The problem is when a relatively small segment of the population has the power to hold the entire country hostage unless we give in to their insane demands.
The problem is when a relatively small segment of the population has the power to hold the entire country hostage unless we give in to their insane demands.That keeps getting pointed out to them and they keep disregarding it.And what is your solution to this rather inconvenient "voting" stuff? The bottom line is that it appears that the Reps are actually representing their constituents which is generally rather rare these days.
The problem is when a relatively small segment of the population has the power to hold the entire country hostage unless we give in to their insane demands.
That keeps getting pointed out to them and they keep disregarding it.
Yes that is clear. Again, to anyone without partisan blinders on, the reasoning right now is because we are still treading water with a very fragile economy so cutting spending will delay recovery even longer, but raising taxes on the highest earners will not. This will have the effect of lowering the deficit without damaging the economy. Next step is for someone with partisan blinders on to characterize this as "stealing from the rich."
Figures can lie, and liars can figure.
The 2013 budget deficit is higher as a percentage of GDP than all but one of the years from 1980 to 2008.
Your statistical manipulation is like saying someone who has an income of $100 took on debt of $20-30 per year from 1980 until 2008, and then in 2009 Obama had us start taking on $60 of debt, and now that they're back to $40 per year, somehow that's grand.
Not true. This was the same thing said right before the sequestration and the effects were minimal. All the experts said we need to raise taxes and cut spending and we just did raise taxes on the highest earners. Now it's time for Congress and the President to act on real spending cuts. 2013 will have bring in the highest revenue to date. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Uhh, no. We still have a revenue problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12?op=1
We also have an extreme wealth & income distribution problem, as well. The fact that Mitt & Co pay a lower % of income in federal taxes than many people earning much, much less tells us that will likely get worse, not better.
At this point, billionaires getting richer serves no purpose other than power over the rest of us.
Uhh, no. We still have a revenue problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12?op=1
We also have an extreme wealth & income distribution problem, as well. The fact that Mitt & Co pay a lower % of income in federal taxes than many people earning much, much less tells us that will likely get worse, not better.
At this point, billionaires getting richer serves no purpose other than power over the rest of us.
More Marxist bs. Sorry, but the government's job is not to redistribute wealth.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Where in that is redistribute wealth? You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not the guarantee of it.
sooooo, your chart kinda tells us that we are always better off with a Dem in the White House?
:hmm:
funny.
Frankly I think the only difference between Dems and Repubs is which big money lobby group supports them, and which demographic is buying into their lies.
But really, it was a response to the bizarre logic in the title of this thread, as if this were a success story. It's more like someone who used to smoke 1 pack of cigarettes, started smoking 6, and now is back down to 3. Nice job.
This. It amazes me how idiots have been tricked into focusing on "the" deficit as if spending more money than you have by a lesser amount than the gargantuan previous amount were a good thing. Just shows how most of the serfs are easy marks for politicians, like lambs to slaughter.But really, it was a response to the bizarre logic in the title of this thread, as if this were a success story. It's more like someone who used to smoke 1 pack of cigarettes, started smoking 6, and now is back down to 3. Nice job.
"As the perfect storm approaches, the regime will address it the only way it knows how -- as a revenue, rather than a spending, problem."
Nope...I'm not a very good guesser...why don't you tell me instead of playing games?19.275%
17.075%
15.433%
can you tell me what those are?
Nope...I'm not a very good guesser...why don't you tell me instead of playing games?
The problem is when a relatively small segment of the population has the power to hold the entire country hostage unless we give in to their insane demands.
Did you do this math yourself or are you regurgitating from a site you're too embarrassed to link? Anyway, spending as a % of gdp is way up for a decade+ as well...so, what exactly is your point?fed revenue as a % of gdp for clinton's FYs, bush's FYs, and now obama's FYs.
revenue's been way down for a decade+.
reagan/bush 41 : 17.916%
if 2009-2012 had gotten the reagan/bush rate, we'd be 1,449 billion better off.
fed revenue as a % of gdp for clinton's FYs, bush's FY's, and now obama's FYs.
revenue's been way down for a decade+.
reagan/bush 41 : 17.916%
Did you do this math yourself or are you regurgitating from a site you're too embarrassed to link? Anyway, spending as a % of gdp is way up for a decade+ as well...so, what exactly is your point?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Again...what is your point? That if we could have magically maintained Reagan/Bush 41 era revenues as a % gdp that we would be $1.449T additional in the black today? Yet you completely ignore the fact that spending as a % of gdp has increased significantly under Obama. Have you calculated how much more spending is occuring as a % of gdp under Obama as compared to Reagan/Bush 41...or better yet, George W?that was actually the exact page i was using.
Again...what is your point? That if we could have magically maintained Reagan/Bush 41 era revenues as a % gdp that we would be $1.449T additional in the black today? Yet you completely ignore the fact that spending as a % of gdp has increased significantly under Obama. Have you calculated how much more spending is occuring as a % of gdp under Obama as compared to Reagan/Bush 41...or better yet, George W?
When you complete this little exercise you may begin to see how "creative" it is to spin the numbers in such a way as you have. I know that you want to find ways to make Obama appear better than the past 3 Republican presidents...but you might want to rethink that particular approach. And, for the record, I don't believe these types of comparisons carry any real meaning in the scheme of things...unless, of course, one happens to be incredibly partisan and desperately looking for self affirmation in all the wrong places.
i'm showing that we do, indeed, have a revenue problem. to pretend that we don't is ignoring reality. and to pretend that obama only thinks we have a revenue problem is also ignoring reality. i mean, the guy already cut 900 billion from non-defense discretionary spending over the next 10.
you're the one leaping from there to all kinds of other stuff.
Wow. So you're pretty much affirming the perspective that spending is not the problem...it's revenue! And you do this with a straight face even though the numbers clearly indicate our spending as a % of gdp is at the highest levels we've seen since 1940.i'm showing that we do, indeed, have a revenue problem. to pretend that we don't is ignoring reality.
you're the one leaping from there to all kinds of other stuff.
"As the perfect storm approaches, the regime will address it the only way it knows how -- as a revenue, rather than a spending, problem."