PF Exclusive: Debt increase in FY2015 lowest in 14 years

The numbers I presented were provided by the irs.gov so make your complaints to them.

Any comments relative to the thread topic?

 

The pay the highest effective tax rates overall and on both earned and unearned income.

And once again what are you trying to achieve more tax revenues are satisfying your envy of the highest earners.

 

And he represents all of the highest earnes and no he did not. He averaged over 20% in the 20 years of tax returns he disclosed and only one year lowered it to 14% because he was no longer working and gave so much to charity, and he could have lowered it even more but did not claim all his charitable deductions that he could. So what exactly is your complaint about this one man that you want to lower revenues to the treasury by TENS OF BILLIONS?

 

Then stop doing your own tax returns and hire a competent tax accountant or if you have one then sue them.

What income bracket do you reside in? What is your income and how much income tax did you pay? IOW why are you paying so much more than the average return.

 

I have my tax reports professionally done, always have

 

only because some dems stay and try to help out, most republicans move on as they like to hang with the rich

I tend to agree with republicans on this one, at a certain point, best to just move

 

Lowest level of increase... haha what a joke, come back when they're actually lowering it.

 

Well, that isn't exactly honest. The day Obama was sworn into office he inherited a trillion dollar deficit from the previous Republican administration. The economy was shrinking at an every increasing rate of 10+ percent and nearly a million people were losing their jobs each and every month. Federal tax revenues shrank and federal government spending increased as formerly employed individuals moved from tax payers to tax takers (e.g. unemployment, food stamps, etc.).

And it's also important to note, that over the course of the last several decades there has only been on administration which has run a budget surplus and that was a Democratic administration - a Clinton administration to be more exact.

One more point I want to make, the US debt numbers include debt the US government owes to itself. It's an artifact of the accounting method used by the federal government (i.e. fund accounting). If government used the same accounting method used by private industry, inter-department debt would not be reported as debt as it is with the federal government. When you extract the debt the government owes to itself, the real national debt is about 11 trillion dollars.

 

Then get a new accountant if you are paying a 25% effective income tax rate on a middle class income.

 

they are accurate, I am just not rich enough to get that 15 cent on the dollar tax rate Romney got

.

 

The day Obama was sworn into office he had been a Senator for what 4 years and supported and voted for the FY2008 budget which in creased spending by 9%, only that low because Bush threatened to veto their even higher spending desires, and then voted for the CR in 2008 for FY2009 which budget was purposely held up to include HIS spending request and which he as President signed into law. Those two Democrat budgets took the last Republican deficit of a measly $161B to a whopping $1,400B in just TWO YEARS. And the job loss rate bottomed out the month he took office and the recession ended by June, both before ANYTHING he did took effect including the stimulus. The Democrats then kept the deficit above $1,000B for the next 4 years and it ONLY dropped due to the sequester and the Republican House refusing to pass his further spending increases. It was HIS job to get us into a full recovery and get those people OFF welfare and food stamps yet he bragged about how many he put into those programs.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

That was the Republican congress that ran that. Clinton came into office during a very strong recovery with tax revenues on a strong upward growth trend. He passed tax rate increases which slowed the growth of the economy and the growth of tax revenues, from 9% heading up down to 7%. It was Gingrich and Kasich who forced him to sign on to the tax rate cuts and welfare reform that got the economy back on track hitting double digit growth. Bush further cut the capital gains rate from Clinton's 29% down to 15% and capital gains tax revenues more than DOUBLED, which helped to get the economy out of the 2000/2001 recession he inherited and taking the $400B peak deficit under the Republican budgets down to that paltry $161B.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are paying a 25% net income tax rate you are well into the top 1% else you need a competent accountant. What was your gross income and how much did you pay in income taxes? Or better yet take a copy of you 1040 and blank out all personal information, name SS# address etc, and post a copy of it here.

And Romney got that rate because of his HUGE charitable donations, of which he did not even claim all of them. So you believe we should end deductions for charitable contributions?

 

As a long time lender, company owner, we had a loan program we called negative amortization.

This works by having the home owner go deeper into debt each year.

This is the program used by Obama and lauded by Democrats.

Year upon year, the Fed Government simply goes deeper into debt.

The Democrats art of going into the hole a heck of a lot then bragging the hole got deeper slower.

 

I realize it is entirely cavalier to keep blaming Bush, but let's this time tell the pure truth.

Bush never agreed to the final budget. The Budget that started in October 2008 was not agreed to by Bush. Matter of fact, Bush talked this over with Obama and they both agreed that the Budget ending Sept of 2009 would be agreed to and signed by Obama. Bush's last agreed to Budget ended in 2008 and that budget was in pretty good condition.

The Bush admin did agree to bail out the Auto industry but that does not come close to a trillion dollars.

There is the Obama law.

Do not blame him for anything.

 

This has nothing to do with being caviler, it has everything to do with the truth. As I explained before, with almost a million people a month and more with each passing month losing their jobs taxpayers stopped paying taxes and began collecting unemployment benefits. That had absolutely nothing to do with budgets. Bush II didn't budget The Great Recession.

Obama inherited 1.3 trillion dollar budget deficit the day he was sworn into office. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Obama has cut that deficit down to a small fraction of what it was when entered office.

 

Then deal with the facts as I posted above. The job loss rate bottomed out the month he took office and started to quick recover. The recession was in it's final months, it stopped by June. HE and his fellow Democrats increased spending first 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 creating a $1,400B deficit, just two years after the last Republican deficit of $161B, and kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 YEARS as the stimulus failed, as they increased the cost of doing business here and the cost of employing people here.

You don't inherit what you are up to your eyeballs in helping create.

And yes the deficit has come down because the Republicans first took back the House and put and end to their spending increases and then the sequester which Obama routinely "blames" on the Republicans.

So please explain why you are absolving first Senator Obama and the President Obama from that deficit increase to $1,400B when he was part and parcel to them.

And now we are at that 7 year window for a new slowdown/recession to start and we never recovered from the last one. And if we put Clinton or Sanders in office we will have more of the same last 9 years. And point me to one measure Obama proposed and passed that lowered the deficit by half. He NEVER passed his own budget and wanted MORE spending that did get passed. Are you really trying to convince us that after the Democrats forced Bush to sign a CR bill, which Obama supported and voted for, and then winning the election he went home to Chicago and sat there with his thumb up his arse and did not work with Congress on his incoming administration and the Omnibus Spending bill which was yet to be passed. That he did not discuss it with him and they did not work with him to get HIS spending request in that bill HE would sign as President?

Oh and Bush budgeted 52 months of full employment WITH average labor participation rates. Rising middle class incomes, soaring tax revenues such as more that DOUBLE the capital gains tax revenues at his 15% rate over the Clinton 29% rate. AND a deficit at it's worst a one year $400B and then drastically falling to a paltry $161B, the Democrats never even came close to his WORST.

 

What facts? The job losses didn't bottom out the day he was sworn into office. I suggest you visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site. Below is the URL:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The unemployment rate didn't bottom until October when it hit 10% and it remained high 9.9% high for the balance of the year and into 2010. The recession did end in June after Obama's stimulus had been passed and implemented. But that didn't mean the unemployment problem ended. The data clearly shows it didn't. It's well known in economic and business circles that unemployment is a lagging indicator. It lags the economy by about 4 to 6 months.

True, but Obama didn't create The Great Recession. The Great Recession began in December of 2007 and ended in June of 2009 after the bailouts and after Obama's stimulus package. That just means things stopped getting worse. It does't mean thing were great. It just means the economy stopped getting worse. June, not January was the trough.

You don't seem to understand that when people are unemployed they don't pay taxes, instead they get support payments from the federal government. That decreases government revenues and increases government expenses. None of that was budgeted prior to Obama. Additionally, Bush II liked to use off budget financing of government in order to manipulate his deficit numbers. Obama, to his credit, ended all the budget gimmickry.

The deficit has come down because all the millions of people who were unemployed because of The Great Recession now have jobs. They are paying taxes. The government is no longer providing them with support payments. That's why the deficit is a small fraction of its former self. That has nothing to do with Republicans. Republicans fought tooth and nail to thwart an economic recovery even going so far as to threaten a US debt default on multiple occasions in attempts to prevent millions of Americans from receiving healthcare insurance.

I think I just did.

While those are popular Republican memes, that doesn't make them true. All the evidence says otherwise. The economy has been growing steadily for 7 years now. Inflation is virtually non existent and the nation's unemployment rate has been cut in half. The nation is very close to "full employment". Those are good numbers for everyone but Republicans.

As much as it pains you and your fellow Republicans all the evidence clearly shows Obama's stimulus worked. That is a fact, as much as it pains you, it is a clear and indisputable fact.

Well, except most of that isn't true either. Middle class incomes having been rising for a very long time and neither have tax revenues. When Baby Bush was sworn into office, he inherited a big budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor. I cannot access the Bush year budget deficits at the moment, but I think your numbers are wrong. So I'd like to see some proof. Two, you cannot honestly ignore the trillion dollar plus Obama inherited from Baby Bush on the day he was sworn into office.

Three, labor rate participation rates have little effect on the reported unemployment rate. In fact, it's insignificant. But that hasn't kept desperate Republicans from trying to downplay good economic news. Additionally, labor rate participation is caused by retiring Baby Boomers. It's the result of an ongoing, long term demographic shift. It has nothing to do with the health of the economy. It only becomes a problem when full employment has been reached. It's not a problem when there is a surplus of labor.

 

The unemployment rate is NOT the job loss rate. You said

And THAT bottomed out the month he took office and quickly started to recede. And yes it was Oct. when unemployment hit 10%, in spite of the claims his stimulus would keep it at or below 8.5%, and it stayed about 9% for the next several years as his stimulus failed and he proposed nothing else.

It didn't get implemented before then and even he had to later admit to it's failure and his infamous "well there weren't just a lot of shovel ready jobs as we thought". And YES DUH it failed to end the unemployment situation from which we are still suffering.

What's your point? Presidents don't necessarily "create recessions", they are normal economic events and we are due for one now. We had just experience 52 months of solid growth and full employment a recession was due. It's how Presidents and the Congress react to them. And again the stimulus had hardly gone into place and the recession was improving long before then. It was one big waste and had he simply announced no new taxes, a regulatory moratorium and some job creating business tax cuts and then just sat back and got out of the way we would have been able to enter a strong recovery period and our entire economic situation would have been FAR better.

ROFL no I am the one that DOES understand that and you want to pretend Obama road into town January 2009. He was part and parcel to the Democrat Congress that failed to react to the economic slowdown and then passed the HUGE increases in spending and the as President passed the failed stimulus and jobs killing regulations and taxes. And no Obama did not end budget gimmickry and Bush didn't use any budget gimmickry any more than any other administration. After the Bush tax rate cuts were FULLY implemented we went from slow recovery to a roaring one with HUGE increases in tax revenues as all those people went back to work and because of the full employment WITH high labor participation rate incomes rose.

It's come down because the Republicans took over the House and would not pass the further increases in spending the Democrats wanted and then forced the sequester which CUT spending and if they and Obama would get out of the way it could be cut further. Again the Democrats never even came close to the WORST Republican deficits. It was they who increased the deficit almost NINE FOLD in just 2 years and kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 years and put us in the worst unemployment situation since the Great Depression.

And their only excuse and the same one you present is that is was just too hard for them.

Well no you didn't. Try again read my previous post concerning the history of those budgets and who controlled them then explain why you are absolving first Senator Obama and the President Obama from that deficit increase to $1,400B when he was part and parcel to them.

Well if the economy grows .0000001% each year for seven years then your statement would be true wouldn't it. Would that mean we've had a great economy for the last 7 years, of course not and the fact is we haven't. And of course inflation is low we have low interest rates feeding the stock market and a depressed economy. And while the unemployment rate has fallen the percent of people having given up and dropped out of the labor force has risen along with those collecting government benefits and all the middle class income gains during that 52 months of full employment WITH average labor participation rates have been lost under Democrat policies. So those numbers are certainly NOT good for Democrats.

I'm not a Repubican.

There is scant evidence. It was sold on the premise it would keep unemployment at of below 8.5% and only for a few months and then would kick us into a full recovery. It failed at both.

Bush inherited a surplus from Gingrich and Kaisch in spite of Clinton. Clinton opposed the tax rate cuts and welfare reform that got the economy back into high gear after his tax rate increase slowed down the strong recovery he inherited. And yes then there was a recession, and the Dot.com bubble bursting and then 9/11. Even had Gore been elected the surplus would have gone away. The slowdown/recession started before Bush was even nominated for the office. And no Obama didn't inherit the $1,400B deficit from Bush, he and his fellow Democrats created it as I have already demonstrated. Bush had NOTHING to do with that budget and little in the previous one. You DO realize the Congress controls the budget and unless the President's party controls both house he has limited input. Obama DID have both houses and as demonstrated the 2009 budget was held up for his being sworn into office so HE could sign the Omnibus bill that included HIS spending request.

And you are almost correct on middle class incomes, it is not that they have not been rising, they have been dropping the last 8 years after having steady gains during the Bush growth period. All those gains lost and not recovered. And yes tax revenues rose dramatically.

And here are the numbers

Deficit

2000 236,241
2001 128,236 - surplus already falling due to economy
2002 -157,758 - tax rate cuts passed but on a slow phase in till 2006
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727 - tax rate cuts accelerated and full implemented
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701 - last Republican budget
2008 -458,553
2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,293,489

Tax revenue increase

2000 11%
2001 -2%
2002 -7%
2003 -4%
2004 5%
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%
2008 -2%
2009 -17%
2010 3%

It has a MARKED effect and the ONLY age group that has INCREASED it's labor participation rate ARE THE BOOMERS and that shift ended several years ago we are past the peak and the rate is still dropping.

 

Well, here is the thing, when Obama assumed office the job losses were worse than they had ever been and while the job losses mitigated in the ensuing months with the implementation of the bailouts and fiscal stimulus, the nation was still losing jobs. More and more people continued to become unemployed and governments had to bear those costs.

One more point, Obama nor anyone his administration ever made the claim or representation that stimulus would keep unemployment at or below 8.5%. That number came from a paper written by someone who was subsequently appointed by Obama and before Obama became POTUS.

But it did, and that quotation isn’t an admission of failure. And you are contradicting yourself, on one had you said the economy recovered without Obama’s intervention and in the next breath you claim it didn’t. So which is it? You cannot have it both ways in the real world. It’s one or the other.
The truth is the recovery was the result of many things. It wasn’t just one thing. It was a combination of things and unfortunately for you and those like you Obama played an important part in the recovery. First, the Obama administration with substantial help from Democrats passed the banking bailout. That kept the banks open and prevented the money flowing. It kept businesses operating and paychecks flowing. Second, Democrats took control of Congress making fiscal stimulus possible. Third, Obama and the Democrats in congress bailed out the auto industry and in the process kept millions of Americans employed. It kept the numbers of unemployed people from going even higher. That’s directly attributable to Obama and his fellow Democrats. Republicans had opposed the auto industry bailouts. Republicans would have increased the number of unemployed people and in the process worsened the budget deficit.

Fourth, there was the stimulus package which was passed and signed into law within weeks of Obama’s inauguration. It was implemented on February 17, 2009. The lion’s share of it was in the form of tax cuts and had immediate impact. So your assertion is just flat out wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameri..._Act_of_2009#Tax_Changes_.28.24275_billion.29

Well, for starters, recessions don’t just happen because a certain amount of time has transpired since the last recession. Recessions aren’t mystical or magical. They have real causes. Car accidents are normal too, that doesn’t mean you cannot prevent them.
The causes of The Great Recession are well known. It was caused by deregulation of the banking industry brought about by the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the passage of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. That’s what caused The Great Recession. A Republican congress passed the legislation and a Democratic president signed it into law. Baby Bush exacerbated the problem with is profligate fiscal spending, continued deregulation of the securities industry and his failure to understand the problem until the economy was on the verge of complete collapse. There is plenty of blame to pass around here.

And the rest of your post is gobbledygook. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Well instead of ROLF you would be better served by doing your homework. Because if you had, you would know your assertions are simply not true. There was no roaring Baby Bush economy, and that is simply a matter of hard facts. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

The unfortunate fact for you is the economic growth we saw during the Baby Bush II administration was the result of his profligate spending. Job growth under Baby Bush was directly attributable to growth in government. Ironically, the job growth we have seen during Obama’s presidency has been private sector job growth.

The deficit has come down because the economy has improved and it is projected to continue coming down through 2020. Because the millions who stopped paying income taxes and now employed and paying income taxes again and are now buying goods and services they were not when they were unemployed.

Yeah, that little recession and more than 4 million people losing their jobs had nothing to do with it…lol. Get Real….

Oh, then perhaps you can show me where I said “it was just too hard”? You are making stuff up. There is nothing wrong with recognizing facts, unless you happen to be an ideologue.

Probably because he wasn’t “part and parcel” as has been explained. Obama inherited an economy in crisis. He and his Democratic congress turned an economy that was losing nearly a million jobs a month and shrinking at an annualized rate of 10% into an economy that has consistently grown modestly over the course of that last 7 years with virtually zero inflation and has recovered all the jobs that were lost and added thousands more. And he has reduced the deficit now and into the future by more than half. That’s a good thing unless you are a Republican partisan ideologue.

Well here is the thing; the economy hasn’t been growing at 0000001% per year. If it were, you would have a case. But it hasn’t and you don’t. The economy has been steadily growing at a 2-3 percent per year rate for 7 years now. For nearly 7 years now, the US economy has been consistently adding between 100,000 and 200,000 plus jobs each and every month. Those are unfortunate facts for Republicans. God knows Republicans have done everything under the Sun to thwart this recovery. But it is a fact and it’s good news for most Americans.

Further, inflation isn’t low because of interest rates. That’s a profound misunderstanding of what inflation is and what it isn’t. Inflation drives interest rates, interest rates don’t drive inflation. Inflation is a function of supply and demand. The reason we have not seen significant inflation over the course of the last 7 years is because aggregate demand has not exceeded aggregate supply.
And I’ve already explained the labor rate participation rate to you. The fact is the US is nearing full employment.

Of course you aren’t , you just like to promulgate their memes.

Except, as previously pointed out to that simply isn’t true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/

Oh, so when a Democrat is in office and runs a budget surplus, he isn’t responsible for the surplus. But when a Democrat is in office and inherits a deficit from the previous Republican president, the Democrat is fully responsible – no double standard in that…LOL.

As has been previously and repeatedly explained to you, when Obama assumed the office he inherited a trillion dollar plus deficit. Baby Bush didn’t budget much of his expenditures. They were funded “off-budget”. That doesn’t mean congress didn’t approve them, because they did.

Additionally, you seem not to understand what a budget is, it’s more that expenses. It’s also income. And has been repeatedly explained to you expected incomes never materialized because millions of people lost their jobs. That was a big part of the budget deficit, along with the fact that those formerly employed taxpayers were receiving money from the government. That too, was a major contributor to the budget deficit Obama inherited, along with Baby Bush’s unfunded wars and the largest expansion of entitlements since the creation of Medicare which was also unfunded. Baby Bush’s first treasury secretary resigned because he didn’t want any part of the Baby Bush fiscal profligacy.

And as much as you dislike it and don't want to admit it, Baby Bush was a master of budget gimmickry with off budget spending. To Obama's credit, he stopped that practiced. Obama's budget deficits are honest, unlike those of his predecessor.

Well, you are mixing and cherry picking. That isn’t honest. The fact is the deficit has fallen dramatically since the Great Recession ended in 2009 and the budget deficit is projected to continue to fall through 2020. The numbers you cite and the numbers I have cited can be found at the site listed below:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
And I am correct, middle class wages have remained essentially unchanged for decades.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
I find it interesting you ignore everything after The Great Recession (2010 excepted). You ignore the vast majority of Obama’s presidency. Gee, I wonder why. You do realize Obama has been POTUS since 2009?

I have no idea what you mean by that. The fact is, as previously stated, labor rate participation isn’t a problem when there is a labor surplus. It only becomes problematic when there isn’t sufficient labor, and its effect on the unemployment rate is miniscule. One more point for your edification, we are not nearly through with the baby boomers. The baby boomers include folks who were born between 1946 and 1964. Some people retire early. You haven’t seen anything yet. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline

 

One more point, Obama nor anyone his administration ever made the claim or representation that stimulus would keep unemployment at or below 8.5%. That number came from a paper written by someone who was subsequently appointed by Obama and before Obama became POTUS.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter when Obama moved from the Senate to the White House, what matters is when he and his fellow Democrats took the congress and control of the government and the budget. And YES that is what they used to sell the stimulus including a loving graph in the brochure they handed out showing how wonderful things would be once the stimulus would be passed.

Page 5 http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

I didn't say it recovered, it turned around and was heading into a recovery which he stymied with his policies and lack thereof.

We have not had a recovery, at least not a full blown recovery. The economy has limped along underperforming as the labor participate rates have fallen, incomes have fallen and GDP no where near where it needs to be to get people back to work.

TARP was passed under Bush not Obama.

And the failure of it and the HUGE deficits that resulted.

No he bailed out the unions and GM and Chrysler, which he latter sold to Fiat a foriegn company, and illegally ripped off the bond and shareholders and engaged in unfair competition against the auto-workers and companies in my area whose plants are HUGE customers of mine. It cost the US taxpayers BILLIONS in lost investment. They should have been left to go through a normal bankruptcy to weed out the fat and inefficiency and built into a better company.

Actually Bush was proposing some bridge loans but was out of office before any measures could have been passed and the Obama decided he wanted to play boy-industrialist costing us BILLIONS.

Nope Obama cost the treasury HUGE sums with his taking over of those companies ripping off all the bond holders in the process.

[/QUOTE]

That was when the bill was passed not when it was implemented it wasn't until months later that it started to actually be spent and they just didn't have all those shovel ready jobs out there was Obama's excuse when it was pointed out it wasn't working,

Again your fallacious comments about Bush spending which have already been dispelled with. We were due for a slowdown and a possible recession, these things are cyclical, it's how they are managed that is the issue and the Democrats failed miserably. We were not on the verge of a complete collapse, the financials had bee shored up, and later paid back the money, under Bush. The recession was in it's last months, the job loses bottomed out all Obama had to do was assure the markets and businesses he wouldn't come in and do something stupid like RAISE taxes or the cost of doing business and not engage in a huge money down the drain stimulus. Had he simply signed a bill to extend the Bush tax rates for another ten years that alone could have boosted us into a full recovery. Instead he literally started to take over private companies and huge swaths of the economy ala Obamacare and passing HUGE tax rate increases through that.

It makes perfect since you simply cant refute the facts.

52 months of FULL employment, rising middle class incomes, solid GDP growth and no job growth was in the private sector and across the board. I was running a branch sales and service office at the time you couldn't get people to even come in and apply because there were so few looking for work. And again you fallacious statements about Bush spending which have already been refuted.

It's come down because the Republicans won't let Obama and the Democrats increase it like they want and the sequester for which the Democrats proudly blame on the Republicans FORCED those cuts in spending. And if we can get a Republican into the White House with a Republican congress we can make even more headway in getting the economy growing at a higher rate putting people back to work and the federal budget under control.

Who said it didn't? Of course that little recession, dot.com bust and 9/11 attack had nothing to do with the surpluses going away did they as you blame Bush for those deficits. Obama and his fellow Democrats knew the economic situation when they took over the Congress in 2007, he knew it when he ran for President even running on how bad it was and how HE would fix it. He failed and you keep making the excuse that well it was just to hard for him.

As explained he was, why do you keep pretending Obama road into DC on January 20, 2009? He and his fellow Democrats created those deficits that took the last Republican deficit of $161B to that WHOPPING $1,400 with President Obama taking his full role and the President-elect working with his fellow Democrats in the Senate to increase spending first 9% for FY2008 and then as that President-elect 18% for FY2009. You don't inherit what you are up to your eyeballs in helping to create. Else show me where he opposed those budgets.

And on what basis to you claim HE cut the deficit? What Obama budget cutting spending was ever passed? And you don know that even now dealing with a Republican congress he wanted higher spending than they were willing to pass. Just as when Clinton was Presdident and every year he requested HIGHER spending than the Congress, Dem and Rep, would authorize.

But if it did your statement would be true would it not?

Well first historically till now the deeper and longer the recession the stronger and quicker the recovery. Obama turned that around didn't he. And as reported recently he is on course to be the first President to never hit even 3% growth. We should have been in the 3.5% - 4% range long ago in order to be creating the 300,000 - 350,000 jobs a month to not only keep up with population growth but to increase the labor participation rate and THEN incomes will rise.

And please explain specifically what the Republicans have done to thwart the non-recovery. Again the "well it was just too hard" defense and try to blame someone else.

It's been low in part because the banks and business are getting a cash influx from the FED instead of having to increase prices, that will reach a head and inflation will raise it's ugly head again and interest rates will then have to be raised to quell it. The fact is this should have been stopped long ago but because Obama and the Democrat policies have failed to get us into a full recovery the FED has been unwilling and just let this bubble keep growing.

Snarky remarks do not substitute for an intellectual response you no nor does fallacious tying the other person to a third party.

See above link to HIS nice little piece of propaganda where they did say that in a nice color graph. The head of his economic council later expressed her remorse for that claim they made as unemployment in spite of the stimulus soared to 10%.

Well my political intellect seems to go much deeper than yours. You seem to be under the specious belief that Presidents have sole authority over the Federal Budget when in fact they have an ancillary role and their budget submissions are routinely ignored. Clinton OPPOSED the tax rate cuts and welfare reform along with the lower spending levels of the Republicans that produced the surpluses. He only signed on after losing the mid-terms and his political adviser telling him he either had to get on board with the Republican Congress and sign those tax rate cuts and welfare reform else lose reelection. And I have already explained the budge history of FY2008 and FY2009 why do you continue to ignore it?

See above, again why do you think only the President has to do with the budget. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi passed Bush budgets? And that the FY2009 budget was a Bush budget that President Obama signed into law?

Spare me I know exactly what are budgets and how they are implemented. And again the "oh it was just too hard" defense. And war is not a budget item is it funded through necessary special appropriations bills as needed. That being said the last Republican budget of FY2007 had a budget deficit of a paltry $161B. The special appropriations that year for the wars was $70B so add those together and you get $231B. MY what we would give to have that deficit back. So how close did the Democrats, with the WARS ENDED BY OBAMA, come to that deficit? How close did they even come to the WORST Republican deficit? And ROFL yes Paul O'Neil resigned and then got egg on his face when none of his dire predictions came through. The deficit fell from $400B to $161B with a huge increase in revenues and modest spending increases. You don't do yourself well citing him as proof of a failure.

And we see the results, $161B deficit, $231B if you add in the special appropriations versus $1,400B WITH THE WARS ENDED.

ROFLMAO, oh how rich, those ARE the OMB numbers. Perhaps you should study your OWN CITE. And phony claims of cherry picking does not make your statement that there was NOT a surge in revenues after the tax rate cuts went into effect true. Your statement was incorrect.

Well GEEZ after the Democrats raised it almost NINE FOLD I would hope it would fall but the fact remains the Democrats NEVER even passed a budget and kept that deficit over $1,000B for the four years after they raised it to $1,400B and it was the Republican first taking the House that stopped the increases and then the Republican sequester which cut spending. It had nothing to do with any Democrat policies.

They go up and they go down, like during the 52 months of full employment under Bush incomes rose, then Obama and the Demorats took control and ALL those gains and more were lost.

And you do realize he and his fellow Democrats have had majority control of the government since 2007 until last year, the first two years after Obama moved over to the White House they had TOTAL control. What's your point?

The baby boomers retiring has not caused the labor participation rate to fall, they are the only age demographic that has INCREASED their labor participation. It's they younger and middle age that are dropping out and it has huge effect just compare the U-3 and U-6 rates. It has never been an issue before because in generally held steady. We now have the lowest rates since 70's. And the Baby Boomers peaked in about 1958, we are pasted their peak and the labor pariticipation rate continues to fall because of WORKING AGE workers dropping out.


http://beforeitsnews.com/libertaria...force-participation-rate-to-drop-2144015.html

 

Update on the debt.

FY2016 Mo8 05/31/2016
Public held debt $13,886,302,639,366.64
Intergovernmental $5,379,148,932,964.07
Total Public Debt $19,265,451,572,330.71
Monthly change +$78,064,088,347.34
Cumulative FY2016 +$1,114,833,905,846.38

 

The deficit is not what people think it is.

I have 10 trillion oranges. I also have 20 trillion apples. OMG, I have a 10 trillion orange deficit!!! The world is ending, run for the hills.

* Taxes do not finance government spending
* Treasuries do not finance deficits
* Deficits are literally an artefact. They do not measure anything, nor do they have any economic significance.

The above bullet points are valid in an economic system whose debts are denominated in its sovereign currency and whose sovereign currency is not pegged to another currency or commodity. It thus applies to Japan, the US, and the UK, but not to members of the eurozone, like Greece. (UK issues its own currency). China is in the habit of pegging its currency to the US dollar, so it is artificially constrained in that sense.

 

Is there somewhere apples and/or oranges are used as as trade medium?

You would have a 10 trillion orange deficit only if you owed 20 trillion oranges.

 

Update on the debt. (In US $, not apples or oranges)

FY2016 Mo9 06/30/2016
Public held debt $13,932,742,716,540.43
Intergovernmental $5,448,848,424,251.79
Total Public Debt $19,381,591,140,792.22
Monthly change +$116,139,568,461.51
Cumulative FY2016 +$1,230,973,474,307.89

 

Update on the debt. (In US $, not apples or oranges)

FY2016 Mo10 07/29/2016
Public held debt $13,998,219,609,725.92
Intergovernmental $5,429,474,970,060.72
Total Public Debt $19,427,694,579,786.64
Monthly change +$46,103,438,994.42
Cumulative FY2016 +$1,277,076,913,302.31

 

Update on the debt. (In US $, not apples or oranges)

FY2016 Mo11 08/31/2016
Public held debt $14,104,113,716,888.75
Intergovernmental $5,406,182,525,876.91
Total Public Debt $19,510,296,242,765.66
Monthly change +$82,601,662,979.02
Cumulative FY2016 +$1,359,678,576,281.33

One month to go.