NOW Liberals Care About the National Debt!

[JoeB131]

Actually, Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, and Sarbanes-Oxley's suicidal mark-to-market rules left Obama with quite the mess, not Bush, and the economy would have recovered much more strongly and quickly if Obama had not piled on more taxes, more regulation, and more borrowing.

Your delusional. I was there at the time. If anything Obama's spending SAVED the economy. Just saving GM along saved 3 million jobs, including mine.

I know you guys don't like history, but every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.

Not true. Wasn't true in 2002 when Bush cut taxes and added 6 Trillion more to the debt, turning surpluses into deficits. Wasn't true when Ronnie Ray-gun cut taxes, tripled the national debt before he and Bush had to admit they fucked up and raised them again in 1987 and 1990.

The reason why you had economic booms in those periods is that you also had increases in government spending. Reagan and Bush may have taxed like supply siders, but they spent like Keynesians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The annual deficit was a trillion dollars when Obama took office. By 2014 it was down to 484 billion.

Yep, that's why we voted for a Republican led Congress.

And now the Republicans are adding trillions to the deficit and you're all for it. lol

I'm not all for it but I'm not against it either. I would rather they worked on a reduction of our debt than a tax break. Unlike DumBama's spending, this money is likely going to generate new money to the federal government. When things get busy, it means new job openings or at the very least, more people working more hours. In 2016, 6.5 million people were fined for not having health insurance. Instead of that money going to the government, it will now be put back into the economy. That was 1.5 billion dollars last year.

 

[August West]

What`s driving the debt? Wars and tax cuts.
Why are we in debt? Tax cuts, recessions, wars

 

[mikegriffith1]

The thing is...

Democrats run up debts to keep people from starving during recessions.

Republicans run up debts to fight wars and give tax breaks to billionaires.

Sometimes motives matter a little more than results.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about the United States on planet Earth, not your alternate reality.

The biggest rate cuts in the Bush tax cut legislation went to the middle class. The biggest rate cuts in the Trump tax cut bill are going to the middle class. Can you comprehend basic math? Go look at the tax tables for the Trump tax reform bill. 3 and 4 percentage points are more than 1 and 2.6 percentage points. They really are. The two main middle-income brackets are getting cut by 3 percentage points each, and the upper-middle-income bracket is getting by 4 percentage points. Of the three high-income brackets, the fifth is getting cut by 1 percentage point; the sixth is staying the same; and the seventh is getting cut by 2.6 percentage points. Go look at the tables.

Free your mind.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Our nutbags are upset that the GOP which they support just added to the debt to give rich people a break while the economy is in a state of growth.

They must find some way to justify this. So they dishonestly ask why it was good for Obama to spend while the economy was in freefall.

So lame and tired.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The debt only matters when the other guys control the purse strings.

Nope. That's obviously not supported by the facts.

 

[JoeB131]

The biggest rate cuts in the Bush tax cut legislation went to the middle class.

Bullshit. 30% of them went to the top one percent. 43% went to the top 20%. (people making six figures or more).

You are obviously too stupid to have a discussion with.

 

[Slade3200]

2 grand gift? Why are you planning on dropping your health insurance?

I am one of those who COULDN'T AFFORD YOUR "affordable care" So i am happy to get MY MONEY and use it to pay my medical bills..

If you can’t afford insurance then why aren’t you on Medicaid and if you’re that strapped how in the world do you think you can afford to pay medical bills without insurance?. One stint in the hospital and you are out 100s of thousands.

Screw you and your almighty government... I do not belong to the government and I pay my own dam bills. Because i am married and my wife has cancer my insurance payment monthly is quoted at 2770.00 a month on the Obamacare exchange. That is over 3/4 of my monthly income and because of my income I get to have a 7,000.00 dollar deductible on top of that... Take your commie care and go fuck yourself! You all want me to pay that and my own dam medical bills.

I was better off placing money into a health savings account over time and taking out a catastrophic policy. ObamaCare deprived me of my catastrophic plan and now I have to sell everything I own just to keep my wife alive and pay for the medications she needs every day.

I'm Tired of the handout mentality you idiots push.

I’m sorry to hear about your wife. Truly. But how do you afford to pay for cancer treatment without insurance?

Because of the lefts ignorance I will be paying for it the rest of my life. Your Ilk deprived me of what worked and dealt with what i needed... Your ilk deprived me of stability and my insurance that suited our needs.. Kindly take your socialist crap and shove it up your ass.

I am by no means a socialist, however, if there was socialized medicine you wouldn’t be in debt paying off medical bills for the rest of your life, would you?

 

[mikegriffith1]

You see, liberals are fine with debt if the debt is incurred to grow the government, and to let the government suck more money out of the economy in the process. They're fine with debt in that case. But when they think that letting people keep more of the money they earn will lead to more debt, they suddenly become worried about the debt.

And, as you've probably noticed, liberals simply cannot bring themselves to admit the indisputable fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s (including after Clinton's 1997 tax cuts, which included a huge cut in the capital gains tax).

They respond with the phony argument that the actual dollar amounts of federal revenue don't matter if federal revenue is a smaller percentage of GDP, as if somehow that meaningless comparison makes the dollar amounts go away. And/or, they cite the deficits that have followed two of the tax cuts, ignoring the fact that those deficits had nothing to do with the tax cuts but with reckless federal spending.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Your delusional. I was there at the time. If anything Obama's spending SAVED the economy. Just saving GM along saved 3 million jobs, including mine.

No, you're delusional. You forget that Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts.

Virtually no one disagreed with saving GM.

I take it you've read nothing about how the spending part of Obama's stimulus was wasted.

I know you guys don't like history, but every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.

Not true.

Yes, it is true. You're either lying or you can't read. Federal revenue after the 2003 Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year, but it was still much higher than in 2003.

Wasn't true in 2002 when Bush cut taxes and added 6 Trillion more to the debt, turning surpluses into deficits.

Still lying about this stuff, hey? The bulk of the Bush tax cuts came in 2003, not 2002. Deficits came because Congress went on a spending spree that more than cancelled out the huge hike in revenue.

Wasn't true when Ronnie Ray-gun cut taxes,

You're lying again, or again proving you can't read. Federal revenue after the Reagan tax cuts:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Ask a conservative to do some basic subtraction to prove to you that federal revenue rose dramatically after the Reagan tax cuts.

And, again, the deficit only rose because Congress raised spending so much that it overtook the revenue increase.

tripled the national debt

Take a math class. The debt did not triple under Reagan, just FYI. See also above.

before he and Bush had to admit they messed up and raised them again in 1987 and 1990.

How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense and ignore the refutation? Reagan reluctantly agreed to tax hikes in exchange for promises of more spending cuts. Same for Bush. And the Reagan tax hikes were a fraction of the tax cuts, which is why tax rates were still far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. Just look at the tax tables for 1981 and 1988. Get a conservative to help you do the basic subtraction.

The reason why you had economic booms in those periods is that you also had increases in government spending. Reagan and Bush may have taxed like supply siders, but they spent like Keynesians.

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades? Why did the economy boom after Harding cut taxes and slashed federal spending? Why did the economy take off after Congress slashed federal spending in 1947? If government spending creates growth, why are Spain, Italy, England, Greece, etc., mired in debt and saddled with negative/zero/minuscule growth, chronic high unemployment, etc., etc.? Why is Illinois bankrupt? And on and on we could go.

 

[danielpalos]

You see, liberals are fine with debt if the debt is incurred to grow the government, and to let the government suck more money out of the economy in the process. They're fine with debt in that case. But when they think that letting people keep more of the money they earn will lead to more debt, they suddenly become worried about the debt.

And, as you've probably noticed, liberals simply cannot bring themselves to admit the indisputable fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s (including after Clinton's 1997 tax cuts, which included a huge cut in the capital gains tax).

They respond with the phony argument that the actual dollar amounts of federal revenue don't matter if federal revenue is a smaller percentage of GDP, as if somehow that meaningless comparison makes the dollar amounts go away. And/or, they cite the deficits that have followed two of the tax cuts, ignoring the fact that those deficits had nothing to do with the tax cuts but with reckless federal spending.

Tax and spend is more fiscally responsible than spend and finance.

 

[danielpalos]

Your delusional. I was there at the time. If anything Obama's spending SAVED the economy. Just saving GM along saved 3 million jobs, including mine.

No, you're delusional. You forget that Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts.

Virtually no one disagreed with saving GM.

I take it you've read nothing about how the spending part of Obama's stimulus was wasted.

I know you guys don't like history, but every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.

Not true.

Yes, it is true. You're either lying or you can't read. Federal revenue after the 2003 Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year, but it was still much higher than in 2003.

Wasn't true in 2002 when Bush cut taxes and added 6 Trillion more to the debt, turning surpluses into deficits.

Still lying about this stuff, hey? The bulk of the Bush tax cuts came in 2003, not 2002. Deficits came because Congress went on a spending spree that more than cancelled out the huge hike in revenue.

Wasn't true when Ronnie Ray-gun cut taxes,

You're lying again, or again proving you can't read. Federal revenue after the Reagan tax cuts:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Ask a conservative to do some basic subtraction to prove to you that federal revenue rose dramatically after the Reagan tax cuts.

And, again, the deficit only rose because Congress raised spending so much that it overtook the revenue increase.

tripled the national debt

Take a math class. The debt did not triple under Reagan, just FYI. See also above.

before he and Bush had to admit they messed up and raised them again in 1987 and 1990.

How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense and ignore the refutation? Reagan reluctantly agreed to tax hikes in exchange for promises of more spending cuts. Same for Bush. And the Reagan tax hikes were a fraction of the tax cuts, which is why tax rates were still far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. Just look at the tax tables for 1981 and 1988. Get a conservative to help you do the basic subtraction.

The reason why you had economic booms in those periods is that you also had increases in government spending. Reagan and Bush may have taxed like supply siders, but they spent like Keynesians.

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades? Why did the economy boom after Harding cut taxes and slashed federal spending? Why did the economy take off after Congress slashed federal spending in 1947? If government spending creates growth, why are Spain, Italy, England, Greece, etc., mired in debt and saddled with negative/zero/minuscule growth, chronic high unemployment, etc., etc.? Why is Illinois bankrupt? And on and on we could go.

Promoting the general warfare does not produce a positive multiplier effect, promoting the general welfare does.

 

[JoeB131]

You see, liberals are fine with debt if the debt is incurred to grow the government, and to let the government suck more money out of the economy in the process. They're fine with debt in that case. But when they think that letting people keep more of the money they earn will lead to more debt, they suddenly become worried about the debt.

Not really. Last time we had a balanced budget, a Democrat was in charge.

The ironic thing, the guys who really grow government are you "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. YOu give out these tax breaks, you spend like drunken sailors, and you don't even realize this makes government MORE popular.

Look at all these goodies we get, and we don't have to pay for them. Weeeeeeeeeee!

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

You and I are around the same age so you know this past recession was nothing compared to the one in the early 80's. Back then, even fast food joints weren't hiring.

DumBama was the most anti-business President in our lifetime. That's why such a sluggish recovery. Between Commie Care and multitudes of regulations, businesses didn't want to invest. Trump is just the opposite. Trump is a pro-business President. He rescinded DumBama's regulations, lowered their taxes, and removed the mandates for Commie Care for businesses . Obama raised taxes on corporations.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

You and I are around the same age so you know this past recession was nothing compared to the one in the early 80's. Back then, even fast food joints weren't hiring.

DumBama was the most anti-business President in our lifetime. That's why such a sluggish recovery. Between Commie Care and multitudes of regulations, businesses didn't want to invest. Trump is just the opposite. Trump is a pro-business President. He rescinded DumBama's regulations, lowered their taxes, and removed the mandates for Commie Care for businesses . Obama raised taxes on corporations.

Pelosi and Choomer have been having a cow over the fact that Trump might add another trillion to the debt...gee. i wonder how much of the 10 Trillion went into the pockets of our leading liberals/rats

 

[Rexx Taylor]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

You and I are around the same age so you know this past recession was nothing compared to the one in the early 80's. Back then, even fast food joints weren't hiring.

DumBama was the most anti-business President in our lifetime. That's why such a sluggish recovery. Between Commie Care and multitudes of regulations, businesses didn't want to invest. Trump is just the opposite. Trump is a pro-business President. He rescinded DumBama's regulations, lowered their taxes, and removed the mandates for Commie Care for businesses . Obama raised taxes on corporations.

I wonder where some of that stimulus went to being most of it went to blue states. Did anyone follow the money trail?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

You and I are around the same age so you know this past recession was nothing compared to the one in the early 80's. Back then, even fast food joints weren't hiring.

DumBama was the most anti-business President in our lifetime. That's why such a sluggish recovery. Between Commie Care and multitudes of regulations, businesses didn't want to invest. Trump is just the opposite. Trump is a pro-business President. He rescinded DumBama's regulations, lowered their taxes, and removed the mandates for Commie Care for businesses . Obama raised taxes on corporations.

Pelosi and Choomer have been having a cow over the fact that Trump might add another trillion to the debt...gee. i wonder how much of the 10 Trillion went into the pockets of our leading liberals/rats

Well.......you know how they are. Whatever nefarious things they've been up to, they blame their actions on the Republicans. Obamacare was because of the Republicans, the ten trillion they spent was because of the Republicans, the falling of Iraq was because of the Republicans, Fast and Furious was a continuation of the Republicans, the list goes on and on.

If any good things happen, they credit the Democrats. Nearly a year after big-ears left the White House, they are still giving DumBama credit for this super economy we're experiencing today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL! Sheesh, I'd say, "Are you kidding?", but I know you're not. If that's true, then why was Obama's recovery the weakest in decades?

Are you fucking retarded?

Okay, the reason why the recovery was as weak was because it was THE WORST RECESSION IN 80 YEARS!

And we didn't have something like World War II to drag us out of it.

You and I are around the same age so you know this past recession was nothing compared to the one in the early 80's. Back then, even fast food joints weren't hiring.

DumBama was the most anti-business President in our lifetime. That's why such a sluggish recovery. Between Commie Care and multitudes of regulations, businesses didn't want to invest. Trump is just the opposite. Trump is a pro-business President. He rescinded DumBama's regulations, lowered their taxes, and removed the mandates for Commie Care for businesses . Obama raised taxes on corporations.

I wonder where some of that stimulus went to being most of it went to blue states. Did anyone follow the money trail?

A lot of it went to unions and payroll reductions. The measly few bucks we got in our paychecks didn't do squat for the economy, but they claim it did. I forget now what I did with that extra $25.00 every other week. But whatever I did with it, it didn't help the economy very much.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dumocrats only care about the Debt now, because a Republican is in the White House. Anyone with a brain can see that. They're only about 'Party before Country.' If they think it'll hurt Republicans, they'll go all-in on anything. They're disingenuous hypocrites. But who didn't know that about em?

All that being said though, both Parties love spending other peoples' money. The Swamp Creatures are drunk on the power of it. Maybe Trump can drain the Swamp a bit, but i'm not optimistic. I don't see anything changing in regards to the Debt. Both Parties just love spending other folks' money too much. It is what it is.