How Are We Gonna Pay for the $7.9 Trillion that Obama Added to the National Debt?

[Faun]

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

LOLOLOL

Moron....

You only looked at "Individual Income Taxes." We're talking about federal income tax revenues and you omit corporate income tax revenues..

At least you finally figured out not to include state and local tax revenues.

And at least you finally figured out not to include other taxes besides income taxes.

And at least you finally figured out I'm not Pogo.

Sucks to be you to have your ass kicked by someone you think of as feeble minded.

You lost as all the charts show. POGO, Head with antlers with nothing between them, Sciencesucks, SnakyJakey, all the same. You got HOSED, you lose, now go away and make some peanut butter sandwiches in your parents basement, you wet behind the ears little Antifah Leftist-)

LOL

You're deranged.

You proved me right when I said income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

You posted two sources...

• Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

1981 $347,054
1982 $346,951
1983 $325,960

2000: $1,211,751
2001: $1,145,414
2002: $1,006,389
2003: $925,477​

• Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

1981: 347.05
1982: 346.95
1983: 325.96

2000: 1211.75
2001: 1145.41
2002: 1006.39
2003: 925.48​

You realize how retarded you are if I'm feeble minded and I'm kicking your ass with your own sources, right?

 

[AntonToo]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

View attachment 171867

Umm hello - Great Fucking Recession? Recall that one? It accounted for around 40% of deficit 2009-2012 due to revenue loss.

Rightwingers keep talking like Obama “SPENT TRILLIONS!!!”...but can’t ever answer a very simple question - ON WHAT?

 

[Faun]

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

View attachment 171867

Umm hello - Great Fucking Recession? Recall that one? It accounted for around 40% of deficit 2009-2012 due to revenue loss.

Unfortunately, that rightard doesn't know about the Great Recession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

lol, you left out 1983, lower revenue than 1982.

And exactly WHEN were they 1st invoked? Head with antlers with nothing between them, the money to the FED went UP!

And after they were fully put in by 1986? Economic explosion!

Oh, you forgot to mention that, didn't you!

You also forget to mention that the vote tells us what Americans think! How many states did Reagan win for re-election? Why 49, lol.

Which one did he lose?

Why his Democratic opponents state, by the tidy sum of 3000 votes, lol.

You got NOTHING but a liberal narrative, and you have to lie to even make that work-)

After the tax cuts in 1986, the deficit increased in 1988, 89, 90, 91, 92. Clinton increased taxes and the deficits decreased for 8 years.

 

[Faun]

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

lol, you left out 1983, lower revenue than 1982.

And exactly WHEN were they 1st invoked? Head with antlers with nothing between them, the money to the FED went UP!

And after they were fully put in by 1986? Economic explosion!

Oh, you forgot to mention that, didn't you!

You also forget to mention that the vote tells us what Americans think! How many states did Reagan win for re-election? Why 49, lol.

Which one did he lose?

Why his Democratic opponents state, by the tidy sum of 3000 votes, lol.

You got NOTHING but a liberal narrative, and you have to lie to even make that work-)

After the tax cuts in 1986, the deficit increased in 1988, 89, 90, 91, 92. Clinton increased taxes and the deficits decreased for 8 years.

Remember...?

”Deficits don’t matter*.”

* = addendum: unless a Democrat is in office

 

[healthmyths]

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

LOLOLOL

Moron....

You only looked at "Individual Income Taxes." We're talking about federal income tax revenues and you omit corporate income tax revenues..

At least you finally figured out not to include state and local tax revenues.

And at least you finally figured out not to include other taxes besides income taxes.

And at least you finally figured out I'm not Pogo.

Sucks to be you to have your ass kicked by someone you think of as feeble minded.

You lost as all the charts show. POGO, Head with antlers with nothing between them, Sciencesucks, SnakyJakey, all the same. You got HOSED, you lose, now go away and make some peanut butter sandwiches in your parents basement, you wet behind the ears little Antifah Leftist-)

LOL

You're deranged.

You proved me right when I said income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

You posted two sources...
Tell me these events DIDN"T occur.
The Bush tax cuts were two tax code changes that President Bush authorized during his term.
Congress enacted tax cuts to families in 2001 and investors in 2003.
So the FACT is that Tax revenue for 2002 tax year comes in 2003... hmmm.
tax revenue for 2003 comes in 2004,etc...
SO tell me what years did the tax revenue increase? 2004,2005, 2006.
Then tell me what years did we have jobs destroyed by hurricanes?
You obviously don't understand that taxes paid in 2003 was based on income taxes filed for 2002,etc.
So in spite of tax cuts lowering revenue...revenue increased!

• Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

1981 $347,054
1982 $346,951
1983 $325,960

2000: $1,211,751
2001: $1,145,414
2002: $1,006,389
2003: $925,477​

• Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

1981: 347.05
1982: 346.95
1983: 325.96

2000: 1211.75
2001: 1145.41
2002: 1006.39
2003: 925.48​

You realize how retarded you are if I'm feeble minded and I'm kicking your ass with your own sources, right?

 

[Faun]

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

LOLOLOL

Moron....

You only looked at "Individual Income Taxes." We're talking about federal income tax revenues and you omit corporate income tax revenues..

At least you finally figured out not to include state and local tax revenues.

And at least you finally figured out not to include other taxes besides income taxes.

And at least you finally figured out I'm not Pogo.

Sucks to be you to have your ass kicked by someone you think of as feeble minded.

You lost as all the charts show. POGO, Head with antlers with nothing between them, Sciencesucks, SnakyJakey, all the same. You got HOSED, you lose, now go away and make some peanut butter sandwiches in your parents basement, you wet behind the ears little Antifah Leftist-)

LOL

You're deranged.

You proved me right when I said income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

You posted two sources...
Tell me these events DIDN"T occur.
The Bush tax cuts were two tax code changes that President Bush authorized during his term.
Congress enacted tax cuts to families in 2001 and investors in 2003.
So the FACT is that Tax revenue for 2002 tax year comes in 2003... hmmm.
tax revenue for 2003 comes in 2004,etc...
SO tell me what years did the tax revenue increase? 2004,2005, 2006.
Then tell me what years did we have jobs destroyed by hurricanes?
You obviously don't understand that taxes paid in 2003 was based on income taxes filed for 2002,etc.
So in spite of tax cuts lowering revenue...revenue increased!
View attachment 171916

• Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

1981 $347,054
1982 $346,951
1983 $325,960

2000: $1,211,751
2001: $1,145,414
2002: $1,006,389
2003: $925,477​

• Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

1981: 347.05
1982: 346.95
1983: 325.96

2000: 1211.75
2001: 1145.41
2002: 1006.39
2003: 925.48​

You realize how retarded you are if I'm feeble minded and I'm kicking your ass with your own sources, right?

If at first you don’t succeed; try, try again.

 

[davidjlee71]

President Trump is doing what needs to be done to reduce the debt. The President is lowering taxes eliminating regulations and negotiating better trade deals. Those things will help to lower the debt because they all create jobs. Jobs eliminate Government spending

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Financing a tax cut through debt is all the right wing has done.

 

[Faun]

President Trump is doing what needs to be done to reduce the debt. The President is lowering taxes eliminating regulations and negotiating better trade deals. Those things will help to lower the debt because they all create jobs. Jobs eliminate Government spending

Despite that, the debt continues to soar.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

View attachment 171867

Umm hello - Great Fucking Recession? Recall that one? It accounted for around 40% of deficit 2009-2012 due to revenue loss.

Rightwingers keep talking like Obama “SPENT TRILLIONS!!!”...but can’t ever answer a very simple question - ON WHAT?

That's what we want to know from you what did he spend it on the damn Iraq war was over when obozo took office it was just maintaining the peace.



So what the hell did he spend all that money on?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You morons crack me up. Revenue is at an all time high. How could trump not balance the budget with record level revenues? All he had to do was to cut spending. Why did he sign a continuing resolution instead of a budget that slashed spending?

The ignorance, or dishonesty, of your reply is stunning. Do you not understand that the Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Do you not understand that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass almost any legislation that the Democrats don't like? Are you not aware that the Democrats have insisted on huge domestic spending hikes as their price for supporting previous spending measures? If the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, things would in fact be much different on spending, but they do not.

Tell me: What happened on spending when the Democrats had a 60-40 majoriity in the Senate during Obama's first two years? Remember? Remember the Ryan Budget and how the Democrats shamefully lied about that attempt at modest fiscal sanity by running ads that showed granny being pushed off a cliff (even though the Ryan Budget merely slowed the growth of Medicare spending)?

I'll tell you what: You guys get 10 Democratic senators to vote with the Republicans for one year so that the Republicans don't have to keep compromising on spending even to get CRs passed, and then see what happens.

 

[healthmyths]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

THAT is a LIE...
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!

• Clinton added in his 8 years of office $501 Billion in deficits after subtracting the $548 Billion in surplus
• Bush added $2.185 trillion after subtracting a $156.7 Billion surplus (TARP included in GWB and was paid back under Obama with a profit!)
• OBAMA Added $6.977 trillion which INCLUDED a payback of TARP of $713 billion which would be a total of $7.7 Trillion to deficit!

 

[healthmyths]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

Clinton ADDED to the deficit!

• Clinton added in his 8 years of office $501 Billion in deficits after subtracting the $548 Billion in surplus
• Bush added $2.185 trillion after subtracting a $156.7 Billion surplus (TARP included in GWB and was paid back under Obama with a profit!)
• OBAMA Added $6.977 trillion which INCLUDED a payback of TARP of $713 billion which would be a total of $7.7 Trillion to deficit!

 

[Faun]

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

View attachment 171867

Umm hello - Great Fucking Recession? Recall that one? It accounted for around 40% of deficit 2009-2012 due to revenue loss.

Rightwingers keep talking like Obama “SPENT TRILLIONS!!!”...but can’t ever answer a very simple question - ON WHAT?

That's what we want to know from you what did he spend it on the damn Iraq war was over when obozo took office it was just maintaining the peace.



So what the hell did he spend all that money on?

The budget is public. All you have to do is look.

 

[Faun]

You morons crack me up. Revenue is at an all time high. How could trump not balance the budget with record level revenues? All he had to do was to cut spending. Why did he sign a continuing resolution instead of a budget that slashed spending?

The ignorance, or dishonesty, of your reply is stunning. Do you not understand that the Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Do you not understand that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass almost any legislation that the Democrats don't like? Are you not aware that the Democrats have insisted on huge domestic spending hikes as their price for supporting previous spending measures? If the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, things would in fact be much different on spending, but they do not.

Tell me: What happened on spending when the Democrats had a 60-40 majoriity in the Senate during Obama's first two years? Remember? Remember the Ryan Budget and how the Democrats shamefully lied about that attempt at modest fiscal sanity by running ads that showed granny being pushed off a cliff (even though the Ryan Budget merely slowed the growth of Medicare spending)?

I'll tell you what: You guys get 10 Democratic senators to vote with the Republicans for one year so that the Republicans don't have to keep compromising on spending even to get CRs passed, and then see what happens.

More nonsense. Republicans never have a filibuster proof Senate. So how do they get anything done? If that’s their excuse, they have no business being in charge. Show me where they tried to pass budget cuts but we’re denied by a filibuster? Show me where they motioned to get rid of filibusters preventing them from cutting spending? Show me where the Republican president refused to sign either an omnibus or a continuing resolution that lacked spending cuts?

You can’t because you’re full of shit, making up stupid excuses for why they’re blowing up the deficit. The fact of the matter is that they’ve been in control of Congress for most of the last 23 years since taking control in 1995 and they’ve rarely fought for spending cuts.

And pointing to spending in 2009 is disingenuous since both parties contributed to policies of flooding the economy with massive amounts of money to stave off the Great Recession. A policy which began before Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate.

 

[Faun]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

THAT is a LIE...
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!

• Clinton added in his 8 years of office $501 Billion in deficits after subtracting the $548 Billion in surplus
• Bush added $2.185 trillion after subtracting a $156.7 Billion surplus (TARP included in GWB and was paid back under Obama with a profit!)
• OBAMA Added $6.977 trillion which INCLUDED a payback of TARP of $713 billion which would be a total of $7.7 Trillion to deficit!

View attachment 171942

View attachment 171943

LOLOL

Even your list of budgetary years has 4 years in green.

 

[healthmyths]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

THAT is a LIE...
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!

• Clinton added in his 8 years of office $501 Billion in deficits after subtracting the $548 Billion in surplus
• Bush added $2.185 trillion after subtracting a $156.7 Billion surplus (TARP included in GWB and was paid back under Obama with a profit!)
• OBAMA Added $6.977 trillion which INCLUDED a payback of TARP of $713 billion which would be a total of $7.7 Trillion to deficit!

View attachment 171942

View attachment 171943

LOLOL

Even your list of budgetary years has 4 years in green.

But the statement was:"Every president but Clinton has added to it"!
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!
THAT is a fact!

 

[Faun]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Have a look at the list. Every president but Clinton has added to it. Maybe the problem is that Congress and the President really don't care that much. Maybe you should try and change the political system so representatives REPRESENT the people, rather than themselves and big corporations.

THAT is a LIE...
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!

• Clinton added in his 8 years of office $501 Billion in deficits after subtracting the $548 Billion in surplus
• Bush added $2.185 trillion after subtracting a $156.7 Billion surplus (TARP included in GWB and was paid back under Obama with a profit!)
• OBAMA Added $6.977 trillion which INCLUDED a payback of TARP of $713 billion which would be a total of $7.7 Trillion to deficit!

View attachment 171942

View attachment 171943

LOLOL

Even your list of budgetary years has 4 years in green.

But the statement was:"Every president but Clinton has added to it"!
Clinton ADDED to the deficit!
THAT is a fact!

And then you posted a chart showing surpluses.

It’s your chart, embrace it.