g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 125,190
- 68,812
Allow me to bitch slap you with your own words, hypocrite:The deficit rose under Reagan because he submitted massive spending bills. He was the first President to submit a trillion dollar budget.So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
When Clinton raised taxes, revenues went up, and deficits went down.
When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
The guy who RAISED taxes saw the biggest jobs growth of all the modern presidents.
FACT ALERT, FACT ALERT!
Revenue has NOTHING to do with deficits, as long as the revenue rises. It has to do with SPENDING!
QUESTIONS------->
1. Who controls spending via the purse? ANSWER-------->congress does, specifically the House of Representatives.
2. Who controlled the House of Representatives when Clinton came CLOSE to balancing the budget? ANSWER---------> Republicans!
So does that mean that Republicans are the end all, be all? Hell no! They suck almost as much as the Democrats do! But what Mike has pointed out so succinctly is----------> following a tax cut agenda DOES increase the revenue to the treasury. On the other hand, the more that the treasury takes in, the more congress wants to spend. The President then either shuts down the government as Reagan did on numerous occasions, and even if he does, he/she is still hostage to congress.
No matter how leftists want to paint it, always remember----------> unless congress shirks it's responsibility, they are the ones who decide how much money is spent, period! And yes, we know that this congress has gone pretty goofy. And yet each and everytime they even infer they might cut something, the left comes on here crying, whining, bitching, and moaning about what they might cut; then the very next day all get together and cry about the deficit!
Now I know, we know, that is called politics. But because we all know that it is politics, it gives us the werewithall, with a very straight face, to call each and every one of you............phony-baloneys!
It amuses me that when Obama was President, the pseudocons blamed Obama for the climbing debt, but now they mewl like little babies about "who controls the purse strings", forgetting that the Republicans controlled Congress for most of Obama's regime during all that time they had veins popping out of their heads over OBAMA's debt.
I am so sick and tired of this fucking hypocrisy.
You didn't pay close attention to what I said Guno--------------> as long as the CONGRESSS doesn't SHIRK its' responsibility. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, it has to do with congress, does it not!
Because congress is a bunch of fools, does NOT mean we should NOT increase revenues to our treasury, does it?
Just like the President, it is our job to elect, or throw out the people who are doing this to us. Their hat is not important! But to say we should NOT increase cash flow to the treasury, is akin to cutting off our nose, to spite our face.
One thing at a time; although I am sure we both agree, time is running short before it becomes to late.
Well then Sladester, let ME put it this way------------> who is the only person in government who could have vetoed the spending, and forced a 2/3rds congressional over ride to shine the light on who/whom it was, spending all the do-rae-mi? So when you say he DID NOT do it, technically you are correct. But when we say--------> he must have LIKED it because he did NOT try and stop it, we are correct too!