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

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought Obama's deficits were stimulating the economy??? Why is Hillary against stimulus

 

[kaz]

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.

You lost my interest at "The Republican solution," Mrs. Mao. Care to address my views? The Republicans suck

 

[Slade3200]

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.

You lost my interest at "The Republican solution," Mrs. Mao. Care to address my views? The Republicans suck

Funny... I think you're the 3rd or 4th righty that responded by saying you didn't read dragons post.

 

[sonic]

Stop giving Trump a hard time, after all, he told us "all I know is what's on the Internet"

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

 

[Slade3200]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

 

[Slade3200]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

Interesting assessment... How about before Clinton? How did the Republican golden boy Regan do with knocking down the debt? How many presidents in our history ran a surplus?

 

[Slade3200]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

Interesting assessment... How about before Clinton? How did the Republican golden boy Regan do with knocking down the debt? How many presidents in our history ran a surplus?

I'm not trying to be a dick just think these things should be studied and understood... I hear so much dishonesty and see so much misunderstanding about our economy.... everybody is pointing the finger at each other, and very few know what they are talking about

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

Interesting assessment... How about before Clinton? How did the Republican golden boy Reagan do with knocking down the debt? How many presidents in our history ran a surplus?

President Harry S. Truman (D),1947-49 and 1951

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), 1956-57 and 1960

President Richard M. Nixon (R), 1969

President William "Bill" J. Clinton (D), 1998-2001

 

[Slade3200]

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.
---

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

Interesting assessment... How about before Clinton? How did the Republican golden boy Reagan do with knocking down the debt? How many presidents in our history ran a surplus?

President Harry S. Truman (D),1947-49

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), 1956-57 and 1960

President Richard M. Nixon (R), 1969

President William "Bill" J. Clinton (D), 1998-2001

Thank you... So in our history, we've had 10 years total of surplus... 7 years under Dem leadership and 3 years under Rep. All other years and all other presidents ran deficits. So those who feel that running a surplus is essential criteria for our candidates economic policy should study up. Learn about what our debt really is. What deficit and surplus spending does to the economy. And what conditions warrant differing economic strategy. This isn't a republican democratic thing... And if anybody tries to make it that, just point them to history... the Dems are in the lead.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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

liberals have always been better at money management than the cut taxes for rich people right.

amazing what you tolerate just to get G-d guns and gays.

as to the last 8 years... .there should have been a lot more spending to bring the economy back to where it was before the right broke it. but wingers don't believe in governing. they believe in corporate welfare and screwing working people.

Why don't you eat #### rollover and die so the rest of us can have more .22 ammo
Whatta asinine post

 

[Skull Pilot]

The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?

Which of course is why he ran up more debt

People don't realize that a budget deficit is a one time thing but debt is cumulative.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Her Husband did.

Show us a GOP President in Modern times who had a better fiscal responsibility as her Husband...


The thing is you have just got a hate on... You know Trump will mismanage the budget. You know he hasn't thought it through...

But lets try and push all attention on Hillary...

Facts are Trump has said thing and promised things which is $15 trillion shy....

Now tell us why any one who is cares about fiscal responsibility should vote for Trump.

 

[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.

Her Husband did.

Show us a GOP President in Modern times who had a better fiscal responsibility as her Husband...


The thing is you have just got a hate on... You know Trump will mismanage the budget. You know he hasn't thought it through...

But lets try and push all attention on Hillary...

Facts are Trump has said thing and promised things which is $15 trillion shy....

Now tell us why any one who is cares about fiscal responsibility should vote for Trump.

Bill Clinton had a Republican congress too. Look into Newt, 1994, Contract with America to start your lessons. You are 20 years behind at this point.

Retard.

 

[Wilbur Right]

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?

Yea, it's right wing Bullshit.

With all your supposed education, the professor ever talk about supply and demand and the effect that has on hiring? If so, what did you learn about supply and demand? Anything?

 

[Wilbur Right]

. 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.

Thank you. Someone who understands what the EITC does and who it is actually for. Businesses.

Of.course the EITC is a republicans creation.

 

[Wilbur Right]

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

Oh fuck you. You are to willfully stupid to understand that what was written was fact.

At least you are consistently stupid. Lucky you eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I missed the part where Hillary would actually pay down the debt.

Out of curiosity when was the last time that our country ran a surplus? Who was president?

A little bit over 22 years ago. Under, but not because of, Bill Clinton. A Republican Congress helped manufacture that.

Interesting assessment... How about before Clinton? How did the Republican golden boy Reagan do with knocking down the debt? How many presidents in our history ran a surplus?

President Harry S. Truman (D),1947-49

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), 1956-57 and 1960

President Richard M. Nixon (R), 1969

President William "Bill" J. Clinton (D), 1998-2001

Thank you... So in our history, we've had 10 years total of surplus... 7 years under Dem leadership and 3 years under Rep. All other years and all other presidents ran deficits. So those who feel that running a surplus is essential criteria for our candidates economic policy should study up. Learn about what our debt really is. What deficit and surplus spending does to the economy. And what conditions warrant differing economic strategy. This isn't a republican democratic thing... And if anybody tries to make it that, just point them to history... the Dems are in the lead.

I thought deficits stimulated the economy? Why are you against stimulus

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump's Tough Talk on Hedge-Fund Taxes Doesn't Match His Plan
Source: Yahoo

Donald Trump said “hedge fund guys are getting away with murder” when he called for ending a lucrative tax advantage for investment managers, but his published tax plan would give them an even bigger break.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has called for abolishing the special tax treatment that applies to “carried interest,” the share of investment funds’ profits that are paid to fund managers. Currently, carried interest is treated as capital-gains income, which makes it eligible for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent -- much lower than the current top individual income tax rate of 39.6 percent.

But the plan published on Trump’s website would also create an entirely new tax rate -- just 15 percent -- for individuals who get income from business partnerships. That category includes most managers at hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture capital funds.

In other words, if Trump’s proposals came to pass, many investment managers’ tax rates would go from 23.8 percent to 15 percent. “He’d be doing me a favor,” said Scott Fearon, the president of Crown Capital Management, a hedge fund and investment fund in Greenbrae, California. “He’d be cutting my taxes quite a bit.”

Read more: Trump's Tough Talk on Hedge-Fund Taxes Doesn't Match His Plan