Debt solution.....Cuts vs Tax increases?

[bripat9643]

You need to read a book, Gramps.

What does a book have to do with a total combined tax burden?

He means the works of fiction he reads that says Americans aren't paying enough taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are factually wrong by a mile.

We raised taxes to pay for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (and maybe a few wars back then I'm leaving out).

Where did you show he was wrong?

Learn to read and you'll know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.

We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,

followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.

THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,

thus proving your claim dead wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Where did you show he was wrong?

Learn to read and you'll know.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,

followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.

THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,

thus proving your claim dead wrong.

Obama's healthcare swindle included $750 in tax increases. Furthermore, the Clinton tax rates are set to return at the end of Obama's term.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Only a progressive would believe taking money out of job providers and consumers pockets to allow people to live for free, er cant pay their way makes sense.

Also, one of the bigger problems is that there are plenty of lazy fucks that are more than content with living off the government dole than ever before.

 

[Wiseacre]

You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.

We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,

followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.

THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,

thus proving your claim dead wrong.

First, the FOP controlled Congress lowered taxes back down in 1997. Second, it was that same GOP controlled Congress that held the line onsending and wouldn't let Clinton spend more. Third, it was a different time and place, demand was soaring and people were super high on buying stuff.

I will say this, it is at least possible that had the GOP controlled Congress NOT lowered taxes in 1997 the economy would kept humming along anyway. Sometimes changes in tax rates make a difference and sometimes maybe they don't. Forinstance, at a time like now, I don't think a tax cut would do much at all to stimulate the economy like repubs might claim. But I do think a tax hike, even one limited only to the rich, COULD be detrimental to foreign and domestic investment in our economy. At a time when we want to encourage investment here, that is not a good move. Don't understand why the left can't see that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.

We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,

followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.

THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,

thus proving your claim dead wrong.

First, the FOP controlled Congress lowered taxes back down in 1997. Second, it was that same GOP controlled Congress that held the line onsending and wouldn't let Clinton spend more. Third, it was a different time and place, demand was soaring and people were super high on buying stuff.

I will say this, it is at least possible that had the GOP controlled Congress NOT lowered taxes in 1997 the economy would kept humming along anyway. Sometimes changes in tax rates make a difference and sometimes maybe they don't. Forinstance, at a time like now, I don't think a tax cut would do much at all to stimulate the economy like repubs might claim. But I do think a tax hike, even one limited only to the rich, COULD be detrimental to foreign and domestic investment in our economy. At a time when we want to encourage investment here, that is not a good move. Don't understand why the left can't see that.

And CRA loans gave individuals the opportunity to buy a house, which gave them the green light to get a credit card and rack up epic debt because they owned a house and which they never paid back in which created this fucked up economy and housing bubble.

Why? because like all democrats fucks, Clinton pandered to the greedy poor asshats that wanted something for nothing in exchange for a vote.

Clinton forced creditors to lend to his broke ass voting base, he looked good, the broke ass leftist voting base paid him back in votes... In short he bought those votes via authoritarian measures...

So yeah, the banks failed - they were never paid the fuck back on defaulted loans...

Spending was at a high point in Clintons administration because that fuckup encouraged borrowing, however a lot that did never paid back..... You have clowns these days filing for bankruptcy who owe 175k getting out of it for 50k...... What the fuck is that shit??? it cost more than 50k to manufacture those products they wasted their "credit" on.... Economically in that case our economy is actually depressing - not expanding.