PDA

View Full Version : 150 out of 150 economists agree ...



LWW
06-02-2011, 02:05 AM
... if the democrooks are allowed to continue with their agenda of stupidonomics, the country will be crushed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than 150 economists back U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's call to match any increase in the debt limit with spending cuts of equal size, according to a letter released by the Republican leader's office Wednesday.

The letter will give Boehner an important talking point as he and his fellow House Republicans meet with President Barack Obama at 10 a.m. to discuss the debt limit and other fiscal issues.

"An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government's spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America," the letter said.

Signatories include Nobel laureate Robert Mundell of Columbia University and economists from schools like New York University and Georgetown University, as well as conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

The Treasury Department has warned that the country could face a default that could push it back into recession and roil markets across the globe if it does not raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit by Aug 2.

Treasury has been tapping federal employee pensions and other funds to pay the nation's bills since it reached the current debt limit on May 16.

Republicans say they will not back any increase that does not include steep spending cuts and other limits to ensure that debt stays at a manageable level.

The Republican-controlled HouseTuesday defeated a bill that called for a debt-limit increase without conditions.

In talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, Republicans and Democrats have identified hundreds of billions of dollars in possible spending cuts, and both sides say they could ultimately find more than a trillion dollars in deficit savings.

But they must resolve a dispute over the biggest-ticket items.

Democrats say they will not consider cuts to popular health benefits until Republicans consider tax increases. </div></div>

Even the leftist Obamedia is beginning to report this. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43234290)

cushioncrawler
06-02-2011, 05:15 AM
There iz no such thing az a krappynomix nobel laureate.
I read .... 150 krappynomicysts agree.
mac.

Qtec
06-02-2011, 05:33 AM
LOL

The AEI.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dan Blumenthal, Resident Fellow
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>John R. Bolton, Senior Fellow</span>
Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow
Alex Brill, Research Fellow
Arthur C. Brooks, President
John E. Calfee, Resident Scholar
Charles W. Calomiris, Visiting Scholar
Lynne V. Cheney, Senior Fellow
Steven J. Davis, Visiting Scholar
Mauro De Lorenzo, Visiting Scholar
Christopher DeMuth, D. C. Searle Senior Fellow
Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow
Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Scholar
Jon Entine, Visiting Fellow
John C. Fortier, Research Fellow
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>David Frum, Resident Fellow
Newt Gingrich, Senior Fellow</span></div></div>

You can try and put lipstick on a pig.......

Q

Qtec
06-02-2011, 06:04 AM
More.

link (http://crooksandliars.com/murshedz/latest-house-republicans-dog-pony-show-bo)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Latest in House Republicans’ Dog & Pony Show: Boehner Rolls out Partisan Hacks Cloaked as “Economists”</span>


..Today Speaker John Boehner continued his dog and pony show by rolling out a letter signed by "more than 150 economists" who agree that "An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms...will harm private-sector job creation in America."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Sounds very “serious.” Doesn’t it? Except not so much. As Matt Finkelstein from Political Correction notes the signees feature right-wing hacks, bitter partisan dead-enders, and number of characters affiliated with Koch Brothers.</span> <u>Highlights from some of these characters include:
</u>
Benjamin Zycher: Michelle Obama Is The Product Of "Affirmative-Action Coddling" And "An Intellectual Lightweight." In a post on National Review's blog The Corner, Zycher wrote: "Now, let me be blunt: Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?" </div></div>

That sound you are hearing is your stupid spoon fed post going down in flames.

Q

Sev
06-02-2011, 06:31 AM
I want to see them not raise the limit just to see what happens.

The experts are screeming the sky is falling.

Lets see if it does.

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 07:09 AM
Our national debt is presently at 47.5% of GDP.

I hate to be the one to bring the bad news....but it's hardly what I would consider to be a "managable level".

There is no other option, other than to cut down the size of government and reduce government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

We are in serious debt, and the first thing you do when you are in debt is reduce spending.

How freaking difficult is this for anyone to comprehend??????

If you have put yourself into financial trouble with credit cards, how stupid do you have to be to apply for more credit cards????????????????????


Steve

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our national debt is presently at 47.5% of GDP.

I hate to be the one to bring the bad news....but it's hardly what I would consider to be a "managable level".

There is no other option, other than to cut down the size of government and reduce government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

We are in serious debt, and the first thing you do when you are in debt is reduce spending.

How freaking difficult is this for anyone to comprehend??????

If you have put yourself into financial trouble with credit cards, how stupid do you have to be to apply for more credit cards????????????????????


Steve </div></div>

This is less than half the record level of debt to gdp, which was about 125% debt to gdp, after WW II.

This was reduced to about a 30% debt to gdp ratio over time, using the standard economics model of the Democratic Party, and I guess, really, everyone at the time ("We're all [neo-?]Keynesians now" -- President Richard Nixon).

Note, this reduction of close to 3 times the debt to gdp ratio we have now to the 30% range occurred without many or any 'balanced budgets,' and certainly without trillion dollar cuts in spending, and in fact, with usually an annual deficit.

It wasn't until Reagan decided that the $70 billion dollar record annual deficit that occurred in a recession was so high that it threatened our country, resulting in his crackpot economics 'river boat gamble' (according to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, who later was appointed Reagan's Chief of Staff), that he personally permanently put the country on a path of debt ruination. Tripled the debt in 8 years of his watch.

GHW Bush added 50% onto the debt during his 4 years. W, appropriately, doubled the debt achieved during his 8 years.

And this is the result of normal Democratic Party economics--- how, exactly?

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our national debt is presently at 47.5% of GDP.

I hate to be the one to bring the bad news....but it's hardly what I would consider to be a "managable level".

There is no other option, other than to cut down the size of government and reduce government spending. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

We are in serious debt, and the first thing you do when you are in debt is reduce spending.

How freaking difficult is this for anyone to comprehend??????

If you have put yourself into financial trouble with credit cards, how stupid do you have to be to apply for more credit cards????????????????????


Steve </div></div>

This is less than half the record level of debt to gdp, which was about 125% debt to gdp, after WW II.

This was reduced to about a 30% debt to gdp ratio over time, using the standard economics model of the Democratic Party, and I guess, really, everyone at the time ("We're all [neo-?]Keynesians now" -- President Richard Nixon).

Note, this reduction of close to 3 times the debt to gdp ratio we have now to the 30% range occurred without many or any 'balanced budgets,' and certainly without trillion dollar cuts in spending, and in fact, with usually an annual deficit.

It wasn't until Reagan decided that the $70 billion dollar record annual deficit that occurred in a recession was so high that it threatened our country, resulting in his crackpot economics 'river boat gamble' (according to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, who later was appointed Reagan's Chief of Staff), that he personally permanently put the country on a path of debt ruination. Tripled the debt in 8 years of his watch.

GHW Bush added 50% onto the debt during his 4 years. W, appropriately, doubled the debt achieved during his 8 years.

And this is the result of normal Democratic Party economics--- how, exactly? </div></div>


We don't have a deficit problem, have a Repiglican Economics Problem!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


First time we have had people so thoroughly brain washed, they can't understand that you have to raise revenues, AND cut un-necessary spending, and Un-necessary spending, does not mean, Ending Medicare as we know it, nor does it mean throwing people in Missouri under the bus, when they are living in tents, through no fault of their own.

I've learned, in my life, that the hate and ignorance of the Religious Right, precludes any rational ability to grasp simple economic principles.

They prefer to hate their fellow Americans, and defend Oil Thieves!

They prefer to blame the poor, for what the wealthy have stolen from them.

They prefer to believe that spending ten billion dollars a month, for five years, and losing four thousand young Americans, and over thrity thousand additionally, horribly injured, was all worth it!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Even when there were nothing but lies, ever used, to justify the illegal invasion, and occupation of Iraq, and NO connections to al Qaeda, and NO connections to 9/11, and NO WMD!

But then, they believe that the top Scientists all over the world, of the highest credibility, are involved in a global scheme, to lie about climate change, LMAO!

But then, many of them, the christian Fundamentalists, also think that a man can live inside of a whale!

Deny The Theory Of Evolution!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Or think that the left, hates Sara Palin, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif LMAO, because the left can see nothing but an ignorant woman, full of bull, who cares ONLY about her own opportunities to exploit the ignorance of the right, in order to stuff more money in her hot little hands, and bilk what she can from America's uninformed.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Honestly, if there really is anything to be afraid of, it's the overall ignorance, and denials, of the Republican voters!!!!

Trump?
Bachmann?
Palin??
Romney??
Pawlenty??
Gingrich??
Christie??
Barbour??
McConnell??
Boehner??
Rove??
Bush??
Cheney??
Delay??

The list of idiots and thieves they vote for is stunning!

OMG!!!! And how about the Texas Governor, who doesn't even know about the history of his own state!!!! Didn't even know that Texas never reserved the right to secede from the Union, only to split onto more than one state!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LMAO!

Ignorant Republicans, the true cause of our high deficits, and our broken government!

G.

eg8r
06-02-2011, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is less than half the record level of debt to gdp, which was about 125% debt to gdp, after WW II.
</div></div>Smoke and mirrors. Just becasue it has been worse in the past has nothing to do with the fact that it is at a horrible level right now and the country is going bankrupt. When in debt quit spending money wastefully. The system is inefficient and Dems are Reps are unwilling to admit it.

One example, prior to the 60's our educational system was the cream of the crop. We start pumping more and more money in and they education continues to drop further and further. What do the Dems want to do...spend even more. You cannot outspend inefficiency. It does not happen that way. Cut the pork and start where it is the highest.

A great example of what the dems are trying to do...Picture a nice normal house in middle America (call this our economy). The owners try to sell so they put it on the market. Once they do that the front yard starts going all to hell. Grass is dead, tons and tons of bugs an animals move in. The paint on the front of the house is peeling off everywhere. So, sure money has to be spent to fix the problem make the house more appealing to buyers because no one wants this run down dump. So what do the owners do...they take their available money, borrow tons more from the bank and build a swimming pool in the backyard. Front is still going to hell, no one is even bothering to look at the house but the swimming pool is almost complete.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is less than half the record level of debt to gdp, which was about 125% debt to gdp, after WW II.
</div></div>Smoke and mirrors. Just becasue it has been worse in the past has nothing to do with the fact that it is at a horrible level right now and the country is going bankrupt. When in debt quit spending money wastefully. The system is inefficient and Dems are Reps are unwilling to admit it.

One example, prior to the 60's our educational system was the cream of the crop. We start pumping more and more money in and they education continues to drop further and further.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Are you really that narrow minded?

There are a range of things that hurt our educational system, during the sixties, which had not one damn thing to do with what we spent on it!!!! I know, I was fully involved in fighting the true causes. </span>

What do the Dems want to do...spend even more. You cannot outspend inefficiency. It does not happen that way. Cut the pork and start where it is the highest.


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Well, the highest amount of PORK, has been spent over the last decades, by Republicans, so I agree, cut Republicans! </span>

A great example of what the dems are trying to do...Picture a nice normal house in middle America (call this our economy). The owners try to sell so they put it on the market. Once they do that the front yard starts going all to hell. Grass is dead, tons and tons of bugs an animals move in. The paint on the front of the house is peeling off everywhere. So, sure money has to be spent to fix the problem make the house more appealing to buyers because no one wants this run down dump. So what do the owners do...they take their available money, borrow tons more from the bank and build a swimming pool in the backyard. Front is still going to hell, no one is even bothering to look at the house but the swimming pool is almost complete.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Perfect description of our current Repiglican Party!!!!</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When in debt quit spending money wastefully</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>
If ONLY you had had that philosophy all along, instead of strangely developing it, AFTER BUSH DESTROYED THE ECONOMY BVY WARRING, BORROWING, WASTING AND LYING AND CUTTING TAXES FOR THE NON JOB PRODUCERS!</span>

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 12:06 PM
Come on soflo....you can't possibly be trying to defend the Obama administration's spending rates, which are on track to blow away any previous administration! You're kidding, right?

Do you think Obama has improved our debt to GDP ratio, or has it gotten worse in the last 28 months?

At least be man enough to admit that Obama has been, and continues to drive us deeper and deeper in debt. We all know this administration has continued spending money we don't have, hand over fist. You can find a period of time following WWII and think it somehow justifies what this administration is doing.

Take off the Big D jersey, and look at the facts. What do you think is going to happen if we don't start cutting the cost of government?????????????

Steve

eg8r
06-02-2011, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you really that narrow minded?

There are a range of things that hurt our educational system, during the sixties, which had not one damn thing to do with what we spent on it!!!! I know, I was fully involved in fighting the true causes. </div></div>If you are going to call my correct view of the past narrow minded, that would leave you absent minded. It is a clear example of government inefficiencies and if you disagree at that very basic level then reality escapes you forever. More money has been thrown at education only to drive it to its lowest levels. Plain and simple, you cannot outspend inefficiency.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the highest amount of PORK, has been spent over the last decades, by Republicans, so I agree, cut Republicans!
</div></div>Quit being a hypocrite, you voted for Obama over McCain. THAT WAS YOUR VOTE FOR PORK!!! Your voted to build the bridge to nowhere instead of help the Katrina victims. What a stand up guy. Back to the subject....

When in debt quick spending money...One mantra the left ignores by sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending not to hear.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If ONLY you had had that philosophy all along, instead of strangely developing it, AFTER BUSH DESTROYED THE ECONOMY BVY WARRING, BORROWING, WASTING AND LYING AND CUTTING TAXES FOR THE NON JOB PRODUCERS!
</div></div>It is not my fault you took the ignorant approach to ignore my posts. If you would have paid a little attention instead of letting your sour attitude get in the way you would have seen post after post that I disagreed with W's out of control spending. I even called him more of a centrist than Clinton ever was, but, ignorance as it is you chose not to read.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you really that narrow minded?

There are a range of things that hurt our educational system, during the sixties, which had not one damn thing to do with what we spent on it!!!! I know, I was fully involved in fighting the true causes. </div></div>If you are going to call my correct view of the past narrow minded, that would leave you absent minded. It is a clear example of government inefficiencies and if you disagree at that very basic level then reality escapes you forever. More money has been thrown at education only to drive it to its lowest levels. Plain and simple, you cannot outspend inefficiency.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the highest amount of PORK, has been spent over the last decades, by Republicans, so I agree, cut Republicans!
</div></div>Quit being a hypocrite, you voted for Obama over McCain. THAT WAS YOUR VOTE FOR PORK!!! Your voted to build the bridge to nowhere instead of help the Katrina victims. What a stand up guy. Back to the subject....

When in debt quick spending money...One mantra the left ignores by sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending not to hear.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If ONLY you had had that philosophy all along, instead of strangely developing it, AFTER BUSH DESTROYED THE ECONOMY BVY WARRING, BORROWING, WASTING AND LYING AND CUTTING TAXES FOR THE NON JOB PRODUCERS!
</div></div>It is not my fault you took the ignorant approach to ignore my posts. If you would have paid a little attention instead of letting your sour attitude get in the way you would have seen post after post that I disagreed with W's out of control spending. I even called him more of a centrist than Clinton ever was, but, ignorance as it is you chose not to read.

eg8r
</div></div>



The Repiglican Congress BROKE the EARMARK RECORD!
The Biggest Porkers in history!
Bush borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, to pay for his tax cuts, warring, spending, borrowing, and give aways to Big Pharma.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Your voted to build the bridge to nowhere instead of help the Katrina victims. What a stand up guy. Back to the subject....

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Quite a sentence you have there, Ed, only it makes no sense whatsoever.

Palin, was the bridge to no where. McCain was pushing for war with Iran.

Bush is the one whose appointees failed to respond to FEMA, and then sold the victims, poisoned trailors, that all ended up rotting in a mud ditch, compliments of his crony appointments.


You have consistantly defended our illegal invasion of Iraq, and still do. The bulk of our deficit, is from George W. Bush, and the Repiglican, blank check Congress.

Figure it out!

Iraq was costing 10 billion and an additional two billion, every month, for Afghanistan, which is twelve billion a month for over five years!

Figure out the interest on all of that money he spent, and STILL didn't even get bin Laden!

We lost revenues under the Bush Tax Cuts, Trillions more, and job creation perfomance was the worst in history.

Bush pushed through the TARP, not Obama, almost another trillion dollars, some say we'll never really know all of the money Paulson and Bush blew on that.

The Iraq War was estimated at way above six trillion, in costs, and think about thhe long range care for so many of our Vets, who came home so horribly injured.


Obama had to spend to keep the train on the track, he had no choice.

The bulk of our deficits, result from the Bush Administration, by far.

AND, at a time when we needed money to adjust to a global economy.

Any way you slice it, Reppiglicans are responsible, for the bulk of our debts!

Always have been, always will be. That's who they are.


The sixties, brought about huge social changes, which, IMO, had a very negative impact on education.

Druggies, raising kids.

Mothers gone from home.

Latchkey kids all over the country.

Social upheval over Vietnam.

Over crowded classrooms.

Followed by Bussing, which also negatiely impacted our educational system, and, btw, one of the dumbest programs, I've ever witnessed.


G.

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 01:29 PM
I just love it when you ramble on about things of which you have absolutely no understanding. It's just so cute!


Steve

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just love it when you ramble on about things of which you have absolutely no understanding. It's just so cute!


Steve </div></div>

Typical answer of someone too ignorant to address the issues.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Followed by Bussing, which also negatiely impacted our educational system, and, btw, one of the dumbest programs, I've ever witnessed.


G. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Racist!!!!</span>

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Followed by Bussing, which also negatiely impacted our educational system, and, btw, one of the dumbest programs, I've ever witnessed.


G. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Racist!!!!</span>

Steve </div></div>


I'm all for equal rights, Steve. The bussing program, failed to accomplish what it was meant for, but my daughter was in an open track, non graded school, so I had her in private school, anyway, because I did not approve of that system.

Heard the school had improved, tried it a second time, then bussing hit, AFTER I had already pretty much decided to put her back into the private school, where she had been going, anyway, but I also didn't think it was fair for the Government, to tell parents who were invested in homes, a stone's throw away from our neighborhood school, that their kids could not go there.

No child of mine will be bussed on the highway away from her neighborhood, regardless of the cause.


So STUFF IT!
G.

eg8r
06-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Gayle, you voted for pork be an adult and admit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite a sentence you have there, Ed, only it makes no sense whatsoever.
</div></div>LOL, grammar wizard which sentence are you referring to since you decided to quote 3 at the same time. If that is the level you want to stoop just let me know and I will get out of your way. Your grammar is always poor but you don't see me stooping that low to point it out to you. When someone starts pointing out nitpicky stuff like that is news to the readers that you don't have anything important to say and are losing yet again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Palin, was the bridge to no where. McCain was pushing for war with Iran.
</div></div>Looks like your memory is getting quite poor, but I bet it is on purpose. Let me remind you... CNN calling you a liar!!! (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-23/politics/biden.earmarks_1_delaware-senator-gravina-island-bridge?_s=PM:POLITICS) Palin had long gave up her support for the bridge when the voting actually started to mean anything.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have consistantly defended our illegal invasion of Iraq, and still do.</div></div>OK, at this point you are digressing to a rant so I will stop at this one off-subject brainfart of yours...I defended it just like you defended our illegal invasion of Yugoslavia.

The rest of your collective brain dump has been ignored. If you want to keep changing the subject then keep your comments to yourself.

eg8r

LWW
06-02-2011, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL

The AEI.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dan Blumenthal, Resident Fellow
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>John R. Bolton, Senior Fellow</span>
Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow
Alex Brill, Research Fellow
Arthur C. Brooks, President
John E. Calfee, Resident Scholar
Charles W. Calomiris, Visiting Scholar
Lynne V. Cheney, Senior Fellow
Steven J. Davis, Visiting Scholar
Mauro De Lorenzo, Visiting Scholar
Christopher DeMuth, D. C. Searle Senior Fellow
Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow
Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Scholar
Jon Entine, Visiting Fellow
John C. Fortier, Research Fellow
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>David Frum, Resident Fellow
Newt Gingrich, Senior Fellow</span></div></div>

You can try and put lipstick on a pig.......

Q </div></div>

Do you have a link putting these folks among the 150?

What's that?

You made it up?

Imagine that.

LWW
06-02-2011, 04:50 PM
Actually, our real debt is twice the net worth of the USA.

To arrive at the figure often used of a $14T debt ... the state must use stupidonomic accounting.

As an example, if one borrows to buy a home on credit and the payment is $1,000.00 a month for 360 months ... by stupidonomic accounting they are only $1,000.00 in debt because that's all that is currently due.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 10:32 AM
Quick read looks to me like Biden and Obama, as far as you can prove, were voting to repair a bridge in Louisana, not Palin's bridge in Alaska, which was the REAL bridge to nowhere, which apparently was earmarked into the same bill.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
06-03-2011, 10:44 AM
OMG, you really have lost it. Your "quick read" skills have seriously deteriorated if you think their vote was to help Louisiana. They voted for the Bridge to Nowhere instead of helping Katrina victims.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OMG, you really have lost it. Your "quick read" skills have seriously deteriorated if you think their vote was to help Louisiana. They voted for the Bridge to Nowhere instead of helping Katrina victims.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Johnston CNN Special Investigations Unit
Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.

Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.

And both voted for the final transportation bill that included the $223 million earmark for the Alaska project.

</div></div>

I don't see how you can say that, unless you know every earmark in both bills.

Do you?

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 11:35 AM
When the facts show you are wrong, it's usually best to just admit it and move on.


Steve

eg8r
06-03-2011, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.

Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.
</div></div>OK, so it says Biden mocks Palin for the Bridge to Nowhere yet he and Obama voted to keep the project alive twice. That means Biden and Obama hypocritically mocked Palin because they both voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

In doing so (refer to the next paragraph), they voted to kill the bill that would take the money from Bridge to Nowhere and send it to help Katrina victims. In short, they voted to give the money to the Alaskan bridge instead of the Katrina relief.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on soflo....you can't possibly be trying to defend the Obama administration's spending rates, which are on track to blow away any previous administration! You're kidding, right?

Do you think Obama has improved our debt to GDP ratio, or has it gotten worse in the last 28 months?

At least be man enough to admit that Obama has been, and continues to drive us deeper and deeper in debt. We all know this administration has continued spending money we don't have, hand over fist. You can find a period of time following WWII and think it somehow justifies what this administration is doing.

Take off the Big D jersey, and look at the facts. What do you think is going to happen if we don't start cutting the cost of government?????????????

Steve </div></div>

The fact is that over 60% of the current budget deficit is the result of the recession's lingering unemployment problem, which depresses tax receipts, while costing extra safety net expenditures.

That has nothing to do with some runamok federal programs whatsoever, and the extra safety net expenditures are quite standard, without much extra being added to them.

Going in order, the economic stagnation is the largest single factor, and then comes the continuation of the large tax rate cuts' reduction in revenues (the federal tax haul is only 14.5% of gdp, some 4-5% less than normal, even during the Reagan years (more like 18-19%).

The tax cut extension by itself contributes as much to the long-term deficit accumulation as adding all the effects of the spending for the two wars we shouldn't have started and should end (but will still be paying for, with over $1 trillion still to be paid even if we ended them entirely now, considering the long-term care due our wounded and disabled veterans).

So Obama's own spending, new stuff he's done, come in at about a 6% contributor to the longer term debt increase, although it's true, that by his continuing (and expanding) the Afghan spending, and extending the Bush tax rate cuts, THOSE DO ADD A LOT. But note, not what he put in place, but his continuation of these couple of Bush administration policies.

I know most people aren't accountants, and aren't even that good with simple arithmetic, but they've been particularly dense about these spending issues. But to be fair, they've been aggressively lied to, and the accounting tricks that went on, and the way the fiscal year doesn't coincide with the calendar year, further confuse the issue.

Fact is, CBO said Bush's last fiscal year, which started Oct. 1 of 2008 through Sept. 2009, would have had over $1 trillion in deficit, about $1.2 trillion, before Obama did a single thing. Of the deficit that occurred that year, Obama with his own policies added about $200 billion to that figure.

But because the late 2008 TARP money ($780 billion) was added in, and the cost of the two wars put back into the budget where before it was hidden as 'emergency spending,' and people thought Obama added all of that money to the budget (he didn't), it has been a politically fruitful tactic to say he himself by his own policies ballooned the deficit from small to huge. This is not true.

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is that over 60% of the current budget deficit is the result of the recession's lingering unemployment problem, which depresses tax receipts, while costing extra safety net expenditures.

That has nothing to do with some runamok federal programs whatsoever, and the extra safety net expenditures are quite standard, without much extra being added to them.</div></div>

Really?

Then name for us the last time we had 2+ years of UE benefits and the last time we doubled food stamp usage in under 2 years?

What's that?

We never did either before?

You were hoping nobody would call you on your unsubstantiated claims?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is that over 60% of the current budget deficit is the result of the recession's lingering unemployment problem, which depresses tax receipts, while costing extra safety net expenditures.

That has nothing to do with some runamok federal programs whatsoever, and the extra safety net expenditures are quite standard, without much extra being added to them.</div></div>

Really?

Then name for us the last time we had 2+ years of UE benefits and the last time we doubled food stamp usage in under 2 years?

What's that?

We never did either before?

You were hoping nobody would call you on your unsubstantiated claims?

Imagine that. </div></div>

There have never been 2 year plus unemployment benefits, and THERE ARE NO TWO YEAR PLUS unemployment benefits at this time, either. Perhaps you've heard of the '99ers'? That refers to the cohort of the unemployed who've entirely run out of eligibility for said benefits, after 99 weeks. Two years equals 104 weeks. 99 weeks is more than a month short of two years.

Extending the standard length of UE benefits is a routine tactic, used for over 3 years under Reagan, a couple years under Bush.

And Obama neither created the food stamp program, nor to my knowledge in any way pumped it up with regard to greater eligibility or higher benefit levels. There are simply that many more people eligible and needing to seek those benefits, most likely greatly increased by the Republican end of welfare as we knew it (limiting cash aid support severely by the imposition of short time limits).

I didn't make up the approx. 60% of the deficit being due to a) lower employment yielding fewer tax receipts, and b) higher benefits' payouts. It's a strongly supported figure on the facts.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 12:32 PM
Better double check your facts. Many who ran through the 99 weeks were able to sign up for EB (Emergency Benefits) which extended an additional 13 weeks of benefits, bringing the total to 112 weeks.......2 years plus.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 07:11 PM
I'll check but if this is true, it apparently doesn't apply to the majority of the 99rs.