GOP Spent $200 Billion on ads

[drnykterstein]

We all know that Obama has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Right?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=michael%20cooper&st=cse

[BB27]

We all know that Obama has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Right?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...20cooper&st=cse

 

But the real question, is did he increase your SSI?

[EC-Bills]

Who asked your parachuting-in ass to comment , anyway? You dont even know what the !@#$ we're talking about.

 

Let's see:

 

1. I know the topic being discussed - check

2. I know you are criticizing Connor for his retarded posts - check

3. I know you have an illustrious record for retarded posts - check

 

What is it that I don't understand?

[DC Tom]

We all know that Obama has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Right?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=michael%20cooper&st=cse

 

Let us know when you plan on having a coherent discussion.

[drnykterstein]

Let us know when you plan on having a coherent discussion.

I was commenting to Peace. Sorry, given the hivemind around here, I sometimes mistake one person for multiple people.

[DC Tom]

I was commenting to Peace. Sorry, given the hivemind around here, I sometimes mistake one person for multiple people.

 

Yes, you're all over the place, trying to justify your thoroughly retarded views. So let us know when you plan on having a coherent discussion.

[Peace]

I was commenting to Peace. Sorry, given the hivemind around here, I sometimes mistake one person for multiple people.

 

News to me.

 

So I posted that the Democrats and Republicans are spending us into oblivion and you post that Obama gave a dollar a day back to 95% of the population? There's a germ of connection there in that we're both talking about money but otherwise, that's not a sensible exchange.

[IDBillzFan]

I was commenting to Peace. Sorry, given the hivemind around here, I sometimes mistake one person for multiple people.

You know what I'm starting to find increasingly funny? You've completely morphed into your own little Barack Obama caricature. Every comment that comes out of your keyboard is meant to rile, insult, demean, or embarrass. Everything is first qualified so as to somehow justify your own inability to keep from looking like an idiot.

 

"Given the hivemind..."

 

"You hate information..."

 

"Scared people don't think properly..."

 

"You'd think they'd be thanking us..."

 

Of course,the difference is that Obama tries to be the leader of the free world and you try to avoid being the biggest dolt on an obscure political message board that's an offshoot of a message board for an 0-6 football team. But other than that, you really have his act down pat.

[Rob's House]

You know what I'm starting to find increasingly funny? You've completely morphed into your own little Barack Obama caricature. Every comment that comes out of your keyboard is meant to rile, insult, demean, or embarrass. Everything is first qualified so as to somehow justify your own inability to keep from looking like an idiot.

 

"Given the hivemind..."

 

"You hate information..."

 

"Scared people don't think properly..."

 

"You'd think they'd be thanking us..."

 

Of course,the difference is that Obama tries to be the leader of the free world and you try to avoid being the biggest dolt on an obscure political message board that's an offshoot of a message board for an 0-6 football team. But other than that, you really have his act down pat.

LMFAO!! Ahh, good stuff.

[Nanker]

LA, you slay me!

[Chef Jim]

We all know that Obama has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Right?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...20cooper&st=cse

 

So now tax cuts are good?

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

...........Of course,the difference is that Obama tries to be the leader of the free world and you try to avoid being the biggest dolt on an obscure political message board that's an offshoot of a message board for an 0-6 football team. But other than that, you really have his act down pat.

 

 

solid.

[TPS]

From the same site:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1992_2000&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G1-fed_H0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

Now answer this, you ass-monkey: if in 1999 the federal debt was 75% of $9.35T, and in 2000 the debt was 71.6% of $9.95T...how does the federal debt increasing by $110 billion represent a budget surplus???

Because that site uses "gross public debt" which counts the social security surplus as additional "debt." Clinton ran a budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 as Connor mentioned, defined as "on-budget." The social security surplus, which is counted as increased gross debt, offset the on-budget surplus.

 

I think the correct way to think about it is that overall government revenues were greater than overall government expenditures in fact from 1998 to 2001.

 

Here's the paradox: while outstanding gross public debt increased (the government sold bonds to itself), outstanding private debt held by the public decreased (the excess of all revenues over expenditures were used to purchase privately held debt), and this happened from about 1998 to 2001. Simple, right?

 

CBO historical #s here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml

[DC Tom]

Because that site uses "gross public debt" which counts the social security surplus as additional "debt." Clinton ran a budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 as Connor mentioned, defined as "on-budget." The social security surplus, which is counted as increased gross debt, offset the on-budget surplus.

 

Yes, The SS surplus is additional debt, as it's "invested" in government bond issues. It's ridiculous to pretend that's not debt simply because it's not "on-budget"...it's even more ridiculous to pretend that the money the government owes to SS isn't debt but rather some sort of asset.

 

 

I think the correct way to think about it is that overall government revenues were greater than overall government expenditures in fact from 1998 to 2001.

 

Which doesn't change the question: how does one reconcile surplus income with an increase in actual debt?

 

Here's the paradox: while outstanding gross public debt increased (the government sold bonds to itself), outstanding private debt held by the public decreased (the excess of all revenues over expenditures were used to purchase privately held debt), and this happened from about 1998 to 2001. Simple, right?

 

No paradox at all: the government transferred debt obligations from the public to SS (which they were able to do because of the SS surplus). Total debt goes up, debt held by the public goes down, and the government gets to claim the non-public held debt as surplus income. The government basically securitized debt as an asset in the same sort of manner that Enron used to pad its balance sheet.

[Magox]

Yeah, I guess the Tech bubble played a small role in the tax revenues received during the years in question, nevermind the Nasdaq hitting over 5000 in the peak of it's bubble in March of 2000, and I suppose this had a negligible capital gains revenue stream effect.

[pBills]

So now tax cuts are good?

 

 

Tax cuts are always good. However, they are not realistic. I love how everyone republican and republican light (Tea Party) act as though they can cut spending (they don't know how), they can cut taxes (really?) and all of our problems will go away. Hell, my favorite is that they want to privatize social security. They say the Dems are running the country into the ground yet they did nothing for 8 years, and still have no solid plan for the future.

 

Another all time great is when I here a republican candidate telling a democrat that they are in the pocket of the unions... AND want to ship jobs overseas???

 

I'm not saying that the Dems are perfect or great in anyway. I just hope that who ever is elected into office can work together. Don't get me wrong, I do want the Dems to keep control of everything. Just saying my opinion, my two cents which of course 99.9% of this forum will disagree with me, call me a fool and that is fine.

[/dev/null]

Of course,the difference is that Obama tries to be the leader of the free world and you try to avoid being the biggest dolt on an obscure political message board that's an offshoot of a message board for an 0-6 football team. But other than that, you really have his act down pat.

 

pwnd

[Peace]

Tax cuts are always good. However, they are not realistic. I love how everyone republican and republican light (Tea Party) act as though they can cut spending (they don't know how), they can cut taxes (really?) and all of our problems will go away. Hell, my favorite is that they want to privatize social security. They say the Dems are running the country into the ground yet they did nothing for 8 years, and still have no solid plan for the future.

 

 

I have less of a problem with raising taxes if it's to pay down the debt. In fact, that's a certainty. BUUUUUUT, and it's a big "but," the government should make a pledge that for every dollar taxes are going up, they will cut 2 in spending. That would be a pill I could swallow because it would set up a system where I'd feel assured that the problem (big government spending) was being addressed for the future.

 

Why is that so hard to do?

[TPS]

Yeah, I guess the Tech bubble played a small role in the tax revenues received during the years in question, nevermind the Nasdaq hitting over 5000 in the peak of it's bubble in March of 2000, and I suppose this had a negligible capital gains revenue stream effect.

No one doubts that. What you failed to understand the last time I wrote about this subject was that the MAJOR factor that created the surplus was the FED's belief that it could allow growth to continue and unemployment to fall below 6%, the believed "natural rate of unemployment." There is always some source of growth, but the determining factor that slows the economy down is the FED raising short rates (inverting the yield curve when it really wants to choke inflation and growth). The fact that the FED allowed the party to conintue, and unemployment fell to 4%, is the reason for the surplus. This should sit well with conservative who don't want to give Clinton credit--the FED gets the credit.

[pBills]

I have less of a problem with raising taxes if it's to pay down the debt. In fact, that's a certainty. BUUUUUUT, and it's a big "but," the government should make a pledge that for every dollar taxes are going up, they will cut 2 in spending. That would be a pill I could swallow because it would set up a system where I'd feel assured that the problem (big government spending) was being addressed for the future.

 

Why is that so hard to do?

 

 

Totally agree with you. Unfortunately no matter which party is in office, no one will curb spending or use money earned via raised taxes the right way. Same goes for monitoring their spending, making sure projects actually stay on budget, under or on time. That alone would save a ton.