OBAMA THE GREAT-the Obama Presidency - Page 49

in response to GW Bush having the HIGHEST EVER percentage of any sitting president...

oh and again..when you run on "hope and change" then the sky is the limit......unfortunately reality kicks in and you get exactly what Obama got...a big kick in the butt.

You realize, that Reagan was the one who started the huge disparity...Clinton brought it back only to se GWB drive it off a cliff...

Government spending can of course increase tax revenues because it can be extremeley stimulative...government spending in education, research and the military provides an extremely good return on the dollar. Government spending on medicaid, does not.

Its the same logic with tax cuts. Tax cuts for the middle class (usually) provide great bang for the buck. Tax cuts for the rich, do not.

When we have a national surplus, and a healthy economy, then you can talk about expanding medicaid, or tax cuts for the rich. Otherwise, they are both a luxury.

So you are OK with cutting defense 30% by 2020?

You are OK with stealing people's money in Medicare and Social Security cuts?

this sounds like another emotional kicker....just like how democrats were selling obamacare by using extremely unfortunate people, playing off the emotions of the people...

I completely DISLIKE SS and would LOVE to see that program scrapped and thrown away...If you are irresponsible and can't keep your money in check then thats YOUR FAULT...I on the other hand, can keep a "savings" account AS a "savings" account and not use it as my weekend cash machine.

Just like those irresponsible "obese" Americans who cry about their health and want "free" health care...THEY should have thought about the outcome before things got out of hand....

responsibility is something that democrats seem to dislike...if more people were responsible, there would be no "need" for such programs...

How is it an emotional kicker? If Medicaid and SS both disappeared today, then millions of people would have effectively had their money stolen. If you want to get rid of it, then you would have to start with refunds.

if Hillary runs in 2012...she will easily win.

You do realize Reagan setup the LOWER TAX Economy
to be business-friendly & nurturing to the HighTech Boom
that started in the mid '80's...

Clinton DAMN near KILLED it with his HUGE '93 TAXATION when
he took over. The economy was strong enough to survive
it and flourished until the inevitable crash in 1999. Gov't is a
PARASITE on business since it produces ZERO wealth. Today
we are still suffering from his tax policies. O' Boy wants MORE
of the same.




.

Did you click the link?

Those are the cuts i'd make.

And it's to prevent the government from stealing our money that I support those cuts.

That money was already "stolen" throughout the years.

There is no "Lock Box" or a place where the Social Security Funds were stashed to pay for when there are more collecting than paying into the system.

Ive said this before here, but there's no use crying over spilled milk. The money was stolen. It's gone. It's spent. We don't have it anymore. There is no "would have effectively had their money stolen." It has been stolen already.

Now we need to stop them from continuing to steal it. The sooner the better.

I would never praise Obama because he's anti-christ!

love to see the class and IQ of those polled in these things

Why not replenish the stolen money? It isn't like it is impossible.

Yes, that link cuts government spending by 30% by 2020.

Let me guess, to replace the stolen money, you would advocate stealing from the rich, giving it the people who stole the money in the first place, and trust them not to steal it again?

Einstein once said that the definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I think we have a language problem.

Raising spending, even if it isn't as much as you'd like to raise it, is somehow a 30% cut?

That link does cut, in some years, overall government spending. But, by 2020, we're spending more money than we are now.

I don't accept the odd definition of cut as a lack of a raise.

Hogwash.

What Reagan did, was enact-middle class tax cuts, and absolutely crush tax loopholes (including the brackets) and tax breaks for the rich, while also reducing their basal tax rate. The result was only a very small decrease in tax revenues. In fact, IIRC, the top 1% paid almost twice as much in taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. Reagan also increased taxes 11? times after the initial decreases...he also imposed the gasoline tax, raised the corporate tax rate to its highest in history, crushed corporate tax loopholes (that BCB reopened), etc. It was Reagan who made it so no family making below the poverty line paid any taxes...a far cry from the Republican party of today what serves the rich.

In regards to the economy of the 90s:

What Reagan, Carter, Ford, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, etc. had done, was greatly fuel public-sector research. They poured money into DARPA and various other programs.

If the government did anything that helped foster the tech boom of the 90s, it was the great investment into research during the Cold War.

The tax cuts for the middle-class definitely helped put money in the hands of your average American, but the technology that fueled the boom (including the internet, cellular phones, etc.) came from government research.

He increased the top tax rate from 31% to 36% and 39%. Huge taxation, my foot.

He also LOWERED the corporate tax rate from 42 to 35% compared to Reagan (unchanged compared to Bush the first). He also lowered government spending significantly.

Of course government can produce wealth. In some cases, not as much as the private sector, but it definitely can.

What would happen if the government decided to disband the armed forces? In that way, isn't "government spending" enormously stimulative and necessary for the economy.

What would happend if big, bad government decided to no longer have public schools. What would happen if the educated workforce dried up?

I would run budget surpluses until we pay off our national debt.

Even if it is an inflatioanry raise?

Even you should be able to understand, that if the dollar is worth 75% as much as it is now in 10 years, then you've effectively enacted a cut. Not to mention the additional inflationary affects of all that debt, the amount you would have to cut to satisfy that debt, the problems with cutting social security and medicare, etc.

Yes, even if it is an inflationary raise.

We havn't had 40% inflation since 2008, yet our spending has grown by about that much.

You keep repeating yourself as though we don't understand that cutting spending means, well, cutting spending.

And the way it was put forward was to not only raise the amount of spending over ten years, but to do so while reducing the amount of spending in it's entirety. And still you're not happy.

Don't keep asking repeatedly, challenging us to put forward our plans for cutting the budget and the deficit, and then when confronted with how we would do it, act like it's somehow wrong or immoral.

Spending needs to go down, period. And it can be done without raising taxes. You've been shown how it can be down without raising taxes. You disagree, we understand that.

But let's not continue to pretend like we have a taxing problem. We have a spending problem. Stop the spending. Now.