• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old propaganda. Man, that propaganda is so old -- how old is it? -- that it's got mold on it. Bo-ring [yawn]

A trillion bucks and that's all we got?

That's just something else that you really shouldn't be bragging about. You know Obama isn't going to brag about it in his campaign ads.
 
Obama has not "spent recklessly." He doesn't have the power to spend. Only Congress does that. Nor can he enact anything.

Oh, okay then, I agree. The Congress has spent recklessly.

Deficit Spending by Congress.JPG

How many times does it have to be posted?

m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg



m4mMW.jpg

Coloring charts is fun!

Private Sector Jobs by Congress.JPG
 
twist it all you want but its still not bad news...
 
Oh, okay then, I agree. The Congress has spent recklessly.

View attachment 67122046
Your chart appears to be bogus (the actual increase in debt during the Republican years was much higher than indicated). I presume that is why you did not identify its source with a link.
 
Last edited:
Tax relief? You beatin' that dead horse again? Tax relief for who?
When one doesn't read supporting links, one doesn't look smart... and some need all the help they can get:

Tax incentives

Total: $288 billion

Tax incentives for individuals

Total: $237 billion

$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[24]
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[24]
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[38]
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Tax incentives for companies

Total: $51 billion

$15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
$13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
$11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
$7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
$5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.
 
When one doesn't read supporting links, one doesn't look smart... and some need all the help they can get:

Tax relief? Your idea of tax relief a re tax credits and the only way to qualify for those tax credits is to spend money?

Well, at least you're not insulting our intelligence by calling them tax, "cuts", anymore. Thanks for that.
 
Your chart appears to be bogus (the actual increase in debt during the Republican years was much higher than indicated). I presume that is why you did not identify its source with a link.

Truth hurts I know:

Treasury announces 2011 deficit is second highest in history - The Hill's On The Money
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

Spending Deficit
2005 2471.95 -318.34
2006 2655.05 -248.18
2007 2728.686 -160.7
2008 2982.57 -458.553
2009 3517.67 -1412.688
2010 3456.21 -1293.48
2011 3690.00 -1299.0
 
Medicare expense has actually dropped since Part D but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
If that is indeed a fact you should have no problem showing the numbers. I do believe you are confused.
 
Truth hurts I know:

Treasury announces 2011 deficit is second highest in history - The Hill's On The Money
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

Spending Deficit
2005 2471.95 -318.34
2006 2655.05 -248.18
2007 2728.686 -160.7

Yes, and prior to the recession, the deficit was on track and projected to disappear, and surpluses reappear, all with the "warz" and the tax cuts intact.

But when you add nearly a trillion in new spending, that's not going to happen.
 
Truth hurts I know:

Treasury announces 2011 deficit is second highest in history - The Hill's On The Money
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

Spending Deficit
2005 2471.95 -318.34
2006 2655.05 -248.18

2007 2728.686 -160.7

2008 2982.57 -458.553
2009 3517.67 -1412.688
2010 3456.21 -1293.48
2011 3690.00 -1299.0
You don't appear to be conversant with the truth, since I asked for the source of the figures during the "Republican years". Your link only concerns 2011, and perhaps 2010.

But since it appears we will not be getting a source for your 2007 figure (-$160.7 billion), I will ask you why that budget deficit is so low when the actual increase in the total public debt for FY 2007 was $500.7 billion?

Perhaps the Bush-era budgets were hiding things off-budget?



And whoa, look at that FY 2008 figure -- $1 trillion increase in the public debt!!?? :shock: But why do your figures only show a budget deficit of $458 billion?
:popcorn:
 
That 3.8T represents an increase of 900BN over the largest Bush budget. So, over three years, at least 2.7T.

But all spending is under the control of the people in charge now.
The debt is a function of two figures - expenses and income - you can't assume that if the debt/deficit goes up by x dollars it all spending. The Great Bush recession caused a huge the shortfall of Federal Income taxes and this added to the debt.
 
The debt is a function of two figures - expenses and income - you can't assume that if the debt/deficit goes up by x dollars it all spending. The Great Bush recession caused a huge the shortfall of Federal Income taxes and this added to the debt.

The only way for debt to increase, is to spend more money.

Sorry, but that's just a fact. :lamo
 
Yes, and prior to the recession, the deficit was on track and projected to disappear, and surpluses reappear, all with the "warz" and the tax cuts intact. [...]
Uh huh :lamo
 
The debt is a function of two figures - expenses and income - you can't assume that if the debt/deficit goes up by x dollars it all spending. The Great Bush recession caused a huge the shortfall of Federal Income taxes and this added to the debt.

Oh, Pete. Why can you never actually read a post? It gets so ridiculously tiresome.
 
You don't appear to be conversant with the truth, since I asked for the source of the figures during the "Republican years". Your link only concerns 2011, and perhaps 2010.

But since it appears we will not be getting a source for your 2007 figure (-$160.7 billion), I will ask you why that budget deficit is so low when the actual increase in the total public debt for FY 2007 was $500.7 billion?

Perhaps the Bush-era budgets were hiding things off-budget?



And whoa, look at that FY 2008 figure -- $1 trillion increase in the public debt!!?? :shock: But why do your figures only show a budget deficit of $458 billion?
:popcorn:
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never in the budget.
 
The only way for debt to increase, is to spend more money.

Sorry, but that's just a fact. :lamo
Now that gets my nomination for clueless post of the week (for what should be obvious reasons... if you don't get it, don't ask -- for a post of your own will probably be nominated soon) :mrgreen:
 
The only way for debt to increase, is to spend more money.

Sorry, but that's just a fact. :lamo

I can see you will never get a job as an accountant. Have you ever had a family budget? What happens to your debt when to are unable to work because of illness or some other reason like being laid off? Huh?
 
Uh huh :lamo

Laugh all you want, but it was. The deficit was trending down (I even quoted the figures in my post), and the CBO projected surpluses by 2012, running out to at least 2017, based on then-current data.

So, indeed, laugh, but it's the laughter of willful ignorance and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
$4.6 trillion added to the debt proves that the stimulus was a waste, hmm?

The only thing proven here is the incoherency of your argument.

I have learned it serves no purpose to argue with a liberal and let my own results speak for me. Since you ignore actual results it is a waste of time. You cannot comprehend 15.2 trillion dollars and the fact that the results are still worse than when he took office but that doesn't matter since rhetoric trumps substance.
 
You don't appear to be conversant with the truth, since I asked for the source of the figures during the "Republican years". Your link only concerns 2011, and perhaps 2010.

But since it appears we will not be getting a source for your 2007 figure (-$160.7 billion), I will ask you why that budget deficit is so low when the actual increase in the total public debt for FY 2007 was $500.7 billion?

Perhaps the Bush-era budgets were hiding things off-budget?



And whoa, look at that FY 2008 figure -- $1 trillion increase in the public debt!!?? :shock: But why do your figures only show a budget deficit of $458 billion?
:popcorn:

Don't quit your day job dude. The only reason I gave you the first link was to get the actual 2011 deficit figures and not the estimate.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

idiot.JPG

Hmmm, it seems when you track increases in the national debt via treasury releases there was no clinton surplus... hmm that's odd. :popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom