left to starve and die because the government stole their retirement savings in order to fund the extravagant lifestyles they have set up for themselves and the beneficiaries of their lawlessness.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”-Obama
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

The president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And you people are crying over tax breaks for the rich, while this thievery has gone on, and people who can least afford to do without, will be forced to?

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

In fact, re-instituting the taxes on the most wealthy should actually be looked at as paying back what was borrowed (stolen) from the SS trust fund going back to the Reagan administration!

What Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events-

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.
Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

And again, I appeal to all of you to think about the monetary system currently in place-the Fed Reserve-fractional reserve banking practices, and the ponzi scheme that is at the root of all of this mess. How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed??


You people wont touch this subject, and just go about blindly excepting your role as slaves, and being the necessary little cogs in the massive wheel of fraud and deception that has been in place since the creation of the Fed.

Toddsterpatriot;3902994]Lots of stupid people out there.

Yes..there are. Many who are willfully ignorant of the truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

Our top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. That's lower than now.

Yeah... For one year... Before they saw the devastating deficit resulting and promptly re-raised taxes.

Yes sir, even the gipper would raise taxes today.

"Yeah... For one year"

LOL! Thanks for playing. I can find other years where the rates were lower than today, as if we needed more evidence you were lying.

No, today, Reagan would cut spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Boo frickin hoo, cry me a river. The inequality in this country is vast.

Lots of stupid people out there. LOL! That's hilarious! I guess the government should send everyone unemployment checks, think of all the growth we'll have.

Yes, you are confused.

Really? So in your opinion the dollar is not losing its value, and causing many to get away from it, trading it in at its current value, for say gold, silver or other currencies. You opine that this is not happening??

The Swiss franc and Japanese yen have rallied on poor U.S. economic data, the euro and British pound are taking advantage of U.S. dollar weakness, Latin American currencies also seem to offer more safety than the greenback, with the U.S. dollar hitting new lows against many of them…while strength in commodities will provide support for the Canadian dollar, Canada’s close ties with the United States make the loonie vulnerable as economic weakness may force the Bank of Canada to also postpone rate hikes.

Gold and silver investments have increased because of the declining dollar. Gold is the ultimate safe haven, and its dramatic rise is a reflection of both fear and its role as a store of value. Same with silver.
A systemic crisis would lead to even greater money printing in order to prevent a complete deflationary meltdown and this will lead to a currency crisis where cash and all its forms is shunned and investors opt for assets that cannot default such as gold and silver bullion.

I think you are the one who is confused. No paper currency or cash instrument is a safe haven today.

The Intercept: Central Banks Choose Gold Over Paper

As for you mocking Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.com, on the statistics on GDP regarding unemployment checks vs tax cuts, you seem to not understand, that these people receiving the UE benefits, actually spend their money and put it to good, necessary, and vital uses.

Toddsterpatriot;3902521 LOL! That's hilarious! I guess the government should send everyone unemployment checks, think of all the growth we'll have.

And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??

Explain how the tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed anything to the economy, as far as job creation, or any trickle down effect again, I must have missed that...The facts are they don't, and those benefiting from the tax cuts, and special considerations such as TARP have not done what we were told would be done with their money.
Wall street and the rich are making out like the thieves they are while the rest of the populace is forced to except a lower standard of living, with less services, jobs, and goods to consume.

If the government had given money to households instead of giving all this money to the companies….say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000, requiring the taxpaying adult to spend this check within a five year period of time (easily done, issue debit cards like unemployment insurance in several States… if the money sits there it goes away, require statements on your tax returns for those five years detailing what you spent it on) , in so doing, forcing the companies, banks etc to WORK for their income…. we would not have a recession and yet spent the same amount of money earmarked for these bailouts…. we would not have unemployment at these levels because people would be spending the money and employers would be hiring.
We would be buying new American cars, getting caught up on mortgage payments and starting new small businesses in every community all over America, or expanding established ones.

And most important of all – the CITIZENS of this Nation would have benefited as well as the businesses that would have seen an increase in sales.

And you people that are saying that SS is a major problem, are FOS.
It has been robbed, and they do not want to have to pay it back. The real problem is that they stole the funds, and have been exposed.
The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money.

The government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs.

The bottom line is that the government looted the retirement funds of Americans, and that means one of two things has to happen (and maybe even both). Either Americans will be taxed twice for the same benefits, or the benefits will be cut.
The rich continue to receive their tax breaks, while the poor are left to starve and die because the government stole their retirement savings in order to fund the extravagant lifestyles they have set up for themselves and the beneficiaries of their lawlessness.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”-Obama
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

The president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And you people are crying over tax breaks for the rich, while this thievery has gone on, and people who can least afford to do without, will be forced to?

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

In fact, re-instituting the taxes on the most wealthy should actually be looked at as paying back what was borrowed (stolen) from the SS trust fund going back to the Reagan administration!

What Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events-

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.
Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

And again, I appeal to all of you to think about the monetary system currently in place-the Fed Reserve-fractional reserve banking practices, and the ponzi scheme that is at the root of all of this mess. How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed??


You people wont touch this subject, and just go about blindly excepting your role as slaves, and being the necessary little cogs in the massive wheel of fraud and deception that has been in place since the creation of the Fed.

Toddsterpatriot;3902994]Lots of stupid people out there.

Yes..there are. Many who are willfully ignorant of the truth.

"And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??"

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a good thing.

"say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000"

Assuming 1 taxpayer in each of the 100 million households, that's $10 trillion.
You make Obama look like a piker.

Yes, Social Security was robbed. If we privatized it, the thieves, like your buddies in Congress, wouldn't have been able to waste the money.

"How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed?"

How much did the Fed pay the Treasury last year?

Yup, lots of stupid people out there. Here's your sign.

 

[Chris]

Lots of stupid people out there. LOL! That's hilarious! I guess the government should send everyone unemployment checks, think of all the growth we'll have.

Yes, you are confused.

Really? So in your opinion the dollar is not losing its value, and causing many to get away from it, trading it in at its current value, for say gold, silver or other currencies. You opine that this is not happening??

The Swiss franc and Japanese yen have rallied on poor U.S. economic data, the euro and British pound are taking advantage of U.S. dollar weakness, Latin American currencies also seem to offer more safety than the greenback, with the U.S. dollar hitting new lows against many of them&#8230;while strength in commodities will provide support for the Canadian dollar, Canada&#8217;s close ties with the United States make the loonie vulnerable as economic weakness may force the Bank of Canada to also postpone rate hikes.

Gold and silver investments have increased because of the declining dollar. Gold is the ultimate safe haven, and its dramatic rise is a reflection of both fear and its role as a store of value. Same with silver.
A systemic crisis would lead to even greater money printing in order to prevent a complete deflationary meltdown and this will lead to a currency crisis where cash and all its forms is shunned and investors opt for assets that cannot default such as gold and silver bullion.

I think you are the one who is confused. No paper currency or cash instrument is a safe haven today.

The Intercept: Central Banks Choose Gold Over Paper

As for you mocking Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.com, on the statistics on GDP regarding unemployment checks vs tax cuts, you seem to not understand, that these people receiving the UE benefits, actually spend their money and put it to good, necessary, and vital uses.


And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??

Explain how the tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed anything to the economy, as far as job creation, or any trickle down effect again, I must have missed that...The facts are they don't, and those benefiting from the tax cuts, and special considerations such as TARP have not done what we were told would be done with their money.
Wall street and the rich are making out like the thieves they are while the rest of the populace is forced to except a lower standard of living, with less services, jobs, and goods to consume.

If the government had given money to households instead of giving all this money to the companies&#8230;.say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000, requiring the taxpaying adult to spend this check within a five year period of time (easily done, issue debit cards like unemployment insurance in several States&#8230; if the money sits there it goes away, require statements on your tax returns for those five years detailing what you spent it on) , in so doing, forcing the companies, banks etc to WORK for their income&#8230;. we would not have a recession and yet spent the same amount of money earmarked for these bailouts&#8230;. we would not have unemployment at these levels because people would be spending the money and employers would be hiring.
We would be buying new American cars, getting caught up on mortgage payments and starting new small businesses in every community all over America, or expanding established ones.

And most important of all &#8211; the CITIZENS of this Nation would have benefited as well as the businesses that would have seen an increase in sales.

And you people that are saying that SS is a major problem, are FOS.
It has been robbed, and they do not want to have to pay it back. The real problem is that they stole the funds, and have been exposed.
The government&#8217;s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money.

The government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs.

The bottom line is that the government looted the retirement funds of Americans, and that means one of two things has to happen (and maybe even both). Either Americans will be taxed twice for the same benefits, or the benefits will be cut.
The rich continue to receive their tax breaks, while the poor are left to starve and die because the government stole their retirement savings in order to fund the extravagant lifestyles they have set up for themselves and the beneficiaries of their lawlessness.

&#8220;I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven&#8217;t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.&#8221;-Obama
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS&#8217;s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn&#8217;t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here&#8217;s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama&#8217;s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

&#8220;Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. &#8230; Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.&#8221;

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn&#8217;t matter anyway because Social Security is &#8220;entirely self-financing&#8221; and off budget. What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew&#8217;s assertions. &#8220;This [Lew&#8217;s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. &#8230; In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains&#8212;nothing.&#8221;

The president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there&#8217;s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And you people are crying over tax breaks for the rich, while this thievery has gone on, and people who can least afford to do without, will be forced to?

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the &#8220;full faith and credit of the federal government,&#8221; as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn&#8217;t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

In fact, re-instituting the taxes on the most wealthy should actually be looked at as paying back what was borrowed (stolen) from the SS trust fund going back to the Reagan administration!

What Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events-

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan&#8217;s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan&#8217;s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.
Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan&#8217;s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The &#8220;read-my-lips-no-new-taxes&#8221; president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen &#8211; Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

And again, I appeal to all of you to think about the monetary system currently in place-the Fed Reserve-fractional reserve banking practices, and the ponzi scheme that is at the root of all of this mess. How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed??


You people wont touch this subject, and just go about blindly excepting your role as slaves, and being the necessary little cogs in the massive wheel of fraud and deception that has been in place since the creation of the Fed.

Toddsterpatriot;3902994]Lots of stupid people out there.

Yes..there are. Many who are willfully ignorant of the truth.

"And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??"

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a good thing.

"say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000"

Assuming 1 taxpayer in each of the 100 million households, that's $10 trillion.
You make Obama look like a piker.

Yes, Social Security was robbed. If we privatized it, the thieves, like your buddies in Congress, wouldn't have been able to waste the money.

"How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed?"

How much did the Fed pay the Treasury last year?

Yup, lots of stupid people out there. Here's your sign.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, which went primarily to the rich, created 93% of the National Debt.

Now the middle class taxpayer is being asked to pay for those tax cut with cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

The Republicans rob from the old and the sick and give to the rich.

They are like Robin Hood in reverse.

There is a special place in hell waiting for the Republicans.

 

[Neotrotsky]

But sadly, the fact remains


Barack Obama will add more debt than 43 prior presidents

- he is adding to the debt at a faster rate
Indeed, 3 trillion/2 year= 1.5 trillion per year
At this rate, 6 trillion in 4 years; 12 trillion in 8 years
As such, at this rate, if allowed, he will match the amount Bush added to the debt in 3 years.


It is like Papa Obama is robbing from our children

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8[/ame]


He is even against school vouchers for poor kids
Yet his children go to private school

Well, it is often the case under socialism

We are all equal, some are just more equal than others

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? So in your opinion the dollar is not losing its value, and causing many to get away from it, trading it in at its current value, for say gold, silver or other currencies. You opine that this is not happening??

The Swiss franc and Japanese yen have rallied on poor U.S. economic data, the euro and British pound are taking advantage of U.S. dollar weakness, Latin American currencies also seem to offer more safety than the greenback, with the U.S. dollar hitting new lows against many of them…while strength in commodities will provide support for the Canadian dollar, Canada’s close ties with the United States make the loonie vulnerable as economic weakness may force the Bank of Canada to also postpone rate hikes.

Gold and silver investments have increased because of the declining dollar. Gold is the ultimate safe haven, and its dramatic rise is a reflection of both fear and its role as a store of value. Same with silver.
A systemic crisis would lead to even greater money printing in order to prevent a complete deflationary meltdown and this will lead to a currency crisis where cash and all its forms is shunned and investors opt for assets that cannot default such as gold and silver bullion.

I think you are the one who is confused. No paper currency or cash instrument is a safe haven today.

The Intercept: Central Banks Choose Gold Over Paper

As for you mocking Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's.com, on the statistics on GDP regarding unemployment checks vs tax cuts, you seem to not understand, that these people receiving the UE benefits, actually spend their money and put it to good, necessary, and vital uses.


And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??

Explain how the tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed anything to the economy, as far as job creation, or any trickle down effect again, I must have missed that...The facts are they don't, and those benefiting from the tax cuts, and special considerations such as TARP have not done what we were told would be done with their money.
Wall street and the rich are making out like the thieves they are while the rest of the populace is forced to except a lower standard of living, with less services, jobs, and goods to consume.

If the government had given money to households instead of giving all this money to the companies….say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000, requiring the taxpaying adult to spend this check within a five year period of time (easily done, issue debit cards like unemployment insurance in several States… if the money sits there it goes away, require statements on your tax returns for those five years detailing what you spent it on) , in so doing, forcing the companies, banks etc to WORK for their income…. we would not have a recession and yet spent the same amount of money earmarked for these bailouts…. we would not have unemployment at these levels because people would be spending the money and employers would be hiring.
We would be buying new American cars, getting caught up on mortgage payments and starting new small businesses in every community all over America, or expanding established ones.

And most important of all – the CITIZENS of this Nation would have benefited as well as the businesses that would have seen an increase in sales.

And you people that are saying that SS is a major problem, are FOS.
It has been robbed, and they do not want to have to pay it back. The real problem is that they stole the funds, and have been exposed.
The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money.

The government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs.

The bottom line is that the government looted the retirement funds of Americans, and that means one of two things has to happen (and maybe even both). Either Americans will be taxed twice for the same benefits, or the benefits will be cut.
The rich continue to receive their tax breaks, while the poor are left to starve and die because the government stole their retirement savings in order to fund the extravagant lifestyles they have set up for themselves and the beneficiaries of their lawlessness.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”-Obama
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

The president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And you people are crying over tax breaks for the rich, while this thievery has gone on, and people who can least afford to do without, will be forced to?

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

In fact, re-instituting the taxes on the most wealthy should actually be looked at as paying back what was borrowed (stolen) from the SS trust fund going back to the Reagan administration!

What Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events-

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.
Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

And again, I appeal to all of you to think about the monetary system currently in place-the Fed Reserve-fractional reserve banking practices, and the ponzi scheme that is at the root of all of this mess. How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed??


You people wont touch this subject, and just go about blindly excepting your role as slaves, and being the necessary little cogs in the massive wheel of fraud and deception that has been in place since the creation of the Fed.

Yes..there are. Many who are willfully ignorant of the truth.

"And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??"

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a good thing.

"say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000"

Assuming 1 taxpayer in each of the 100 million households, that's $10 trillion.
You make Obama look like a piker.

Yes, Social Security was robbed. If we privatized it, the thieves, like your buddies in Congress, wouldn't have been able to waste the money.

"How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed?"

How much did the Fed pay the Treasury last year?

Yup, lots of stupid people out there. Here's your sign.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, which went primarily to the rich, created 93% of the National Debt.

Now the middle class taxpayer is being asked to pay for those tax cut with cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

The Republicans rob from the old and the sick and give to the rich.

They are like Robin Hood in reverse.

There is a special place in hell waiting for the Republicans.

After the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share than before.
The middle and lower class tax cuts cost much more than the tax cuts on the wealthy.
Sorry if your math isn't good enough to realize that.
Tell me again how Buffett's secreatary pays 30% in income tax.

 

[saveliberty]

What caused the debt? Why a bunch of well intentioned people who compromised. Compromised principles, honor, common sense and the Constitution.

 

[Dr Grump]

And your answer to the mess is?

Why is it incumbant upon me to come up with a detailed plan to get us out of this mess?

I'm always amazed at this kind of deflection. Obama crashes the car into the wall, and I'm asked, "Well, how would you fix it?"

Well, here's what I'd do.

1) Admit Free Trade is a terrible idea. Require all products to be labeled with the flag of the country they are made in, and have a nice cross reference sheet so you know what human rights attrocities those countries are involved in. Put tariffs back into place, and become more reliant. Stop giving tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas.

2) Drill, baby, drill- Sorry, Why are we giving billions to buy oil from people who are trying to kill us because we are protecting caribou and snail darters? That's just the short term solution, though. We need to have a Manhatten Project to find the eventual replacements for petroleum when it does run out.

3) Stop spending billions to protect rich countries. Announce we are withrdawing our troops back to our borders, unless we are compensated the cost of keeping them in your country.

4) Replace Welfare with Workfare - Our welfare system is what Heinlein called "The Socialist Disease in it worst form- the belief the world owes you a living." It you get welfare, you are expected to show up somewhere and put in a full day doing something useful- Cleaning graffitti off walls, picking up trash along the street, whatever.

5) Fix Education - Another reason we are falling behind. Our education system sucks. End social promotion, end this nonsense that you can't fire incompetant teachers.

6) End Work Visas and enforce immigration laws - This is a two-fer. First, with 9.2% unemployment, what the hell are we doing issuing 1.5 million work Visas to foreign nationals every year? It is impossible for me to believe that you simply can't find an American to do this kind of work. Second, with 20 million illegals taking jobs from Americans, why in heaven's name are you talking about amnesty or not cracking down on the workplaces that hire them?

7 Smart Regulation- The problem with regulations are that they are too complicated and sporadically enforced. So while OSHA is out there getting the guy for not having his training documentation all filled out right, the guy who is running the death trap gets a pass. No point going after him, he doens't have any money. The guy is trying to do the right thing and run a safe workplace actually has money you can hit with minor fines.

Because you're the one bitching and moaning. Either piss on the pot or get off...

Obama didn't crash the car, he's the tow truck driver trying to get the accident off the road.

1) I agree, to a degree, about tariffs, but then your exporters would cry foul. People either dont' give a shit, or don't know, where products are made and vote with their wallet.

2) Drill baby drill might be a short term solution for no long-term gain. With carbon taxes a thing of the (almost) immediate future, drilling doesn't help with the long term future of energy needs.

3) I concur, but no president since Truman seems to agree .Why the US still has bases in Japan and Germany is beyond me. I get Korea and Iraq and Afghanistan, but Germany and Japan have long since been civilised and the cold war is over.

4) It was 5 million, then 10 million, now 20 million. How many illegals are there? As for issuing visas, well of that 9.2 percent unemployed, how many of them are able to do the jobs that are on offer. If issuing those visas is anything like where I come from you give them to the ones with the skills. I doubt anybody who's only life skills is flipping burgers at the local McDonalds in Manilla will be a recipiant of a work visa.

5) Yeah, well, regulations would be unnecessary if unscrupulous businessmen/women didn't try and flout the laws in the first place...Remember, regulations are only put in place after the fact in most cases (unless it is a new endeavour)....

 

[Dr Grump]

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

It's always telling when someone who became Very Wealthy under a system wants to change it so that others are denied the opportunity to become wealthy.

Sounds like he's willing to pay his share to me. Trust you to be of the "glass half empty" train of thought.

And how would paying his fair of tax make him poor...

 

[jillian]

U.S. companies are reluctant to hire&#8212;but not because of uncertainty over government policies, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned in his testimony before Congress last week. A majority of the 53 economists surveyed from July 8-13 by the Wall Street Journal say it is the lack of demand that is keeping hiring down.

The U.S. economy added just 18,000 jobs in June, less than one-fifth of consensus estimates, as unemployment rose to 9.2 percent. Asked by the Journal to name the main reason for employers not hiring more readily, sixty-five percent of the 51 economists who responded said it was due to lack of demand. Twenty-seven percent said it was uncertainty over the government, and others cited the appeal of hiring overseas.

WSJ Survey: Lack of Demand, Not Uncertainty, Keeps Hiring Down - Catherine Hollander - NationalJournal.com

These would be the same economists who predicted we'd be out of this mess by now.

Screw the economists. If you gave them a million bucks and told them to start a business, 99% of them would go bust.

I give a lot more credence to Steve Wynn and Bernie Marcus, who have said that Obama is really the problem. Guys who actually run businesses.

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery - Investors.com

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the busi nessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

But let's take that point seriously. Why is there a lack of demand? Because people are cutting back, even if they have jobs. I've cut back. Heck, between Obama's inflation and the fact I'm making 10% less than I did during the bad old Bush years, I dont have as much to spend.

And your answer to the mess is?

why ask him. there's no "obama inflation"... and he's most likely also lying about making 10% less...

though if he is, he should probably be thanking bush for his little tax cuts for the rich...

 

[Neotrotsky]

Gasoline up 100% under Obama

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Snipped for simplicity's sake.

That was one LONG-ass motherfucking post.

Does ANYbody read such voluminous shit?

 

[Mr.Nick]

The CRA and the neo-cons that allowed that bullshit..

The CRA is a fantastic example of libfucks being wrong...

Then they have the fucking audacity to blame others for their stupid shit...

The CRA proves how fucking useless, dishonest and unreliable the poor democrat voting base is.

 

[Cuyo]

The CRA and the neo-cons that allowed that bullshit..

The CRA is a fantastic example of libfucks being wrong...

Then they have the fucking audacity to blame others for their stupid shit...

The CRA proves how fucking useless, dishonest and unreliable the poor democrat voting base is.

BRILLIANT! No more do we have to debate what caused the national debt. It was the CRA. Yep. CRA all along!

Oh little Nicky. Don't change. Don't you ever change, you special little soul.

 

[saveliberty]

Spending more than we had and thinking, hey, we'll have more...someday...when people don't want stuff anymore...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

* * * *

Snipped for simplicity's sake.

That was one LONG-ass motherfucking post.

Does ANYbody read such voluminous shit?

No.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gasoline up 100% under Obama

Highest price I've ever paid for gas in my lifetime was in summer 2008. Obama wasn't president then. So shut the fuck up.