• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

That was actually how the Republican legislature "balanced the budget" in Minnesota.

That is called kicking the can down the road. Some day those SS IOU's have to be repaid and cashed in. Where does the money come from?
 
3. Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.

The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:

Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid

WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.

Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid

Fan
nie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.html

Fannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.html

Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
9/12/11

Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.

Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan (VIDEO)

Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.
 
3. Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.

The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:



Fan





Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.

What exactly were Obama, Biden, Pelois, Reid doing as they controlled the Congress or does it even matter? You continue to buy the rhetoric from this empty suit who is nothing more than a community agitator without any management or leadership experience and it shows. Or you could ask China for our jobs back

U.S. Bridges, Roads Being Built by Chinese Firms | Video - ABC News
 
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.

Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.

ATTACH]


you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008

Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,
So Much for Bush's 'Ownership Society' - The Daily Beast

One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
 
Last edited:
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.

Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.

ATTACH]


you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.



One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?

What Obama did was revert to his "community agitator" mentality and tried to micromanage the economy. He took over GM/Chrysler, Implemented a Union bailout progam at the state level, meddled in state affairs claiming that he saved teacher's jobs, implemented a govt. controlled tax cut program that required certain behavior, and then when the jobs weren't improving he diverted to Obamacare. He has shown absolutely no leadership and the results show it. They are his results and will be on the ballot in Nov 2012.

Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, not the President and the so called Bush Ownership society was a program adopted from Carter, Clinton, and now Obama,
 
It's funny. With your words Bush had nothing to do with that economic mess. It becomes Clinton, Carter and Obama's responsibility. What did Bush do in his eight years?

The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.

Here is a confession from Greenspan:


Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005

The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).

Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts - World - www.smh.com.au

Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.
 
It's funny. With your words Bush had nothing to do with that economic mess. It becomes Clinton, Carter and Obama's responsibility. What did Bush do in his eight years?

The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.

Here is a confession from Greenspan:




Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.

Interesting re-write of history on your part, simply false but right out of the DNC talking points. There is a lot of blame to go around but to totally ignore the Obama involvement is what you are trying to do. Congress was under Democrat control from 2007-2011 and he could have stopped the Bush tax cuts any time from 2009-2010 but couldn't sell the Democrats who knew the American people wouldn't stand for a tax cut during a recession.

What is it about people like you that continue to focus on tax increases but never spending? Seems you certainly have a different vision as to the role of the govt. than our Founders and most Americans.

Your knowledge of the debt is flawed. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and left it at 10.6 trillion which is a 4.9 trillion increase. Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
Interesting re-write of history on your part, simply false but right out of the DNC talking points. There is a lot of blame to go around but to totally ignore the Obama involvement is what you are trying to do. Congress was under Democrat control from 2007-2011 and he could have stopped the Bush tax cuts any time from 2009-2010 but couldn't sell the Democrats who knew the American people wouldn't stand for a tax cut during a recession.

Obama did proposed to eliminate the tax cut law or maintain the tax cut for middle class but recover tax rate on rich people. It's the Republican and tea party members who keep on opposing Obama's tax on rich policy.

Your knowledge of the debt is flawed. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and left it at 10.6 trillion which is a 4.9 trillion increase. Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Yes, it's true. The huge debt increased in Obam regime was used to save US economy that is damaged by the Bush. I made it very clear that Bush damaged US economy with housing bubble, financial crisis, tax cut bill and two wars in Mid-east. Obama has to repair the damaged house with huge money. Some one broken the glass. You accuse the man spend money to repair the window. Is it a manner of of gentleman? or a villain?
 
Obama did proposed to eliminate the tax cut law or maintain the tax cut for middle class but recover tax rate on rich people. It's the Republican and tea party members who keep on opposing Obama's tax on rich policy.



Yes, it's true. The huge debt increased in Obam regime was used to save US economy that is damaged by the Bush. I made it very clear that Bush damaged US economy with housing bubble, financial crisis, tax cut bill and two wars in Mid-east. Obama has to repair the damaged house with huge money. Some one broken the glass. You accuse the man spend money to repair the window. Is it a manner of of gentleman? or a villain?

Why would anyone support raising taxes on another American? For what purpose? You jealous? How much revenue will that generate? Since Obama took office 4.5 TRILLION has been added to the debt. You call that fixing a window?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player


What did Obama do to save the economy?
 
Sorry, I think I made it clear in my articles. I have to admit I am not a good teacher to explain everything to a student like you.

---------------

Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.

U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011

Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (Home | Costs of War)

U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
 
Sorry, I think I made it clear in my articles. I have to admit I am not a good teacher to explain everything to a student like you.

---------------

Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.

How can tax cuts which grew govt revenue create a deficit? Interesting how people who probably don't pay any FIT believe any tax cut is an expense to the govt. i call that being brainwashed.

As for the cost of the war, the Treasury disagrees with you and that is the only number that matters since it what we pay debt service on
 
How can tax cuts which grew govt revenue create a deficit? Interesting how people who probably don't pay any FIT believe any tax cut is an expense to the govt. i call that being brainwashed.

As for the cost of the war, the Treasury disagrees with you and that is the only number that matters since it what we pay debt service on


Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:

Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.
 
Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:

Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.

Do you work for the government? This is unbelievable how little you know about the govt that runs this country. The U.S. treasury says there was an increase in revenue after the Reagan and Bush FIT cuts. You calling them a liar?

It is incredible that I have to work so hard to convince you as to the value of you keeping more of what you earn and that more take home pay isn't an expense to the govt. Really is a waste of time so hopefully you aren't a hypocrite and are sending in more than required and telling the govt. they need the money more than you and thus keep it.
 
Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:

Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.
That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.
 
Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:

Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.


And Harry Reid says “Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They’re impossible to find, and they don’t exist…"

Just because someone says something doesnt mean it is true.

The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. That is proven by Treasury data.

How it works is it jump starts the economy by putting more money in peoples pockets through lower income taxation, the people that actually drive the economy. The people spend creating demand. Demand creates a greater need for workers to fulfill the demand. The economy comes slowly back to life. As it gains strength, the taxes need to rise to keep the economy from going out of control. As Reagan did by lowering the income tax then raising it a few years later.

Where this situation got out of hand is our government began to micromanage the economy and screwed the cycle up. We need to start back from the beginning where Reagan did in 83...lower all income tax brackets to kick start this economy then when it recovers, raise the taxes.

The tax system is not meant to be stagnant, it needs to be in a constant state of flux. Its the only way this stupid progressive tax system can be managed. Switch over to HR.25 (Fair Tax) and you can eliminate micromanagement completely.
 
That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.

FIT Income by year remembering that the Reagan Tax cuts weren't passed until the end of 1981 and weren't fully implemented until 1984

Amazing, isn't it, taxes were cut and Federal Income taxes rise. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

1980 298.9
1981 345.2
1982 354.1
1983 352.3
1984 377.4
1985 417.3
1986 437.2
1987 489.1
1988 504.9
1989 566.1
 
Quote conservative

The U.S. treasury says there was an increase in revenue after the Reagan and Bush FIT cuts.


So in conservitiveland if we saw revenue increase after the Reagan and bush tax cuts that must mean that economist dont not know what they’re talking about eh?

Even Arthur Laffer when ask the question, did the bush tax cuts pay for themselves answered "I don't know."
In conservitiveland if it disagrees with the point that you’re trying to make, in whatever strawman you happen to be pounding on at the time even the “Laffer curve” sucks.:roll:
 
So in conservitiveland if we saw revenue increase after the Reagan and bush tax cuts that must mean that economist dont not know what they’re talking about eh?

Even Arthur Laffer when ask the question, did the bush tax cuts pay for themselves answered "I don't know."
In conservitiveland if it disagrees with the point that you’re trying to make, in whatever strawman you happen to be pounding on at the time even the “Laffer curve” sucks.:roll:

So you are calling the Treasury Dept. which is the bank account of the U.S. a liar. We pay debt service on those lies then. You need to do your civic duty and write or call them to tell them of their lies.
 
How it works is it jump starts the economy by putting more money in peoples pockets through lower income taxation, the people that actually drive the economy. The people spend creating demand. Demand creates a greater need for workers to fulfill the demand. The economy comes slowly back to life. As it gains strength, the taxes need to rise to keep the economy from going out of control. As Reagan did by lowering the income tax then raising it a few years later.


View attachment 67120328


Maybe you had better tell the CBO that there numbers suck.While you're peering at the numbers, notice how the revenue comes in during the Clinton years.Couldn't happen according to poplar conservative belief because Clinton raised taxes s eh?. :shock:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8565/08-23-Update07.pdf
 
So you are calling the Treasury Dept. which is the bank account of the U.S. a liar. We pay debt service on those lies then. You need to do your civic duty and write or call them to tell them of their lies.


Then explain to me how taxes went up when Clinton raised taxes during his term. Don't give me the dotcom bubble bull****.
 
Then explain to me how taxes went up when Clinton raised taxes during his term. Don't give me the dotcom bubble bull****.

What you fail to understand is that clinton raised taxes and then lost the Congress in 1994.. That led to implementation of a pro growth economic policy including the 1997 tax cuts. Weren't you old enough then to know that taxes were cut?

What is it with you that you worry more about money going to the govt. than the taxpayer who earns it first?

Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
 
View attachment 67120328


Maybe you had better tell the CBO that there numbers suck.While you're peering at the numbers, notice how the revenue comes in during the Clinton years.Couldn't happen according to poplar conservative belief because Clinton raised taxes s eh?. :shock:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8565/08-23-Update07.pdf

I posted the revenue numbers from the Treasury Dept. You apparently don't understand CBO and their projections. CBO is seldom accurate for they have to use Congressional assumptions for their projections. Assumptions wrong then the projections are wrong and that happens all the time.

Please stop posting data other than the Treasury data which is the only data that matters.
 
View attachment 67120328


Maybe you had better tell the CBO that there numbers suck.While you're peering at the numbers, notice how the revenue comes in during the Clinton years.Couldn't happen according to poplar conservative belief because Clinton raised taxes s eh?. :shock:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8565/08-23-Update07.pdf



I’m old enough to know that the $240 billion tax increase, called the "1993 deficit reduction legislation" was passed in …duh, 1993. The deficit-reduction started going down shortly after the “1993 deficit reduction legislation “was put in place.

Got anymore bull**** that you would like to sling at the wall?:roll:
 
I’m old enough to know that the $240 billion tax increase, called the "1993 deficit reduction legislation" was passed in …duh, 1993. The deficit-reduction started going down shortly after the “1993 deficit reduction legislation “was put in place.

Got anymore bull**** that you would like to sling at the wall?:roll:

No, you sling enough of it for all of us and continue to buy the leftwing rhetoric. I am so sorry that you feel it is your duty to defend the govt. on taking taxpayer dollars and ignore completely the effects of you keeping more of what you earn on the economy.

Too bad you only know part of the story about the deficit reduction plan that did work, it cost Clinton the Congress and the rest is history. Guess nothing really changes the mind of a brainwashed ideologue who buys the liberal line and believes the CBO and economists are more accurate than the bank account of the govt.
 
quote conservative

Nothing but his opinions

pleasant dreams,getten past your bedtime. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom