A debt level of 100% of GDP is considered the point of no return.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011...s-economy/

Didn't you just say voting for this guy was better than W?

I am truly confused....

(02-14-2011 10:35 PM)blah Wrote:  Didn't you just say voting for this guy was better than W?

I am truly confused....

From the article:

Quote:Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP - the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether

This guys eff's up the country and will walk away a millionaire and he'll make millioins more making speeches when he really should be the poster boy for what not to look for in a leader. He's got his, why would he care about us?

(02-14-2011 10:35 PM)blah Wrote:  Didn't you just say voting for this guy was better than W?

I am truly confused....

Sometimes an addict has to hit rock bottom before he'll quit the habit.

(02-14-2011 10:59 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 10:35 PM)blah Wrote:  Didn't you just say voting for this guy was better than W?

I am truly confused....

From the article:

Quote:Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP - the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether

This guys eff's up the country and will walk away a millionaire and he'll make millioins more making speeches when he really should be the poster boy for what not to look for in a leader. He's got his, why would he care about us?

This usurper is actively trying to destroy what in his eyes is a colonialist nation.

Hey......................

Why don't we just cut taxes more.

(02-15-2011 09:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey......................

Why don't we just cut taxes more.

Hey............

increasing tax rates (once again, you're using sloppy language to defend a sloppy idea) reduces tax revenues.

Why do you hate that fact so much?

That's the answer Torch. That's what we need to do. I mean it worked SO WELL through the Bush years. Cut taxes. Pulled Hamstring.... cut taxes. More syrup for the pancakes...... cut taxes. Gas at a 1/4 tank...... cut taxes. That's the GOP mantra and it's reached it's objective. Congrats.... you've bankrupted the US. It looks like you guys are starving and killing the BEAST!

Yeah, Obama had absolutely no hand at bankrupting the U.S. /totally_batshit_insane

Crack Addicts and the GOP share a common trait. They keep puffin on that cut tax pipe because it "FEELS SO GOOD".

(02-15-2011 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Crack Addicts and the GOP share a common trait. They keep puffin on that cut tax pipe because it "FEELS SO GOOD".

Sounds kind like your continued support for Obama.

That's good Reb, but Obama lost me with the tax cut deal he signed in December. We all ***** and complain but at the end of the day. Both parties just keep the foot on the gas pedal............ off the cliff. Wish we had another Clinton.

So, just to get this straight, you have no problem with his spending, just his extending tax cuts. Am I reading that right?

(02-15-2011 10:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's good Reb, but Obama lost me with the tax cut deal he signed in December. We all ***** and complain but at the end of the day. Both parties just keep the foot on the gas pedal............ off the cliff. Wish we had another Clinton.

the foot on the gas pedal............ off the cliff, has nothing to do with tax rates. You continue to identify the problem, spending, but you want to attack something else.

What do you think revenue would be if tax rates were 100%?

(02-15-2011 10:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's the answer Torch.

No it's not. You didn't answer the question at all. You avoided it, while spouting emotional rhetoric.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...h-tax-cuts

Sarcasm detector is on low Torch. May need a new battery.

(02-15-2011 09:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 09:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey......................

Why don't we just cut taxes more.

Hey............

increasing tax rates (once again, you're using sloppy language to defend a sloppy idea) reduces tax revenues.

Why do you hate that fact so much?

To recap, Pence said that, "Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues." Actually, the historical data doesn't show that. Experts said the economic theory Pence is drawing from doesn't apply in the current situation, and an increase in tax rates would not cause tax revenues to decline. So we rate his statement False.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stat...-revenues/

What cite are you referring to Dr T.?

Redwing

The majority here won't even read that link. They "feel" tax rates decreasing will raise revenue. It's an opinion based on "emotion".

How dare you bring facts into this argument. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

(02-15-2011 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Redwing

The majority here won't even read that link. They "feel" tax rates decreasing will raise revenue. It's an opinion based on "emotion".

How dare you bring facts into this argument. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

C'mon Mach, you're above those lies.

(02-15-2011 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Redwing

The majority here won't even read that link. They "feel" tax rates decreasing will raise revenue. It's an opinion based on "emotion".

How dare you bring facts into this argument. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

I guess you missed the part about how tax revenues went up during the Reagan years, even when tax rates were going down. Tax rates going up might not guarantee that revenues go down, but it doesn't guarantee they'll go up either, because it hasn't always happened that way in the past, so it can't be counted on as a sure fix. You can keep thinking it, but that doesn't make it true.