Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[g5000]

Are all these people Democrats?

CDC Warning Immigrant Children Could Be Spreading This New Mystery Virus In Public Schools

They are mexican. This is what they do. Look at what mexicans did to Bell, California. It's just how they roll.

Looks like it was written by someone 16 years old. Which is mentally about right for fags.

They went there to see if it's true the average muslim guy's woman as more facial hair than his goat and smells worse too.

Dimwit policies are always about our 'safety' and our 'children'....

that's why they are bringing into our country contagious, diseased and/or gang member illegal children....

Jeb, Hillary and Warren are all equally as toxic to the health of the nation. The difference is, a republican senate and house will oppose a democrat where they won't a republican. Jeb would erase our borders and have us up to our armpits in illiterates from south of the border. To him, the child rapes, drug dealing, hit and run driving, area all acts of love that we must learn to appreciate.

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination.

What a dumb Ni$$er, you seem to be posting in the wrong thread!!

Excuse me, Nazi boi. Where did you get the impression I'm black?

Put down the meth.

Your thoughts and intellectual level scream, dumb ni$$er ..................

We should never let another Muslim into this country.
No More Muslims, we have quite enough thank you.

Fuck Islam! The war between Islam and the West is brewing and soon there won't be a save corner on the planet for the demonic cult!

Liberals defend Islam because Islam wants the same thing: The destruction of America.
This ones' for me:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
These are for my sons:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
Muslims are just like Nazis.
This one is for Curt Shilling:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
This one is for Paint my House:
Muslims are just like Nazis.

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Islam is a barbaric pagan religion.

TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not.

Holy shit! What am I doing grouped in with all those nutbags???

LoneLaugher

Sorry about that!

Your post was obviously made in humor. My mistake. Color me extremely embarrassed.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Islam is incompatible with Freedom. You Liberal wimmen should be out in front on this.

America has the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Islam has the Koran and nothing else.

Choose the side yer gonna' fight on because you are mistaken if you think you're just gonna' sit on the sidelines in the coming Culture War.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism.

In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.

Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?

The CONservatives old bait and switch.

Hint IDEOLOGY:

CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.


UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?


"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."


lol

Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?

See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats

Cities huh? lol

NO CRITICAL THINKING TO BE A CONservative. Hint STATE but more than ANYTHING, FEDERAL GOV'T POLICY influence those cities. Hint "free trade" and tax cuts for the rich so they could gamble on Vegas East and offshore jobs, deindustrialized those cities. Perhaps read REAL history once in a while looner?

So you cannot deny what I posted?

So stipulated.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Early Communist infiltration - those who brought the civil rights movement with them - into the Democratic party began in the Northern states.

Do study history, and check your sources.

You are really serious, aren't you? You are not joking... BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Communist Party and the Civil Rights Movement - Hankering for History

The Communist Party USA and African Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just for fun -

The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community

Obscure sources, blogs and a lot of unfounded assertions.

So dispute them.

There re so many inconsistencies in your "sources" I'd be here all day addressing and correcting them. But here is a link to show you just how outdated and slow you are...
a lot of the mess you posted has been discussed and rendered useless many times :

Conservatives vs Liberals: Who really tried to stop Civil Rights initiatives.

In Bizarro-World, your posted nonsense would hold true. However, tinkling with definitions won't rescue your party or the currently misnomered "liberals" from their history of slavery and advancement of oppression.

 

[g5000]

I'm a paragon of truth and honesty.....and knowledge.

You should aspire to same.

You are a vulgar bigot and a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.

And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

"Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt"

Bill the rapist Clinton raised the national debt 41%.....a number far higher than your IQ,.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Islam is incompatible with Freedom.

So is the rest of the nonsense called religion. Freedom comes from Liberalism, AKA Liberty. Not a one of you religious morons are going to be allowed to win here so don't get all pissed off when your version of the Taliban (Kim Davis for example) can't win here either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a paragon of truth and honesty.....and knowledge.

You should aspire to same.

You are a vulgar bigot and a fool.

Vulgar: making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.
Google


That makes you a liar, huh?

Add that to your resume along with 'fool.'

 

[g5000]

The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.

And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

"Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt"

Bill the rapist Clinton raised the national debt 41%.....a number far higher than your IQ,.

Lie of omission. We were on a path to zero debt when Clinton left office, thanks to that GOP Congress and Clinton.

Bush and the next Congress followed up by raising the national debt by 100% instead of sticking to the path.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Islam is incompatible with Freedom.

So is the rest of the nonsense called religion. Freedom comes from Liberalism, AKA Liberty. Not a one of you religious morons are going to be allowed to win here so don't get all pissed off when your version of the Taliban (Kim Davis for example) can't win here either.

Hating on Christianity won't save you from the Muslims and their way of life.

If Liberals were smart, they'd defend Christianity whether they believe it or not.

 

[Dad2three]

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So where is the value of increasing wealth when you are handed a bill you cannot pay?

Ya' mean sorta like this?

After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015

Yep, 30+ years of GOP policy AND specifically 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. When the GOP dig holes, they dig wide and deep, just ask FDR...

Pretty vapid explanation of Obama's incompetence.

But....you've done the best you're capable of.

 

[g5000]

As I said earlier, we expect Democrats to be big spenders. It is a given. They PROMISE to spend more.

They keep their promise.

Republicans promise to cut spending and shrink government.

They DO NOT keep their promise.


Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

 

[Dad2three]

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And lying about it is all you have since the truth and reality show you are wrong. But what is right, true and real have no bearing on you morons on the left. All you care about is growing the state…for some unknown reason. Government wastes, steals and loses money and yet you morons want to give them more of what you earn…on the premise that this time…..they will spend it on what you want them to spend it on.

I am sure you morons don't trust politicians,
Uwe don't trust politicians either…the difference, we want to reduce heir power, you want to expand their power…who is the idiot in that formulation…..? Not us, that is for sure.

LMAOROG



SERIOUSLY? Static dollars NOT adjusted for inflation and population growth OR HE 11 TAX INCREASES RONNIE HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE REVENUES WERE GUTTED JUST GOING FROM 70% TO 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? lol



First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.


But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.


Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth





The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.


..The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

Bruce Bartlet, Reagan Admin


No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

Tax revenues increase when taxes are cut? NOT according to history, OR CREDIBLE ECONOMISTS. More right wing echo chamber noise not based in reality

HINT THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT TO LAFFERS CURVE, NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS WE WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE (60%-70% EFFECTIVE RATES ACCORDING TO STUDIES DUMMY)...

 

[g5000]

Total Government Employment Since 1962

In that table, we see the number of federal employees increased under Reagan, decreased under Clinton, increased under Bush, decreased under Obama.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
1993

4,351,044

1994

4,643,307

1995

4,920,586

1996

5,181,465

1997

5,369,206

1998

5,478,189

1999

5,605,523

2000

5,628,700

Historical Tables (table 7.1)


The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

 

[Dad2three]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds plausible, and repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics that show how wrong Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the Nov. 30 issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

Yet the CBO, treasury, CRS etc say Dubya's tax cuts cost nearly $4 trillion in lost revenues in a decade. Weird


REMEMBER THE DEM/GOP FIGHTING OVER THE "COST" OF DUBYA'S TAX CUTS IF LEFT FOR EVERYONE DUMMY?



lol

 

[g5000]

 

[g5000]

As you can see from my last post, the deficit was on a downward trend during the entirety of Clinton's Administration, and was in positive territory the last four years.

Then Bush came along and the deficit skyrocketed, culminating in the largest deficit in the history of the Universe.

The deficit has been back on a downward trend since Obama took office.

 

[Dad2three]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And lying about it is all you have since the truth and reality show you are wrong. But what is right, true and real have no bearing on you morons on the left. All you care about is growing the state…for some unknown reason. Government wastes, steals and loses money and yet you morons want to give them more of what you earn…on the premise that this time…..they will spend it on what you want them to spend it on.

I am sure you morons don't trust politicians,
Uwe don't trust politicians either…the difference, we want to reduce heir power, you want to expand their power…who is the idiot in that formulation…..? Not us, that is for sure.

LMAOROG



SERIOUSLY? Static dollars NOT adjusted for inflation and population growth OR HE 11 TAX INCREASES RONNIE HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE REVENUES WERE GUTTED JUST GOING FROM 70% TO 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? lol



First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.


But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.


Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth





The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.


..The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

Bruce Bartlet, Reagan Admin


No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

Tax revenues do not increase because taxes are cut. That's absurd.

It is not absurd….it is only absurd if you learned economics from left wing statists who believe that all money belongs to the government. Tax cuts increase the ability of individuals to create businesses and employ people….that increases taxes from those new jobs and businesses and the transactions in goods and services…it happened under both Kennedy and Reagan…...

Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?







...Bush Tax Cuts: The Facts

Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 income taxes were set to reduced rates by 2006, including the top income tax rate which fell from 39.6% to 35% and there were cuts to estate and gift taxes as well. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 would speed up many of the scheduled tax cuts from the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Just like situation with Reagan, tax cut advocates claim that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy. But there is little correlation between the two. And advocates of this ignore the economic effects of the housing boom/bubble (which would burst soon afterwards and lead us to the problems we currently face). Ironically, the same tax cut advocates who pretend the Clinton tax revenue boom was merely an anomaly caused by the internet bubble/boom simultaneously housing bubble/boom when crediting the Bush tax cuts for this growth.





www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue



Tax Cuts and Deficits


Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts

Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities