Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[bripat9643]

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt

Yes it does.

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

That money was spent also. That $10 in treasury bonds is worthless to the taxpayers. They are the ones who have to pay them off.

What a moron.

Who do you think owns Treasury Bonds?

In the case of the ones in the so-called SS Trust Fund, the taxpayers own them, which is why they are worthless. The taxpayers are the ones on the hook to pay them off.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?

If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.

Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!

Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.

Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!

Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!

YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt

Yes it does.

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

Still hilarious that you somehow think the government doesn't spend the money they raise by selling Treasury bonds.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers

So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.

You get what you pay for

Pay for bottom of the barrel employees you get bottom of the barrel employees

Wrong. The most you'll ever get is what you paid for. In the case of government employees, you get much less.

You just insulted all employees in the private sector by calling them "bottom of the barrel." It's no surprise that a tick on the ass of society like you would look down your nose at the people who pay your salary.

As usual, you're full of shit. The only difference between a civil servant and a private sector employee is who signs their check.

Your hate for government and government employees has history. If I had to guess, you applied for a civil service job and either failed the written test or couldn't meet the minimum qualifications (MQ's).

Right, in one case a criminal signs a check paid for with looted funds. In the other case a business owner signs a check paid for by producing goods and services that consumers purchase voluntarily.

You're right, the fact that you work for the government is a disgrace in my eyes. You're a looter and a usless tick on the ass of society.

You're entitled to your opinions, worthless that they may be. I suspect real conservatives, as well as the average American, recoils in embarrassment whenever you post. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your prejudices.

 

[Dad2three]

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

That money was spent also. That $10 in treasury bonds is worthless to the taxpayers. They are the ones who have to pay them off.

What a moron.

Who do you think owns Treasury Bonds?

The taxpayers own them, which is why they are worthless. The taxpayers are the ones on the hook to pay them off.

Weird, you mean we use excess payroll taxes to hide the real cost of Gov't SO that the 'job creators' can keep their lowest sustained tax burden in 80+ years then???? To have FUTURE tax payers pay off current debt that conservatives/GOP created???

 

[Dad2three]

YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt

Yes it does.

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

Still hilarious that you somehow think the government doesn't spend the money they raise by selling Treasury bonds.

Sure Bubba, they spend it. Funny how you can't admit adding up deficits DOESN'T get you the debt, lol

 

[Skull Pilot]

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Anyone who hates government would believe that. We don't need no stinking government. They are a drain on our economy. We are better off without any government at all
Those who understand the function of government in society appreciate what it does and the role government employees play. Teachers, policemen, doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers........all play a role in running our government

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

That money was spent also. That $10 in treasury bonds is worthless to the taxpayers. They are the ones who have to pay them off.

What a moron.

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan to 'save SS', when he really needed more revenues to hide the cost of tax cuts for the rich!

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

Starving?

Are you a fucking moron?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

Tell me again about the 60%. Moron.

Yes, when Ronnie increased SS taxes in 1983, when he doubled SS taxes on the self employed, the overall total increase in SS tax revenues was 60%,

Yes, when Ronnie increased SS taxes in 1983, when he doubled SS taxes on the self employed, the overall total increase in SS tax revenues was 60%

So you're done with your previous lie?

Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60%

That's a relief! One step at a time.
I guess you can prove your new lie, I mean claim?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

 

[Dad2three]

YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt

Yes it does.

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

Still hilarious that you somehow think the government doesn't spend the money they raise by selling Treasury bonds.

So let's get the following straight. You can't refute Dubya's tax cuts that were SUPPOSED to create jobs, created a single one


You can't show how Obama increasing taxes (like Reagan did 11 times) stopped creation of jobs AND since Feb 2010 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created. The same month Obamacares was passed

You STILL can't get that adding up deficits (to get total debt), without accounting for the intra Gov't DEBT EXCESS PAYROLL TAXES created, is NOT 'math'???

 

[Dad2three]

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

Tell me again about the 60%. Moron.

Yes, when Ronnie increased SS taxes in 1983, when he doubled SS taxes on the self employed, the overall total increase in SS tax revenues was 60%,

Yes, when Ronnie increased SS taxes in 1983, when he doubled SS taxes on the self employed, the overall total increase in SS tax revenues was 60%

So you're done with your previous lie?

Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60%

That's a relief! One step at a time.
I guess you can prove your new lie, I mean claim?

Care to disprove ANYTHING I've posited Bubba? lol

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Yes, we see how well the 'private sector' does in nations without a strong, functioning Gov't. Want to try Russia? Mexico? Which nation? lol

Where did I ever say we should be without a government you idiot?

Government is a necessary evil and as such should be very tightly controlled

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't and conservatives push the costs down the road to be paid for by their kids/grandkids???

Thanks for agreeing, debt ISN'T deficits added up and HW Bush increased debt by about 60% (over $1.5+ trillion) in his 4 years!

I know, $1.5 trillion in new debt, in 4 years, is awful!!!

$7.4 trillion in new debt, so far, doesn't seem to bother you as much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Your tax money is used to hire private sector businesses and contractors as well as civil servants.

See: The Federal Register and look over the vast amount of RFP's available to small and large business.

Also see: Advanced Search - GovernmentBids.com

None of that negates my point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't and conservatives push the costs down the road to be paid for by their kids/grandkids???

Thanks for agreeing, debt ISN'T deficits added up and HW Bush increased debt by about 60% (over $1.5+ trillion) in his 4 years!

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't

No, I mean explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

 

[Dad2three]

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't and conservatives push the costs down the road to be paid for by their kids/grandkids???

Thanks for agreeing, debt ISN'T deficits added up and HW Bush increased debt by about 60% (over $1.5+ trillion) in his 4 years!

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't

No, I mean explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

Never said it did. What I said is conservatives/GOP used payroll taxes as a way to hide the TRUE costs of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, NOW they claim SS is broke? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided, besides Dubya's, of course!

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided

Bush only cut taxes for the rich? According to what definition of rich? Link?

AGAIN, THE POSIT

LOL

I see the claim, most top end tax cuts.
So how much, percentage wise?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure Bubba, they spend it. Funny how you can't admit adding up deficits DOESN'T get you the debt, lol

If the deficit is $500 billion this year, that won't add $500 billion to the debt?
Please explain further. I'll be making some popcorn in anticipation.

 

[Dad2three]

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't and conservatives push the costs down the road to be paid for by their kids/grandkids???

Thanks for agreeing, debt ISN'T deficits added up and HW Bush increased debt by about 60% (over $1.5+ trillion) in his 4 years!

I know, $1.5 trillion in new debt, in 4 years, is awful!!!

$7.4 trillion in new debt, so far, doesn't seem to bother you as much.

Good you agree, despite your earlier posit that HW Bush grew the debt by less than $1 trillion was a LIE

Yes, Weird how that debt piled up on Obama right? Went on a UNFUNDED tax cutting, UNFUNDED war invading, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion WHILE he ignored regulator warnings AND cheered on the Banksters. Oh wait, no