Deficit Spending and hyocrisy, a debate worth having.

[Wry Catcher]

No its not a 'debate worth having'.

The thread is attempt to absolve Barry because Dumbya spent also.

Yep. All they have left is, "MOM!!! The other kid did it too!!"

Of course it's a debate worth having, the fact that facts are dismissed by with the usual idiotgram response (above) proves nothing.
How much have we spent on two wars? What percentage of the cost did the coalition of the 'willing' contribute in lives and treasure? How much of our treasure spent in Iraq and Afghanistan were on the books? How much was paid for on credit?
Yep, it's all about the other guy, Booooooooosh. But the hypocrits on the fringe still bring up Carter's name, of course they need to rewrite history to do so (Q. what was Stagflation and who was president when the word was coined; A. Gerald Ford).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well even with his head up his ass it appears crazyFrank was able to cut and run.

Fucking liar

But what else is new?

Our Survey says...show me Clinton Surplus

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well even with his head up his ass it appears crazyFrank was able to cut and run.

Fucking liar

But what else is new?

Our Survey says...show me Clinton Surplus

"Fucking liar", is a "Fucking liar" worse than a regular liar?
Frank, I'd be happy to show you the surplus. First, go to the library (that's a public building, usually, where there are books and other written materials). You won't need a card to do some research, and usually there are volunteers to help someone like you find materials. Usually they are young, some even in Jr. High School, but don't despair Frank, it's likely they will be able to help you (if you don't use the F word).
Next, get a current Almanac (sometimes called a book of facts). Then ask the young person helping you (nicely now, no dirty language) how to use the index. In short order, well, for you with help maybe an hour or so, you will find the section on our economy and proof that what I posted is correct.
I sure hope that helps Frankboy, and maybe it will open up a whole new world to you (hey, they even have books with pictures, but, you may want to ignore the Atlas, it may cause you trouble knowing Sarah really can't see Russia from her front porch).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well even with his head up his ass it appears crazyFrank was able to cut and run.

Fucking liar

But what else is new?

Our Survey says...show me Clinton Surplus

"Fucking liar", is a "Fucking liar" worse than a regular liar?
Frank, I'd be happy to show you the surplus. First, go to the library (that's a public building, usually, where there are books and other written materials). You won't need a card to do some research, and usually there are volunteers to help someone like you find materials. Usually they are young, some even in Jr. High School, but don't despair Frank, it's likely they will be able to help you (if you don't use the F word).
Next, get a current Almanac (sometimes called a book of facts). Then ask the young person helping you (nicely now, no dirty language) how to use the index. In short order, well, for you with help maybe an hour or so, you will find the section on our economy and proof that what I posted is correct.
I sure hope that helps Frankboy, and maybe it will open up a whole new world to you (hey, they even have books with pictures, but, you may want to ignore the Atlas, it may cause you trouble knowing Sarah really can't see Russia from her front porch).

You're a fucking liar. Show me one Clinton surplus years much less 4 consecutive ones.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.

The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.

I agree with your opinion. AND, I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people on this board, regardless of party affililation would agree with you as well. The question that NO ONE has ever been able to answer is, HOW?

CUT programs. Most of the People programs are Unconstitutional to begin with. The Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for them at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No its not a 'debate worth having'.

The thread is attempt to absolve Barry because Dumbya spent also.

Yep. All they have left is, "MOM!!! The other kid did it too!!"

Of course it's a debate worth having, the fact that facts are dismissed by with the usual idiotgram response (above) proves nothing.
How much have we spent on two wars? What percentage of the cost did the coalition of the 'willing' contribute in lives and treasure? How much of our treasure spent in Iraq and Afghanistan were on the books? How much was paid for on credit?
Yep, it's all about the other guy, Booooooooosh. But the hypocrits on the fringe still bring up Carter's name, of course they need to rewrite history to do so (Q. what was Stagflation and who was president when the word was coined; A. Gerald Ford).

Obama has proposed a Budget TWICE the size of revenue. And you have no problem with that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry, it's possible that instead of a being pathological liar, you're just a fucking moron who does not know what "surplus" means

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.

The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.

I agree with your opinion. AND, I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people on this board, regardless of party affililation would agree with you as well. The question that NO ONE has ever been able to answer is, HOW?

CUT programs. Most of the People programs are Unconstitutional to begin with. The Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for them at all.

First cut, the VA. Where in the Constitution is it written the Federal Government must provide services to vets? Didn't Hoover send MacArthur and troops to beat the crap out of the Bonus Army? Yep, sure enough, another example of compassionate conservativism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry, it's possible that instead of a being pathological liar, you're just a fucking moron who does not know what "surplus" means

Dumb, de dumb dumb...

"The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses".

U.S. Deficits and the Debt, 1980 - 2009: (billions of dollars)

Year total receipts total outlays
1980 517.1; 590.9 Jimmy Carter
1985 734.1; 946.4 Ronald Reagan
1990 1.032.0; 1.253.2 Ronald Reagan
1995 1.351.8; 1.515.8 Bill Clinton
1998 1.721.8; 1.652.6 Bill Clinton
2000 2025.5: 1,789.2 Bill Clinton

And, drum beat please,

2005 2.153.9; 2.472.2 George W. Bush

And hold your breath for this one,

2009 2.156.6; 3.997.8 George W. Bush

Source, Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2010 (2009 is an estimate).

Let me know Frank if this is too complicated for you and I'll explain why the third column of each year Clinton was not president is higher than the second column.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with your opinion. AND, I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people on this board, regardless of party affililation would agree with you as well. The question that NO ONE has ever been able to answer is, HOW?

CUT programs. Most of the People programs are Unconstitutional to begin with. The Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for them at all.

First cut, the VA. Where in the Constitution is it written the Federal Government must provide services to vets? Didn't Hoover send MacArthur and troops to beat the crap out of the Bonus Army? Yep, sure enough, another example of compassionate conservativism.

Dumb Ass the VA and the Retirement program for the military are 2 required programs they are based on actual service and actual Government powers. People EARNED those payments by preforming services via a CONTRACT agreement.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No its not a 'debate worth having'.

The thread is attempt to absolve Barry because Dumbya spent also.

Yep. All they have left is, "MOM!!! The other kid did it too!!"

Of course it's a debate worth having, the fact that facts are dismissed by with the usual idiotgram response (above) proves nothing.

It proves all you have is the "Appeal to Mom" logical fallacy. Clue: It never worked, even on Mom.

 

[Wry Catcher]

CUT programs. Most of the People programs are Unconstitutional to begin with. The Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for them at all.

First cut, the VA. Where in the Constitution is it written the Federal Government must provide services to vets? Didn't Hoover send MacArthur and troops to beat the crap out of the Bonus Army? Yep, sure enough, another example of compassionate conservativism.

Dumb Ass the VA and the Retirement program for the military are 2 required programs they are based on actual service and actual Government powers. People EARNED those payments by preforming services via a CONTRACT agreement.

Listen dumb ass, people pay into social security and medicare, and pay taxes which pay the salary of all government employees, militry personnel included. It is an assumed contract, for one doesn't have any ability to not pay payroll taxes. Yet you assert all social programs but for the one you've got ought to be cut. That explains your conservative politics, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
Consider if you will the behavior of the future General when he led active duty troops, armed and on horseback, against the retired vets of WW I on the streets of Wash. D.C. in 1932.
Mount up gunny, it's time to chase the poor, sick and infirm citizens of our country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

First cut, the VA. Where in the Constitution is it written the Federal Government must provide services to vets? Didn't Hoover send MacArthur and troops to beat the crap out of the Bonus Army? Yep, sure enough, another example of compassionate conservativism.

Dumb Ass the VA and the Retirement program for the military are 2 required programs they are based on actual service and actual Government powers. People EARNED those payments by preforming services via a CONTRACT agreement.

Listen dumb ass, people pay into social security and medicare, and pay taxes which pay the salary of all government employees, militry personnel included. It is an assumed contract, for one doesn't have any ability to not pay payroll taxes. Yet you assert all social programs but for the one you've got ought to be cut. That explains your conservative politics, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
Consider if you will the behavior of the future General when he led active duty troops, armed and on horseback, against the retired vets of WW I on the streets of Wash. D.C. in 1932.
Mount up gunny, it's time to chase the poor, sick and infirm citizens of our country.

You are a RETARD. But then I already knew that, go hang out with Ravi you two can compare notes on how Retired pay is really a social program, DUMB FUCK.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dumb Ass the VA and the Retirement program for the military are 2 required programs they are based on actual service and actual Government powers. People EARNED those payments by preforming services via a CONTRACT agreement.

Listen dumb ass, people pay into social security and medicare, and pay taxes which pay the salary of all government employees, militry personnel included. It is an assumed contract, for one doesn't have any ability to not pay payroll taxes. Yet you assert all social programs but for the one you've got ought to be cut. That explains your conservative politics, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
Consider if you will the behavior of the future General when he led active duty troops, armed and on horseback, against the retired vets of WW I on the streets of Wash. D.C. in 1932.
Mount up gunny, it's time to chase the poor, sick and infirm citizens of our country.

You are a RETARD. But then I already knew that, go hang out with Ravi you two can compare notes on how Retired pay is really a soMB FUCK.

Listen DUMB FUCK (isn't it exciting to swear in all caps?) You asked where in the Constitution...so, I too ask, where in the Constitution does it say anything about your retirement? And by the way DUMB FUCK (oh, that's so much fun) I too served in our military and don't support eliminating the VA. I said it to get your attention, and maybe get you to think.
One more story about your kind. In the 1980 military personnel with alcohol and drug issues were first required to prove their addiction was service related; up until the Reagan Administration made this rule vets were provided in-patient and out-patient services as a result of their service, and did not have to prove the impossible. Another example of conservative compassion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Listen dumb ass, people pay into social security and medicare, and pay taxes which pay the salary of all government employees, militry personnel included. It is an assumed contract, for one doesn't have any ability to not pay payroll taxes. Yet you assert all social programs but for the one you've got ought to be cut. That explains your conservative politics, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
Consider if you will the behavior of the future General when he led active duty troops, armed and on horseback, against the retired vets of WW I on the streets of Wash. D.C. in 1932.
Mount up gunny, it's time to chase the poor, sick and infirm citizens of our country.

You are a RETARD. But then I already knew that, go hang out with Ravi you two can compare notes on how Retired pay is really a soMB FUCK.

Listen DUMB FUCK (isn't it exciting to swear in all caps?) You asked where in the Constitution...so, I too ask, where in the Constitution does it say anything about your retirement? And by the way DUMB FUCK (oh, that's so much fun) I too served in our military and don't support eliminating the VA. I said it to get your attention, and maybe get you to think.
One more story about your kind. In the 1980 military personnel with alcohol and drug issues were first required to prove their addiction was service related; up until the Reagan Administration made this rule vets were provided in-patient and out-patient services as a result of their service, and did not have to prove the impossible. Another example of conservative compassion.

You are to stupid for words. You are aware I would hope, that in 1980 Congress was run by the Democrats?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are a RETARD. But then I already knew that, go hang out with Ravi you two can compare notes on how Retired pay is really a soMB FUCK.

Listen DUMB FUCK (isn't it exciting to swear in all caps?) You asked where in the Constitution...so, I too ask, where in the Constitution does it say anything about your retirement? And by the way DUMB FUCK (oh, that's so much fun) I too served in our military and don't support eliminating the VA. I said it to get your attention, and maybe get you to think.
One more story about your kind. In the 1980 military personnel with alcohol and drug issues were first required to prove their addiction was service related; up until the Reagan Administration made this rule vets were provided in-patient and out-patient services as a result of their service, and did not have to prove the impossible. Another example of conservative compassion.

You are to stupid for words. You are aware I would hope, that in 1980 Congress was run by the Democrats?

Yep, I forget to add the 's to the 1980's. Reagan was POTUS from January '81 until January '89 and during that period the VA first began to require proof from vets. You've pointed out your ability to nit pick - more evidence that you're a conservative piss ant.

 

[The Rabbi]

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.

The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.

You are really are a liar. Frank is right. Your "facts" are anything but. Frank has called you out and you failed the test.
Yes, deficits matter. But a deficit that is 5.88% of GDP, which was the highest it got under Reagan, is nowhere near as troublesome as a deficit that is 10.64% of GDP, which is what Barry has.
US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local
That is the highest peace time deficit in history.
And Obama's solution is to impose big taxes on the most productive parts of the economy, which will further depress it. Oh yeah, he wants to freeze spending for $15B of programs. That's like going on a diet after winning the pie eating contest.
The hypocrisy comes from Barry supporters, who complain about the Bush deficits (really Democrat deficits since they controlled Congress for the last 2 years) but are mum on Barry deficits.

 

[blastoff]

Stop spending? Agree. Cut way way way way back, and then some.

Raise revenues? How? Raise taxes? Good luck with that in our current economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Deficits only matter when there is a Republican in office...wait, Clinton had "4 straight years of surpluses" Where was I when this happened?

you can really only have a surplus when there is no debt.

A budget surplus only means that the government took more in taxes from us than it spent. But then none of that so called surplus was used to pay down our debt was it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.

The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.

Cut spending. Absolutely.

But how do you intend to raise government revenues.

I have a time proven way.

Cut taxes.

Three times in the past tax cuts have increased government revenue

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

Hmmm would you approve of such a proven strategy?