GDP Falls by 2.9% in Q1 14

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Will any of you guys address the discussion of how we pay off our DEBT? Does the $112,000 in DEBT racked up by Obama even register with your guys, or possibly concern you guys? This is real money with real ramifications.


Deficits are also not a measurement of economic growth ... but Economic growth is clearly a topic Boilerman is frightened to talk about. He prefers to deflect to the deficit instead - which is ironic given his passionate support for the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation in history (the Bush Tax Cuts)...and given the fact that Obama has cut the deficit in half while growing spending at a smaller rate than any administration in over 50 years. But whatever. Republicans bust the budget and Democrats clean it up. Thats the cycle from the last 2 decades.

And that cycle is getting ready to turn again. John Boehner's first order of business in the new Congress is to give us a new CBO director that uses the same math that promised us the Bush Tax Cuts would yield 20 years of budget surpluses. People like Boilerman are big believers in it. We can look forward to some great budget magic acts in the near future. Residents of Kansas have already had a front row seat in their state.

Boehner to put David Copperfield in charge of CBO

---

I agree 100% with your last 3 paragraphs

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Everybody stop what you are doing. Boilerman has an off topic question and is too lazy to find the answer himself...so we should find it for him. Nevermind the growing economy despite Boilerman's predictions to the oppossitte. Thats not important right now even though its the tiopic of the thread. What is important is the deficit that Obama "created" with all his "big government spending".

As you can clearly see - the deficit was created by the president Boilerman voted for twice and its come down drastically since a big-spending socialist took the reigns.



The other premise of Boilerman's question is false. Big surprise. The deficits under Obama are not due to his "new spending". There has been virtually no new spending since the stimulus program...which means we were largely continuing spending from laws already on the books (many which have Boilerman's passionate support).


The deficit was largely created by a massive unpaid war (that Boilerman supported), massive unreconciled tax cuts (that Boilerman supported), and a massive economic recession due to unregulated capitalism (that Boilerman supported). The president has made progress on addressing all three of these issues. And lets be thankful he has. If the president allowed all of Boilerman's advocated policies to continue the deficit per capita Boilerman complains about would be much, much higher.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Obama agreed with the Bush spending and decided to double down on it? How are we going to pay for the $112,000 per tax payer borrowed by Obama?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Obama agreed with the Bush spending and decided to double down on it? How are we going to pay for the $112,000 per tax payer borrowed by Obama?

---

Obama is not the only one who agreed with Bush's spending. SO did you. Very passionately as I recall for many, many years. I recall your rants about liberals wanting to surrender to the terrorists and take away your hard earned money.

But I have a great idea on how to pay off the Bush-legislated debt that occurred under Obama. Return the dividend and capital gains taxes to their pre-Bush levels. ... Actually I would even go further and make those tax rates the same as those for standard income (like paychecks). You would have a balanced budget almost overnight and treat income from investors the same way as workers.

I bet Boilerman disagrees. Afterall, he supported the budget busting tax cuts even as he now complains about the budget they busted. Funny, aint it?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Whether Democrats controlled both houses or not for two years Bush would have vetoed it right away eliminating it from your timeline, then changing any thing to revenue positive during a major recession would have been down right stupid and they recognized it. So essentially you want to blame them for not cleaning up the republican mess again correct? Or am I missing something? Borrowing money to keep the bottom from falling out was way cheaper than the alternative. So a deficit is to be expected until recovery occurs. The problem stems from republicans once again handing out big business passes on tax issues and the same for the well to do. Nobody wants to pay taxes but all of the carve outs have reduced the revenue that used to come in generating deficits. I can talk slower if it will help you understand though.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Obama agreed with the Bush spending and decided to double down on it? How are we going to pay for the $112,000 per tax payer borrowed by Obama?

---

Obama is not the only one who agreed with Bush's spending. SO did you. Very passionately as I recall for many, many years. I recall your rants about liberals wanting to surrender to the terrorists and take away your hard earned money.

But I have a great idea on how to pay off the Bush-legislated debt that occurred under Obama. Return the dividend and capital gains taxes to their pre-Bush levels. ... Actually I would even go further and make those tax rates the same as those for standard income (like paychecks). You would have a balanced budget almost overnight and treat income from investors the same way as workers.

I bet Boilerman disagrees. Afterall, he supported the budget busting tax cuts even as he now complains about the budget they busted. Funny, aint it?

---