DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... State of the Union

the problem is, you haven't called him a name. i simply agreed with 40 that people will say stuff like "idiot" and such. just a general agreement.

i have no issues with being on the attack or getting attacked. thats not being a carebear. but name calling around here tends to get into pissing contest that have nothing to do with the thread.

all i'm saying.

You're very welcome. It was more constructive and useful than anything that the emperor might have said.

National Debt 2009...$10 Trillion (Obama takes office)

National Debt 2015...$18 Trillion

That true. To me, it seems that Americans are going to be severely disappointed in the GOP controlled Congress if the next two years go the course that the GOP leadership wants.

I do agree that if Obama were on the ballot against a generic GOP candidate (or any named one for that matter), he would have lost in a landslide. He's deeply unpopular with most Americans.

Can we get some national debt numbers under Reagan or Bush?

Clearly they must have reduced it, given the way you speak?

"What about them?" isn't a coherent argument for the GOP being fiscally responsible.

But you can't speak to that, because they're not fiscally responsible.

you said the same thing in 2012.

and he still won.

i'm starting to think that some of y'all have no idea what you're talking about.

I trust Jesus The Government is on His Shoulders (Isaiah 9:6) I Don't Believe a word that comes out of Washington!!!

Just get your seat belts on. The crash is coming. The GOP may spend slower than the dems,
they still spend.
Like I said before, after the reelection of Boehner, I have no exectation that this government will get smaller whatsoever.
I'm literally speechless in these threads anymore, it's why you don't find me in them like you would have on the old board.
If I could come up with an eloquent paraphrase of a Dickens line from A Christmas Carol like-'The present day Republican Party for limited government? The entire history of the democrat party for the poor man? (Here's where it gets Dickensy). I'll retire to Bedlam!'

Facts about Republican vs Democrats back to the depression era. The article is from Forbes in 2012 and only includes some general statements from Obama's first term. But I would assume that the numbers relating to corporate profit and stock returns are equal or greater in the last 2 years under the pres.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!



There was a time, before primaries, when each party’s platform was really important. Voters didn’t pick a candidate, the party did. Then voters read what policies the party planned to implement should it control the executive branch, and possibly a legislative majority. It was the policies that drew the most attention – not the candidates.

Digging deeper today than shortened debate-level headlines, there is a considerable difference in the recommended economic policies of the two dominant parties.




The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.

Right?

Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (available at Amazon.com) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression.

Gary Hart recently wrote in The Huffington Post,

“Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth.”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is attributed with saying “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.“ So even though we may hold very strong opinions about parties and politics, it is worthwhile to look at historical facts. This book’s authors are to be commended for spending several years, and many thousands of student research assistant man-days, sorting out economic performance from the common viewpoint – and the broad theories upon which much policy has been based. Their compendium of economic facts is the most illuminating document on economic performance during different administrations, and policies, than anything previously published.

Startling Results





CH2_FHP
Chart reproduced by permission of authors

The authors looked at a range of economic metrics including inflation, unemployment, corporate profit growth, stock market performance, household income growth, economy (GDP) growth, months in recession and others. To their surprise (I had the opportunity to interview Mr. Goldfarb) they discovered that laissez faire policies had far less benefits than expected, and in fact produced almost universal negative economic outcomes for the nation!

From this book loaded with statistical fact tidbits and comparative charts, here are just a few that caused me to realize that my long-term love affair with Milton Friedman‘s writing and recommended policies in “Free to Choose” were grounded in a theory I long admired, but that simply have proven to be myths when applied!
•Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
•Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
•Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
•Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
•Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
•The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

The “how and why” of these results is explained in the book. Not the least of which revolves around the velocity of money and how that changes as wealth moves between different economic classes.

We often remember the myth, not the real facts

The book is great at looking past today’s economic myths by using long forgotten facts to set the record straight. For example, in explaining President Reagan‘s great economic recovery of the 1980s it is often attributed to the stimulative impact of major tax cuts (ERTA.) But in reality the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared. So in 1982 Reagan signed (TEFRA) the largest peacetime tax increase in our nation’s history. In his tenure Reagan signed 9 tax bills – 7 of which raised taxes!

The authors do not come down on the side of any specific economic policies. Rather, they make a strong case that a prosperous economy occurs when a president is adaptable to the needs of the country at that time. Adjusting to the results, rather than staunchly sticking to economic theory. And that economic policy does not stand alone, but must be integrated into the needs of society. As Dwight Eisenhower said in a New Yorker interview

“I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.”

Thoughts on the economic policies in this election

The book covers only Presidents Hoover through W. Bush. But as we near this election I asked Mr. Goldfarb his view on the incumbent Democrat’s first 4 years. His response:
•“Obama at this time would rank on par with Reagan
•Corporate profits have risen under Obama more than any other president
•The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance”

As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:
•“The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth
•The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy
•Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services
•Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue.”

There are a lot of reasons to select the party for which you wish to vote. There is more to America than the economy. But, if you think like the Democrats did in 1992 and “it’s about the economy” then you owe it to yourself to read this book. It may challenge your conventional wisdom as it presents – like Joe Friday said – “just the facts.”

Whatever the case under Reagan or anyone else, it still took us 200+ years to get to $10trill. It took Obama what, five to add on another $8trill?

stop. it didn't take us 200 yards to get to 10 tril. your boy bush added a nice chuck of that during his term.

Someone asked how this would make someone "poor". Well, maybe it won't make someone poor, but his plans would cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Capital gains tax can hit a single taxpayer, IIRC, starting at roughly $37,000 in combined income. There's your "rich" taxpayer.

Now, what qualifies as a capital gains? If you have a mutual fund that is currently taxes, then every time your fund sells a stock, and realizes a gain, you get a 1099, whether you yourself sold anything, or not.

The ACA actually discourages marriage between 2 people with upper middle class incomes, and investment accounts. If a married couple jointly makes over $450K, or in that range, then they are also hit with an additional 3.8% ACA capital gains tax. However, if they are 2 single people, each making $250K or so, then they do not pay that surcharge.

This sure is family friendly. I'm "sure" that they will fix this in an update of the law, and take steps to help single taxpayers. Sure I am.

Now they want to increase the tax rate. Now for those under a certain income level, it won't impact them ..... but for middle class and above, it will hit your wallet if you have investments and/or own funds.

Bleh. Politicians talk about only taxing a certain level of Americans, but they wind up hurting other people worse that those "evil rich". The rich often balance their investments so they can take a loss somewhere to offset a gain elsewhere. The lower to middle class person doesn't have the ability to do the same. Anyone who think that the rich will wind up sending huge tidal waves of cash into the treasury because of an increased capital gains tax just haven't been paying attention.

Once again, "what about the Democrats?" is not an argument for GOP fiscal responsibility.

This is a continuing trend that isn't going to stop with a Republican president or legislature.

Debt will continue to rise as we spend without having the means to pay for it.

And both the GOP and Democratic parties continue to increase spending. And they won't stop, because if they do, the house of cards that is our economy will collapse.

Sure he did! But he certainly didn't add what your boy has! By any stretch!

haha..thats true bro lol

Exactly. When I vote, I look at it as picking between a party that's bankrupting America by spending it on providing health care or a party bankrupting America by spending it on bullets and bombs.

Well geez Dude, you can't make an argument about how fiscally responsible republicans are.. I mean, if you think about it, look at the mess that Obama inherited in 2008. As much as some want to make it out to be ALL HIS FAULT, how could it be. he wasn't in office when the bottom dropped out.

So perhaps you want to back up your comment about the republicans taking his checkbook.. If they did, it was probably to spend the money to make thier Cronies happy.

the point is, there are no trustworthy elected officials in Washington DC.

They bow to whatever person or entity will pay them the best.

Then they set you and me up to fight an imaginary war.

It's classic. get us fighting and while were busy with that, they rob us blind.

Nn

Show me where and when I asked YOU to take anything I say seriously. I really could care less who takes anyting on these boards seriously.

Just sharing thoughts. Take what you like and leave the rest. Who cares?

When I vote, I vote on the morals of the candidate, what co-insides with the Lord's scriptures .. such as LEVITICUS 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." ... Therefore if a candidate approves of same sex marriage I will not vote for that candidate ...

Do I sense some sour grapes among us?

so basically, one side can do something and youre cool with it, but the other side can't.

and when somebody challenges your opinion on a message board, you don't wanna debate?

why bother posting?

As is your right!

Thank you Damanshot

Kiss that 'shrinking' budget deficit goodbye
Jeff Cox

CNBC.com

Among the laundry list of achievements President Barack Obama touted in his State of the Union speech Tuesday was a "shrinking" budget deficit.

While that's true on its face, there's more to the story, and it's likely to become a significant headache for his successor.

Obama and his supporters are correct in reporting that a budget gap when he took office of some $1.4 trillion has been trimmed significantly. The 2014 projection was for a $506 billion shortfall, while the 2015 number comes down to $469 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we've seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled and health care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years," Obama said.

"At this with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry and booming energy production we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth," he added later in the speech.

The good news, however, ends soon, at least for deficit hawks.

Absent substantial fiscal reform, obligations for retirement benefits, health care and other spending will be pushing that deficit higher and higher in the years to come, with the CBO projecting the number to approach $1 trillion again by 2024.

The 2016 number is expected to grow 18.6 percent to $556 billion, before a one-time drop to $530 billion the following year. From there, the deficit goes on a glide path higher to the point where it more than doubles the 2015 figure by 2022, the CBO estimates.

The trend will pose a policy headache for future members of Congress as well as the person who takes over the Oval Office from Obama when he exits in early 2017.

"Monthly budget updates suggest that the burgeoning U.S. expansion continues to improve the near-term fiscal outlook. Federal government revenues are outpacing last year's gait and federal discretionary spending continues to decline," economist Dana M. Peterson at Citigroup said in a report for clients.

"However, mandatory federal spending, especially for public retirement and health-care benefits, continued to expand unabated in the first three months of the fiscal year. Such rising mandatory expenditures foreshadow spiraling federal deficits and debt ahead."

Peterson said the late-year tax and spending agreement between Obama and Congress solved nothing, adding that "media coverage of the nation's incipient fiscal challenges has been muted and measures of policy uncertainty are improving."

What lies ahead is a "fiscal firestorm" fueled by "unchecked" growth in retirement and health-care spending, Peterson said. Medicare and Medicaid spending will surge from $68 billion in the first quarter of the fiscal year to $84 billion in 2015; Social Security outlays will rise from $171 billion to $180 billion, and disability from $35.3 billion to $35.9 billion—in total, 9 percent higher.

In addition, the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—subsidies are pegged at $5.4 billion, or more than half the total IRS spending of $9.3 billion.
"Worsening trends in mandatory expenditures on public health care and retirement entitlements point to deficit enlargement ahead. Insipient expansion of mandatory outlays continues to threaten to reverse the progress to date in narrowing the federal budget deficit and slowing the rise in public debt," Peterson said.

"Policymakers continue to focus on low-hanging fruit to reduce federal government debt and deficits, while avoiding necessary cuts to mandatory expenditures and tax reform," she added.

Peterson concluded that a "trifecta" of concerns—rising structural deficits, a growing share of debt to gross domestic product and "a dysfunctional political process"—have been "largely unaddressed" in Washington.

The federal government has a $16.6 trillion marker held by its various creditors around the world—about $2.5 trillion combined to China and Japan alone—and Obama can make no similar claim about that number "shrinking."

In fact, according to the Federal Reserve, the government ended 2008, just before Obama took office, with a total debt of $7.9 trillion—less than half its current level.

And there was no sign of debt growth slowing, as the total grew 7.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014.

Leviticus also forbids beard trimming.

Leaves you in a bind, no?

Bb

Because I enjoy it and learn from many. I can listen to reason and think for myself. I need no validation from anyone.

So, cite the Old Testament when it suits you, but back off it when it doesn't fit the argument?

And the NT is pretty squarely against being rich. So, again...kind of limits your candidate pool, no?

Making voting decisions based on a book of fairy tales is one of the reasons why we get the politicians we get.

so you can learn and ask questions to someone

but others can't do the same to you?

huh....the world we live in.

Bn

By the way, Swish, you and I have "debated" many things many times. Hope your memory isn't that short.

i know, i'm just giving you hell cause i'm bored at the house, classes ended early today.

We don't live under the Old Law we live under the New Law, and God isn't against the rich, He just says few will make it into heaven because they put their money ahead of God, Read: Matthew 19:16-26 about the Rich Young Ruler, God offered him salvation if he would just see what he had and give it to the poor then he could follow Christ but he walked away putting his wealth above God (also Luke 12:16-21 The Rich Man And His Barns)
The bottom line is that Jesus tells us some will believe His Word and others won't (MATTHEW 10:34-38)... I BELIVE HIS WORD

huh?

when did god decide "ya know what? these old rules sucks!! time to make some new ones!!"

when is the next update due? i wanna talk to him before it happens.

Wonder why the white House is upset that Boehner invited Netanyhu to speak to Congress? Does Boehner really need to consult the White House prior to this invitation? This issue was glossed over in the fabricated rhetoric of last evening.

yea i thought it was a good idea for Boehner to bring that person in. why not?

sometimes you need to hear things from the horses mouth. the guy knows whats going on over there. WH shouldn't be upset about this.

Oh, I see.

That doesn't sound completely arbitrary and insane at all.

If we don't live under the old insane laws anymore, then why were you just quoting them as a means to convey how you vote?

And you don't find it the least bit crazy that you were quoting from a book that says we should kill homosexuals by stoning them to death?



It's pretty squarely against being very wealthy.

It's a very socialist text.

PastorMarc I have a question for you please. What does the Bible tell us about tossing pearls before swine?

free community college
free childcare
paid sick days for everyone


You really think all this stuff is free? The money is going to come from somewhere. I might as well just have my direct deposit rerouted to Obama's account since I'll need to give 100% of my paycheck to the government to pay for all the freeloaders.

well since we are on to extremes....

i was in the military. we got paid sick days, or "quarters".

am i a freeloader too?

i get the GI Bill just because served at least 3 years. paid for by the government...or tax payer money.

thats freeloading as well.

and i wouldn't say free childcare is smart, but as someone with two kids, childcare rates are STUPID ridiculous right now. almost HALF my paycheck goes to that.

and most of them don't even do anything. if the kid has a fever, i have to pick my kids up, while not getting a reduced rate for that day.