quote NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama has been steadfast in his pledge that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. But that doesn't mean only high-income households will be subject to higher taxes. An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax. That could mean more money out of everyone's pockets when buying virtually anything -- sweaters, school books, furniture, pottery classes, dinners out. A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it's not just paid at the cash register. It's levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user -- such as the retail customer -- ponies up as well. No one is suggesting raising taxes or creating new ones before the economy stabilizes. But Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve who heads President Obama's tax reform panel, is advocating a little advance planning. When it comes to getting control of the country's debt burden, "I think if we can't do it on the cost side, we've got to go on the revenue side. And it's too early to do it, but it's not too early to begin wondering," Volcker said Wednesday in an televised interview with PBS' Charlie Rose. "You've got talk about some tax that hits consumption," said Volcker. "Value-added is one." John Podesta, the head of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress who headed President Obama's transition team, also raised the issue of a VAT this week. He noted that the only way to stabilize the debt situation is to reduce spending, reduce the growth in health care costs and add new revenue. "As progressives we need to debate the policy merits and likelihood of enacting a range of options -- including designing a small and more progressive value-added tax, changes to the corporate tax code, and taxing-upper income earners beyond reversing the Bush tax cuts," Podesta said in a statement. 0:00 /6:16Deficit in critical condition Podesta's organization, meanwhile, said in a report, "Responsible people know that additional revenue has to be part of the mix even if they believe in lower taxes in general. And those who believe that government investments and spending are critical to our economic and social well-being ... recognize that tax increases on the wealthiest and corporations are not going to solve the whole problem." Where things stand now President Obama has proposed closing corporate tax loopholes and increasing the tax bite on upper-income households by letting most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000. He has also proposed making those cuts permanent for everyone else -- which would cost federal coffers roughly $2 trillion in foregone tax revenue over 10 years. Just how hard would it be to lean only on the top 5% of taxpayers to pay for everything the country has to do in the next 10 years? "You'd have to hit them hard, raising their top marginal rates by as much as 30 percentage points," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. In other words, instead of a top income tax rate of 39.6%, it would have to kiss up to 70%. Rather than such draconian measures, experts say the most effective way to attack annual deficits is through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. In theory, having a VAT might let lawmakers lower personal and corporate income tax rates. But if the rate of the VAT is set relatively low -- say at 5% -- and if the rate of government spending continues apace, that might not raise enough revenue to make lower income tax rates a possibility, said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now an institute fellow at the Urban Institute, a public policy research group. "If we vigorously control spending growth or are willing to tolerate a significant, although lower deficit, there would be something left over for tax cuts," Penner said. Currently, the notion of a VAT is "a non-starter from a political perspective," said William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, at a Center for American Progress conference this week. Democrats say it's regressive, meaning it would hit lower-income people hardest since they tend to spend all of their income on consumption purchases that could be subject to the VAT. Low-tax advocates, such as conservative Republicans, see a VAT -- on top of the current tax system -- as harmful. But given the depth of the nation's fiscal needs, there aren't many attractive options. "Tax rates could be raised in the existing system, but that would be extremely inefficient," said Penner in a paper about the VAT. "Tax reform might raise revenues more efficiently, but that is excruciatingly difficult politically." "That leaves the possibility of a brand new tax, and a VAT is a very likely candidate," he added. First Published: October 2, 2009: 7:08 AM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2009/1...stversion=2009100207

Spending cuts? Does anyone in Congress know what those words mean? Show of hands, please. Do any of you in Congress know what " keep your word" means? Anybody?


I didn't think so.

I'm not advocating new taxes or even going to comment on the specifics here. But I will say, that something will have to be done to correct this massive debt that your party put on our shoulders. Yay tax breaks for billionaires and nation building in the middle east. YAY!!!!

Sorry--Obama sez differently.
"I'ts my economy--give it to me"

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-02-2009).]

Con, once again, let's be honest. This debt has been building since LBJ created the Great Society, and no one in Washington, of either party, has made any attempt to rein it in. But your guy in the White House has made massive deficits his priority.


As for former President Bush, he didn't keep hold to conservative principles at all, and I criticized that here more than once.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I'm not advocating new taxes or even going to comment on the specifics here. But I will say, that something will have to be done to correct this massive debt that your party put on our shoulders. Yay tax breaks for billionaires and nation building in the middle east. YAY!!!!

WHAT???

You're f***ing KIDDING, I hope. The DEMOCRATS have TRIPLED both the federal budget deficit AND the national debt in LESS THAN A YEAR. OUR party? Conn, that's the DUMBEST thing you've eve said. C'mon. I KNOW you're smarter than that.



http://blog.heritage.org/20...al-debt-in-pictures/

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: But I will say, that something will have to be done to correct this massive debt that your party put on our shoulders.

Your guy put such massive debt on every child to be born in the country for generations. Little do the children who are singing his praises know what is in store for them.
Every congress, senate and president from LBJ forward is to blame.
But what BO has done in irreversible.
For you to blame only one party for the doom shows how far your head is up the partisanship's a$$.
And you say something has to be done about the debt, yet you pray for a health care bill the will add billions and billions more to the debt.
See the new jobless numbers today, we need to go further in debt will be the cry from the hill.

heybjorn, You are spot on. Mr. Connecticut needs to get it into his head that none of us (Conservatives) approved of Bush's handling of the economy. Obama campaigned on change, and so far it's just Bush - like spending on steroids. At some point the left is going to have to stop blaming everything on Bush and stand on their own two legs.

You can talk out of one side of your mouth and say "No tax increases on people earning over $250,000". This refers to federal witholding taxes. But out of the other side of your mouth you can create dozens of new taxes that don't appear to effect your takehome pay. Bottomline is, it's costing more and more to live, and this directly effects the middle class and working poor. To sit back in your chair and think this is only affecting the rich is just plain dumb. It's the little guy that is being hurt the most by this administration.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Your guy put such massive debt on every child to be born in the country for generations. Little do the children who are singing his praises know what is in store for them. Every congress, senate and president from LBJ forward is to blame. But what BO has done in irreversible. For you to blame only one party for the doom shows how far your head is up the partisanship's a$$. And you say something has to be done about the debt, yet you pray for a health care bill the will add billions and billions more to the debt. See the new jobless numbers today, we need to go further in debt will be the cry from the hill.

Really? What about the W stimulus? What about the W bank bailouts? What about the FACT that W's Iraq war cost at least three times that much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Criticisms_and_costs

"total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion"

What about the fact that much of the stimulus will be repaid, and in fact some of it already has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Asset_Relief_Program

"Of these banks, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp. and BB&T Corp have repaid TARP money."

Never mind the fact that the stimulus is actually working, we stopped having bank implosions, the unemployment rate is finally slowing it's growth, and the economy may actually start to grow. What would happen if we just let everything turn to **** like Herbert Hoover did? Another depression instead of a prolonged recession?

Spare me the irony of blaming Obama, when you supported the largest increase in our deficit in history.

quote Originally posted by rpro: heybjorn, You are spot on. Mr. Connecticut needs to get it into his head that none of us (Conservatives) approved of Bush's handling of the economy. Obama campaigned on change, and so far it's just Bush - like spending on steroids. At some point the left is going to have to stop blaming everything on Bush and stand on their own two legs.

First of all, it's not "Bush's" spending. Congress spends money, the President approves or disapproves. A case can be made for the wars, but that leads to another debate. Yes, none of us were completely satisfied with Bush and the Republicans. They were not being true conservatives. That's why we need some new Republicans in there, and to hold their feet to the fire.

For a Democrat/Liberal to complain about Bush's spending, but not mention Obama/Democrats spending shows that they are hopeless. They criticize Bush/Reps, but DON'T criticize Obama/Dems for doing THREE TIMES what they criticized Bush/Reps for doing. Talk about partisan hacks and hypocrites.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: First of all, it's not "Bush's" spending. Congress spends money, the President approves or disapproves. A case can be made for the wars, but that leads to another debate. Yes, none of us were completely satisfied with Bush and the Republicans. They were not being true conservatives. That's why we need some new Republicans in there, and to hold their feet to the fire. For a Democrat/Liberal to complain about Bush's spending, but not mention Obama/Democrats spending shows that they are hopeless. They criticize Bush/Reps, but DON'T criticize Obama/Dems for doing THREE TIMES what they criticized Bush/Reps for doing. Talk about partisan hacks and hypocrites.

A) Bush never vetoed a Republican spending bill. B) The republicans controlled the majority of Bush's term. C) Bush and the republicans together did far more harm to our economy than a stimulus bill that kept our country out of a depression. It always seems to be the case that Republicans come in and run up massive defecits, then Democrats come in start to pay them down and get blamed for tax and spend liberals when it was the damn republicans that caused the problem in the first place. You always ignore infrastructure and people to the benefit of corporations, military adventures and arms build up, and wealthy private citizens. What the hell kind of priorities are those? How about rebuilding bridges so they don't collapse during rush hour? What about focusing on fixing our over costly and unfair health system? How about doing things for the majority of the people in this country instead of building roads and armies in Iraq?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: OK, so you complain about the stimulus, but admit much will and has been repaid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Asset_Relief_Program "Of these banks, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp. and BB&T Corp have repaid TARP money." Never mind the fact that the stimulus is actually working, we stopped having bank implosions, the unemployment rate is finally slowing it's growth, and the economy may actually start to grow. What would happen if we just let everything turn to **** like Herbert Hoover did? Another depression instead of a prolonged recession? Spare me the irony of blaming Obama, when you supported the largest increase in our deficit in history.

Holy s***, Conn. You really stepped in it this time. Obama is doing THREE TIMES the spending (and more to come), and you don't complain about that???

Let's say that again. Bush does something you criticize. Obama and Congress do THREE TIMES what you criticize, and you not only don't complain, you try to blame it all on Bush?

Oh, and you complain about Bush spending...how about Obama's spending $1 Trillion a YEAR for the next 10 years?

Big Deficit Projection Tests Obama Agenda

"The Congressional Budget Office on Friday said that, if the Obama budget unveiled last month were approved, the federal government would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade. The cumulative deficit from 2010-19 would be $9.3 trillion, according to the report -- $2.3 trillion more than the administration forecast last month."

That's more than 3 times Bush and the wars.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Holy s***, Conn. You really stepped in it this time. Obama is doing THREE TIMES the spending (and more to come), and you don't complain about that??? Let's say that again. Bush does something you criticize. Obama and Congress do THREE TIMES what you criticize, and you not only don't complain, you try to blame it all on Bush? Oh, and you complain about Bush spending...how about Obama's spending $1 Trillion a YEAR for the next 10 years? Big Deficit Projection Tests Obama Agenda "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday said that, if the Obama budget unveiled last month were approved, the federal government would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade. The cumulative deficit from 2010-19 would be $9.3 trillion, according to the report -- $2.3 trillion more than the administration forecast last month." That's more than 3 times Bush and the wars.

The Obama budget? You mean the Obama budget that contains the neglected economy and infrastructure of our country that he inherited from 8 years of republican neglect?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: A) Bush never vetoed a Republican spending bill. B) The republicans controlled the majority of Bush's term. C) Bush and the republicans together did far more harm to our economy than a stimulus bill that kept our country out of a depression. It always seems to be the case that Republicans come in and run up massive defecits, then Democrats come in start to pay them down and get blamed for tax and spend liberals when it was the damn republicans that caused the problem in the first place. You always ignore infrastructure and people to the benefit of corporations, military adventures and arms build up, and wealthy private citizens. What the hell kind of priorities are those? How about rebuilding bridges so they don't collapse during rush hour? What about focusing on fixing our over costly and unfair health system? How about doing things for the majority of the people in this country instead of building roads and armies in Iraq?

Conn, I will discuss and address these things when you admit that triple the spending you complain about is triple the problem you complain about.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Conn, I will discuss and address these things when you admit that triple the spending you complain about is triple the problem you complain about.

Lets see a breakdown of the numbers. Show me actual budgets from the last 10 years. not projections. Projections are usually wrong. They have a history of it.

quote [B] Spare me the irony of blaming Obama, when you supported the largest increase in our deficit in history.

Where the f' did you come up with this crap?
I never supported one dime of deficit spending. I have been against this from the first day I had to work for a living.


The thing you can't get through your thick partisan head is that both sides are to blame. Until this country goes to war on all of the corrupt politicians, and that includes the bunch in there now, we will continue to roll down the cliff.
When you and your children are in the soup line crying about it is the republicans fault, it will not put any meat on your plate.
Do you have a friggen clue how much debt we are in and it is time to pay the piper? Unfortunately we can't even pay the interest.

so we agree - it was elected officials who did this.

anwways - so - what we gonna tax?
Carbonated Beverages? Caffiene? Processed Sugars?
I myself pick Caffiene as the next "sin tax", being its one I wont have to pay into.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Where the f' did you come up with this crap? I never supported one dime of deficit spending. I have been against this from the first day I had to work for a living. The thing you can't get through your thick partisan head is that both sides are to blame. Until this country goes to war on all of the corrupt politicians, and that includes the bunch in there now, we will continue to roll down the cliff. When you and your children are in the soup line crying about it is the republicans fault, it will not put any meat on your plate. Do you have a friggen clue how much debt we are in and it is time to pay the piper? Unfortunately we can't even pay the interest.

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? Who did you vote for in 2002 and 2006? I bet they were republicans weren't they? I am optimistic we will get out of this mess, just like the Reagan and HW Bush defect was payed down.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? Who did you vote for in 2002 and 2006? I bet they were republicans weren't they? I am optimistic we will get out of this mess, just like the Reagan and HW Bush defect was payed down.

I voted against liberal spending and got crapped on by crooked politicians.
You voted for liberal spending and got what you voted for.
Your partisanship is astounding, your smarter than that.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I voted against liberal spending and got crapped on by crooked politicians. You voted for liberal spending and got what you voted for. Your partisanship is astounding, your smarter than that.

Why is it so hard to understand that if we stop the spending now, the whole house of cards collapses? All you have to do is open a history book. It will take time to fix the system. Look up economic theory in recession, and read both sides of the story.

Damn, conn, Democrats can really do no wrong in your eyes. Simply amazing.

I wasn't happy with Bush's deficits. He was spending money like a drunken sailor. But Obama spends money like a drunken NAVY. Even your darling Nancy Pelosi said that the $10 Trillion or so debt that is anticipated in the next 10 years is only half Bush's spending. That means the other $5 Trillion belongs to her, Obama and the rest of your golden boys. And that's if we take everything Nancy Pelosi says as fact.

The "Bush bailouts" as well as the cost of the war in Iraq - for the entire 8 years of his administration, are barely more than 1 year of an Obama budget. Get your head on straight man. You're complaining that the GOP set the country on fire while Obama's Democrats are spraying gasoline on the flames.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Why is it so hard to understand that if we stop the spending now, the whole house of cards collapses?

And all we are doing is postponing that fall--at best. It is ineveitable. Catering to the me me me concept won't stop it.
The GM fiasco is a micrcosym of what is going to happen with the rest of the nation--in that we pour money in to it, and never see anything back--not $ returns or stability returns--just more debt. Debt begats debt--always.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Why is it so hard to understand that if we stop the spending now, the whole house of cards collapses? All you have to do is open a history book. It will take time to fix the system. Look up economic theory in recession, and read both sides of the story.

There are a thousand economic theories, and few, if any are right all of the time.
If you believe there is one politician on the hill now that can pull us out of this mess, you are sadly mistaken.

How friggen far are you willing to go into debt?
We cannot afford to pay the interest to the Commies as it stands now.
Do you want them to own your land also?
How much money would BO have to spend before you say enough is enough?

quote Originally posted by partfiero: There are a thousand economic theories, and few, if any are right all of the time. If you believe there is one politician on the hill now that can pull us out of this mess, you are sadly mistaken. How friggen far are you willing to go into debt? We cannot afford to pay the interest to the Commies as it stands now. Do you want them to own your land also? How much money would BO have to spend before you say enough is enough?

lol - this is so true.
if economists actualy knew WTF the answers were - would we be in this position in the first place?
it is just junk made up. it has to be. money is just made up. economists are basicly the equivalant of people who are experts on comic books. well versed in the made up stuff.
we all understand the basic principal of supply & demand. when the same people always hold the supply, what do you think is going to happen?

anyways - whats the new tax? perhaps a nat'l sales tax? wont that be a hoot? tax you as you get you $$$ and tax it again as you spend it.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Topic: "We're Broke--So the Taxpaying Citizens of America need to be broke too " says Obama advisor

Fixed it for ya.

Obama is running on his own set of rules. He won (I say) by promising everyone hed be out of the middle east by fall. Instead theyre considering sending in 40,000 more troops. Ya, what he says and then does are 2 entirely different things. He keeps stressing that hes putting people back to work, yet unemployment goes up by 1% every month. He should move the west White House to Neverland.

LoL, democrats took over congress (you know, the only organization that can authorize spending) in '06 yet somehow, it's Bush's fault. Obama comes in in '09 and your idea is to blame it on Bush? You guys have got to get a new melody cause this same old song is getting old. You guys have control and instead of doing what you promised, you make it worse. Remind me of a bunch of whining 3rd graders.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: LoL, democrats took over congress (you know, the only organization that can authorize spending) in '06 yet somehow, it's Bush's fault. Obama comes in in '09 and your idea is to blame it on Bush? You guys have got to get a new melody cause this same old song is getting old. You guys have control and instead of doing what you promised, you make it worse. Remind me of a bunch of whining 3rd graders.

From http://www.roanoketeaparty.com/? Come on now, get a legitimate source. Tea Party? Lol! vAnd BTW, you do realize that Bush never included the wars in his budget right? They were in supplementals.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: LoL, democrats took over congress (you know, the only organization that can authorize spending) in '06 yet somehow, it's Bush's fault. Obama comes in in '09 and your idea is to blame it on Bush? You guys have got to get a new melody cause this same old song is getting old. You guys have control and instead of doing what you promised, you make it worse. Remind me of a bunch of whining 3rd graders.

Exactly why I tend to ignore them. It's always the same old song, and we all know it's BS.

If they tax us more it won't go to helping out deficit, it will be used for other wasteful spending the US government is famous for. I'm sorry, I don't give a rats ass about the house of cards theory, let it fall because I don't want to give them another penny of my money. They're getting enough as it is, and I pay a lot more in taxes than the majority of people who make less money than I do, so how is that supposed to motivate me to work harder. The more you do, the harder you get slapped.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/...-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

Page 52 you ignoramus.

http://vcnv.org/q-a-2007-su...mental-spending-bill

You are so hopelessly stupid. A supplemental just means it wasn't compeltely added in the prediction (ie catastrophe). Seeing however that LAST YEAR WAS '08 WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WAS SPENT, hence "Actual". Just because its a supplemental, doesn't mean its not added to the deficit. The CBO is adding up the deficit of everything thats already been penned in. Heaven forbid we have another tragedy (i.e. Katrina) they would have to supplemental more spending not already in their massive deficit budget.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 10-02-2009).]

But isn't the CBO part of the VRWC?


Interesting. What changed in 2007 to cause the sudden drastic collapse of the budget and our economy?

Not that this one graphic means much. I will concede it comes from a partisan source: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?cat=21

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/...-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf Page 52 you ignoramus.

I never claimed the budget isn't higher. My problem is with the willful dismissal of how it got that way. The economy TANKED. It's classic policy to increase government spending during a recession until the economy recovers. Now, what about the fact that this was an inherited economy and two wars? What did Obama do to increase the budget to these levels? If you remove the stimulus and bank programs, and wars, what would the budget be? I'll say it again you moron, Bush didn't include the wars in his budgets. They were added as supplementals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...udget#Total_receipts

The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion

Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills.

The total requested military budget of the United States for 2007 was $699 billion.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: It's classic policy to increase government spending during a recession until the economy recovers.

Classic doesn't mean effective, or intelligent.
While you may spend money in a recession to help the economy improve, that doesn't mean you throw in every possible spending program you can think of, including a health insurance revamp that could destroy the budgets of even the strongest economic times.

How'd the economy tank? People spending money they didn't have.
How's Obama going to fix it? By spending money we don't have.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How'd the economy tank? People spending money they didn't have.

My personal economy tanked. Where do I get some of that money.
Oh, from someone else. No thanks.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I never claimed the budget isn't higher. My problem is with the willful dismissal of how it got that way. The economy TANKED. It's classic policy to increase government spending during a recession until the economy recovers. Now, what about the fact that this was an inherited economy and two wars? What did Obama do to increase the budget to these levels? If you remove the stimulus and bank programs, and wars, what would the budget be? I'll say it again you moron, Bush didn't include the wars in his budgets. They were added as supplementals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...udget#Total_receipts The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills. The total requested military budget of the United States for 2007 was $699 billion.

A.) I as well as a lot of others were screaming against both stimulus's bush signed through; both the $1200 to everyone pander check and then even more so on the wall street bailout. Its even worse to have people like Micheal Moore come in and denounce capitalism citing these bailouts even though the bailouts are the antithesist of a capatilistic society.

B.) We got into this situation from a society that indebted themselves. The American dream was turned from "You have the right to bust your ass and work hard for what you want" to "You have to have a house twice as big as you need, a big screen, and 22's." Massive debt was made the norm to have. Everyone was making money, no-one wanted to question the toothpick foundation they were building on. People were also treating the 'equity' in their homes as a credit card even though they were borrowing against a false or inflated value. Then there was the policy enacted by Clinton which pushed lenders to make risky loans. This laid the wood down. Next, all these people pushed these risky loans and people pulled out massive amounts of inflated equity on their houses, pouring fuel on the fire. After a bit, a slight spike in the forclosure rate hit; This was the spark. Banks upped their rates on the ARM's to combat their losses, inadvertantly putting a rocket on the snowball. So this whole thing was sparked by people spending money they really didn't have and Obama's answer is to spend money we don't have? Define idiocy.

C.) The bailouts and the porkulus are both horrible ideas. The bailout (democrat created and I fault bush for not veto'ing it) was supposed to free the credit market. Well low and behold, after getting massive amounts of money, the credit market is still frozen.

D.) Keep blaming bush for the iraq war. Your party is the one that keeps signing the bills to keep funding it. Man up or shut up. I want them to either go in there with all the military force we have available and obliterate the enemy or GTFO. No more of this fighting a 'politically correct, hug trees' BS

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: . . . It's classic policy to increase government spending during a recession until the economy recovers. . . .

It's classic Keynesian policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics, and it obviously isn't working now. Unemployment continues to rise, and we have no idea what the actual rate of unemployment is because people who have lost any hope of finding a job aren't counted. How is it possible for a recession to be ending without unemployment going down? Business can make investments to increase production, but people who aren't working won't buy whatever is produced.


We are broke because of debt, public and private. Until the consumer debt is cleared from the market, there will be no economic recovery. As for giving Washington more money, that's just plain stupid. It won't reduce spending. The President says health care can be paid for without tax increases through savings in Medicare. We've heard that one, Barry. Prove it, then we will talk. Otherwise, you, Pelosi, and Reid are just spendaholic control freaks.