Liberals lets get something straight about debt

The tax cuts are still in place. ALL that you cite happened under the Bush tax cuts.

The tax rate had 0 to do with the housing collapse except maybe helping people to hold on to there home longer because of the money they would have been allowed to keep
tax policy is only part of the big picture
allowing one to keep more wealth? how does that harm me?

You can't use the Bush tax cuts to claim credit for job creation and then arbitrarily stop claiming the tax cuts had any influence when the jobs begin to disappear.

You've been running in this nonsensical fallacy now for several weeks and it's really getting tedious. You're using the classic rightwing debating tactic of simply relentlessly repeating some myth that's already been debunked several times over,

thinking I guess, that you can just wear people down until they ignore your false claims and then by default you'll claim they were unrefuted.

Stop.

I have not made one false claim and I have no intent to wear anybody down
the truth is boring, very boring
Tax policy had very little to do with the housing crises, if anything. The housing crises is 99.99999% of the reason we sit in the mess we sit in
to be honest the govt., both left and right had little to do with this very greedy event
Clinton's tax policy I think began in 93-94
by 00 the wheels were starting to wobble, for what ever reason you can guess
by 03, when GWB tax policy went into play we had lost 2 million jobs and had a small recession,

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Tedious? if you do not like accurate information, I am truly sorry
 
To right wingers, "revenue" means taxes.

"investment" means wild spending.

"Supply and Demand"? They don't know what that means.

And we are going to take lessons from the very people who brought the biggest economic powerhouse the world has ever seen, to it's knees?
 
To right wingers, "revenue" means taxes.

"investment" means wild spending.

"Supply and Demand"? They don't know what that means.

And we are going to take lessons from the very people who brought the biggest economic powerhouse the world has ever seen, to it's knees?

when this event took place Obama has just been elected and the Dems had control of congress for 22 months]
So exactly what did the GOP do to cause this?

Noe before you answer that with the exception of the repel of glass segall the US govt had nothing to do with the greed that caused this housing melt-down
Perfect storm? yes
But the root cause was simple greed

But sense you feel the GOP caused all of this, please tells us why
 
The tax rate had 0 to do with the housing collapse except maybe helping people to hold on to there home longer because of the money they would have been allowed to keep
tax policy is only part of the big picture
allowing one to keep more wealth? how does that harm me?

You can't use the Bush tax cuts to claim credit for job creation and then arbitrarily stop claiming the tax cuts had any influence when the jobs begin to disappear.

You've been running in this nonsensical fallacy now for several weeks and it's really getting tedious. You're using the classic rightwing debating tactic of simply relentlessly repeating some myth that's already been debunked several times over,

thinking I guess, that you can just wear people down until they ignore your false claims and then by default you'll claim they were unrefuted.

Stop.

I have not made one false claim and I have no intent to wear anybody down
the truth is boring, very boring
Tax policy had very little to do with the housing crises, if anything. The housing crises is 99.99999% of the reason we sit in the mess we sit in
to be honest the govt., both left and right had little to do with this very greedy event
Clinton's tax policy I think began in 93-94
by 00 the wheels were starting to wobble, for what ever reason you can guess
by 03, when GWB tax policy went into play we had lost 2 million jobs and had a small recession,

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Tedious? if you do not like accurate information, I am truly sorry

You're trying to credit Bush tax policy with anything good that happened from 2001 on, and at the same time exempt it from anything bad that happened.

That's a bit preposterous.

What really happened is that the Bush tax cuts coupled with some very real needs for revenue, not the least of which were 2 wars, brought back triple digit deficits and trillions added to the national debt.

At some point in time some of you tax cut happy folks on the right need to concede that maybe, just maybe, there is a point where taxes are too low.

You need to make Americans PAY for the government they're getting. You can't starve the beast when the beast has a credit card; that was the fundamental error in Reagan's thinking,

and conservatives are still getting that wrong.
 
Bush raised taxes in 1991.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

Republicans called Clinton's the "largest tax hike in history." and told us it would destroy the economy, that jobs would be lost and that it would cause a recession (this includes Republicans who are now opting for the Republican nomination, but the Republican memory is short so no one remembers....).

What happened after those two tax hikes? Someone remind me now....

Oh, right, now I remember: The longest and largest expansion in US history, with the creation of 22 million jobs and a balanced budget. In fact, Bush ran on tax cuts to refund the surplus to people.
 
Bush raised taxes in 1991.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

Republicans called Clinton's the "largest tax hike in history." and told us it would destroy the economy, that jobs would be lost and that it would cause a recession (this includes Republicans who are now opting for the Republican nomination, but the Republican memory is short so no one remembers....).

What happened after those two tax hikes? Someone remind me now....

Oh, right, now I remember: The longest and largest expansion in US history, with the creation of 22 million jobs and a balanced budget. In fact, Bush ran on tax cuts to refund the surplus to people.

The 22 million jobs?
thats not correct under Clinton's tax policy
I think we also have debate on largest economic growth period
It is widely known that would be under Reagan term
The numbers included in this link and as supplied bu congress clearly shows the truth
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy | The Heritage Foundation

here is your job growth, Clintons tax policy
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I have grown very bored with this Clinton balanced budget
The Liberal wants it, fine
I thank the GOP congress for getting it for us
Fair enough?
I mean tax policy has some to do with budgets
so does Social Security surplus (see Obamas freeze on SS payment hikes)
So does the economy (see recession for GWB and BHO)
what the liberal keeps repeating is that Obama can spend my money better than I can and by doing that Obama will create jobs
OK
 
only crazy people intentionally cut their own income to below what they need to pay their bills.

That is our debt problem in a nutshell

To intentionally cut your income (tax revenue) without cutting your spending first is inviting debt. Reagan started us on this path and we haven't learned since

Cutting taxes is EASY
Spending on new programs is EASY

Doing the opposite is HARD. It keeps you from being elected
 
Bush raised taxes in 1991.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

Republicans called Clinton's the "largest tax hike in history." and told us it would destroy the economy, that jobs would be lost and that it would cause a recession (this includes Republicans who are now opting for the Republican nomination, but the Republican memory is short so no one remembers....).

What happened after those two tax hikes? Someone remind me now....

Oh, right, now I remember: The longest and largest expansion in US history, with the creation of 22 million jobs and a balanced budget. In fact, Bush ran on tax cuts to refund the surplus to people.

The 22 million jobs?
thats not correct under Clinton's tax policy
I didn't say that Clinton's tax policy created 22M jobs. Please read before you respond and, if need be, read again.

But thanks for the link that shows....21M jobs created!

I think we also have debate on largest economic growth period

Well, we can "Debate" it, but you'd just be arguing against established fact and making yourself look stupid.


I have grown very bored with this Clinton balanced budget
The Liberal wants it, fine
I thank the GOP congress for getting it for us
Fair enough?

The same GOP that claimed that 1993 tax hike was going to destroy the economy and decrease revenue? I'll give the later GOP a bit of credit for reaching a respectable compromise on budget issues.

what the liberal keeps repeating is that Obama can spend my money better than I can and by doing that Obama will create jobs
OK

Which liberal is repeating that?
 
Last edited:
only crazy people intentionally cut their own income to below what they need to pay their bills.

That is our debt problem in a nutshell

To intentionally cut your income (tax revenue) without cutting your spending first is inviting debt. Reagan started us on this path and we haven't learned since

Cutting taxes is EASY
Spending on new programs is EASY

Doing the opposite is HARD. It keeps you from being elected

We will never know will we?
9-11?
I was very much against no child left behind
I was very much for separating Medicare from the general pool

In addition

Reagan's policy had nothing to do with the economy 5 years later?
Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the economy 7 tears later?
9-11 had nothing to do with Bushes policy?
The dot comm bubble busting had nothing to do with revenue?
The amount of excess Social Security from 97-07 being spent on other items in the govt had nothing to do with the GOP congress surplus in the late 90s and the out of control deficits with the Democratic congress of the late term of GWB?
Is this why he would not sign the 2009 budget?

Never let a crises go to waste

we spent an avg of 150 billion a year on the 2 wars with the most being spent in 07, we had a deficit of 162 billion that year
without 9-11 how many surpluses do we have from 03-07?

And what did tax policy have to do with the housing bubble?

I am not trying to be difficult
 
only crazy people intentionally cut their own income to below what they need to pay their bills.

That is our debt problem in a nutshell

To intentionally cut your income (tax revenue) without cutting your spending first is inviting debt. Reagan started us on this path and we haven't learned since

Cutting taxes is EASY
Spending on new programs is EASY

Doing the opposite is HARD. It keeps you from being elected

We will never know will we?
9-11?
I was very much against no child left behind
I was very much for separating Medicare from the general pool

In addition

Reagan's policy had nothing to do with the economy 5 years later?
Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the economy 7 tears later?
9-11 had nothing to do with Bushes policy?
The dot comm bubble busting had nothing to do with revenue?
The amount of excess Social Security from 97-07 being spent on other items in the govt had nothing to do with the GOP congress surplus in the late 90s and the out of control deficits with the Democratic congress of the late term of GWB?
Is this why he would not sign the 2009 budget?

Never let a crises go to waste

we spent an avg of 150 billion a year on the 2 wars with the most being spent in 07, we had a deficit of 162 billion that year
without 9-11 how many surpluses do we have from 03-07?

And what did tax policy have to do with the housing bubble?

I am not trying to be difficult

Basically, Americans are lazy, selfish and spoiled

We want low taxes and we want all of OUR programs. The programs that help other people can be cut. To tame a $14 trillion debt, everyone needs to sacrifice. Not just the rich, not just the welfare people.
Taxes need to be raised...on everyone
Social programs need to be trimmed
We can't afford two wars that have been going on for 10 years
We need to look at the role of our military around the world. More countries need to handle their own problems
 
Bush raised taxes in 1991.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

Republicans called Clinton's the "largest tax hike in history." and told us it would destroy the economy, that jobs would be lost and that it would cause a recession (this includes Republicans who are now opting for the Republican nomination, but the Republican memory is short so no one remembers....).

What happened after those two tax hikes? Someone remind me now....

Oh, right, now I remember: The longest and largest expansion in US history, with the creation of 22 million jobs and a balanced budget. In fact, Bush ran on tax cuts to refund the surplus to people.

The 22 million jobs?
thats not correct under Clinton's tax policy
I didn't say that Clinton's tax policy created 22M jobs. Please read before you respond and, if need be, read again.

But thanks for the link that shows....21M jobs created!



Well, we can "Debate" it, but you'd just be arguing against established fact and making yourself look stupid.


I have grown very bored with this Clinton balanced budget
The Liberal wants it, fine
I thank the GOP congress for getting it for us
Fair enough?

The same GOP that claimed that 1993 tax hike was going to destroy the economy and decrease revenue? I'll give the later GOP a bit of credit for reaching a respectable compromise on budget issues.

what the liberal keeps repeating is that Obama can spend my money better than I can and by doing that Obama will create jobs
OK

Which liberal is repeating that?

You really have a hard time with information
let me try this again
9 years
19.5 million
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259

Now lets go from 82-91
about 19.8 million
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695

Now what are we trying to prove here?
and let me add that if you do not think that the massive job growth during the 80s had nothing to do with the massive job growth in the 90s, Thats ok with me

I am sure there was just as many liberals that said bushes tax cuts would destroy the economy
WHAT DID ANYONES TAX POLICY HAVE TO DO WITH THE HOUSING CRISES?
look bud
I want to keep more of my wealth
Is there something wrong with that?
I am giving up close to 20,000 a year in taxes
how much more is enough?
 
The 22 million jobs?
thats not correct under Clinton's tax policy
I didn't say that Clinton's tax policy created 22M jobs. Please read before you respond and, if need be, read again.

But thanks for the link that shows....21M jobs created!



Well, we can "Debate" it, but you'd just be arguing against established fact and making yourself look stupid.




The same GOP that claimed that 1993 tax hike was going to destroy the economy and decrease revenue? I'll give the later GOP a bit of credit for reaching a respectable compromise on budget issues.

what the liberal keeps repeating is that Obama can spend my money better than I can and by doing that Obama will create jobs
OK

Which liberal is repeating that?

You really have a hard time with information
let me try this again
9 years
19.5 million
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322
2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441

131,826,000 - 110,184,000 = 21,642,000 jobs.

Now what are we trying to prove here?

We're just trying to figure out what you're talking about.

and let me add that if you do not think that the massive job growth during the 80s had nothing to do with the massive job growth in the 90s, Thats ok with me
That's OK with me, too.

WHAT DID ANYONES TAX POLICY HAVE TO DO WITH THE HOUSING CRISES?

You're debating a strawman of your own creation. I never made any such claim.
 
I didn't say that Clinton's tax policy created 22M jobs. Please read before you respond and, if need be, read again.

But thanks for the link that shows....21M jobs created!



Well, we can "Debate" it, but you'd just be arguing against established fact and making yourself look stupid.




The same GOP that claimed that 1993 tax hike was going to destroy the economy and decrease revenue? I'll give the later GOP a bit of credit for reaching a respectable compromise on budget issues.



Which liberal is repeating that?

You really have a hard time with information
let me try this again
9 years
19.5 million
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322
2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441

131,826,000 - 110,184,000 = 21,642,000 jobs.
still not 22
and Clinton tax policy for much of capital gains etc.. was still in place until 03



We're just trying to figure out what you're talking about.
We?


and let me add that if you do not think that the massive job growth during the 80s had nothing to do with the massive job growth in the 90s, Thats ok with me
That's OK with me, too.

WHAT DID ANYONES TAX POLICY HAVE TO DO WITH THE HOUSING CRISES?

You're debating a strawman of your own creation. I never made any such claim.

No your claims do not include it, as it is not part of the reason we are were we are
 

Forum List

Back
Top