Deficit Spending and hyocrisy, a debate worth having.

"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?

I would.

Anyone would think the clowns in DC could catch a clue. What worked in the past will work now. Duuuuuuhhhhhhh.

Raising taxes has never worked. Jeeze. These guys are usless.
 
"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.

Frank is never correct, always far, far right - fringe, just like you.
Look carefully at your own chart and you will see a trend, begin with 1977 (Carter's first budget) and notice the % of GDP; follow the trend forward, comparing Repubican Presidents and Democratic Presidents - forget who held Congress for a moment. Did not each president from Carter thorught Obama hold the power of veto?
Next, consider the historical evidence. When, since 1916 did the % of GDP grow enormously? Duriing these periods: WW I; WW II; Nixon/Ford; Reagan and Bush.

A trillion sends electric charges down the legs of you tea baggers, yet the % of GDP is not historically high, and doesn't (or hadn't in the past) meant doom for our nation's economy. The greatest threat to the union is the divisive and course language of you and others who have clamored hysterically from the day Obama was nominated, and continued with the effort to make his administration a failure. A tactic used against Clinton successfully, and as hateful now as then.

Finally consider the Bush budgets, voted for by both some Democrats and all Republicans in the Congress. How honest and transparent were?
Consider what Bush and the Congress did: They cut taxes and invaded Iraq. Worse, they funded the war and occupation of Iraq off budget. Worse still, they ignored warnings that the economy was too hot, and failed to reign in Wall Street, and much, much worse they continued to borrow money and spend like a drunken sailor.
Now, consider the words of Bush and the R's and then their deeds. Did Bush advocate nation building during the 2000 Campaign? Yet, what has he done?
Did he decry the Democrats as "tax and spenders" and claim he and the R's were fiscally responsible? You bet he did, and what did he and the Republican Congress do?
And now, after one year in office, we hear the same bull shit from the right. Of course most of you wingers of the right have (rightly so) tossed the Republican hypocrits under the bus. But, you're all too willing to condemn Obama and the Democrats for spending on our infrastructure, our people and our nation by building not destroying.
What did we get from the Iraq invasion? What if Bush and the R's had put $ trillions into our infrastructure? Gee, thousands of young Americans would still be alive today, thousands would still have their arms, legs and vision; a real coalition of willing nations would have used the network of police and security agents to track down the criminials who planned and financed 9/11; using tried and true investigative techniques we would have brought to justice the source of command and control and they would have found no where to hide in a world united against terrorist attacks on civillians.
Instead the idiot in chief called for a crusade - how dumb was that.
 
"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.

Frank is never correct, always far, far right - fringe, just like you.
Look carefully at your own chart and you will see a trend, begin with 1977 (Carter's first budget) and notice the % of GDP; follow the trend forward, comparing Repubican Presidents and Democratic Presidents - forget who held Congress for a moment. Did not each president from Carter thorught Obama hold the power of veto?
Next, consider the historical evidence. When, since 1916 did the % of GDP grow enormously? Duriing these periods: WW I; WW II; Nixon/Ford; Reagan and Bush.

A trillion sends electric charges down the legs of you tea baggers, yet the % of GDP is not historically high, and doesn't (or hadn't in the past) meant doom for our nation's economy. The greatest threat to the union is the divisive and course language of you and others who have clamored hysterically from the day Obama was nominated, and continued with the effort to make his administration a failure. A tactic used against Clinton successfully, and as hateful now as then.

Finally consider the Bush budgets, voted for by both some Democrats and all Republicans in the Congress. How honest and transparent were?
Consider what Bush and the Congress did: They cut taxes and invaded Iraq. Worse, they funded the war and occupation of Iraq off budget. Worse still, they ignored warnings that the economy was too hot, and failed to reign in Wall Street, and much, much worse they continued to borrow money and spend like a drunken sailor.
Now, consider the words of Bush and the R's and then their deeds. Did Bush advocate nation building during the 2000 Campaign? Yet, what has he done?
Did he decry the Democrats as "tax and spenders" and claim he and the R's were fiscally responsible? You bet he did, and what did he and the Republican Congress do?
And now, after one year in office, we hear the same bull shit from the right. Of course most of you wingers of the right have (rightly so) tossed the Republican hypocrits under the bus. But, you're all too willing to condemn Obama and the Democrats for spending on our infrastructure, our people and our nation by building not destroying.
What did we get from the Iraq invasion? What if Bush and the R's had put $ trillions into our infrastructure? Gee, thousands of young Americans would still be alive today, thousands would still have their arms, legs and vision; a real coalition of willing nations would have used the network of police and security agents to track down the criminials who planned and financed 9/11; using tried and true investigative techniques we would have brought to justice the source of command and control and they would have found no where to hide in a world united against terrorist attacks on civillians.
Instead the idiot in chief called for a crusade - how dumb was that.

I see, you don't know what a surplus is, fair enough. You know economics like Obama knows bowling
 
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"
 
Last edited:
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?

No it was not, as was pointed out in my post.
You can have a surplus of revenue, when the revenue is greater than the expenses in the annual budget year. That is what Clinton did in the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 budgets. Then came Bush.
You may not understand, but budgets are a year in advance. That is why the 2001 budget was a Clinton budget, and the 2009 Budget was a Bush budget.
 
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"

My post stated, forget for a minute who controlled Congress...all presidents have the power to veto legislation. This is why your a liar Frank, everything you post is based on propaganda you hear and nothing is based on an honest evaluation of anything.

Those who attacked the WTC in the first month of the Clinton Administration are in jail, and will be until they die.
After 9/11 there were 16 major attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. See the list: Major terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001

Instead of calling for a crusade as Bush did, dozens of other victim nations would have been willing to commit intelligence sources, police agencies and especially fiscal detectives to work on who, what and where the command and control of terror activites was occuring. Instead cowboy diplomacy prevailed, and implemented a plan against Iraq developed in the mid 90's. And fools like you still believe Bush acted responsibly.
 
Last edited:
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"

The Republicans controlled Congress from 2002 through 2006. They didn't need the Democrats to reign in the GSEs.

Also, when we have fought wars in the past, we have increased taxes to pay for those wars. Taxes went down during the global war on terror, though the Iraq war was one of the most expensive wars in history.
 
We have to cut spending that does not lead to real progress for this country and raise taxes.

That is the ONLY way it can happen.

raise taxes? so you're saying your boyO is gonna break his promise to the middle class? Or who is he going to target?

I think he's saying that regardless of the promise, that in order to get a handle on our finances, (regardless of who is in charge) we need to raise taxes (increase revenues in the world of politics) and cut spending. It can't be an 'or' proposition. It must be an 'and' proposition.
 
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?

No it was not, as was pointed out in my post.
You can have a surplus of revenue, when the revenue is greater than the expenses in the annual budget year. That is what Clinton did in the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 budgets. Then came Bush.
You may not understand, but budgets are a year in advance. That is why the 2001 budget was a Clinton budget, and the 2009 Budget was a Bush budget.

Clinton ran a budget surplus. The debt rose under Clinton because noncash accruals in the trusts, i.e. Social Security and Medicare rose at a faster rate than the economy.

This isn't debatable. Its like arguing whether or not the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
 
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"

My post stated, forget for a minute who controlled Congress...all presidents have the power to veto legislation. This is why your a liar Frank, everything you post is based on propaganda you hear and nothing is based on an honest evaluation of anything.

Those who attacked the WTC in the first month of the Clinton Administration are in jail, and will be until they die.
After 9/11 there were 16 major attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. See the list: Major terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001

Instead of calling for a crusade as Bush did, dozens of other victim nations would have been willing to commit intelligence sources, police agencies and expecially fiscal detectives to work on who, what and where the command and control of terror activites was occuring. Instead cowboy diplomacy prevailed, and implemented a plan against Iraq developed in the mid 90's. And fools like you still believe Bush acted responsibly.

The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.

The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.

It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order"

Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.

And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters
 
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"

The Republicans controlled Congress from 2002 through 2006. They didn't need the Democrats to reign in the GSEs.

Also, when we have fought wars in the past, we have increased taxes to pay for those wars. Taxes went down during the global war on terror, though the Iraq war was one of the most expensive wars in history.

The Dems made sure that Republican needed 60 votes to pass reform of the GSE or to reform entitlements, remember?
 
Gingrich Congress ran the "surpluses", Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare, remember?
 
Frank is never correct, always far, far right - fringe, just like you.
Look carefully at your own chart and you will see a trend, begin with 1977 (Carter's first budget) and notice the % of GDP; follow the trend forward, comparing Repubican Presidents and Democratic Presidents - forget who held Congress for a moment. Did not each president from Carter thorught Obama hold the power of veto?
Next, consider the historical evidence. When, since 1916 did the % of GDP grow enormously? Duriing these periods: WW I; WW II; Nixon/Ford; Reagan and Bush.

There you go again, as Reagan said.
The opposite of "correct" is not "far, far right-fringe." They are not mutually exclusive, regardless of your biased beliefs.
Next, we are not concerned with trends. We are concerned with numbers. And the numbers show that Barry has amped the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only number that really matters) way beyond Bush, the highest in peacetime ever.
We cannot "forget who held Congress." Congress is responsible for producing a budget. And the Dums have held Congress during those years you claim the deficit has skyrocketed.
Try not spinning so much and the truth will come out.
 
Gingrich Congress ran the "surpluses", Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare, remember?

By your logic, then, Reagan never cut taxes. The Democrats who controlled the House were just as responsible as the Republicans in the Senate for cutting taxes.

The Democrats - party of tax cuts.

That's good to know.

do you know how different it was when Reagan was president? Scalia got 90 votes!!!!!
 
Wry also missed: 9/11, we tried arresting Islamists and that didn't work out so well for us after the 93 WTC attack, Bush tried numerous times to rein in Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by the Dems

Oh and that most of all, "forget who controlled Congress" is like the old standed economist joke saying "assume we have a can opener"

My post stated, forget for a minute who controlled Congress...all presidents have the power to veto legislation. This is why your a liar Frank, everything you post is based on propaganda you hear and nothing is based on an honest evaluation of anything.

Those who attacked the WTC in the first month of the Clinton Administration are in jail, and will be until they die.
After 9/11 there were 16 major attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. See the list: Major terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001

Instead of calling for a crusade as Bush did, dozens of other victim nations would have been willing to commit intelligence sources, police agencies and expecially fiscal detectives to work on who, what and where the command and control of terror activites was occuring. Instead cowboy diplomacy prevailed, and implemented a plan against Iraq developed in the mid 90's. And fools like you still believe Bush acted responsibly.

The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.

The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.

It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order
Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.

And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters

Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.
 
Anyone who thinks in terms of a balanced budget, instead of a reduced budget probably won't be very helpful in moving our nation forward. Entitlement costs are too the moon, and let's be honest, it's because government allowed it to fail. Medicare costs and charges are higher due to government regulated payments to the industry, and the costs are cheaper outside of Medicare. One fourth of all public employees, and it used to be a lot worse, do not pay into Social Security. This should be illegal, and one major reason SS sees a shortfall. Also, government should never have been allowed to borrow from SS either.

We need a government with the courage to take on the inadequacies of entitlements, make harsh but right decisions, and get all Americans on the same page.

End government pensions as well, especially unfunded pension guarantees, but no government worker wants to hear that.......
 
My post stated, forget for a minute who controlled Congress...all presidents have the power to veto legislation. This is why your a liar Frank, everything you post is based on propaganda you hear and nothing is based on an honest evaluation of anything.

Those who attacked the WTC in the first month of the Clinton Administration are in jail, and will be until they die.
After 9/11 there were 16 major attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. See the list: Major terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001

Instead of calling for a crusade as Bush did, dozens of other victim nations would have been willing to commit intelligence sources, police agencies and expecially fiscal detectives to work on who, what and where the command and control of terror activites was occuring. Instead cowboy diplomacy prevailed, and implemented a plan against Iraq developed in the mid 90's. And fools like you still believe Bush acted responsibly.

The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.

The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.

It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order
Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.

And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters

Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.

You forgot to add the phrase "imperialist running dog." That would make your post more credible than what it was.
 
Anyone who thinks in terms of a balanced budget, instead of a reduced budget probably won't be very helpful in moving our nation forward. Entitlement costs are too the moon, and let's be honest, it's because government allowed it to fail. Medicare costs and charges are higher due to government regulated payments to the industry, and the costs are cheaper outside of Medicare. One fourth of all public employees, and it used to be a lot worse, do not pay into Social Security. This should be illegal, and one major reason SS sees a shortfall. Also, government should never have been allowed to borrow from SS either.

We need a government with the courage to take on the inadequacies of entitlements, make harsh but right decisions, and get all Americans on the same page.

End government pensions as well, especially unfunded pension guarantees, but no government worker wants to hear that.......

Was revenue received from the taxpayers and their employers put in a locked box, or was it spent to fund the Iraq adventure?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top