Obama takes a step — a small step — toward deficit cuts
President Obama is set to announce a three-year freeze in discretionary non-defense spending. The problem is, that’s not where the problem is. Those programs total $447 billion; the deficit this year is $1.4 trillion. In other words, you could eliminate those programs three times over and still face a deficit.
But it’s a start, a gesture. A lot of the current-year deficit is not caused by increased spending, but by collapsed federal revenues. Total federal revenue last year was just 15.1 percent of gross domestic product, a sharp drop from its average level of above 18 percent. In dollar terms, revenue isn’t projected to return to 2007 levels until at least 2011, and in the meantime the government is incurring additional expenses such as extended unemployment and aid to state budgets. Folks at the state Capitol are already in a panic over how to balance their own budget; ask them how many teachers and prison guards they would have to lay off without the federal stimulus money and they’ll turn pale in the face.
Obama is also pushing plans for a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that by the end of the year would present Congress with a program on how to move us back toward fiscal reality. Congress would have to vote up or down on that package — no amendments. But that isn’t likely to pass. As the Washington Post notes, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “has turned against (the) proposal after endorsing it in Senate speeches last year. The reversal … coincided with word that anti-tax activists such as Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist was opposed.”
In other words, if deficit reduction requires tax increases as part of the package — which it will — the GOP wants no part of it. Of course, liberal Democrats also aren’t eager to swallow the other part of the required package, which would be cuts in entitlement programs. So congressional approval of that approach is unlikely.
As an alternative, President Obama may try to achieve the same goal by executive order, creating a bipartisan commission on his own to come up with a plan for a vote later this year. But House Minority Leader John Boehner has suggested that Republicans named to that commission might refuse to serve.
So there we are. Stuck with minor steps such as the spending freeze.
“Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in response to the freeze idea. “Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That’s the bottom line.”
For the record, the national debt more than doubled under President George W. Bush. And it more than tripled in the 10-year period beginning in 1982, when Ronald Reagan took office, and 1991, when the elder President Bush sat in the White House.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
594 comments Add your comment
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
10:42 am
Looks like the republican plan sucks GG,I hope they have something better than that,I had to hold my nose just to read it.
Independent
January 26th, 2010
10:42 am
Jenifer, that’s not a magical wand of Obama’s, it’s Hillary’s broomstick.
thomas
January 26th, 2010
10:42 am
Mick,
How you wantin to pay for that?
getalife
January 26th, 2010
10:43 am
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
Ouch!
Sam
January 26th, 2010
10:43 am
the only taxes that are getting raised are on the wealthy, the rest of us are getting nice tax cuts. hell i paid the lowest amount in 10 years last march, i’m sure this year will be even lower. if the wealthy need to pay a little more for now, so be it. i’d rather the middle calls gets some relief than the upper class. i mean who needs it more?
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
10:44 am
#1 baby yeah!
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
10:44 am
No HCare revisions as any govt attempt at “bettering” things will result in yet another captiol hill failure by our elected theives and con-artsits.
These guys, Rep and Dim, are so out of touch its beginning to become scary.
marko
January 26th, 2010
10:47 am
If democrats were more like republicans, Bill Clinton would be lecturing us all on marital fidelity. Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans. It’s like trying to chose between Roseanne Bar or Rosie McDonald at closing time. Voting would be much easier if our elected heros did’nt insist on closing the bars on election day.
chuck
January 26th, 2010
10:49 am
AmVet, do you really have any integrity at all when it comes to trying to prove your point? The article you quoted was from 1996. I believe that the man in charge then was a democrat.
However, here are some more recent statistics for you: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 – 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
So get off of this soak the rich soapbox you have been on ad nauseum. You are already soaking them.
stands for decibels
January 26th, 2010
10:51 am
You are already soaking them.
Won’t somebody think of the rich and powerful? They give so much and ask so little in return!
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
10:51 am
getalife
January 26th, 2010
10:43 am
Great article.
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
10:51 am
Actually, the wealthy are the ones getting the most back in tax cuts.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
10:53 am
Barry is goin down in flames!!
How many of you Obama voters are experiencing “buyers remorse”?
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
10:54 am
Hey Marko! C’mon now, you know which chick you’re gonna choose: the one that tells you what you want to hear!
getalife
January 26th, 2010
10:54 am
Total public debt outstanding Jan. 22 $12,302,465
That is 12 trillion from the AP.
Jimmy62
January 26th, 2010
10:55 am
Defense, education, health, you name it, those are a drop in the bucket. Until we get serious about changing retirement benefits to be a closer match to life expectancy, there’s nowhere to go but chaos and destruction.
thomas
January 26th, 2010
10:55 am
Yes that republican proposal is horrible.
-Who wants a guareentee of insurance regardless of prior conditions. Not me!
-Who would want Lower premiums a reduction of 7-15% according to the CBO? Not Me!
-Allowing dependants to stay on insurance after 25? Not Me!
-Pooling small business together to achieve a lower premium? Not Me!
-Cutting spending by 49 million and increasing revenue by 27 million? Not me!
-Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopt
and regularly update standards for electronic administrative transactions that
enable electronic funds transfers, claims management processes, and
verification of eligibility, among other administrative tasks. Those provisions
would result in about $6 billion in federal savings in Medicaid. In addition,
those standards would result in an increase in revenues of about $13 billion
as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of private health insurance plans? Not Me!
And here all this time I thought republicans were ONLY proposing to cut taxes?
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
10:56 am
Of course, it is not exactly rocket science when it comes to figuring out that the rich pay more of the taxes. After all, they made all the money. Otherwise, they would not be wealthy and they would pay less in taxes unless they just inherited it all. I guess some people think that each person should pay a fixed dollar amount for taxes so that everyone pays the same. Now wouldn’t that be a sight. Of course, the wealthiest of the wealthy do manage to get closer to that ideal than others.
pat
January 26th, 2010
10:57 am
So obama triples spending in 6 months, add 10% to the total national debt, and now he’s saying ooops?! Seems obama is doing a lot of back peddaling lately. We have a 3/4 billion dollar stimulus that did jack monkey for the economy most of what has been released has been wasted, We have 0ver 10% unemployment, and a dollar that envious of the cuban peso….Now he figures out it’s all mistake and now he wants to cut spending? Shouldn’t the spending cuts been done first?
So here it is I am going to say it….TOLD YA! You can’t spend your way out of a recession. The concept defies all logic.
We took 768 billion dollars and gave it to coperate execs and other government beaurocrats, look how swell that worked. You you want these blithering morons to be in charge of your health?
We owe the people of MA a debt of gratitude.
Mick
January 26th, 2010
10:58 am
**How you wantin to pay for that?**
I’ll gladly pay a little more to benefit myself and all americans. God willing, we all get old, those programs benefit the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the country.
Sunshine and Thunder
January 26th, 2010
10:59 am
So Obama wants to freeze spending? Wow. Just goes to show ya that even in a barn full of horse poop there’s often a shiny new pony.
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
10:59 am
If you are a lobbyist with enough money I think you can get them both to come home with you marko.
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
11:00 am
Outhouse at 10:53, I’m man enough to cop to the truth. I like him, but he hasn’t fought as hard as I wanted for the things that matter, IMO. I’m willing to give him more time (retardo-boy stuttered at us for 8 years, so I’ve learned patience), but I will have buyer’s remorse if we come away w/o serious healthcare reform, w/o REAL equality for our gay citizens, and still entrenched in two wars with no real mission.
BTW, the President will earn serious points with me when he calls Senator McCain into his office and demands to know what he meant by “I can get Bin Laden. I know how to get Bin Laden. I will deliver Bin Laden,” and why the good patriotic senator hasn’t come forward with that information before now.
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:00 am
i’m not seeing too many tax cuts for the wealthy…am i missing something?
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:02 am
Outhouse, considering the alternative i’m still okay with my decision. hell mccain may have dropped dead by now (not that i’m hoping for it) and imagine where that would have left us…scary thought.
Mick
January 26th, 2010
11:02 am
**How many of you Obama voters are experiencing “buyers remorse”?**
Not yet – it gets a litte easier if you try to envision where we would be with mccain/palin.
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:03 am
“How many of you Obama voters are experiencing “buyers remorse”?”
Not me, I was never fooled.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:03 am
“How many of you Obama voters are experiencing “buyers remorse”?”
ME! I’ve said it over and over again.
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
11:03 am
Mick, at 11:02, that it does. ACK!
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:03 am
pat you are clueless and your spelling sucks.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:03 am
This Obama-Mess will linger for years to come with a policital backlash of huge proportions. What a great time to go underground and save some greenbacks!! 3 years underground will net your friend, Outhouse GoKart, enough liquidity to emerge and purchase YOUR foreclosed house with a 65 to 85% downpayment!!
Please let your mental images/wavelengths be only positive when praying for your friend, Outhouse GoKart, and his future successes. Perhaps I might even rent you a room! What a GREAT opporutunity!!
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:05 am
“Not yet – it gets a litte easier if you try to envision where we would be with mccain/palin.”
You mean, lower unemployment, not having to deal with government controlling health care, not having to worry about another terrorist attack…………..?
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
11:05 am
I agree Mick we may still be on the titanic but at least we avoided the Mccain /Palin iceberg
Mick
January 26th, 2010
11:06 am
**not having to worry about another terrorist attack…………..?**
I thought we were the home of the brave?
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
I will agree, in that, McCain/Palin wasnt much of an alternative.
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
McCain/Palin represented the “best” of what the Republicans had to offer. Ewwwww.
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
Sam, sam…My spelling does suck. I don’t need clues, the back pedaling by this administration is proof I was right all along, I don’t need your approval, the facts speak for themselves.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
“I agree Mick we may still be on the titanic but at least we avoided the Mccain /Palin iceberg”
Instead we have the SS TitanicObama.
Steve
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
Herein lies the need to have people with experience running businesses in office. Hard decisions need to be made concerning where to cut the budget. Career politicians (Dems & Reps) will not make those decisions. They either don’t have the necessary business knowledge, or the cajones to do the job.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:08 am
“McCain/Palin represented the “best” of what the Republicans had to offer. Ewwwww.”
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!
And the Obama ship continues to sink………………………
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:09 am
Hey, maybe Joe the Biden was right after all. He said the election was about one three (that’s right THREE) letter word….jobs! J – O – B – S.
And you guys are still calling Palin dumb?
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:09 am
“pat you are clueless and your spelling sucks.”
Obama you are clueless and you suck as president.
There, fixed your typo.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:10 am
What we need is someone with some guts, some backbone, some morals, some character like Hopalong Cassidy!
Mick
January 26th, 2010
11:10 am
Outhouse GoKart
I’ll agree that you have a great sense of humor, nice work.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:11 am
Or maybe Flavor-Flav!
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:11 am
You know I didn’t expect things to unravel this quickly….I thought people would need a year of government run healthcare to realize how bad it is and then it was going to unravel.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:11 am
“And you guys are still calling Palin dumb?”
Jimmy, it’s all they have. Palin is sitting pretty, making millions of dollars, appears on FOX with O’Reilly, who is destroying others with his ratings, and yet…………..liberals call her stupid.
Here is a great example of stupid:
Ed Shultz. He gets on his radio program, encourages democrat voters to cheat…………..and has to apologize for it.
THAT is stupid!
Whacks Eloquent
January 26th, 2010
11:11 am
TaxPayer @ 10:56,
Wow, finally some unadulterated wealth envy! Hey, you know some of that money you want the government to seize from the wealthy might actually be used to create jobs if you don’t. Besides, think of it this way – the more complex and “graduated” your tax code is, the more loopholes will be added. A flat tax (not my fave, I am a FairTax guy) would at least cut out the loopholes. But of course, my favorite FairTax would actually put the highest burden on the big spenders, the ones who want to show off their extravagant lifestyle. Isn’t that the way it should be?
Oh, and before you insinuate anything, I am middle class and racking up student loans to put my wife through grad school. I know it will be worth it in the end when she winds up making more than me!
NJ
January 26th, 2010
11:12 am
The current deficits are relatively low, compared to GDP and the National Debt, relative to GDP is getting close to being the lowest in history..
The stock market has reached pre recession levels and of course because unemployment is a lagging indicator, it follows the stock market. By about a year. Unemployment will start easing off late 2010/Early 2011.
Of course unless a sudden attempt to return to the folly of conservatism sends the U.S. into a second recessionary spiral, as occurred in the 1930’s when the courts forced FDR to stop his New Deal spending. This sent the economy back downward.
History repeats itself,. first as tragedy, then as farce.
Of course, because the rest of the world is far more liberal, the recession is over, everyplace but the United States. Next year, growth in GDP outside of the U.S. is slated to be 3.9 percent, the highest since the 1950’s-60’s. Thats because they actually threw the recommended amount of money at the problem through deficit spending.
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:13 am
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
And Obama/Biden was the “best” the dems had to offer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Hey, how’s that “change you can believe in” working out for you?
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:14 am
The reason liberals hate rich people is because they themselves are not smart enough to make their own money in the real world.
Hence: liberals work as baristas, green peace activists, acorn activists, fine arts professors………….
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:14 am
“History repeats itself,. first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Hence Jimmy Carter part 2. Obama.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:15 am
“The current deficits are relatively low, compared to GDP and the National Debt, relative to GDP is getting close to being the lowest in history..”
Cool, give George W Bush credit for that………
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:16 am
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:14 am
Great point. I’ve always felt part of Reagan’s appeal in 1980 was the fact that Jimmy Carter was the incumbent seeking reelection.
thomas
January 26th, 2010
11:16 am
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:07 am
McCain/Palin represented the “best” of what the Republicans had to offer. Ewwwww.
Not sure the best the GOP had to offer. Seemed it was more of a response to the vilification of Bush and his admin. they tried to run conservative light and then McCain went with an over conservative to try and counter bad polling.
But it could have been their best they had.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:16 am
“You know I didn’t expect things to unravel this quickly”
Same here and if it werent so humorous it would be sad.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:16 am
“Of course, because the rest of the world is far more liberal, the recession is over, everyplace but the United States.”
Yes, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran are all liberal.
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:17 am
“The current deficits are relatively low,”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:17 am
“Great point. I’ve always felt part of Reagan’s appeal in 1980 was the fact that Jimmy Carter was the incumbent seeking reelection.”
Yes, but the country was sick of Carter. Sort of like how things are with Obama right now.
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:18 am
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:16 am
Careful, LA, you may be throwing too many facts at the libs.
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:18 am
“The reason liberals hate rich people is because they themselves are not smart enough to make their own money in the real world.”
And might I add, most have a million flimsy excuses for just being plain lazy.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:18 am
pat
NJ ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed.
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:18 am
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:17 am
My point exactly.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:19 am
“And might I add, most have a million flimsy excuses for just being plain lazy.”
One being BUSH CAUSED IT!
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:22 am
Wow, finally some unadulterated wealth envy!
Keep tellin’ yourself that if it makes you feel better.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:22 am
thomas
the entire 2008 campaign was all about Bush bashing. Same in 2004 except Kerry nailed his own coffin door shut with “I voted for it before I voted against it” and Swiftboating.
Mccain was his own worst enemy. As stated in “Gamechanger” had Mac not brought Palin in, he would have lost by millions more.
Bottom line: Mitt should have been the nominee in 2008.
LA
January 26th, 2010
11:23 am
“Keep tellin’ yourself that if it makes you feel better.”
We don’t have to. You do a great job at explaining that yourself.
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:24 am
Pat, first off those are not facts. Just a jumble of words and numbers that are not accurate. The spending is over 10 years, it didnt take place the next day. Second, if spending your way out of a recession is not the answer, what would you have had us do?
jconservative
January 26th, 2010
11:26 am
Sam January 26th, 2010 10:08 am
Jenifer January 26th, 2010 10:14 am
“jCon, reagan tripled the national debt to pay for those wonderful tax cuts, just like Bush 1 and Bush 2…why is the debt/deficit only an issue when a democrat is in office?”
I would be interested to read your answer to this question as well.”
Ok, here goes.
The debt/deficit is only an issue when democrats are in office because the Republicans complain when Democrats increase the debt/deficit and brag when they are in office and increase the debt/deficit. The Democrats never complain about the debt/deficit regardless of who is in office. But both, that’s “b-o-t-h”, increase the debt/deficit with no concern about who will pay for it. Both Republican & Democratic members of Congress and presidents have as a job description “get re-elected”, if I may borrow from Obama’s remarks yesterday.
Look, there was one period under Clinton & a Republican Congress when we actually balanced income and expenses. But we cut some discretionary spending, some entitlement programs and the military budget. But Bush 43 decided to send everyone a check from government, the money to come out of the “surplus”. You remember the surplus?
So we were immediately back in the deficit spending mode. And we have been there ever since.
Now we can balance the 2011 fiscal year budget. It is easy. Cut spending, including defense, including Medicare/Medicaid (delay the date of admission as Reagan did on Social Security) and cancel Obama’s fiscal year 2010 tax cuts from last March. That will balance the budget.
But will you vote for a senator or congressman who votes to cut those three programs?
You voters have sent the type people to Washington who vote for low taxes and increased spending. You have done it for 29 years. You are about to do it for the 30th year.
If it makes you feel good to blame the Democrats, go for it.
If it makes you feel good to blame the Republicans, go for it.
But, if you are at all honest, you will take a hard look at yourself.
I Report :-) You Whine :-( mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 26th, 2010
11:28 am
Schwarzenegger: Send undocumented inmates to special jails in Mexico…
Or you could keep them from crossing your border, moron, just sayin….
Curious Observer
January 26th, 2010
11:29 am
Until we get serious about changing retirement benefits to be a closer match to life expectancy, there’s nowhere to go but chaos and destruction.
You’ve got twelve years to draw Social Security, buster. Live longer than that and it’s either a death panel for you or you’re out on your a$$.”
Whacks Eloquent
January 26th, 2010
11:29 am
LA,
“Bottom line: Mitt should have been the nominee in 2008.”
Agreed. Though I think he looks like a game show host. But it is because he is Mormon, which is just wrong. The GOP did not put any religion requirements (other than sanctity of life) in their litmus test, but I think it is just to easy to demagogue against the Mormons. Unfortunately they tend to be a bit on the secretive side, and that hurts them. They range the full gamut, from Orrin Hatch to Harry Reid…wow, sorry that does not sound good in any regard. I am sure there are much better ones out there! Like Mitt…
NJ
January 26th, 2010
11:29 am
Not really. It is because Obama has reduced spending, overall relative to the Bush Administration’s spending, that is the reason for the rates dropping.
Next Bush hid so much of what he was spending by adding it as supplementals.
Finally, the moronic move to vote in a Republican from Massachusetts is most certainly going to send the economy back into recession, as occurred during the New Deal when the Supreme Court declared the New Deal unconstitutional. FDR ended the New Deal, started on “deficit reduction” and the economy spiraled back into recession.
This will of course, occur again, probably a recessionary spiral starting back downward in the second quarter 2010. Just in time to blame the Republicans
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:30 am
Hey, how’s that “change you can believe in” working out for you?
Actually it is workin’ out good for me and mine because the only thing that was about to happen that would have hurt us was averted — the Second Great Republican Depression, that is. With that prospect out of the way, I have no real worries. I got mine.
lmno
January 26th, 2010
11:31 am
“You can “assume” anything you want. You have no knowledge whatsoever of my tax burden. Your job at the drive-thru at Wendy’s means you probably don’t pay ANY federal income taxes. But you act like you’ve been appointed as the spokesman for the taxcode. ”
My job involves knowledge of the tax code. You can argue all you want, but there is not disputing that historically tax rates are incredibly low. You say I have no idea of what your tax burden is, but I DO KNOW what the tax burden is for every income level. I have it right here in front of me.
You say its not 1955 anymore. Well, of course its not. But you can use historical numbers to compare current numbers. THats the point I am making. If you look at the tax rates at any point in history since 1944, and compare them today, they are low.
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:31 am
What part of spending 1.35 Trillion this years is a jumble of words and not fact? That’s 4 times what Bush spent, and he was a horrible spender.
I wouldn’t have created that idiotic stimulus for one.
Tell you what, if your in debt go spend a bunch of money, then come back and report how that helped you.
Mick
January 26th, 2010
11:33 am
**Bottom line: Mitt should have been the nominee in 2008.**
Actually, if romney was on the ticket as VP, mccain might have ekked out a victory. Palin might have gotten him more repub votes but she lost the independents bigtime.
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:33 am
LA, yeah Mitt should’ve been the nominee. you mean the governor who was for the healthcare reform before he was against it, the guy was pro-life before he was against it, you mean the super rich hedge fund manager that rails against the eastern elite that he happens to be a part of, the guy that was for gun control until he needed NRA support…yes he”ll do quite nicely as the nominee…if hypocrites are what you like, well he’s your man.
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
11:34 am
I find It amusing that conservatives think liberals don’t make any money or own guns.
Jefferson
January 26th, 2010
11:34 am
what a worthless bunch
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:34 am
Wow, finally some unadulterated wealth envy! Hey, you know some of that money you want the government to seize from the wealthy might actually be used to create jobs if you don’t. Besides, think of it this way – the more complex and “graduated” your tax code is, the more loopholes will be added. A flat tax (not my fave, I am a FairTax guy) would at least cut out the loopholes. But of course, my favorite FairTax would actually put the highest burden on the big spenders, the ones who want to show off their extravagant lifestyle. Isn’t that the way it should be?
Oh, and before you insinuate anything, I am middle class and racking up student loans to put my wife through grad school. I know it will be worth it in the end when she winds up making more than me!
I’d say that you are the one laying on the insinuations, not me. As for the FairTax™ that is the biggest scam to ever be put forth. It’s prebate scheme is nothing short of pure socialism since it will have the majority of the people hooked on their monthly fix from the government. Support it if you like but it will never ever amount to more than a cheap read and a few dollars in royalties for its creators.
thomas
January 26th, 2010
11:35 am
Pat,
My roommate my junior year did just that. he got 2 new credit cards to pay off his other 2 old ones.
It did not turn out as he planned. It was cool until that 60 day period ended. then we almost got evicted. and i didn’t owe anything but sure was hard to pay almost the whole rent.
So i guess it does work as long as you have someone around to keep paying for your needs.
pat
January 26th, 2010
11:37 am
Yeah I guess as you can keep handing your debt off to other people…Isn’t that what got us into this mess?
NJ
January 26th, 2010
11:38 am
Or as a great American once said:
“No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” Henry Louis Mencken
Outhouse GoKart
January 26th, 2010
11:39 am
We can preach from the Good Book, sermon after sermon, and the dims will refuse to acknowledge or listen. I just sitting, toasting a few marshmallows, in the glow and heat of the implosion.
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:40 am
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:30 am
*”I got mine.”*
Typical lib response.
Did Obama create jobs? Three of his lemmings gave three different answers.
Did he “hold unemployment to 8%” with the stimulus package? Nah, it’s now at 10%.
Did he “close Gitmo within a year”? Nah, still open for business.
Considering he had a supermajority, did he get his healthcare package approved? Thank God, no.
Are we a safer country? Google “Christmas airline bomber”.
Did he stabilize the banking industry? Bank failures have increased.
Did he stabilize housing foreclosures? Nah.
Was his administration “transparent”? Nah.
The list could go on and on. Strange how you could find him successful. Oh, that’s right, you got yours.
Matilda
January 26th, 2010
11:41 am
Frank DL: “I find It amusing that conservatives think liberals don’t make any money or own guns.”
HAHAHA! That cracks me up all the time too.
Mark
January 26th, 2010
11:41 am
Mark: People like LA are inn total denial of the fact that a majority of Americans are in favir of the “public option,””
LA: “That MUST be why they have not passed the bill.
LOL!”
Can somemone beat this? First the argument is that the Democrats do go against the wish of the people regarding health care reform, and then that they do not. LOL
Jimmy Carter
January 26th, 2010
11:41 am
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:33 am
Well, John Kerry was the democrat nominee in 2004.
NJ
January 26th, 2010
11:42 am
Yup. The top marginal tax rates paralleled the greatest rates of economic growth in American history.
Low top tax rates have always resulted in recessions. Largely because the conservative assertions that people will use the revenues from those tax cuts to put into businesses and create jobs has never actually occurred. Or more precisely about 4 percent of those tax cuts went into starting or improving an existing business and creating jobs.
This has been a consistent figure since 1913.
chuck
January 26th, 2010
11:43 am
<<<>>>
I am so tired of hearing this load of garbage from the misinformed. The budget defits under Reagan had NOTHING to do with the tax cuts. THE FACT IS that revenues INCREASED after the cuts…that’s right, the revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts. So if deficits went up then it must have been caused by something else. Now what could it be? Hmmmmmm, I believe that would be SPENDING INCREASES by the democrat CONGRESS. Study history a little before you start using that poisonous keyboard.
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:44 am
Pat, what part of that money is over time does not register. and how about the alternative to spending way out of recession?
FrankLeeDarling
January 26th, 2010
11:45 am
Reagan sucked
chuck
January 26th, 2010
11:46 am
NJ, UNBELIEVABLY FALSE. Recessions have NOTHING to do with marginal tax rates. In fact, your assertion that they “parallel” is FALSE. What was the top marginal tax rate under Carter when we had one of our worst recessions? 77% When Reagan CUT the tax rate, revenues INCREASED and we created over 20 million jobs.
thomas
January 26th, 2010
11:48 am
Sam,
Some economist say that the economy recovers and dips all on its own.
It would have been tough times for some, but it would have worked its way out of a recession. Then we the people would not have to deal with the inflation that follows spending ones way out of a recession.
Who’s for $2 cans of corn?
Plane Truth
January 26th, 2010
11:48 am
Let Obama address the nation, then rebut his speech with all the hatespeak and f-bombs and n-word-derivatives and all the wonderful punditry ripening on the Fox News family tree of fruitcakes and nutz.
I wonder what Glock is gonna do with those three hombres who stole from the company. I wonder if Glock Corp will hire their two friends involved in the payback time. You know their two friends: Smith & Wesson.
If this were an episode of Bonanza, those three woulda been hanged by now. A moment of silence for Adam, the coolest Cartwright. This kind of makes you ponder – oh so long – over the meaning of life, don’t it, paw?
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:49 am
Typical lib response.
I find that rather amusing, coming from Jimmy’s effigy.
TaxPayer
January 26th, 2010
11:51 am
I am so tired of hearing this load of garbage from the misinformed
There’s your sign. Can I get another hallelujah.
NJ
January 26th, 2010
11:51 am
Actually they DO have something to do with recessions and depressions. Every CLASSICAL economist knows this.
Which is why the economy stayed completely stable in growth at 3.9 percent per year between 1950 and 1976.
Top marginal rates were used to CONTROL the business cycle, preventing them from occurring.
This is the ENTIRE basis of Keynesian economics, It worked, very well.
Sam
January 26th, 2010
11:51 am
chuck, fact: Reagan had a republican majority in the Senate….