[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-Sv6YnxEc"]YouTube- ?french bulldog ?????????????????????????[/ame]
Take a look at the chart showing the breakdown of the deficit here... http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 Better luck next time.
That's graph is so NOT cute, but the role of Bush's tax cuts is interesting. Especially combined with two wars, one of which we most definitely didn't need.
Being as Steamer started this thread and we have decided to include kitties, this is appropriate: You can put down your copy of "Going Rogue" now, Steamer.
tea baggers of America unite! "If we could only get some cooperation from the White House and the Administration in the process of reducing nonmilitary, nonessential spending, we could probably avoid the need and necessity for the tax increase that the administration apparently wants Congress to approve. I don’t think they have yet sold the American people or the Congress on the need for increased taxes. Particularly, when the administration makes no visible effort to cut back on expenditures in those areas where I think we can differ or eliminate programs and expenditures.” the big brain of 1 Senator G.R. Ford speaking of 1 Prez LBJ about curbing spending to redux inflation. has a familiar ring to it, don't it?
The following text is something that makes you ask yourself, "Did I read that right? Did he really say that?" During the president's town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, he discussed the need to curb spending during tough economic times. "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college." So, which is it? One or two of you brilliant economists, or plain old Obama apologists, stated that deficits WILL improve the economy, yet your Supreme Leader is now saying this. I'm an idiot, yet you guys can't grasp Economics 101. Thsi debt is becoming unsustainable & shows no sigh of stopping. How is spending money we obviously don't have, going to improve things? Let the spinning & subject changing begin.....
The money is spent, the economy is saved, and now we start addressing the deficit. And it's not "econ 101", it's "econ 102" macroeconomics. And what is happening here is on page 1 of the textbooks. Any other questions?
Yes. Now that Obama has "saved" the economy, how is he going to address the deificits, without workers to tax? In other words, where is the federal gov't going to get money to pay down the debt? If I'm thinking about this right, you need more taxpayers, not less, to collect revenue. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100202/D9DK7V400.html
There will be more workers in 2011. And beyond that, other economic activity is taxable, and much of that is already on the road to recovery. All of your concerns have been addressed. Are you an Obama supporter now? If not, why?
This is why when we discuss your posts, we reference disgusting sexual acts found on urbandictionary.com. Because you pretend (please tell me you're pretending; I wouldn't want to share the planet with someone this stupid) to not understand the difference between the government and families. 95% of your posts are trolls. (Unless you're incredibly stupid. I'm giving you credit. I think you are just trolling.) Just change your name to mung. It fits better.
Because I don't think a guy, who ran 6 blocks of a community has any idea how to create jobs, or knows anything about the economy. How many more workers will there have to be to reverse his huge spending? I might have to bust out a calculator for that kind of growth. I hope you're right, because the better the economy is, the more money I can make, but....every economist that I've read predicts high unemployment for at least tow more years. Can we survive that long, if the deficit keeps rising?
Well, the irony of the quote listed, super smart dave, is that he's lecturing people on what to do when times are tough, yet he's tripling down on an already high deficit. I'm sorry you missed it.
OK, well I'm a small business person that has created jobs, so I know and I'm telling you Obama is right and you are wrong. And since you're a worker who doesn't create jobs, you should -- using your logic -- listen to me. Feel free to PM me whenever you have questions about the economy and job creation, I will tell you the right answers since I am a job creator and you are not.
Well my boss, who owns a manufacturing company, would say that you & Obama are wrong. He's been in business a long time & has said that he's never seen it this bad. Why would he add any employess in this mess? I keep waiting for the day that he throws his hands up & says, "What's the point?" There's a job revision heading our way & it's not going to be pretty.
So am I because my guess is that will be the day that you lose your internet access. Why are you continually blaming Obama for jobs? You do realize that we lost 650,000 jobs in December 2008, don't you? And more than 700,000 in January 2009? And another 650,000 in February 2009 before the recovery act was passed? You do realize that the 1.6 trillion deficit would have been at least 1.3 trillion if there was no TARP and no stimulus? So, your concern about deficits might be sincere but your blame is misplaced. Did you post around here before 2008? Just curious. If you did, perhaps you can highlight some of your posts where you were so concerned with deficits since we started running them again 10 years ago. Yes, jobs are a tough problem. We were told that well before the economy bottomed out and started heading back up. "Jobless recovery" was a term used often from as far back as the election in 2008. The lack of jobs is not Obama's fault. It's just his problem.
"Why are you continually blaming Obama for jobs? You do realize that we lost 650,000 jobs in December 2008, don't you? And more than 700,000 in January 2009? And another 650,000 in February 2009 before the recovery act was passed?" And, how many since then? "You do realize that the 1.6 trillion deficit would have been at least 1.3 trillion if there was no TARP and no stimulus? So, your concern about deficits might be sincere but your blame is misplaced." It's still too high. Can we agree on that? "Did you post around here before 2008? Just curious. If you did, perhaps you can highlight some of your posts where you were so concerned with deficits since we started running them again 10 years ago. Yes, jobs are a tough problem. We were told that well before the economy bottomed out and started heading back up. "Jobless recovery" was a term used often from as far back as the election in 2008. The lack of jobs is not Obama's fault. It's just his problem." Yes, I've been around, when I had the difficult task of defending Bush to all the haters. Fortunately for you guys, it's not that difficult defending Obama, because you don't address his shortcomings & mistakes. Usually, it's personal attacks. Not my style, but whatever... Yes, Bush made mistakes & yes, jobs were lost before Obama, but he spent billions we don't have with a promise to save jobs & turn the economy around. At this point, he's failed & left us billions more in debt. Like I mentioned, I haven't heard of any economist who thinks we'll get a jobless recovery for years. So there you go, Bush AND Obama are to blame. Is that better?
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ Steamer just hit for the Stupid Cycle... How could one man post so much idiocy in one short period?