Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[The Derp]

Deficits forever mean increasing debt forever.
Debt forever means interest forever.
Interest forever means interest on interest.

OK, but we've been paying interest on interest since the 1840's, so explain how it's somehow different today? Since the economy is also growing at the same rate of debt, what is your concern?

So basically your anti-debt argument is with regard to interest; OK, well then why do you push polices that create deficits and debt, causing interest? It's your Bush Tax Cuts that erased the surplus and turned it into four record deficits. It's your War on Terror that was not funded or paid for, that we'll be paying for the next 60-70 years. It's your Medicare Part-D that was unfunded that Obama had to fix with the ACA. So all your shit is the cause of the thing you are complaining about. So how are you not making a masturbatory argument?

Interest on interest means increasing interest levels.
Increasing interest levels means less faith in the US dollar.
Less faith in the US dollar means collateralized loans.

Nonsense. Conservatives have been predicting the decline of the dollar's power since 2009 and they've been wrong. So if your assessment of the decline in the value of our dollar has been wrong the last 8 years, why the fuck would the prediction ever come true?

Basically, your argument is that something might happen. When? You don't know. How? You don't know. Why? You don't know. Only that you think something might happen and thus, are crafting your thinking around that might. But as we're finding out in this thread, that might of yours isn't supported by anything and feels more like you trying to throw as much shit up against the walls as you can, hoping one of your turds will stick.

 

[hadit]

There are ways to become a high earner without a degree.
1. Own a business.
2. Learn a skilled trade.

Nope. Wrong.

1. The average small business income is merely $100K a year, with the bulk of small businesses earning below that. So talking point #1 of yours is flushed down the toilet.

2. How are you to learn a skilled trade if you have no money to pay for that training? Secondly, even getting a skilled trade doesn't result in you being a high earner. On average, going without a college degree means you'll earn 56% less than someone with a college degree. More facts that you seem unable to reconcile because you live in fantasyland.

College graduates, on average, earned 56% more than high school grads in 2015, according to data compiled by the Economic Policy Institute. That was up from 51% in 1999 and is the largest such gap in EPI's figures dating to 1973.

​

So you tell people if they want to earn more, to forego college (!) and learn a skilled trade even though those with skilled trades earn less than half of those with a college degree. So you're telling people lies.

Bull. It can be done. Your partisan blinders prevent you from seeing it, but it can be done.

College isn't for everyone. All you're doing is setting up some people for failure by trying to convince them to go into debt for tens or hundreds of thousands only to wash out.

Sure, being a doctor pays more than being an electrician, but being an electrician pays more than being a music teacher.

As for training, it's cheaper to be an apprentice for a couple of years than to go to college for four years.

I've seen it happen.

 

[BlindBoo]

1. For every exception there could be a plan to recoup the deficit.

That "plan" involves higher user fees, excise taxes, and penalties in order to scramble at the last minute to balance a budget. And those all hit the middle class harder than the 1%. Again, we just saw this play out in Kansas. What I don't understand is why if the policy fails in the "laboratory of democracy" known as individual states, are you still advocating this thinking and using these arguments? Are you not aware of the world around you?

Kansas cut taxes, promised growth and the moon and the stars, saw growth below the national average and the erasing of a surplus, then raised taxes 4 years later and -magically, inexplicably- the deficit disappeared!

But but but...how is that possible if we're told higher taxes on the rich reduce revenues and negatively affect the economy? Someone is not being truthful. Is it the actual statistics and facts, or is it the people trying to sell a false bill of goods? Hmmmm...that's a tough one...

2. As long as the deficit is within the possible range that economic growth could compensate, it could. But we are no where near that mark.

In no world, in no reality, have tax cuts ever paid for themselves. Never. Not once. Ever.

Who said anything about cutting taxes, raising user fees ...... or what Happened in Kansas?

 

[Dragonlady]

to the contrary....
You show an absolute lack of understand for basic economics...then you post nonsesne without source links but "emotionally" you expect intelligent people to follow along?

Good luck

btw...to say that "Tax cuts cause the national debt" is all the proof that's needed to debunk you completely. It's laughable if not hysterical.

If you actually believe the crap you're posting then you are beyond repair.

Tax cuts create deficits. This conservative fantasy that tax cuts lead to growth and create jobs is just that - a fantasy. It didn't happen under Reagan and I didn't happen under Bush. What did it do is increase the deficit, which in turn, increased the national debt.

Republicans have given up all talk of reducing the deficit and are now fixated on cutting taxes once again. Third times the charm I guess.

 

[The Derp]

Can you not discuss without acting so emotional? You come across as a child.

You're the ones making emotional arguments here, not me. You're the ones screaming like your hair's on fire because of the deficits and debts your shit policies caused. Then you posture on message boards like you know what you're saying (but clearly don't). You just make shit up as you go. Which is why Conservative policy never works. Because it's all reactionary, emotional bullshit.

Most people do not believe much of the statistics coming out of government..

Let the gaslighting begin. The government organizations producing these numbers are non-partisan and have no reason to obstruct the truth. But you do. You have every reason in the world to obstruct the truth and lie about conclusions -and you people have been caught doing that very thing, as recently as 2010. So I would say, why the fuck should anyone believe the numbers you're putting forth, since just a few years ago, you all were lying about debt's effects on the economy by producing numbers that were altered by spreadsheet errors, and data omissions?

Like, seriously...you say you don't believe government numbers, yet you believe those of liars? Why? Because the liars confirm your biases. You're not some great thinker...you're not a thinker at all. You're just a mynah bird.

Especially under the Obama administration. We have yet to see how much corruption is in the Trump administration.

You refuse to accept any numbers that contradict your limited capacity for thinking. We get it. We know that it's impossible for an egomaniac to ever admit they're wrong. That's why you double-down on policy ideas you know fail. What I don't understand is how does someone's ego get so fragile that they gaslight numbers they don't like? Probably because your parents did a shit job raising you.

You believe the things that you feel support your own beliefs.

See, this is where the problem is; facts aren't something you believe, they are something you accept. I know your parents probably raised you to think that as long as you believed in something, that something was true. Well, welcome to adulthood. That ain't the case. I don't believe the facts, I accept them. You said yourself that you refuse to accept facts. So we can't have an honest debate because you're not being honest about the facts. You are trying to gaslight them because they don't support what you believe. I don't believe that tax cuts create debt, I accept it.

I try not to be so emotional and study the larger picture and all points of view.

But you'e not doing that, as is evidenced by your screeching about gross debt numbers. You're not looking at the big pidcture because if you did, you'd look at what was produced by Obama's spending; 11,000,000 net private sector jobs, stock market at record highs above 20,000 from the 6,500 where you left it, deficit reduced by 2/3, record low uninsured rate, 84 months of positive job growth that came to an end last month thanks to Trump and shitty Conservative policies.

So don't lie to me and say you look at the big picture; you don't.

Honestly, if I took the time I could gather the evidence to completely shut you down....but in all honesty....it is not worth my time. My time is much better spent doing things off the forum that make a real difference in stopping people who believe such nonsense.

Honestly, I think you're full of shit and there exists no evidence in the world to support any of your conclusions. This is you seeking a way to extricate yourself from the debate while preserving your fragile ego. Ugh.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

to the contrary....
You show an absolute lack of understand for basic economics...then you post nonsesne without source links but "emotionally" you expect intelligent people to follow along?

Good luck

btw...to say that "Tax cuts cause the national debt" is all the proof that's needed to debunk you completely. It's laughable if not hysterical.

If you actually believe the crap you're posting then you are beyond repair.

Tax cuts create deficits. This conservative fantasy that tax cuts lead to growth and create jobs is just that - a fantasy. It didn't happen under Reagan and I didn't happen under Bush. What did it do is increase the deficit, which in turn, increased the national debt.

Republicans have given up all talk of reducing the deficit and are now fixated on cutting taxes once again. Third times the charm I guess.

This conservative fantasy that tax cuts lead to growth and create jobs is just that - a fantasy. It didn't happen under Reagan and I didn't happen under Bush.

It worked for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

 

[The Derp]

Who said anything about cutting taxes, raising user fees ...... or what Happened in Kansas?

Because what happened in the "laboratory of democracy" is exactly what will happen nationwide, and has already happened nationwide.

 

[The Derp]

It worked for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

No it didn't, and we've already been over how this is bullshit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

Wrong. O racked up 8 trillion. More than all previous presidents combined.

Wrong. O racked up 8 trillion.

$9.3 trillion.

Thats correct. I didn't add the last fiscal year.

 

[The Derp]

Bull. It can be done. Your partisan blinders prevent you from seeing it, but it can be done.

What "can be done" is not what the standard is. The statistics show that not getting a college degree means you are likely to earn 56% less than someone with a college degree. It's a fantasy that you can be a high earner in this economy without a college degree, or mommy and daddy giving you a $1M starter loan.

College isn't for everyone. All you're doing is setting up some people for failure by trying to convince them to go into debt for tens or hundreds of thousands only to wash out..

Here's a handy little chart from BLS that shows the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be employed and the more your weekly wage is:

You were saying?

Sure, being a doctor pays more than being an electrician, but being an electrician pays more than being a music teacher.

Depends on where you're a music teacher, and what level experience you have. Looking at the above chart, the dumber you are, the more likely you are to be unemployed and earn less. These are facts from BLS. Your anti-college stance isn't about skills, employment, or wages. Your anti-college stance is about keeping people dumb so they'll buy into your shit ideas.

As for training, it's cheaper to be an apprentice for a couple of years than to go to college for four years. I've seen it happen.

I don't believe what you claim to have seen because for all I know, you're just making that shit up to lend credibility to an argument you clearly recognize has none. And do you think apprenticeships are just handed out, willy-nilly? They're not. Also, who pays for the apprenticeship?

 

[BlindBoo]

Who said anything about cutting taxes, raising user fees ...... or what Happened in Kansas?

Because what happened in the "laboratory of democracy" is exactly what will happen nationwide, and has already happened nationwide.

I think their formula was fucked up. I mean it was a Republican plan. Doesn't mean we give up.

 

[The Derp]

I think their formula was fucked up. I mean it was a Republican plan. Doesn't mean we give up.

So there's a magic formula that exists where tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, we've been seeking that formula for 37 years, isn't it possible such a formula doesn't actually exist?

 

[Cellblock2429]

I think their formula was fucked up. I mean it was a Republican plan. Doesn't mean we give up.

So there's a magic formula that exists where tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, we've been seeking that formula for 37 years, isn't it possible such a formula doesn't actually exist?

/-----/
OK Sparky, now that I'm of my iPhone on on my PC I can find the charts I needed. Please note the tax revenue increases during the Reagan tax cut years:
Sooooooo how is it possible that revenues went up while the tax rates went down? Well Libtard? Explain it.
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
• FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
• FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
• FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
• FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
• FY 1989 - $991 billion.
• FY 1988 - $909 billion.
• FY 1987 - $854 billion.
• FY 1986 - $769 billion.
• FY 1985 - $734 billion.
• FY 1984 - $666 billion.
• FY 1983 - $601 billion.
• FY 1982 - $618 billion.
• FY 1981 - $599 billion.
• FY 1980 - $517 billion.

 

[Spare_change]

We can only control what we can control.

Income is a finite number. There is only so much money being earned. That number is NOT determined by the government. The government can only control how much they SPEND.

The amount of taxable income is determined by a multitude of outside factors, whether they be the weather, the political machinations in a country other than ours, or scarcity (or abundance) of a particular resource. Over the past 50 years, the federal revenue has fluctuated between 15 and 20% of the GDP. Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Since 2000, the GDP has grown at about an average of 2.5%. So, we have an economy that is growing at a 2.5% growth rate, and a relatively consistent drain on that growth for federal income.

Logic says that, since the revenue has grown consistent with GDP growth, government spending should grow commensurately. In order to maintain the relative balance, spending should grow at about 1/2 of 1% (20% or 2.5% GDP growth). Instead, we know that, since 2000, our spending has exceeded our income by 19%!!Historical Tables

Thus, as you can see, our spending increase greatly exceeds our income increase. However, that is still only half the tale.

For every dollar removed from the economic mainstream in taxes, $0.37 is lost (for maintenance of the infrastructure necessary to collect, distribute, and manage the monies received and services purchased). Of that $0.37, $0.24 is paid out in wages and is re-injected into the economic mainstream (government workers buy stuff), except that of the $0.24 paid out in wages, approximately $0.08 is recollected in taxes, and on and on and on.

So - we spend more than we collect. Is that good or bad? Can we, as some postulate, simply ignore the federal debt? Two decidedly different questions, with two decidedly different answers.

First question - we currently spend money we don't have in the hopes that it will generate enough future income to offset the cost of borrowing the money we don't have. It's called "deficit spending". As we have seen over the past 50 years, we don't seem to be very good at it. In fact, we are downright terrible at it. We continuously raise our debt ceiling in order to borrow more money, rather than try to live within the fiscal constraints we have placed on ourselves. These loans are secured with "... the full faith and credit of the United States."

The impact? We are rapidly approaching the point "full faith" is no longer going to be sufficient. We will begin to pay higher and higher interest rates, just further exacerbating the problem (we can't pay our bills, so we are going to borrow money to make the payments on the money we've already borrowed).

There have been informal inquiries, within our own government, on the impact of paying off some debt at an $0.85 on a dollar ratio. They are trying to determine what impact that will have on 1) credit rating, and 2) availability of capital in the future. Imagine an immediate 15% cut in Social Security or other federal pensions. Imagine the impact of decreasing the medical funding for Medicare, Medicaid,etc by 15%.

In June of this past year, the UN Economic and Social Council held discussions about the viability of collateralized governmental loans - loans from other countries that would be collateralized by national assets. Imagine, if you will, a loan from China with the deed to Yellowstone National Park as collateral. In fact, there are some economists who claim that we are reaching the point where conquering the US is no longer necessary - our enemies only need to wait for the bill to come due on our debt.

Which leads to the second point - can we just ignore the national debt? Can we just tell everybody we aren'tpaying it? The most obvious result will be that there will be no more money to borrow - we immediately will have to cut government services back to a level equal to our revenues. Lenders will, of course, take us to court, win, and try to collect their money. Undoubtedly, those countries would seize all assets, both government and private, in their countries. We would be crippled financially.

But, even that isn't the worst impact. The international economy depends on a stable and vibrant American economy. Too many countries rely on the US - too many countries sell to the US - too many countries buy from the US.

So, ignoring/defaulting on the national debt is a non-starter. How then, to get that runaway train back under control? Some economists say it's already too late. We cannot increase our income (GDP) at a rate to offset the cost of our debt. Others say it can be done, but it will require a change in spending attitude, and a belt-tightening unlike anything the US has ever experienced. You will remember that, during the Depression, government spending didn't scale down to the slowed economy - it, in fact, increased spending manifold to try to stimulate growth. That is a fine approach, except that deficit spending is what got us to this stage, and it would have to stop.

If you review the government contribution to the GDP, you can see that it is getting less and less every year. No longer are we generating jobs (by purchasing products and services), but rather, a much greater percentage of our government spending is consumed in entitlement programs. So, we have a rapidly increasing debt, a decreasing ability to borrow money and corresponding potential increase in borrowing costs, a marginal increase in revenue, significantly greater spending, less residual value of government assets purchased, and greater loss of income thru entitlements and hand-out programs.

A clear recipe for disaster.

I note that you say " ... not about what was spent, but rather what that spending produced." Were it ours to spend, then you might have a point. But, it's not OUR money we are spending. You are simply pushing the final collection day down the road. It should be about conscientious and moderate spending based on value received and overall total cost. Telling me that spending $500K for a new Mustang is a good deal because it has shiny wheels and leather seats makes no sense at all.

You use "deficit spending" as if it should be a normal government activity. If you study the economists who have advocated deficit spending, they have been unanimous in their application of deficit spending. They claim that "... deficit spending should only be used to boost the economy out of a recession." Therefore - no recession - no deficit spending. Deficit Spending Is Out of Control. Here's Why. [one of many references, but you get the point.]

Obviously, you missed something when you objected to my statement "The cumulative deficit has increased every year" - going to into a rant about the deficit going down in Obama's terms. The term "cumulative deficit" refers to not only the deficit, but also the interest incurred as a result of that deficit. If you borrowed $50 from me, and paid back $25, your cumulative deficit isn't $25, it is the $25 you owe me, the interest on the $50 you borrowed, and any future interest on the remaining $25 unpaid.

In addition, you're playing word games. The reason that Obama's deficits decreased is because of the massive deficit he invoked upon taking office. I quote:

President Obama had the largest deficits.

By the end of his final budget (FY 2017), his deficits were $6.690 trillion. Obama took office during the Great Recession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it. He convinced Congress to add the $787 billion economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. This added $253 billion to the FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added another $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.

In 2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion to the debt in its first two years. Obama increased defense spending, adding as much as $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.

Which President Rang Up the Highest Deficit?

Then, frankly, you make some weak ass claim that we should ignore the national debt because, after all, those T-bills aren't going to come due for 30 years. I can think of nothing more irresponsible or immature than to foist debt onto your children so that you can avoid your responsibilities today.

Then, you have the temerity to question how much debt is held by foreign countries without providing an alternative reference that countermands my claim? Try this one ...

On November 7, 2016, debt held by the public was $14.3 trillion or about 76% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[5][6][7][8]Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.4 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP;[7] $6.2 trillion or approximately 45% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were Japan and China at about $1.09 trillion for Japan and $1.06 trillion for China as of December 2016.[9] National debt of the United States - Wikipedia

or this one ....

What About Foreign Ownership of the Debt?
In July 2017, China owned $1.166 trillion, making it the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. Japan owns $1.091 trillion. Both Japan and China want to keep the value of the dollar higher than the value of their currencies. That helps keep their exports affordable for the United States, which helps their economies grow. That's why, despite China's occasional threats to sell its holdings, both countries are happy to be America's biggest foreign bankers. China replaced the United Kingdom as the second largest foreign holder on May 31, 2007. That's when it increased its holdings to $699 billion, outpacing the United Kingdom's $640 billion.

Ireland is third, holding $311 billion. Brazil is the fourth largest holder at $272 billion.

The Cayman Islands is fourth, at $259 billion. The Bureau of International Settlements believes it is a front for sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds whose owners don't want to reveal their positions. So are Luxembourg ($213 billion) and Belgium ($99 billion).

The next largest holders are Switzerland, the UK, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and India. They each hold between $135 and $245 billion. (Source: “Foreign Holding of U.S. Treasury Securities,” September 18, 2017. "Petrodollars and Global Imbalances," U.S. Treasury, February 2006.) The Real Owner of the U.S. Debt Will Surprise You

But, that's not even the scary part ---- almost 50% of the national debt is owed to "intragovernmental agencies" - that's YOU!

Here's the detailed breakdown (as of December 31, 2016).

• 
  
  
  • Social Security (Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) - $2.801 trillion
  • Office of Personnel Management Retirement - $888 billion
  • Military Retirement Fund - $670 billion
  • Medicare (Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund) - $294 billion
  • All other retirement funds - $304 billion
  • Cash on hand to fund federal government operations - $580 billion. (Source: "Treasury Bulletin, Monthly Treasury Statement, Table 6. Schedule D-Investments of Federal Government Accounts in Federal Securities, U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 2016.) The Real Owner of the U.S. Debt Will Surprise You

The remaining debt is called "public debt". For your edification:

Here's the breakdown of holders of the public debt:

• Foreign - $6.004 trillion
• Federal Reserve - $2.463 trillion
• Mutual funds - $1.671 trillion
• State and local government, including their pension funds - $905 billion
• Private pension funds - $553 billion
• Banks - $663 billion
• Insurance companies - $347 billion
• U.S. savings bonds - $166 billion
• Other (individuals, government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses, and other investors) - $1.662 trillion. (Sources: “Factors Affecting Reserve Balance,” Federal Reserve, January 18, 2017. “Treasury Bulletin, Table OFS-2, Ownership of Federal Securities", U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 2016.)

You do the math --- you'll find that they hold about 30% of our overall debt.

I suggest that, the next time, you wish to challenge something presented that, rather than throwing a little hissy fit, you come to the table with facts. You will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Derp]

OK Sparky, now that I'm of my iPhone on on my PC I can find the charts I needed. Please note the tax revenue increases during the Reagan tax cut years:

For fuck's sake! Your claim was that tax cuts "pay for themselves", so the amount of revenue brought in every FY doesn't address that claim. So what if revenue increased? With the exception of the Bush Tax Cuts, revenue grew every year.

Oh, also, did you happen to notice how revenues for 2001-2004 were below what they were for 2000????? Why is that?

And why did you leave out what the deficits for each of those FYs? Because when you lay on top of those revenue numbers what the deficit was, you'll see each year that there was a tax cut, the deficit increased.

"Tax cuts paying for themselves" means there is no deficit.

So you thought you could vomit up revenue numbers -numbers that show revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

And you leave out what each year's deficit was...because including it shows tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Conservatives can only debate dishonestly.

 

[Spare_change]

/—-/ there has been no surplus since WWII

Completely wrong. We had budget surpluses from 1998-2001. Even without factoring in SS revenue, there was a budget surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Let's be perfectly clear ........

BUDGET SURPLUSES don't mean jack!

It ain't what you predict you're going to spend, it's WHAT you spend that determines the quality of your management. Please don't bother us with "budget" comments.

 

[Siete]

I think their formula was fucked up. I mean it was a Republican plan. Doesn't mean we give up.

So there's a magic formula that exists where tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, we've been seeking that formula for 37 years, isn't it possible such a formula doesn't actually exist?

/-----/
OK Sparky, now that I'm of my iPhone on on my PC I can find the charts I needed. Please note the tax revenue increases during the Reagan tax cut years:
Sooooooo how is it possible that revenues went up while the tax rates went down? Well Libtard? Explain it.
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
• FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
• FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
• FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
• FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
• FY 1989 - $991 billion.
• FY 1988 - $909 billion.
• FY 1987 - $854 billion.
• FY 1986 - $769 billion.
• FY 1985 - $734 billion.
• FY 1984 - $666 billion.
• FY 1983 - $601 billion.
• FY 1982 - $618 billion.
• FY 1981 - $599 billion.
• FY 1980 - $517 billion.

revenue increased under reagan -- prolly why he increased the debt 189% isnt it, you f'n dope.

 

[The Derp]

<Cut and paste>

So you screech about deficits and debt, yet the policies you support are what creates deficits and debt.

For all of Obama's spending, we actually have things to show for it; 11 million net private sector jobs, a record high stock market, deficit reduced by 2/3 from where you left it, record low uninsured rate, record low renewable energy prices.

For all of Bush's spending we have nothing to show for it other than 460,000 lost jobs, a market that dropped to 6,500, an economic collapse, a doubling of the debt, erasing of a surplus, two unwinnable wars of occupation, an unfunded entitlement expansion (Part-D), record high uninsured rate, millions of veterans for whom we will need to provide health care for the next 60+ years, and an unemployment rate that doubled.

So you fixate on the debt amount while ignoring what that debt produced.

You do that because you know your policies are shit, so you use deficits as a red herring.

 

[hadit]

Bull. It can be done. Your partisan blinders prevent you from seeing it, but it can be done.

What "can be done" is not what the standard is. The statistics show that not getting a college degree means you are likely to earn 56% less than someone with a college degree. It's a fantasy that you can be a high earner in this economy without a college degree, or mommy and daddy giving you a $1M starter loan.

College isn't for everyone. All you're doing is setting up some people for failure by trying to convince them to go into debt for tens or hundreds of thousands only to wash out..

Here's a handy little chart from BLS that shows the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be employed and the more your weekly wage is:

You were saying?

Sure, being a doctor pays more than being an electrician, but being an electrician pays more than being a music teacher.

Depends on where you're a music teacher, and what level experience you have. Looking at the above chart, the dumber you are, the more likely you are to be unemployed and earn less. These are facts from BLS. Your anti-college stance isn't about skills, employment, or wages. Your anti-college stance is about keeping people dumb so they'll buy into your shit ideas.

As for training, it's cheaper to be an apprentice for a couple of years than to go to college for four years. I've seen it happen.

I don't believe what you claim to have seen because for all I know, you're just making that shit up to lend credibility to an argument you clearly recognize has none. And do you think apprenticeships are just handed out, willy-nilly? They're not. Also, who pays for the apprenticeship?

In the case I'm referring to,a family member didn't even finish high school, but arranged for his wife to support them while he worked for a cabinet maker at very low wages. He now owns an extremely successful cabinet shop, and like I said, would laugh at you. Obviously, you have no concept of what a driven, creative person can do. You are so locked into your way of thinking that you simply cannot.

Did you ever stop to think that those who do not go to college generally are not as smart as those who do? Why would you pressure someone who can't handle the intellectual rigors of higher education into taking on enormous debt, only to flunk out?

The mere fact that you think what I said is anti college means you stupidly lost the argument before you even started.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

OK Sparky, now that I'm of my iPhone on on my PC I can find the charts I needed. Please note the tax revenue increases during the Reagan tax cut years:

For fuck's sake! Your claim was that tax cuts "pay for themselves", so the amount of revenue brought in every FY doesn't address that claim. So what if revenue increased? With the exception of the Bush Tax Cuts, revenue grew every year.

Oh, also, did you happen to notice how revenues for 2001-2004 were below what they were for 2000????? Why is that?

And why did you leave out what the deficits for each of those FYs? Because when you lay on top of those revenue numbers what the deficit was, you'll see each year that there was a tax cut, the deficit increased.

"Tax cuts paying for themselves" means there is no deficit.

So you thought you could vomit up revenue numbers -numbers that show revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

And you leave out what each year's deficit was...because including it shows tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Conservatives can only debate dishonestly.

/-----/
1.) I never said tax cuts pay for themselves. You keep saying it. I said there is no cost to letting people keep more of their own money.
2.) What catastrophic event happened in 2001 that hurt tax generation? Think hard.
3.) When the Bush tax cuts kicked in the revenue rebounded.
4.) The deficits increased because Congress spends money like drunken sailors ( my apologizes to all drunken sailors) We also need to cut spending to reduce the deficit.