PDA

View Full Version : Democrats and unions run Detroit into the ground



Mainecoons
07-18-2013, 03:24 PM
http://www.freep.com/article/20130718/NEWS01/307180107/Detroit-prepares-file-bankruptcy-soon-Friday

Next stop, America!

Venus
07-18-2013, 03:35 PM
How many blue states have gone bankrupt?

nic34
07-18-2013, 03:45 PM
From Forbes:

A Stationary Economy, Not Liberal Politics, Is What Killed Detroit

“The proportion between the real recompence of labour in different countries, it must be remembered, is naturally regulated, not by their actual wealth or poverty, but by their advancing, stationary, or declining condition.” – Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 218

The latest news about the population decline in Detroit has unsurprisingly generated a lot of commentary as to its causes. Particularly on the right, the generalized and oft-repeated view in myriad columns has coalesced around Detroit being “the most striking example of a once-thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies.” Union power has also been mentioned quite a bit too, and while both explanations are compelling, basic thinking renders these notions overly simplistic.

Indeed, San Francisco has similarly suffered decades of what conservatives would consider overbearing “liberal politics”, but it has ultimately thrived, and will presumably continue to attract many of the world’s best and brightest. If liberal-leaning San Francisco and neighboring Silicon Valley now represent the heart of economic innovation in the U.S., the question becomes why Detroit (arguably the Silicon Valley of the first half of the 20th century) surrendered its economic status. It seems the better, more compelling answer lies in the teachings of Adam Smith, along with poor dollar policy embraced by many conservatives in modern times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/02/a-stationary-economy-not-liberal-politics-is-what-killed-detroit/

Cigar
07-18-2013, 05:21 PM
Wait for the chest beating, flag waving patriots to cheer. :)

Agravan
07-18-2013, 05:25 PM
We don't celebrate liberal failure. We just point it out.

Adelaide
07-18-2013, 06:00 PM
From Forbes:

A Stationary Economy, Not Liberal Politics, Is What Killed Detroit

“The proportion between the real recompence of labour in different countries, it must be remembered, is naturally regulated, not by their actual wealth or poverty, but by their advancing, stationary, or declining condition.” – Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 218

The latest news about the population decline in Detroit has unsurprisingly generated a lot of commentary as to its causes. Particularly on the right, the generalized and oft-repeated view in myriad columns has coalesced around Detroit being “the most striking example of a once-thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies.” Union power has also been mentioned quite a bit too, and while both explanations are compelling, basic thinking renders these notions overly simplistic.

Indeed, San Francisco has similarly suffered decades of what conservatives would consider overbearing “liberal politics”, but it has ultimately thrived, and will presumably continue to attract many of the world’s best and brightest. If liberal-leaning San Francisco and neighboring Silicon Valley now represent the heart of economic innovation in the U.S., the question becomes why Detroit (arguably the Silicon Valley of the first half of the 20th century) surrendered its economic status. It seems the better, more compelling answer lies in the teachings of Adam Smith, along with poor dollar policy embraced by many conservatives in modern times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/02/a-stationary-economy-not-liberal-politics-is-what-killed-detroit/

From your article:


Rather than evolve with the times, and move into areas of commerce not overrun by imitators, the Big Three carmakers that continue to define Detroit’s distressed economy largely – but not totally – stuck with what they knew. But with automobile production having gone global on the way to cars themselves reaching commodity status in the figurative sense, what was once a promising destination for some of the world’s greatest minds began to repel them. Innovation is what attracts the investment necessary to fund continued growth, but with Detroit and Michigan itself stuck in the past, the financial capital necessary for its continued evolution simply found places where it would be utilized more profitably.

This. There were areas of Ontario that were hurt massively by the recession in the manufacturing/auto sector, but our government managed to put in place an economic action plan that created jobs in a such a way that we were able to adapt fairly well. Due to our infrastructure, we were also able to support two very large Toyota factories which employs many. The region that I live in slowly (before the recession, in about 1987) changed gears from being mainly manufacturing to other industries, such as technology. Small, start-up companies in the technology sector turned into massive companies like RIM, Dalsa, Navtech, Desire2Learn, etc.. Nanotechnology, biotech and renewable energy are emerging and supported by the location of several top-ranking schools for science, engineering and technology. Business, financial services and agricultural industries are well established, (one of the universities in the area is the best probably in the world for it's programs/degrees in agriculture and veterinary science). Google even took up shop here, over other major cities.

Detroit failed to do that. They didn't adapt to the times.

Common
07-18-2013, 06:08 PM
From Forbes:

A Stationary Economy, Not Liberal Politics, Is What Killed Detroit

“The proportion between the real recompence of labour in different countries, it must be remembered, is naturally regulated, not by their actual wealth or poverty, but by their advancing, stationary, or declining condition.” – Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 218

The latest news about the population decline in Detroit has unsurprisingly generated a lot of commentary as to its causes. Particularly on the right, the generalized and oft-repeated view in myriad columns has coalesced around Detroit being “the most striking example of a once-thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies.” Union power has also been mentioned quite a bit too, and while both explanations are compelling, basic thinking renders these notions overly simplistic.

Indeed, San Francisco has similarly suffered decades of what conservatives would consider overbearing “liberal politics”, but it has ultimately thrived, and will presumably continue to attract many of the world’s best and brightest. If liberal-leaning San Francisco and neighboring Silicon Valley now represent the heart of economic innovation in the U.S., the question becomes why Detroit (arguably the Silicon Valley of the first half of the 20th century) surrendered its economic status. It seems the better, more compelling answer lies in the teachings of Adam Smith, along with poor dollar policy embraced by many conservatives in modern times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/02/a-stationary-economy-not-liberal-politics-is-what-killed-detroit/

haha spanked

Mainecoons
07-18-2013, 07:39 PM
Whoops, I have to put up a retraction. Turns out that Obama "refused" to let Detroit go bankrupt.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-obama-2012-we-refused-to-let-detroit-go-bankrupt/article/2533249

:rofl:

jillian
07-18-2013, 07:43 PM
http://www.freep.com/article/20130718/NEWS01/307180107/Detroit-prepares-file-bankruptcy-soon-Friday

Next stop, America!

detroit was taken over by REPUBLICAN governor Rick Scott...

THEN IT WENT BANKRUPT.

but keep on keeping on

Peter1469
07-18-2013, 07:50 PM
Detroit's fiscal troubles was decades in the making.

jillian
07-18-2013, 07:52 PM
Detroit's fiscal troubles was decades in the making.

but it seems that whenever there's a takeover of a city, it gets run into bankruptcy by he city managers.

and i'm not even going to get into the racial implications of those takeovers or what they are from a democratic/governmental perspective.

Mister D
07-18-2013, 07:53 PM
but it seems that whenever there's a takeover of a city, it gets run into bankruptcy by he city managers.

and i'm not even going to get into the racial implications of those takeovers or what they are from a democratic/governmental perspective.

Please do. I'd love to hear about them.

Peter1469
07-18-2013, 07:56 PM
but it seems that whenever there's a takeover of a city, it gets run into bankruptcy by he city managers.

and i'm not even going to get into the racial implications of those takeovers or what they are from a democratic/governmental perspective.

But the problem is why is bankruptcy an option? Dems will typically just keep spending without considering the bottom line. Adults get in charge and say, holy crap, we have to stop the bleeding.....

jillian
07-18-2013, 08:00 PM
But the problem is why is bankruptcy an option? Dems will typically just keep spending without considering the bottom line. Adults get in charge and say, holy crap, we have to stop the bleeding.....

see, you're generally reasonable... but that's simply not the case. we all know that you can't keep cutting taxes for the top 1%, make the middle class foot the bill... and then say 'oops, no services'... after the right spent us into massive debt.

so let's start by honestly addressing that particular point. since every time the right runs the country, we go into a recession....

in terms of detroit's bankruptcy, when you have massive cuts... and then massive cuts in services... people leave... people leave there's less revenue...... less revenue equals less services... equals more people leaving ... equals less tax base...

so what other option is there other than a reorganization? shut the doors, turn out the lights?

Peter1469
07-18-2013, 08:04 PM
see, you're generally reasonable... but that's simply not the case. we all know that you can't keep cutting taxes for the top 1%, make the middle class foot the bill... and then say 'oops, no services'... after the right spent us into massive debt.

so let's start by honestly addressing that particular point. since every time the right runs the country, we go into a recession....

in terms of detroit's bankruptcy, when you have massive cuts... and then massive cuts in services... people leave... people leave there's less revenue...... less revenue equals less services... equals more people leaving ... equals less tax base...

so what other option is there other than a reorganization? shut the doors, turn out the lights?

Detroit's tax base failed because it didn't adjust to the economic conditions that it faced. They were Big Motor City, and never attempted to adapt when the America auto companies lost market share.

jillian
07-18-2013, 08:05 PM
Detroit's tax base failed because it didn't adjust to the economic conditions that it faced. They were Big Motor City, and never attempted to adapt when the America auto companies lost market share.

and massive cuts in federal funding because of rightwing policies didn't help move that along?

Peter1469
07-18-2013, 08:07 PM
and massive cuts in federal funding because of rightwing policies didn't help move that along?

What is federal policy going to do to address a local issue in Detroit?

jillian
07-18-2013, 08:10 PM
What is federal policy going to do to address a local issue in Detroit?

for eight years bush cut taxes for the rich and then ran two wars of choice on china's dime...

that left less money for the feds to give to the states... hence there were cuts to the states...

the states then cut funds to municipalities...

which in turn cut services...

that, simultaneous with bush's economic crash left a lot of places suffering ...

foreclosures, a good chunk of which were due to the fraudulent actions of the banks, destroyed real estate values and led to people being tossed from their homes.....

less government funding
fewer jobs
smaller tax base
greater poverty
higher burden on municipalities...

shall i go on?

Peter1469
07-18-2013, 08:13 PM
for eight years bush cut taxes for the rich and then ran two wars of choice on china's dime...

that left less money for the feds to give to the states... hence there were cuts to the states...

the states then cut funds to municipalities...

which in turn cut services...

that, simultaneous with bush's economic crash left a lot of places suffering ...

foreclosures, a good chunk of which were due to the fraudulent actions of the banks, destroyed real estate values and led to people being tossed from their homes.....

less government funding
fewer jobs
smaller tax base
greater poverty
higher burden on municipalities...

shall i go on?

Bush's tax cuts increased tax revenue.

lynn
07-18-2013, 08:30 PM
When you have the federal government funding states so their can run their own government responsibilities, there is little incentive to act responsible in any decisions they make that ruin their economy.

zelmo1234
07-18-2013, 08:37 PM
haha spanked

except that those of us that live here know better!

zelmo1234
07-18-2013, 08:41 PM
detroit was taken over by REPUBLICAN governor Rick Scott...

THEN IT WENT BANKRUPT.

but keep on keeping on

The Florida Gov did not take over Detroit. Snyder appointed an emergency manager that took charge about 3 months ago, and there was no saving Detroit!

Detroit tried to keep the same number of city employees and services as the population dropped. So the once 4th largest city in the country over 4 million strong, now has less than a million people! And they tried to keep the spending the same.

that is what caused the them to go bankrupt. the State of IL has the some unfunded liabilities, and are likely going to have to go through the same process

Agravan
07-18-2013, 08:54 PM
The reasoning, if it can be called that, that jillian displays here is precisely why I'll be voting democrat in the next election. When the economy crashes, let there be a Democrat in office. the it will have failed under their watch, though they'll still find a way to blame Republicans.
You see, Democrats ran Detroit into the ground, but since a Republican appointed a manager because Detroit was bankrupt, now it's obviously the Republicans that destroyed Detroit. I say let all the Democrat controlled cities spend themselves into bankruptcy and watch the left, like jillian, try to spin the failure into being the Republican's fault.
talk about living in Bizzaro world.

zelmo1234
07-18-2013, 08:56 PM
see, you're generally reasonable... but that's simply not the case. we all know that you can't keep cutting taxes for the top 1%, make the middle class foot the bill... and then say 'oops, no services'... after the right spent us into massive debt.

so let's start by honestly addressing that particular point. since every time the right runs the country, we go into a recession....

in terms of detroit's bankruptcy, when you have massive cuts... and then massive cuts in services... people leave... people leave there's less revenue...... less revenue equals less services... equals more people leaving ... equals less tax base...

so what other option is there other than a reorganization? shut the doors, turn out the lights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

So the recession thing is Bullshit!

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

So the accumulation of debt is Bullshit!

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So the Rich not paying taxes is Bullshit!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

So the statement that tax cuts for the rich reduce revenue is total Bullshit!

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/25/will-the-last-person-to-leave-detroit-please-turn-the-light-off/

So the reason that the people left Detroit is Bullshit, but other than that her post was spot on!

zelmo1234
07-18-2013, 08:59 PM
and massive cuts in federal funding because of rightwing policies didn't help move that along?

Detroit has never been run by Republicans? There never have been any right wing policies!

nic34
07-19-2013, 08:52 AM
Detroit's fiscal troubles was decades in the making.

Yes, as the crash in 2007-8 was years in the making. And the resulting massive job loss didn't happen on Jan. 20, 2009.

Think everyone gets that yet?

Cigar
07-19-2013, 08:57 AM
Yes, as the crash in 2007-8 was years in the making. And the resulting massive job loss didn't happen on Jan. 20, 2009.

Think everyone gets that yet?

30 years of Reaganomics and deregulation. Brilliant

Venus
07-19-2013, 09:56 AM
30 years of Reaganomics and deregulation. Brilliant


50 Years of Failure:

Jerome Cavanagh (D)
Roman Gribbs (D)
Coleman Young (D)
Dennis Archer (D)
Kwame Kilpatrick (D)
Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. (D)
Dave Bing (D)
Take a bow, Democrats.

Ransom
07-19-2013, 10:06 AM
Wait for the chest beating, flag waving patriots to cheer. :)

Yes. Focus on others here the norm. When the focus should be on Detroit....and its continuing problems. Crime that makes the Zimmerman trial seem irrelevant, but when you've got a media and sheep like you to graze on whatever manure they feed you.....you'll wait for the response from others. Why not cheer us up a solution, Cigar, remember your we won we won cheering....that comes with responsibility. Time to govern, Cupcake.

Venus
07-19-2013, 10:06 AM
They told me if I voted for Romney that Detroit would go bankrupt. And they were right!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-obama-2012-we-refused-to-let-detroit-go-bankrupt/article/2533249

On October 13, 2012, President Obama boasted to Americans in his weekly address that he refused to “let Detroit go bankrupt.”
“[W]e refused to throw in the towel and do nothing,” Obama said. “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt, I bet on American workers, and American ingenuity and three years later that bet is paying off in a big way.”


http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/18/obama-to-detroit-drop-dead/

Any hope of a federal bailout to avert bankruptcy fizzled last week after Mr. Orr spoke with the White House, including Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, according to city and White House officials.

Ransom
07-19-2013, 10:07 AM
see, you're generally reasonable... but that's simply not the case. we all know that you can't keep cutting taxes for the top 1%, make the middle class foot the bill... and then say 'oops, no services'... after the right spent us into massive debt.

so let's start by honestly addressing that particular point. since every time the right runs the country, we go into a recession....

in terms of detroit's bankruptcy, when you have massive cuts... and then massive cuts in services... people leave... people leave there's less revenue...... less revenue equals less services... equals more people leaving ... equals less tax base...

so what other option is there other than a reorganization? shut the doors, turn out the lights?

Note, all her claims come without links....or foundation. No one believes you, Jillian, not since I got here.

Mainecoons
07-19-2013, 11:09 AM
Interesting read here:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090402/METRO/904020403

and here:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?14721-Detroit-News-poll-Crime-drives-Detroiters-out-40-expect-to-leave-in-5-years

Matty
07-19-2013, 11:09 AM
detroit was taken over by REPUBLICAN governor Rick Scott...

THEN IT WENT BANKRUPT.

but keep on keeping on




When did Rick Scott become Govenor of Michigan?

Matty
07-19-2013, 11:12 AM
see, you're generally reasonable... but that's simply not the case. we all know that you can't keep cutting taxes for the top 1%, make the middle class foot the bill... and then say 'oops, no services'... after the right spent us into massive debt.

so let's start by honestly addressing that particular point. since every time the right runs the country, we go into a recession....

in terms of detroit's bankruptcy, when you have massive cuts... and then massive cuts in services... people leave... people leave there's less revenue...... less revenue equals less services... equals more people leaving ... equals less tax base...

so what other option is there other than a reorganization? shut the doors, turn out the lights?


Nope, he is correct. 61% of the population moved en masse out of Detroit. That left the non payers in Detroit with no money to pay the pensions the unions promised.

nic34
07-19-2013, 11:17 AM
That left the non payers in Detroit with no money to pay the pensions the unions promised.

You do know that the unions weren't the only ones that made promises don't you?

Mainecoons
07-19-2013, 11:24 AM
Nope, the Democrats brought them in and then gave away the store to them. Thanks for noting this.

Something else you won't read, Nic.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/

Definitely op-ed but can you offer any serious rebuttal or just your usual ad homs and insults?

Never mind, we already know the answer to that.

:grin:

Matty
07-19-2013, 11:28 AM
You do know that the unions weren't the only ones that made promises don't you?



please elaborate

jillian
07-19-2013, 02:09 PM
Bush's tax cuts increased tax revenue.

i'd like a link to that, if you don't mind, Peter1469 because it's counter to everything i know.

Venus
07-19-2013, 02:09 PM
lol

Peter1469
07-19-2013, 02:30 PM
i'd like a link to that, if you don't mind, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) because it's counter to everything i know.

See post 19. I included a pretty graph.

Agravan
07-19-2013, 02:50 PM
i'd like a link to that, if you don't mind, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) because it's counter to everything i know.
Really Peter1469, if jillian "knows" something is not true, then everyone else is obviously wrong.

Adelaide
07-19-2013, 03:18 PM
but it seems that whenever there's a takeover of a city, it gets run into bankruptcy by he city managers.

and i'm not even going to get into the racial implications of those takeovers or what they are from a democratic/governmental perspective.

I think we probably only hear about it when a city goes bankrupt, or, that cities only bring someone on once they are so far gone that they can't get out anyways.

Ransom
07-19-2013, 03:23 PM
i'd like a link to that, if you don't mind, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) because it's counter to everything i know.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Do pretend we're from Missouri, Jillian, show us what you know.

:moron: For the love of God

Adelaide
07-19-2013, 03:25 PM
Please do. I'd love to hear about them.

Everything else aside, why Rhodesia?

Common
07-19-2013, 03:30 PM
Anyone that blames the public unions for Detroits bankruptcy is a tool.

Agravan
07-19-2013, 03:32 PM
Anyone that blames the public unions for Detroits bankruptcy is a tool.
Anyone that does not lay the blame on the unions, where it belongs, is an even bigger tool for the left.

Mainecoons
07-19-2013, 04:42 PM
Or just stupid. Fact is, the payroll is bloated, overpaid and over pensioned and that is why the city is broke.

Dr. Who
07-19-2013, 06:00 PM
Or just stupid. Fact is, the payroll is bloated, overpaid and over pensioned and that is why the city is broke.The city is broke because it was essentially a one industry town. In the last thirty years the big three have faced tremendous competition. In order to compete, they had to bring in the same technology as the Asian car makers. That means automation and robotics. The net result is massive job loss. Detroit did not adapt and create incentives to entice other business to replace the loss of manufacturing jobs. People left to find employment elsewhere. I don't see this as a Democrat/Republican issue. It is a lack of foresight issue. The other issue with Detroit was the lack of a vibrant downtown. Everyone lives in the suburbs. The suburbs are currently fine, but the City is falling apart. No residual tax base. It is important to build living space in the core of the city which then creates a need for restaurants and other business to service the resident population. That way after 5PM you don't have a wasteland inhabited only by homeless people, drug addicts and criminals.

Mister D
07-19-2013, 07:55 PM
Everything else aside, why Rhodesia?

They can't rule themselves and compromise is defeat. Always. White folks will learn that one way or another no matter how progressive (suicidal) they are. I regret that I could not have defended the apartheid regime in South Africa with every fiber of my being. Alas, I was too young. Once South Africa was no longer useful (i.e. after the Cold War ended) we threw them under the bus.

edit: Detroit is a pretty good example of self rule...

jillian
07-19-2013, 08:16 PM
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Do pretend we're from Missouri, Jillian, show us what you know.

:moron: For the love of God

i'm sorry. i asked peter....

you've never posted anything correct or credible.

jillian
07-19-2013, 08:17 PM
Anyone that blames the public unions for Detroits bankruptcy is a tool.

yes.... the same people who think workers making a living wage is an offense against nature.

jillian
07-19-2013, 08:37 PM
Bush's tax cuts increased tax revenue.

i would have appreciated a source from you on that.

but it's incorrect anyway
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf). In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030528-9.html) the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
–http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/

Peter1469
07-19-2013, 08:58 PM
i would have appreciated a source from you on that.

but it's incorrect anyway
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf). In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030528-9.html) the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
–http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/

From the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf).


Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth.

Ransom
07-20-2013, 06:25 AM
i'm sorry. i asked peter....

you've never posted anything correct or credible.

Oh....I know you asked Peter. Who even provided you with post # and chart. My response to you that comes with an actual link confirming Peter's #19 is simply more proof he is correct. More relevant and telling however is your statement that this fact runs 'counter to everything you know'......it strikes with certainty on who lacks credibility here Jillian. You are continually proven absolutely clueless on these pages on issue after issue.

Go look for yourself Jillian, then look to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The Bush tax cuts as they are known, do your own math......Ms Counter to Everything I Know.

For the love of God.

Ransom
07-20-2013, 06:29 AM
Pete sends yet another source, we wait for Jillian's counter of what she knows.

Watch this.....we move on.

patrickt
07-20-2013, 08:43 AM
yes.... the same people who think workers making a living wage is an offense against nature.

How absurd, Jillian.

Agravan
07-20-2013, 12:02 PM
yes.... the same people who think workers making a living wage is an offense against nature.
Sincere question: What would you consider a "living wage"?

Mainecoons
07-20-2013, 03:43 PM
Zombified Cities


[*=left]Philadelphia: 5th Largest City in US is Effectively Bankrupt; Mayor Holds Closed Meeting With Wall Street to Discuss Asset Sales (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/philadelphia-5th-largest-city-in-us-is.html)
[*=left]Houston: CPAs state Houston is Bankrupt (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/city-of-houston-is-bankrupt-so-are.html)
[*=left]LA: Mayor of Los Angeles Says "Bankruptcy is Not an Option" (Of Course It Is) (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/mayor-of-los-angeles-says-bankruptcy-is.html)
[*=left]New York Cities: Public Pension Ponzi Scheme - New York Cities Borrow From Pension Plan to Make Contributions (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/03/public-pension-ponzi-scheme-new-york.html)
[*=left]Baltimore: Time for Baltimore to "Pull a Vallejo" and Declare Bankruptcy (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/time-for-baltimore-to-pull-vallejo-and.html)
[*=left]Miami: Miami Commissioner Says Bankruptcy is City's Best Hope; Chris Christie Says New Jersey Careens Towards Becoming Greece (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/miami-commissioner-says-bankruptcy-is.html)
[*=left]Chicago: Chicago's Mayor Daley Discusses Bankruptcy For City Pensions (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/chicagos-mayor-daley-discusses.html)
[*=left]Scranton: Scranton Mayor Slashes All Public Worker Wages to $7.25 per Hour, Including Police, Fire, His Own; City Effectively Bankrupt (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/07/scranton-mayor-slashes-all-public.html)
[*=left]Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Capital Files for Bankruptcy (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/10/harrisburg-pennsylvania-files-for.html)
[*=left]Zombified Cities Roundup: Detroit Becomes Dumping Ground for the Dead; Financial Urgency in Miami; Oakland Pension Time Bomb; How Pensions Crashed Stockton and San Bernardino (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/zombified-cities-roundup-detroit.html)


There is absolutely no way Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, LA, Houston, and numerous other cities can meet pension obligations without a major restructuring of promises.

Given that public unions seldom if ever agree on even the smallest of pension concessions, expect many of those haircuts to happen in bankruptcy court.

This article regarding the bankruptcy of Stockton, California shows why bankruptcy is inevitable: Federal Bankruptcy Court Lets Stockton, California Cut Retiree Health Care Benefits (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/07/federal-bankruptcy-court-lets-stockton.html)

The bankruptcies in California cities and Detroit provide a backdrop of what's about to happen. In the meantime, expect an avalanche of city debt downgrades.
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/moodys-downgrades-chicago-debt-citing.html#HFAP4Zi0OFXXBSBC.99

What do they all have in common?

Democrat or Republicrat (in the case of PA) rule.

Ransom
07-21-2013, 11:59 AM
jillian

Your 'counter to everything I know evidence' if you don't mind.....thanks.

Watch this......like she does every time she is asked for foundation.....

Someone told her....and that's why Peters facts were counter to what she knows. She never really actually looked, someone else has been telling her what to say.

bladimz
07-21-2013, 02:43 PM
Bush's tax cuts increased tax revenue.
If the tax-cuts were so successful in raising revenues, why did the blue stuff in the pretty chart drop like a rock from 2007 to 2009? Or were those cuts just taking a breath?

Ransom
07-21-2013, 03:02 PM
If the tax-cuts were so successful in raising revenues, why did the blue stuff in the pretty chart drop like a rock from 2007 to 2009? Or were those cuts just taking a breath?

Bushs Presidency came to an end and it dropped like a rock. Why do you ask?

bladimz
07-21-2013, 03:13 PM
Bushs Presidency came to an end and it dropped like a rock. Why do you ask?But... but... the Bush tax-cut program was still in effect until the end of 2012...:huh:

Ransom
07-21-2013, 04:28 PM
But... but... the Bush tax-cut program was still in effect until the end of 2012...:huh:

But but the knowledge that much more regulation and tax was coming.....possible universal health care, the Dem House voting health care a right, the EPA ruling carbon a health hazard, more spending us into debt. Meanwhile nothing changed such as earmarks, deficit spending out the wazoo, an omnibus spending package of 400+ billion, a Stimulus bill of 750+ billion, an Obamacare initiative that now by the CBOs last estimates, the estimate the Left used as the measure...is 1.8+ trillion for the first decade, that covered 6 years of coverage mind you....and omits doc fixes for Medicare costing hundreds of billions more. The obvious strain on business the reason Obama himself stepped in and delayed the mandate for business.

your 2007-2009 is about correct. About the same time we smarter citizens all realized you herds people were going to elect a man to Office that simply wasn't qualified.

bladimz
07-21-2013, 04:59 PM
All very nice, ...What does any of that have to do with the loss of tax-based revenues because of bush tax-cuts? Hint: Nothing.

Oh, and BTW, the deficit under Obama has decreased...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/17/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE94G0PP20130517


CBO said that because Obama's budget increases revenues by $974 billion over the next decade, largely by raising taxes and limiting deductions for the wealthy, it would result in a $5.2 trillion cumulative deficit over the fiscal 2014-2023 period. That compares with CBO's own $6.3 trillion cumulative deficit estimate based on current law.

zelmo1234
07-21-2013, 09:34 PM
If the tax-cuts were so successful in raising revenues, why did the blue stuff in the pretty chart drop like a rock from 2007 to 2009? Or were those cuts just taking a breath?

To some extent you are correct in siting that the tax cuts did not help in late 07 through 08, Remember in 09 Obama promised to raise taxes and business does not operate in the now but the future!

In late 2007 early 2008 poor policies

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/new-study-finds-democrats-fully-to-blame-for-subprime-mortgage-crisis-that-caused-financial-collapse/

Caused the middle class to loose more than 40% of their wealth, and put a huge strain on the economy.

Look at the effect they had on revenue in 2003 when they went into effect through 2006 the increase in revenue was massive. but the biggest problem was, they still increased spending, for the full economic effect of tax cuts to be realized, one would have to reduce spending as well!

zelmo1234
07-21-2013, 09:37 PM
All very nice, ...What does any of that have to do with the loss of tax-based revenues because of bush tax-cuts? Hint: Nothing.

Oh, and BTW, the deficit under Obama has decreased...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/17/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE94G0PP20130517

As shown in the Dept of Treasury Documents, the Bush tax cuts did not cause a drop in revenue, but a dramatic increase.

Yes after the economic collapse based on the housing policies of Democrats, there was a lot less disposable income and unemployment caused a drop in revenue, but this was not the fault of the tax cuts

Mainecoons
07-22-2013, 07:35 AM
They haven't just run Detroit into the ground:

http://www.freep.com/article/20130721/NEWS06/307210073/

And this is the kind of airy fairy ruling you get from a liberal Democrat female judge:


Update: The Detroit News account of today’s hearing includes what I can only callsome rather odd comments by the Judge: (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130719/METRO01/307190099/Ingham-County-judge-rules-Detroit-bankruptcy-withdrawn-Schuette-appeals)
Aquilina, who granted the restraining order, clearly was irked.
Prior to her ruling on Friday, she criticized the Snyder administration and Attorney General’s Office for what appeared to be hasty action to outflank pension board attorneys.
“It’s cheating, sir, and it’s cheating good people who work,” the judge told assistant Attorney General Brian Devlin. “It’s also not honoring the (United States) president, who took (Detroit’s auto companies) out of bankruptcy.”
Aquilina said she would make sure President Obama got a copy of her order.
“I know he’s watching this,” she said, predicting the president ultimately will have to take action to make sure existing pension commitments are honored.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/michigan-state-judge-rules-detroit-chapter-9-unconstitutional-ruling-being-appealed/

Venus
07-22-2013, 07:39 AM
I always thought the taxpayers bailed the auto companies out not Obama.

zelmo1234
07-22-2013, 07:41 AM
They haven't just run Detroit into the ground:

http://www.freep.com/article/20130721/NEWS06/307210073/

And this is the kind of airy fairy ruling you get from a liberal Democrat female judge:



[/B][/I]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/michigan-state-judge-rules-detroit-chapter-9-unconstitutional-ruling-being-appealed/
[/INDENT]

MI supreme court is very Conservative! there will be no issues,accpet for those Union, that will be forced to use dues to sure up their pension plans instead of giving that money to the DNC

Mainecoons
07-22-2013, 07:45 AM
To a large degree, these government "workers" and their pandering politicians made their own bed here. It is a very sticky bed as they did not contribute to social security or medicare but instead have to rely on their pensions, which are most certainly going to get a big haircut. I'd feel sorry for them but it has been totally obvious for a long time that Detroit was a sinking ship.

This is going to be repeated in liberal cities all over the country. Count on it. The money just isn't there and raising taxes just causes more people to leave.

nic34
07-22-2013, 09:01 AM
To a large degree, these government "workers" and their pandering politicians made their own bed here. It is a very sticky bed as they did not contribute to social security or medicare but instead have to rely on their pensions, which are most certainly going to get a big haircut. I'd feel sorry for them but it has been totally obvious for a long time that Detroit was a sinking ship.

This is going to be repeated in liberal cities all over the country. Count on it. The money just isn't there and raising taxes just causes more people to leave.

The article I posted way back already discredits this idea that "lib-Ral" policies are ruining cities. Not in SF and not in many other cities including here in Phx with dems in charge.

So go hate on mexico or guatamala or some such and quit slamming America and American workers....

Ransom
07-22-2013, 09:25 AM
Oh, and BTW, the deficit under Obama has decreased


This isn't accurate and we all know it, Obama is the biggest deficit spender in history. By far.

nic34
07-22-2013, 09:40 AM
This isn't accurate and we all know it, Obama is the biggest deficit spender in history. By far.

Source?

Ransom
07-22-2013, 09:41 AM
Source?

This counter to everything you know, nic?

:moron:

Ransom
07-22-2013, 09:46 AM
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

nic34
07-22-2013, 09:58 AM
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget


So we're talking DEBT now?

You responded to blad's post
Oh, and BTW, the deficit under Obama has decreased


by saying:
This isn't accurate and we all know it,


Nice try.

Germanicus
07-22-2013, 10:16 AM
Detroit should not be able to go bankrupt. They should be forced to accept an IMF loan.

The USA is letting itself off the hook through a staggered state bankruptcy scam. Not fair. One rule for USA and different rules for the rest of us as always.

The USA is bankrupt.

Detroit should be made into a 'free market' city state. Give it to some supercapitalists and let them show us their fantasy utopian capitalism that has never ever worked in all of history. Utopian.

Put a wall around it and let it be a free market capitalist city state. Utopian.

What do Greeks think of America letting states go bankrupt? Not much I would say. Why hasnt the world declared war on the USA yet is what I cant understand.

edit- The capitalists have run out of other peoples money. Idealistic utopian capitalists think/pretend that bourgeoisie social democrats are socialist. HA! Thats funny. Your peak bourgeoisie capitalist society has run out of other peoples money. (: And Thatcher is dead. Socialism is in great health.

edit- Just so you know, a so-callled 'social democrat' is the biggest enemy of the true socialist. The true socialist has far more in common with the conservative.

'Liberals' are the scourge of the earth. For us all. They are our common enemy. The true socialist has no interest in wasting money. None at all. Why would you need 'affirmative action' type nonsense under a true socialist system geared toward equality. Jack London never said anything about giving hippies free money so they can roll around in the dirt having orgies. Thats not socialism. Wasting money is not socialism. Work shy types that do not contribute will be forced to.

Peter1469
07-22-2013, 10:42 AM
So we're talking DEBT now?

You responded to blad's post

by saying:

Nice try.

The website is primarily discussing deficits.

Mister D
07-22-2013, 10:48 AM
He is right about one thing theoretically. Marxists hate a leech.

nic34
07-22-2013, 10:51 AM
Jack London never said anything about giving hippies free money so they can roll around in the dirt having orgies. Thats not socialism. Wasting money is not socialism. Work shy types that do not contribute will be forced to.

What the heck are you talking about?

Ransom
07-22-2013, 12:54 PM
So we're talking DEBT now?

The debt nothing but the sum of all deficits and other govt borrowing, try to f'n keep up. Blad's post claimed Obama's has decreased the deficit, it was 450+ billion in 2008, 1.5 trillion in 2009. Here in 2014 the deficit is projected to be 6 and 3/4 hundred billion and Blad claims that's a decrease. What that is...is a total f'n lie. Obama has exploded deficit spending, meaning the debt has skyrocketed. And you've just had the living shit schooled out of your clueless ass. We move on.

nic34
07-22-2013, 12:59 PM
The debt nothing but the sum of all deficits and other govt borrowing, try to f'n keep up. Blad's post claimed Obama's has decreased the deficit, it was 450+ billion in 2008, 1.5 trillion in 2009. Here in 2014 the deficit is projected to be 6 and 3/4 hundred billion and Blad claims that's a decrease. What that is...is a total f'n lie. Obama has exploded deficit spending, meaning the debt has skyrocketed. And you've just had the living shit schooled out of your clueless ass. We move on.

Next time don't be so transparent when you get caught switching between Debt and Deficit.

Ransom
07-22-2013, 01:06 PM
Next time don't be so transparent when you get caught switching between Debt and Deficit.

Sums are part of any equation nic:moron:34 whether you'd like to think so or not. Your being unaware and getting the shit schooled out of you wasn't my fault. you came in here unawares....and got caught. Tighten up. Fuck up again....and I'll school you again.

nic34
07-22-2013, 01:11 PM
What are you...15?

Ransom
07-22-2013, 02:32 PM
Old enough to know deficits sum to debts. You carry on Copernicus, his first name was Nic you know. What am I asking you for....moving on.