Hillary's budget -- balanced. Trump's budget -- $15 trillion of debt.

[Slade3200]

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

We take in $3.3 Trillion
And spend $3.8 Trillion.......

Oh yeah and Obama has nothing to do with it.....
That old gag....

View attachment 74145

To put into context would you please list the presidents and years we ran a surplus?

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

You miss the point and repeat fallacies. This is because you are stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

You can thank the Republican congress for that. But accuracy isn't your goal. And anyone that thinks Hillary will balance the budget is too stupid to vote. We need some kind of test to get a voting license. I hate to see a right go away but we've slid too far down the liberal cesspool of lies and deceit.

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

You can thank the Republican congress for that. But accuracy isn't your goal. And anyone that thinks Hillary will balance the budget is too stupid to vote. We need some kind of test to get a voting license. I hate to see a right go away but we've slid too far down the liberal cesspool of lies and deceit.

When people think John McAfee is an appropriate choice for president we're doomed.

 

[kaz]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

Doubling the debt in eight years, the first President in history without a single year of 3% GDP growth and that's while coming out of a recession when GDP growth is typically the highest just getting back where we started. Yeah, who would have a problem with that?

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

Doubling the debt in eight years, the first President in history without a single year of 3% GDP growth and that's while coming out of a recession when GDP growth is typically the highest just getting back where we started. Yeah, who would have a problem with that?

They dont get it. They buy the Dem line without any thought whatsoever. Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive. Never mind the operation to get OBL was started by Bush and carried out by Seal Team 6, who the Dems derided. And never mind GM surived only by trashing bankruptcy law and fucking the creditors over while giving the company to the unions. And even that didnt solve GM's underlying problems, which are high unit labor cost.

 

[Slade3200]

As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.

Doubling the debt in eight years, the first President in history without a single year of 3% GDP growth and that's while coming out of a recession when GDP growth is typically the highest just getting back where we started. Yeah, who would have a problem with that?

They dont get it. They buy the Dem line without any thought whatsoever. Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive. Never mind the operation to get OBL was started by Bush and carried out by Seal Team 6, who the Dems derided. And never mind GM surived only by trashing bankruptcy law and fucking the creditors over while giving the company to the unions. And even that didnt solve GM's underlying problems, which are high unit labor cost.

So correct me if I'm wrong... you give the Obama administration no credit for getting bin laden? And you think GM should have given their workers a pay cut and that would have solved the problem?

 

[mamooth]

The Trump fans _still_ don't want to comment on his plan for massive deficits. They are, however, quite creative in their attempts to deflect from it.

Looks like the marching orders have already going out. Protect DearLeaderDonald! Deflect from any discussion about his policies!

 

[SwimExpert]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

It's okay. We're going to make the accountants pay for it.

 

[Intolerant]

 

[The Rabbi]

The Trump fans _still_ don't want to comment on his plan for massive deficits. They are, however, quite creative in their attempts to deflect from it.

Looks like the marching orders have already going out. Protect DearLeaderDonald! Deflect from any discussion about his policies!

Actually people are focusing on your outrageous lie that Hillary has any plan to balance the budget. Only a moron things Dems stand for fiscal responsibility.

 

[Dragonlady]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

Investment isn't needed because corporations are awash in cash. What is needed is cash in the hands of the middle class and working poor. These people haven't had an increase in THEIR buying power because the government has artificially suppressed wages by way of "earned income credits". This is a taxpayer funded wage subsidy for corporations.

The Republican solution to this problem is increased the amount paid out in earned income credits. The Democrats' solution is to reduce the subsidy given to corporations, by increasing the minimum wage.

Any company which uses or requires its employees to be given earned income credits, does not deserve to be in business. That many of the most profitable companies in America choose to go this route, is unconscionable. This is very poor corporate citizenship.

Please note that companies like Walmart, McDonalds, and other American-based fast food and retail operations have thousands of retail and fast food outlets across the world, all of which have higher minimum wages and taxes than the US, and yet Walmart still manages to be one of the most profitable companies in Canada, in spite of our $11.00 per hour minimum wage. Ditto McDonalds, and all of the other American retails and corporations operating in Canada, and throughout the world.

And note that none of these operators have resorted to robot production of fast food.

Please don't start spouting the same old tired conservative economic mantras about what makes the economy run, because Republicans have proven in spades, not just to Americans, but to the entire world, that their ideas of how to have a thriving, successful economy, just doesn't work for anyone but the wealthy.

Your country has had 46 years of voodoo your "trickle down" economics. Give the 5% a break and they'll create jobs. It didn't work under Reagan, Bush I or Bush II.

FDR's "New Deal" provided the economic framework for the richest, most productive era in US history, which created the wealthiest middle class in the world. Reagan's "New Deal" has reversed the process, and is eroding the middle class.

You keep blaming this on liberal policies. "Democrats tax and spend" is your mantra. Notice that "tax" comes first. Before they create the program, they create a way to pay for it. That's how FDR did it, and every President who came after him, until Reagan.

Reagan became the Republican's first "cut taxes and spend" President, and in 8 years he tripled the national debt, and had the biggest stock market crash since 1929. Not to mention the trillions wasted on his "Star Wars" initiative. In order to fight high unemployment during his administration, Reagan hired 1 million government workers, saying government workers buy cars and houses, and consumer goods too.

Bush I had the Gulf War to help his deficits along. Clinton, came in, raised the minimum wage, balanced the budget, and increased jobs by more than double the number of jobs created by Reagan.

Bush II took Clinton's balanced budget and immediately cut taxes, just like Reagan did, and with the same results, except that with the tax breaks given companies moving jobs overseas, corporations moved jobs offshore so that many of the jobs lost during W's administration are never coming back.

As an inducement to the elderly to vote Republican, W gifted the country with Medicare Part D, without first creating a tax or other means by which to pay for it. The economy was in total freefall when Obama was sworn into office, not just in the US, but in much of the Western world, which had put their trust and faith in the American banking system and the American stock market. Bush has completely mismanaged

The wars, the tax cuts, the totally unfunded Medicare, carrying the cost of the two wars being run simultaneously, created a massive deficit. Obama again, cleans up the biggest mess ever left another President, gets the country back on track, but as long a Reagan's New Deal is in place, it's going to be wash, rinse repeat until the middle class is utterly destroyed.

Democrats "tax and spend" for a reason. Cut taxes and spend just increases the deficit, which in turns increases the debt. Conservatives seem to be too dumb to make the connection.

 

[bripat9643]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

Where do these magical "savings" come from in Hillary's budget?

 

[bripat9643]

Libs are fiscal conservatives again.......LLMMAAOOOOOO where have ya been the last 8 yrs

The lib conception of a "fiscal conservative" is someone whose eager to raise taxes faster than politicians can spend it.

 

[The Rabbi]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

Investment isn't needed because corporations are awash in cash. n.

I pretty much stopped there. That one sentence tells me you have no fuckng clue what you're babbling about.

 

[The Rabbi]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

Where do these magical "savings" come from in Hillary's budget?

All of that extra spending will be called "investment" instead and as the economy grows due to this "investment" we will save money.
I swear they actually believe this.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

Investment isn't needed because corporations are awash in cash. What is needed is cash in the hands of the middle class and working poor. These people haven't had an increase in THEIR buying power because the government has artificially suppressed wages by way of "earned income credits". This is a taxpayer funded wage subsidy for corporations.

The Republican solution to this problem is increased the amount paid out in earned income credits. The Democrats' solution is to reduce the subsidy given to corporations, by increasing the minimum wage.

Any company which uses or requires its employees to be given earned income credits, does not deserve to be in business. That many of the most profitable companies in America choose to go this route, is unconscionable. This is very poor corporate citizenship.

Please note that companies like Walmart, McDonalds, and other American-based fast food and retail operations have thousands of retail and fast food outlets across the world, all of which have higher minimum wages and taxes than the US, and yet Walmart still manages to be one of the most profitable companies in Canada, in spite of our $11.00 per hour minimum wage. Ditto McDonalds, and all of the other American retails and corporations operating in Canada, and throughout the world.

And note that none of these operators have resorted to robot production of fast food.

Please don't start spouting the same old tired conservative economic mantras about what makes the economy run, because Republicans have proven in spades, not just to Americans, but to the entire world, that their ideas of how to have a thriving, successful economy, just doesn't work for anyone but the wealthy.

Your country has had 46 years of voodoo your "trickle down" economics. Give the 5% a break and they'll create jobs. It didn't work under Reagan, Bush I or Bush II.

FDR's "New Deal" provided the economic framework for the richest, most productive era in US history, which created the wealthiest middle class in the world. Reagan's "New Deal" has reversed the process, and is eroding the middle class.

You keep blaming this on liberal policies. "Democrats tax and spend" is your mantra. Notice that "tax" comes first. Before they create the program, they create a way to pay for it. That's how FDR did it, and every President who came after him, until Reagan.

Reagan became the Republican's first "cut taxes and spend" President, and in 8 years he tripled the national debt, and had the biggest stock market crash since 1929. Not to mention the trillions wasted on his "Star Wars" initiative. In order to fight high unemployment during his administration, Reagan hired 1 million government workers, saying government workers buy cars and houses, and consumer goods too.

Bush I had the Gulf War to help his deficits along. Clinton, came in, raised the minimum wage, balanced the budget, and increased jobs by more than double the number of jobs created by Reagan.

Bush II took Clinton's balanced budget and immediately cut taxes, just like Reagan did, and with the same results, except that with the tax breaks given companies moving jobs overseas, corporations moved jobs offshore so that many of the jobs lost during W's administration are never coming back.

As an inducement to the elderly to vote Republican, W gifted the country with Medicare Part D, without first creating a tax or other means by which to pay for it. The economy was in total freefall when Obama was sworn into office, not just in the US, but in much of the Western world, which had put their trust and faith in the American banking system and the American stock market. Bush has completely mismanaged

The wars, the tax cuts, the totally unfunded Medicare, carrying the cost of the two wars being run simultaneously, created a massive deficit. Obama again, cleans up the biggest mess ever left another President, gets the country back on track, but as long a Reagan's New Deal is in place, it's going to be wash, rinse repeat until the middle class is utterly destroyed.

Democrats "tax and spend" for a reason. Cut taxes and spend just increases the deficit, which in turns increases the debt. Conservatives seem to be too dumb to make the connection.

I didn't bother to read the entire thing but did you know Trump's income tax is zero percent? I would say that puts more money into the hands of the working poor and middle-class.

 

[The Rabbi]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

Investment isn't needed because corporations are awash in cash. What is needed is cash in the hands of the middle class and working poor. These people haven't had an increase in THEIR buying power because the government has artificially suppressed wages by way of "earned income credits". This is a taxpayer funded wage subsidy for corporations.

The Republican solution to this problem is increased the amount paid out in earned income credits. The Democrats' solution is to reduce the subsidy given to corporations, by increasing the minimum wage.

Any company which uses or requires its employees to be given earned income credits, does not deserve to be in business. That many of the most profitable companies in America choose to go this route, is unconscionable. This is very poor corporate citizenship.

Please note that companies like Walmart, McDonalds, and other American-based fast food and retail operations have thousands of retail and fast food outlets across the world, all of which have higher minimum wages and taxes than the US, and yet Walmart still manages to be one of the most profitable companies in Canada, in spite of our $11.00 per hour minimum wage. Ditto McDonalds, and all of the other American retails and corporations operating in Canada, and throughout the world.

And note that none of these operators have resorted to robot production of fast food.

Please don't start spouting the same old tired conservative economic mantras about what makes the economy run, because Republicans have proven in spades, not just to Americans, but to the entire world, that their ideas of how to have a thriving, successful economy, just doesn't work for anyone but the wealthy.

Your country has had 46 years of voodoo your "trickle down" economics. Give the 5% a break and they'll create jobs. It didn't work under Reagan, Bush I or Bush II.

FDR's "New Deal" provided the economic framework for the richest, most productive era in US history, which created the wealthiest middle class in the world. Reagan's "New Deal" has reversed the process, and is eroding the middle class.

You keep blaming this on liberal policies. "Democrats tax and spend" is your mantra. Notice that "tax" comes first. Before they create the program, they create a way to pay for it. That's how FDR did it, and every President who came after him, until Reagan.

Reagan became the Republican's first "cut taxes and spend" President, and in 8 years he tripled the national debt, and had the biggest stock market crash since 1929. Not to mention the trillions wasted on his "Star Wars" initiative. In order to fight high unemployment during his administration, Reagan hired 1 million government workers, saying government workers buy cars and houses, and consumer goods too.

Bush I had the Gulf War to help his deficits along. Clinton, came in, raised the minimum wage, balanced the budget, and increased jobs by more than double the number of jobs created by Reagan.

Bush II took Clinton's balanced budget and immediately cut taxes, just like Reagan did, and with the same results, except that with the tax breaks given companies moving jobs overseas, corporations moved jobs offshore so that many of the jobs lost during W's administration are never coming back.

As an inducement to the elderly to vote Republican, W gifted the country with Medicare Part D, without first creating a tax or other means by which to pay for it. The economy was in total freefall when Obama was sworn into office, not just in the US, but in much of the Western world, which had put their trust and faith in the American banking system and the American stock market. Bush has completely mismanaged

The wars, the tax cuts, the totally unfunded Medicare, carrying the cost of the two wars being run simultaneously, created a massive deficit. Obama again, cleans up the biggest mess ever left another President, gets the country back on track, but as long a Reagan's New Deal is in place, it's going to be wash, rinse repeat until the middle class is utterly destroyed.

Democrats "tax and spend" for a reason. Cut taxes and spend just increases the deficit, which in turns increases the debt. Conservatives seem to be too dumb to make the connection.

I didn't bother to read the entire thing but did you know Trump's income tax is zero percent? I would say that puts more money into the hands of the working poor and middle-class.

Is this the tax plan he just repudiated?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

What a fucking rube!!

Obama was a fiscal conservative too, he was going to go through the budget with a fine toothed comb

Progressives are so gullible

 

[PoliticalChic]

If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

What a fucking rube!!

Obama was a fiscal conservative too, he was going to go through the budget with a fine toothed comb

Progressives are son gullible

1. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
   Coulter