Where did the mammoth US budget deficits come from?

From the link:

Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.

Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.

You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.

He does get it right here:

The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.

The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
From the link:

Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.

Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.

You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.

He does get it right here:

The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.

The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.

Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.
 
From the link:

Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.

Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.

You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.

He does get it right here:

The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.

The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.

Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.

Feel free to demonstrate how America would not survive on the mere $2.2 trillion of tax revenue we generate each year.
 
From the link:



Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.

You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.

He does get it right here:



The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.

Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.

Feel free to demonstrate how America would not survive on the mere $2.2 trillion of tax revenue we generate each year.

Yea, that's what I thought...crickets.
 
I think it started with Reagan and his tripling the debt. Even with Reagan's tax raising attempts the genie was out of the bottle. Still we might have gotten things under control. but there was Bush waiting for his chance at trickle-down and he now doubled the monster debt once again.
Pretty hard to survive the Republican one-two punch and we almost went under. We stopped the the third time going under and are now trying to recover despite Republicans doing all within their power to make Obama a one-timer by stopping any real recovery. And all that just so the rich could have a few more bucks.
 
When was the last Dem budget??
Obama had 2 years of Dem controlled Congress, why didn't he do it then?
Why are the House dems holding up all the bills for the last 2 years?
 
From the link:

Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.

Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.

You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.

He does get it right here:

The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.

The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.

Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.

Of course things come up that you HAVE to borrow money for. If it's for necessitites that they really need that's no problem. But how many people get loans or run up charge cards for THINGS they just want, but not really need? I'd say a majority of them.
This administration is doing the same thing....using our money to throw at "things" they want. How long do you think we can survive doing this?
 

Most importantly, they came from liberals who killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments that Republicans have introduced since Jefferson's first.

Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate

Thank goodness – a BBA is idiocy.

Yes, surely more idiotic than running up a credit card we can't pay off.
 

1984EmmanuelGoldstein.jpg


225px-George-W-Bush.jpeg


Emmanuel Goldstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Why did the republicans abandon Paygo?

When did the Democrats ever abide by it?

Jefferson was absolutely right for his time. We were a nation of five million people, today a nation of three hundred million. We were a nation of farmers, today a manufacturing nation. We lived in rural areas, today most Americans live in cities. Only a few Americans could vote for one half of one branch of government, today we vote for two complete branches. Today, would Jefferson be a Republican or a Democrat?
 
Today, would Jefferson be a Republican or a Democrat?


Too stupid by 1000%. Jefferson was 100% opposed to big government and that was before the big 20th Century liberals: Hitler Stalin and Mao.

He knew in the 18th Century from looking at Europe Greece and Rome, but you still don't know it. You are perfect testimony to the pure ignorance of liberalism


"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."-Jefferson

Welcome to your first lesson in American History
 

Forum List

Back
Top