[tomder55]

Cold hearted ? It wasn't I who decided to defund Social Security with payroll tax deductions.

[speechlesstx]

Josh Hamilton can't stay that hot forever .

I don't know about that. That boy is on fire.

[talaniman]

Seems your are judged by what you do, and giving even more tax breaks to the rich, while cutting back on the safety net seems cold and heartless to me. Especially when it doesn't balance the budget.

One of the reasons that deficit is so huge is because of shrinking revenues, and 23 million jobs would be a good remedy for not only the deficit, but those PROJECTED shortfalls in social security, and medicare.

I will have to address the real elephant in the room, the pentagon/security after I pick up my grand daughter, and adjust my lime up a bit more, as my red hot pitchers are cooling of fast. I will leave you with one thing though, and that's the Haliburton contract and other military contractors.

[tomder55]

Lol I think Haliburton has gotten more contracts from the Obots than the previous adm.

[paraclete]

So is there some significance in that

[tomder55]

Haliburton has gotten no bid contracts now from 3 consecutive administrations.. It has nothing to do with cronyism... they are just the best at the service they provide to the government .

[TUT317]

I don't know enough about your country to make that claim ;but it is absolutely true here.

Hi Tom,

We tend not to deal in absolutes when it comes to a social ethos. Too ideological for our liking.

Tut

[paraclete]

Yes a lot of things are true there that we don't experience elsewhere

[TUT317]

Why not ? I think in many cases that is exactly what's needed . I happen to think that any law created should have an expiration date where it should be reviewed and only reinstituted if periodically debated and again approved . How about showing some positive results ? Does a program work ? Shouldn't we know it works before it becomes permanently institutionalized ? . .

I forgot to answer this one.

What you have here is a type of dialectic. In other words, you seem to be putting forward the idea of trial and error and the elimination of error.There are of course different dialectical methods but all have one thing in common, viz they all deal with the study of change.

Basically I don't think you can study an institution in terms of how it once functioned and claim to know how it works now. I think you would have to pick one premise. Together they seem like a contradiction.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Seems your are judged by what you do, and giving even more tax breaks to the rich, while cutting back on the safety net seems cold and heartless to me.

Especially when it doesn't balance the budget

.

There's been no effort to balance any budget, another "big" Obama promise broken. So far his laughable budgets have been voted down 610-0 since last May. Pretty pathetic for his boasting to get spending under ntrol...

“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we've inherited. And we'll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”

Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

The 2013 budget the president submitted today does not come close to meeting this promise of being reduced to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.

The president noted in that 2009 speech the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.

The deficit was similarly $1.3 trillion in 2011, is projected to be $1.15 trillion in 2012, and the president's budget claims it will be $901 billion in 2013.

Epic FAIL.

One of the reasons that deficit is so huge is because of shrinking revenues, and 23 million jobs would be a good remedy for not only the deficit, but those PROJECTED shortfalls in social security, and medicare.

The only job growth spurred by the feds under Obama is in government jobs.

I will have to address the real elephant in the room, the pentagon/security after I pick up my grand daughter, and adjust my lime up a bit more, as my red hot pitchers are cooling of fast. I will leave you with one thing though, and that's the Haliburton contract and other military contractors.

Dude, the rest of you can't beat the unmanaged team in second place below me. :p

[TUT317]

Steve, this graph tells us nothing. What are we talking here- social expenditure or welfare expenditure? Both?

Tut

[excon]

Steve, this graph tells us nothing. What are we talking here- social expenditure or welfare expenditure? Both?

Hello again, TUT:

You hit the nail on the head... There's statistics, and there's damn statistics. I don't know who said that, but he's right.

Case in point. The governor of Wisconsin is being recalled. One side has statistics to PROVE that jobs were LOST during his watch... He has statistics to PROVE that jobs were GAINED. I don't know who to believe.

The chart Steve posted was prepared by a "severely right wing" senator. You can believe it if you wish. There was a time when you could COUNT on what your congressman told you... Not any more.

excon

[speechlesstx]

It says we spend a lot of money.

[talaniman]

Notwithstanding the fact that slashing budgets during a recession is in itself recessionary, since the government is the last resort for spending because the banks, corporations and consumers cannot,

Federal Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Are Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

And that pesky recession thing again makes spending even more important and historically, the government safety net, you know the one that's supposed to catch people when times are hard,

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

So while you holler about spending, make sure you examine what the spending is on. And while raising taxes on the rich doesn't pay for the whole deficit, it sure does help. Isn't that the way Clinton balanced the budget, taxes, and cuts. One without the other does nothing but add to suffering.

What's important to look at, according to OMB Watch's regulatory expert Jessica Randall, is the impact the regulations have had. Many have helped Americans, such as the health care reform act allowing children to remain covered under their parents' health insurance until age 26.

"The regulations issued under Obama have benefited people's lives more than they've cost them," Randall said

And you like charts, lets examine the effects of those tax cuts, under Bush, that you protect so well at the expense of the old and poor, and mainly kids,

CHART: Without The Bush Tax Cuts, The Debt Would Be At Sustainable Levels | ThinkProgress

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts | Economic Policy Institute

Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts in one chart

As you see there are many sources that blow Mitts and republican protectionism out of the water, as they few benefit, at the expense of the rich, and the claims of job creators is but spin for trickle down, supply side economics. True job creators are consumers whose spending spurs demand, keeps factories, and warehouses booming, and corporations in business. Real job creators circulate money, not sit on it and claim they are afraid to spend because of regulations taxes, or pimples on the butt.

End of Economy 101. Questions??
Now if the Germans and the EU, do their own Marshall plan, what happened to Germany decades ago, can happen in Greece, and we all can relax. For sure we know if the austerity in Europe, espoused here by Republicans becomes reality, then we will get the same results that they are getting. Mitt and the crew get rich, and even higher unemployment. NO JOBS!

End of Economy 102, European Economics.

Funny how republicans don't want even the smallest tax hikes (.05%) on the 1%, to create much needed infrastructure projects, and jobs in the process. Wonder why? Oh that's right, if the president is right, then they are wrong!

Questions??

[excon]

Questions???

Hello tal:

**greenie**

excon

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=talaniman;3121174]

Notwithstanding the fact that slashing budgets during a recession is in itself recessionary, since the government is the last resort for spending because the banks, corporations and consumers cannot,

Or in our case, won't because we have an administration that's extremely unfriendly to business... unless you're one of those they're picking as a "winner," like Solyndra.

Funny how republicans don't want even the smallest tax hikes (.05%) on the 1%, to create much needed infrastructure projects, and jobs in the process. Wonder why? Oh that's right, if the president is right, then they are wrong!

Questions??

Um yes, is the hyper-partisanship only on the right or does it infect Democrats, too?

[speechlesstx]

You hit the nail on the head... There's statistics, and there's damn statistics. I dunno who said that, but he's right.

Which type are these?

[excon]

Which type are these?

Hello again, Steve:

Early season ones..

excon

[tomder55]

Stats that say I chose my team's name right.
Hey ;did you see where the Obots are all bothered that the Chinese are exporting heavily subsidized solar panels... ROFL . The only difference is that our heavy subsidized solar companies go under.

[talaniman]

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Or in our case, won't because we have an administration that's extremely unfriendly to business... unless you're one of those they're picking as a "winner," like Solyndra.

I Guess you missed the list of the more than 135 companies that got loans from the energy department. Solyndra was but one and not all of them survived, and Solyndra was not the only company that stands as a viable company for the future, after the lawsuits and tariffs have run their course.It may take a while, and believe it or not, rising costs in China may bring those corporations back to American shores. Stay tuned as there is a lot going on in that part of the world.

Um yes, is the hyper-partisanship only on the right or does it infect Democrats, too?

Back in the day when Republicans actually wanted to solve problems I had my heroes, McCain, Hatch, Lugar, actually there were a few who were very thoughtful and pragmatic. The ones that are replacing them are just rubber necks with no clue about what they are doing, I mean NONE, and have but one agenda, to do as they are told by the powers that be. Not the Tea Party, as many think, but the monied people in the background who have subverted the right wing and conservatives, and scare the hell out of them.

No I am not hyper partisan, but I do see the effects on real people when a consensus is not reached. I even respect Ronald Reagan to some degree for being flexible in the face of facts and events, to manage and govern fairly effectively, and do what he had to to keep things going. I don't believe in supply side economics at all, but he also raised taxes when he had to.

No I am not hyper partisan at all, just don't BS me with dumb ideas, and expect me to not say anything. You would do well to keep a pen and a calculator by the computer, and get your own facts, and not what's been told to you, because both sides lie and spin thing there way. It was Ronald Reagan that said TRUST, but VERIFY! Wise words!

After the off season I think its safe to say Josh has something to prove, he is on FIRE!

stats that say I chose my team's name right.
Hey ;did you see where the Obots are all bothered that the Chinese are exporting heavily subsidized solar panels... ROFL . The only difference is that our heavy subsidized solar companies go under.

Socialist societies can do that! But the Chinese are not the all powerful you think they are. They are dependent on the outside world for basicsand a growing number of population centers are bring pressure to the government for much needed resources and social reforms.