Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
2004 Elections
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Unintentional" data-source="post: 9237" data-attributes="member: 22"><p><strong>2004 Elections</strong></p><p></p><p><a href="http://loudoun.nvcc.edu/home/jhuang/econhtm/debtgdp_showcase.htm" target="_blank">http://loudoun.nvcc.edu/home/jhuang/econht...dp_showcase.htm</a></p><p></p><p>This shows that although the deficit is increasing and stopped increasing slightly during the end of Clinton's term, as a percentage of GDP it is not increasing. I know that is a lame comeback, but it's analogy is let's say you have every month you spend 5% more than what you earn (not a good idea in practice). The first month you earn 10,000 dollars and go in debt 500 dollars. The next month you earn 20,000 and go into debt 1000 dollars. Is that exploding deficit? As a percentage it has stayed the same. Still all in all deficit spending is a bad idea but not really exploding. Stupid? Yes. Exploding? No. Would Kerry do better? If he raised taxes, yes, if not, no.</p><p></p><p>We are already starting to outgrow the current deficit. First they said the deficit for this year would be 600 billion. It is really only 420 billion. Federal collections went up 180 billion more than expected. If taxes were cut, how is that possible? The answer is the tax cut did release needed capital to promote new growth and thus a larger number of income to tax. The new lower rate times the new gdp is higher than the old rate times the old gdp. Of corse the old rate times the new gdp would be even higher, but would the gdp have increased as much without the tax cut? Of course these figures all given by the government and as it was posted on another thread, they could all be made up by the government.</p><p></p><p>Geeze, I am going to put my head in a bag. I sound like a Bush adminstration apologist.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Unintentional, post: 9237, member: 22"] [b]2004 Elections[/b] [url=http://loudoun.nvcc.edu/home/jhuang/econhtm/debtgdp_showcase.htm]http://loudoun.nvcc.edu/home/jhuang/econht...dp_showcase.htm[/url] This shows that although the deficit is increasing and stopped increasing slightly during the end of Clinton's term, as a percentage of GDP it is not increasing. I know that is a lame comeback, but it's analogy is let's say you have every month you spend 5% more than what you earn (not a good idea in practice). The first month you earn 10,000 dollars and go in debt 500 dollars. The next month you earn 20,000 and go into debt 1000 dollars. Is that exploding deficit? As a percentage it has stayed the same. Still all in all deficit spending is a bad idea but not really exploding. Stupid? Yes. Exploding? No. Would Kerry do better? If he raised taxes, yes, if not, no. We are already starting to outgrow the current deficit. First they said the deficit for this year would be 600 billion. It is really only 420 billion. Federal collections went up 180 billion more than expected. If taxes were cut, how is that possible? The answer is the tax cut did release needed capital to promote new growth and thus a larger number of income to tax. The new lower rate times the new gdp is higher than the old rate times the old gdp. Of corse the old rate times the new gdp would be even higher, but would the gdp have increased as much without the tax cut? Of course these figures all given by the government and as it was posted on another thread, they could all be made up by the government. Geeze, I am going to put my head in a bag. I sound like a Bush adminstration apologist. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
2004 Elections
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top