• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obamacare Layoffs, Hiring Freezes Begin

A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
I think we need to keep looking for ways to fix our problems and not only to fix the immediate problems but those of the next generations....
And there are millions of folks out there that have the funds that are irresponsibly still taking the free ride and sticking the rising costs on the responsible folks that are picking up the bills...

Read again what you just posted and then point this out to YOUR president. The rest of us have been saying this for years.

Yep-- and for years its what the Repubs said (until they became the Party of NO)- that if we are going to stop the fastest growing cost to American workers- Healthcare and insurance costs -that actually has many moving backwards in earnings- then we need to take some long term action...

Much of the benefits of a mandate- and forcing responsibility and everyone having access to health insurance and total health care won't be seen for years and years to come (generations)--BUT we have to take action NOW to get the ball rolling...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldBlowHard said:
BULLPUCKEY-- I was predicting the Bush Bust already in 2005...Anyone that looked could see it coming except Bush and the hardcore R cult followers...Even Bush's own Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill saw it and warned GW that you can't cut taxes and fight 2 wars on the credit card... How did Bush respond- he fired O'Neill and got in a yes man......
We were already in recession by 2007... Dems controlling Congress didn't run down as powerful a country as the U.S. in one year...

Can you look into your crystal ball at $16 TRILLION in debt and 8 years of Obama and predict the future for us?

We are in awe of your wisdom.

Carnac.jpg
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Yes MIss Cleowe all know you prowess at predicting the future, i suppose that is why you are one of those rich grey haired old men....Haven't seen your ads on TV lately,,is that because everyone figured out the fact you are liar and phoney??? :D :D
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
BULLPUCKEY-- I was predicting the Bush Bust already in 2005...Anyone that looked could see it coming except Bush and the hardcore R cult followers...Even Bush's own Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill saw it and warned GW that you can't cut taxes and fight 2 wars on the credit card... How did Bush respond- he fired O'Neill and got in a yes man......
We were already in recession by 2007... Dems controlling Congress didn't run down as powerful a country as the U.S. in one year... :roll: :lol:

You do realize that the taxes paid by the "rich" almost doubled, because of the Bush tax cuts, right? Without the Bush tax cuts as stimulus, the US would not have bounced back from the "Clinton Crash" and 911, as quickly.

Even with the wars, Bush did not spend nearly as much as obama has.


Be careful repeating the lies of others, OT. It makes you look like a liar too.





Let’s examine the popular message that the Bush tax cuts somehow have favored the wealthy and are a significant contributor to our current escalating Federal budget deficit. That claim has been made so often by politicians and endlessly repeated by the media that it must be true; but is it? Let’s look at the facts. Table 1 below shows Federal Tax Revenues, Federal Expenditures and the Budget Surplus or Deficit from 1993 (the first year of the Clinton Presidency) to 2011.


taxes.png



The first conclusion from this table is that Federal Tax Revenues fell after the “Dot Com” bubble of 2000 and the tragedy of 9/11 in 2001. Tax revenues peaked during the last year of the Clinton Presidency at $2.026 trillion. Had tax revenues just been flat during the first three years of the Bush Presidency, despite significant growth in spending (from $1.789 trillion in Clinton’s last year to $2.160 trillion in 2003), the cumulative net outcome for those first three Bush years would have resulted in a budget surplus of $212.7 billion. But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion. Compare this outcome to the first three years of the Obama Presidency where the cumulative deficit was over ten times as high at $4.35 trillion (almost twice the cumulative deficits of the previous 16 years of the combined Clinton and Bush Presidencies). This is despite the fact that tax revenues in the first three years of the Obama Presidency were $815 billion greater than tax revenues during the first three years of the Bush Presidency.

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

The key question here is what did the wealthy contribute to this impressive increase in tax revenues? Let’s examine four income groups based on their adjusted gross income: the top 0.1% of earners representing about 129,000 tax returns in 2003 and 141,000 tax returns in 2007; the top 1% of earners representing 1,286,000 returns in 2003 and 1,411,000 returns in 2007; the top 25-50% of earners representing 32,152,000 returns in 2003 and 35,268,000 returns in 2007; and finally the bottom 50% of earners representing 64,305,000 returns in 2003 and 70,535,000 returns in 2007. Table 2 shows the total income tax and percent of total Federal tax revenues paid by each income group in 2003 and in 2007. As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.) The top 1% of earners paid an increase of $58 per day, the top 25-50% of earners paid an extra $1 per day, and the bottom 50% paid an increase of 14 cents per day.

So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes? Despite the fact that politicians and the media repeatedly make this claim, the truth is they are simply wrong. What happened after the Bush tax cuts was accelerated growth of our economy (GDP) and a significant reduction in unemployment (See: Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and the GDP). Higher income earners earned more during the four years after the Bush tax cuts but also disproportionately increased their already disproportionate share of taxes paid.


taxes2.png



http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Busted again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


BULLPUCKEY-- because what Hypocrit nor his fancy graphs doesn't tell you- is that all the major war costs were stuck on the credit card by GW-- which are now being shown to be $4-$5 Trillion alone for extended war costs- let alone all the extra costs of GW being asleep at the wheel and bringing on the Bush Bust... One of the main reasons our national debt took such a huge jump-- and the reason that by 2016- half the debt is estimated will have been approved during GW's watch while he was asleep at the wheel.... :(
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Busted again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


BULLPUCKEY-- because what Hypocrit nor his fancy graphs doesn't tell you- is that all the major war costs were stuck on the credit card by GW-- which are now being shown to be $4-$5 Trillion alone for extended war costs- let alone all the extra costs of GW being asleep at the wheel and bringing on the Bush Bust... One of the main reasons our national debt took such a huge jump-- and the reason that by 2016- half the debt is estimated will have been approved during GW's watch while he was asleep at the wheel.... :(



The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other
Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11


Summary
With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.
48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated
since the 9/11 attacks:
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror
operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the
rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
War costs from an additional source:

Amazing how close they are in costs


Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan

According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011.

Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html#ixzz2HLD6v7d8

war.png
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and a 3rd source:


The CBO now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments, and says the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I remember well some of those extreme leftist cultist Democrats daring to "De-Fund" the Iraq war. But when it came right down to it, Congress voted for it everytime.

Credit card? :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
and a 3rd source:


The CBO now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments, and says the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

Please Hypo. I tried to have this "conversation" with OT a few days ago when I saw him say Bush had spent trillions in Iraq.

Of course, direct costs through the end of Bush's presidency ran about $800 but OT went to Huffington Post and elsewhere to post other's opinions that it would run into trillions by the end of the century. :roll: :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
hypocritexposer said:
and a 3rd source:


The CBO now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments, and says the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

Please Hypo. I tried to have this "conversation" with OT a few days ago when I saw him say Bush had spent trillions in Iraq.

Of course, direct costs through the end of Bush's presidency ran about $800 but OT went to Huffington Post and elsewhere to post other's opinions that it would run into trillions by the end of the century. :roll: :roll:


Funny thing is, that the amount tax revenue increased under the "Bush tax Cuts' is about the same as the costs of the wars.

In other words, it appears that the tax cuts paid the war expenses. :eek:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Whitewing said:
hypocritexposer said:
and a 3rd source:

Please Hypo. I tried to have this "conversation" with OT a few days ago when I saw him say Bush had spent trillions in Iraq.

Of course, direct costs through the end of Bush's presidency ran about $800 but OT went to Huffington Post and elsewhere to post other's opinions that it would run into trillions by the end of the century. :roll: :roll:


Funny thing is, that the amount tax revenue increased under the "Bush tax Cuts' is about the same as the costs of the wars.

In other words, it appears that the tax cuts paid the war expenses. :eek:


Iraq war ends with a $4 trillion IOU


Veterans’ health care costs to rise sharply over the next 40 years

December 15, 2011|Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch
Wall Street Journal



WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion.

Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually.


Although that only represents about 1% of nation’s gross domestic product, it’s more than half of the national budget deficit. It’s also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year.

Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated it would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion.

“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.




Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.

Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.

Other experts said that was too conservative and anticipate twice that amount. The advance in medical technology has helped more soldiers survive battlefield injuries, but followup care can often last a lifetime and be costly.

More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Add in Afghanistan and that number jumps to 47,000.

Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.

Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments
 

Mike

Well-known member
I guess OT thinks no military payroll nor U.S. contractors pay ever made it back to be spent in the U.S. economy. Not counting the money spent on U.S. made weapons & equipment.

All that money was just sent down a black hole in the earth? Hardly. :roll:

Reminds me of an old man fussing about all the money spent on going to the moon. When I reminded him that money wasn't spent in the moon's economy, he got a real faraway look in his eyes. That thousand yard stare. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Whitewing said:
Please Hypo. I tried to have this "conversation" with OT a few days ago when I saw him say Bush had spent trillions in Iraq.

Of course, direct costs through the end of Bush's presidency ran about $800 but OT went to Huffington Post and elsewhere to post other's opinions that it would run into trillions by the end of the century. :roll: :roll:


Funny thing is, that the amount tax revenue increased under the "Bush tax Cuts' is about the same as the costs of the wars.

In other words, it appears that the tax cuts paid the war expenses. :eek:


Iraq war ends with a $4 trillion IOU


Veterans’ health care costs to rise sharply over the next 40 years

December 15, 2011|Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch
Wall Street Journal



WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion.

Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually.


Although that only represents about 1% of nation’s gross domestic product, it’s more than half of the national budget deficit. It’s also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year.

Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated it would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion.

“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.




Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.

Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.

Other experts said that was too conservative and anticipate twice that amount. The advance in medical technology has helped more soldiers survive battlefield injuries, but followup care can often last a lifetime and be costly.

More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Add in Afghanistan and that number jumps to 47,000.

Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.

Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

And just for you Bushie Bootlickers-- heres what his boys lied to the nations public that it would cost..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT, get back to us when you learn the difference between "could cost" and "have cost"

"coulds" are not included in the debt.

Your water heater COULD breakdown in the future, so have you NOW charged the cost of it to your credit card?


Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Busted again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


BULLPUCKEY-- because what Hypocrit nor his fancy graphs doesn't tell you- is that all the major war costs were stuck on the credit card by GW-- which are now being shown to be $4-$5 Trillion alone for extended war costs- let alone all the extra costs of GW being asleep at the wheel and bringing on the Bush Bust... One of the main reasons our national debt took such a huge jump-- and the reason that by 2016- half the debt is estimated will have been approved during GW's watch while he was asleep at the wheel.... :(
 

Steve

Well-known member
if 800 billion equals trillions paid over time...

how much does Obama's porkulas and deficits cost over the same time periods.. Quadrillion? Nonillion? Undecillion?

or Spentineptindebtrillions?

wow, a real word to explain Obama's spending,..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, get back to us when you learn the difference between "could cost" and "have cost"

"coulds" are not included in the debt.

Your water COULD breakdown in the future, so have you NOW charged the cost of it to your credit card?


Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Busted again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


BULLPUCKEY-- because what Hypocrit nor his fancy graphs doesn't tell you- is that all the major war costs were stuck on the credit card by GW-- which are now being shown to be $4-$5 Trillion alone for extended war costs- let alone all the extra costs of GW being asleep at the wheel and bringing on the Bush Bust... One of the main reasons our national debt took such a huge jump-- and the reason that by 2016- half the debt is estimated will have been approved during GW's watch while he was asleep at the wheel.... :(


So you don't believe in following the Constitution?

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“We will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,” said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. “The U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.”

Its already been endebted to the taxpayer by GW by putting it on the credit card...
 

Latest posts

Top