Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

Bad Cop, Good Cop Scenario

It's amazing how far the Preppy Progressives will go to pretend they're anything but set-up men, agents provocateurs, for their Right Wing fraternity brothers. Calling us "deplorables" and then saying they hate the rich tricks us into loving the rich. It's amazing that the majority has been so mind-numbed that they can't see through this charade.

Progressives? Oh right the guys ALWAYS on the right side of history


Care to point to the last time CONservatives were on the right side of history?


How about ONE GOP policy the past 50 years that worked as promised?

One of the Dilliest Dills

If you think what the New Age snobs have brought us these last 50 years is progress, your mind has been pickled by their overwhelming self-glorifying propaganda.

 

[JonKoch]

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

You're lying.....again.

Stop projecting Bubs

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure. Source?

Reagan DIDN'T have a boom actually if you look at what the ECONOMIC CYCLE he was in showed, unless you meant for the top 1%ers?

How Then Did Reagan Get More Than 1% of the Vote?

You have contempt for the opinions of the voters. Not only did Ronaldus Magnus get re-elected in a landslide, but in one of the few times in history, his VP later got elected President on Reagan's coattails.

 

[JonKoch]

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

Bad Cop, Good Cop Scenario

It's amazing how far the Preppy Progressives will go to pretend they're anything but set-up men, agents provocateurs, for their Right Wing fraternity brothers. Calling us "deplorables" and then saying they hate the rich tricks us into loving the rich. It's amazing that the majority has been so mind-numbed that they can't see through this charade.

Progressives? Oh right the guys ALWAYS on the right side of history


Care to point to the last time CONservatives were on the right side of history?


How about ONE GOP policy the past 50 years that worked as promised?

One of the Dilliest Dills

If you think what the New Age snobs have brought us these last 50 years is progress, your mind has been pickled by their overwhelming self-glorifying propaganda.

So you can't think of a single thing the CONServatives were on the correct side of US history either

 

[JonKoch]

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure. Source?

Reagan DIDN'T have a boom actually if you look at what the ECONOMIC CYCLE he was in showed, unless you meant for the top 1%ers?

How Then Did Reagan Get More Than 1% of the Vote?

You have contempt for the opinions of the voters. Not only did Ronaldus Magnus get re-elected in a landslide, but in one of the few times in history, his VP later got elected President on Reagan's coattails.

True, propaganda worked great for Ronnie

 

[JonKoch]

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure. Source?

Reagan DIDN'T have a boom actually if you look at what the ECONOMIC CYCLE he was in showed, unless you meant for the top 1%ers?

How Then Did Reagan Get More Than 1% of the Vote?

You have contempt for the opinions of the voters. Not only did Ronaldus Magnus get re-elected in a landslide, but in one of the few times in history, his VP later got elected President on Reagan's coattails.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

We Have the Best Economic Analyses That OPEC Can Buy

Oil went up to $147 a barrel in July, 2008. That's what prevented the banks from slowly and safely getting out of their deals, as they had planned. Both sides are covering up for the petrocrats in order to push their self-serving economic agendas.

GAWD you're a wingnutter

YES, THIS WAS CAUSED BY OIL *SHAKING HEAD*

HINT US CONSUMER DEBT DOUBLED 2001-2007 AS THE BANKSTER SUBPRIME BUBBLE BLEW UP!

Smooth Rides Suddenly End If There Is a Leak in the Gas Tank

Subprime was a flipper-loan scam. As soon as the banks got control of ghetto rat traps, they'd tear those neighborhoods down and put in highly profitable upscale housing. When that market suddenly dried up because of oil price-gouging, they were stuck with worthless property.

 

[JonKoch]

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.


They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.


The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

We Have the Best Economic Analyses That OPEC Can Buy

Oil went up to $147 a barrel in July, 2008. That's what prevented the banks from slowly and safely getting out of their deals, as they had planned. Both sides are covering up for the petrocrats in order to push their self-serving economic agendas.

GAWD you're a wingnutter

YES, THIS WAS CAUSED BY OIL *SHAKING HEAD*

HINT US CONSUMER DEBT DOUBLED 2001-2007 AS THE BANKSTER SUBPRIME BUBBLE BLEW UP!

Smooth Rides Suddenly End If There Is a Leak in the Gas Tank

Subprime was a flipper-loan scam. As soon as the banks got control of ghetto rat traps, they'd tear those neighborhoods down and put in highly profitable upscale housing. When that market suddenly dried up because of oil price-gouging, they were stuck with worthless property.

Sure a world wide Bankster bubble cheered on by Dubya in the US was thanks to petrol *shaking head*

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

If You're Not a Union Man, You're Not a Man at All

Mandatory unions is the majoritarian democratic way to end wage-gouging, not welfare from a governing class that feels itself superior to the majority of its citizens. Look how slowly minimum wage has risen, when unions would have raised it long ago. A foolish and slavish self-hatred drove unions to depend on the Democratic Party, which became infested with spoiled snobs who have always thought that those who were born in the working class are inferior.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?

Sure. It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, capital Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law.

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line. Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?

Circulation Requires Constant Re-Growth

That's not realistic economics, pretending that parasites will re-circulate their handouts through becoming consumers. A better way is to allow absenteeism, without any kind of payment but not getting fired for it, either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya fucking idiot!

Sorry MORON, the posters comment speaks for itself, he was talking JOBS EXPATRIATED.

To see an example of a LIE by you look HERE

Why else would he mean to stop deductions on expatriated workers Bubs? LMAOROG

Because he's a moron. Not as dumb as you though.......his stupidity is weed related.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya fucking idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?

Bubba, HOW would firms be able to have a tax break in the USA if they weren't either working here OR based in the US and OUTSOURCING Gawd

WILL YOU EVER BE HONEST BUBS OR JUST CONTINUE TO BE AN ANKLE BITER???

Bubba, HOW would firms be able to have a tax break in the USA if they weren't either working here OR based in the US

Because he's a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

Why not? US expatriate Firms should Only get tax breaks for labor costs, for hiring US labor not Any foreign labor; if they file taxes with the US, IRS in the US.

An expatriate firm is a firm that has left. Such a firm doesn't file US taxes, doesn't owe US taxes, can't write off labor expenses on the US taxes they don't owe/pay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya fucking idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?

It is more complex than that due to Congressional fondness for micromanaging our tax codes. Some ex-pat Firms are US subsidiaries.

Some ex-pat Firms are US subsidiaries.

Excellent! Foreign subsidiaries don't owe US taxes and can't write off their foreign labor expenses off the US taxes they don't owe.

Glad you've realized your previous errors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

Weird you continue to say it's Obama's policies yet can't point to a single thing that created the policies that created the debt like I did showing Dubya took Clinton's 20% of GDP in revenues AND spending and dropped it to 14.6% and blew up spending to almost 24%??? Almost like you're a typical right winger who doesn't understand what drives policies???

Poor Obama.
President for 8 years without a single policy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

You're lying.....again.

Stop projecting Bubs

You can't show a single time I lied or deflected.

Because you're a lying liar.

Your 40% SS idiocy still makes me chuckle.

Were you lying, or just stupid when you made that claim?

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

Weird you continue to say it's Obama's policies yet can't point to a single thing that created the policies that created the debt like I did showing Dubya took Clinton's 20% of GDP in revenues AND spending and dropped it to 14.6% and blew up spending to almost 24%??? Almost like you're a typical right winger who doesn't understand what drives policies???

Poor Obama.
President for 8 years without a single policy.

At least none that right wingers can point to that caused the GOP debt

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:

$18,636,016,016,738.40


which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of
93.85% of the entire national debt
ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[JonKoch]

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

You're lying.....again.

Stop projecting Bubs

You can't show a single time I lied or deflected.

Because you're a lying liar.

Your 40% SS idiocy still makes me chuckle.

Were you lying, or just stupid when you made that claim?

I get it Bubs, you are the typical rightie who is NEVER honest

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

Weird you continue to say it's Obama's policies yet can't point to a single thing that created the policies that created the debt like I did showing Dubya took Clinton's 20% of GDP in revenues AND spending and dropped it to 14.6% and blew up spending to almost 24%??? Almost like you're a typical right winger who doesn't understand what drives policies???

Poor Obama.
President for 8 years without a single policy.

At least none that right wingers can point to that caused the GOP debt

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:

$18,636,016,016,738.40


which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of
93.85% of the entire national debt
ReaganBushDebt.org

Obama whined for 6 years about the Republican House stopping his desired spending increases, and yet cretins like you hold him blameless for $9.3 trillion.

Unbelievable!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

You're lying.....again.

Stop projecting Bubs

You can't show a single time I lied or deflected.

Because you're a lying liar.

Your 40% SS idiocy still makes me chuckle.

Were you lying, or just stupid when you made that claim?

I get it Bubs, you are the typical rightie who is NEVER honest

Honestly, you're a lying liar and a moron to boot.

40%?

DERP!