Two words to describe the Obama era: Downward revision

The debate going on in DC right now has relatively nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling. It has everything to do with the future of the US, our ability to exist as a country.

• Link
• Report this comment

We cannot fix the problem unless we are all honest about the math. The solution is simple when you look at the mess. Cut military and entailments and raise tax revenues by 4 %. I would rather see this done by a lower flat tax and eliminate write offs

….. CM: Bruce Bartlett is former Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under the first George Bush and a policy adviser to Ronald Reagan. Bottom line, let’s look at the numbers right now. We’ve got a chart coming up. This shows the Bush tax cuts were responsible for increasing the debts. Now, we have about a $14 trillion debt right now, half came out since the turn of the century, and more than 40% of that has been from tax cuts.

BB: That’s right. When Bush took office, we had a debt of about $6 trillion. The projections from the CBO were that we were going to run a $6 trillion surplus. By this point, if we had done nothing, we would have paid off the dead debt, but we added about $3 trillion of tax cuts. We lost about $3 trillion of revenue because of the slower economy and added about $6 trillion of spending, largely due to two unfinished wars and a Medicare drug benefits and a lot of other things. So, instead of getting — paying off the debt–we ended up with about a $14 trillion debt.

CM: Some of these clowns, not all of them, running around saying Barack Obama is a Socialist, he drove up the national debt to $14 trillion and dance around in a circle and congratulate each other. That’s not true.

BB: No, i think the dirty secret is that Obama is a moderate conservative. If I were a liberal democrat, I probably would be upset.

CM: The point is a $1 trillion debt, and another poring (?) is from the prescription drug bill. The whole rest of that is from a lousy economy under Bush and these two wars he came up with.

BB: That’s right. The Republicans keep saying the tax cuts are the key to prosperity. The 2000s are evidence that that is not true. We had booming economies in the 1980s and ’90s. If we went back to those taxes, we would be better off.

CM: What is the argument against the kind of tax policy– let’s just say it again. It seems like a heck of a great economy with the tax rate of about 39.6, as opposed to 35?……..

• Link
• Report this comment

The tea bag zealots claim they want to reduce federal spending but none of them or the Republicans in general want to to touch the waste in military spending. The following is a prime example of what happens when you give cart blanche to the military(as part of Sant Ronnie’s deficit spending on an arms race with the Soviets for unnecessary military weapons later scrapped}:

“”"”"”"”"”"In the era of massive belt-tightening budget cuts, the story of two never-completed, unused Navy ships now being sent to the scrap heap after costing U.S. taxpayers $300 million is a case study in Pentagon waste.

Requisitioned by the U.S. Navy in 1985, the two oil-hauling ships, the Benjamin Isherwood and the Henry Eckford, “have never gone on a mission, were never even completed, yet they cost taxpayers at least $300 million,” the Virginia-Pilot’s Scott Harper reports.
Now the “ghost ships” are headed from their dock on the James River in Virginia to a Texas scrap yard to be dismantled, Harrop writes. And there’s one more catch–the United States awarded a $10 million contract to dismantle four ships, including the Eckford and the Isherwood, to a UK firm, so no money from the reclamation will return to the United States.
The two vessels were part of a $567 million request for three oilers put out by the Navy, Harrop writes. But the builder, Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Co. in Philadelphia, defaulted on the contract in 1989. A Florida firm contracted to finish the ships cancelled the contract over price disputes in 1993. The ships are now being scrapped, rather than refurbished, because they do not meet modern specs. “”"”
That and over 1000 military bases creates an ongoing drain on the economy to fund the never satisfied military industrial complex. You would think world War II never ended. So how much of this bloated military budget is being cut?? zero.

• Link
• Report this comment

And new, lasting growth is not going to come as long as the president is determined to browbeat business, punish success, build a permanently larger public sector, suck the middle class into the welfare state, and otherwise impose his notion of fairness as national economic policy.

Wow, That has to be some of the most subjective bull crap I think I’ve ever read. If you were more interested in the use of objective analysis in lieu of subjective hyperbole, you might actually show some promise of being something more than a hack. By the way, how are those ad revenues coming along. Anything for a buck, eh. I’m sure you would make Murdoch proud if you could only get his attention.

• Link
• Report this comment

After Carter’s disastrous regime, Reagan turned the economy around and economic growth was 5-9% for the next two years.

Your Idiot Messiah’s recovery, two years and counting, is utterly pathetic by comparison. Given the horrible recession you libtards pretend we had, the ensuing recovery should have been quite strong. There are reasons it isn’t, and Kyle summarized them quite nicely in his penultimate paragraph.

Idiot Messiah: Loser.

• Link
• Report this comment

VOTE REPUBLICAN – Cut the poor, sick, and elderly programs.[they drain our economy]…. Support tax cuts for Billionaires, Oil Companies, and Wall Street Moguls….after all, they provide us with lobbying money! End Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security for everyone but Us. Stop Government spending except in our districts. Finally, destroy the economy & blame it on the Dems so we get elected to help the upper class out of their slump. SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT THIS ON A BILLBOARD

• Link
• Report this comment