Ross Perot: America is spending itself off a cliff

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Really well done site, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Too bad anyone in D.C. and/or running for president doesn't give a damn about it or the American people...


The American people must wake up and face the reality that promises made in the past will soon bankrupt this nation. These problems are explained in an easy-to-understand chart presentation discussed further at the bottom of this page. Comments to the charts and other material described to the right are encouraged.

http://perotcharts.com/

[balli]

And so God forbid Obama gets rid of Bush's tax breaks for those making $250,000 plus. Fuckin' socialist. Obviously the country isn't in need of that money at all. :rolleyes


Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.
In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.

Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.

No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.

Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.

"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The average voter is so stupid, and most 250k/yr+ earners are so materialistic, that all mccain has to say is that "Obama wants to raise tax rates" and hellllooo washington

[Anti.Hero]

The average voter is so stupid, and most 250k/yr+ earners are so materialistic, that all mccain has to say is that "Obama wants to raise tax rates" and hellllooo washington

Is that like when the dems say they want to tax the rich and all their sheeple say yayyyyyy?

Rich people know how to keep money from the government. Why give more to a group that can't even spend what they already have efficiently?

[Wild Cobra]

Is that like when the dems say they want to tax the rich and all their sheeple say yayyyyyy?

Rich people know how to keep money from the government. Why give more to a group that can't even spend what they already have efficiently?

Yep, and the worse part is that the liberal lemmings think they are taxing people like Bill Gates, Teresa Kerry, Cindy McCain, etc. However, they don't get taxed on income, so that doesn't apply. They get taxed on capitol gains. However, democrat voters are just that stupid. The people it hurts are small business owners who file their businesses as a Chaper S, or similar.

[ChumpDumper]

perotcharts.com?

That's awesome.

[2centsworth]

These types of threads are always an opportunity to see how little democrats know about economics and finance.

I've watched the presentation. It's accurate and should be mandatory viewing for anyone who wants to talk about fiscal issues.

[balli]

These types of threads are always an opportunity to see how little democrats know about economics and finance.

I've watched the presentation. It's accurate and should be mandatory viewing for anyone who wants to talk about fiscal issues.

To see how little Democrats know? Again-


adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.

Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.

"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office.

Seems like we know a lot more than the Republican who's in charge now. In fact, it seems even more than pretty fucking clear.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Seems like we know a lot more than the Republican who's in charge now. In fact, it seems even more than pretty fucking clear.

Seems like anyone with half a brain could also realize that Clinton and Obama are nothing alike when it comes to spending, considering Obama wants to expand the government and its entitlement programs (which, if you took the team to peruse the site linked, you would see are something that already are putting this country in a shitload of financial trouble).

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Always funny to see people who voted for bush whine about spending.

And that was my wordy attempt at chumpdumping.

[balli]

Seems like anyone with half a brain could also realize that Clinton and Obama are nothing alike when it comes to spending, considering Obama wants to expand the government and its entitlement programs (which, if you took the team to peruse the site linked, you would see are something that already are putting this country in a shitload of financial trouble).

I took the time, but dude, that's the world we got and most of those spending increasing go back to Republican administrations


-strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, [here the % that each admin has increased federal spending, again discretionary domestic spending]

Johnson: 4.1 percent

Nixon/Ford: 5 percent

Carter: 1.6 percent

Reagan: 1.4 percent

Bush I: 3.8 percent

Clinton: 2.1 percent

Bush II: 4.8 percent

Outside of Reagan the Republicans are a fucking joke. You have to go back to LBJ to find a Dem who increased spending more than any of those Republicans did. And Bush's 4.8 % is especially deplorable considering that it doesn't even account for the literal trillions that he's wasted on Iraq. You can tack at least another 12+% on top of that when you add in increases in military funding (Did I say funding? I meant borrowing from China)

And I didn't say shit about Obama- I'm aware he wants Natl. Healthcare. I'm also aware of the fact that he's going to re-implement good taxes on Capital Gains and Entitlements.

I know you may not like Obama's spending plan, I don't either given the mess Bush has put us in (And I say that because we had a budget surplus when Clinton left office, despite all those entitlement programs that are now so worrying), but for Bush supporters of all people to attack him on spending he hasn't even implemented yet is laughable. Laughable. Republicans over the past eight years have more mud on them on this issue than even I would have thought possible until I saw the numbers. Considering how terribly, teribly bad it's been over that period, I can't believe some of you have the outrageous gall to even begin attacking Democrats on spending. It's just a joke. :nope

Bottom line- spending is not a good issue for the right. Not by a long shot and if you live in a glass house, guys, don't start throwing stones.

[balli]

And I'm sorry for kind of jacking your thread. I just don't know what to say about Perot's site- he's right and it's worth checking out.

[101A]

To see how little Democrats know? Again-



Seems like we know a lot more than the Republican who's in charge now. In fact, it seems even more than pretty fucking clear.

Mensa:

That has NOTHING to do with taxation. It ONLY talks about SPENDING; trust me, we conservatives are WELL aware of Bush and co's betrayal on spending.

Clinton, however, shouldn't get TOO much of the credit; Gingrich's congress shares quite a bit of it, IMO.

[101A]

And so God forbid Obama gets rid of Bush's tax breaks for those making $250,000 plus. Fuckin' socialist. Obviously the country isn't in need of that money at all. :rolleyes

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

If the country needs the money, why ONLY roll back the tax cuts of those making $250K? Why ONLY raise SS limits beyond that threshold? WHY should those people ALONE pay for all of Obama's plans - plus tax cuts for other Americans? Shouldn't we ALL shoulder the burden?

Of course not.

The reason Obama wants to tax THOSE people is that they are not a core constituency of his (he needs the $100K to $250K vote; and obviously he needs everything below that.

If this isn't tyranny of the majority in action, nothing is.

[101A]

The United States faces large and growing budget deficits mostly due to an aging population and rising healthcare costs. Unless we solve the problems caused by entitlement spending, there will be little money left to do anything else in the future. Over time, our standard of living, our national security, our standing in the world and the value of our currency could all be threatened. The sooner we confront these issues, the better.

EXACTLY what Obama has been saying!

We have to DO something about entitlement spending! We have to change! We need hope!

Do something....do SOMETHING....ooooooh, I've got it...we'll INCREASE entitlements! That's doing something! That'll fix it!!!

[balli]

That has NOTHING to do with taxation. It ONLY talks about SPENDING; trust me, we conservatives are WELL aware of Bush and co's betrayal on spending.

It has a lot to do with taxation. Not only has Bush spent more than any other presidency 4x over, but at the same time he's substantially cut taxes. Even more substantially for the wealthy investor class. If you don't see the two issues of taxation vs. spending as related, well, I guess that's on you.

And if you're well aware of Bush's out of control betrayal it seems like you should be keeping your mouth shut about spending Obama hasn't even done yet. Especially since he's going to bring in more money in tax revenue. I'm aware that Obama want's healthcare- I get it. But like I said last night. (And especially after Bush has just completely run amok, I mean far off the deep end on this issue) If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. It's as plain as that.

[balli]

If the country needs the money, why ONLY roll back the tax cuts of those making $250K? Why ONLY raise SS limits beyond that threshold? WHY should those people ALONE pay for all of Obama's plans - plus tax cuts for other Americans? Shouldn't we ALL shoulder the burden?

Of course not.

The reason Obama wants to tax THOSE people is that they are not a core constituency of his (he needs the $100K to $250K vote; and obviously he needs everything below that.

If this isn't tyranny of the majority in action, nothing is.


The reason Obama wants to tax only those people is that they can afford it. The rest of us are dealing with Bush's worthless dollar and we're trying to decide between bread, medicine and gasoline.

[Ignignokt]

And so God forbid Obama gets rid of Bush's tax breaks for those making $250,000 plus. Fuckin' socialist. Obviously the country isn't in need of that money at all. :rolleyes

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

what do tax breaks have to do with spending. Are we spending trillions of dollars in tax breaks?

Would you clarify?

[Ignignokt]

It has a lot to do with taxation. Not only has Bush spent more than any other presidency 4x over, but at the same time he's substantially cut taxes. Even more substantially for the wealthy investor class. If you don't see the two issues of taxation vs. spending as related, well, I guess that's on you.

And if you're well aware of Bush's out of control betrayal it seems like you should be keeping your mouth shut about spending Obama hasn't even done yet. Especially since he's going to bring in more money in tax revenue. I'm aware that Obama want's healthcare- I get it. But like I said last night. (And especially after Bush has just completely run amok, I mean far off the deep end on this issue) If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. It's as plain as that.


tax cuts raise govt revenue or balance out, notice i didn't say the budget.

bush passed education initiatives, heath care assistance for kids and seniors, if anything, you can't call bush a despiser of babies, senior citizens and such.

[balli]

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s219/ballijuana/ignore.jpg

[Ignignokt]

That ignore won't last for long, Ballijuana's bitch tendency will seek more drama.

[101A]

The reason Obama wants to tax only those people is that they can afford it. The rest of us are dealing with Bush's worthless dollar and we're trying to decide between bread, medicine and gasoline.

"Afford"?

Really?

How does Obama, or anyone else for that matter know what another person can afford? And why do those who make less than that get to decide what the threshold is?

Why don't we let people who live in 3rd world countries define how much we can all "afford" - let them set the salary that is "enough"?

Why doesn't Obama AT LEAST roll back the Bush tax cuts on those people under $250K? I thought those were meaningless, insignificant cuts in the first place? Now those people NEED those; CAN'T afford not to have them?

Thank god Bush pushed them through, huh?

[2centsworth]

I took the time, but dude, that's the world we got and most of those spending increasing go back to Republican administrations



Outside of Reagan the Republicans are a fucking joke. You have to go back to LBJ to find a Dem who increased spending more than any of those Republicans did. And Bush's 4.8 % is especially deplorable considering that it doesn't even account for the literal trillions that he's wasted on Iraq. You can tack at least another 12+% on top of that when you add in increases in military funding (Did I say funding? I meant borrowing from China)

And I didn't say shit about Obama- I'm aware he wants Natl. Healthcare. I'm also aware of the fact that he's going to re-implement good taxes on Capital Gains and Entitlements.

I know you may not like Obama's spending plan, I don't either given the mess Bush has put us in (And I say that because we had a budget surplus when Clinton left office, despite all those entitlement programs that are now so worrying), but for Bush supporters of all people to attack him on spending he hasn't even implemented yet is laughable. Laughable. Republicans over the past eight years have more mud on them on this issue than even I would have thought possible until I saw the numbers. Considering how terribly, teribly bad it's been over that period, I can't believe some of you have the outrageous gall to even begin attacking Democrats on spending. It's just a joke. :nope

Bottom line- spending is not a good issue for the right. Not by a long shot and if you live in a glass house, guys, don't start throwing stones.

again, an example of how little you know. The entitlement programs will begin to be a problem now and in to the future because of our demographics. Keep babling because the welfare state the democrats have created will bancrupt this country. And yes, Bush was equally quilty with his Medicare part D program.

[2centsworth]

That ignore won't last for long, Ballijuana's bitch tendency will seek more drama.

ignoring is for pussies, but it doesn't surprise me.

[balli]

again, an example of how little you know. The entitlement programs will begin to be a problem now and in to the future because of our demographics. Keep babling because the welfare state the democrats have created will bancrupt this country. And yes, Bush was equally quilty with his Medicare part D program.

Did you even look at any of those numbers, or do you just lack the ability to comprehend them?

And considering you can't show anything statistical yourself, but instead yammer about supposedly democrat-created entitlement programs while spelling "bankrupt" very incorrectly, I don't think you should be knocking my acuity when it comes to economic matters.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And I'm sorry for kind of jacking your thread. I just don't know what to say about Perot's site- he's right and it's worth checking out.

Not a problem. And I agree with you. I'm a fiscal conservative without a party right now, because the Republicans sure as hell have forgotten what got them into power in the 90s. Idiots.

[xrayzebra]

Didn't some dimm-o-crap say: There is to much consuming going on. Wonder if Ross stole his line? I'll bet if those dead-burn freners weren't cutting into his chip business or he could sell more to them he would still feel the same way.

[spurster]

Tax cuts do not necessarily increase revenue.

From http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts," Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that "nobody can absolutely prove that." Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. "But among economists, there’s no dispute."