Would anybody advise that this is a good plan?

Not true at all. I have lots of retorts, like this one, showing just how great revenues were under Bush and his tax cuts compared to his predecessor.

Revenues - 2005$

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310..0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

The only time I say people are being dishonest, is when they make dishonest assertions, like this one:

 

It has been explained repeatedly to you.

Facts aren't made up except by you.

52 months of job growth, full employment, growing revenues and declining deficits.

You just can't stand it can you.

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
And deficits down to $161 billion and falling the last year of Republican control.

What was the deficit in
2004
2005
2006
2007
?

2008 was a Democrat budget stop dishonestly attributing it to Republican.

 

Though there was an interesting upturn in receipts from 2004 through 2007.

Year % GDP
2004 -- 16.1
2005 -- 17.3
2006 -- 18.2
2007 -- 18.5

 

Over $100 billion his first two years.

Which helps explain why government is such a failure.

You ignorance has been shown over and over, first claiming that the President budget submission has any weight in law and then claiming that the Democrats controlled the budget in 2007.

So you should can the snarky comments which make you look foolish.

 

Were Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney leftists? Afterall, Cheney said "Reagan PROVED that deficits do not matter", eh?

Back in the day, I remember saying "Cheney is nuts!". All I got was grief from the right side.

So what are we to make of all this rightwing flippity-floppity spew? That deficits are okay as long as they are OUR deficits?

 

There was a time when we could handle 2.8% GDP deficits (the 40 year average). Now we are dealing with 9% to 11.4% GDP deficits! A family with one or two wage earners can afford a certain level of debt, for example purchasing a car and a home "on time", without destroying their financial future. If the same family goes bonkers and maxes out all available credit to the point where they have no hope of ever meeting the interest payments, let alone ever being able to pay off the various principles, they have willfully chosen to commit themselves to financial ruin.

 

It has been much higher than that with no (or not as much) rightwing outrage. You can lower the ratio by increasing GDP, which rightwing policies appear to be in opposition to. You can also reduce the deficit by (heaven forbid!) raising revenue. The tax cuts were a killer.

 

And the premise of that statement is what?

And the best way to raise revenues is what?

Revenues were 44% higher and the deficit had declined 3 years down to $161 billion. What is the premise of your statement?

 

Bush took office in 2001.

 

Bush became president in Jan 2001 and passed his biggest tax cut that year.

 

You repeatedly cannot back up facts that you make up.
[/quote]

You just can't tell the truth, can you.

There was no "sustained" 52 months of job growth.

Please identify the facts you claim I've made up. Unless you're just lying again.

 

During a slowdown that quickly turned into a recession. His first budget was 2002.

 

The economy never decreased in any year.

So what? He took office in 2001.

 

All backed up and remain unrefuted.

I can't help but tell it since the facts are on my side.

December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month OfJob Growth.
Publication: Business Wire
Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.

The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation

* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.

* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

* The Federal budget deficit is down to 1.2 percent of GDP (in FY07), well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to the highest tax revenues on record and a $250 billion drop in the deficit over the last three years.

* U.S. exports in October 2007 were 13.7 percent higher than exports in October 2006.

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-indicators/5848024-1.html

That the 2008 budget was a Republican budget, that the Clinton tax rate increase did not slow down the recovery he inherited, that we did not have 52 months of solid economic performance with increasing revenues, low unemployment and falling deficits.

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
During a slowdown that quickly turned into a recession. His first budget was 2002.

Notice how you dishonestly state it as a whole year, instead of quarter or month.

His first budget was 2002 that's what. The economy was already in a slowdown that's what. It went into full blow recession within weeks of his taking office that's what.

 

By some standards, the recession you are referring to technically started in mid-to-late 2000, around the same time that the tech bubble burst (though you might say that it really did not burst if you had a casual look at some of today's more prestigious tech-related symbols). However, the most publicly recognized significant recession of that era took place around the last few months of 2001. By the term "recognized", I mean that a a variety of indicators were quite pessimistic. Specifically, I can still remember reports of rising unemployment and weak stock trading during those last few months of 2001.

 

He passed tax cuts and mailed out refunds in 2001, didn't he?

LMAO! No, I don't notice. Tell us how I "dishonestly" state it as a whole year, when I wrote "in any year". LOL

He passed tax cuts and mailed out refunds in 2001, didn't he?

The economy never contracted in any year. In its worst year, it grew 3.4%.

But so what. Bush was president from Jan 2001.

 

52 months through Dec 2007?

More conservative propaganda.

I guess they just ignored these months of decreasing employment, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website:

Sep 2006 136514
Oct 2006 136506

Jun 2007 137687
Jul 2007 137638

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
Total Nonfarm, seasonally adjusted.

There was no 52 consecutive months of growing employment under Bush. Just more conservative mythology.

Bush and his tax cuts have the worst performance on job creation of any recent president, and if it weren't for government hiring there would have been no job growth at all. The only thing you've been able to claim was this "52 months" of job growth. Which we can no see is just more make believe.

 

They are comparable. Taxation is like taking on a second and then third job to pay bills racked up by a spend-it-all spouse. Eventually the supporting spouse has had enough.
Issuing currency is like kiting checks and the law will catch up with you.

That's all for todays econ 101 lesson for you.

 

Sounds like you're making an argument that governments and their ability to issue currency should actually be more responsible. I'd buy that.

 

Here's a really good answer to you. :

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...-day-democrats-took-control/question-2077089/

 

Thanks for your irrelevant attempt to participate, but your data has nothing to do with the false claim that employment increased for 52 consecutive months.

However, as your your post, you can see the true state of affairs in 2007 on this chart:

 

This is a message to you K, it is now 2011, and we are talking about an amendment, why do you not want that?

 

Obsess over what Mello, saving our nation from fiscal disaster? Gee, I don't know, it just seems like the right thing to do, a pity you don't feel that way.

It amazes me that Obama isn't smart enough, or hold strong enough convictions to do the right thing, he is consumed with passing the buck, instead of fixing the problem. Why is that Mello?

Where is the unity speech and accepting responsibility from this president? Why is he not leading? He has become incredibly divisive and the atmosphere he has allowed Washington to have is nothing but toxic. I guess this is what America gets for electing a community organizer.