You are leaving out a big difference...Reagan grew the economy tremendously ...in effect giving us more income to pay any debt.
It is now the opposite...Obama's policies are all about shrinking the economy giving us less income to pay down any future debt.
Spin doesn't change the stark reality of the chart...this is far and away way beyond anything in our history.
This is Trillions Fletch...not Reagans Billions...ya dig? It takes a thousand Billions to equal a Trillion. Ya dig? ^<<^
Your graph is rather amusing. Out of that 11+ trillion, less then 10% of that was there when Ronnie got into office. Clinton did manage to balance 4 budgets, out of 8 so its not like he was a big culprit here, so where does that leave us? Where did that 9 Trillion come from the last 30 years not counting Clintons? Is your petty party politics getting in the way of your logical brain capabilities once AGAIN? I type this in real simple terms for you.
Before Ronnie gets into office the National debt is around 1 Trillion.
After Ronnie leaves office the National Debt is around 3 Trillion.
So that 200 years to get to 1 trillion and just 8 years later to triple that.
With this type of logic, Obama will have to be staring down a National Debt of 30 Trillion when he is finished bending this nation over. And for the record, as far as growing the economey... when it comes to creating revenue since 1978 Democrats increased GDP by 12% while Republicans increased it at 10%.
Lesson to be learned is simple. Cutting taxes is a good thing as it promotes freedom at every level. Spending like a a fucking whore while doing it doesnt. Your logic is liken to that bum with a 600 dollar new suit. You know what he is? a Bum with a 600 dollar new suit.
:cripwalk:
ANYBODY AWAKE YET??
<EMBED src=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/player/flvplayer.swf width=495 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars="file=292.flv&logo=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/pic/watermark/video.gif&autostart=false&repeat=false&backcolor=0xFFFFFF&frontcolor=0x000000&lightcolor=0x000000&link=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/videos/&image=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/videos/image/292.jpg&allowfullscreen=true&width=495&height=385&displayheight=365&overstretch=fit" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high">
<EMBED src=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/player/flvplayer.swf width=495 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars="file=292.flv&logo=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/pic/watermark/video.gif&autostart=false&repeat=false&backcolor=0xFFFFFF&frontcolor=0x000000&lightcolor=0x000000&link=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/videos/&image=http://www.swflgrapevine.com/file/videos/image/292.jpg&allowfullscreen=true&width=495&height=385&displayheight=365&overstretch=fit" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high">
You don't get it...Ronnie left us with an expanding economy and 25 years of prosperity.
Obama is doubling the defecit and doing everything he can to shrink our economy...leading to 25 years of hard times.
When you vote...which one do you want? :drink:
Its obvious you and i have a very different definition on exactly what "prosperity" really means. Because when you look back over the last 25 years we have seen manufacturing all but disappear being replaced by now what is 70% of GDP - Consumption. And dont forget the American over reliance on credit to keep their heads above the inflated standard of living. Afterall debt is money and money is debt. We dont build anything tangible anymore and all we do is consume and this consumption is fianced more times then not - not a recipe of of prepetual prosperity regardless whos in office.
Maybe you are not aware of this or not (judging by your obvious weak reply you apparently are not) but the manufacturing jobs as a percent of total US employment fell below 9% as we continue the stupefying destruction of the sector as more and more companies continue to ship those jobs overseas. This decline has continued over the last 70 years from its high of around 40% in the 40’s. While its cost effective and alot of times much more efficient it’s also short sided and naive to not understand the potential pitfalls and dangers of not producing your own goods. But then again a corporation isn’t a person and the bottom line doesn’t matter to what lies ahead. As long as we have credit around the world this strategy will work fine, but eventually the backs that you rely on overseas to make these cheap goods will want what we have and there goes those advantages. The bottom line is this: a nation that is not self-reliant is treading water because mass consumption and consumerism isn’t sustainable.
I can sign up for that program you listed in the OP, except for abolishing the IRS part.
:nono5:
You know, the government does have legit reasons for raising money, we just have to down size it by 50+% or so.
:nono5:
You know, the government does have legit reasons for raising money, we just have to down size it by 50+% or so.
Last time i checked "voluntary compliance" means i have to volunteer. Isnt that why we have a "volunteer" Armed Forces? If the Armed forces used this type of logic, we would fine and jail people for not signing up for the Army. And yes ill agree that government does have to be shredded in the terms of size, scope and reach (no homo) but that however doesnt mean we should compromise along the way. The Government only needs to raise money because they simply believe they are better at spending your money then you are - period.
Maybe you are not aware of this or not (judging by your obvious weak reply you apparently are not) but the manufacturing jobs as a percent of total US employment fell below 9% as we continue the stupefying destruction of the sector as more and more companies continue to ship those jobs overseas. This decline has continued over the last 70 years from its high of around 40% in the 40’s. While its cost effective and alot of times much more efficient it’s also short sided and naive to not understand the potential pitfalls and dangers of not producing your own goods. But then again a corporation isn’t a person and the bottom line doesn’t matter to what lies ahead. As long as we have credit around the world this strategy will work fine, but eventually the backs that you rely on overseas to make these cheap goods will want what we have and there goes those advantages. The bottom line is this: a nation that is not self-reliant is treading water because mass consumption and consumerism isn’t sustainable.
Fletch...you are confusing manufacturing employment with manufacturing production.
We manufacture more than we ever have...we just do it more efficiently and with less labor.
Maybe you think increasing your competitive costs just to employ people is a good thing...hey Socialist Einstein?
:lol:
Should we bring back the candlemakers and the whalers of days gone by too?
Maybe you can start up a buggy whip factory...or something useful like that...just to employ people...and make stuff.
As far as i know employers MUST withhold a portion of the salaries they pay to their employees as prepaid federal income tax payments. Thus the trickle down begins. I think its a requirement for employment but im not sure and if not, then i wont be filling one out anytime soon. Cheers to a guy who hasnt been on the books in 20+ years giving all of a us tax advice, you fucking scammer
Fetcher, there is no such thing as voluntary compliance, you're just gonna have to trust me on this.
don't bother trying to post some link, just stick to bashing deficits.
BTW: as for Clinton's balanced budgets, the last budget Bubba put on the table had 400 million or 500 million dollar deficits into infinity. Since everyone knew it wasn't getting by Newt, the vote in the Senate was something like 99-0 against Bubba's last budget proposal.
Newt wrote the 1997 budget, bled political capital, was demonized and still forced Bubba to sign it.
Bubba gets credit for signing Newt's budget that the Democratic party actually opposed.
Newt was the only real fiscal conservative to hold any meaningful position in my voting lifetime.
Fletch...you are confusing manufacturing employment with manufacturing production.
We manufacture more than we ever have...we just do it more efficiently and with less labor.
Maybe you think increasing your competitive costs just to employ people is a good thing...hey Socialist Einstein?
:lol:
Should we bring back the candlemakers and the whalers of days gone by too?
Maybe you can start up a buggy whip factory...or something useful like that...just to employ people...and make stuff.
MJ for a 50+ year old man, you never cease to prove to be quite the enigma. You one one hand have a great deal of expertise (or at least a well placed cut and paste handy)on some things, but in the same breath you lack depth in others. I actually wonder if you ever held down a job sometimes??
The reality is the situation is much more complicated then your weak attempts at humor above. Im not confusing anything and nobody is talking about bring back obsolete jobs. The biggest cause of this is predatory trade policies that result in huge trade deficits and not to mention a huge national debt as we blindly sit back and watch Asian countries devalue their currency, undercutting our ability to compete.
China also promotes exports and discourages imports. They keep their wages slave like, impose value added taxes on imports while rebate value added taxes on exports. They counterfeit patents. Combine those practices with our inability as country to understand the dangers of over taxation as we continue to demand disproportionate corporate tax rates at every level and its little wonder why manufacturing is going way of the dinosaurs. And as i said before, efficiency is great, but this reduction isnt all about efficiency in terms of production. And even with that said, it amazes me the lack of loyalty these companies have for the nation that gave them their start, but looking at the tax situation, its a chicken vs the egg argument i suppose.
Then again, im pretty sure you were one of the guys that said a trade deficit is good. And maybe it is...for now. But then what? Everything at some point contracts. And as the deficits (national and trade) mount and the debt explodes and we lose are wealth-producing industries - at least you can say it was efficient.
This assault or our manufacturing is far more dangerous then some fucking towel head in a cave wearing slippers armed with a Russian RPG. Hawks like you should know this, but i guess the cheap goods are an easy elixer. But, at least our forefathers understood this. Alexander Hamilton once wrote:
I know i know, Hamiltion was an idiot right? LMAO. Im for free trade, as freedom at any cost is the way to go in any situation. But im not for free trade without checks and balances. What is happening now isnt anymore natural to the business cycle then these corporate bailouts we are involved in. If this makes me a protectionist, just as it does when i say we mind our business aboard, then so be it. But make no mistake - who im protecting is my own. Anyone saying otherwise is protecting whom? And PS - Tell John Bolton to eat a dick.
So Ronnie doesnt make your cut???
Despite the evidence on the contrary, people love to lump him in as the great fiscal conservative of our lifetime rant....
And as far as Newt goes, i lost alot of respect for him, while he was vilifying someones morals, he was doing the same, while he was talking about strengthening the economy and economic recovery he was getting the WTO set up. He was alot of things, conservative just happens to be the one ill agree with you on...
So Ronnie doesnt make your cut???
Despite the evidence on the contrary, people love to lump him in as the great fiscal conservative of our lifetime rant....
And as far as Newt goes, i lost alot of respect for him, while he was vilifying someones morals, he was doing the same, while he was talking about strengthening the economy and economic recovery he was getting the WTO set up. He was alot of things, conservative just happens to be the one ill agree with you on...
Ronnie, like W, got the tax cut and regulation part right, but they both spent way too much money and expanded bureaucracy.
Ronnie talked about abolishing some federal agencies, but I don't believe he did.
W talked about privatizing social security, but never had a chance once 9/11 and the wars started.
they were both big on national defense, something that actually creates manufacturing jobs in the States. Being a CT resident, I can tell you this is a stone cold fact.
Having an affair is not the same as committing perjury, sorry.
Really now Wullie????
is that the best you got?
No, it is a holiday weekend though you know, cut me some slack. And besides, anytime you get to use a pic from the Wizard , you know you cant go wrong. And while ill agree that perjury is an obvious pretty severe crime for an elected official (why cant they ask me those fairy tale laden questions on the stand?) someones sex life shouldnt never be of public interest. As if you never got laid on the job!
:smoker2:
