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

[healthmyths]

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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!

 

[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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!
View attachment 171968

Non-sequitur. Dismissed.

 

[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!

And then you posted a chart showing surpluses.

It’s your chart, embrace it.

But YOU STATED "Every president but Clinton has added to it."
I proved you lied because CLINTON added to the deficit! Clinton added $501 Billion!
The facts prove over and over again... can you not understand that table?
When Clinton had deficits he added $1,049.1 to the deficit.

Clinton 1993 $ -365.8 added to deficit
Clinton 1994 -286.2
Clinton 1995 -224.4
Clinton 1996 -144.0
Clinton 1997 -28.7
Total added to deficit: -$1,049.1
Then he didn't add to the deficit... but he didn't reduce the national debt either!
Clinton 1998 $ 90.2
Clinton 1999 161.5
Clinton 2000 296.4
Total surplus that didn't reduce the national debt though by $548.1 billion

And you further LIED by saying "Every president but Clinton has added to it."
GWB 2001 $ 156.7 billion surplus!!!

So to repeat for you: Clinton ADDED to the deficit as has every president!
GWB also added to the surplus... AS did Clinton!

FACTS!

 

[healthmyths]

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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!
View attachment 171968

Non-sequitur. Dismissed.

And once again you proved not only your lack of being clear to understand simple arithmetic but your use of word is illogical!
The phrase was borrowed into English in the 1500s by people who made a formal study of logic.
For them it meant a conclusion that does not follow from the statements that lead to it.
Non Sequitur | Definition of Non Sequitur by Merriam-Webster
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
Now explain to me... "AND TARP was repaid with a profit!" qualifies as a "non-sequitur"...
In discussing "deficits" addition of $625.7B was added to GWB's "deficits" in 2008...
And it was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit of $87.7B and STILL OBAMA added to the deficit more than the previous 5 presidents... with NO major events to
a) reduce tax revenue..
b) add to expenditures!
Both of which added to GWB's deficits and then paid back reducing Obama's deficit!

 

[Faun]

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.

But YOU STATED "Every president but Clinton has added to it."
I proved you lied because CLINTON added to the deficit!

You’re thoroughly confused. In which post did I say that?

Dismissed again. <smh>

 

[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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!
View attachment 171968

Non-sequitur. Dismissed.

And once again you proved not only your lack of being clear to understand simple arithmetic but your use of word is illogical!
The phrase was borrowed into English in the 1500s by people who made a formal study of logic.
For them it meant a conclusion that does not follow from the statements that lead to it.
Non Sequitur | Definition of Non Sequitur by Merriam-Webster
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
Now explain to me... "AND TARP was repaid with a profit!" qualifies as a "non-sequitur"...
In discussing "deficits" addition of $625.7B was added to GWB's "deficits" in 2008...
And it was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit of $87.7B and STILL OBAMA added to the deficit more than the previous 5 presidents... with NO major events to
a) reduce tax revenue..
b) add to expenditures!
Both of which added to GWB's deficits and then paid back reducing Obama's deficit!
View attachment 171980

LOL

You poor thing. You’re post was a non-sequitur and my English was sublime.

I was talking about annual spending over the last couple of decades and your post, which did not follow, was about revenues. Not just revenues, but revenues for just one or two years.

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes to increase revenue means nothing, until the right wing can consistently run massive surpluses an instead of massive deficits and debt.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!
View attachment 171968

Non-sequitur. Dismissed.

And once again you proved not only your lack of being clear to understand simple arithmetic but your use of word is illogical!
The phrase was borrowed into English in the 1500s by people who made a formal study of logic.
For them it meant a conclusion that does not follow from the statements that lead to it.
Non Sequitur | Definition of Non Sequitur by Merriam-Webster
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
Now explain to me... "AND TARP was repaid with a profit!" qualifies as a "non-sequitur"...
In discussing "deficits" addition of $625.7B was added to GWB's "deficits" in 2008...
And it was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit of $87.7B and STILL OBAMA added to the deficit more than the previous 5 presidents... with NO major events to
a) reduce tax revenue..
b) add to expenditures!
Both of which added to GWB's deficits and then paid back reducing Obama's deficit!
View attachment 171980

LOL

You poor thing. You’re post was a non-sequitur and my English was sublime.

I was talking about annual spending over the last couple of decades and your post, which did not follow, was about revenues. Not just revenues, but revenues for just one or two years.

As far as your "English" "sublime"??? Wow.. how pompous.
Furthermore This is about RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND Surpluses or Deficits!

 

[cutter]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

 

[Faun]

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.

AND TARP was repaid with a profit!
View attachment 171968

Non-sequitur. Dismissed.

And once again you proved not only your lack of being clear to understand simple arithmetic but your use of word is illogical!
The phrase was borrowed into English in the 1500s by people who made a formal study of logic.
For them it meant a conclusion that does not follow from the statements that lead to it.
Non Sequitur | Definition of Non Sequitur by Merriam-Webster
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
Now explain to me... "AND TARP was repaid with a profit!" qualifies as a "non-sequitur"...
In discussing "deficits" addition of $625.7B was added to GWB's "deficits" in 2008...
And it was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit of $87.7B and STILL OBAMA added to the deficit more than the previous 5 presidents... with NO major events to
a) reduce tax revenue..
b) add to expenditures!
Both of which added to GWB's deficits and then paid back reducing Obama's deficit!
View attachment 171980

LOL

You poor thing. You’re post was a non-sequitur and my English was sublime.

I was talking about annual spending over the last couple of decades and your post, which did not follow, was about revenues. Not just revenues, but revenues for just one or two years.

As far as your "English" "sublime"??? Wow.. how pompous.
Furthermore This is about RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND Surpluses or Deficits!
View attachment 172012

LOL

And you’re still showing 4 years in green (surpluses).

 

[Faun]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

You’re funny.

You say all that as though it hasn’t been tried before and failed before.

Definition of conservatism is trying the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results.

 

[cutter]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

You’re funny.

You say all that as though it hasn’t been tried before and failed before.

Definition of conservatism is trying the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results.

That’s why we elected a different kind of Republican this time. We now have a President that understands how business works ane knows how lower taxes can increase revenue. The secret to a successful economy is lots of high paying jobs and Trump know how to create an atmosphere makes business create high paying jobs, something progressives are unable to understand.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

You’re funny.

You say all that as though it hasn’t been tried before and failed before.

Uh, pray tell, when did it fail? It didn't fail in the 1920s. It didn't fail with JFK's tax cuts. It didn't fail with Reagan's tax cuts. It didn't fail with Clinton's tax cuts. And it didn't fail with Bush's tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue, so much so that even when the recession neared depression territory in 2008 and 2009 federal revenue was still higher than it had been in 2003 or 2004.

For that matter, if the feds had not created the housing bubble via massive intervention by Freddie and Fannie, there would have been no 2008 recession in the first place.

 

[healthmyths]

And of course 3 were Clinton thanks to Reagan tax cuts and one was under Bush!

 

[healthmyths]

I feel sorry for you. No wonder Trump knew he could lie to your idiot faces.

This world has winners and losers, Hillary...loser camp. Bernie...loser. Pelosi, Reid...losers. I'm detecting a pattern here.

I once told you that Trump would lead you into the liberal camp. You didn't believe me.

Look at you now, defending a growing debt.

Growing the economy you mean, just relax tax and spend lib loser we'll clean up your mess.

And by “mess,” you mean record number of people working, low inflation and record high stock market.

well, the hacks hate admitting the black guy did pretty well despite their obstructionist pathologic congress

Actually the economy would have done a whole lot better if this idiot Obama wasn't such an ECONOMIC ILLITERATE OBSTRUCTIONIST AS illustrated by these actual
Anti-American, anti-business statements :

 

[Faun]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

You’re funny.

You say all that as though it hasn’t been tried before and failed before.

Definition of conservatism is trying the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results.

That’s why we elected a different kind of Republican this time. We now have a President that understands how business works ane knows how lower taxes can increase revenue. The secret to a successful economy is lots of high paying jobs and Trump know how to create an atmosphere makes business create high paying jobs, something progressives are unable to understand.

Who cares if it’s a different kind of Republican? He’s still following the tried and failed policies of former Republicans.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama's legacy continues to do damage. One of the issues that needs to be fixed in this budget bill Dem's are holding up is the Obama TAX on Cadillac healthcare plans typically provided to workers in larger unions. Sure lets tax the crap out of those, classic Dem thinking.

 

[Faun]

The democrats are so freaked out about the tax cuts that they can’t see the good things that are happening. GM moving its truck plant back to America. I believe they said Detroit, a city that needs industry to save itself from bankruptcy. Thousands of new high paying jobs. Not thousands of minimum wage burger flipping jobs like obama created. Thousands of workers had their starting wages raised and got bonuses. This is just one month into the new tax policy. The tax cuts will be minuscule to the increased revenue from income taxes, and the income generated by a thriving economy. Plants will be built, people will work there, homes will be builr and sold to the workers, homes will be furnished by businesses that return to these blighted communities, and the trickle down in the service industry will employ millions. I have never seen a government policy generate such positive results in such a short time. Trump will have another seven years to to shape our country into something we can again be proud of. The results in one month is incredible. With the incredible increase in tax revenue maybe we can start to pay down our debt, unless the democrets gain power again and spend it all on increasing illegal immigration.

You’re funny.

You say all that as though it hasn’t been tried before and failed before.

Uh, pray tell, when did it fail? It didn't fail in the 1920s. It didn't fail with JFK's tax cuts. It didn't fail with Reagan's tax cuts. It didn't fail with Clinton's tax cuts. And it didn't fail with Bush's tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue, so much so that even when the recession neared depression territory in 2008 and 2009 federal revenue was still higher than it had been in 2003 or 2004.

For that matter, if the feds had not created the housing bubble via massive intervention by Freddie and Fannie, there would have been no 2008 recession in the first place.

You’re deranged. Bush’s economy was an utter failure. The only thing which propped it up, which led to it’s ultimate demise, was the housing bubble. Bush raised taxes in 2001, 2002 & 2003 and Federal income tax revenues fell in each of those years. Not until the housing bubble was exploding did revenues turn around.

The economy under Clinton was strong his entire two terms, not just after the tax cuts; but also after the tax hikes early on. And the dot com bubble fueled his second term.

Reagan did lower unemployment but that was also aided by dual income households becoming increasingly popular plus the growth of women in the labor force, a trend that began in the 70’s. But income tax revenues decline in ‘82 and ‘83 and he became the first president to add more than a trillion dollars to the debt; which he would triple before leaving office.

The Myths of Reaganomics

 

[leftwinger]

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.

If you collect 20%*GDP........
0.2*$18T=$3.6T
0.2*$20T=$4.0T


Increase the GDP. Simple math. I think this is what the new poster implied above. True.

Reduce Regulations, encourage growth.
Shrink GOVT.

 

[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.

If you collect 20%*GDP........
0.2*$18T=$3.6T
0.2*$20T=$4.0T


Increase the GDP. Simple math. I think this is what the new poster implied above. True.

Reduce Regulations, encourage growth.
Shrink GOVT.

^^^ the reason every Republican administration had a recession.