do you think george washington was a thief? he redistributed wealth using government force, during the whiskey rebellion the fact remains that i didn't say they set any rate they provide the definitions you asked for
See my post number 48, in which I had provided the sources to the data for these figures in this post (once again, as I have done many times in the past), the day before this post and thread were modded. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=345190&page=5&p=1063653153#post1063653153
See my post number 48, in which I had provided the sources to the data for these figures in this post (once again, as I have done many times in the past), the day before this post and thread were modded. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=345190&page=5&p=1063653153#post1063653153
Absolutely untrue. I provided the sources to the data for these figures in this post (once again, as I have done many times in the past), the day before my posts were modded. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=345190&page=5&p=1063653153#post1063653153 Any member here can go the links I provided in this thread to the Congressional Budget Office and Bureau of Labor Statistics web pages and verify for themselves the source data for my figures, and thus verify that your claim that I "completely make up stats" is entirely bogus.
You would support cutting non-defense spending, increasing defense spending, and cutting taxes? Maybe we can get on the same page?
And it looks like I'm going to have to re-post the sources over and over again, as certain members get away with repeatedly demanding that I re-post them.
We don't need to increase defense spending and cut non-defense spending. And we can't afford to cut taxes more. We've already had enough austerity over the past 4 years and we can't afford to almost triple the debt like Reagan did.
More like Reagan would be the quote. Spending increased 40% during the same time period Reagan was in office as spending has actually decreased, unprecedented in modern history, under Obama.
I'm not sure what you are advocating for, economic policy wise. What would you do if in charge of spending?
I would not have cut it three of the past four years and eliminate 700,000 government jobs while the economy was trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years, as has happened. We can do it like Clinton did, who inherited a deficit that proportionately is even bigger than they one we have today. Spending was never actually cut under Clinton, but the growth of spending was limited so that spending grew slower than GDP, and thus fell as a percentage of GDP. He also passed a large tax increase that flooded the Treasury with additional revenues. The drastic cuts in spending we've seen over the past four years, and 700,000 government jobs eliminated, are the wrong thing to do in a slack economy where there is already insufficient demand.
Generally smart businesses take advantage of taking more market share. - - - Updated - - - No, anecdotal evidence is not evidence of statistical fact. But I'm sure there are lots of conservatives out their who like to blame Obama for their every woe. We see them posting here all the time.
Given the frequency of times we see conservatives saying baseless things like how Obama's policies are at fault for the economy or that he's grown government spending, I just about need to. - - - Updated - - - It didn't get turned off.
Reading your OP, then post #2 and #3, seems you believe that somehow the economy is controlled by government and certainly political? Sure there are things the government does or can do which effect industry, but at the end of the day, it's the consumers who place demands on products and services which decide the strength of the economy. Unless you believe the government should provide everyone with a debit card with a $25K limit and a no pay-back plan? Yes the government is also a consumer of the private sector, and the government can spend more or just hand it out free, but all of these attempts are temporary and don't do anything to sustain long-term consumer demand. What can the government actually do in order to greatly increase domestic consumer demand? What can government do to greatly increase foreign demand and US exports...this is where I would be focusing since the US has 314 million people and outside of the US it is 6.9 BILLION. Perhaps this is as good as it gets for a couple of decades...
Generally yes. But Obama is exceptionally hostile towards small businesses. Those who tried to expand in my industry under Obama died. I suppose they had a brilliantly intelligent bankruptcy. Didn't I just say that?
Not yet unlike European nations who were told to get their debt to GDP ratios under control or get cut off from loans.
o Turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate and shedding 700,000+ jobs a month o 48 straight months of private sector employment growth. o 4 straight years of GDP growth o 105% increase in the stock markets since taking office o Halved the deficit in 4 years. o Got Osama bin Laden. o Saved 2-3 million jobs with stimulus package o First decrease in total spending in a year in decades - 3 times. o Stock markets up 145% since bottom of the recession in 2009 o Over 8 million additional private sector jobs created since Jan 2010 o Oil production increasing for the first time in decades. o Ousted Muamar Kadaffi at 1/1000 the cost of the Iraq war o Reduced the deficit by a then record $207 billion, down 16%, in 2012. o Reduced the deficit by a new record $420 billion, down 37%, in 2013 o Record corporate profits o Passed health care reform that will provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans o Unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 6.7% o U.S. becomes world's top oil and energy producer o Passed financial regulation reform to prevent another housing bubble fiasco. o Diplomatically coerced Syria to give up WMD without war or loss of single American life. o Lowest rate of spending increases of any president in modern history o On-budget deficit has decreased every full fiscal year he's been in office. o US domestic oil use decreasing o Net creation of millions of people employed despite inheriting a economy losing 700,000+ jobs a month. If Obama had been a white Republican conservatives would be hailing him as a savior. - - - Updated - - - So then what is your point?
Since the economy has been expanding and adding jobs with record profits for four years how, the only conclusion is that your industry is an outlier. Don't think so.
You miss a lot of things. By 2008 the recession was already a done deal, a fait accompli. - - - Updated - - - You've never refuted that either. I back up my claims. Do your own research.
Simply put, an economy is healthier with LESS government debt as opposed to MORE government debt, unless you're a banker of course.
you have no clue what you're talking about Redistribution of income and wealth or redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, charity, divorce or tort law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth
republicans would of got no blame had they let democrats run the show, as they did everything they could to tank the economy under Obama so they could then turn around and blame Obama, that they do get creit for - and even with all that, Obama will still pass off the economy to his successor in better shape then he got it - if only republicans could do the same, heck I would of been happy if republicans could of just passed the economy off in the same condition they got it in
Apparently YOU have no idea what you're talking about....... Collecting taxes for the services specifically enumerated within the constitution IS NOT wealth redistribution. It doesn't transfer from one entity to another. It's used to pay for GOVERNMENT SERVICES....... Collecting taxes through government FORCE from those who earn and handing to another who didn't earn, is wealth redistribution DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. See the difference????????????
