Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

[Andy9o8 0]

Wow. Talk about "viral".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=Six+Months+to+Go+Until+The+Largest+Tax+Hikes+in+History&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

[Amazon 7]

I just wonder where all the BLUBBERING about the rise in National DEBT was back a few years ago...............BUEHLER BUEHLER

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I just wonder where all the BLUBBERING about the rise in National DEBT was back a few years ago...............BUEHLER BUEHLER

When you find him, ask him why the blubbering from 01-08 stopped a year and a half ago.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

2 guys raised taxes inbetween and stopped the bleeding.....how did they do so? Tax increases and chopped spending, the polar opposite of fascist Ronnie and G Dumbya.

Disclaimer - the daily numbers for the debt don't start until Clinton's term, so I had to use fiscals for Reagan and the start of GHW.

Reagan - 1.69T increase
GHW Bush - 1.57T increase
Clinton - 1.55T increase

Yeah, Lucky...Bubba Jeff was SUCH a difference compared to Ronnie.

Dishonest again?

Reagan = 900B to 2.7T = 1.8T or an increase of 200% on an 8-year standard / ultimately trippling the debt he inherited

GHWB = 2.7T to 4T = 1.3T or an increase of 48% in 4 years, so the rate would be twice that if gauged for 8 years as with Reagan and Clinton. The 148% rate increase would be 96% if using a rate scale. Now you will pipe in to say that rate doesn't matter when all you do is compare GWB to Obama as far as increase as a component of time.

Clinton = 4T to 5.5T = 1.5T or an increase of 38% on an 8-year standard.

GWB = 5.5T to 10.6T = or an increase of 93% on an 8-year stanadard.

Summarize:

Reagan: 200% increase

GHWB: 96% (adjusted for 8 years)

Clinton: 38% increase

GWB: 93% increase


Now, lets factor-in all the other tangibles / intangibles.

Reagan inherited a stale economy that was also stable, 75% unemp, debt/deficit not at issue and left a mess for GHWB, massive debt, 8 years of huge increases and recipts not matching outlays.

GHWB inherited a mess, massive debt, massive deficit; 8 years of 250B/yr (1980's dollars). He raised taxes a little, had a post fascist Ronnie recession, and the recession started to heal as he handed off the presidency to Clinton.

Clinton inherited an economy healing from a recession, 7% unemp and stable, but a massive mounting debt and 12 years of 250B/yr debt increase. Clinton continued GHWB's tax increase but picke dit up from 31% to 40% and he balanced the budget by cutting spending, all but curbed the debt increase and left a 236B surplus. He piloted the longest growth period in US history. Altho his last year the economy entered very light recession and the great receipts he enjoyed tailed off, but the economy was still intact.

GWB inherited a massive growth period and the end. The GDP was porposing but still very alive. This was an extremly monor recession that never saw 2 consecutive Q's of negative GDP growth. GWB cut taxes and resumed Reagan's spending flurry while he cut taxes and git us into an illicit war which cost 800B bythe time he left and was still counting, with the mess still unresolved for the future president to have to unfuck. He left such a mess that the banks were crashing, mortgage market crashing too and unemp rose 3.4% his last year. All the while he sat there unaware of what to do while the country was just in total collapse.


So if you want to just look at data w/o any perspective, enjoy, how else can you defend the Nazi Party?


Also, Reagan was the real pig, his debt increase is measured in 1980's dollars, probably 1/2 of 2000's dollars, so his damage was really worse.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

2 guys raised taxes inbetween and stopped the bleeding.....how did they do so? Tax increases and chopped spending, the polar opposite of fascist Ronnie and G Dumbya.

Disclaimer - the daily numbers for the debt don't start until Clinton's term, so I had to use fiscals for Reagan and the start of GHW.

Reagan - 1.69T increase
GHW Bush - 1.57T increase
Clinton - 1.55T increase

Yeah, Lucky...Bubba Jeff was SUCH a difference compared to Ronnie.

You do seem to have left out the financial wizard you worshiped with such steadfastness... you know...the one who doubled what was already there

And GHWB's adding of ~ 1.3T in 1/2 the time as well. Mike has fun with numbers.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

teh momentum teh economyh was heading.

Quote

Funny you should mention that - WHO had Congress when the economy started it's nosedive????

Oh, yeah... the Dems.

I see, the mortgage mess was in full height in late 2006, before the Dems took the House and tied the senate in Jan 07, yet it was their fault? Illustrate the legislative measures they took or did not take that are accountable for the Great Republican Recession. Also, GWB vetoed 1 bill in his 1st 6 years, 11 more in the last 2 with the Dems in control of the House and tied in the Senate; 4 were overridden. With that contrast, what is unclear as to what the Dems tried to do with their limited majority? As I've said before, Cheney used his tie-break 8 times if memory serves, that's 11th most of all VP's in US history. If it isn't obvious that the Dems did all tehy could to stop the repugnant machine, what is?

Quote

a deficit that just blew thru 1T w/o stopping

Quote

Yeah, Barry should have toned back the spending, huh? going from a 450B deficit to a 1.5T deficit in a year...now THAT'S some "Hope you saved some Change" for ya!

Oh but GWB hammered over 1T in debt additon in 08, what are you talking about? And it was mounting and had been, just as 4 of the last 5 Q'd were neg GDP growth each more neg than teh former with the exception of 1, do you have a point to make?

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2 guys raised taxes inbetween and stopped the bleeding.....how did they do so? Tax increases and chopped spending, the polar opposite of fascist Ronnie and G Dumbya.

Disclaimer - the daily numbers for the debt don't start until Clinton's term, so I had to use fiscals for Reagan and the start of GHW.

Reagan - 1.69T increase
GHW Bush - 1.57T increase
Clinton - 1.55T increase

Yeah, Lucky...Bubba Jeff was SUCH a difference compared to Ronnie.

You do seem to have left out the financial wizard you worshiped with such steadfastness... you know...the one who doubled what was already there

I've already posted his numbers....and his successor's - you know, The One that's already spent 52% of the 'financial wizard's' total in 18% of the time?

Bush didn't hit Barry's comparative spending level until 3/20/2006.

That's 5.16 years, compared to Barry's 1.45 years. Three and half times longer than Barry's run so far.

Can't *WAIT* to see what he comes up with for numbers in the next 2.5 years, can you?

If you disregard momentum and who inherited what / left what then it makes sense.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I just wonder where all the BLUBBERING about the rise in National DEBT was back a few years ago...............BUEHLER BUEHLER

Yea, tea baggers had no issue with GWb taking a great economy and hammering it while doubling teh debt.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I just wonder where all the BLUBBERING about the rise in National DEBT was back a few years ago...............BUEHLER BUEHLER

When you find him, ask him why the blubbering from 01-08 stopped a year and a half ago.

Yes but the memory lives on.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I just wonder where all the BLUBBERING about the rise in National DEBT was back a few years ago...............BUEHLER BUEHLER

When you find him, ask him why the blubbering from 01-08 stopped a year and a half ago.

Here we are..... and as usual.. the BLUUBERING over numbers set in motion by your HERO.... goes on and on

I am all for getting rid of the impediment to paying off some of this crap... but CONSERVATURDS....... just keep BLUBBERING

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Dishonest again

Nope, my numbers were from the treasury direct website.

Where's YOURS from, the same angelfire site that told you Hoover killed 12 million?

I understand, though - after all the time you've invested trying to outdo Chrissy Matthews in the leg-tingling department, you've got to figure out SOME way to massage the numbers to make Clinton and Obama live up to your hype.

Enter rates, since the actual increases don't make Clinton and Obama into the mythical figures that your tingling gastrocnemius demands.

But, hey, let's see how Barry stacks up - after all, you ARE wanting to be honest, RIGHT?

Barry is spending at a RATE of 4.8 billion a day, to date (current as of 7.7.2010). Assuming that rate doesn't increase (impossible, with Obamacare and the rest of his bills, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt), that makes an increase of 14 trillion over 8 years.

That's 140% on an 8 year standard, with a VERY generous presumption that his rate of spending will remain constant.

But damn, a 14T increase is a buttload of money, isn't it?
14t/4.9T = 289% of GW's increase.
14T/1.5T = 933% of Clinton's increase
14T/1.3T = 1076% of GHW's increase
14T/1.8T = 777% of Reagan's increase

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Driver1 0]

I miss the hell out of Clinton! In 1996, I especially miss that .88 cents a gallon. I was even on Hillary's campaign here in Kokomo/Indy to hopefully get someone in there who knows how to straighten this mess out.
I've heard a lot of people who consider themselves as "Christians" who die heartedly supported Bush jr "Because he's a Christian". well, you see what kind of a mess a so called "Christian" got us in to.
I'm not a religious person, but I don't have anything against any religious group or belief, but I don't think that these candidates should be allowed to use their religious beliefs and views for personal gain of a public office. Again, nothing against religion, but I think it's pretty lame for someone to vote for someone because of their religious position.

Crunch the numbers all you guys want, he was hands down the best president in modern history.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[Amazon 7]

DUUUUUUUUUUDE with 30 years of VOO DOO DOO math like that.. no wonder our country is so TOTALLY FUCKED

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

***
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

Well, is it a tax hike, or an expiration?

The second is the more accurate description. And it was a key element of those tax cuts. They were promoted because the budget was as healthy as it's been in some time, and the economy had slipped. But those reasons weren't going to stay true forever.

It was crafty to have the expiration right after the midterm election, though. People won't notice their pockets being emptier until it's too late, and then is 20 some months of posturing for the 2012 election, with more phony tax cut proposals like we saw from Obama and McCain (both using 2011 as their base from which they would then 'lower')

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

That is so incorrect it's not even funny. You're misrepresenting deficit and debt.

You expected different? She *can't* acknowledge Barry's numbers.

As she could not acknowlege the video

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

This is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

This is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....

Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Regardless of all thebantering about who is more at fault. I think, and have been stating such here, that there is no other optioni for the US to raise taxes if they want to emerge from their current dire situation.

They will also have to try and curtail spending, though history has shown most countries to be unable to do so.

I predict this just to be the start of increased taxes and fees. You can only run up the debt for so long until you actually have to start paying it off.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

This is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....

Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it

I do believe it. I am an independent (libertarian leaning). Any pretense the republicans have to fiscal sanity, discipline, or cutting spending have gone out the window long ago. At this point the republicans are the party of corporate kleptocracy.

Tell me what is incorrect on this? Bush wanted the tax cuts but had to make them temporary to get them passed, otherwise legislatures would have balked at the effect on the deficit.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....

Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it

I do believe it. I am an independent (libertarian leaning). Any pretense the republicans have to fiscal sanity, discipline, or cutting spending have gone out the window long ago. At this point the republicans are the party of corporate kleptocracy.

Tell me what is incorrect on this? Bush wanted the tax cuts but had to make them temporary to get them passed, otherwise legislatures would have balked at the effect on the deficit.

Tax cuts are not the issue
(gov revenues have went up after all tax cuts after a period of time)
Spending is
Both parties share the blame IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Tell me what is incorrect on this? Bush wanted the tax cuts but had to make them temporary to get them passed, otherwise legislatures would have balked at the effect on the deficit.

Bush wanted the tax cuts [Blue] correct [/Blue]
but had to make them temporary to get them passed [Blue]Correct [/Blue]

otherwise legislatures (I'm sure you mean Legislators) would have balked at the effect on the deficit [Blue] nope - they would have balked at losing certain voting blocks that are against tax reductions for many reasons - some reasonable, some selfish, some just odd[/Blue]

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

This is a George Bush tax hike. ...

Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it

I believe it too - GWB and the congress that was there absolutely FAILED to make them permanent. Despite a desire to do so and a lot of pretty speeches pushing for it.

However, this increase from today's levels is happening on this admins watch. Who also have FAILED to make them permanent. Once again, Barack (GWB Jr) is finishing with the same problems as his predecessor. Only worse. now into the 10 year of this presidency.

Watch the crash - it'll crash farther. And a bunch of sporadic payoffs, er stimulus gov spending, will just ratchet us deeper and deeper.

True statement - SPENDING is still the biggest issue. But neither party will truly take that on - though both will talk about it alot. Easier to destroy the country and keep the power positions than to do the right thing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is a George Bush tax hike. ...

Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it

I believe it too - GWB and the congress that was there absolutely FAILED to make them permanent. Despite a desire to do so and a lot of pretty speeches pushing for it.

However, this increase from today's levels is happening on this admins watch. Who also have FAILED to make them permanent.

Watch the crash - it'll crash farther. And a bunch of sporadic payoffs, er stimulus gov spending, will just ratchet us deeper and deeper.

True statement - SPENDING is still the biggest issue. But neither party will truly take that on - though both will talk about it alot. Easier to destroy the country and keep the power positions than to do the right thing.

+1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

SPENDING is still the biggest issue

Spending isn't an issue, spending more than you make is an issue.

The problem isn't every politicians pet project. The problem is that they get implemented without any regard and provision for what it is going to cost.

[Southern_Man 0]

I can't disagree with any of this.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"