What The republicans Cost Us...

What The republicans Cost Us... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> What The republicans Cost Us... (10/20/2013 10:04:07 AM)
The republican party seems to be in denial/bomb-shelter mode lately.... I mean who would want to be ridiculed in public after their extortion/anarchy strategy blew up in their faces...? No matter....patriots and regular Americans can tally the damage to our economy,in jobs and capital as well as the needlessly wasted tax dollars, http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/ $24 billion. "That’s according to an estimate from Standard & Poor’s. The financial services company said the shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent." 24 Billion.... Imagine if the republicanarchists had pushed the shutdown another month and past the default date? 48 Billion? Or 50 Billion or more ? Please share the shutdown stories and articles you`ve seen or your thoughts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/shutdown-would-cost-u-s-economy-300-million-a-day-ihs-says.html

subrob1967 -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/20/2013 10:26:34 AM)
Since when do you care how much government spends, or wastes? Obama probably spent more than that on vacations and rounds of golf for him and his family.

Owner59 -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/20/2013 10:28:37 AM)
Right..... the phony vacation outrage.... I did mention the right was in denial...didn`t I? [;)]

Owner59 -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/20/2013 10:30:36 AM)
And aren`t the rightists the ones who make a living claiming the government wastes our tax dollars..... Another rightist myth destroyed last week.....[:D]

Moonhead -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/20/2013 6:43:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Obama probably spent more than that on vacations and rounds of golf for him and his family. Got some figures demonstrating that the Kenyan has blown 24 billion on vacations and golf since 2008?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 6:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 $24 billion. "That’s according to an estimate from Standard & Poor’s. The financial services company said the shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent." "Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/shutdown-would-cost-u-s-economy-300-million-a-day-ihs-says.html quote: “Government spending touches every aspect of the economy, and disruption of spending, more than the direct loss of income, threatens to damage investor and business confidence in ways that can seriously harm economic growth,” LeBas said yesterday in an interview. I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible.

DarkSteven -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 6:51:42 AM)
OP, you seem to think that there is "a GOP". I disagree. IMO, the GOP is currently split in two distinct factions. The moderates will blame the rightists for the shutdown and its attendant costs. The rightists will argue that the cost is trivial compared to the entire budget (as subrob did above) and/or that the failure was due to the moderates wimping out.

Owner59 -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 8:31:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven OP, you seem to think that there is "a GOP". I disagree. IMO, the GOP is currently split in two distinct factions. The moderates will blame the rightists for the shutdown and its attendant costs. The rightists will argue that the cost is trivial compared to the entire budget (as subrob did above) and/or that the failure was due to the moderates wimping out. True, but when we hear deafening silence from the "moderates" in the republican party, one can correcting regard them as one in the same ..... Same with non elected republican civilians on here on the boards......I never hear our so called republican moderates criticizing their party`s bad faith acts or the tea-bageria leading them.... Just usually chiming in with them.....

papassion -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 11:48:51 AM)
The question should be how much the Democrats are going to cost us when the system crashes from overspending.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 11:59:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion The question should be how much the Democrats are going to cost us when the system crashes from overspending. I agree with most of this question. I would much rather see the word "Democrats" changed to "politicians." That would be much more accurate.

DomKen -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 12:02:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day.

Moonhead -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 12:35:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven OP, you seem to think that there is "a GOP". I disagree. IMO, the GOP is currently split in two distinct factions. The moderates will blame the rightists for the shutdown and its attendant costs. The rightists will argue that the cost is trivial compared to the entire budget (as subrob did above) and/or that the failure was due to the moderates wimping out. A fair point, Steven, but if the GOP can't be bothered to bring the lunatic fringe of the party to heel, then the spineless alleged moderates who let them run wild need to learn to deal with getting tarred with the same brush.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 1:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day. [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg[/image] Looks like we're already there, Ken (receipt-wise). Who is calling for massive cuts in Federal spending in one year? 5 years? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/07/hill-republicans-revive-penny-plan-as-sequester-alternative-to-balance-budget/ Cut 1% of every dollar spent and the budget is balanced within 2 years, or so the backers say. While I doubt it would be balanced in 2 years, it's a real change from what we're doing. "Sequester" was a reduction in spending increases, not spending reductions. This would be actual spending reductions (that is, spending fewer dollars). I read somewhere that simply stopping the increases (no cuts, just no increases) would balance the budget within 5 or 6 years. If we cap spending at the $3.68T estimate for 2013, we'll have an estimated surplus of $75.6B in 2017. That would require a $560B cut in estimated spending increases, but not reduction in spending.

mnottertail -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 4:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion The question should be how much the Democrats are going to cost us when the system crashes from overspending. That is one you will need to see the nutsackers about because they are and have been the ones doing it.

DomKen -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 4:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day. Looks like we're already there, Ken (receipt-wise). Not really. Where the tax receipts come from matters as well. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 quote: Who is calling for massive cuts in Federal spending in one year? 5 years? You did.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 6:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day. Looks like we're already there, Ken (receipt-wise). Not really. Where the tax receipts come from matters as well. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 LMMFAO!!! I think I hear dance music in the background... What difference does it make where the money is coming from? Increased revenue is increased revenue, isn't it? quote: quote: Who is calling for massive cuts in Federal spending in one year? 5 years? You did. Where?

DarkSteven -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 7:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven OP, you seem to think that there is "a GOP". I disagree. IMO, the GOP is currently split in two distinct factions. The moderates will blame the rightists for the shutdown and its attendant costs. The rightists will argue that the cost is trivial compared to the entire budget (as subrob did above) and/or that the failure was due to the moderates wimping out. A fair point, Steven, but if the GOP can't be bothered to bring the lunatic fringe of the party to heel, then the spineless alleged moderates who let them run wild need to learn to deal with getting tarred with the same brush. 1. Boehner is a weak man. Considering the men (and Pelosi) that he followed, remarkably so. 2. The RNC and DNC traditionally controlled their members through campaign funding. The Tea Partiers have their own funding sources, unaffiliated with the RNC.

DsBound -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 7:12:09 PM)
If the shutdown was 24 billion... what was the other 300+ billion in one day for? The Growth Government Party is out of control and its basically a free for all.

DomKen -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 8:42:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day. Looks like we're already there, Ken (receipt-wise). Not really. Where the tax receipts come from matters as well. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 LMMFAO!!! I think I hear dance music in the background... What difference does it make where the money is coming from? Increased revenue is increased revenue, isn't it? No, it isn't. If the revenue comes out of the pockets of people who would have spent it anyway it is no net increase of economic activity. However if it comes from people or corporations that would have not put it back in to the economy then it does increase economic activity. quote: quote: quote: Who is calling for massive cuts in Federal spending in one year? 5 years? You did. Where? http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4570623

DesideriScuri -> RE: What The republicans Cost Us... (10/21/2013 9:16:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't disagree with this statement (from your link I included in quoting your post). What is disappointing, is that it's being used as rationale for why government spending should continue. My bigger concern is that our economy is that dependent on government spending. If the economic reduction due to reduced government spending is going to be the rationale for not reducing government spending, how the hell do we reduce government spending? It's not possible. First we increase revenue back to a known sustainable level, pre Reagan works for me but pre Kennedy is fine as well. Then we gradually cut spending till we reach balance. That would be much less disruptive than simply cutting government spending by some large amount in a single day. Looks like we're already there, Ken (receipt-wise). Not really. Where the tax receipts come from matters as well. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 LMMFAO!!! I think I hear dance music in the background... What difference does it make where the money is coming from? Increased revenue is increased revenue, isn't it? No, it isn't. If the revenue comes out of the pockets of people who would have spent it anyway it is no net increase of economic activity. However if it comes from people or corporations that would have not put it back in to the economy then it does increase economic activity. Corporations don't put money back into the economy?!? How the fuck do you get that? Isn't the point of a corporation to actually, produce something of value? And, what you're not noticing, is that individual tax returns, as a %GDP, dropped, so individuals are keeping more of their money. Neat thing about the Bush Tax Cuts is that the % of Federal income tax revenues paid by "the rich," increased. The number of taxpayers not having a Federal tax burden increased, too. Odd, those damn tax cuts! quote: quote: quote: quote: Who is calling for massive cuts in Federal spending in one year? 5 years? You did. Where? http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4570623 How is that calling for massive cuts in Federal spending?!? LMAO!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02