Mr President, I've seen enough or why yes I am still blaming Bush

[Eastoff]

Here is some words, because I need to have words.

 

[Denny Crane]

With a filibuster proof senate and dominant majority in the house, they chose to continue all those Bush programs. Where does the buck stop?

And obama's spending is a time bomb - like his health care plan costs trillions, not the 150B in the chart.

 

[Paxil]

That is a interesting picture... but I am not sure I believe it. The temporary Bush tax cuts where really almost 2 trillion? Good God. And over 50% go directly to the top 5%. I see no costs for Libya under Obama so that makes me suspicious... plus troop surge in Afghanistan. With no source I just don't know what to make of it... though I did check the Bush tax cuts have cost around 2 Trillion... the is freaking crazy. Yeah... lets make up for that not by reversing it... but by taking benefits from the poor. Craziness.

 

[Eastoff]

With a filibuster proof senate and dominant majority in the house, they chose to continue all those Bush programs. Where does the buck stop?

And obama's spending is a time bomb - like his health care plan costs trillions, not the 150B in the chart.

I am not saying the congress isn't to blame, I just wanted to share this information.

 

[maxiep]

I like how keeping my money is considered by the New York Times a "cost". Also, I laugh at the idea that ObamaCare is only going to cost $152B through 2017.

 

[Paxil]

It is a 'cost' because it was a temporary reduction in taxes to spur the economy. Yep... that worked real well didn't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

It is a 'cost' because it was a temporary reduction in taxes to spur the economy. Yep... that worked real well didn't it?

10 years isn't temporary. The numbers I've seen all along say that eliminating the tax cut for $250K and up would make up $60B in new revenue. Time 10 years would be $600B, right? So if the grand total is $2T, then $1.4T of that, or 70% didn't go to the so-called rich.

And if you believe in the surpluses as far as the eye can see dogma, the $200B per year would still leave us in a surplus position. Fwiw

 

[maxiep]

It is a 'cost' because it was a temporary reduction in taxes to spur the economy. Yep... that worked real well didn't it?

We had 28 quarters of consecutive growth, so yeah, it worked pretty well.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

True or not, the graph paints an interesting picture of what a runaway president and/or Congress can do to really screw up the country.

 

[Denny Crane]

True or not, the graph paints an interesting picture of what a runaway president and/or Congress can do to really screw up the country.

The problem is those running govt. see times are good and commit future money to permanent programs that we can't get rid of (easily or at all). Then when times get bad, we're fucked.

Giving the people back the money the govt. took and didn't need is the obvious right thing.

 

[blazerboy30]

I am not saying the congress isn't to blame, I just wanted to share this information.

And what were your thoughts on this chart?

 

[blazerboy30]

It is a 'cost' because it was a temporary reduction in taxes to spur the economy. Yep... that worked real well didn't it?

So if you own a business, do you claim a "cost" as money that you let your customers keep and they didn't pay your business?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So if you own a business, do you claim a "cost" as money that you let your customers keep and they didn't pay your business?

Unpaid bills are allowed to be declared as losses to the company . . . close to the same thing when you don't pressure customers to pay the remaining balance.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

People want to trash Obama on health care. At least he has been the only president to really take it on after all promise to deal with the issue. Probably a mistake by Obama and I think could have put his re-election at jepordy. But I'm guessing the way he handled the Bin Laden situation has pretty much wrapped up Obama's re-relection.

 

[blazerboy30]

People want to trash Obama on health care. At least he has been the only president to really take it on after all promise to deal with the issue. Probably a mistake by Obama and I think could have put his re-election at jepordy. But I'm guessing the way he handled the Bin Laden situation has pretty much wrapped up Obama's re-relection.

You're trying to congratulate Obama on passing something that sucks (his health care plan), just because he tried?

 

[blazerboy30]

Unpaid bills are allowed to be declared as losses to the company . . . close to the same thing when you don't pressure customers to pay the remaining balance.

This isn't close at all. I guess we just have fundamental differences on people's rights with respect to their money. My view is that my money isn't the government's money. It isn't a government "cost" just because I'm keeping what I earned. A reduction in revenue? Sure. A "cost"? No.

With your view, then the "cost" being claimed by the government should be anything less than 100% of peoples' income.

 

[STOMP]

With a filibuster proof senate and dominant majority in the house, they chose to continue all those Bush programs. Where does the buck stop?

if not to mislead, why are you selling this? With Ted Kennedy on his deathbed and the fiasco of Al Franken finally getting in after months ridiculous obstruction the Dems enjoyed 14 weeks of filibuster proof senate... and thats only if you ignore the presence of many DINO Blue Dogs + Joe Lieberman.

http://www.google.com/search?client...c+filibuster+proof+majority&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

the buck stops when voters look past the party labels and pay attention to who is getting paid by who... many on both sides play for the same team and that includes many tea party types

STOMP

 

[Ed O]

The problem is those running govt. see times are good and commit future money to permanent programs that we can't get rid of (easily or at all). Then when times get bad, we're fucked.

I agree.

The thing is that a Keynesian approach is to run deficits in bad times... so we feel good about ourselves in good times (and commit ourselves to programs that people don't want to get rid of later) and then we spend MORE when times are bad.

It's a vicious, doomed cycle.

Ed O.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

This isn't close at all. I guess we just have fundamental differences on people's rights with respect to their money. My view is that my money isn't the government's money. It isn't a government "cost" just because I'm keeping what I earned. A reduction in revenue? Sure. A "cost"? No.

With your view, then the "cost" being claimed by the government should be anything less than 100% of peoples' income.

I understand your view that your money isn't the gov't money as I have heard it from many people, unfortunately the laws say otherewise. The fact is when you make money, part of that money is likely the gov'ts money.

Personally, I don't think the gov't is entitled to 100% of people's income or will ever be entitled to 100% of people's income.

 

[blazerboy30]

I understand your view that your money isn't the gov't money as I have heard it from many people, unfortunately the laws say otherewise. The fact is when you make money, part of that money is likely the gov'ts money.

Personally, I don't think the gov't is entitled to 100% of people's income or will ever be entitled to 100% of people's income.

So explain again how it is a "cost" as opposed to reduced revenue.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

You're trying to congratulate Obama on passing something that sucks (his health care plan), just because he tried?

I'm congratulating him for having the balls to take on the issue when other presidents promised to and never did.

As I said it would probably work against him in this upcoming election because there is no solution to this problem (that isn't going to hurt) so his health care program is fuel to be used against him during campaigning. But I also don't think it will be his downfall.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So explain again how it is a "cost" as opposed to reduced revenue.

Semantics and labeling in politics . . . both sides do it.

Explain why you think the money you make is all your money and none of it the gov'ts.

 

[Denny Crane]

if not to mislead, why are you selling this? With Ted Kennedy on his deathbed and the fiasco of Al Franken finally getting in after months ridiculous obstruction the Dems enjoyed 14 weeks of filibuster proof senate... and thats only if you ignore the presence of many DINO Blue Dogs + Joe Lieberman.

http://www.google.com/search?client...c+filibuster+proof+majority&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

the buck stops when voters look past the party labels and pay attention to who is getting paid by who... many on both sides play for the same team and that includes many tea party types

STOMP

14 weeks is 14 weeks, and there were 4 months to line up everything they wanted to pass.

 

[blazerboy30]

Semantics and labeling in politics . . . both sides do it.

It isn't semantics. Just like I said, a business can't claim unobtainable revenue as a "cost". That is ridiculous. If you want to play that game, we should show all lost revenue due to a slow economy as a "cost" incurred by Obama.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It isn't semantics. Just like I said, a business can't claim unobtainable revenue as a "cost". That is ridiculous. If you want to play that game, we should show all lost revenue due to a slow economy as a "cost" incurred by Obama.

They can, just don't call it unobtainable revenue. People are unwilling to pay for services like they did in the past (because they can't afford it). The business charges them the same price and never collect on the unpaid balance knowing the customer isn't going to pay the unpaid balance and writes it off as a loss.

Basically charge customers the same price knowing that price is unobtainable and write off the difference that is unobtainable as a loss.

How that applies to this gov't thread I don't know. But for business, it is all about how you characterize things (I'm guessing like politics).

 

[STOMP]

14 weeks is 14 weeks, and there were 4 months to line up everything they wanted to pass.

Who is this they you speak of? I don't know how you missed understanding my post but I'll try one more time.

The Democrats did not have a filibuster proof Senate for 14 weeks or ever as they never had 60 Senators on board who would vote the same way on virtually anything. Claiming that they did is either being ignorant or purposely misleading.

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Who is this they you speak of? I don't know how you missed understanding my post but I'll try one more time.

The Democrats did not have a filibuster proof Senate for 14 weeks or ever as they never had 60 Senators on board who would vote the same way on virtually anything. Claiming that they did is either being ignorant or purposely misleading.

STOMP

They got enough votes to pass health care, sort of. And a lot of those votes were bought and paid for with some sort of pork. And the health care bill passed cloture 60-40 in the senate. 60 being filibuster proof.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122100248.html

Health-care bill clears crucial vote in Senate, 60 to 40

 

[Paxil]

So if you own a business, do you claim a "cost" as money that you let your customers keep and they didn't pay your business?

No... but if I see to them at a 50% discount it certain does. It is called a sale.

 

[STOMP]

They got enough votes to pass health care, sort of.

Good grief... that you're trying to pass off the health care BS that passed as some sort of example of the Dems mighty filibuster proof Senate You are classic!

Because everyone knew they didn't have close to the votes, they didn't propose anything close to what they wanted (SPHC). It was a massive compromise from the get go only to be distorted until the various in pocket health care opposition from both sides could look down their noses at it as something that should have been aborted.

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

No... but if I see to them at a 50% discount it certain does. It is called a sale.

What in the world are you talking about? That still isn't a loss for the business (necessarily, unless you're selling for less than it cost you). It is just reduced revenue. Clearly you don't own your own business.