Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[The Rabbi]

Is that a yes or no that 4.1 is greater than 3.1?

Yes Daveman Bob. 4.1 is higher than 3.1 but you and I know that is not the issue.

It is the issue. Your figures are wrong, and YOU won't admit it.

The 4.1 and 3.1 refer to deficit as percentage of GDP. Look further down the page and they give figures for revenue as percentage of GDP. Of course with stagnant GDP growth and increasing revenue the number is getting bigger, not smaller.
So in total dollar terms, the fed gov't is taking in more money in revenue now than at any other time.
In terms of revenue/gdp the fed gov't is taking more money in revenue now than in the last 4 years.

So Billy's argument that the deficit is high because revenue is low is simply wrong, disproved by his own links.

 

[The T]

Yes Daveman Bob. 4.1 is higher than 3.1 but you and I know that is not the issue.

It is the issue. Your figures are wrong, and YOU won't admit it.

The 4.1 and 3.1 refer to deficit as percentage of GDP. Look further down the page and they give figures for revenue as percentage of GDP. Of course with stagnant GDP growth and increasing revenue the number is getting bigger, not smaller.
So in total dollar terms, the fed gov't is taking in more money in revenue now than at any other time.
In terms of revenue/gdp the fed gov't is taking more money in revenue now than in the last 4 years.

So Billy's argument that the deficit is high because revenue is low is simply wrong, disproved by his own links.

I agree, however? It's already been spent, and they want more. That is my contention.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes Daveman Bob. 4.1 is higher than 3.1 but you and I know that is not the issue.

You ar right. I was looking at the wrong chart.
But will you agree that 16.7 is greater than 15.0?

Yes would you agree 20.1 (2000) is greater than 16.7 (2013)?

OK. And? What's yr point?

 

[RKMBrown]

You ar right. I was looking at the wrong chart.
But will you agree that 16.7 is greater than 15.0?

Yes would you agree 20.1 (2000) is greater than 16.7 (2013)?

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is the issue. Your figures are wrong, and YOU won't admit it.

The 4.1 and 3.1 refer to deficit as percentage of GDP. Look further down the page and they give figures for revenue as percentage of GDP. Of course with stagnant GDP growth and increasing revenue the number is getting bigger, not smaller.
So in total dollar terms, the fed gov't is taking in more money in revenue now than at any other time.
In terms of revenue/gdp the fed gov't is taking more money in revenue now than in the last 4 years.

So Billy's argument that the deficit is high because revenue is low is simply wrong, disproved by his own links.

I agree, however? It's already been spent, and they want more. That is my contention.

Yes, spending is far outpacing gains in revenue. That is undoubted. Spending was reined in slightly with the sequester. But only slightly. The deficit is large and will grow once Obamacare subsidies kick in. The economy will continue to expand at a paltry rate, if at all. We will continue to owe more and more. And the leftard morons like Billy will blame Bush for all of it.

 

[Billy000]

Yes would you agree 20.1 (2000) is greater than 16.7 (2013)?

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

No, for the wealthy.

 

[Billy000]

Yes would you agree 20.1 (2000) is greater than 16.7 (2013)?

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

 

[The T]

The 4.1 and 3.1 refer to deficit as percentage of GDP. Look further down the page and they give figures for revenue as percentage of GDP. Of course with stagnant GDP growth and increasing revenue the number is getting bigger, not smaller.
So in total dollar terms, the fed gov't is taking in more money in revenue now than at any other time.
In terms of revenue/gdp the fed gov't is taking more money in revenue now than in the last 4 years.

So Billy's argument that the deficit is high because revenue is low is simply wrong, disproved by his own links.

I agree, however? It's already been spent, and they want more. That is my contention.

Yes, spending is far outpacing gains in revenue. That is undoubted. Spending was reined in slightly with the sequester. But only slightly. The deficit is large and will grow once Obamacare subsidies kick in. The economy will continue to expand at a paltry rate, if at all. We will continue to owe more and more. And the leftard morons like Billy will blame Bush for all of it.

Bingo. And with more and more people out of work in the private sector or their hours dialed back due to ObamaCare, rising prices, AND when the QE nonsense ceases...inflation really takes hold? Look out.

 

[The T]

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

No dumbass, they were across the board. You may cease with that horseshit.

 

[Billy000]

The 4.1 and 3.1 refer to deficit as percentage of GDP. Look further down the page and they give figures for revenue as percentage of GDP. Of course with stagnant GDP growth and increasing revenue the number is getting bigger, not smaller.
So in total dollar terms, the fed gov't is taking in more money in revenue now than at any other time.
In terms of revenue/gdp the fed gov't is taking more money in revenue now than in the last 4 years.

So Billy's argument that the deficit is high because revenue is low is simply wrong, disproved by his own links.

I agree, however? It's already been spent, and they want more. That is my contention.

Yes, spending is far outpacing gains in revenue. That is undoubted. Spending was reined in slightly with the sequester. But only slightly. The deficit is large and will grow once Obamacare subsidies kick in. The economy will continue to expand at a paltry rate, if at all. We will continue to owe more and more. And the leftard morons like Billy will blame Bush for all of it.

No, I said MOST of the debt can be attributed to Bush. Not all of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes would you agree 20.1 (2000) is greater than 16.7 (2013)?

OK. And? What's yr point?

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

It's actually that reduced revenue is responsible for the increase in debt. I peeked back at previous posts.
We've shown that is wrong.
He wrote it was "tax cuts for the wealthy" but those expired last year. So that isnt the reason.
No, Billy is simply dead wrong.

 

[Billy000]

I'm gonna guess his point is the tax cuts for middle and lower class income Americans have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, but I'm just guessing.

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

No dumbass, they were across the board. You may cease with that horseshit.

Yes assclown, but the cuts for the wealthy were the greatest.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree, however? It's already been spent, and they want more. That is my contention.

Yes, spending is far outpacing gains in revenue. That is undoubted. Spending was reined in slightly with the sequester. But only slightly. The deficit is large and will grow once Obamacare subsidies kick in. The economy will continue to expand at a paltry rate, if at all. We will continue to owe more and more. And the leftard morons like Billy will blame Bush for all of it.

No, I said MOST of the debt can be attributed to Bush. Not all of it.

You didnt say anything of the sort, you lying tard.
And if you did that also is not true.

 

[The T]

Actually the cuts for the wealthy.

No dumbass, they were across the board. You may cease with that horseshit.

Yes assclown, but the cuts for the wealthy were the greatest.

And it's government's money/property...HOW exactly? Was it yours? Did they steal it? Or was government stealing it?

This ought to be good.

 

[Billy000]

Yes, spending is far outpacing gains in revenue. That is undoubted. Spending was reined in slightly with the sequester. But only slightly. The deficit is large and will grow once Obamacare subsidies kick in. The economy will continue to expand at a paltry rate, if at all. We will continue to owe more and more. And the leftard morons like Billy will blame Bush for all of it.

No, I said MOST of the debt can be attributed to Bush. Not all of it.

You didnt say anything of the sort, you lying tard.
And if you did that also is not true.

Why am i not surprised you changed the subject?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I said MOST of the debt can be attributed to Bush. Not all of it.

You didnt say anything of the sort, you lying tard.
And if you did that also is not true.

Why am i not surprised you changed the subject?

I didnt.
I've proven your statement that the debt is high because of lower revenue is wrong. Whether you count revenue in absolute terms or in terms of debt, it is wrong.
that was your statement. It was disproven by links you youself posted.
I havent changed the subject at all.

 

[Billy000]

You didnt say anything of the sort, you lying tard.
And if you did that also is not true.

Why am i not surprised you changed the subject?

I didnt.
I've proven your statement that the debt is high because of lower revenue is wrong. Whether you count revenue in absolute terms or in terms of debt, it is wrong.
that was your statement. It was disproven by links you youself posted.
I havent changed the subject at all.

You are so fucking transparent. You didn't disprove shit and you know it. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the only proper yardstick to use when it comes to the VALUE of revenue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why am i not surprised you changed the subject?

I didnt.
I've proven your statement that the debt is high because of lower revenue is wrong. Whether you count revenue in absolute terms or in terms of debt, it is wrong.
that was your statement. It was disproven by links you youself posted.
I havent changed the subject at all.

You are so fucking transparent. You didn't disprove shit and you know it. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the only proper yardstick to use when it comes to the VALUE of revenue.

The statement is meaningless.
But even so, revenue as a percentage of gdp is higher now than it was 4 years ago.
So again you're wrong.

 

[Billy000]

I didnt.
I've proven your statement that the debt is high because of lower revenue is wrong. Whether you count revenue in absolute terms or in terms of debt, it is wrong.
that was your statement. It was disproven by links you youself posted.
I havent changed the subject at all.

You are so fucking transparent. You didn't disprove shit and you know it. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the only proper yardstick to use when it comes to the VALUE of revenue.

The statement is meaningless.
But even so, revenue as a percentage of gdp is higher now than it was 4 years ago.
So again you're wrong.

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are so fucking transparent. You didn't disprove shit and you know it. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the only proper yardstick to use when it comes to the VALUE of revenue.

The statement is meaningless.
But even so, revenue as a percentage of gdp is higher now than it was 4 years ago.
So again you're wrong.

Um, no it is not meaningless.

And yeah, a little more revenue is coming through but, historically, it is still very low.

OK, so the increased debt is not due to lower revenue.
Again your statement is wrong. Just admit you were wrong and let's go on to the next issue.