palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Clearly that chart doesn't count obama's trillion dollar plus (and growing) "stimulus" as spending. Typically dishonest.
Clearly that chart doesn't count obama's trillion dollar plus (and growing) "stimulus" as spending. Typically dishonest.
The Keynesian theory is that government spending will boost consumer demand in a way that spurs more business spending to meet it. But instead the $830 billion stimulus seems to have created a short-term GDP blip based on government expenditures, but no growth takeoff. In return for blowing out the federal balance sheet, Americans got more debt but not more growth. And Mr. Obama says he wants $100 billion in more stimulus now?The tragedy of the Obama Presidency is that it ignored the supply side: the producers, the risk-takers, the salary earners who put in 50 and 60 hours a week to get ahead. They have been battered by Washington, and no matter how much government tries to conjure growth with more spending and easier monetary policy, businesses won't produce and workers won't work if government threatens to confiscate returns.Banks aren't lending as much as they might in no small part because of Dodd-Frank's penalties and regulations. Investors aren't investing or are sending their money abroad because the President is promising to wallop them with huge tax increases on January 1. Businesses aren't purchasing as much new equipment, or hiring as many workers, because they don't know what the real costs will be from new regulation and ObamaCare.A new report by the Progressive Policy Institute—run by Democrats—finds that if business investment had tracked the normal trend rate during this recovery, investment would be $1.4 trillion higher. The report fingers regulation on business and American investors finding better returns abroad. Yet Mr. Obama's solution is to raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates.
Liberalism is like a slow growing, but always fatal CANCER. Once it has infected it's host, it kills it.
Could it be that once Liberalism kills it's host, it dies too? I sure hope so. Maybe once it is dead, new life can begin.
How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?maybe, but rabid partisanship and the lack of willingness to compromise aren't serving us very well just now.
How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?
That only works if there's no Republican party to scapegoat for all their failures... Which is why I've said the Republican party should disband and give Dems 100% control over all levels of government - for a decade or two while they eliminate ALL Prog influence from the R party. Yeah, it would suck hard for about 10-15 years but without their ability to blame someone else for their failures, the Left wouldn't win another regional or national election for a century or more.We don't. The quickest way to get there is to just let the liberals implement their policies and implode the system.
That only works if there's no Republican party to scapegoat for all their failures... Which is why I've said the Republican party should disband and give Dems 100% control over all levels of government - for a decade or two while they eliminate ALL Prog influence from the R party. Yeah, it would suck hard for about 10-15 years but without their ability to blame someone else for their failures, the Left wouldn't win another regional or national election for a century or more.
I have to agree with JT to a certain extent, if the Progs implode the system while they still have a scapegoat to blame, they will just "fundamentally transform America" into a totalitarian state - through "bi-partisanship" and "compromise" of course.
How do we "Compromise" our way back to a Constitutionally limited government?
I agree the R party needs to die. Then the Tea Party could takes it's place and purge all the progressive R politicians.
And the progressives will ALWAYS find a scapegoat for their failures. Even if the Rs were to disappear, they would blame capitalism, religion, the wealthy, bankers, oil companies, etc.....
The problem is conservative Rs lack the guts to attack the progressives and point out their numerous failures for fear the lib MSM will destroy them...though their are exceptions - Allen West being one and look what the media and the progressive Rs are doing to him.
We don't. The quickest way to get there is to just let the liberals implement their policies and implode the system.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/quote]Yes and our stoner friend believed it. Hahahaha....
This chart is much more accurate.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting how you would post a graph of GDP to counter one about spending and then accuse me of being a stoner. Maybe in the morning you will see that the data are not the same. They are related, of course, in that the deficit from the Bush/Obama years is due to a decrease in revenues caused by the recession.
Hey Stoner, I did not post that graph to counter your dishonest one nor did I state that my graph offered the same information as the propaganda you posted. I merely posted a graph that is factual. You might try it sometime.
Do you assert that the graph I posted is inaccurate?