The Liberal Myth that the Rich Pay "Virtually No Taxes"

[imawhosure]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

 

[rightwinger]

Can someone get the right wing corporatist apologist for the rich a dictionary and then explain to them proportionality and fairness. When someone can show me a rich person alone on an island creating wealth they may have something, till then they simply miss where wealth is created and how.

That makes zero sense, first, you aren't god and are in no position to dictate fairness. How do you determine who gets to keep what? Your analogy is flawed because if you are alone on an island there is no wealth. Money is useless.

What we need to do is get corporations out of politician's pockets and create a free market. Big business steps on small business and small business is the backbone of the economy. Or it was.

Well, at least he's willing to admit that he thinks the government's job is to decide how much we're all entitled to keep.

Kind of like that

We the People elect representatives who decide on an appropriate tax structure

 

[rightwinger]

Our ultra rich have seen a 528% in tax rate..........does that equate to "virtually no taxes"?

Fuck, do you even know how to read a chart? Pre-tax income among the top 0.01% has gone UP by 528% since 1960 while their tax burden has been cut in half.

And you're defending this???

Hardly

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

Walmart employees are so much better because they have better cash registers?

There have been cash registers around for years but a cashier used to have a grasp of at least basic math now they don't even need that so you see even the most unskilled uneducated person can now be a cashier where in the past they wouldn't have been able to do the job

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

That's always been the case. Technology has always made productivity rise but until the early 70's, wage increases kept pace. Why did wage increases flatten after that?

BEcause the wages went to those who did the technological innovating not the unskilled people who use it

 

[Skull Pilot]

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

That's always been the case. Technology has always made productivity rise but until the early 70's, wage increases kept pace. Why did wage increases flatten after that?

Because commercial sinks are so much more sophisticated than pre-Reagan.

And tell me what is the wage of plumbers and other skilled tradesmen?

Has it risen more than those who have no skill?

Of course it has

But then again a moron who thinks a sink is the pinnacle of the technological advances we have made wouldn't understand that

 

[Interpol]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

 

[xband]

A skilled electrical makes more money than a skilled mechanic, union or not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

It is not the lowest it has been in 60 years

Seems numbers don't lie but you do

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Right now it's just under 21%
in the early 1950s it was around 13%

Tax revenues to gdp have been steadily increasing from the lows of the early 2000s and are now just 1% off of the highs of the 1990s

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Wilbur Right]

Why do some of you act like it was the poor that got the EITC passed through Congress?

Like the poor banded together and demanded that this legislation be passed.

Instead, it was a bene that made tax cuts for the rich more palatable.

The poor didnt ask for it but they would be even more poor if they didnt take advantage of it.

Call your Congresscritter and get them to recind the EITC.

Then the poor will really be poor but you all who object to them getting their taxes back will feel a lot better.

But what will that (elimanting the EITC) do for you?

what will eliminating the EITC do for the tax payer? really?
who do you think is ultimately funding the EITC refunds?
Now, why is it that someone on welfare, that collects money from the taxpayer while providing no benefit to society, should also get 4k from the government while at the same time contributing nothing to the federal/state budgets?
Getting rid if the EITC would be a good start at reducing the taxes for those that work. Even if we didnt reduce tax and put that money toward reducing the debt, that would be a good start at fixing the country. Giving it to a non producer so they can buy the newest big screen tv to put in their government supplied home is not a value to anyone other than the non producer.

Man dude, you really put your stupidity on display for this one.

EITC Mean Earned Income Tax Credit.
Low to moderate incomes qualify.

Which means welfare recipients do not recieve this credit UNLESS at some point in the year they worked.

Stupidshit, learn how to use Google.

 

[Interpol]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

It is not the lowest it has been in 60 years

Seems numbers don't lie but you do

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Right now it's just under 21%
in the early 1950s it was around 13%

I did not say LOWER than 60 years ago but LOWEST in 60 years, which is factual, moron.

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

 

[Wilbur Right]

actually, I dont think it could be that low if the country ever intends on paying of the debt.
can you imagine the social programs this country could have if the debt was gone?

LMAO Yea we could expand that EITC.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

It is not the lowest it has been in 60 years

Seems numbers don't lie but you do

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Right now it's just under 21%
in the early 1950s it was around 13%

I did not say LOWER than 60 years ago but LOWEST in 60 years, which is factual, moron.

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

No it's not the lowest in 60 years idiot

It's 21 today it was 13

it has increased steadily ever since with the exception of the small dip from 1990 to 2000

learn how to read a fucking graph

And I don't get my numbers from facebook

in 1955 it was 16 and has not ever been that low since so how can it b the lowest in 60years if it is now 21?

 

[Interpol]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

It is not the lowest it has been in 60 years

Seems numbers don't lie but you do

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Right now it's just under 21%
in the early 1950s it was around 13%

I did not say LOWER than 60 years ago but LOWEST in 60 years, which is factual, moron.

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

No it's not the lowest in 60 years idiot

It's 21 today it was 13

it has increased steadily ever since with the exception of the small dip from 1990 to 2000

learn how to read a fucking graph

And I don't get my numbers from facebook

You responded to my post far too quickly, which means you obviously didn't even take the time to read WHY you are WRONG, asswipe. Factcheck was FACT CHECKING a claim that began on facebook and found it to be TRUE, retard.

Even Forbes agrees and they are hardly liberal.

We have a much larger revenue problem than spending problem in this country, and anyone who thinks otherwise if a fucking idiot who needs to take math.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole thread is kinda off base a little. The American people are taxed enough. Our problem is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. As long as Washington continues to run huge deficits while adding to the national debt, there is always going to be a scheme to fix it, has always been a scheme to fix it, but none of them have worked. Why? Because the politicians who are not as dumb as everyone would have you think, refuse to tell the truth, nor will they use their power to get things under control for fear they will lose their jobs.

CONSIDER: A person running for President who proclaimed, "on the 1st day of my administration, I will demand that congress find a way to cut the budget from LAST year by 10%, and go forward in this year with that budget. I will not sign a funding bill that does not do this, and it is up to them to decide where to get the savings from."

Could this person get elected? NO! Is this person telling you what actually must be done? YES! Why can a person like this never get elected or taken seriously? Because to many people are NOT invested in the country because a rise in taxes does not affect them; and also because some economic illiterates keep telling these people it will all be ok if you just vote for us so we can get the money from a different segment of the population that is not you!

None of these schemes have EVER worked, and as the people who they try and fleece take their money and run away, these other people turn into Stalinist Marxists and try to fleece them as they run out the door.

Do you people realize that you are actually taking something that belongs to others, giving it to yourselves or other people, and are actually trying to make it sound moral! You tell me.......which one of you people on here was held up at gun point by the owners of Walmart, so they now owe you some money back? Come on, raise your hands, hurry. How about Bill Gates? Which one of you was met in a dark alley by him and robbed? Steve Jobs?

You can't fund the government at current levels no matter what you do, so that person talking about cutting government is telling you the truth, but I will be damned, not a one of you will believe it, and you just keep telling everyone all about your strawman arguement that somehow, it is all the fault of the guy you purchased your computer from, your I-phone, your car, or your gasoline.

Wake up, it IS NOT! It is because you want your government to do to much for YOU, and you want everyone else but YOU to pay for it!

No, your post is off-base.

Spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in America in 60 years.

The problem is that tax revenue as a % of GDP are also at very low levels.

The reason why President Reagan was ultimately okay with ballooning the debt was that tax revenues were 20% of GDP. When we're around 20%, we prosper. In the last decade since the Bush Tax Cuts, that has dipped to 14-15%.

The outstanding balance left on the yearly deficits of about $400 billion we have are due to tax revenues we should be collecting but aren't. Fix that, and we've got balanced books again.

Numbers don't lie. Only RWNJ's online do.

It is not the lowest it has been in 60 years

Seems numbers don't lie but you do

Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Right now it's just under 21%
in the early 1950s it was around 13%

I did not say LOWER than 60 years ago but LOWEST in 60 years, which is factual, moron.

Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

No it's not the lowest in 60 years idiot

It's 21 today it was 13

it has increased steadily ever since with the exception of the small dip from 1990 to 2000

learn how to read a fucking graph

And I don't get my numbers from facebook

You responded to my post far too quickly, which means you obviously didn't even take the time to read WHY you are WRONG, asswipe. Factcheck was FACT CHECKING a claim that began on facebook and found it to be TRUE, retard.

Even Forbes agrees and they are hardly liberal.

We have a much larger revenue problem than spending problem in this country, and anyone who thinks otherwise if a fucking idiot who needs to take math.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

So change the subject now huh?

You claimed that federal spending to gdp is and I quote "the lowest it has been in 60 years"

I showed you quite clearly that it is not and you can't handle it

Now you whine about Obama's spending which I never mentioned once

 

[Interpol]

Obama spending binge never happened

Oh look, more evidence which supports why I'm right Skull Pilot is WRONG. "Government outlays rising at SLOWEST pace since 1950's".

I'll trust Marketwatch and Forbes over some internet moron named Skull Pilot, who obviously didn't graduate from high school.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Obama spending binge never happened

Oh look, more evidence which supports why I'm right Skull Pilot is WRONG. "Government outlays rising at SLOWEST pace since 1950's".

I'll trust Marketwatch and Forbes over some internet moron named Skull Pilot, who obviously didn't graduate from high school.

So now it's not the lowest it's been in 60 years and it's just rising slower and you can't see the difference?

I never claimed Obama went on a spending binge so why are you even bringing it up?

 

[Interpol]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...are-spending-slowing-will-obamacare-cut-costs

Healthcare spending is slowing. Thank you, Obamacare.

It's a revenue problem, not a spending problem, assholes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...are-spending-slowing-will-obamacare-cut-costs

Healthcare spending is slowing. Thank you, Obamacare.

It's a revenue problem, not a spending problem, assholes.

Tax revenues to GDP are only about 1% off the highs of the 1990s

 

[Interpol]

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem'

These aren't even liberal publications that I'm citing. Look, "we don't just have a spending problem", says the article, which then goes on to make yet another factual claim that debunks the premise of this utterly bullshit thread that I'm not wasting anymore of my precious time on, because it's impossible to have a conversation with retards who appear to have no ability to grasp new information and then evolve their thinking.