Lucky...

Amazing what happens when a Republican Congress forces a balanced budget and cuts capital gains tax. The capital gains cut of 8% was minimal in contrast to the 9% increase in income tax that Clintion and the Dem congress passed in 93. Also, note how receipts fell off right after that capital gains cut?

Attached. Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama%E2%80%99s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/ Hope and Change! Well at least you're not submitting some Heritage Foundation partisan rhetoric; thank god.

The same one Clinton had to shit down the giv under to get them to act right? Yea, we see who was running the show. Also, the economy was well fixed with the tax increase in 93, under a Dem congress, the latter Repiblican congressional years were mostly gridlock. Another guy not good at math. For the 1,000,000th time, the Dems had a slight lead in the House and a tie in the Senate: 49-49-2 with the vice pres breaking ties. I hoe this makes it easy for you. Oh, BTW, newsflash: LIEBERMAN IS NO WHERE NEAR A DEM, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER CAMPAIGNING FOR MCSAME TO BE A DEM THING. And that little process at the end where the president signs it or vetoes it, as Clinton did. fun to be a revisionist, huh? Oh, btw, it's teh pres who initiates the process by submitting a budget proposal to the House. Fun to be vague too, huh?

For the record, in January 2009: CBO projects that the deficit this year will total$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. Sounds like they nailed it. I know, the economy would have fixed itself if Obama would have left it alone, or perhaps tax cuts, my friends. Yea, always worked in teh past.

I agree with the essence of this, however how Obama entered the argument is uncertain, esp since he hasn't served anywhere near 2 years and the numbers can't be tallied. Also, which Bush; GWB? Alos, comparing Obama's inheritance to that of GWB's is also silly. Disagree. Since WWI, the top brkt has only been in teh 20's twice; leading to the GD and as that fascist pig cut them to 28%. The 30's are also a danger zone too, cutting taxes from Clinton's 40% brkt was stupid, hell, even Eisenhower left them at 91%. Maybe high, but the top brkt should stay around the 50% area. As for the spending assertion, of course.

Because he did, it isn't real fucking difficult to research. Jebus, kids: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Look at: 2. National Budget: 2nd graph down: See the little bubble on teh red line where it jumps above the 0 line? Next graph down, even as a % of teh GDP, still jumps up. Guess what? Cut soending and raise taxes and teh whole thing heals, you know, the opposite of the turd party; cut taxes (my friends) and increase spending as all goes to fuck. As did GHWB, he cut military troops as many as Clinton did, he s/b given credit too. As for good or bad, show me how cutting the military that spends 8 times that of #2, matches the rest of the world dollar for dollar to be a bad thing. Yes, it grew for the first 6 or so years until it became a surplus. See, when you inherit a 290B defict, which GHWB's last year was, 12 straight years of ~250B/yr debt growth, it's idiotic for anyone to think the next year can be automatically positive, the debt subsiding, etc. The debt never fell under Clinton, but it's astronomical that he took 12 years of massive debt incr to the tune of 250B/yr and under Clinton, > 3B increase from just 900B as Fascist pig Ronnie inherited, it fell to just a 33B increase his last year. If you took the surplus and paid down the debt, it would have EASILY been a debt reduction his last year, but Clinton wasnted to do teh silly thing, as Repiblicans see it, and be responsible to leave a surplus so the gov could operate with that and not borrow more. The debt growth under Clinton grew less every year until it was almost extinguished his last year, that's reform. Ahh, those pesly pseudo surplusses . Gov data shows differently. Support your assertion. Also, show the value of such borrowed funds and teh impact of the federal deficit/debt numbers. Spent on what? This makes no sense and has no supporting data. So now you're semantically slicing great fiscal performance? I haven't seen this sliced this way, but w/o the numbers in front of me, is it relevant to worry whether the debt is public or gov debt as long as it falls or at least the massive, 12-year slaughter is greatly slowed? Is your side relegated to demeaning an 8-year performance where the debt was almost leveled and the deficit turned to a surplus, into that of a semantic game of abstraction? I see and the debt increase didn't go from 12 years of 250B increase, shaved every year of Clinton's 8, fell to a 33B increase his last year? I see, works wonders when you ignore gov data. Nothing projected, we know the fiscal numbers under Clinton. The cycles have repeated: - Fascist Pig Ronnie: took a stable deficit/debt picture at 900B and turned it on it's ass with tax cuts and irresponsible spending. - GHWB tried to fix it and was "unelected" by his own party for it as he raisd taxes a small amount. - Clinton inherited a mess, raised taxes a modest amount and cut spending as GHWB did, receipts soared and the debt/deficit numbers revealed this. Hard to argue with people who just dislike gov data and therefore revise. - GWB inherited a gem, cut taxes, gave away the surplus and grossly overspent ala Reagan, blew the debt up 5T and left a total failed mess - biuggest since teh GD. Your arguments are just between hillarious and boringly innacurate.

History has shown, raise taxes on the rich and the money is there. Look at the Eisenhower years, he left taxes up at 91% top brkt and the debt fell during a couple years of his terms. Look at fascist pig Ronnie, he cut taxs from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the whole mess went vertical. It's not rocket science, kids. Clinton raised taxes from 31% top brkt to 40%, enjoyed the computer age and together teh fed had more tax revs than they knew what to do with. Obama will hopefully raise the top brkt to 50% or so and he can then have surplusses.

Tax cuts, my friends..... worked well for Hoover, why not repeat history. Hell, McSame was probably a teenager (jk) during the GD, he should have known tax cuts in times of fiscal emergency are for boobs and idiots.

Kinda makes that whole, "Nobel Prize" flap seem like a bad idea, huh? Whether he deserved it or not, he did well and the prize did some good. I wonder what the history of prize winners donating the money is?

Nope, altho I think social svs legisltion needs to be addressed, organizing in a labor sense is not what they need. This is just another angle for unions to get dues. Speaking of which, how do they collecct dues, from unemployment? I think a grassroots-type effort is essential in reagrd to writing to legislators, even picketing outside legislator's offices, but to organize in a union sense is retarded. It's about as retarded as gov unions that cannot strike; they have no teeth. In a corpo-fascist nation, the people with money don't care if you're pissed, all they know is the bottom line. Not working gives you no leverage. Vote for other legislators, have a job and collectively threaten to leave, these things have teeth and get results - where's the leverage with unemployed people? It's not as if this country is based upon compassion.

Hey Mike, you're right, I woulda lost, BUT ON THE HIGH END 4.8 X 1.2 = 5.76% not 5.9%; I woulda lost ....

As I tried to bet Mike (Mneal), it will be within 20% of 4.8% either way. I still feel that way. You are so far off the mark you don't even know why your wrong. 4.8% isn't within 1000% either way. No shit. No shit?

Yes

You're right, it's 5.9%; my bad.

Correct. The President makes proposals - Congress then creates the budget. They are NOT constrained to rubber-stamp the President's proposal - you may recall the fight between the Republican 104th Congress and President Clinton over the budget. Right, and who won that one? Oh yea, mostly the pres got what he wanted. So your point is that the president usually gets what he wants. In the case of your favorite president, he did get what he wanted all the way around: - Iraq/AFG war - Overtime Law - Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act On and on and on. Hoover's economy was caustic, as he did nothing substantive as compared with the mess at hand. But that was singular in that the entire problem revolved around the sick economy, banks, etc. GWB's was caustic from all angles in that GWB fucked the nation in many diverse ways.

Too bad your memory doesn't recall who was running Congress (you know, the people that actually DRAFT those spending bills) in 2007. Well, let's see, it was the Dems who had control of the House by a small margin and the senate was tied with the R's having tie-breaker control.

Just think, they could strike and sit down on the job they don't have.

This was the entirety of your response: If you still think Hoover "let the economy fix itself", you obviously didn't do any of that reading I suggested a while back. That's not an argument, that's rhetoric. Make an argument and we can go from there, I've posted ample data and evidence. I recommend you quit name/book dropping and actually make a point. Running from teh issue via dropping names of books you've never read is typical of you, show us what Hoover did to remedy from the Oct 29, 29 kickoff of the GD and we can go from there, and pls do provide citations with quotes, preferably with legislative info. I get it, you and Hoover are misunderstood victims. He's like the 8th worst president of all time but it's teh damn liberals who run those collegiate polls.

Infl rate high Unemp at 7.5% and stable Deficit stable and not real high Debt stable and not real high http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Set the dates to: 1970 to 1990 if they change to default. Shambles? Not nearly as bad as now, but with unemp at 7.5% and infl rates high, it was bad. Misery index was coined before Carter took office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) The 2 components aren't equal, as unemployment is far more devastating than int rates. BTW, the Jan 77 unemp rate is exactly what the Jan 81 unemp rate was, they were both stable and not greatly changing, so you are wrong again - shocker. The issue with the 70's had more to do with OPEC than anything. You can't reasonably blame Carter for teh auto industry or oil prices, since that was an issue long before. Nah, the Reagan recession was worse, unemp was 10.8% due to contraction of the money supply and general Reaganomics. Not to mention the GDP wasn't nearly as trashed as it was with this recent Republican Great Recession, teh banks weren't on teh verge of collapse, etc. Things were flat and tight, not upside down. In 2 stages; 70% to 50%, then 50% to 38%. Later to 28%. Then why did the debt grow so fast if people were paying such taxes? Reagan's tax policy helped the rich. At the cost of the debt tripling. Also, it has been beaten since, during the Clinton years, made Reagan's faux success look timid; Clinton achieved success while simultaneously fixing the economy. It was a period of greed since the wealth disparity spread. These taxes you claim the rich had to pay is your falacy. BTW, unemployment rose as the interest rate fell, that was the offset of the misery factor; infl rates are far more a part of the index than unemp. Also, Reagan's policies took unemployment 3.3% higher than he inherited, a stable but slightly high 7.5% to 10.8%. He actually cut the military and raised taxes on his own accord. He knew crappy drawers really blew things up and wante t o fix them. He raised the top rate an additional 3% and was 'deelected' for it. I think he implemented a luxury tax too. It wasn't that mild and it was spurred by tax cuts, esp the one in 86 that cut the top brkt from 38% to 28%. Accurate facts not your strong point? Unemp was between 5.6% and 7.6% under Carter, 5.0% and 7.8% under GHWB; you have no point to make, do you? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Really? Under Reagan in the latter years and GHWB rates were still high: http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/MortgageRates/30-year-fixed-historical.jpg Hell, even in 83 they were high. But in 90-92 they were quite high too. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS IGNORE THAT REAGAN'S POLICIES TRIPLED THE DEBT, CARRIED OVER TO THE GHWB PRESIDENCY AND ADDED YET ANOTHER TRILLION, THEN IT TOOK CLINTON 8 YEARS AND 1.6 TO GET IT UNDER CONTROL AND THEN WE CAN AGREE THAT REAGAN WAS A BIG SUCCESS. Why is it you guys never wanna talk the Reagan debt? The debt, which had been here since before we were even a country, was ok at 930B; very manageable. Reagan's policies took 2 presidents 12 years and at 5.5T to bring it under control.

If you still think Hoover "let the economy fix itself", you obviously didn't do any of that reading I suggested a while back. I don't take requests from people who can't make arguments. See, now it's your burden to show us how Hoover did major substantial things to fix the economy. A few roads, Hoover Dam projects were quite obviously too small. If you had anything to add, you should.

Hard to apportion it, but it is a problem whether the economy is good or shitty. That's why hyperinflation such as we had under GWB is so horrible. I bought my house in 98 and it grew at 4-5k/year, I wished it grew faster, but that was the boring stability then. Looking back, that was perfect. I don't own that house, but it is now assessed at the same exact value as I paid for it in 98. So much for hyperinflation. Clinton-enomics are far better that RW garbage policy. They could have been able to afford the house but walked due to never having any equity or even breaking even . But yes, people pulling money out of their mortgage was teh cause of that, along with lenders setting up the ponzi scheme. Right, unsecured debt is a mutual problem. However, I think it should be law that unsecured debt be no more than + to 1 year salary, probably = to 1/2 year would be better. I don't think even the fed chairman can figure out US finances, so we're all kinda making guesses based upon previous performance. Thin gs we do know based upon past performance are: - Tax cuts don't turn out well - unsecured credit is a 2-edge sword; w/o it retaolers would suffer, with it the whole credit industry is hosed - Stability, not greed yields the best result

Better for overall economic recovery for the masses. No, I wasn't referring to rich lawyers hoarding more cash.

Fair enough. But let's be real, altho we will know where the bottom would have taken us, just they won't ever know in June 1932 with the massive tax increase, this wouldn't have spun around in 2 years. I partially agree, but the structure was there so we just pumped more blood into it. I think cutting teh phat off the top would be a great start at GM, which I think some of that was done. It's easier to fix a turd than to push out a whole new one. Rememebr, autos are aor #4 product last I checked. I agree there, the GM thing was a quick necessary fix, IMO, but for long, sustained growth we need just that. I think he is pumping cash that way. It was prolly too wordy, all I meant was to do nothing and let it roll. Either way, let's not get semantic. The word, "objective" is truely not literal, but utopian. Anyway, we know the deal - Do nothing - Stimulus - Tax cuts

So why lay off employees if your demand has been the same? Or has your product demand diminished? Taxes haven't been raised; not sure of your dillema other than not liking what might be coming. You haven't stablished why you've laid people off/cut hours; has the demand fallen off? OK, here we go, so the demand for your product/svs has been diminished due to the recession started buring the GWB years. SO now you have to lay off employees and you want to blame it on the proposed HC, which hasn't been a factor either way, or what? Other than you hating anything Democratic, you ahve yet to establish how anything Obama has hurt your business, you just chant the rhetoric. The stimulus has saved your ass. Who's fault are the premium increases? Obama? How? The ins cos are jacking rates regardless of anyone/anything. Just think, if the public option passed, your employees would have that covered on their own and it would take a burden off of you as an employer. OK but the economy has only picked up since Obama's stimulus; you still have failed to make an argument against the stimulus. Perhaps some glasses are in order for you. In the very passage I posted and you replied to, I wrote: He also increased the top brkt from 31% to 40%, ... In case that's too difficult to understand, that means a tax increase, so you are arguing amoot point; we both agree that Clinton raised taxes. Here's a little help for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 So the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 didn't cut spending? Hmmm, ok - only if you say so. BTW, Clinton shut down the gov to get the R's to act right, Newt's head rolled over that one . What has Obama spent money on? - Economic recovery - Iraq War - What else? - Where's the waste?

Bunch af asshats throw billions of our dollars at the economy and you think it's amazing. NOT our dollars. Borrowed dollars. And the bailouts and the borrowing started well before Obama was inaugurated. Never said Dem or Rep asshats. I'm aware of when the spending orgy started. I'm laughing that Lucky thinks growth is "amazing" after that. Then you're laughing at your own inability to understand simple data. GDP went from -6.4% to +5.9% in a year. You can act like you don't understand, but the numbers are simple; care to talk data or just more aimless static? Some day maybe you'll stop long enough to actually read what you're responding to. I'm not questioning whether the growth is amazing or not. You seem to be 'amazed' that it happened. I'm saying that it goddamned better happen if you throw all that money at the economy. What we haven't seen yet is the backlash...inflation. We've lit the fuse. Instead of enjoying the recovery, you're nay-saying. Under Clinton inflation was very small. Let's looka t what he did: - Cut spending - Raise taxes - Keep interest rates moderate + The US Dollar was amazingly strong, stability reigned, taxes were only slightly higher, jobs were plentiful. Let's follow that model and I think Obama is, but he has this mess to fix first. And the mess had to get fixed before anything mattered, like inflation. That's like worrying about waxing your car before you paint it. The fuse was lit in 03-04ish as the morgage mess was started and int rates dropped and catalyzed the mess. I would call the stimulus a putting out of te fire. IOW's, if Obama did nothing, what would have happened? We woudl have revisited the Great Depression.