How Many Liberal Myths are there?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

 

[JRK]

It's hilarious that people who believe in "magical creation" and "Noah's Ark" and "trickle down" would make up MORE myths and then accuse others of believing those "made up" myths. What is it? Delusions, insanity or perhaps the inbreeding? It has to be something.

You know what the biggest difference in a conservative and a liberal?
I do not care you are going to rot in hell, nor would I ever question your faith, or should I say lack of
The Ark is harder to believe than the suns very existence?

Sense Reagan tax cuts went into place this country has added 36 million jobs, well 30 if you do not include the 6 million we have lost sense 2009
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
Thats trickle down

Since Reagan passed the largest tax hike since WW2 and Clinton followed it with the 2nd largest tax hike since WW2, the country has added 36 million jobs.

See how easy that is?

Thats the way the liberals truth works
those tax increases where nothing compared to the original cut that Reagan made. Nothing
you know that, but yet you would rather promote your ideals with 1/4 truths than being hjnest about what is best for this country and the people who live in it

 

[JRK]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[8537]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

 

[8537]

You know what the biggest difference in a conservative and a liberal?
I do not care you are going to rot in hell, nor would I ever question your faith, or should I say lack of
The Ark is harder to believe than the suns very existence?

Sense Reagan tax cuts went into place this country has added 36 million jobs, well 30 if you do not include the 6 million we have lost sense 2009
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
Thats trickle down

Since Reagan passed the largest tax hike since WW2 and Clinton followed it with the 2nd largest tax hike since WW2, the country has added 36 million jobs.

See how easy that is?

Thats the way the liberals truth works
those tax increases where nothing compared to the original cut that Reagan made. Nothing
you know that, but yet you would rather promote your ideals with 1/4 truths than being hjnest about what is best for this country and the people who live in it

Really? Income taxes were about 8.2% of GDP when Reagan took office.
They were about 8% when he left.

Social insurance taxes were about 5.5% of GDP when he took office - but thanks to his decision to dramatically increase SS taxes, that amount increased to about 6.2% by the time he left office.

 

[JRK]

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I see you did not read it
You know being a liberal has to be frustrating
Clinton did things different
the way he used Social Security surplus

At the end of the day the GOP set budget
No matter how you spin it, GOP set policy

Thats called the legislative branch for a reason
And what the Lib dos not understand is the simple fact that was the surplus

with interest it was never a surplus

 

[JRK]

Since Reagan passed the largest tax hike since WW2 and Clinton followed it with the 2nd largest tax hike since WW2, the country has added 36 million jobs.

See how easy that is?

Thats the way the liberals truth works
those tax increases where nothing compared to the original cut that Reagan made. Nothing
you know that, but yet you would rather promote your ideals with 1/4 truths than being hjnest about what is best for this country and the people who live in it

Really? Income taxes were about 8.2% of GDP when Reagan took office.
They were about 8% when he left.

Social insurance taxes were about 5.5% of GDP when he took office - but thanks to his decision to dramatically increase SS taxes, that amount increased to about 6.2% by the time he left office.

Do you guys have a manual to spin everything?
% of GDP?
Social Security tax?
So if I save 4000.00 in income tax and spend 50.00 more a year in SS tax what does that mean?
what are you trying claim with that last post
That people where paying more in SS tax than they where in income tax?

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats the way the liberals truth works
those tax increases where nothing compared to the original cut that Reagan made. Nothing
you know that, but yet you would rather promote your ideals with 1/4 truths than being hjnest about what is best for this country and the people who live in it

Really? Income taxes were about 8.2% of GDP when Reagan took office.
They were about 8% when he left.

Social insurance taxes were about 5.5% of GDP when he took office - but thanks to his decision to dramatically increase SS taxes, that amount increased to about 6.2% by the time he left office.

Do you guys have a manual to spin everything?
% of GDP?
Social Security tax?
So if I save 4000.00 in income tax and spend 50.00 more a year in SS tax what does that mean?
what are you trying claim with that last post
That people where paying more in SS tax than they where in income tax?

He is an economic illiterate and mathematical moron. He is best served with iggy.

 

[8537]

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I see you did not read it

I've read it numerous times. I've addressed it numerous times. And I've addressed its errors yet again in the very post to which you responded.

Thats called the legislative branch for a reason
And what the Lib dos not understand is the simple fact that was the surplus

with interest it was never a surplus

With or without interest, there was a surplus. That's a fact. More revenue entered the government than the government spent during the period.

 

[8537]

Thats the way the liberals truth works
those tax increases where nothing compared to the original cut that Reagan made. Nothing
you know that, but yet you would rather promote your ideals with 1/4 truths than being hjnest about what is best for this country and the people who live in it

Really? Income taxes were about 8.2% of GDP when Reagan took office.
They were about 8% when he left.

Social insurance taxes were about 5.5% of GDP when he took office - but thanks to his decision to dramatically increase SS taxes, that amount increased to about 6.2% by the time he left office.

Do you guys have a manual to spin everything?

No, we have facts.

% of GDP?
Social Security tax?
So if I save 4000.00 in income tax and spend 50.00 more a year in SS tax what does that mean?

The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base. That's why "we" use GDP in many cases.

The social security tax was increased under Reagan. Hence, revenues from social security increased - and your comparison about paying $4,000 less in one and paying 50 more in the other is stupid. The differences were laid out right there in the post - and they weren't a ration of 4000:50.

what are you trying claim with that last post
That people where paying more in SS tax than they where in income tax?

If you can't follow the simple math I presented, I can be of no service. Try reading it again.

 

[8537]

He is an economic illiterate and mathematical moron. He is best served with iggy.

What up, Whitey!

 

[JRK]

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I see you did not read it

I've read it numerous times. I've addressed it numerous times. And I've addressed its errors yet again in the very post to which you responded.

Thats called the legislative branch for a reason
And what the Lib dos not understand is the simple fact that was the surplus

with interest it was never a surplus

With or without interest, there was a surplus. That's a fact. More revenue entered the government than the government spent during the period.

Why must you be this way?
the deficit went up
the years income was more than the out lay but the overall deficit went up

A great example is 2007 when we got within 163 billion of breaking even
that was 5 trillion dollars in deficit ago

 

[CRStar]

Start with Al Gore..."The skies falling"......idiots.

 

[8537]

I see you did not read it

I've read it numerous times. I've addressed it numerous times. And I've addressed its errors yet again in the very post to which you responded.

Thats called the legislative branch for a reason
And what the Lib dos not understand is the simple fact that was the surplus

with interest it was never a surplus

With or without interest, there was a surplus. That's a fact. More revenue entered the government than the government spent during the period.

Why must you be this way?
the deficit went up

Be what way? Honest? My apologies.

I've already explained that the total debt went up because of the manner in which SS is accounted for creating increases in non-binding intra-governmental debt.

The total debt owed to all external (Non-US government) holders of US debt went down. Hence, a decline debt held by the public.

 

[JRK]

Really? Income taxes were about 8.2% of GDP when Reagan took office.
They were about 8% when he left.

Social insurance taxes were about 5.5% of GDP when he took office - but thanks to his decision to dramatically increase SS taxes, that amount increased to about 6.2% by the time he left office.

Do you guys have a manual to spin everything?

No, we have facts.

% of GDP?
Social Security tax?
So if I save 4000.00 in income tax and spend 50.00 more a year in SS tax what does that mean?

The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base. That's why "we" use GDP in many cases.

The social security tax was increased under Reagan. Hence, revenues from social security increased - and your comparison about paying $4,000 less in one and paying 50 more in the other is stupid. The differences were laid out right there in the post - and they weren't a ration of 4000:50.

what are you trying claim with that last post
That people where paying more in SS tax than they where in income tax?

If you can't follow the simple math I presented, I can be of no service. Try reading it again.

There is nothing simple about that information
I went and looked it up and it has as much to do about nothing as anything I have ever seen
This is what is wrong with our country today
At the end of the day your Brooking s spread sheet shows that Clinton was robbing the working man and Reagan was not
Over that 8 year period there deficits were not that far apart, when you look in the context of Obamas


http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

"What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform," said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan's second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

 

[8537]

Do you guys have a manual to spin everything?

No, we have facts.


The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base. That's why "we" use GDP in many cases.

The social security tax was increased under Reagan. Hence, revenues from social security increased - and your comparison about paying $4,000 less in one and paying 50 more in the other is stupid. The differences were laid out right there in the post - and they weren't a ration of 4000:50.

what are you trying claim with that last post
That people where paying more in SS tax than they where in income tax?

If you can't follow the simple math I presented, I can be of no service. Try reading it again.

There is nothing simple about that information

What do you find complicated?

I went and looked it up and it has as much to do about nothing as anything I have ever seen
This is what is wrong with our country today

So, are you agreeing that debt held by the public - the only important binding measure of government indebtedness - declined? 'cuz that's a surplus.

and why link an article that proves my point about Reagan's tax hikes?

 

[JRK]

Another Liberal myth I was reminded not long ago
Corporate tax rate
corporations do not pay taxes
people do
When you cut the corporate tax rate, as long as they pass that savings on to the consumer
Then the consumer gets that in the form of a tax cut
Corporations are just a piece of paper. Try to collect money from that

 

[JRK]

No, we have facts.


The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base. That's why "we" use GDP in many cases.

The social security tax was increased under Reagan. Hence, revenues from social security increased - and your comparison about paying $4,000 less in one and paying 50 more in the other is stupid. The differences were laid out right there in the post - and they weren't a ration of 4000:50.



If you can't follow the simple math I presented, I can be of no service. Try reading it again.

There is nothing simple about that information

What do you find complicated?

I went and looked it up and it has as much to do about nothing as anything I have ever seen
This is what is wrong with our country today

So, are you agreeing that debt held by the public - the only important binding measure of government indebtedness - declined? 'cuz that's a surplus.

and why link an article that proves my point about Reagan's tax hikes?

What do you think that Cons have to lie to prove there points?
did you read it?

Regan cut allot more in taxes than he raised, or as the article states, he accelerated those all ready in place

You still dont get the tax base as a % of GDP do you?
based on the way your trying to use it Clinton was Raping us

 

[8537]

There is nothing simple about that information

What do you find complicated?

I went and looked it up and it has as much to do about nothing as anything I have ever seen
This is what is wrong with our country today

So, are you agreeing that debt held by the public - the only important binding measure of government indebtedness - declined? 'cuz that's a surplus.

and why link an article that proves my point about Reagan's tax hikes?

What do you think that Cons have to lie to prove there points?

Apparently, yes. If you claim there was no surplus in 1999 and 2000 you are either lying or unwittingly repeating a lie you were told.

You still dont get the tax base as a % of GDP do you?

I think I have a passing familiarity with the concept. In fact, I even explained why it's relevant - because, quoting myself, "The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base."

 

[JRK]

What do you find complicated?


So, are you agreeing that debt held by the public - the only important binding measure of government indebtedness - declined? 'cuz that's a surplus.

and why link an article that proves my point about Reagan's tax hikes?

What do you think that Cons have to lie to prove there points?

Apparently, yes. If you claim there was no surplus in 1999 and 2000 you are either lying or unwittingly repeating a lie you were told.

You still dont get the tax base as a % of GDP do you?

I think I have a passing familiarity with the concept. In fact, I even explained why it's relevant - because, quoting myself, "The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base."

Mr. 8537 I do not repeat anything
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Thats as simple as I can make it for you
Calling a man a liar when all of a sudden this shows up has to hurt
I hope you learn from this

Tax revenue as a part of GDP means nothing when the UE rate is 3% vs 10%
You know that