Until you ask those that are stashing $160 billion a year overseas to stimulate
job growth then you are all on the "roundabout" of rhetoric.
Sey and the gang, I would suggest researching the 2 Santa Claus theory.
@Badgerbadger - here is the problem. The author didn't make a single
hateful statement..... it was you who has induced insults into the conversation.
So if truth is all that is needed... why did you lace your comments with the
exact thing you claim to object to? It surely didn't add any credibility to
your statements.I went to a site that details US government spending
which list yet again totally different numbers (total government spending) to
both of yours - and it does show spending under Obama first term (2009) higher
then Reagan. It is important to know he had little to nothing to do with the
FY2009 budget, The numbers also show that that rate has decreased every year
since the peak year, 2009. Other things it shows - greatest time of increase
as a percent - 2001 to 2004 and the early 70s.So lets avoid the over
generalizations about which party is honest and truthful. We can find more than
enough distortions from either side here on a daily basis - many times over.
Michelle Obama is a female. Lindsey Lohan is a female.Therefore according
to the logic of Roland - they must be exactly alikeNever mind that the
fact is an intersecting point on a graph where two people are headed in
completely opposite directions.I have some red hair – therefore I
must be Fergie, Duchess of YorkReagan spending was to reinforce the
military (which resulted in the collapse of the USSR) while he freed private
economic capital to allow the economy to soar (until the Bush's messed it
up). Obama has burdened the country with additional regulation, soaring debt,
weakened the military (emboldening enemies) and has stifled economic recoveryNot at all alike
What a tedious retread. So much hate based on so little knowledge. Two equally
guilty sides presenting studies, statistics, data, etc from cherry-picked
sources that support what they already decided to believe before they had any
data at all. Completely ignoring anything that contradicts their articles of
faith. And both sides focused solely on finding someone to blame instead of
finding solutions.Washington is not our only problem.
Self-proclaimed experts without training pontificating on economics and history
as if they really knew something instead of having it spoon fed to them. Each
side trotting out the words of their gods to counter the argument of the other
guy's gods; gods that have no interest in the truth but have their own
agendas feeding you only what they want you to swallow. And swallow you do!! In
huge, eager gulps.Blind sheep on both sides of the pasture, both
bleating so loudly that they can never learn anything new or hear the wolf
coming to destroy them; willing to be destroyed rather than be proven wrong.
Truthfully, the carcass we are all feeding on is actually our own.
Why tje outrage. It is complicated but it boils down to this.IOKIYAR - Its Ok if You are a Republican.Massive government
growth, civil liberties curtailed, $800MM surplus turned to a $1.2TN deficit and
not a peep from the so-called small government, fiscal conservatives.Elect a Democrat and heck breaks loose. Even if this Democrat pushes for
Republican ideas that have been supported for decades. Romneycare anyone?So people call it the Tea Party, but I call it hypocrisy. Same thing
From the letter, "This year, under President Obama, federal spending is 22.2
percent of GDP."From the CBO, "As a share of GDP, outlays
fell in 2012—to 22.8 percent..."The letter has lowered the
number for 2012, (the most recent year available) in favor of Obama.The whole comparison is a lie, Reagan's average to Obama's lowest
year, or most recent year.Fair and honest comparisons look like
this: Reagan ObamaAverage
22.4% of GDZ
To Christian 24-7: If you were to actually read my letter, you would find that
the comparison I made was to this year's spending. The fact that you
misinterpreted my letter does not make me a liar.
Repubs have no concept of who is actually responsible for spending. You point
out the fact that Reagan then Bush II added far more to the deficit than any dem
president and all you get in response is a blank stare. They really have
no concept of reality.
@Mike in Cedar City:"How many know (or will admit) that the deficit
has actually gone down under Obama?"But the national debt has
gone up under Obama... from about $10 trillion to now more than $17 trillion.
Think about that for a minute.@Furry1993:"If President
Obama had been a Republican, even with the same positions and programs he now
promotes, the Republicans would have been falling all over themselves to
praise..."Not true. They'd have thrown him out of the party
on his ear with his (1) abortion on demand, (2) same-sex marriage, and (3)
amnesty for illegals positions. The irony is, those positions are what got him
elected. The country is going to the dogs.@one old man:"However, it has been largely due to GOP stupidity and recalcitrance that
nothing is being done... EVERYONE needs to put aside their lockstep hateful
ideologies and sit down at the table to seek sensible, workable
solutions."I suspect what you mean is... everyone should sit
down at the table and the recalcitrant GOP should cave so something can get
done. Did I get that right?
2012 is verified. No projections. Wait for the facts. We don't know what
the future will bring.So Obama's average is now 24.1% of GDP.
Still almost 2 percent higher than Reagan, so your whole point is
based on a lie. And thus we see that liberals base their arguments
on falsehoods.Try to see the truth for a change, no matter how
inconvenient to your preconceived notions. The truth is freeing, and freedom is
The tea party have to whine and yell.
Roland has written another great article. our only hope is that common sense
will infect our tea party delegation...unlikely.
According to the CBO Federal spending for FY 2012 came in at 22.8% of GDP.
Spending for this year is projected to come in at 22.2%And yes, I am
willing to pay higher taxes. My personal preference would be for a VAT tax or
some other type of consumption tax (carbon?) to supplement the income tax. Then
we can cut deductions and lower rates.
I, for one, would like to see proof of 'the truth's claim
"liberals love spending." President Obama's spending has, in
fact, been the lowest in decades. Among the last six presidents, only Clinton
spent less. The only large ticket item in Obama's administration was the
Recovery Act, which was needed to prevent a second Great Depression. It is the
fifth most expensive program in modern history. George W. Bush's tax cuts
were more expensive.
So, extreme left, are we to believe the Democrats never spend?BTW, Reagan was working with a democrat congress, who controlled ALL the
spending. Maybe we should thank Reagan for slowing it as much as he could.The fact is the liberals and progressives of both parties love spending.
(that was problem with bush)And there is certainly has been no
stopping of spending under Obama (especially when democrats controlled
everything), he just wants to tax us all to death to do it, (first he target the
rich and corporations for popularity, then he will get everyone else) and even
then he still just spends even more and more.But hey, if it happened
under Reagan it must be okay, ain't that right lefties?
Roland,Somehow I think that when you say ...if we are willing to tax
ourselves at a level that funds them.", you don't mean tax YOURSELF,
you mean tax others.We would have to raise taxes 35% on EVERYONE to
get enough money coming in to balance what is being spent. Yes you can weight it
heavier on the wealthier people, but not even they have enough to pay it all,
and that is only for income tax. All other federal taxes would have to up that
much too. Payroll tax up to 8.3% for employer and employee. Self employment up
to 21%, with income tax on top of that. Park fees, gas tax, phone tax, all up
35%. Every source of federal income must go up to achieve balance at the current
level of spending, which means everyone's taxes must go up.Let's write a ballot measure for ALL federal taxes to go up 35% and put
it to a popular vote and see how it does. But we have to make sure Obamaphone
folks know they have to pay it on their phones too.
Truth, that is the issue.Falsehood #1People who don't
like Obama's policies are racists. A favorite lie.Truth: People
who don't like Obama's policies are not automatically racists nor are
they automatically white, rich, republican, Christian, or from any particular
region of the country. Those who call them racists are the ones who are bigots,
assuming a whole set of characteristics based on one known characteristic.Falsehood #2The numbers Mr Kayser from Murray and Cottonwood
Heights, or where ever he is really from, need a source. I find completely
different numbers when I search federal government spending as a percent of GDP.
Reagan's 22.4% okay, but Obama's rate is 24.5% average. (Numbers from
Whitehouse government website, but other sites I looked at concur) Nice try on
the compare one made up number for Obama to documented average of Reagan, but it
only fools liberals. No where could I find the percent of GDP Mr. Kayser is
claiming, but then I didn't check MSNBC, nor do I look at projections.Truth matters. It is in short supply when it comes from this president,
and his devoted followers. Now resume your hate party.
To SEY: If we raised federal taxes to 22.2% of GDP, we would still be on the low
end of developed countries. It may not be politically possible to do so, but
that's a different matter. Also the important thing is to get our deficit
below our long term growth rate. If we have a deficit of 2% of GDP, and a growth
rate of 3%, our debt/GDP ration will decline.That's how we paid
down our debt following WWII even though there were deficits most years and the
nominal value of the debt kept increasing. We cut our debt from 120% of GDP down
to around 40% in a period of about 35 years. It wasn't until the Republican
party became the party of all tax cuts, all the time, that our debt/GDP ratio
began climbing.Getting it back to 40% over 35 years would be a good
goal, although it doesn't make for a catchy bumper sticker.
Thanks, Roland, for the enlightening numbers. Let me add some more. Under
Reagan, tax revenues averaged 18.2 percent of GDP. During Obama's first
term, government revenues averaged 15.35 percent, largely due to the worst
recession since the big one back in the '30s. Over the next four years,
projected revenues are actually above Reagan's 18.2 percent, at about 18.65
percent. The problem with both then and now is that revenues are far
short of expenses. Since even Republicans can't figure out a way to cut 16
percent of our government expenses (the shortfall divided by the total) without
destroying the economy, we must increase taxes and make them more progressive.
The wealthy don't need more investment money. Already the financial sector
is far larger than the real economy (as pointed out recently by a Republican
commentator). What we need is more money in the hands of the consumer classes,
more jobs that pay a living wage, and less financial speculation.
Roland: do you seriously believe that Americans can be taxed at the rate and for
the time necessary to get our debt levels under control? What level of taxation
and what time period are you suggesting? I say it can't be done and still
keep the economy performing with any efficacy.
...Because this spending is on top of a huge deficit!
Because it's only wrong if you're not a republican.
To SEY: They are sustainable if we are willing to tax ourselves at a level that
funds them. They are unsustainable if we are not.
No, SEY, they are not acceptable and sustainable.But contrary to
what many on the right want us to believe, they are not entirely Obama's
doing. They go far, far back into history on both sides of the aisle.However, it has been largely due to GOP stupidity and recalcitrance that
nothing is being done to solve the mess. EVERYONE needs to put aside their
lockstep hateful ideologies and sit down at the table to seek sensible, workable
solutions.Until politicians on both sides of the fence are willing
to do that, nothing good will happen.
Let me guess SEY. You consider yourself an realist moderate that gets labeled
as a liberal.I find that anyone that even hints that the GOP is also
guilty of causing our fiscal ills gets labeled as left wing.BTW, I
completely agree with you
ugottabkidn: I'm interested in hearing Roland's response to my
question. But I'll ask you, too. Are these levels acceptable and
sustainable? I have a very good idea of what you will both say, but I think
Roland's question is a clever red herring meant to show that Reagan
conservatives are every bit the Keynesians that liberals are. He' right, of
course, but he also knows this is not a sustainable plan. Both Reagan and Obama
implemented fiscal policies that were and are headed for failure. We are worse
off because of Reagan, Bush I & II, Clinton and Obama, and so many of their
Maybe if these corporate loopholes and subsidies would have been good if they
translated to good paying jobs and low unemployment but since they haven't
then we need to use history and return to rates that will.
SEY from Sandy, the issues are the high and under employment, not paying for two
wars and paying retail prices for Medicare part D. It is an economic down turn
that we have not seen since the second Reagan recession. Our economy is being
run by a Congress that think it is a good business model to make the Post Office
pay for 75 years of retirement benefits in a 10yr window. It is a record of
Senate fillibusters preventing passed legislation from the pre 2010 House that
would have eliminated the tax incentives for business to take them overseas. It
goes on and on and you worry about borrowing money to put people back to work,
at rates that are the lowest in history. In GWBush's first SOU speech he
was talking about paying the debt off but then he got motivation to finish his
daddy's war although there was no evidence to do so. These are the things
that have raised the debt so high, and we if we are honest, we know who is
responsible and it isn't middle class America.
So nice to hear a voice of reason in this forum.
Roland. Why the outrage now? Because anything and everything that
happens under Obama is bad. Your attempt to inject facts into the discussion
will fall on deaf ears.One one hand we hear that Obamas spending is
out of control.The next minute, we hear that all spending and taxing
bills must begin in the house.One thing to note. All spending and
taxing has been approved by the GOP controlled house.
So, Roland, you seem to imply that such levels are acceptable and sustainable.
You don't really believe that, do you?
That's easy to answer, Ronald. President Reagan was a white, somewhat
right-leaning, Republican who therefore could do no wrong. President Obama is a
black, center-left, Democrat who therefore can do nothing right. If President
Obama had been a Republican, even with the same positions and programs he now
promotes, the Republicans would have been falling all over themelves to praise
him since, being essentially a self-made man, he would be "their type of
guy" -- a black man who succeeded by his own work and efforts and therefore
worthy for them to promote. I find that hypocritical and sad.
The right wing operates in a media bubble that ignores the facts. How many know
(or will admit) that the deficit has actually gone down under Obama? If you
tell a lie that is big enough, often enough, a low information public will buy
it. That is what Fox News is all about.