GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/01/under-obama-federal-govt-continues-to-live-beyond-its-means/trackback/

  1. Wouldn’t it make more sense to find out how much debt was racked up during the time the Republicans held congress v. the times that democrats held congress? I’m betting the the lion’s share of the 4.8T of Bush’s term happened during the last two years when the dems held control.

    Comment by Karen Wong — November 1, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - November 1, 2012

  2. I absolutely agree with Karen. Honest Democrats admit that the Clinton economy was the result of his allowing the ’94+ congress its responsibilities plus the housing and financial bubbles created by government intervention and crowding out. Did I just write ‘Honest Democrats’?

    Comment by Ignatius — November 1, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - November 1, 2012

  3. >$60K spent on every household in poverty in the USA. But you’re heartless and want poor people to starve if you ask “Couldn’t they get by with $45k?”

    Comment by V the K — November 1, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - November 1, 2012

  4. ROMNEY UP 4.7% in latest UnSkewed Polls average…

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-latest-unskewed-polls-average-mitt.html

    Comment by Steve — November 1, 2012 @ 8:37 pm - November 1, 2012

  5. Aargh, dammit, sorry guys. This is the comment I meant to write.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to find out how much debt was racked up during the time the Republicans held congress v. the times that democrats held congress?

    Yeah. Under the Constitution, Congress actually has the power of the budget. The President can veto the whole budget, a crude influence on the process.

    I’m betting the the lion’s share of the 4.8T of Bush’s term happened during the last two years when the dems held control.

    IIRC, Bush and a GOP Congress increased spending irresponsibly, but did at least get the deficit down to the 100B range after 6 years. Then Dems jacked the deficit back up in 3 short years, with way more irresponsible spending.

    The government now has a 40% structural deficit. That’s awful. Resolving it is going to take one (or both) of two things.

    1) A titanic political conflict, brought to some sort of conclusion.
    2) Economic growth.

    Obama is not up to the task of achieving either of those.

    Obama boosters like Bill Clinton say that his policies haven’t had enough time; He needs more time. Damn right He does. Because his policies *can’t work*. They’re the wrong policies. If we stick with them, yes indeedy, Obama will need several more years to produce a real economic recovery – and then some.

    Just like the Big Government policies that blocked recovery for ten years, in the Great Depression.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 1, 2012 @ 10:30 pm - November 1, 2012

  6. The plan is to raise taxes on the wealthy. You might not like the plan, but you can’t say it doesn’t exist. The Bush tax cuts that you guys begged for and insist go on in perpetuity is the biggest driver of this deficit you’re concerned about.

    We need some stimulus, too, and I think the hurricane will present an opportunity for Obama to push for more of it. This will be yet another example of how government spending solves problems by filling the void when the private sector is incapacitated.

    Comment by Levi — November 2, 2012 @ 3:21 am - November 2, 2012

  7. Levi, Obama’s plan just doesn’t add up.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 2, 2012 @ 3:29 am - November 2, 2012

  8. We need some stimulus, too, and I think the hurricane will present an opportunity for Obama to push for more of it.

    Add the broken window falicy to things Levi believes in. Or maybe he supports Paul Krugman and Ozymandias.

    This will be yet another example of how government spending solves problems by filling the void when the private sector is incapacitated.

    Let’s face it, Waffle House is better prepared than FEMA.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2012 @ 8:02 am - November 2, 2012

  9. This will be yet another example of how government spending solves problems by filling the void when the private sector is incapacitated by Government taxes and regulations

    FIFY

    Isn’t it cute how the SCOAMF claims he’s going to “cut through bureaucratic red tape” and get Government out of the way when stuff actually needs to get done? Isn’t that a tacit admission that Government bureaucracy impedes economic development?

    Comment by V the K — November 2, 2012 @ 10:20 am - November 2, 2012

  10. Suggested rewording of threadline: “Under Obama, Federal Government Continues to Live Beyond Our Means.”

    Comment by V the K — November 2, 2012 @ 10:41 am - November 2, 2012

  11. The plan is to raise taxes on the wealthy. You might not like the plan, but you can’t say it doesn’t exist. The Bush tax cuts that you guys begged for and insist go on in perpetuity is the biggest driver of this deficit you’re concerned about.

    Comment by Levi — November 2, 2012 @ 3:21 am – November 2, 2012

    Actually, Levi, here’s something you didn’t learn in your DC school for the education of white liberal moochers. It’s called math.

    Basically, you and your Barack Obama scream that “the rich” are the problem and that we need to confiscate their wealth in the name of “fairness”.

    Next, as was aptly pointed out, the total of the Obama deficits for the past three years, even with a generous adjustment, is $3.43 trillion dollars.

    As Mary Katherine Ham so helpfully calculated, the grand total of wealth of every single one of the US’s billionaires is $1.3 trillion — or, put differently, a mere 38% of the total generously-adjusted Obama deficit.

    Clearly, not enough. So let’s go even deeper than that. Let’s tax everyone who makes over $200k at 100% of their income.

    That would raise a grand total of $2.4 trillion — or 71% of the total generously-adjusted Obama budget.

    Do you understand that, Levi? If you confiscated the total income of every single taxpayer making over $200k annually in the United States, you couldn’t even pay three-quarters of the entire generously-adjusted deficit that your “progressive” Obama Party and Barack Obama have run up just in their three years in office.

    And that doesn’t even get into the economic effect of confiscating every single dollar of income that anyone making over $200k has.

    You have a child’s view of economics, Levi, as does your Barack Obama. You see the economy as your parent’s wallet — an inexhaustible supply of funds that you didn’t have to lift a finger to earn and that belongs to you to spend as you like, and if they refuse you, they’re hateful bigots who abuse their child and want you to starve.

    Your parents were stupid enough to fall for this, so you assume we are. Junkie moochers and leeches like yourself see the government as the means of forcing the rest of us to pay up like your parents. And since the super-geniuses in your party like Barack Obama are too stupid to understand even seventh-grade math, you don’t realize the basic impossibility or outright ignorance in your “tax the rich” rhetoric.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - November 2, 2012

  12. And now we see how the mind of the fascist works.

    We need some stimulus, too, and I think the hurricane will present an opportunity for Obama to push for more of it. This will be yet another example of how government spending solves problems by filling the void when the private sector is incapacitated.

    Comment by Levi — November 2, 2012 @ 3:21 am – November 2, 2012

    Especially since Levi wants government to proactively incapacitate the private sector.

    Isn’t that amazing? Levi and his fellow Obama Party fascists pass regulations with the express intent of driving private-sector companies out of business — and then argue that government needs to take over because the private sector is incapacitated.

    Poison as food, poison as antidote. Everything, repeat EVERYTHING, that the fascist Levi does is around consolidating government power.

    Why?

    Because Levi is a failure. A stinking, worthless, disgusting failure.

    Society and private industry do not pay or give money to drug addicts like Levi. Government does.

    Society and private industry do not pay or give money to workers who do nothing but surf porn sites. Government does.

    Society and private industry do not keep on perpetual leave child-care workers and trainers who sexually molest students. Government does.

    This is what people need to remember. Levi and his Obama Party ilk are addicted to government because they are incapable of and unwilling to meet the requirement that you work for a living. Thus, they turn to the government and to thieves like Obama who preach the gospel that other people should pay your bills, buy your phones, buy your food, buy your housing, and the like for whatever bullsh*t reason.

    They call it “stimulus”, but the simple fact is this: Levi wants to take money from business owners and give it to stinking drunks, pron addicts, and child rapists.

    Worse, Levi thinks that those stinking drunks, pron addicts, and child rapists are better uses for this money than the people who earn it.

    Why? Simple. Levi doesn’t care what these people actually do with the money as long as they vote him into power and ensure that he can carry out his fascist demands.

    Now watch. Levi won’t answer because he can’t. He and his fellow liberals have been exposed as the fascists that they are with facts, and his lies don’t work any more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - November 2, 2012

  13. Oh, and just to be fun… Things work when Government gets out of the way.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - November 2, 2012

  14. FIFY

    Isn’t it cute how the SCOAMF claims he’s going to “cut through bureaucratic red tape” and get Government out of the way when stuff actually needs to get done? Isn’t that a tacit admission that Government bureaucracy impedes economic development?

    Oh gee, how mighty clever of you. You changed something I said to say something entirely different and completely unrelated. All this tells the world is that you can’t follow a conversation and have no salient input. At any given moment, whatever anybody is talking about, all you can do is continue bringing up your singular, lonely political thought about government ruining the economy. For all that your comment had to do with mine, you could have just posted that you crapped in your bed this morning.

    Comment by Levi — November 2, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - November 2, 2012

  15. Shorter Levi:
    “Given evidence, I will now cry that I can’t counter facts.”

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - November 2, 2012

  16. If Levi can repeat his same old broken ideas from thread to thread, I can repeat my good ones.

    …taxation has dynamic effects: the money isn’t just ‘there’ to take, because if tax rates had been higher, they would have caused the money to disappear, in one way or another.

    These lefties see that John Doe earned $125,000 last year, and simply assume it’s theirs to confiscate, never understanding that if they could confiscate it – or even raise John’s taxes a little – he would soon stop earning (or at least declaring) that much.

    The U.S. government already takes $2.2 trillion a year in tax revenue. That is more than any government in the world. Why can’t the U.S. government run on $2.2 trillion a year?

    And why would lefties think that raising tax rates will bring in more revenues, when history shows that the Federal government can never extract more than about 19% of the economy, in the long term?

    Why won’t they pay attention to the current example of France, where productive people are fleeing the country in response to the new Socialist president’s punitive tax program?

    Economic growth and good living standards come from the specialization of labor, wherein human labor is augmented (made more productive) by capital. Rich people are needed because what they create/earn/own represents the capital (the tools, assets, investments, knowledge) that makes everyone more productive. Punish them, and you get a slowing economy, or even declining.

    It’s been proven time and again in human history. But lefties don’t care, because of the vicious, nihilistic jealousy and hatred of productive people, that lurks in lefties’ hearts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 2, 2012 @ 4:26 pm - November 2, 2012

  17. The U.S. government already takes $2.2 trillion a year in tax revenue. That is more than any government in the world. Why can’t the U.S. government run on $2.2 trillion a year?

    This is no different than counting the number of ships in the Navy in 1916. You can’t just arbitrarily decide that $2.2 trillion is too much for a government to be running on, especially one as wealthy, powerful, and influential as ours.

    And by the way, that money is creating a tremendous amount of global wealth. For example, GPS chips are ubiquitous. Hundreds of millions of these things are sold everywhere. It generates tens of billions of economic value to the North American economy alone. If you ship things or transport things or travel, (everybody) you’re benefiting from the government’s investment in GPS, which contributes additional real value to the economy in terms of shorter commutes, less fuel costs, less traffic, people not getting lost, etc. The government spends a few billion dollars a year to maintain the GPS network. Government spending not only creates jobs, it creates industries.

    And why would lefties think that raising tax rates will bring in more revenues, when history shows that the Federal government can never extract more than about 19% of the economy, in the long term?

    Why won’t they pay attention to the current example of France, where productive people are fleeing the country in response to the new Socialist president’s punitive tax program?

    Please. The productive people have already sent all their money overseas anyway. No patriotism. If you can make 15 million dollars by closing an American factory and sending it to China, or you can make 12 million dollars by keeping the American factory open, which would you pick? Used to be that people were taking less money to keep jobs stateside, not anymore. What do I care if they leave the country? The money has already left.

    This is unlikely to happen anyway. Where would these productive people go if taxes went up a few percentage points? Europe, where their taxes would triple? Romney gets away with paying an effective tax rate in the low teens as an American citizen, and you’re telling me that a few percentage points is going to get him to move out of the country?

    Economic growth and good living standards come from the specialization of labor, wherein human labor is augmented (made more productive) by capital. Rich people are needed because what they create/earn/own represents the capital (the tools, assets, investments, knowledge) that makes everyone more productive. Punish them, and you get a slowing economy, or even declining.

    Romney’s low-teens tax rate is a good thing to bring up here. Why is the percentage that most of the country pays three times that? Why is capital gains so low? You know, if my family’s income was taxed 20% less, we could save up about a half a million dollars over a decade on top of what we’re already saving now with absolutely no extra effort. Think of the liberty that affords me, think of the security and all the thing I’d buy. I could start a business with that, I could be employing people. Small business is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Instead, that tax break goes to Mitt Romney, who doesn’t need it. You’re worried about punishing Mitt Romney when Mitt Romney, by your definition, has the least to complain about. If you doubled Romney’s effective tax rate, he’d still be paying a fraction of what you or I pay.

    It’s been proven time and again in human history. But lefties don’t care, because of the vicious, nihilistic jealousy and hatred of productive people, that lurks in lefties’ hearts.

    You want to talk about history? The wealthy people in this country are the wealthiest people in history, who live in the wealthiest country in history, and pay the lowest percentages of their incomes as tax in American history. I completely agree that taxing people too much is a problem, but you must realize that that pendulum can swing the other way, and people can be paying too low a tax rate. Which is more likely? That some of the richest, least taxes people in global history are paying too much in taxes or too little? We’re nowhere near the point where you could call our tax system punitive, especially for the people for who benefit from it the most.

    The biggest economic crisis in a century came a few short years after the Bush tax cuts. Is that a coincidence, or do you suppose that all the free and easy extra cash that the wealthy people suddenly had lying around acted as an accelerant for the housing bubble? Here you are trying to convince me that lowering taxes on the rich generates the strongest, most durable economies, and all it did was blow up in our faces when we very recently tried exactly that.

    Comment by Levi — November 3, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - November 3, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.761 Powered by Wordpress