Obama administration becoming more radical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter truthdetector
  • Start date Start date
rsc2a] [b]You're talking about a 2-3% variance.  Do you realize how trivial this is said:
And do you realize how trivial this is, in light of the far-right fearmongering about this point that we have been hearing?
And considering the fact that we have lost 15 million jobs and been enduring a 4 year recession, it is so terribly unrealistic for spending to be 3% higher than under Clinton, even while staying well under 25% of GDP?

Frankly, I don't see the problem here.  I see a lot of people (esp. talking heads, bloggers and Tea Party types) enraged over something they don't understand very well.

"Well under 25% of GDP"?  :o You honestly believe the feds should spend the equivalent of one quarter of our total economic output?
Click to expand...

Do not put words in my mouth.
I used the 25% number as a comparative metric to remind everyone that this is still only a quarter of GDP.  Contrary to the alarmist nonsense that makes it sound like federal spending is totally consuming all (or nearly all) GDP.

redgreen5 said:

Let's be clear about that, since a lot of people don't seem to understand how the federal budget operates.  The first year of the Obama administration was actually the last year of the Bush administration's budget....


Bush was horrible in this area. Obama was horrible in this area. Bush was only a little less horrible than Obama. Congress (who shoulders most of the blame) has been horrible in this area.

Frankly, I want someone who is good in this area, not someone who is a little less horrible than the previous guy.
Click to expand...

The system is designed to reinforce the government - big business control over the economy.  Until that is broken, you're stuck with the lesser of evils.
 
redgreen5 said:
A 3% change in [spending as a percentage of GDP] is not the same number as a [3% increase in overall GDP].
You are confused again.
Click to expand...

3 Percent of GDP is 3 percent of GDP.

Google isn't always your friend. Does you name have "Fluke" in it?
 
redgreen5 said:
[quote author=rsc2a]
You're talking about a 2-3% variance.  Do you realize how trivial this is, in the frame of reference we're talking about?

500 BILLION dollars is trivial? That kind of thinking is why the country is in the financial mess it is in.
Click to expand...

Bad math.

2-3% of the federal budget is not $500 billion. 
Federal fiscal budget for 2012 was $3.7 trillion.
3% of that is $111 billion - you overestimated by factor of 4.

But to your point: my "thinking" is the only thing that will allow rational decisions to be made about spending and taxation.
$100 billion is a lot of money for an individual. But not for the world's largest economy.  That's the simple truth.[/quote]

It's 2-3% of GDP added to the budget, not 2-3% of the budget.

And, on your second point, even $100B is a lot for the world's largest economy when that country can't seem to balance its checkbook and has to keep using the credit cards to pay the bills.
 
redgreen5 said:
rsc2a said:
redgreen5 said:
So would making corporations pay the same rate on taxes that middle income Americans pay.
Click to expand...

Corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations collect taxes.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Click to expand...

Both are generally correct but I don't know what they have to do in the conversation.

Most companies are multi-national and taxes are usually based on profits. Very few companies want to show profits with the US. Those the do... .usually are afforded some type of tax break.

Either way..... its silly to think that taxes on personal income and taxes on corporation income could ever be  the same. Do you want corporate taxes to be collected weekly/-biweekly/monthly in advance..... just like personal income taxes? I got idea....  Lets just let the government own it all. I bet they do a better job than any of us. Don't you think "redgreen"? Then again.... red and green generally make "brown". ;)

 
rsc2a said:
redgreen5 said:
[quote author=rsc2a]
You're talking about a 2-3% variance.  Do you realize how trivial this is, in the frame of reference we're talking about?

500 BILLION dollars is trivial? That kind of thinking is why the country is in the financial mess it is in.
Click to expand...

Bad math.

2-3% of the federal budget is not $500 billion. 
Federal fiscal budget for 2012 was $3.7 trillion.
3% of that is $111 billion - you overestimated by factor of 4.

But to your point: my "thinking" is the only thing that will allow rational decisions to be made about spending and taxation.
$100 billion is a lot of money for an individual. But not for the world's largest economy.  That's the simple truth.
Click to expand...

It's 2-3% of GDP added to the budget, not 2-3% of the budget.

And, on your second point, even $100B is a lot for the world's largest economy when that country can't seem to balance its checkbook and has to keep using the credit cards to pay the bills.
[/quote]

I've got a feeling that "brown" doesn't have very many responsibilities. I'm pretty sure that no one is trust "him" with any money. 
 
[quote author=rsc2a]It's 2-3% of GDP added to the budget, not 2-3% of the budget.[/quote]

Indeed.  I was still editing the post to remove that, when I realized that I had the basis of comparison wrong.  I have a bad habit of composing responses and then editing 5-6 times before I'm actually satisfied with it.  You caught me in the middle of edits.

And, on your second point, even $100B is a lot for the world's largest economy when that country can't seem to balance its checkbook and has to keep using the credit cards to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

1. Balance the checkbook - that's kind of a non sequitir. Throughout US history, the country has almost never had a balanced budget.  Countries don't operate like personal finance.

2. $100 billion - no, still not really that much.  Americans spend $41 billion /year on pet food.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_32/b4045001.htm
 
[quote author=christundivided]
I've got a feeling that "brown" doesn't have very many responsibilities. I'm pretty sure that no one is trust "him" with any money.
[/quote]

Wrong on both counts.
But keep trying.
 
Izdaari said:
Yeah, Stockman was Reagan's budget director for a while. He eventually got fired for being out of step with administration policy.

I agree with his analysis of the problem, and with his investment advice. But he always did like taxes too much. Yes, we're in fiscal trouble. But we won't get out of it by raising taxes. That would tank an already fragile economy and probably actually reduce revenue.

Instead it's going to take big spending cuts, including in entitlements. And by cuts, I do not mean what Washington usually means by it, a decrease in the planned rate of increase. I mean the budget needs to be smaller than it was the previous year.
Click to expand...

Well, what about one of the architects of the Reagan tax cut, Bruce Bartlett, considered an expert in Reaganomics?

"Reagan raised [taxes]...11 different times."

"Taxes as a share of the GDP...are the lowest that they've been in my lifetime."

"Frankly one of our political parties is insane." "They worship the rich." (Speaking of Republicans.)


You can see his writings on this all over the internet, but here he is on Jon Stewart, in his own words.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/23/bruce-bartlett-on-the-daily-show.html
 
Bou said:
Izdaari said:
Yeah, Stockman was Reagan's budget director for a while. He eventually got fired for being out of step with administration policy.

I agree with his analysis of the problem, and with his investment advice. But he always did like taxes too much. Yes, we're in fiscal trouble. But we won't get out of it by raising taxes. That would tank an already fragile economy and probably actually reduce revenue.

Instead it's going to take big spending cuts, including in entitlements. And by cuts, I do not mean what Washington usually means by it, a decrease in the planned rate of increase. I mean the budget needs to be smaller than it was the previous year.
Click to expand...

Well, what about one of the architects of the Reagan tax cut, Bruce Bartlett, considered an expert in Reaganomics?

"Reagan raised [taxes]...11 different times."

"Taxes as a share of the GDP...are the lowest that they've been in my lifetime."

"Frankly one of our political parties is insane." "They worship the rich." (Speaking of Republicans.)


You can see his writings on this all over the internet, but here he is on Jon Stewart, in his own words.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/23/bruce-bartlett-on-the-daily-show.html
Click to expand...

Reagan, when compared with the Republican party of today, was center-left.
 
Bou said:
Bou said:
Izdaari said:
Yeah, Stockman was Reagan's budget director for a while. He eventually got fired for being out of step with administration policy.

I agree with his analysis of the problem, and with his investment advice. But he always did like taxes too much. Yes, we're in fiscal trouble. But we won't get out of it by raising taxes. That would tank an already fragile economy and probably actually reduce revenue.

Instead it's going to take big spending cuts, including in entitlements. And by cuts, I do not mean what Washington usually means by it, a decrease in the planned rate of increase. I mean the budget needs to be smaller than it was the previous year.
Click to expand...

Well, what about one of the architects of the Reagan tax cut, Bruce Bartlett, considered an expert in Reaganomics?

"Reagan raised [taxes]...11 different times."

"Taxes as a share of the GDP...are the lowest that they've been in my lifetime."

"Frankly one of our political parties is insane." "They worship the rich." (Speaking of Republicans.)


You can see his writings on this all over the internet, but here he is on Jon Stewart, in his own words.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/23/bruce-bartlett-on-the-daily-show.html
Click to expand...

Reagan, when compared with the Republican party of today, was center-left.
Click to expand...

You guys are really losing it. You read something on the internet and it must be true......

Reagan's top tax bracket in his last year in office was 28 percent.

28 PERCENT.

Doesn't sound center left to me. ;)
 
Bou said:
Reagan, when compared with the Republican party of today, was center-left.
Click to expand...

Whatever he was, I'd sure like to have him back. And I bet a lot of people would join me in that.  8)

Heck, I'd even like to have Bill Clinton back. I didn't think much of him while he was in office, but in retrospect, the reluctant Clinton-Morris-Gingrich team was pretty good!
 
christundivided said:
You guys are really losing it. You read something on the internet and it must be true......

Reagan's top tax bracket in his last year in office was 28 percent.

28 PERCENT.

Doesn't sound center left to me. ;)
Click to expand...

But to get to that rate, what was the rate on capital gains? 

28 percent.

28 PERCENT.

Almost double the current rate of 15%, which is what Romney paid last year for his taxes.
 
Izdaari said:
Bou said:
Reagan, when compared with the Republican party of today, was center-left.
Click to expand...

Whatever he was, I'd sure like to have him back. And I bet a lot of people would join me in that.  8)

Heck, I'd even like to have Bill Clinton back. I didn't think much of him while he was in office, but in retrospect, the reluctant Clinton-Morris-Gingrich team was pretty good!
Click to expand...

I agree.  I'd vote for either of them today.
 
Bou said:
christundivided said:
You guys are really losing it. You read something on the internet and it must be true......

Reagan's top tax bracket in his last year in office was 28 percent.

28 PERCENT.

Doesn't sound center left to me. ;)
Click to expand...

But to get to that rate, what was the rate on capital gains? 

28 percent.

28 PERCENT.

Almost double the current rate of 15%, which is what Romney paid last year for his taxes.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he would have cut if he thought it was necessary.

Personally.... I have no problem with capital gains being 28 percent. Market investment has too long been the leading economic indicator. Believe it or not..... I honestly believe there is too light regulation in the markets. Especially among those who manipulate oil futures. I agree with Bill Oreilly. If they made the speculators who buy oil futures actually take delivery of the product..... then most of it would go away. 
 
February's budget deficit added an additional $229 billon to our nation's debt.  The interest on the Federal debt for February was $101 billion. Net interest on the public debt rose by $11 billion (or 13 percent) in February.

WHY TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE? 

Our bloated nanny state is crushing us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top