Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: Obama's Big-time Deficit Reduction Speech
Source:
Neal Boortz
URL Source: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz ... time-deficit-reduction-speech/
Published: Apr 14, 2011
Author: Neal Boortz
Post Date: 2011-04-14 16:58:56 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 4946
Comments: 7
Obama's Big-time Deficit Reduction Speech Neal Boortz First … this was not a serious policy speech. It was a campaign speech. It was exactly what you would expect from someone with no real world private sector experience and a penchant for flowery campaign rhetoric … little of which has any basis in reality. But here’s a real shocker .. are you ready? .. Barack Obama’s speech yesterday called for tax increases! Not just any tax increases but tax increases on evil, rancid, cheatin’, lying’ exploitin’ thievin’ rich people with all that money out there. You know, the owners of America’s small business who are responsible for most of our private sector jobs and those households with two achievers who’s income adds up to more than $250,000 a year; in other words … America’s millionaires and billionaires. The Community Organizer’s plan is supposed to cut $4 trillion from our deficit over the next 12 years .. that’s great. But wasn’t this same man telling us that he had a plan to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term? What happened to THAT promise? Oh, that’s right .. I remember. George Bush must have done something to block Obama’s plans. Old “W” sneaked into the White House and somehow raised the deficit by well over a trillion dollars. Don’t you just hate it when that happens? The last deficit figure under George W. Bush was $410 billion in 2008. The projected 2011 deficit will be $1.645 trillion under Obama. What credibility does this guy have? And why is any serious consideration given to his next grand scheme for deficit reduction? But how does Obama plan to cut this money from our deficit. How else? He raises taxes on the rich! We will get to some of his specific calls for tax increases in a minute, but I want you to keep in mind one proven fact --- people with money are intelligent enough and perfectly willing to change their behavior when they are punished for their achievements with higher tax rates. I challenge any of you to research the effect of any major tax increase and find one – just ONE – that generated the revenue the politician calling for the tax increase said it would generate. The fact is that the government often raises more money as a result of a tax cut than it does from tax increases. Why don’t you check out some of the northeastern states who tried to implement surtaxes on millionaires and seehow that worked for them. The rhetoric plays well with the dumb masses … but that’s about it.
Poster Comment: I challenge any of you to research the effect of any major tax increase and find one – just ONE – that generated the revenue the politician calling for the tax increase said it would generate.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
Obama is more than a rabble rouser. He is definitely a spear chucker.
you could say the same for a tax cut - go back and look at what heritage predicted would happen as a result of the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Fact is, both Reagan and Clinton raised taxes and the economy performed better than it did after Bush cut them. You simply can't balance the budget solely by cutting spending and those spending cuts decrease economic activity and thus reduce tax income. Look at the UK as an example (or the U.S. in 1937) as examples of what happens when you cut spending during slow economic times. Unfortunately the GOP isn't driven by economics, they are driving by ideology. If they truly cared about the deficit, they wouldn't have supported extending and increased the Bush tax cuts in December.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Economic record President Ronald Reagan signs the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 at his California ranch.Reagan's policies are recognized by some as bringing about one of the longest peacetime expansions in U.S. history.[10] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[11] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[12] A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred (about the rate of population growth). Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[13] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[14] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%. Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[15] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[16] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[3] The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[17] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[18] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[19] The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[20] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[21] The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[22] Political opponents chided his policies as "Trickle-down economics", due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets.[23]
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
ROTFLMMFAO......... The Left has cornered the market on ideology...... and don't have a clue about economics other than how to screw them up....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Did you sleep through the Bush administration? Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Are you sleeping through Obamas?????? Go there and look at the charts, something familiar Bush vs. Obama: Total Private Sector Employment April 2, 2011 by Sean Patrick Hazlett reflectionsofarationalrep...4/02/bush-vs-obama-total- private- sector-employment/ Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Some left-leaning sites have pointed to the chart above as a sign that Obama’s economic policies are a smashing success because total private sector employment has consistently increased in the last thirteen months. However, the problem with this chart is that it misleadingly shows Bush’s last year in office, his worst year, as a foil to Obama’s first two years and three months in office. This selective presentation of the data makes Bush’s record look abysmal compared to President Obama’s numbers. However, the unemployment rate is currently a whopping 8.8% and it still has not declined to President Bush’s 7.3% high in December 2008. Unemployment Rate, Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Furthermore, if one includes President Bush’s entire record, it looks far better than President Obama’s record to date. Over President Bush’s entire presidency, the private sector created a net 188,000 jobs (not including January 2001 data). Surprisingly, this number includes the 3.78 million private sector jobs lost in 2008. Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics In contrast, under President Obama’s administration, the private sector lost a net 3.25 million private sector jobs. The point of this argument is not to assess blame on either administration’s policy. It simply puts the left’s claims in perspective. For every job that the private sector created under George W. Bush, the private sector eliminated 17.3 jobs under Barack Obama. While the private sector job outlook has certainly improved, the economy still must create 3.25 million private sector jobs to break even. Until then, it is disingenuous for the left to claim that President Obama’s economic policies are a resounding success. "I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
This statement just demonstrates that socialists have absolutely NO conscience. That fuckwad goober56 would dare say something like this, is the height of hypocrisy. What a total piece of shit he is.
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Algren, "The Last Samurai"
#2. To: CZ82 (#0)
I challenge any of you to research the effect of any major tax increase and find one – just ONE – that generated the revenue the politician calling for the tax increase said it would generate.
#3. To: go65 (#2)
Fact is, both Reagan and Clinton raised taxes and the economy performed better than it did after Bush cut them.
#4. To: go65 (#2)
Unfortunately the GOP isn't driven by economics, they are driving by ideology. If they truly cared about the deficit, they wouldn't have supported extending and increased the Bush tax cuts in December.
#5. To: CZ82 (#4)
The Left has cornered the market on ideology...... and don't have a clue about economics other than how to screw them up....
#6. To: go65 (#5)
(Edited)
Did you sleep through the Bush administration?
#7. To: CZ82, go65 (#4)
go65: Unfortunately the GOP isn't driven by economics, they are driving by ideology.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]