To the NeverTrumpers....

[Boss]

He tripled the debt. That is exploding the debt.

I didn't claim Reagan didn't increase the debt. I said his tax cuts didn't increase the debt because the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue. It was spending that increased the debt, not the tax cuts.

Tax cuts don't increase revenue. We learned that with Bush. It was the growth that increased revenue and Clinton had stronger growth with a tax increase.

Like I said, I want to balance the budget and pay down debt. Of the two candidates the choice is clearly Hillary. The tax cut policies have been a disaster for the debt and that is trumps plan. Economists agree he would add more to the debt.

Tax cuts DO increase tax revenue when done properly.
1980 tax revenues: $507 billion.
<Reagan massively cuts top marginal tax rates.>
1988 tax revenues: $901 billion.
901 is greater than 507.

If you want to go back to Kennedy's tax cuts you'll see a similar result. Cutting the top marginal rate while expanding the base always results in more tax revenues. Bush's tax cuts were for all rates and didn't expand the base. Although he didn't get the same vibrant results as Reagan, his tax cuts eventually resulted in an increased tax revenue to the tune of about $500 billion. Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history and it generated about $4 billion more in tax revenue but then, he lowered the tax rates in '94 and again, tax revenues soared, generating about $600 billion more in revenue.

Now is when you want to jump back to the national debt and ramble on about that.... but Reagan increased the debt by about $1.7 trillion and Obama has increased the debt by over $8 trillion... more than all previous presidents combined. Hillary plans to spend twice as much as Obama AND dramatically increase tax rates. Only an abject idiot would think she will balance the budget or cut the national debt.

 

[Boss]

He sure didn't triple the debt.

LOL... No... He more than QUADRUPLED Reagan's debt!

 

[Boss]

It isn't a binary choice. Vote for someone with integrity...Jill Stein.

Sorry you don't understand it but yes... it's a binary choice. On November 9, 2016... Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be your elected president. Jill Stein has 0% chance of winning.

 

[Brain357]

He tripled the debt. That is exploding the debt.

I didn't claim Reagan didn't increase the debt. I said his tax cuts didn't increase the debt because the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue. It was spending that increased the debt, not the tax cuts.

Tax cuts don't increase revenue. We learned that with Bush. It was the growth that increased revenue and Clinton had stronger growth with a tax increase.

Like I said, I want to balance the budget and pay down debt. Of the two candidates the choice is clearly Hillary. The tax cut policies have been a disaster for the debt and that is trumps plan. Economists agree he would add more to the debt.

Tax cuts DO increase tax revenue when done properly.
1980 tax revenues: $507 billion.
<Reagan massively cuts top marginal tax rates.>
1988 tax revenues: $901 billion.
901 is greater than 507.

If you want to go back to Kennedy's tax cuts you'll see a similar result. Cutting the top marginal rate while expanding the base always results in more tax revenues. Bush's tax cuts were for all rates and didn't expand the base. Although he didn't get the same vibrant results as Reagan, his tax cuts eventually resulted in an increased tax revenue to the tune of about $500 billion. Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history and it generated about $4 billion more in tax revenue but then, he lowered the tax rates in '94 and again, tax revenues soared, generating about $600 billion more in revenue.

Now is when you want to jump back to the national debt and ramble on about that.... but Reagan increased the debt by about $1.7 trillion and Obama has increased the debt by over $8 trillion... more than all previous presidents combined. Hillary plans to spend twice as much as Obama AND dramatically increase tax rates. Only an abject idiot would think she will balance the budget or cut the national debt.

No they do not increase tax revenue. A growing economy increases tax revenue. As we saw with Bush, a tax cut can decrease revenue. Clinton increased taxes, had more economic growth, and didn't triple the debt.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Tripling is obviously worse. You can't talk in $ when the economy is so much bigger now. For Obama to be as bad as Reagan the debt would have to be $30 trillion.

 

[Brain357]

He sure didn't triple the debt.

LOL... No... He more than QUADRUPLED Reagan's debt!

No the debt did not quadruple under Clinton. Now you are just being dumb. Look at your own links. Here is an interesting article:
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

 

[Care4all]

Bill was one of our best presidents. If hillary is anything like him we will do fine.

Bill Clinton was a good president because he was a populist who was forced to "triangulate" conservative ideas from a mid-term republican revolution. Hillary is a Saul Alinsky ideologue who is nothing like her husband.

He will be advising her. She saw bills success first hand. She has also seen Obama be less effective. I believe she is very smart and more likely to follow Bill. She would never be my first choice, but the alternative is so bad.

she WAS bill's reason for success, he had the personality, she was boring, all work and no play but had the brains,,,even he says he could not have been president without her!

 

[Boss]

No they do not increase tax revenue.

Yes they do, I've posted the official Treasury Dept. figures to prove it. Saying this makes you a liar. Yes the economy grows when you cut taxes.... that's the whole fucking point... that's how lowering taxes results in increased tax revenue!

As we saw with Bush, a tax cut can decrease revenue.

But it didn't. The figures are public information and I posted the link. Over the 8 years of Bush, the tax revenues increased by $500 billion. They did decline the first few years because he idiotically cut all tax rates and didn't expand the base. I've now explained this to you four times and I'm not going to keep repeating myself... if you want to continue lying and denying, that's on you.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Tripling is obviously worse.

The debt was WAY smaller when Reagan tripled it than when Obama doubled it. Obama more than quadrupled Reagan's debt. No president since Andrew Jackson has balanced the budget and ran a surplus.

 

[Care4all]

He tripled the debt. That is exploding the debt.

I didn't claim Reagan didn't increase the debt. I said his tax cuts didn't increase the debt because the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue. It was spending that increased the debt, not the tax cuts.

Tax cuts don't increase revenue. We learned that with Bush. It was the growth that increased revenue and Clinton had stronger growth with a tax increase.

Like I said, I want to balance the budget and pay down debt. Of the two candidates the choice is clearly Hillary. The tax cut policies have been a disaster for the debt and that is trumps plan. Economists agree he would add more to the debt.

Tax cuts DO increase tax revenue when done properly.
1980 tax revenues: $507 billion.
<Reagan massively cuts top marginal tax rates.>
1988 tax revenues: $901 billion.
901 is greater than 507.

If you want to go back to Kennedy's tax cuts you'll see a similar result. Cutting the top marginal rate while expanding the base always results in more tax revenues. Bush's tax cuts were for all rates and didn't expand the base. Although he didn't get the same vibrant results as Reagan, his tax cuts eventually resulted in an increased tax revenue to the tune of about $500 billion. Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history and it generated about $4 billion more in tax revenue but then, he lowered the tax rates in '94 and again, tax revenues soared, generating about $600 billion more in revenue.

Now is when you want to jump back to the national debt and ramble on about that.... but Reagan increased the debt by about $1.7 trillion and Obama has increased the debt by over $8 trillion... more than all previous presidents combined. Hillary plans to spend twice as much as Obama AND dramatically increase tax rates. Only an abject idiot would think she will balance the budget or cut the national debt.

No they do not increase tax revenue. A growing economy increases tax revenue. As we saw with Bush, a tax cut can decrease revenue. Clinton increased taxes, had more economic growth, and didn't triple the debt.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Tripling is obviously worse. You can't talk in $ when the economy is so much bigger now. For Obama to be as bad as Reagan the debt would have to be $30 trillion.

fyi, reagan tripled, bush 2 doubled, then obama doubled

 

[Boss]

No the debt did not quadruple under Clinton.

I did not say that. You were talking about OBAMA! He has amassed over $8 trillion of debt in his 8 years. Reagan had $1.7 trillion.

 

[Care4all]

No they do not increase tax revenue.

Yes they do, I've posted the official Treasury Dept. figures to prove it. Saying this makes you a liar. Yes the economy grows when you cut taxes.... that's the whole fucking point... that's how lowering taxes results in increased tax revenue!

As we saw with Bush, a tax cut can decrease revenue.

But it didn't. The figures are public information and I posted the link. Over the 8 years of Bush, the tax revenues increased by $500 billion. They did decline the first few years because he idiotically cut all tax rates and didn't expand the base. I've now explained this to you four times and I'm not going to keep repeating myself... if you want to continue lying and denying, that's on you.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Tripling is obviously worse.

The debt was WAY smaller when Reagan tripled it than when Obama doubled it. Obama more than quadrupled Reagan's debt. No president since Andrew Jackson has balanced the budget and ran a surplus.

the revenues increase every year NATURALLY due to normal economic growth...

bush's 2001 tax cuts REDUCED revenues and his 2003 tax cuts reduced revenues even more and it was not until 2005 before revenues hit what Clinton collected in revenues his last year....

and then we had the artificial housing bubble which is what brought revenues up but then in 2008 it all came tumbling down.

 

[Boss]

fyi, reagan tripled, bush 2 doubled, then obama doubled

Thanks but the links have been posted to both tax revenue and national debt. The argument that Clinton ran a surplus or balanced the budget is false as proven by the numbers listed by the Treasury Dept. In no year has our national debt decreased and this would HAVE to be the case IF Clinton ever ran a surplus or balanced the budget. No fancy math will change that fact.

Also, tax revenues increased under Reagan, Bush and even Clinton after he cut taxes in '94. Cutting the top marginal tax rate results in more tax revenue because the economy grows and more jobs are created which generate more taxes. When Clinton raised taxes (largest tax increase in history) it generated a whopping $4 billion. Contrast this with when he lowered taxes in '94 and generated $600 billion. Time and time again, we have the results... lowering the top marginal tax rates while expanding the tax base, produces MORE tax revenue.

 

[Brain357]

No they do not increase tax revenue.

Yes they do, I've posted the official Treasury Dept. figures to prove it. Saying this makes you a liar. Yes the economy grows when you cut taxes.... that's the whole fucking point... that's how lowering taxes results in increased tax revenue!

As we saw with Bush, a tax cut can decrease revenue.

But it didn't. The figures are public information and I posted the link. Over the 8 years of Bush, the tax revenues increased by $500 billion. They did decline the first few years because he idiotically cut all tax rates and didn't expand the base. I've now explained this to you four times and I'm not going to keep repeating myself... if you want to continue lying and denying, that's on you.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Tripling is obviously worse.

The debt was WAY smaller when Reagan tripled it than when Obama doubled it. Obama more than quadrupled Reagan's debt. No president since Andrew Jackson has balanced the budget and ran a surplus.

Bush showed the economy does not always grow when you do tax cuts, that is the whole point. Economists don't believe in trump, why do you? Reagan showed he could triple the debt. Not fiscally responsible.

 

[Brain357]

No the debt did not quadruple under Clinton.

I did not say that. You were talking about OBAMA! He has amassed over $8 trillion of debt in his 8 years. Reagan had $1.7 trillion.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Reagan was worse obviously.

 

[Brain357]

There certainly will be no growth under Trump when he starts his tariffs:
Trump Trade Plan Could Push U.S. into Recession, Study Says
WASHINGTON—Imposing stiff tariffs on China and Mexico, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed, could push the U.S. into recession and cost 5 million U.S. jobs, according to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

 

[Boss]

the revenues increase every year NATURALLY due to normal economic growth...

Economic growth happens when lowered taxes generate expansion of business and industry, creating more jobs and more taxpayers. That's the whole entire reason lowering top marginal rates increases tax revenues.

I'm showing you the actual results from the Treasury Dept. and you're trying to claim the "natural economic growth" was responsible for generating more tax revenues instead of tax cuts. That's just a false assessment or we'd see the same results in '92 when Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history. What we see is, his tax increase generated $4 billion more tax revenue. When he came back in '94 and LOWERED the tax rates, he generated $600 billion in tax revenues. Yes... it's economic growth that causes more tax revenue at a lower tax rate... DUH!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Cruz Stumps for Trump But Won’t Say His Name
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) campaigned for Donald Trump for the first time on Thursday, joining Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on the trail in Iowa, but could not bring himself to so much as say Trump’s name, Politico reports.

 

[Boss]

No the debt did not quadruple under Clinton.

I did not say that. You were talking about OBAMA! He has amassed over $8 trillion of debt in his 8 years. Reagan had $1.7 trillion.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Reagan was worse obviously.

That's just a stupid boneheaded semantics argument that doesn't make any rational sense.

$8 trillion of debt is FAR FAR worse than $1.7 trillion of debt!
Only in loony liberal la-la-land is that not the case!

 

[Brain357]

the revenues increase every year NATURALLY due to normal economic growth...

Economic growth happens when lowered taxes generate expansion of business and industry, creating more jobs and more taxpayers. That's the whole entire reason lowering top marginal rates increases tax revenues.

I'm showing you the actual results from the Treasury Dept. and you're trying to claim the "natural economic growth" was responsible for generating more tax revenues instead of tax cuts. That's just a false assessment or we'd see the same results in '92 when Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history. What we see is, his tax increase generated $4 billion more tax revenue. When he came back in '94 and LOWERED the tax rates, he generated $600 billion in tax revenues. Yes... it's economic growth that causes more tax revenue at a lower tax rate... DUH!

Clinton increased taxes and had stronger growth than Reagan...

 

[Brain357]

No the debt did not quadruple under Clinton.

I did not say that. You were talking about OBAMA! He has amassed over $8 trillion of debt in his 8 years. Reagan had $1.7 trillion.

Reagan tripled the debt and Obama doubled it. Reagan was worse obviously.

That's just a stupid boneheaded semantics argument that doesn't make any rational sense.

$8 trillion of debt is FAR FAR worse than $1.7 trillion of debt!
Only in loony liberal la-la-land is that not the case!

Sorry, but it is boneheaded to look at it in $ when the economy now is much larger than under Reagan. Reagan tribled the debt, Obama doubled it.

 

[Boss]

There certainly will be no growth under Trump when he starts his tariffs:
Trump Trade Plan Could Push U.S. into Recession, Study Says
WASHINGTON—Imposing stiff tariffs on China and Mexico, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed, could push the U.S. into recession and cost 5 million U.S. jobs, according to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Okay, so now you're going to completely abandon the arguments you've failed to make and jump on Trump? Look... I agree with you about Trump's proposals! I don't know if I am going to vote for Trump or not at this time. I don't think he will cut the national debt but Hillary sure as hell won't! Go ahead... flood the fucking board with your left-wing hack propaganda sites telling us how great Hillary is and how awful Trump is! The election is almost over... I can make it to Tuesday. You're not going to change my mind about that crooked corrupt bitch, I don't care what you post!