I'd call 10% of the vote in Iowa and 8% in NH, both times 3% out of 3rd place an impact. You can post all of the OT blather you want, the facts are facts. The GAO is quite convinced we are bankrupt, and the people obsessed with $50 billion in earmarks, or the budget deficit (which does not include transfers from SS or Medicare, nor discretionary spending), or lack any understanding of the farce of a monetary system, are complicit in the problem. Willful negligence. So by all means, continue to attack me. Like Ron Paul, all you have are subjective personal issues to exploit, not substantive policy based ones.
Please quit your whining.. It's really getting annoying.. If you want to have a civilized conversation, fine.. But if you are going to keep crying every time I respond I'd rather not see you post.... Keep crying and I'm just going to use the ignore feature....
Respond with something on-topic and substantative. The name calling and sidebars are just fluff. Oh that's a big threat. You're not going to respond to me anymore. To quote Dirty Harry, "Make my day..."
lol hes gonna ignore you? haha his only reason for even coming on this forum is to bash anyone who doesn't agree with him. Ignore.. HA that will be the day.
The only smug and arrogant person is you for inferring all Katrina victims are on welfare or similar.
There'd be plenty of money to run disaster relief programs if we weren't wasting so much money overseas. The military budget dwarfs that of other governmental agencies.
Mind telling me where you got your information from? Federal Spending in 2007 Social Spending: 57% Military Spending: 18% Interest on National Debt: 13% Administrative Agencies: 7% Homeland Security: 1% Transporation: 2% Foreign Affairs: 1% Other: 2% Either you are not good with math, or you are a liar.. Which is it? Source: House Budget Committee Minority Staff Last month Congress passed a large spending bill which bundled 11 of 12 regular spending bills into one bill. Those that wanted to deny funding for our troops also planned to EXCEED Bush's budget by 21 BILLION dollars.. The final bill that did pass (Omnibus Appropriations Bill) not only includes the funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it reduced actually REDUCED spending to meed the President's budget requirements. How did you come up with your figures? Facts just do not seem to matter to Ron Paul supporters.
In any case the US is getting out of Iraq. US forces will be shifted to Afganistan to fight Al Qaeda. I wonder what excuse the anti-war people are going to find next. Al Qaeda and the Taliban attcaked the US and we are at war. If you look at the numbers the social spending is what's growing. New Orleans is still a mess and look at the billions spent.
Social Spending in 2006 was 56% of the federal spending in the US In 2007 it grew to 57%. Interest on the Debt stayed the same btw. Some other interesting facts... The Surplus Deficit went down 22.2% in 2006. It went down 35% in 2007. The president's own expenditures went down 26.2% in 2006 and another 35% in 2007. Meanwhile Congress's expenses went up 3.9% in 2006 and another 7% in 2007. It's pretty clear who is wasting/spending the money... I think I will start a thread listing all these facts, starting with the fact that revenues in the US increased 10.9% under Bush's tax cuts in 2006, and increased another 7% in 2007 leaving the tax cuts in place... You can find all this and more freely at the US Department of Treasury web site.... Numbers can't lie... Naysayers can and will, but the numbers won't.
That is an interesting fact. revenues in the US increased 10.9% under Bush's tax cuts in 2006, and increased another 7% in 2007 leaving the tax cuts in place...
Interesting, just a question how much would they normally grow because of wage increases and population growth?
? Mia it was an honest question. I don't blindly jump up and down at numbers going up, sorry that you find it bad that some people actually like to know all the facts and not just facts that are on your side.
Fascinating. How much did spending increase, relative to that? Don't forget to add in the transfers from the SS and medicare funds, as well as discretionary spending bills. Mia likes to talk about budget appropriations, but again, he probably didn't watch the video I posted. Budget figures do not reflect the actual spending numbers.
How are tax cuts creating revenue? (Not withstanding population growth of course...?) You are correct, there are more workers in the work force? This is not the result of people coming of age, it is the result of more people working as a result of the tax cuts. So again, how are tax cuts creating revenue? When a business like me pays lower taxes we invest those savings into purchasing more equipment and hiring more employees... Since 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created. The tax cuts took place in 2003 btw... In just the last two months alone over 284,000 new workers were hired. In our state (GRIM and MIA) alone, over 16,000 more jobs exist in 2007 than the previous year. And our state wages have increased by 3.7% in that same period. Wages nationally have grown over 3.8% in the last 12 months. I know you were trying to credit this growth to teenagers coming out of high school or getting a GED and working at McDonalds, which is hardly the case. If you take the entire number of new workers entering the work force because of AGE alone , and subtract that from the number of baby boomers retiring in the same period, I think you will find a deficit. The increase in employment is almost entirely a direct result of tax cuts. Employers have more money to spend on people. The unemployment numbers are a good indicator of this fact as well. It would be important to note that over this same period from the 2003 tax cuts through last year the deficit has been reduced as well. There was a 34% reduction in 2007 alone. This is all due to increased economic growth that has spurred higher tax revenues. Now all we need to do is curb social spending and earmarks/entitlements and we are on our way to reducing the national debt as well. I did not blindly jump up and down at anything.. I stated facts, and cited the source.. With all due respect, you disputed a fact with a hypothetical, ie., WHAT IF... How can I respond to a hypothetical when there is no fact to back it up? Numbers do not lie. If you actually take the time to look at where our money comes from, and where it goes, you begin to see a pattern. A pattern of waste. A pattern of fluff. A pattern of stupidity. The biggest pattern you see is perpetuating flawed/broken social programs that drain our economy to the tune of almost 60% of our total tax revenues. I think I said it before.. I don't deal in what ifs...
Actually they do use positive energy. If you check out the RP Forums, when not bashing America, they are using the positive energy to come up with ways to respond to the racism exposed of Ron Paul. Not all though. Some are actually questioning it, and asking "if he didn't write these new newsletters that have been exposed, why did he reference his wife, children and grandchildren in them, and why did he mention others associated with him in the first person?" Check out some of the threads over there. Essentially what has happened, is what I predicted. RP refused to answer and gave a vague and very short press release (which turned out he lied about), leaving his supporters to come up with explanations themselves. And boy, have they come up with some whoppers too! RP sandbagged his supporters, leaving them holding a ball and chain over this issue. Other than that, I've not seen them use any "positive" energy for our country. For Iran? You bet! For those that want to harm our country? More positive than I've ever seen. One of their plots the past few days, was to find ANY and everything they could try, to "project" racism off onto other candidates, in order to cover up their own candidates. However, some were responsible enough there to point out, that it was a bad idea, because it would be so obvious. Apparently some here (see McCain is a racist thread) didn't give any consideration to such. These people are more like "sheep" than any I've ever seen. The flock/hive mentality is the most humorous thing I've seen, and THEY have the nerve to call others "sheeple!" Mad hypocrisy And to think, *some* here used to have a backbone, but traded it for a popularity contest.
Wage increases are a result of lower taxes.. When employers have more money to spend, they can spend it on increased wages, more employees, and equipment. Population growth alone does not equal increased tax revenue or a larger work force.. There are an alarming number of baby boomers retiring... If we are going to deal in the what if of population growth, we need to deal in the what if of a HUGE retiring work force as well. In the world of what ifs, I would random a guess that those two either negate one another, or result in a deficit with retirees beating out GED holders...
I just was hoping to see some graphs or something I guess. I did see some graphs yesterday and the only decreases in fed revenue appeared to be in the beginning of Bush's admin, before hand the revs were growing. I was not wanting 'what ifs' I was wanting historical numbers..
I would too.. You make a good point.. I have just not found anything that shows this... I just do not think that if you look at growth in employment vs. tax revenues and tax cuts historically growth in new workers entering the work force does not seem to be a factor... At least I am not finding any numbers to contradict my previous statements.. It does not mean that there are not, I just do not see any, nor do I think it is enough to make a noticeable difference. The revenue decreases in the beginning of Bush's term are attributed to the mistakes in tax increase made by Bill Clinton after years of undoing Reagan Bush economic changes. Clinton got lucky and was able to ride a wave for a time. A lot of the goofy things he did are largely to blame for the dot bomb burst, and continuing economic down turn in that sector over a long period. Couple this with the disgusting retroactive screw the middle class tax increases, we are lucky tax cuts were enacted or we would have gone bust in another 5 years. I cannot find anything "historical" that supports your contention that "new" workers are to account for increased tax revenue and lower unemployment... You have to realize that the jobs needed to be there before the workers were.. If they were not, unemployment would be higher. Lets say there really was nothing but a larger number of new workers coming out of school that were to account for the larger number of people working.. What then is to account for the equally larger number of available jobs Grim? TAX CUTS...