Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Connor Livingston
5773 Followers
Connor Livingston
5773 Followers
Johnny Dillinger
477 Followers
Johnny Dillinger
477 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
pbrbeerJul 12, 2010
This lady is trippin
richmomzJul 13, 2010
I wonder what the weather's like on planet Pelosi? The economic environment sure looks sunny in her fantasy world!
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
How do I know Pelosi is right?
Because she gets nutty rightwingers like richmomz so angry.
cajungator3Jul 14, 2010
Pay as you go? Then why did we borrow money?
bossm4nJul 13, 2010
Is she actually trying to say that her party has no culpability for the current budget crisis and that by making "no deficit spending" a law on her first day as speaker, Congress is succeeding in saving the American people money? In addition Madam Speaker, under your leadership Congress approved the Bush stimulus plan as well as the Obama stimulus plan. Lest we all be reminded that Obama's deficit increase in his year and a half in office has surpassed Bush's in his eight years.
beratebirthersJul 13, 2010
It's not the Democrats' fault Bush lied about how much he f**ked things up.
digger1123Jul 13, 2010
It is, the Democrats' fault that they are trying to f**k it up way more than Bush ever dreamed of.
tyhoJul 14, 2010
@berate
I don't know if you meant that to be funny, but that's hilarious.
tubatechnoJul 14, 2010
Really!? You're gonna stick with the whole "Bush lied" crap even though Democrats have had majority power since 2005?!
justin676Jul 14, 2010
"But Bush....", today's conversational white flag of surrender.
elemmingJul 13, 2010
As typical conservatives have their facts wrong. Bush's deficit increase far surpasses Obama's.
haskinb84Jul 14, 2010
Prove it lemming...
drmangrumJul 14, 2010
I take it math isn't your strong suit. 2 > 1.
tubatechnoJul 14, 2010
Where are YOUR facts?
ethergnatJul 14, 2010
How's this for a fact? The CBO estimated the deficit for FY 2009 would have been $1.2 trillion dollars before Obama ever took office or signed a single piece of legislation based on continuing Bush's policies. So yeah, the deficit ended up being $1.4 trillion, but Obama inherited over 80% of that from Bush, not to mention the recession.
richmomzJul 13, 2010
Yep, pretty much. According to her, planet Earth was saved when they passed "pay-go" (nevermind that they've since completely ignored it).
beratebirthersJul 13, 2010
They haven't ignored it. There's an exemption for emergencies. Is it the Democrat's fault that everything has been an emergency?
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Including their break's, and travel expense increases. i wish I could fly in my private government paid for aircraft like Pelosi.
atarioJul 14, 2010
In addition to the rest of the lies others have called you out on above, there was no "Bush stimulus plan". You're thinking of his bankster bailout.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stormwernJul 14, 2010
Bush sent out stimulus checks.
atarioJul 14, 2010
Well, if you want to call that "a plan", ok.
bossm4nJul 14, 2010
What "lies" are those exactly? Did you even watch the video? Call it what you want, Bush sent out relief checks, and pushed TARP, and I opposed both. I opposed Obama's stimulus as well. It seems you're more interested in semantics than the truth. Just keep towing that party line Atario.
tubatechnoJul 14, 2010
I didn't realize that president had the power to create and pass spending laws. Hmm, my government classes sure did teach me wrong then....
When did the checks go out and when was the TARP funds approved? And who had majority control of congress, which includes the House Ways and Means committee (from which all spending bills originate)?
Do people purposefully become this ignorant, or does it just come naturally?
bowbow696Jul 14, 2010
You have to remember that there are other reasons why President Obama's deficit is so large. Do you know how much money we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan? Both of those are wars that President Bush started, not saying they are right or wrong, that's not the issue.
tyhoJul 14, 2010
The Bush stimulus was a bank bailout that has been almost completely repaid with interest. So us taxpayers may even make money on the deal.
Let's not put the two in the same category.
Obama's, or more truthfully Pelosi's bailout was a Liberal special interest bonanza of stupidity.
kaelyiestaJul 14, 2010
Considering only the transaction of the loan is a bad idea. If you consider the harm done by corporatist protection to our economy, then you would realize we are drowning in red ink. Economics doesn't merely study the transferring of wealth, but how production changes as a result. Providing money taken from us set at an interest price not ours to choose to banks of the governments choice is never profitable. Why do you suppose we had such an unsustainable investment bubble? I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with incentives and profit motive. Guess what kinds of incentives guaranteed handouts create.
bossm4nJul 14, 2010
I don't care how you categorize them, they both belong under the "Bad Idea" category, or perhaps you prefer "Failed Execution" category. Bush's TARP was nothing but a huge money shuffle and a scam to America. It's intent was to keep banks solvent and credit flowing. Well, it did keep many banks afloat, but it damn sure did NOT free up credit. Many of the financial institutions, instead of using those funds for loans and lines of credit as was intended, use TAPR money for acquisitions to shore up their own bottom lines. So instead of making funds available to individuals and small businesses to help people keep their homes, cars and their businesses open, these assh**es used the money for their own investments.
Bush's idea of relief checks certainly provided some immediate stimulus to the economy, but it also only prolonged the inevitable recession. It was just a bandaid on the bubble. And the Obama/Pelosi stimulus was simply the biggest government approved clusterf**k in the vast history of clusterf**ks. Obama's scare tactic of "we must pass this plan immediately in order to prevent unemployment from climbing to 8%" will go down as either one of the greatest con jobs, or one of the gravest miscalculations in US economic history. But to hear jackasses like Pelosi, Reid and Biden talk, you would think unemployment is currently at 4% and the US economy is thriving. These people put slimy used car salesmen to shame.
naieveJul 14, 2010
Each Stimulus job has cost us $250,000 per TEMPORARY job. That is an acceptable rate for a permanent job created, but for a temporary job it is the largest joke in history.
No Joke. Congress would have done more stimulating by filling up C-130's with the $2 Trillion in low denomination bills, then dropping them on every major city in the USA. At least then it all would have been spent instead of increasing the rate of millionaire creation in the USA>
stormwernJul 14, 2010
Are you kidding me? Bush's deficit went from +800B to -1T=$1800B. Obama's has gone from -1T to -1.3T=$300B
bossm4nJul 14, 2010
My apologies. I meant to type debt, not deficit. However, the calculations you used for the Obama deficit are done with fuzzy math and don't match CBO projections.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100045733/america-is-sinking-under-obama%E2%80%99s-towering-debt/
stormwernJul 14, 2010
What do you mean "projections"? You were talking about Bush's 8 years vs Obama's 1½. That's in the past, not the future.
aegis17Jul 14, 2010
bossm4n:
of course Obama's debt is higher than Bush's. Debt is cumulative: current US debt is $13 trillion, whereas two years ago it was around $11 trillion. Saying the current President's debt is higher than the last doesn't mean anything.
What's more important is the annual deficit (and particularly how it relates to GDP), and this is where Stormwern is correct. Bush inherited a surplus (on paper), and left office with an annual deficit of $1 trillion. Barack Obama has added some to the annual deficit, but a large portion of that was TARP and the Stimulus Package, both of which should be one-time expenses, so the deficit from here on should be lower than FY2009.
And while on the subject of TARP, it was a *loan*, most of which was paid back, and then redistributed in the form of stimulus projects. I don't agree with Obama's strategy here, but don't confuse TARP as throwing money away - the government made loans, got interest on the loans, and got the principle back in most cases. It was far from a total waste.
Back to your reply -
The CNN article you linked stated that "U.S. federal government would add an estimated $9.8 trillion to the country's accrued debt over the next decade...", which, if my napkin math serves me, is less than a trillion a year. I'd hardly call Stormwern's figures fuzzy math, since he stated Obama's 2009 deficit was $1.3 trillion (which accounts for TARP and Stimulus).
TLDR: The deficits are high, yes, and need to be addressed, but quit with the f**king hyperbole. The sky isn't falling, Obama isn't piling on debt a gazillion times faster than Bush, and try to gather some context on the numbers before pointing and saying OMG HE IS BIG SPENDR.
P.S. The pay-as-you-go only applies to budgeted items, not discretionary spending. All military budgets are part of discretionary spending. If Congress can manage to balance their non-discretionary budget, I give them two thumbs up. The war will end eventually, and when it does, we will be in much better shape.
P.P.S. I'm no liberal shill, I just understand the context of the situation, and s**t ain't as dire as people say it is. Well, the world economy as a whole may be, but that's a different subject entirely.
snafoo972Jul 14, 2010
Both 'stimulus plans' have had a relatively minor impact on the deficit. It is more the wars, entitlement costs, and shrinking tax revenue that are contributing to the budget deficit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Liburls ur smort!
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Hey, I like Rum as much as the next person, but this bitch is f**king stupid.
naieveJul 14, 2010
She is also in charge of Congress. Every time you sit back and wonder how the Democrats destroyed the mandate we sent the into office with, I want you to sit back and think of Pelosi and all the stupid s**t she has done.
Like ignoring Obama when he told her to further divide the Republican Party during the Stimulus Fight. The Republicans during the Bank Bailout had split up, become divided as they ran around trying to figure out what to do to fix their image. Obama wanted Pelosi to grab some of those votes and try to split them off the Republican Party on a more permanent level.
Pelosi told Obama to go f**k himself and tried to pass the bill without Republican support. The Republicans realizing this gathered together to oppose her. Nancy Pelosi drove a broken Republican Party back together, then turned around and realized she needed the votes, and wondered why she had so much trouble after all that just to get 3 votes.
Then came the Health Care Bill, by this point the Republicans had found their direction again. They hijacked the Tea Party Movement and decided to oppose everything the Democrats do.
Yet for a time they were weak and divided. Obama knew that. Pelosi ended it.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
This is what happens when you do kool-aid shoters for several days straight.
five35Jul 13, 2010
Can you people in her district PLEASE vote her lying ass out of office?
richmomzJul 13, 2010
They're too stoned to work, let alone vote.
atarioJul 14, 2010
You, on the other hand, being a meth-head, work very hard (for short periods).
Oh, what? Stereotyped generalizations don't apply to you, only from you? I see.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbullingerJul 13, 2010
Cindy Sheehan ran against her. We need to support her.
five35Jul 13, 2010
Cindy Sheehan? That would be swapping one idiot for another. No thanks.
vbullingerJul 13, 2010
Please explain. I'm no liberal, but Sheehan is at least someone who cares about the American people and won't lie to us.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Cindy Sheehan lied to Congress. What make's you think she won't lie to us?
vbullingerJul 14, 2010
How did she lie to Congress? I genuinely want to know and I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe I'm just uninformed.
alucardthegreatJul 14, 2010
Vote Pelosi out of office? You must be tripping ballz if you think you can do that.
trevor98Jul 14, 2010
Somebody would have to run to her left and not be even more crazy- that's a hard combination.
justin676Jul 14, 2010
She's from the San Fran district. People there will vote in only the craziest, most idiotic candidates. Pelosi is form the far left stronghold so unless the San Fran voters start to smarten up, she'll be around for a while.
ricknrockiesJul 13, 2010
"As typical conservatives have their facts wrong. Bush's deficit increase far surpasses Obama's."
Year: GDP-US$ billion Federal Deficit -fedpct GDP
The Deficit under Bush:
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
2006 13398.9 1.85
2007 14077.6 1.14
Under Obama:
2008 14441.4 3.18
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
There called Facts... look into them...
tomasiiJul 13, 2010
Just cause you call them facts doesn't mean they are true. Read the book, Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. If I were a mind to I could find opposing statistics in less than a minute. But democrats really don't care about facts. This is obvious when they still think Obama is doing a good job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ricknrockiesJul 13, 2010
This is from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
Bush didn't do anything close to the kind of damage to the deficit that Obama has done... I've never seen any numbers that say otherwise...
tomasiiJul 14, 2010
Ok, I accept the challenge. Here is what I found that says contradicting your source.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_deficit_vs_bush_deficit/
http://www.liberallyconservative.com/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-this-picture-doesnt-lie/
Oh here is an especially contradictory one by the Washington Examiner, which says Obama's deficit exceeds all 8 years of the Bush deficit
http://www.liberallyconservative.com/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-this-picture-doesnt-lie/
Should I go on. That was really easy.
Ok, one more
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2010/03/28/obama-quadrupled-the-deficitbush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
So, I guess it just falls to which side of the political spectrum you have "hope" in which statistics you will believe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ricknrockiesJul 14, 2010
What Challenge???
Dude, I'm agreeing with you...
What I sourced said that Bush never let the Deficit go beyond %3.5 in 8 years while Obama took it over %10 in only 2 years...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
LOL...democrats don't really care about facts.
You mean as opposed to an entire party of rednecks who thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? You mean the party who still thinks there are WMDs in Iraq somewhere? And people who believe Sarah Palin to be qualified for the office of President because she claimed she could see Russia from her front porch?
Is that the party you're suggesting cares about facts?
Laughable. Simply laughable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penguinxpJul 14, 2010
yes algae, shes not nearly as qualified as a community organizer.
cause you know, running a state isnt nearly as tough as organizing a failing community.
misterbadideaJul 14, 2010
"yes algae, shes not nearly as qualified as a community organizer.
cause you know, running a state isnt nearly as tough as organizing a failing community."
You know, I'll never really understand the "community organizer" complaint. You do realize that he had other jobs than community organizer, right? But yes, running a state is apparently very tough indeed, considering that Palin inarguably failed at it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digger1123Jul 13, 2010
Just to visualize: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
mweatherJul 14, 2010
Uh, your numbers just prove that Bush increased the deficit more than Obama has.
A bigger increase and bigger budget are two entirely different things.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-11-10f2.jpg
atarioJul 14, 2010
14077.6 - 9951.5 = 4126.1 for Bush
14623.9 - 14441.4 = 182.5 for Obama
You were saying...?
tyhoJul 14, 2010
Uh Tom, those numbers make Obama look worse than Bush... Your wasting good outrage on someone that agrees with you.
atarioJul 14, 2010
US public debt, as of:
Jan 20, 2001: $3.434 trillion
Jan 20, 2009: $6.836 trillion
Currently: $8.294 trillion
First increase: 99%
Second increase: 21%
You were saying?
tsk05Jul 14, 2010
What happened to total debt, or are we only counting a part of our debt as debt now? Also, why are we counting in percent all the sudden?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Page 134, "FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR"
I will count both 2000 and 2009 budgets as spent by Bush - that way, there can be no argument that I omitted any money.
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2000: 5,628,700 million
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2009: 11,875,851 million
Bush total debt increased: 6,247,151 million
Now Obama (and we'll go to 2015 because that's as far as the estimate goes but it isn't even close to two terms):
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2009: 11,875,851 million
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2015 (estimate - NOT projection): 19,683,285 million
Obama debt increased up to 2015: 7,807,434 million
vuke69Jul 14, 2010
From http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway :
09/29/2000* 3.405T
01/20/2009 6.307T (+2.902T)
07/12/2010 8.639T (+2.332T)
*9/29/2000 is the closest to 1/20/2001 that there are official numbers.
stormwernJul 14, 2010
What's your source? According to treasurydirect.gov the deficit in 2008 (Bush's term, nice try) was 12% of GDP.
tsk05Jul 14, 2010
What happened to total debt, or are we only counting a part of our debt as debt now? Also, why are we counting in percent all the sudden?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Page 134, "FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR"
I will count both 2000 and 2009 budgets as spent by Bush - that way, there can be no argument that I omitted any money.
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2000: 5,628,700 million
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2009: 11,875,851 million
Bush total debt increased: 6,247,151 million
Now Obama (and we'll go to 2015 because that's as far as the estimate goes but it isn't even close to two terms):
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2009: 11,875,851 million
Gross Federal Debt at the end of 2015 (estimate - NOT projection): 19,683,285 million
Obama debt increased up to 2015: 7,807,434 million
You can see that even if we count up to only 2015, Obama still spent almost 2 billion more (and that's 2 years short of a full two terms, as well as putting all of FY2009 on Bush even though Obama took office on January 21st)
vuke69Jul 14, 2010
Why bother to estimate when pure facts tell the same grim story?
Date Total Debt Increase
01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 4899 Billion
07/12/2010 13,194,523,014,378.23 2568 Billion
So if you count total debt, in 18 months Obama has racked up a little more than Bush did in 8 years.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
coelacanthJul 14, 2010
yes, I enjoy wild speculation into the future also...
tsk05Jul 14, 2010
You should tell the guys writing the US budget about wild speculation since that is the source. (Really, you should. I wonder if they're ever gotten it right - I've only seen underestimation...)
coelacanthJul 14, 2010
using federal statistics, lets look at a chart... And remember, OBAMA took office NOVEMBER of 08, and that year, and most of the next year were Bush's financial plan, and not obamas...
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2004_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Looks to me like bush increased the debt far more than obama... In fact, I would say that the bottom falling out of the market had more to do with this, and less of their respective financial plans...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
coelacanthJul 14, 2010
sorry, to correct myself, obama took office january 21st, was elected november... sheesh, 3am is not doing well for me...
neil22Jul 14, 2010
See http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
Business Insider
Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomasiiJul 14, 2010
I know Rick, I just wanted to show other sources that showed the Obama deficit. Nevertheless, as you can see the democrats are picking out stats that agree with what they already want to believe.
clshortfuseJul 14, 2010
I don't understand what those numbers are but these are the percent increase/decrease
Bush
2000 9951.5 N/A
2001 10286.2 3.36%
2002 10642.3 3.46%
2003 11142.1 4.70%
2004 11867.8 6.51%
2005 12638.4 6.49%
2006 13398.9 6.02%
2007 14077.6 5.07%
Obama
2008 14441.4 2.58%
2009 14258.2 -1.27%
2010 14623.9 2.56%
Seems like it slowed down under Obama...
Oh and
▲
▲ ▲
gokingsJul 13, 2010
Voted for Obama, but I can't wait until that bitch Pelosi is out of office.
atomheartmotherJul 13, 2010
She's from San Francisco, so she'll not be voted out of office. But I'm cautiously optimistic that she'll lose her speakership and the GOP will take back the House, which means we won't have to look at her botox-laden mug for much longer.
That's a close 2nd.
yacksJul 14, 2010
when that happens, does she still need her huge new expensive office?
iptunnellJul 14, 2010
I don't know whether to digg or bury your comment - it's a double edged sword.
DurkadurJul 13, 2010
You know the US could save much more money if it putted it's overblown military budget to the chainsaw.
digger1123Jul 13, 2010
If we got rid of the welfare state we would save tons of money.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
I agree. 99% inheritance tax and a return to the strict graduated income tax would do wonders for the deficit.
digger1123Jul 14, 2010
lower taxes = more money for government. Also, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of federal income taxes. how the f**k is that anywhere near fair? The bottom 40% pay nothing, WTF.
paranor01Jul 14, 2010
wtf? lower taxes = more $ for gov?
where did you go to school? primary dumbf**ks?
government gets their money via taxes... lower taxes = less money the gov. has. or in your world does 2-2=22 ?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digger1123Jul 14, 2010
lower taxes promotes increased economic activity. When the cap gains taxes were cut under Bush, revenue doubled.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
Lower taxes = less money for the government. The idea you are referring to is taxable income elasticity. However, as illustrated by the Laffer curve, taxes must theoretically reach a certain threshold before lower taxes will raise total revenue. I've never heard of an economist who thinks that America falls on the side of the curve where lower taxes would raise total revenue. Laffer himself does not think so.
Less welfare for the rich would help solve the current deficit problems and put more of the responsibility for societal well-being on those who benefit most from our society.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digger1123Jul 14, 2010
It would help solve the current deficit problems is Obama would stop spending like a drunken sailor. Getting rid of the terrible healthcare bill would save hundreds of billions, and increasing taxes on the lower tax brackets would help.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
Yes, raising taxes on the lower tax brackets would certainly help. However, they are not a politically feasible group to target in the long run and pay far more for the relatively small benefit from society when compared to those in higher tax brackets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digger1123Jul 14, 2010
We need to cut down the handouts to the poor, and that will save a ton of money. Start from the bottom up, not the top down.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
Why start from the bottom when the top is more profitable and politically viable?
kaelyiestaJul 14, 2010
For those questioning how taxing less could lead to more money for the government:
I see a guy investing 100 dollars into a bank account. He is getting 10% a year(no continual compounding for simplicity). I can take a lot from him to fund my gang and my bribery and so on. If I take too much, eventually he will have nothing left to plunder. But if I take less, he generates more and more wealth and eventually I'll be getting more money than if I chose not to wait.
The society is constantly investing its money and using it to grow. Take that wealth and you contract the expansion, take more and you decline the economy.
remeloxJul 14, 2010
You don't tax weath, you tax income. If you take 10% of his income, he's getting 9% per year, which is still respectable on a savings account. (I know, theoretical number for simplicty, but he's still making money)
negative4Jul 14, 2010
Digger buddy, you're on the right track but you're doing it all wrong. The economic reason to lower taxes on the rich is to allow for more job creation and cheaper goods, not to raise government revenue.
inactiveuserJul 14, 2010
I agree! Cut the welfare state! Stop subsidizing BP, Exxon, Coal, Monsanto, Big Pharma, Banks...etc etc etc...
Stupid wak jobs...
justin676Jul 14, 2010
99% inheritance tax? F*** that. If I make a good living in my life, I've earned the right to pass that to my children. How in the hell can you justify the government taking all that just so they can waste it on bulls**t entitlement programs that do nothing but hurt the economy? Typical entitlement attitude.
digger1123Jul 14, 2010
@Negative4
I absolutely agree. I was just pointing out that lower taxes increase government revenue.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
@Justin676: Inheritance tax is only paid after certain deductions. Assuming you don't have a major medical problem at the end of your life (most Americans do), you will be able to pass on a large amount tax-free. All an inheritance tax does is reduce welfare for the rich who do pass on large amounts of money.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
@Negative4: That's well and good, except for the fact that lowering the tax rate has not impacted economic growth. When tax rates for the rich were very strict (50% at the high end), economic growth has been much better. Other economic circumstances have much more to do with how the economy performs than tax rates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ahmonJul 14, 2010
I agree. 99% inheritance tax and a return to the strict graduated income tax would do wonders for the deficit.
codeblewJul 15, 2010
I know I am going to get dugg to hell for this but I think that anyone that needs to be on welfare for more than say a year, needs to get fixed in order to continue their welfare payments so they don't pass on their lazy genes.
digger1123Jul 15, 2010
exactly codeblew
ultimisJul 13, 2010
The military budget has not changed in terms of %GDP in the last 60 years. It's actually about half as it was than. You could completely gut 100% of military spending and you would still see this nation consumed by entitlement spending 10 years down the road.
twinklyjesusJul 13, 2010
Medicare/medicaide budget is more than defense spending.
tyhoJul 14, 2010
The comparatively small percentage of GDP spent on military is at least what government should focus on; protecting us and our nation.
Taking money from my wallet to give to my neighbor is not what I need them for.
inactiveuserJul 14, 2010
You just don't get it do you?
Your neighbor is already getting your tax dollars when you buy food, turn on a light or s**t. You are paying the biggest corporations in the world billions to prop up market raiding initially then it became keeping prices down when the bastards raided chests full of dog s**t...
Now they have the money, you don't. Your neighbor gets it because you paid them to make things cheaper so your neighbor pays less because of corporate welfare!
Get it yet?
tyhoJul 14, 2010
@inactive
While I found your post a little convoluted and metaphor heavy, I mostly agree.
I just don't see how it relates, except maybe tangentially, to the thrust of my argument.
Government special interest and corruption needs to be reined in by We The People.
trevor98Jul 14, 2010
Um, bad idea. The US military's presence around the world stabilizes it and allows many states to avoid military spending. Does Greece look towards its neighbors for resources as that government continues to fail. Does Germany start looking for Lebensraum again? That would get ugly real fast in much of the world.
tomasiiJul 13, 2010
Why do and Democrats think that spending money is saving money, when there is absolutely no proof?
richmomzJul 13, 2010
It's called Obamanomics; they take $10 bucks out of everyone's pocket, only put 50 cents of that towards something productive, and then act surprised when the economy implodes.
jacksrentonJul 14, 2010
stop with the f**king buzzwords already, it just makes you people sound stupid.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
You on the other hand sound stupid without the buzzwords.
yangj08Jul 14, 2010
Or, for that matter, just the buzz. After all, as you've said, poor spelling is just like a typical partaker...
neil22Jul 14, 2010
You do realize that we have
1. The lowest inflation in 40 years
2. The lowest interest rates in 40 years
3. The lowest TAXES in 40 years
You want the Republi"can'ts" in office again to raise the debt?
See http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
richmomzJul 14, 2010
@Neil22: You forgot #4 and #5...
4. The biggest government spending rate in U.S. history
5. The biggest deficit in the history of the human race.
Also, there's a very good chance that #1 may well turn into hyperinflation before long *because* of #2. #3 is due to Bush tax cuts that haven't expired yet (not that I'm a Bush fan but let's give credit where it's due).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Why do republicans spend trillions of dollars on wars and try to pass themselves off as 'conservatives?'
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Because there's no real Conservatives in Government. If there were, they'd never have any Political News to talk about. Thing's would just work, and we'd have money that is worth something.
denizen42Jul 14, 2010
Hypocrisy.
moogleJul 15, 2010
Hello,
Blaming republicans for authorizing the war is simply improper.
Here were the votes for September 18th, 2001, AUMF:
House of Representatives: 420 Yeas, 1 Nay, 10 not voting.
Senate: 98 Yeas, 0 Nays, 2 not voting.
Virtually all Democrats were in favor of the initiation of the War on Terror, both in the house and the senate.
Here were the votes for the 2002, AUMFAI Resolution:
House of Representatives: 297 Yea, 133 Nay, 3 No Vote
Senate: 77 Yea, 23 Nay
Roughly 40% of Democrats still voted in favor of the Iraq War in the House
58% of Democrats were in support within senate.
Are you still living in the delusion that Democrats could somehow NEVER vote for war, EVER?
remeloxJul 14, 2010
Spending money can be saving money. I'll give you an example. In recent years we have had the tour of Missouri. Each year, the state spent a little over a million dollars on it with the rest coming from sponsors as a form of advertising. Money then came into the state through tourism specifically for the event for over $30 million each year. When you consider the impact that money has, it is of much more benefit to the state than that $1 million was. Taxes alone make that million back, but the money flowing in our economy generates more money for the state. Yet every year, they take that million off the table to "save money". This year, they may not spend it and if so, we are going to end up poorer for it.
Another example. Some state on the East coast, sorry, I forget which, cancelled money for Planned Parenthood. Mainly I think someone had a problem with them handing out free condoms to corrupt our youth. Of course, that ignores the fact that those youth will have sex anyway, get pregnant without the free condom, and end up needing welfare assitance from the state. It was projected that cancelling the funding would cost the state more than five times what it was "saving".
I'm not saying Pelosi is right, because I'd have to see some solid proof for a claim that outlandish, but I understand the thinking behind it. A lack of affordable health care costs this country money. People act like taking money from one person and giving it to another is all about some socialist or communist agenda, but often it is more about the economy. If someone can't afford their health care, they won't be able to contribute to commerce either because they are fighting mounting debt or because they are too sick or dead to spend any money. If someone can't afford their mortgage because they have cancer, their employer loses, the hospital loses, the bank loses, the government loses, and you lose.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
You've never worked on a Government project have you? It's all about Syphoning money off for pet project's that normally wouldn't get the light of day otherwise. That's all Federal Government is good for, scamming money.
remeloxJul 14, 2010
I work for the government as a contractor. However, we are not paid with tax money, we are paid by customers. Granted, most of those customers are government agencies, but we work like a private firm budget-wise. I've also worked for the Air Force. While I have not personally seen any such syphoning, it exists on every government level and in almost every company. It's human nature to look out for yourself and your friends.
Ridding outselves of a federal government, which as far as I can tell provides a necessary service in national defense and in regulating inter-state and international commerce, however mismanaged, is not going to change human nature. And as far as I can tell, the Federal government does keep businesses from taking advantage of consumers, even if it does not go far enough in that respect. The idea that the federal government provides no services for your tax money is a tea party myth.
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
@Remelox, what's not a myth is that the price for those services is too steep. Enjoy the police state. The terrorists have won, the Bill of Rights is dead.
richmomzJul 14, 2010
Sure it's great when the government spends money on a project that will create a net profit in the long run. Unfortunately, the example you outlined is extremely rare - most of the time government projects do *not* create a positive net return (their projections may state otherwise when its proposed).
The simple fact of the matter is that a government bureaucracy is not nearly as good at creating a profitable venture as a private organization, simply due to the fact that their continued existence (and the jobs of the people working there) or the private profit potential simply aren't at stake like they would be in the private sector. That doesn't mean it's not *possible*, it's just very rare, especially at the Federal level (states usually have a little better luck, and local governments tend to be the most efficient at implementing net-positive development, again because they're much "closer" to the end result).
laminacJul 13, 2010
the funny thing is the CBO said the healthcare bill will actually increase the debt by 250 billion dollars
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1267511&srvc=rss
PAYGO in the house is a joke, anything they want skirt the rules they can, the wars are one example. Also the unemployment benefits (I believe passed the house) adding more to the debt.
richmomzJul 13, 2010
This belongs in the "Comedy" section...
mantiskungfuJul 13, 2010
From the mouth of the walrus herself.
misteratozJul 13, 2010
This just goes to show you that the system is cracked. Both parties are the same. Both parties will eventually bring down the beautiful democratic system. Our debt is mounting and it will NEVER be payed off. This means our dollar will most definitely become hyperinflated. I don't care which party is more responsible because the way the bicker and moan I'd almost rather have an intelligent monarch who gets s**t done. Anybody who has noticed the price of groceries doubling and tripling over the last decade or so will see my point. Our incomes are comparatively stagnant. I don't think it takes a genius to realize this....
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
A monarch? Seriously? I've heard Hans Hoppe make this argument and it's f**king disturbing. What we need is an opt-in system of association, not leaders and rulers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
avengingturnipJul 14, 2010
Even a monarchy would be better than the crap we have now for a government.
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
No govt. is good govt.
avengingturnipJul 14, 2010
You still would need a legal system. All motives are ulterior in a democracy. In a monarchy the king would actually have to identify with the people he serves.
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
I've heard this argument from it's inventor, and it's s**t IMO. He also said it would be good because we could simply assassinate a king if her got out of control. That's nonsense.
Personally, I abandoned minarchism long ago. There is no justification for any form of government.
avengingturnipJul 14, 2010
Tell that to Mad Ludwig of Bavaria. Someone discovered a while ago that if you want people to agree to hand all power to the government you have to convince them that they actually ARE the government. Democracy was born. Historically, no monarchy has ever overreached as much as modern democracies do.
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
I'm not defending Democracy for heaven's sake. I'm promoting anarchism.
freegovernatorJul 14, 2010
I really dislike republicans. In fact, democrats have pretty much been the defacto default because I dislike the conservative agenda so much. But after this whole fiasco of everything that has happened in the last 4 years with Obama, I'm ready to vote in some independent senators and house representatives. I'm so disappointed in the democratic congress and leadership. It's time. We gave them both a shot and they both sold us out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
"But after this whole fiasco of everything that has happened in the last 4 years with Obama"
I sympathize with the desire to vote third party and realize it may have seemed like 4 years but it really hasn't even been half that amount of time yet. Further, most of this deficit exists because of taxcuts for, and corrupt/incompetent actions of, the rich (and of course coupled with the public outcry and reactionary behavior when it appeared the rich who they entrusted so much in were at risk from their own actions).
In other words, the government seems to be following the conservative agenda and the apparent path the largest number of people want them to follow and that is why we are here. The lesson we should take from is not to be so reactionary and vocal about things unless and until we have carefully analyzed circumstances and alternatives surrounding a given action (and reserve the most vocal outcries for the most harmful actions).
vuke69Jul 14, 2010
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.gp.org/
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Good luck with your 3rd party efforts. You really do waste votes at this point because everyone with half a brain realizes that an independent candidate will never even get close.
It's a shame because it's something we need but as reality dawns on us, we have to acknowledge that money is what gets a person in office. In a better country at a better time, an independent might have a slim shot.
These days, NOT A SINGLE CHANCE IN HELL. EVER.
And I say that as someone who has supported 3rd party efforts in the past.
The hilarious thing about the 2008 elections was that a handful of Americans started this push for independents like 3 months before the election.
If you want to get an independent elected, you better be starting about (looks at watch) oh, RIGHT NOW and work tirelessly for the entirety of the time you have left until the 2012 election. You can't wake up 3 months before the votes are cast and decide, 'Yeah, let's do this 3rd party thing!'
Start now, work constantly and consistently non-stop. When you get 6 months from the elections and realize you've got the support of about 5% of the voting public, realize that's about the best you could have done. In this environment, 5% would be a victory for a 3rd party candidate.
Of course, that's still universes away from being elected, but that's the point.
It's not going to happen.
Ever. Unfortunately.
You'd have much better results with a revolt or revolution. You'd literally have to put that person in place and that goes against the idea of democracy.
Democracy no longer exists. Candidates are bought, they're put in place. Period.
That's how the process works in this country.
yangj08Jul 14, 2010
So the implication is that the people are masochists? That they keep putting in the same people who keep screwing them over while ignoring the multitude of other choices?
paranor01Jul 14, 2010
wow someone can't count. Obama's been pres for 4 years now eh?
idiot
yangj08Jul 14, 2010
And in that context doesn't that mean that the population is masochist? That no significant percentage of them are willing to think outside the two-party box?
freegovernatorJul 14, 2010
Seriously? Pelosi needs a serious reality check.
nitrologlyJul 14, 2010
America needs to get its priorities straight. The deficit is a problem, but it is not larger than fixing the economy. If we try to aggressively deal with our deficit, we will have a hell of a better chance of staying in this economic funk. Now this might not be a popular solution but the wars cost us alot of money directly, and wars generally have a negative effect on the economy. In short end the wars and we are in a ton of better shape economically, and will save alot more troops lifes.
angelbunnyJul 14, 2010
How do you know the deficit is not directly proportional to our economy?
oxidaneJul 14, 2010
its useless to argue which party is better. everyone has their "facts" and "statistics", etc. and so much s**t has been flung, that you hardly know what's true or not anymore.
just assume that both are the same s**t, two factions of a corporate party, the way Chomsky puts it.
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
Yes, both are s**t, and both should cease.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I don' get it.
Do you people disagree that starting two unnecessary wars wasn't a waste of well over a trillion dollars?
How do republicans spend trillions upon trillions and still refer to themselves as 'conservatives?'
I'm not a fan of Pelosi but give me a f**king break.
Any republican pointing fingers at the left and lamenting 'out of control spending' is like a huge fat person pointing at another fat person on the street and calling them a fat ass.
And the more you say it, it still doesn't make it true.
Half of you are blue in the face from it but the facts are still the facts: Your president architected a bill that bailed out the richest banks in the world. With taxpayer money. He spent willy-nilly occupying a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. He started numerous agencies, cut taxes for the richest Americans.
So go f**k yourselves.
Seriously. This isn't the Superbowl. Just because you want your team to be better doesn't make it so.
tyhoJul 14, 2010
No no turd, f**k you.
Obama's record speaks for itself, if you can't see what's happening, I can't help you. As far as Bush, most Conservatives were not happy about his spending and voiced it then. So it is not hypocritical to gripe when someone quadruples the spending now is it?
As far as Bushes bailout, it has been almost completely repaid, and with interest. So save your outrage, it rings hollow.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wileepeyoteJul 14, 2010
"As far as Bush, most Conservatives were not happy about his spending and voiced it then"
So I guess it was the liberals that helped him pass all those bills?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
actually it was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution
so 39% in the house and 58% in the senate voted to authorize use of force against iraq.
afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#House_of_Representatives
House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).
Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).
wow you douche bag liberals are really easy to prove wrong......
and before you use the "bush lied" bulls**t, how stupid were the dems to fall for bush's lies if they were even lies in the first place????
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Republicans are not conservatives. If they were, their party name would be CONSERVATIVES.
Pelosi is just a hypocrite, and has been called on it so many times, even by her own party. How this woman still hold's a seat of power and supporter's I will never understand.
yangj08Jul 14, 2010
And it couldn't possibly be that there's something you're not noticing for some reason or other? Perhaps your head has been... clouded with your worldview, perceptions, or something else?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
How about doing the world a favor, check your own ass before assuming it stink's less than mine.
As far as my comment, it's factual. She was called on her own pork-barrel spending last year with her private jet being paid for by the tax payers. As a politician it's her job to answer to the public. She is a Civil Servant after all.
Just to finish my reply to you, What in the reply I made in this thread even comes close to telling you I have any sort of "worldview", or a clouded perception. Never once have I ever perscribed to a single idealogy in my life. Unlike most people here, I have a brain, and I do use it quite often. Now if you are done attempting to deride the conversation, or my argument, please feel free to do whatever it is that you were doing before trying to judge me.
yangj08Jul 14, 2010
How about jumping to the conclusion that just because you see no redeeming qualities in this person that the people who are voting to keep her in power are irrational?
negative4Jul 14, 2010
Is this article about the GOP? No? Then stfu.
propethicJul 14, 2010
If you're satisifed with politicans making empty lip service to real issues, there's something wrong with you.
negative4Jul 14, 2010
I never said I was. I'm just saying Dems can't claim the high ground because they are part of the problem too.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
hey dumbf**k, the dems voted to go as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution
so 39% in the house and 58% in the senate voted to authorize use of force against iraq.
afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use ...
House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).
Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).
freakereJul 14, 2010
algaeturd:
I couldn't digg your comment enough.
thank you and have a great day!
menoyouJul 14, 2010
Wow, liberals really do say the darnedest things. lmao
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Seriously though, since when does she pay for the cost's of her running that private jet all around the country? Does she pay for it out of her own pocket with her, "Pay as we go", slogan BS. How about these politician's start asking the people what the f**k we want done? It's our money FFS.
coelacanthJul 14, 2010
Here is what you said, and I fixed it for you...
"As typical conservatives have their facts wrong. Bush's deficit increase far surpasses Obama's."
Year: GDP-US$ billion Federal Deficit -fedpct GDP
The Deficit under Bush:
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
2006 13398.9 1.85
2007 14077.6 1.14
2008 14441.4 3.18
2008 14258.2 9.91 <-- End of 2008 the 10 months of '08 before obama was elected were his fault... /s
Under Obama:
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
There called Facts... look into them...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
Link?
You didn't think I was simply going to take your word for it, did you?
coelacanthJul 15, 2010
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2004_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
I did not originally write that. I copied it from above in the comments, and made an addendum as I stated earlier... BUT, there is a link with those numbers for you to review...
Also, why do you want a link saying that obama was elected at the end of 08? I feel like that is common knowledge...
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
they're
coelacanthJul 15, 2010
i did not type that, I just copied from an earlier post... please look there, and see their post. Also, being a grammar nazi is not fun, because most people find they're the worst type of trolls...
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
I
madrigalianJul 14, 2010
Below I added another point missed by the "blame Bush" line of reasoning...
"As typical conservatives have their facts wrong. Bush's deficit increase far surpasses Obama's."
Year: GDP-US$ billion Federal Deficit -fedpct GDP
The Deficit under Bush:
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
*2006 13398.9 1.85 <-- Pelosi becomes speaker, Reid and the Dems take over congress, the budget and all fiscal responsibilities.
2007 14077.6 1.14
2008 14441.4 3.18
2008 14258.2 9.91 <-- End of 2008 the 10 months of '08 before obama was elected were his fault... /s
Under Obama:
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
There called Facts... look into them...
angelbunnyJul 14, 2010
The speaker has nothing to do with fiscal policy though..
madrigalianJul 14, 2010
Congress is the fiscal policy. As speaker she has everything to do with it.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
that must be why they said:
"Pelosi becomes speaker, Reid and the Dems take over Congress"......
propethicJul 14, 2010
USE THE REPLY BUTTON
madrigalianJul 15, 2010
ok... go f**k yourself.
coelacanthJul 15, 2010
do you really think that years of subprime lending, and years of deregulating the market were the dems fault for 2 years before the market tanked. It seems to make more sense that it took many years to cause this problem, and just blaming the people right before it happened is just wishful thinking.
madcapitalJul 15, 2010
Certainly you could trace this all the way back to Clinton, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the sub prime, bank suing democrats that forced out all the bad loans and continue to milk us through Fannie and Freddie abuse and corruption.
tao52nycJul 14, 2010
I couldn't listen to more than half of that before clicking away in disgust. I can't believe she can say that s**t with a straight face.
bloodwineJul 14, 2010
Women are especially good at rationalizing anything.
justin676Jul 14, 2010
It's the plastic surgery. She can't say anything WITHOUT a straight face.
isenborgJul 14, 2010
The gall of this witch is appalling. Voters, you can only blame yourselves for this.
justin676Jul 14, 2010
Blame San Francisco.
isenborgJul 14, 2010
Paygo! LMFAO, then crying in the fetal position. We are doomed.
zippy757Jul 14, 2010
Hey, pro-Pelosi folks, in her district...why do you vote her in year after year... Can you please provide your side of the story here ?
richmomzJul 14, 2010
People in her district are probably so stoned I'm surprised they can even make it to the voting booth.
partrowJul 14, 2010
Citizens, even those slow to catch on, are catching onto what Pelosi and her team have done to us.
Remember in November.
wileepeyoteJul 14, 2010
"Remember in November."
Remember what in November? Vote for the Republicans who will do the same thing?
We need more choices, both parties have pillaged our national treasury for their own causes.
dhalsim007Jul 14, 2010
Major LOLs on this one, especially the "pay-as-you-go" comments. The Democrats in the House AND Senate have been breaking this rule all term. What exactly did they "cut" to spend that $1 TRILLION in stimulus? Nothing. What did they cut to pay for the new healthcare initiatives that will eventually bankrupt us 10-20 years down the road? Nothing.
As for "saving $1.3 Trillion" on health care ... that's such a lie, I don't know where to begin...
mytbouf21Jul 14, 2010
That bitch is f**kING retarded.
iptunnellJul 14, 2010
FTV: "As Obama has said, and he says everything so well, ..." Ha! That's enough right there!
I think I saw his hand up the back of her shirt - Pilosi the puppet.
holdemrulesJul 14, 2010
She's the only recent politician I can think of that is a bigger liar and dumber than Bush. Only California would elect someone like her.
traniJul 15, 2010
zzzzzzzz. When is it Biden's turn to talk? He at least seasons his BS with a little humor.
diggerlaterJul 15, 2010
This woman makes me cringe. Get her off my internetz!